the audience applauded

That was an excellent one.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This movie is a fantastic drama about a woman life, her fight to choose her fate in a world dominated by men who are dominated by their hormones. So when i hear today actresses whining about feminist movies, i rather laugh because they just show their big ignorance about film history: this one is nearly 90th years old, it's black and white, mute with captions and it tells everything they want! so this topic has existed since cinema is alive and awareness is not their gift because old generations was already on the move: Maybe those feminists should evaluate who are they finally? Here the young women works as a prostitute in a bordel run by a Madam and it seems that everyone was happy. But when they are in streets, under the command of a male pimp, it's bad? One scene happens in the beach: men and women have decent swimsuits and once again, every one has fun. So why the need to go there being nude, or topless, or just with a string or everything else? Decency, good taste are as essential as social code as their arguments! It's about getting a good education and this movie offers a scary reality: Church schools forget their own value of love and compassion and rather embrace a strict discipline that recalls the future Nazi camps! So this movie is just terribly actual, it's really inhabited by a deep and acute humanist feeling and the story is beautifully constructed and chiseled to build bridges between moments, a writing talent that today movies have totally lost! And for sure, Louise Brooks is an exceptional actress: her look is so much iconic and without her voice, she achieves to leave a eternal memory!

"Tagebuch einer Verlorenen" or "Diary of a Lost Girl" is a German movie from 1929 and this is still a time when silent black-and-white films like this one dominated the industry, even if it was not a long way to go anymore until the sound era thrived. The director here is Georg Wilhelm Pabst, one of the most respected movie makers from that era and the title character is played by his muse, lead actress Louise Brooks, once again. The writer is Rudolf Leonhardt and it is probably his most known work. Here he adapted a novel by writer Margarethe Böhme for the big screen, even if it was not the first time this novel was adapted. The version from 10 years earlier, however, is entirely forgotten today compared to Pabst's more recent work from four years before Nazis came into power. My opinion here is that the film stands and falls with how much you can identify and care for the main character. And sadly I must say that I almost did not care for her at all, during the entire film. I am not sure if the reason is the script or Brooks' performance, maybe a mix of both. She is a prime example of an actress who was a huge star during the silent era, but did not manage the transition into sound films. Then again, looking at how I perceived her here, I cannot say this is much of a loss, at least for me. Finally, a word about the film poster: I guess this must have been almost scandalous back then, a naked (implied!) woman inside a book. I doubt this could have been made 10 years later. But it did not have to. I do not recommend the watch.It dragged a lot for me and I do not recommend the watch.

I love this film because the authenticity of emotion comes through virtually all the characters. I first saw it on the big screen when I was 22, about the same age that Louise Brooks was when she starred in the film. There was something so simple about it that really reached the emotional core of the story--the loss of the relationship between a father and daughter. I easily identified with the daughter character--and who wouldn't want to identify with the most beautiful woman you'd ever seen (I still think that). The injustice she endured changed her from a vulnerable happy-go-lucky girl into a hardhearted survivor. My life followed a similar course and at the time I first saw it, I was a heavy drinker and drug user, plus it was the beginning of the end of my relationship with my dad. If you have father-child issues this movie may be as cathartic for you as it was for me. One caveat when watching silent films--you have to remember how long ago they were made; they may seem laughable because they're so different, and some of the acting is exaggerated because not long before film began, all acting was done on the stage and had to be "read" at the back of the house. I admit there are some corny overtones, but on the whole it's a great work of art and gorgeous to look at--just like Louise.

I really loved this film despite the terrible score that came with the Kino DVD. I never had a problem with any Kino films and the music scores because they were all quite good, but the one for Tagebuch einer Verlorenen didn't even fit the film. I thought that the music was too overwhelming and was depressing even during the "happy" scenes. The film was beautifully filmed and Pabst did a wonderful job directing it. I loved the staircase scene when the camera follows Louise Brooks' movements. I was reading an article in Lulu in Hollywood and Brooks actually mentions Pabst being excited about finding out a way to make the camera turn for the staircase scene. If I didn't watch the film before reading that, I would have not known which film or scene Brooks was referencing.My favourite scene, outside of the staircase scene due to the fabulous way it was filmed, has got to be when the girls are exercising and the director's wife (Gert) orgasms as she hits the gong. The way the scene is filmed by cutting to the girls exercising, the hitting of the gong getting faster and faster, to Gert's face as she climaxes is incredibly well done. Gert's face expression says it all: her sadistic nature comes out and so does her sexual self despite her plain non-made up face and her nun-like clothes. The scene also reminded me of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Olympia and what Susan Sontag calls "fascist aesthetics". The lines that I thought of when I saw this scene was "a preoccupation with situations of control, submissive behavior, extravagant effort, and the endurance of pain; they endorse two seemingly opposite states, egomania and servitude" and "the masses are made to take form, be design" (Sontag, "Fascist Aesthetics). Then I remembered another line from "Fascist Aesthetics": "The relations of domination and enslavement take the form of a characteristic pageantry: the massing of groups of people; the turning of people into things; the multiplication or replication of things; and the grouping of people/things around an all-powerful, hypnotic leader-figure or force." As you can see, I read this essay maybe one too many times. Anyway, the girls in the film were like the masses, all doing the same movements, and Gert's character was like the dictatorial figure who had full control over the girls. They followed her orders almost mechanically, without thought. I wonder what Kracauer said about this film; I think this film would fit his teleological argument (and flawed in my opinion) perfectly.Along with Die Buchse der Pandora, this film succeeds in weeding out the melodrama and really hits the nail on the effects of societal norms on people. The realism of the film really hit me when I saw that Meinert (Rasp) is not punished at all but the innocent Thymiane is. It's true that there isn't always a happy ending and sometimes, bad people don't suffer. What made me a bit annoyed with Thymiane is that she gave away her inheritance rather than giving it to the people who have helped her survive, such as Erika (Meinhard) and the other hostesses/prostitutes and the madame. It made me upset that she completely forgot about the people who she was with. Thymiane writes that she wants to forget the past, but the people she was with were incredibly supportive and friendly. None of them forced her into prostitution and even protected her when a man almost raped her. In the end, she does help Erika, which I guess does redeem her previous actions, but it was frustrating nonetheless. And Meta (Kinz) was the biggest bitch EVER. Even when she receives all the money that Thymiane has, she doesn't even say a word of thanks. She is reluctant to let her child even go to Thymiane and although her letting her child go to Thymiane can be a sign of compromise, it just wasn't enough. I'm pretty sure Pabst has meant this film to be a social critique, but I wonder if the scenes I considered to be criticisms were meant to be criticisms. I saw this film as a critique towards high society and how they shun the women for being "deviant" yet the men never suffer the consequences. Also, high society families are portrayed in a negative light with the philandering father and a family willing to cut off connections with their daughter. It is the prostitutes and lower class people who are genuinely caring and friendly. The hypocrisy of the self-righteous people are emphasized in this film, but maybe this wasn't what the film was about? I hope I'm not too off the base with Pabst's vision and the story.Film blog: http://sachlichkeit.net