Pandora's Box

1929 G.W. Pabst film, starring Louise Brooks
What do I make, as an intial impression, of Pabst's direction? Lost of tightly framed one shots vut together fast, ranging from medium/close to extra close. These are switched with master shots, often inside out; building the space from eyeline matches within, only giving us the master at the end. There are frequently scenes of interaction where two are never in the same shot. Saying all this, it's not like their arene't some medium twos and threes. Notice that, with some exceptions, the camera is usually waist height or below.
Pabst's mis-en-scene looks remarkably exact. Their are very precise shapes, geometric verticals and horizontals. He films objects like this too. And movement of the frame is very much an exception. This gives rise to some fascinating framing decisions; movement leaves to arms disembodied, even heads cut off (Straub-Huillet like, nearly...). The people leave the camera, rather than the camera them. They are objects for the static camera, not really controlling it. This construction, when mirrored for a few wider takes, gives a nice impression of a world milling around, people easily leaving the frame in all directions.
As for the lighting, their is a lot of harilighting, a lot of backlighting too. The really noticeable thing is the softness of the lighting, partly from hazy focus. Their is also some kind of gauze or filter work; we have the classic 'soft-style' tinkle of whites. This I shall try to examine more closely. The question of rythm always seems important; apart from a basic long-short for tension or emphasis, I couldn't pick up any patterns, but Pabst or his editor seem, intuitively, to pick the right 'beat'. This rythm in a wider sense is evident from the very fast early plot giving rise to the story really slowing down, narrative wise especially, but also perhpas in shot length (full length shots also perhaps come more often).
Of course Brooks is special. The audience is even teased with this, short scenes always threatening to see her on stage, dressed in a new costume. The film at times seems constrcutued around getting views of her in as many different posses and costumes as possible, becoming nearly non-diegetic with some fooling around (and comedy). Of course the ideology is vile; it's about her as an object, to dance for and be pictured, but why has she got to be puniches like this. As the noir-smoke filled scenes of London come in, deep shadows, it becomes an obvious precursor. The other film we though of was 'The Blue Angel', thematically at least; though I have to say von Sternberg is, after this quick look, far and away our favourite; 'The Blue Angel' is composed, directed, narrated and thought out on quite a remarkable level...
Their is something slightly cartoonish about the set up, constant of Brooks' face, the interiors everywhere (for the first two hours their is seemingly no 'outside'). Pabst's direction looks quite American to my eyes; with Brooks and some framing decisions adding a significant amount. It is brutally unfair that this has to be compared with Murnau and Lang, thus suffer; but their you are, I know no better.