As was the case with many other nations, especially after the war, the German movie industry struggled against the flood of American films into German cinemas. Ernst Lubitsch, like other prominent filmmakers, was surely acutely aware of this disadvantage. Beginning in 1918, he went from being mostly a comedic director to a supposedly more serious one of pseudo-historical tragedies, with bigger budgets and starring Pola Negri. This new direction, aside "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" and the other stylized art pictures, did prove to be successful in paving the way for the exportation of German films (and its filmmakers).
Additionally, many of them, unlike the more or less distinctly German pictures such as "Caligari", were made intentionally to look more like American and other foreign pictures. This one, "Carmen", came after two American versions--both released in 1915--one by Cecil B. DeMille and starring Geraldine Farrar and the other by Raoul Walsh and starring Theda Bara. Compared to DeMille's film, Lubitsch's "Carmen" appears unpolished, but I don't think that's bad. Because of their glitter, DeMille's scenes often seem staged and stagy. Although Lubitsch's direction isn't recommended, either, aside from some occasional dolly shots and the addition of framing the story as a told story.
Additionally, Farrar was annoying as Carmen. Negri is much better in comparison, but still rather unremarkable, I think. Edna Purviance, in Chaplin's burlesque, is still my favorite Carmen. The Walsh-Bara version doesn't exist anymore, as doesn't many early Fox films that burned in their vaults, so there's very little one can say about it. One thing to mention, however, is that Theda Bara's character was a vamp prototype, and Fox advertised it creatively, which is similar to Negri's persona and Ufa's publicity of her. Both Negri and Lubitsch emigrated to work in Hollywood. Negri wasn't very successful, but it's no wonder that Lubitsch was an even better American filmmaker than a German one.
I saw the American version of this film, re-titled "Gypsy Blood", which was kind of the original intention, anyhow.
Additionally, many of them, unlike the more or less distinctly German pictures such as "Caligari", were made intentionally to look more like American and other foreign pictures. This one, "Carmen", came after two American versions--both released in 1915--one by Cecil B. DeMille and starring Geraldine Farrar and the other by Raoul Walsh and starring Theda Bara. Compared to DeMille's film, Lubitsch's "Carmen" appears unpolished, but I don't think that's bad. Because of their glitter, DeMille's scenes often seem staged and stagy. Although Lubitsch's direction isn't recommended, either, aside from some occasional dolly shots and the addition of framing the story as a told story.
Additionally, Farrar was annoying as Carmen. Negri is much better in comparison, but still rather unremarkable, I think. Edna Purviance, in Chaplin's burlesque, is still my favorite Carmen. The Walsh-Bara version doesn't exist anymore, as doesn't many early Fox films that burned in their vaults, so there's very little one can say about it. One thing to mention, however, is that Theda Bara's character was a vamp prototype, and Fox advertised it creatively, which is similar to Negri's persona and Ufa's publicity of her. Both Negri and Lubitsch emigrated to work in Hollywood. Negri wasn't very successful, but it's no wonder that Lubitsch was an even better American filmmaker than a German one.
I saw the American version of this film, re-titled "Gypsy Blood", which was kind of the original intention, anyhow.