Skip to main content

I want the secret of the cards. That’s all.

The Queen of Spades

(SPOILERS) Marty Scorsese’s a big fan (“a masterpiece”), as is John Boorman, but it was Edgar Wright on the Empire podcast with Quentin “One more movie and I’m out, honest” Tarantino who drew my attention to this Thorold Dickinson picture. The Queen of Spades has, however, undergone a renaissance over the last decade or so, hailed as a hitherto unjustly neglected classic of British cinema, one that ploughed a stylistic furrow at odds with the era’s predominant neo-realism. Ian Christie notes its relationship to the ilk of German expressionist work The Cabinet of Dr of Caligari, and it’s very true that the picture exerts a degree of mesmeric immersion rarely found in homegrown fare.

Based on Pushkin’s 1834 short story – there are at least five other film adaptations, all Russian or German – the writer’s inspiration is said to have been Princess Natalya Petrovna Golitsyna (Princess Moustache, due to her increasingly prominent facial hair, lived to sprightly age of 96). She was a socialite and a noblewoman, a maid of honour to Catherine the Great who reputedly gave her grandnephew the secret of three magic cards; as per the story, these being the Three, the Seven and the Ace. This secret had in turn been given to her by her friend, the Count of Saint Germain. Natalya’s grandnephew was said to have then told Pushkin (much of this inspiration is disputed and has also been attributed to another lady-in-waiting, Natalia Zagryazhskaya).

Pushkin hailed from Russian nobility himself (and was descended from an African slaveowner on his mother’s side), so he clearly knew a thing or two about this area. However, his principal character is Herman (Anton Walbrook), considered a relatively lowly captain in the Imperial Russian Army’s engineers in 1806, lacking the pecuniary or societal status of his peer group (hence “I’ll show them all one day”). Herman hears of the secret of the magic cards during a game of Faro (he neither takes part in the games nor the debauch with "gypsy" entertainers: “Gypsies! May as well call them what they are”). He concocts a plan to learn the secret from an aging countess (Edith Evans) who lives in St Petersburg, which involves him cynically wooing her ward Lizavetta (Yvonne Mitchell). Things don’t quite go as planned, though, for the countess snuffs it in fright when Herman becomes threatening, waving an unloaded pistol in her face. He believes his errand has been in vain (and confesses his plan to Lizavetta, who is understandably unimpressed and distraught). But then…

In both the short story and the film, there’s an emphasis on the unreliable narrator – is the supernatural unfolding real, or a figment of Herman’s fevered mind? – and Dickinson reportedly rejected showing the ghostly countess outright, emphasising instead spooky sounds and supernatural omens (wind, subjectively seeing the countess open her eyes at the open-casket funeral). In contrast to the story, Saint Germain is very clearly emphasised – via the flashback tale – as a malevolent force. Here, the nature is that of a pact, of selling one’s soul to the devil, for it is believed this is what the countess did.

In one of the moments rather suggesting a literal interpretation of events (or subjective experience or uncanny coincidence – Ian Christie also notes the subjective lens present in Olivier’s earlier Hamlet and Val Lewton’s Cat People), Herman visits a local bookshop and spies a volume on The Campaigns of Napoleon Bonaparte. He reaches for it but dislodges the exact tome he yearns for: “This is a very rare book. It tells of strange things that some would say are better left alone” Ivor Barnard’s ghoulish, cackling bookseller informs him. The Strange Secrets of the Count de Saint Germain contains “the true stories of people who sold their souls in return for wealth, power and influence”. One such listed is Countess R – Countess Ranevskaya – in Chapter IV (the book is dated 1762 book, yet the story tells of events in 1746, “sixty years ago”; maybe it was a reprint).

Saint Germain took up residence in the vaults of the St Petersburg palace, where he fashioned a selection of wax figures “containing souls of those who had fallen under his evil influence”. He lured the countess to his lair, where he gave her the secret of the three winning cards; she vowed no one else would ever know the secret and promptly won a fortune, “But the visit left a mark on her soul for the rest of her life”.

This isn’t the most complimentary depiction of Saint Germain, of course. More frequently, he is upheld as an ascended master, starting with the theosophists and continuing through to Rudolf Steiner (Christian Rosenkreutz was Saint Germain, and some saw Steiner as an incarnation of Rosenkreutz). And from there, onward to the New Age movement. Dickinson reworked Rodney Ackland and Arthur Boys’ screenplay and noted the influence of his discussions with Evans – a Christian scientist playing one who sold her soul – and her familiarity with Hindu religion. He accordingly formulated “the notion that the Devil does exist as the dark side of goodness” based on Hindu cycles (winter/summer).

In his introduction to the interview with Dickinson, Bob Baker suggested the former was “not a philosopher-filmmaker” and that “A study of his work will not reveal any recurring themes on the nature of the human condition. His personality is present in his films at a second remove”. Yet it is evident Dickinson put a significant degree of thought into the material’s thematic content, far beyond simply replicating Pushkin.

The framing introduction emphasises many superstitions concerning the cards – “one of these was the evil influence of the Queen of Spades” – such that the picture places an emphasis on the corruption and perception of the spirit from the first. At one point, Andrei tells Herman “I believe all humans are fundamentally good, and evil is a force, a mighty force that is abroad in the world to take possession of men’s souls, if they allow it to”. On a thematic level, this holds true of Herman, even if one chooses to interpret events as incipient madness à la The Innocents. “I’ll take your sin upon my soul!” Herman pleads with the countess, before she carks it.

It’s very easy to see why The Queen of Spades has been so feted by cineastes like Scorsese: “one of the few real classics of supernatural cinema”; the “precision of the sound and the editing”; it’s “uniquely haunting”. I did, however, find the mid-section a little less compelling, as Herman slavishly pursues the seduction of Lizaveta, copying out poetry to win her heart while her other admirer Andrei – Ronald Howard, with a touch of wet Lord Percy from Blackadder II about him, despite being the “good guy” – is admonished for slurring him. In contrast, the picture’s last third of is sheer dynamite, from the moment Herman gains access to the countess’ house.

His unnerved response to the countess’ dead staring eyes and flight through a secret exit into the early morning is vivid, and his subsequent haunting ranks up there with any horror movie (the door creaking open, the curtain blowing in the wind, and the shuffling sounds along the floor). It’s Herman’s failure to abide by the ghostly condition “That you marry my ward” that muddles his winning streak at Faro (it’s a bit like Snap). One wonders if anyone overhearing the secret decided to try it themselves? Certainly, The Queen of Spades concludes very neatly for winning Andrei (not that he didn’t have the readies anyway), releasing captive birdies to Lizavetta’s delight. As for Herman, his fate appears to be that of an unhinged mind (in the story, he is committed to an asylum). Notably, a duel was earlier on the agenda between the two men; Pushkin himself would be fatally wounded in such an altercation.

The performances are highly memorable. Makeup-strewn Evans comes on Like Alice in Wonderland’s Queen of Hearts as envisaged by Terry Gilliam in Brazil. Walbrook is appropriately obsessed. Miles Malleson shows up as a bookkeeper and Pauline Tennant, herself of aristocratic birth, is particularly striking as the young countess. The visuals are even more so. Otto Heller was an aces cinematographer who later worked on The Ladykillers and The Ipcress File, but his work here is truly something special.

Dickinson was called in at less than a week’s notice to replace another director Walbrook didn’t much like. Star and director previously worked together on the English Gaslight (the one that came first and wasn’t nominated for Best Picture Oscar): “we had to alter much of the script as we went along”.

He also observed that “it took us weeks before we discovered where the flashback should go” and that “after a few days, I said ‘By the way, this card game, how do you play it?’ And nobody knew!”. They were shooting six or seven weeks before they understood the rules. You’d scarcely credit the production and sets were so modest, given how sumptuous and atmospheric the imagery is. Dickson’s guiding principle was that “the challenge has always been to make a film that can be watched without one necessarily hearing the soundtrack at all” and there are long sections of The Queen of Spades achieving exactly that. Although, perhaps in the case of the gypsy “song”, which I’m convinced contains no actual intelligible words, an absence of soundtrack would also have been preferable.

In considering Dickinson’s oeuvre, Baker suggested it would be appropriate “to define the pleasure to be had from them as primarily aesthetic” and “His films can be read as ‘texts’ but it seems more fulfilling to watch them as films”. I can certainly see that argument with The Queen of Spades. It’s possible Dickinson was a little too malleable politically, turning against the Soviet regime (The Secret People), making WWII propaganda pictures and, most damning of all, heading film production for the UN. Or perhaps he was simply naïve (“he believed that people were as idealistic and good-hearted as he was”) in the way that Andrei is. I perhaps wouldn’t go as far as Scorsese in presuming its masterpiece status, but The Queen of Spades, which earned a BAFTA nomination for Best British Film, is an aesthetic delight.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .