Deception (1920) User Reviews (17)

The luckless Anne

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 3 February 2017]

In those years when the cinema had no voice it was truly an international medium. Stories from other lands could be brought to the screen by the movie industry of another country. One of Greta Garbo's sound films for MGM had her playing an English lady. And here Emil Jannings whose inability to speak the King's English and forced him to return to Germany plays that most English of monarchs Henry VIII. In this Jannings joined a great pantheon of English speaking players like Charles Laughton, Montagu Love, Charlton Heston, and Robert Shaw who all played the monarch who changed wives like some change underwear.

Jannings is an impressive looking and acting Henry VIII. A man whose pleasures mingled with his impassioned search for a woman to bear him a male heir and the politics of Europe. Henny Polen whose career spanned five decades in the German cinema plays the luckless Anne.

By the way another reviewer thought her not sexy enough to leave a king panting. In fact director Ernst Lubitsch must have seen Tudor era portraits of Anne because Polen look a lot like Boleyn.

The Lubitsch touch which everyone talks about in his talkie Hollywood films is not here as such. But Lubitsch was quite detailed in his sets and costumes in what must have cost many marks in post war Germany. They look very much Tudor England and compare them with those of Warner Brothers The Prince And The Pauper where Montagu Love was Henry VIII.

This is worth a look.

Somewhat disappointing!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 12 May 2013]

Henny Porten is far too old for the role of Anne Boleyn who, the script tells us, is such a super-attractive wench that the king severs with Rome when the Pope refuses him a divorce so that he can marry her. Porten is a very hammy actress too, with as much simpering and eye-rolling as you wouldn't believe. On the other hand, Emil Jannings really looks the part of Henry VIII, In fact he seems to have stepped straight out of Holberg's famous portrait. Admittedly, his acting is a bit exaggerated, but tolerable. And the same applies to most of the players as well. Visually, the movie is spectacular enough and the plot, though familiar, moves along with sufficient pace to retain our interest. On the other hand, Lubitsch's direction is rather disappointing. It's very straightforward with virtually no camera movement at all and little evidence of the fabled Lubitsch touch. In fact, the only stylish quality evident in the direction here is the occasional use of framing devices. Disappointingly, the 1983 print under review does not use Reisenfeld's music score but a just passably appropriate melange of string orchestra, harpsichord and choir rendering vaguely Elizabethan airs. Despite the very washed-out print currently on offer, Sparkuhl's photography still manages to shine in certain scenes – the tournament, e.g. Available on a Kino Video DVD.

It looks great.....but that's really about a

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 25 April 2010]

This movie earns a 7--because, for its time, it was a heck of a movie. The sets and costumes (mostly which were from the proper period--though some, to the trained eye, were not) are quite impressive. It's obvious that director Ernst Lubitsch was given a huge budget to create this film--and it's better looking than the Hollywood productions of the same period. In fact, today few would realize that the some of the most incredibly complex and expensive productions of this time were German--not American. It was only in the mid to late 1920s that the American films became the best-known and best made. You just can't find a film from 1920 or so that looks better.

Unfortunately, looks alone do NOT make a great film. For someone who wants the truth behind the second marriage of Henry VIII, this is NOT a great film--as many of the facts were clearly wrong. Despite what the movie shows, Anne was Henry's mistress for some time before he got around to marrying her AND the process by which the English separated from the authority of the Pope was NOT the quick process you see in the film--it took years. As a history teacher, this film isn't terrible historically--but it still should have been a lot better. And, if you are going to play fast and loose with the facts, then why not at least make the film more interesting? Overall, the film lumbers during its two hour air time and more recent films (NOT "The Other Bolyne Girl"--which was also a mess historically-speaking) such as "Anne of the Thousand Days" and "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" are more accurate and interesting.

Decent but far from as good as it could have been its sumptuous treatment. Plus, while a Lubitsch film, there's little trace of his famed "Lubitsch touch" here in this pretty but rather dull film.

The Changing Relationship Between Henry VIII And Anna Boleyn

[FerdinandVonGalitzien · 7/10 · 2 December 2007]

Continuing with the exclusive film programme about complicated relationships in some European courts, last night in the Schloss theatre was shown "Anna Boleyn", a film directed by the great Teutonic film director Herr Ernst Lubitsch. The film depicts the terrible story of the Queen consort of the British King Henry VIII. She was executed by her husband ( well, not exactly, the King ordered the executioners to do his dirty work) not to mention that this marriage caused an important political and religious historical event, the English Reformation.

The film stars Dame Henny Porten, Germany's first screen superstar during those early years and Herr Emil Jannings, Germany's fattest actor in that silent era. Both play their characters in a suitable way; Dame Porten as an innocent aristocrat who becomes progressively interested in the power that the court offers her and Herr Jannings as the unscrupulous, whimsical and womanizing British monarch, a character very suitable for this German actor who overacts appropriately, given the extravagance and excessive personality of the character himself.

In the early film period Herr Lubitsch was known for his outstanding costume films, colossal productions with big budgets ( "Anna Boleyn" cost about 8 million marks, a fortune even for this German count ) taking great care in magnificent decors as can be seen during the coronation procession in Westminster Abbey scene which employed 4.000 extras ( idle Germans of that time were used, causing revolutionary workers to create a fuss when German President Friedrich Ebert visited the set during filming).

Besides the spectacle, one of the most important aspect of this and every film of Herr Lubitsch, even during his epic period, is the complex relationship between the main characters. We experience a game of different interests, double meanings, and the complicated art of flirting but what is treated lightly at first ends in tragedy. The importance of those historical facts is brought to bear in an effective way but Lubitsch is really more interested in the changing relationship between Henry VIII and Anna Boleyn.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take care that one of his fat and rich heiress doesn't lose her head for this Teutonic aristocrat.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

Don't play Badminton too close to where the King is sitting

[manuel-pestalozzi · 6/10 · 14 December 2006]

I must admit that I fell asleep while watching this movie. It is simply too long. People who are interested in Ernst Lubitsch's work before he went to Hollywood might find it interesting, though. As a matter of fact, it is a well directed movie. Maybe there are no classical Lubitsch touches to be found. Nonetheless, I found the way the story was presented original and engrossing. There are many superbly choreographed mass scenes on stage sets as well as in outdoor settings.

There can be no doubt that the makers of Anna Boleyn wanted to accomplish an artistic achievement. The set design and especially the wardrobe are fantastic. The people responsible for that must have made a thorough study of period paintings. I had the impression that many poses of the actors were also derived from Renaissance painting. Lubitsch's task might have been to lighten the whole thing up, and I could not say he did a bad job. My favorite scene is a kind of a summer entertainment for the king. On a large meadow a group of people play something like badminton, but they are evenly distributed over the whole area, and the balls fly in all directions. It happens what must happen, Anne Boleyn's ball lands at the feet of the king who already had an eye on her and seizes a racket to challenge her. The next ball lands in a grotesquely artificial copse with high weeds into which both the king and Anna plunge, together with the court jester.

An interesting detail: the movie has on several occasions shots of people with different aspect ratios from the other shots. The aim seems to be to highlight certain bodies or poses by framing them. This intensifies the reference to classical artwork but also irritates when there are quick cuts between a special focus and a more general aspects.

Lubitsch takes on Anne Boleyn

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 27 April 2020]

1920's 'Anna Boleyn' was hardly one of those films doomed from the get go or anything. Ernst Lubitsch was a great director, whose best work in the 30s and 40s in principally comedy and romantic comedy is truly fantastic. Also think very highly of Emil Jannings, a silent film great and a regular of FW Murnau primarily. Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn were two of the most interesting historical figures and monarchs, Anne Boleyn is the most well known of his six wives and it's no wonder.

So actually there was a good deal that 'Anna Boleyn' had going for it. My conclusions after seeing it fairly recently was that it was pretty decent with a lot of things working in its favour, it is an interesting film and worth seeing if you want to see Lubitsch early on in his career when he was doing silent films. Yet considering the director and subject, 'Anna Boleyn' also could have been better and there are far better representations of Lubitsch overall and even during this period.

Will start with the not so good things about 'Anna Boleyn'. The pace can be erratic, a lot of things are covered and the handling of all the events covered read of depict this event, do a little with it but not deeply enough and then suddenly go onto the next event in a jumpy way, which made some of the storytelling choppy.

It is slightly bland at times, the sophistication is there but that is pretty much it when it comes to how Lubitsch's style comes across here. This was at a point where he was still properly finding his style and his strengths and experimenting instead, and while his direction is actually pretty good there's not an awful lot that's distinct.

'Anna Boleyn' has a good deal of great things though. It looks mighty impressive, even now, with very lavish costumes and sets. Captured intimately, while keeping it simple, and fluidly on camera. Lubitsch's direction may not be distinct yet but it's hardly indifferent or ill at ease and handles the big moments quite well. Although Henny Porten is agreed too old for the title role, she is still regal and affecting and doesn't make Anne stock or a caricature (even if she does overdo it at times). Jannings is suitably imposing, one watches him in awe and fear portraying this fascinating yet difficult monarch.

They work beautifully together in regard to their chemistry. The acting didn't seem too histrionic or static and interaction seemed natural. The story is far from perfect by any stretch, but it compels enough and kept me entertained and moved enough. It's played straight which is appropriate for the subject. The outcome is not in doubt for anybody that knows anything about Anne Boleyn, but that doesn't stop the final moments leaving me misty-eyed. The music could have had more breathing space but did appreciate that it didn't go over the top in instrumentation or mood.

Overall, not great but worth a look for anybody interested in seeing early Lubitsch. 6.5/10

"Are you happy now Anne?"

[MissSimonetta · 6/10 · 30 April 2017]

A filmmaker's early work can be fascinating, if not always among his or her best efforts. Lubitsch's signature touch may not have been fully developed by 1920, but he had still made charming romantic comedies like The Oyster Princess up to that point. However, one thing fans of his 1930s and 1940s work may not expect is that Lubitsch also made big historical epics during the silent era. The most famous might be The Loves of Pharaoh, starring Emil Jannings as a lecherous pharaoh who tears apart two young lovers. The film is beautifully produced, with lavish sets and costumes, crowds rushing through the frames. Unfortunately, the pace is leaden and the story is barely engaging.

Lubitsch's treatment of the rise and fall of sixteenth century queen Anne Boleyn (here named "Anna") follows the same basic premise: Emil Janning's lusty Henry VIII separates young lovers Henry Norris and Anne Boleyn when he tires of his aging queen, Katherine of Aragon. Unfortunately, much of the same flaws of Pharaoh can be seen here as well: what we have is a lack of engagement or an interesting heroine.

Lubitsch's Anne may be the most passive portrayal of the woman put to film and her characterization is probably the biggest reason why it's such a slog to get through. Anne Boleyn was known for being charismatic despite not fitting the blonde-haired, fair-skinned beauty standards of the day with her olive complexion and dark (possibly red) hair. So of course this Anne is fair skinned, blonde, and charisma-less. Anne always looks like she is on the verge of tears or fainting. She is repulsed by Henry from the start and never possesses any ambition to become queen. We see nothing of her social skills, her religious zeal, her bravery in the face of death. About the most you get of the historical Anne is her love for her daughter Elizabeth and occasional flashes of temper which in this movie seem to come out of nowhere.

All the other characters are painted with broad strokes too: the mild Jane Seymour is suddenly a calculating temptress (?!), Henry Norris is the suffering lover boy, Mark Smeaton is basically a cackling frat boy out to get Anne when she won't sleep with him, the Duke of Norfolk is completely amoral and lacking humanity. About the closest we get to a bonafide performance is Emil Janning's Henry VIII, but even he is limited to leering, glowering, and guzzling beer from tankards.

The script also lumbers from historical event to historical event, with things happening laughably fast. The divorce of Katherine of Aragon took years in real life, but here it's cleared up in all of five minutes! Yes, yes, this is entertainment, not a documentary-- but considering this movie is hardly entertaining, I'm going to pick at the rushed treatment of the story much more. But as I said before, it's not a total waste: the production looks great and Lubitsch sometimes uses creative framing and mise en scene to liven things up. But when it' all at the service of a dull script, it does not help make the viewing experience any better.

What really kills me is that we're dealing with a fascinating piece of history and a fascinating woman. Making Anne Boleyn a saint is about as erroneous as making her a harpy (see the terrible, TERRIBLE Other Boleyn Girl for how Anne Boleyn's character gets assassinated these days). She was capable of kindness (she gave much to charities serving the poor) and cruelty (her treatment of her stepdaughter devolved once Mary refused to accept her as queen; she was known for boasting quite a temper). Few movies about AB have portrayed her as a woman: she is the seductress, the harpy, the suffering saint-- almost never a woman.

Anyway, only Lubitsch or Jannings fans will get much out of Anna Boleyn (1920). If you want early Lubitsch, I highly recommend The Oyster Princess, a movie more suited to his style and talents.

Sad Anne

[movingpicturegal · 8/10 · 29 December 2006]

Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).

This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.

Anne Boleyn.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 7/10 · 22 June 2022]

Having started the Masters of Cinema Lubitsch in Berlin box set on the day that the 2015 UK General Election took place, and recently watching again a number of the movies in the set (all also reviewed),I felt it was time to see the last remaining un-watched title in the set, which led to me meeting Boleyn.

View on the film:

Perfectly matching the other movies in the set, Masters of Cinema present a great transfer,with the original inter-titles being retained, and the print having a great level of detail.

Stomping round his kingdom, Emil Jannings (the very first actor to win Best Actor at the Oscars) gives an excellent turn as Henry VIII, a big baby who bounces with glee when he gets what he wants, which is brushed aside with a furious temper tantrum, when Henry wants to throw away people he regards as mere playthings.

Contrasting Jannings performance, Henny Porten gives a delicate performance as Boleyn, sparkling with youthful enthusiasm when she meet cute with Henry, which Porten gradually dims, as Boleyn confronts the reality of her marriage, and life facing the axe.

Spanning aross a run time of over 2 hours, the screenplay by Hanns Kraly & Norbert Falk sadly struggles to build a real sense of the declining state of Henry and Boleyn's relationship, instead going for a stop/start approach, leading to awkward moments of lightness appearing straight after serious sequences of a marriage falling apart.

Following from making Madame Dubarry a year earlier with another Costume Drama epic, direting auteur Ernst Lubitsch is joined by cinematographer Theodor Sparkuhl in bringing The Lubitsch Touch to the vast wide-shots of the glittering, richly detailed costumes and sets, expertly captured by Lubitsch with an inventive, stylish use of iris effects, emphasizing the physical, and psychologically imposing figure of Henry on Boleyn.

Heavy going despite the great production values

[psteier · 5/10 · 4 July 2003]

The story is hard to follow unless you are quite familiar with the history of Henry VIII's reign. The picture seems more interested in spectacle than story telling. Wonderful costumes.

I wasn't impressed with Jannings. His Henry was mostly interested in eating, drinking, hunting and women.

"Bring fortune to our nation"

[Steffi_P · 8/10 · 25 March 2011]

This is a strange piece: a tale of late-medieval English history, made at a German studio, entirely produced and acted by Germans (plus one Swiss and one Norwegian). While we in the UK are quite used to Hollywood rewriting our history for us (Braveheart etc.) we don't expect it so much from our fellow Europeans. But back in the early 1920s the UFA studio in Berlin really was the Hollywood of Europe, and for a few years they had the cinematic prowess to tell whatever stories they liked.

The director here is Ernst Lubitsch, who later became well-known in the US for his sophisticated comedies, and back then he was primarily a comedy director too. Anna Boleyn sees him turning his many comical tricks to more dramatic effect. A favourite comedy technique of his was the pull-back-and-reveal, as used for example in the opening shot of The Oyster Princess (1919) to show the bloated Oyster King surrounded by his lackeys. That shot is duplicated here with the introduction to Henry VIII, the look slightly more realistic but just as revelatory of the character. And although Lubitsch's pictures are in a very different category to those of his fellow UFA luminaries Fritz Lang and FW Murnau, he shares with those directors a fascination with décor and architecture. He constantly composes shots in depth, looking down corridors or through into larger rooms, from the early moments at the harbour where a set of doors are opened onto a bustling street, to the haunting final view of the scaffold. This was a common way of emphasising a large space before the days of widescreen, but it also gives the whole thing a sense of dread and inevitability, as characters advance upon us from the distance or spy on each other into a room beyond.

Lubitsch also reveals himself to be a master of pacing within a sequence. For example after a handful of busy shots at the spring festival the scene, everything becomes slow, simple and a shade darker as Anna encounters Norris on the outskirts of the merrymaking. Throughout the picture the director encourages steady, measured performances, making some scenes move at a glacial pace but endowing them with atmosphere and fascinating detail, such as the eerie depiction of Anna and Henry's wedding night. Playing the king, the talented Emil Jannings is uncharacteristically restrained, giving us a menacing, moody king very different to Charles Laughton's flamboyant 1933 portrayal. Henny Porten is not quite as good in the title role, her performance consisting mostly of looking extremely disturbed. However she is able to make a good account of herself in the final few minutes, when it really matters. An honourable mention must also go to Paul Biensfeldt as the jester, who makes the most of his close-ups and gives us a sincere and dignified portrayal of this deceptively simple character.

Anna Boleyn is all in all a rather stunning feature, and actually somewhat better than most of the historical dramas coming out of Hollywood at the time. It seems that, during this crucial period when the full-length motion picture was beginning to grow up and things like screen acting and set design were becoming serious professions, the Germans had the edge with their strong theatrical, operatic and artistic traditions, upon which their cinematic industry was built. Lubitsch, Jannings, and almost every other member of the crew and cast had a background on the stage, as oppose to the technicians and entrepreneurs who were running Hollywood. In Germany they knew very well how to tell stories visually, how to merge production design and performance into a complete form of expression, and they had a large pool of people with the necessary experience. The supremacy of UFA would continue until the Americans gained the technological edge in the late 20s (not to mention poaching much of Germany's creative talent), but during this short period it was the most competent movie-making factory in the world. Anna Boleyn is not even the finest output of its time and place, and yet is still made with that powerful blend of storytelling knowledge and cinematic inventiveness, and is a drama of considerable stature and elegance.

Not So Merrie England

[richardchatten · 3/10 · 3 November 2018]

The Tudors come across as an unattractive bunch of schemers in this lavishly costumed but otherwise empty pageant played out in Germanic-looking settings in which the Lubitsch touch is little in evidence. Top-billed Henny Porten is too old and plain for the title role, while Emil Jannings makes King Henry a cold-eyed sexual predator.

Pretty Darn Stunning and Pretty Near Faithful to History, and Pretty Beautiful

[heliotropetwo · 9/10 · 6 July 2007]

Nothing dull about this movie, which is held together by fully realized characters with some depth to them. Even the hooded torturers have body language. Jannings' performance is brilliant, all will, want and need. A Henry VIII as he must have been. Henny Porten is, maybe, nobler and purer than Anne Boleyn, but she plays the part as written: A victim caught in the jaws of a big (huge) baby.

Sparkuhl's cinematography is gorgeous in the restoration, the tints sensuous. Lubitsch lets these characters breathe and reveal their corruption down to the tiniest of meannesses. He takes his time, which can try the patience of an audience accustomed to being carried away by action, but the time is worth spending. Slow your heartbeat and watch this minor miracle of German silent film.

Too long and dragging

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 3 April 2016]

I am sure most readers here have already heard of the character of "Anna Boleyn" and this film here is early German filmmaker Ernst Lubitsch's take on her story. This is a silent black-and-white film and was made before Lubitsch's (and Kräly's" breakthrough in Hollywood. Unfortunately, I was not too impressed watching this one. In the current DVD version, it runs for a couple seconds under 2 hours, which is really long and painful to watch almost, especially for a silent film. Apart from that, the film needed definitely a lot more intertitles. I personally thought from a visual perspective this was a decent film, but the lack of color of course hurts in the way we perceive the pompous sets, art direction and costumes. All in all, I personally definitely enjoy Lubitsch's comedies when it comes to his earlier works and not even the presence of Emil Jannings could make this one worth watching for me. I do not recommend it. Thumbs down

Jannings is excellent

[scsu1975 · 8/10 · 1 December 2022]

Anna Boleyn becomes the lady in waiting for Catherine of Aragon, wife of King Henry VIII. Henry immediately puts the moves on Anna. When Catherine is unable to produce a son, Henry gets his marriage annulled and marries Anna. Then Henry puts the moves on Anna's lady in waiting, Jane Seymour. Anna produces a daughter, which does not thrill Henry. Anna is beheaded on trumped-up charges of infidelity.

This is a good-looking film, with an excellent performance by Jannings. Henny Porten is also good, particularly during the climax when her own uncle turns against her. The sets and costumes are first rate.

The film runs about two hours, but never drags. One weak spot was the jousting scene, which was a bit lame. This film is definitely worth a look.

Silent politics and passive heroines

[davidmvining · 5/10 · 31 March 2023]

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of weird that none of the intertitles re-Anglicize the names of Anne and Mary, leaving them as Anna and Marie, in this German rendition of the story of Anne Boleyn? It's just kind of weird. Anyway, Ernst Lubitsch continued his silent, historical epics with this tale of Henry VIII's second wife, from her return from France to her execution, and it's the same kind of handsome but distant affair his other films of this vein like Madame DuBarry and Sumurun had been. It's also another tale of a less powerful woman getting caught up in the passions of a more powerful man which had happened not only in his other historical epics, but also his smaller, quirkier affairs like The Doll. So, it fits the overall thematic focus of this early part of Lubitsch's career, but the famous Lubitsch touch is still distant, underdeveloped, and pushed aside for melodramatics that don't quite connect.

Anna Boleyn (Henny Porten) returns to England from France and meets her beau, Sir Henry Norris (Paul Hartmann) at the docks, pleased to be home and returns to the house of her father, the Duke of Norfolk (Ludwig Hartau) (no, Boleyn's real father wasn't a Duke, much less the Duke of Norfolk, but whatever). All seems well prepared for Anna to lead a nice little life on the edges of the English court. However, of course, all is not well in the kingdom since Henry VIII (Emil Jannings) only has a daughter, Princess Marie (Hilde Muller) from his wife Queen Catherine (Hedwig Pauly-Winterstein), and no male heir. He's also something of a womanizer and is happy to play around with servant girls out in the open.

One of the most interesting little additions to this well-known story (an addition that disappears at about the halfway point, unfortunately) is the role of a jester (Paul Biensfeldt) who openly chastises Henry for his infidelities, receives a beating, but keeps on acting as Henry's conscience. I was really hoping to see the jester play a larger role, especially later in the film when Henry grows tired of Anna in favor of her lady in waiting, Jane Seymour (Aud Egede-Nissen), but by Henry's wedding with Anna, he's gone. He does have a very good early moment when Henry brings Anna into a large bush removed from the garden and tennis party for the court where Henry tries to seduce Anna, but the jester interrupts it. There's a moment of recognition that what Henry is doing is wrong, and it provided a nice subtext to what was happening. However, le sigh, it was not to last. The jester simply disappears from the story. If Henry had had the jester killed, that might have been interesting, though.

Anna is one of the main problems in the story. She's massively passive. When she gets home from France, she's happy to accept the affections of her beau, Sir Henry Norris. When the king gains her attention, she just accepts it without much in the way of fervor or enthusiasm, but she accepts it. I mean, if the King of England wants a girl, is the girl going to wildly object? I wouldn't expect that, but she never says anything to anyone. Instead, she stands around moping a lot, and the effort seems to be to make her into a completely innocent waif. This not only strikes me as wrong historically (again, this is a movie that makes Anne Boleyn's father the Duke of Norfolk), but it makes her a really uninteresting character to anchor a whole film around. In fact, she's so massively passive that she gets pushed aside in the later parts of the narrative because she has so little to do. It's not like she has a lot to do early either, though. She mostly stands around while Henry lusts after her.

Another issue with the film is that it's another tale of intricate plotting, politics, and a lot of named characters that the silent medium can't support all that well. I didn't like Sumurun very much, but I was kind of amazed at how few intertitles there were, helped in no small part, I'm sure, by how the film really didn't rely on real world political figures to drive small points of plot forward. It was all historical melodrama. This, however, returns to the form of Madame DuBarry where we have to see the historical details to get to the next story beat, and the film suffers for it. It's made the worse here because Anna is passive where the titular character in the early film actually was kind of interesting to watch as she climbed the French social ladder. Making Anna completely innocent robs her of any agency in her rise to power.

By the end, as Henry is trying to justify another separation from another wife, Anna gets a few moments to seem active, but they're really only moments. At the trial for her supposed infidelities, the singer Marc Smeaton (Ferdinand von Alten) gets brought forward to assert an illicit relationship, and Anna stands up and protests her innocence. It's a nice change of pace from her moping around while the King of England lusts after her, dotes on her, and then dumps her for a younger model.

There is an interesting idea that gets played up briefly late where Anna is confronted with the fact that she's the new Catherine and Jane Seymour is the new Anna, that she's caught in a repeating cycle. However, because Anna was so passive in the participation of that cycle, it's little more than a realization of irony than a moral lesson for her. It's sort of interesting, but it just doesn't carry much weight.

Having said all of that, there is some stuff to enjoy. Henny Porten's performance as Anna may be one note (I think I'd blame direction and the writing mostly for this), however Emil Jannings is quite a sight as Henry VIII. He's energetic, animated, and passionate. The rest of the cast is pretty good, holding their own while surrounded by some great sets and decked out in intricate costumes. There are some large scale sequences, mostly around the wedding, and they're good spectacle.

It's a middling film, right in line with these other historical, melodramatic epics that Lubitsch was directing late in her German career. They must have been successful financially, and it's reported that it was one of Mary Pickford's favorite films (probably the reason she decided to work with Lubitsch to begin with and bring him over to America to direct Rosita), but the central character being so uninteresting drags it down a lot while losing itself in historical detail and forgetting the emotional journey (how silents worked best) keeps it from rising any higher.