24. The Last Laugh (Der Letzte Mann) 1924

Directed by F. W. Murnau


Synopsis

This is a simple tale. A hotel porter is old and therefore can't carry luggage like younger people. He is stripped of his beautiful uniform which made him the most distinguished person in his poor neighbourhood and demoted to lavatory assistant. The man gets desperate and that night steals the uniform in order to be albe to go back home where the party of his niece's wedding is taking place, without losing face. The porter returns, but next day his wife/sister (i don't know, the woman he lives with, IMDB lists her as the bridegroom's aunt! What now?) goes to his work to bring him some food and she discovers his demotion. When the porter returns home that night in his uniform the whole neighbouhood already knows of his disgrace and he is laughed at as he arrives home. The porter can't stand the way his family looks at him and therefore takes refuge at the hotel, where he returns his uniform and spends the night sitting in the lavatory chair. Whithering away to the inevitable point of death. THE END.

Or not really! At great expense an epilogue is added where the porter gets an inheritance left to him by a mexican millionaire who died in his arms while taking a slash. During the last 10 minutes of the film the porter gorges himself and dispenses tips generously!

Review

Ok, so the last 14 minutes of the film are completely absurd. I am not sure that is such a bad thing. Carl Meyer, the screenwriter, was forced to have a happy ending and he decided "Oh yeah? I'll give you a fucking happy ending!". The ending is so absurd that it is completely tacked on at the end, making it a kind of middle finger to studio demands.

If we ignore that ending it is a great and truly touching film, that manages to be that without the use of a single intertitle! We read what's written on the niece's cake and on his demotion letter, but that is it. Silent film has graduated from a literary means to a truly visual thing. This idea is reinforced by Karl Freunde's amazing camera work, the fluid mobility of the camera was something completely unseen before this film. In fact this is what sold the film abroad.

Karl Freunde moves the camera around as if it was a steadycam. He creates special effects in the lenses, we see blurred images due to the drunkeness of the porter after the marriage and we see a strange dreamlike effect when he is sleeping etc. It is very impressive and new, and again it makes the film seem much more modern that you would imagine.

I have seen criticism of the film claiming that its subject is too small for the message, personally I call bollocks on that argument. Through the great acting of Emil Jannings the human drama of the porter is as deep as if he was anything else. The idea of the importance of uniform and social standing created by outward appearences is just as relevant done by a porter as it would be by a general or whatever. It is a beautiful film, made less powerful by studio demands.

Buy it at Amazon UK or US

Final Grade

8/10 (stop it at the end of scene 16 on your dvd and you'll be fine. It would have been such a great film).

Trivia

I almost cried near the real end of the film (scene 16 for Region 2 DVD) ... sniff.

From Wiki :

Often translated as The Last Laugh, the German gives a slighly more sinister title: The Last Man. Janning's character, the doorman for a famous hotel, loses his job as he is considered too old and infirm. He tries to conceal this fact from his friends and family, but to his shame, he is discovered. In the end, the doorman inherits a fortune and is able to dine happily at the same hotel he used to work for. Carl Mayer (the sceenwriter) was forced into this happy ending in order to help the film appeal to a mass audience. The intended ending by Mayer was the death of the doorman in the bathroom (supposedly suicide) after his humilation as he sees no point in living.

The special effects displayed in this film are outstanding for the time (1924). The use of models and moving scenery implies depth in a small studio, leading the viewer to believe that each shot is actually within a large and imposing cityscape. One of the remarkable characteristics of this film is the fact of not using titles to explain history, but depends only on the cinematografic resources