L'Argent

Marcel L'Herbier - 1928
L'Herbier's mis-en-scene is always thoughtfully positioned. The camera can start in and move out (still usually feet-less), mirroring the moves from subjective, visceral and 'impressiionist' (to be used advidely, but I'll crack on) and a more Zola-esque naturalism (not that Zola lacks that scent of blood, I don't mean that). The camera can make some extravagant bobs, and often a move to the left side. The tracks can be huge, flying very perpendicular to walls, and there is even one 360' move. Often a horizontal track for a bit, along a room, a pan to finish.
We have the cinema that is objective, and the subjective, to simplify. The very high angles, direct overhead, where they look like rats (or maybe we are rats, in the rafters, looking at them). The slightly high angle, perhaps a default for SRS. Lots and lot of low-angles, to extend a room, and often P.O.V. There are lots of, and some remarkable, subjective P.O.V. shots here, with special lens effects, hazing. Also the simple use of someone's angle has the expressive affect.
So we have this idea of personal, yet also a major work across time and space. It takes place in such a busy setting, people flying back and forth, in front of and behind our centre of attention. The stock market scenes are my favourite here; hugely wide, deep, busy mis-en-scene, some people very close to the camera, all in action.
The story? Saccard is really rather sympathetic; at first he could nearly be a hero. Manipulated, he has his flaw that so overwhelms him that he goes beyond redemption, and we have to disslike so much of what he does. The film's wish to critique capitalism is clear, and it certainly critiques something, but I think it is really better for its general critique of male obsession; the plane as much as the car. What would be needed was an analysis (that I would sign for) that all male obsession is money related; that all fetishism (which is here) is to do with exchange, commodities, capital.
I wouldn't like to call this though anything but one of the fine late silent epics, with slightly longer takes and more 'pyschological' focus than, say 'Metropolis', and huge reserves of beauty, novelistic rigour, social analysis, silent cinema.