Some films of the silent era are timeless, essential classics, while for one reason or another some just don't make as much of an impression. I don't dislike 'Asphalt,' but count this among those pictures that just don't really stand out for me. The cast is suitable, and at times has moments showing a spark of keenly felt emotive acting. The direction is fine, and director Joe May at points illustrates some sharp shot composition. The costume design, and hair and makeup work, are quite good. Whether one wishes to commend cinematographer Günther Rittau or preservationists, even more than 90 years later the film remains crisp and vivid; there's no doubt that the hands that made this were very experienced.
If my words seem noncommittal, however, consider that a reflection of how the feature is less than grabbing. It's well made, surely. Yet above all else, the writing is wholly unexceptional. Whether one is considering the characters, the scene writing, the dialogue as imparted through intertitles, or the story at large, I find praise difficult. The words that most readily come to mind to describe 'Asphalt' are common, hackneyed, humdrum, and unimaginative - or perhaps even stale. These are themes and ideas that we've seen before and since. None of this makes the movie a bad one - but it's unremarkable, and there's no especial reason to seek out this rendition. Then again, the course of events at times feels so forced and unnatural as to be simply unconvincing.
It's not entirely without value, and in the very least the film holds a small place in cinema history as a surviving silent picture. Yet it's not until the final third of the length, as the drama reaches its pinnacle, that the best worth of 'Asphalt' seems to meaningfully manifest, and it's still just not enough to particularly elevate the experience as a whole. There are far worse films one could watch, sure - though there are also many better ones, so what need is there to spend time with this one?
Passable. Not specifically satisfying. Moving on.
If my words seem noncommittal, however, consider that a reflection of how the feature is less than grabbing. It's well made, surely. Yet above all else, the writing is wholly unexceptional. Whether one is considering the characters, the scene writing, the dialogue as imparted through intertitles, or the story at large, I find praise difficult. The words that most readily come to mind to describe 'Asphalt' are common, hackneyed, humdrum, and unimaginative - or perhaps even stale. These are themes and ideas that we've seen before and since. None of this makes the movie a bad one - but it's unremarkable, and there's no especial reason to seek out this rendition. Then again, the course of events at times feels so forced and unnatural as to be simply unconvincing.
It's not entirely without value, and in the very least the film holds a small place in cinema history as a surviving silent picture. Yet it's not until the final third of the length, as the drama reaches its pinnacle, that the best worth of 'Asphalt' seems to meaningfully manifest, and it's still just not enough to particularly elevate the experience as a whole. There are far worse films one could watch, sure - though there are also many better ones, so what need is there to spend time with this one?
Passable. Not specifically satisfying. Moving on.