Pandora's Box isn't exactly a forgotten film, but did miss a place in the then fairly well-known 1988 book "John Kobal Presents the Top 100 Movies". As discussed in a review of 1954's Senso (q.v.), then the book saw Kobal using flawed maths to add up the poll results of 81 critics, leading to multiple mistakes. Not only did some films make the list that shouldn't have, but some films that did qualify were overlooked.
Every placing from 96th place to 100th could have been filled by any number of films that tied with 10 points each, from The 400 Blows to The Night of the Hunter and The Colour of Pomegranates. Perhaps due to the nature of the book, it's understandable that "ties" weren't allowed, and that 11 qualifying entries were omitted.
However, much more striking is that five films which should have been well within the top 100 weren't included at all: War and Peace, My Night With Maude, Day For Night and M all should have appeared when the scores are added correctly. The biggest omission, though, was Pandora's Box, which would have ranked the highest of them all, thanks to votes from Freddy Buache, David Sylvester and Deborah Young. In actual fact, it should have tied for joint 57th place, along with Nights of Cabiria, The Thief of Bagdad and To Be or Not to Be (the latter of which was placed 90th).
Has this omission harmed its standing? Maybe, maybe not. It would have helped keep the film in the public eye a little longer, certainly. With the image of Louise Brooks now perhaps more famous than the film itself, it has recently been included in modern works such as Hugo (2011) and Blue Is The Warmest Colour (2013). Although critically slated at the time and reappraised in the 1950s, it has yet to enter the Sight and Sound critics' list, so its correct inclusion in the book would have helped to bolster its reputation.
It's also a film that can be a little impenetrable for mainstream audiences. Commendably the film opts for a more naturalistic acting style, comparatively speaking, than the majority of silents. However, this more internalised, introspective method does make the film seem distant, the lack of sound a barrier.
Appreciation of the film is greatly aided by the commentary track of Film Studies Professors Thomas Elsaesser and Mary Ann Doane, who offer a detailed reading of the performance codings, directorial choices and inherent subtexts. The ambiguity of the film sees the commentators disagree on certain points, most notably on three separate occasions, which shows that interpretation is open. The Criterion release also contains four separate, optional scores, illustrating how mood can be changed depending on stimulus.
Also on the release are several extra features, including the 1998 Louise Brooks documentary "Looking for Lulu", and 1984's "Lulu In Berlin", which includes an interview with the actress herself. Considering the film takes on such heavy themes as murder, gambling, lesbian affairs, Jack the Ripper and prostitution, then it can perhaps still be a little remote when watched over 90 years on. Yet it remains a worthwhile piece, one worth exploring in more depth.
Every placing from 96th place to 100th could have been filled by any number of films that tied with 10 points each, from The 400 Blows to The Night of the Hunter and The Colour of Pomegranates. Perhaps due to the nature of the book, it's understandable that "ties" weren't allowed, and that 11 qualifying entries were omitted.
However, much more striking is that five films which should have been well within the top 100 weren't included at all: War and Peace, My Night With Maude, Day For Night and M all should have appeared when the scores are added correctly. The biggest omission, though, was Pandora's Box, which would have ranked the highest of them all, thanks to votes from Freddy Buache, David Sylvester and Deborah Young. In actual fact, it should have tied for joint 57th place, along with Nights of Cabiria, The Thief of Bagdad and To Be or Not to Be (the latter of which was placed 90th).
Has this omission harmed its standing? Maybe, maybe not. It would have helped keep the film in the public eye a little longer, certainly. With the image of Louise Brooks now perhaps more famous than the film itself, it has recently been included in modern works such as Hugo (2011) and Blue Is The Warmest Colour (2013). Although critically slated at the time and reappraised in the 1950s, it has yet to enter the Sight and Sound critics' list, so its correct inclusion in the book would have helped to bolster its reputation.
It's also a film that can be a little impenetrable for mainstream audiences. Commendably the film opts for a more naturalistic acting style, comparatively speaking, than the majority of silents. However, this more internalised, introspective method does make the film seem distant, the lack of sound a barrier.
Appreciation of the film is greatly aided by the commentary track of Film Studies Professors Thomas Elsaesser and Mary Ann Doane, who offer a detailed reading of the performance codings, directorial choices and inherent subtexts. The ambiguity of the film sees the commentators disagree on certain points, most notably on three separate occasions, which shows that interpretation is open. The Criterion release also contains four separate, optional scores, illustrating how mood can be changed depending on stimulus.
Also on the release are several extra features, including the 1998 Louise Brooks documentary "Looking for Lulu", and 1984's "Lulu In Berlin", which includes an interview with the actress herself. Considering the film takes on such heavy themes as murder, gambling, lesbian affairs, Jack the Ripper and prostitution, then it can perhaps still be a little remote when watched over 90 years on. Yet it remains a worthwhile piece, one worth exploring in more depth.