Starring: Friedrich Haak, Hildegarde Watson, Dorthea Haus, and Lewis Whitbeck
Directors: Melville Webber and James Sibley Watson
Rating: Five of Ten Stars
The sex-hungry homosexuals of Sodom cross the line when they hit on a buff angel who's visiting the home of the god-fearing Lot and his family. Will Lot and his wife and daughter escape the city alive or will they, too, be destroyed by the Wrath of God?
"Lot in Sodom" is based a tale that's found in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran--in which two cities full of perverted sinners are wiped from the face of the Earth. I suspect everything able to read these words is familiar with, but I will still try to avoid spoilers as I write these comments.
The directors of this film were self-funding filmmakers who made a small handful of experimental films between 1928 and 1933. I've previously reviewed "The Fall of the House of Usher" by them, and this film has many of the same strengths and weaknesses as that one. It's also a silent movie like the previous one, despite being made after sound had become the standard in all films. The filmmakers here make clever use of the silent format on more than one occasion like having words heard by characters float across the screen instead of presenting them on intertitles with explanations.
On the plus side, the extreme Art Deco vibe (the sets and lighting of the scenes that consists of sharp angles and razor-straight lines) mashed together with an Art Nouveau sensibility (the rounded shapes of the writing bodies of scantily clad, cavorting homosexuals, the way Lot's wife and daughter are lit and the angles from which they are film) creates a visually engaging experience that feels unique and almost alien. Meanwhile, Lot seems to swing back and forth between looking angular and more rounded, depending on lighting or camera angles. Lot actually seems out of place when compared to the other characters in the film--he looks like he just stepped out of an Assyrian bas-relief where everyone else looks like they came from an Alphonse Mucha or W.H. Robinson drawing; the majority of the human figures in the film are beautiful and graceful, while Lot is homely and dumpy.
On the downside, this film will make very little sense to anyone who isn't familiar with the tale of Lot and the two cities the citizens of which God decides are beyond redemption. Even with the direct Bible quotes on the screen, viewers will need to be familiar with the story to know what's unfolding on screen. The same problem existed with their screen adaptation of "The Fall of the House of Usher", but even more so here. The filmmakers seem to be relying on viewers being familiar with the source material, so they can follow the basic story and so appreciate the spin they put on it so much more.
"Lot in Sodom" was not only the most successful film to result from the Webber & Watson collaboration--it ran for several weeks in New York City theaters the year it was released, and it played steadily in theaters around the U.S. and overseas well into the 1940s--but it's also one that holds up nicely. In fact, its presentation and outlook on homosexuality might even play better with many modern viewers than in the 1930s and 1940s.
If you're in the mood for something very artsy-fartsy and a little creepy, I think you'll find that watching "Lot in Sodom" is time well spent... and I've made it easy for you by embedding it below.
.jpg)
