The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Q&A

 

1. What is the essential story? 

The movie's plot is that a young man named Francis recalls the horrors that happened to him and his fiance. When attending a fair, he and his friend Alan attended The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, an attraction in which the doctor displayed his somnambulist (sleepwalker) named Cesare. Caligari claims that Cesar can predict the past and present. Alan, curious to know his demise, asks when he will die, to which Cesare responds, "by the break of dawn." Low and beyond, Alan is found dead the following day, being murdered by a mysterious figure. Francis suspects Cesare of being the murderer (and that Dr. Caligari played a part in said murder) and follows them around. Cesare is just about to stab Jane, Francis's fiance but feels she is too pretty to kill and attempts to kidnap her instead. After being chased by Jane's family, he gently puts her down and continues to flee. Cesare dies during his pursuit of freedom, falling off a cliff in the process. Francis and the police then attempt to investigate Dr. Caigari on the matter, considering that his somnambulist tried the crime, but he manages to slip away. Francis spots him entering a madhouse (asylum) and follows him in. To his dismay, he finds that Dr. Calagari is the asylum director. After researching Calagari's personal records and diary, he finds that Dr. Calagari was infatuated with another mystic from the 1700s by the same name and was a serial killer in Italy. The story supposedly ends as Caligari attacks a staff member and is restrained and put into a straitjacket, thus making him an official inmate at his own asylum. However, the audience is then pulled back to the present time, in which Francis is telling the story. Here, we find the truth of who Francis is and all the events that occurred up to that point. Francis attacks the director and accuses him of being Dr. Calamari, and it is then that we realize Francis has been the insane one the whole time. The movie concludes with Dr. Calagari claiming he can now cure Francis since he understands the nature of his condition. 

2. How does the film tell its story? 

The film tells the story through many physical actions, such as Dr. Caligari hobbling up the stairs in his first scene. Right off the bat, we can tell this man is our antagonist, and he has yet to say a word. But his dark colors, mysterious presence, and sense of abnormality in his actions set him apart from his environment. Facial expressions are also a huge factor in creating these movies; as the characters never outright say, “I’m scared!” they rely on their face. This holds true for films now too, but it was even harder to convey their emotions without the support of verbal dialog. 

3. What conventions of storytelling does it use? 

The story focuses on only a handful of characters. There is a straightforward plot (minus the twist ending), and there are no subplots either. Usually, movies have something else going on other than the main plot, such as a love interest or a personal issue. This doesn’t seem to be the case in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Perhaps they didn’t have time to hire extra actors and create different storylines or were running low on funds. Whatever the reason, they did not include this in their film. They did, however, rely heavily on theme and environment. While incredibly cliche, I would argue that this film has the theme of “everything is not what it seems,” which could apply to every movie, but this was also one of the first films of its kind. 

4. Explain the final "plot twist"

The final plot twist is that everything was Francis’s delusion, and none of it actually happened. It was all in his head. In reality, Francis, along with Jane and Cesare, are inmates at an insane asylum, and the man he refers to as “Dr. Caligari” is the director of the said asylum. 

5. How does the final plot twist comment upon cinematic storytelling? 

Cinematic storytelling wasn’t as advanced as it is now, but it shows that even back then, they knew how to keep an audience on the edge of their seats. During the period in which this was made, I’m sure it made for a terrifying sequence of events and a huge shocker when the plot twist was revealed. Nowadays, plot twists such as those are almost expected, so when they happen, it doesn’t have as much of an impact as they might’ve had back then. 

6. What do the set designs say about early filmmaking? 

The early sets show that there clearly weren't as many technological advances as there are today. The cuts in-between scenes where the setting was shown were hand drawn rather than done through a computer. Also, for some reason, they tended to close out a scene by focusing on one of the characters' faces and cutting to a black screen or a screen with text on it. It felt like it could have been smoother and more relaxed at specific points. However, there was a warning at the beginning of the movie that this film did not follow a linear sequence as what we might be used to now. 

7. What do the set designs imply about stories and storytelling? 

The environment and drawings are surreal and demonstrate to the viewer that this world is unlike others we might be used to. The film's opening shot, where you see this mountain of houses, looks very cartoon-like and not a realistic place for anyone to reside in. This is red flag #1 that something might be off here. The environment is wildly exaggerated and irregular, adding to the feeling of a dystopian world. 

8. How do the answers to questions 6 and 7 move us to contemplate the cultural relevance of this film? 

The fact that there is a castle on top of a hill and the rest of the “common folk” are beneath it lends itself to the idea of a hierarchy and the oppression of ordinary folk by those who are wealthy and in charge. Another example of this is the interaction between Dr. Caligari and the clerk. The clerk appears to be on an abnormally large chair and is preoccupied with something. This hints at the idea of superiority as he laughs in the face of Dr. Caligari as if he were a peasant or less than him. 

9. If you had to think about a more modern, 20th-century film with traces to Caligari, what would they be? Why? 

This is a good question, and I’m not quite sure how to answer that. If you were asking if I were to make a movie in the 20s, what ideas or constructs would I include in my film? I’m not sure. I’ve never considered myself to be a creative person, but maybe a monster film? Again, not quite sure how to answer this question. If you are talking about the 21st century (current time period) and what movies I can infer may have been semi-inspired by this film, that is an entirely different question. This movie gave me Tim Burton vibes since many of his films tend to have eerie fantastical backgrounds and plotlines. Additionally, the character Cesare reminded me of Victor from Burton’s “The Corpse Bride.” Both have intricate and fantasy-like scenes with abnormal proportions and exaggerated features. There is also the element of murder and the “who did it?” vibe. The actual set design, however, feels very reminiscent of the film “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” because the size reference seems to change frequently to administer a feeling of hierarchy or power during the early 20. 

10. How do the questions about the reliability of the narrator suggest meanings, cultural relevance, and the nature of the film? 

I feel like after learning that Francis is “crazy,” we, as the audience, are expected to believe everything that he says is not credible and just gibberish. I think it makes the mentally ill out to be these freaks of nature who can’t distinguish between reality and fiction. To be fair, that was the view on mental illness back in those days. But, I feel like it perpetuated the culture and stereotype that people who are mentally ill cannot function in everyday society, completely disregarding the hints at social hierarchy and unfairness Francis has hinted at throughout the movie.