I must admit that I rarely watch LGBT-related films. This silent film deals with the relationship between the famed painter Claude Zoret, his model Michael and how this is altered by the arrival of a woman, Countess Zamikow.Officially Zoret adopted Michael, because he didn't want to die childless. Remember that the film was made in 1924. At that time it was almost impossible to overtly depict a gay love story. There are no kisses, tender embraces or hand-holding.Dreyer has invented a clever plot device to make us learn about the true nature of the two men's relationship. He has added a subplot involving a heterosexual love triangle. The viewers compare the two triangles and recognize the similarities. They are both of the same kind, with the exception that in the heterosexual triangle the scorned Count Adelsskjold challenges his rival to a duel - in which the latter is killed. Zoret's love for Michael is unselfish and unconditional. The film can be seen as a support for sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld's statement that "homosexuality was part of the plan of nature and creation just like normal love".Benjamin Christensen, who directed "Witchcraft through the Ages" (1922), is excellent as the unfortunate Zoret. The difference between Chistensen and Slezak can be summarized as follows: Chistensen is acting, Slezak is posing.Although Countess Zamikow is bankrupt, she still hires Zoret to paint a picture of her. Zoret has difficulties with painting her eyes satisfactorily. Michael manages it. This can be interpreted that only a man who fancies women can capture the beauty of a woman's eyes. Zoret is gay and has only painted male models, while Michael is bisexual (or heterosexual). The viewers really don't get to know if Michael really loved Zoret or if he only regarded him as a "sugar daddy" ("gay for pay").Michael falls in love with Countess Zamikow. She is constant penniless, so Michael sells his Master's sketches to pay her debts. He goes so far that he sells Zoret's greatest painting of him, "The Victor". Zoret is aware of it, buys it back and returns it to Michael.

SIlent films bring us feelings in a distinct way that talkies do. For example, the cozy "Man who Laughs" by Paul Leni or fantastic masterpiece "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang. And now, "Mikaël" by Dreyer. This movie bring us the touching story about an artist called Claude Zoret, who loves his inspiration, Michael. But this inspiration falls in love of the Counteless Lucia Zamikoff. At the same time, Dreyer bring us another story which talk about a friend of Claude Zoret who falls in love of a married woman. Then become the solitude.Carl Theodor Dreyer, director of famous movies that i have not seen yet (but i want, of course i want!) like "The Passion of Joan of Arc", "Vampyr" and "Ordet" offers us one of his first movies, which has all the ingredients to bring to spectator a cozy feeling of solitude. The story talks about love and betrayal. Dreyer offers us a really successful experience of feelings thanks by beautiful performances (Benjamin Christensen, Walter Slezak, Nora Gregor, Robert Garrison, Dider Aslan and Max Auzinger) and beautiful scenarios and images (The black and white offers that beauty that i named so much, for example i recall two scenes: when the two lovers watch an sculpture and when the lover it faces the woman's husband and die shoot for him. I can recall too the beautiful natural scenarios, few ones, and the others which are inside the house of the big master that turn be claustrophobic scenarios).I really recommend the DVD edition by Kino in its collection of "Gay-Themed Films of the German Silent Era" (With "Anders als die Andern", its English title "Different from the others" or Spanish title "Diferentes a los otros" and "Geschlecht in Fesseln - Die Sexualnot der Gefangenen" which English title is "Sex in Chains" or its Spanish title "Sexo en Cadenas"), its piano score is really beautiful and catching and the digital transfer are unique. The only thing that I'm not agree is that is called as a "Gay film". I think that called it can be risky because "Mikaël" can be interpreted in many ways. So, i think that is not wise to generalize. Watch "Mikaël" is amazing and touching, Dreyer makes a masterpiece in silent films. Wacth it and analyze it in your own opinion. Is a touching experience.*Sorry for the mistakes, well... if there any.

This is a beautiful film, in its rich mise-en-scène and gorgeous cinematography. It resembles in polished photography, including how well it has remained over the years, the better-looking Hollywood films at the end of the silent era. The lighting is great, creating a very clear and crisp picture, with many subtle effects. And, the interior furnishings are lush."Michael" is a moving film, and I think that has more to do with the photography and settings than with the drama. The implicit homosexual relationship between the artist and his model, Michael, is curious, though. What I especially like about the narrative, however, is that it's about art--a very apt subject, which is heightened by the photography. Benjamin Christensen plays the aging artist, which is a significant casting decision, given that he was the great Danish filmmaker to precede Dreyer. Christensen had worked as an actor in his own films, so he's fully capable in this role. Additionally, cinematographer Karl Freund, who changed the role of the camera the same year in "The Last Laugh", has a small role as an art dealer.Overall, Dreyer does better here with the actors than he previously had. He achieves a nice pacing, as well, except for a few mistimed editing cues, which are too quick. Even the subplot, for mood affect, works. It's a mature work--probably his first--resembling his later films in many ways.

I invite any who see this to compare it to Novios búlgaros, Los (2003). The stories are remarkably similar. An older man is attracted to a younger and the younger (while primarily attracted to women) is willing to be the object of adoration provided that it pays well. In this film the older painter is taken at every opportunity by his younger model (and ward). And somehow the younger man is not painted as being a complete villain.Also of interest to me was a minor subplot, when the famous artist is attempting to paint a princess who has commissioned a portrait the artist struggles more than he has with any other painting (The earlier paintings that we see are all of men) In this one he simply cannot get the eyes right. His young model/ward (who first came to him as an aspiring painter) makes an attempt and gets it right at his first go. Perhaps what was symbolized here was that the eyes are the windows to the soul and the famous painter (who's only attracted to men) cannot see into the souls of women while his young ward (who has slept with the woman at this point) can do so easily. This film was remarkably well made for its day and while it does show some creaky signs of age, it is much more modern appearing than many of the films that came out of Hollywood much later. The movie was fascinating even with no sound (which made a Swan Lake ballet sequence seem a bit weird) and the subtitles in the print I saw were in Danish (English translations were handed out before the show but did little good in a darkened theatre).If you want to see fully one half of all gay themed films released in the 20's in one go, this may be your ticket. BTW... the other gay themed film made in the 20's Flesh and the Devil (1926) has much less gay oriented theme and is also available on VHS