secondtake Camille (1921)I stumbled on a great clean copy of this packaged with the more famous Garbo talkie version from 1936, and it was interesting mostly as a comparison. Here for the first time I got to study the famous Rudolph Valentino (the "matinee idol" of the period). And in the leading role as the modernized Camille was Alla Nazimova, a Russian actress with serious aspirations and some success in the era.The film is a stubborn one to like, however. While not badly made, it has the stiff and sometimes plodding editing, scene to scene, that implies an audience that might not keep up with a more sophisticated treatment. (And more complex editing was common by 1921, for sure.) The acting, silent as it is, is false enough often enough to push a modern viewer off. Nazimova has this fabulous and distracting giant hairpiece on, for some reason, as if to show she's truly wild, but her acting is almost too serious for the fun she is meant to inspire.The set design is a wonder in many ways, having a modern flair that precedes Art Deco and might interest fans of that mid-20s style. The camera, however, is often satisfied to center the scene and sit and watch the events. Bitzer (with Griffith) knew the dangers of this years earlier, and little known director Ray Smallwood is clearly not making the most of some very dramatic moments.The story, in brief, is about a spirited young woman who is at the age where she must marry to survive, and she falls between a rich, dull count and a handsome, adorable common person (Valentino). What plays out is something very unfamiliar to Western women in our era, because the main woman (who is called Marguerite) is trapped by really needing a man to support her, period. True love with a relatively poor chap just won't do, and yet of course true love is true love, and Valentino promises to support her one way or another. But his (of all people) father interferes and and basically dashes true love on the rocks.The end is unremittingly tragic, the camera again centered on the final scene.See it? No, I'd so not, unless you have some deep interest in either the story or one of the main actors. The plot is based on a Dumas classic from 1848, and is most famous for having inspired the great opera, La Traviata. If you want a quite good movie on these events, see the Garbo version.

MartinHafer I watched both this version and the more famous Greta Garbo version one after the other. And, despite these being such famous films, I didn't particularly care for either of them. The film was a typical 1920s weepy and overly campy romance and this makes it a silent that does NOT age very well.Nazimova stars as the courtesan, Camille ('courtesan' is an old fashioned and nice way of saying high-priced whore). This woman has definitely been around the block quite a few times--so to speak. And she has quite a bit of talent for seducing men--including a young and innocent Rudolph Valentino. However, despite it being obvious that she has slept with half the rich men in Paris, Rudy is so smitten that he cannot accept that she has a tarnished reputation. But, eventually after making Rudy pretty miserable, she does the right thing and rejects him--though the reason in this film seemed pretty flimsy compared to the 1936 film--which just made more sense.As far as the acting goes, Valentino did an okay job and didn't seem as wimpy and stupid as the same character Robert Taylor played 15 years later. Regarding Camille, Nazimova (this was her full stage name--she was a one-namer like Cher), she was pretty bizarre to see due to her totally wacky hairstyle. It looked almost as if she took two or three wigs and stacked them on her head! I assume this was meant to look sexy and exotic, but I just thought she looked weird. Her acting was fair, though since she was playing Camille, there was a lot of wild gesticulating and posturing due to her unnamed illness (I assume it was supposed to be TB).Interestingly enough, the film was different from the later and more famous version. First, it was set in the present day (1921) instead of the 1840s. Second, the ending was very different--the entire final scene of the 1936 version was missing in this film. I actually think this improved the film, somewhat, but overall the film seemed to be technically well-made but too over-the-top and melodramatic to elevate it much above mediocrity.

gftbiloxi Valentino was still something of an unknown quantity when this film was made, and although it was adapted from the screen by his mentor June Mathis and designed by his wife Natasha Rambova, CAMILLE is not a Valentino film. It belongs instead to Alla Nazimova, whose eccentric charm that combined both frantic gaiety and an exhausted world-weariness made her the most highly regarded "high-art" performer of her day.Surely by now every one knows at least the basic outline of the story, which French author Dumas drew from life: Marguerite Gautier (Nazimova) is a celebrated courtesan who despises her life and yet cannot break free of it. When confronted with true love in the form of society youth Armand (Valentino), however, she attempts to leave her past behind--only to be convinced by her lover's father that if she really loves Armand she must leave him that he might take his rightful place in society. She returns to her old life, where she dies of consumption with her one true love's name upon her lips.Nazimova, who is credited with introducing the Russian "method" to the New York stage, is an extremely interesting Camille. Unlike the later Garbo, she offers us a truly neurotic creature who in public screams with nervous energy--and then in private collapses under the twin weights of self-loathing and her increasing illness. At times her performance goes as far over the top as her hairstyle, but the cumulative result is exceptionally affecting. Valentino is typically Valentino, with an intriguing presence that relies more upon appearance than actual skill, and his performance adds no significant dimension to the part of Armand; this may, however, be an unfair criticism, for the role is notoriously thankless.Rambova's strange set design for Marguerite's apartment is a highlight of the film and worth studying, very 1920s modern and yet still far advanced of anything commonly seen in even contemporary decor, and the cinematography gives CAMILLE an effectively lyrical feel. All in all, the film might best be considered as a high-art experiment that does not entirely come off, but even so it gives us the opportunity to see Nazimov near the height of her appeal, and as such is recommended to all silent film fans.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

cgm95 For more than two decades I have been a journalist, with extensive experience writing about historic Hollywood. Along the way, I have read much about this movie: about how horrible it was, the critical reception (quite unpleasant), how it ruined careers, etc.Last night I finally had the chance to see the beautifully restored version on Turner Classic Movies.I cannot speak for the world of 1921 (being much too young, of course), but this movie must rank up there with one of the top ten films of the silent era. The acting, while not perfect, exhibits little of the hamminess and showiness that earmarks the typical 1920s silent. Nazimova is spectacular in her performance of the dying woman of ill repute. The design elements are tremendous -- especially considering how unique they were in their time. Beautifully realized sets, costumes, props, etc.Other versions of this movie have been made before and since, but this version far outweighs the more familiar version with GG (next to whose photograph the word "hamminess" appears in the dictionary).The only downside to this otherwise marvelous film is the appearance by Valentino -- whose popularity must have been a product of the times, as I still cannot fathom how he ever got more than a bit part in a Hollywood film.Of special note are the French flashbacks that pop up throughout the film. They bring a special poignance to the finale that is especially touching.