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

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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

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.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.