LEAVES FROM SATAN’S BOOK Is Interesting But Heavy Handed

Carl Theodor Dreyer remains one of the world’s most interesting filmmakers. He, Victor Sjostrom and Mauritz Stiller were the first to explore the Scandinavian psyche in the early days of silent film. He was the most introspective of the three as PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, DAY OF WRATH, and GERTRUD clearly demonstrate. Among the things that characterize Dreyer’s cinematic style are languid pacing, interesting camerawork, and intense but relatively restrained performances from his actors.

I was therefore surprised to find LEAVES FROM SATAN’S BOOK a great deal more melodramatic in execution than I would have thought. The premise is fascinating. God orders Satan to go about his evil ways and for every soul who yields to temptation 100 years are added to Satan’s punishment but for every one who resists 1000 years are subtracted. Satan is therefore grieved when people give into him for he wishes to return to heaven but cannot.

Patterned after D.W. Griffith’s INTOLERANCE, LEAVES is set in 4 different historical periods although Dreyer tells each story in sequence rather than going back and forth the way Griffith does. Unfortunately the acting from almost everyone except for Helge Nissen’s Satan is way too broad and helps to undercut the film’s serious message. Dreyer’s first real film THE PARSON’S WIDOW which was made the year before is much more restrained and it has comic elements. The movie also seems to have not been speed corrected in certain scenes especially the Finnish one at the end which also undermines its overall effect.

The piano score by Philip Carli is a good one but a fuller score would have helped to distract one from the film’s shortcomings. I think LEAVES FROM SATAN’S BOOK is a worthwhile film for its premise alone and deserves to be seen. I just wish that it had less of those traditional silent film defects such as over-the-top performances and speeded up sequences. If Dreyer was trying to copy Griffith’s melodramatic style then it was a mistake for he hadn’t Griffith’s skill as a cinematic storyteller. If he wasn’t then it was just a rare misfire from one of the great directors early in his career.

Interesting historical note: D.W. Griffith directed THE SORROWS OF SATAN in 1926 which is based on the same source material but is a very different film and not necessarily a better one.