Secrets of a Soul (1926) User Reviews

Moderately Gripping, But No Great Classic!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 19 April 2008]

Although it has an enormous reputation as a classic example of German Expressionist Cinema, "Secrets of a Soul" turns out to have very few of these pictorial elements. That reputation was obviously built on the opinions of critics who had not actually seen the movie but had referenced the illustration reproduced on the poster. It is not a still from the movie at all, but a composite made up by the publicity department.

Admittedly, we do see the various dreams individually—and they are even briefly reprized—but even so, they constitute but an extremely small part of the movie which mostly centers on the well-off but distinctly middle-aged hero's sudden aversion to his young and extremely attractive wife.

I realize that this was obviously not the scriptwriter's intention, as it appears from the flashback that the three participants are roughly the same age. The casting, however, particularly of the 25-year-old Weyher, as well as youngish Jack Trevor, makes nonsense of this supposition. We are forced to accept the movie in the way it appears on the screen, not in the way it was postulated in the minds of the screenwriters.

I suppose you could argue that the dreams are presented in an expressionistic fashion (though I would disagree), but you can't get away from the fact that they display little visual imagination. And in any event, they occupy very little screen time.

As the middle-aged lead, Werner Krauss does extremely well in conveying the domestic disparity he suffers with his young wife. He has obviously been married for at least five or six years and his attitude is not so much loving, as reserved, suspicious, ill-tempered and even resentful. As said, this was probably not the way Neumann and Ross intended, but it's the way Krauss plays the role and, more importantly, the way Pabst has directed it. So what have here is not so much expressionism, as a moderately gripping domestic drama.

Complex And Confused Teutonic Minds

[FerdinandVonGalitzien · 6/10 · 11 April 2009]

At the beginning of the last century, Herr Sigmund Freud was a notorious Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who was famous for his innovative studies of mental diseases and the complicated unconscious mind. This led him to found psychoanalysis and write "Die Traumdeutung" ( The Interpretation Of Dreams ) a turning point in modern psychiatry that claimed the path to the unconscious could be found in dreams. Since aristocrats usually have nothing in their minds, psychoanalysis could do little to fill such a void but was very useful for average people whose more accessible simple minds made them good subjects for these innovative psychiatric methods.

"Geheimnisse Einer Seele" ( Secrets Of A Soul ) (1926) , directed by Herr G. W. Pabst, an Austrian like Herr Freud, is about this new psychoanalysis, a subject in fashion in Germany due to the complex and confused Teutonic minds, that Herr Pabst efficiently and aseptically describes in this film.

The film is famous for its notorious dream sequence in which a chemistry professor's unconscious fears come to the surface and threatens his marriage. It is all connected to an incident in the neighbourhood and the return of his wife's cousin from India.

The first half of the film shows the tranquil and bourgeois life of the professor together with his wife and the (at first) unimportant events that little by little will affect the professor's unconscious and will take shape in a traumatic dream. This is the most unique and interesting part of the film, the late Expressionist dream sequence, a nightmare, a nonsense puzzle that during the second half of the film will be analyzed and described with the help of a psychoanalyst, natürlich!.

Herr Pabst, due to his Teutonic and organized human nature, describes and solves every little detail shown during the powerful dream sequence with the knowledgeable help of the psychiatrist of the film; a coherent, logical and aseptic analysis that lacks emotion and rhythm so there is no room for mystery. The story also has a conservative and too conventional happy ending that throws the film a bit off balance and is too predictable given the odd subject matter.

That's what happens when you are an open-minded and common person, your innermost secrets are easily revealed, so unlike the wicked, empty and inscrutable aristocratic minds.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must wake up.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

Freud was probably right

[topitimo-829-270459 · 7/10 · 24 October 2019]

G.W. Pabst's fourth film "Geheimnisse einer Seele" (Secrets of a Soul, 1926) was the first film to tackle the subject of psychoanalysis. Even though a controversial subject, the film managed to make a profit. The filmmakers desperately wanted Sigmund Freud himself to join the production as an expert, but Freud strongly refused, not believing that the medium of film could do justice to his psychological theories. In this, he was probably right, since it's doubtful that things would be this neatly spread out in any person's mind.

Werner Krauss plays a bourgeois scientist, who has a wife, 20 years younger than him. There is a murder in their neighbor's apartment, and suddenly Krauss starts to feel an inexplicable fear of knives and also an urge to murder his wife. We have a dream sequence, that is well executed enough, but it doesn't leave any kind of mystery to the film, which tries really hard to be a mystery. Of course we still get to return to it once the protagonist receives psychoanalytical treatment. Doesn't really take Freud to interpret this dream, but maybe people in 1926 weren't yet tired of freudian cliches.

This film looks like a pioneering work, but its greatest value lies in the films that it may have inspired. The dream sequence brings to mind Hitchcock's "Spellbound" (1945), and the depiction of guilt resembled Fritz Lang's "M" (1931) a little. The hold Pabst has over his film is too pedantic, especially towards the end. But one thing is certain, he does really believe in the science that he tries to sell you, and the film's message about how one can heal from psychological illnesses just like any other, is a positive one.

David Jeffers for SIFFblog.com

[rdjeffers · 14 January 2007]

Cutting through repression ...

A chemist is plagued by his reoccurring nightmares in G. W. Pabst' exploration of psychoanalysis, Secrets of a Soul (1926).

As Martin (Werner Krauss) trims the hair on the back of his wife's (Ruth Weyher) neck, a woman in the street screams "murder!" Martin is startled, and inflicts a superficial wound on her neck with the razor. He becomes obsessed with the compulsive act of killing his wife, which he cannot suppress, through his contact with knives, scissors and all sharp implements, even by his visit to the barber for a shave. He is tormented by lurid dreams: A rainstorm in the bedroom, locomotives, and a city that springs from nothing. The nightmares finally send him to Dr. Orth (Paval Pavlov) for treatment. He relates real life events and the subsequent dreams. Martin's wife coos, "I wish we could have a baby," as she cradles a puppy. Later, in his dream, he sees her with an infant taken from the water as she passes in a boat. They await arrival of her cousin, a playmate from childhood. When Erick (Jack Trevor) arrives, Martin panics at the sight of the dinner table flatware and insists his wife must carve the roast, before he leaves the room. "You must please excuse me. I'm afraid I cannot touch a knife." "My husband has not been the same since the murder next door." From the doctor's couch Martin recalls the day of the killing, "HE - did it with a razor!" Martin describes his dreams: A nursery transforms into a dark empty room as he locks the door and leaves. He imagines his wife in sexual situations with her cousin. He dreams of flying, a crossing gate and a train. The doctor explains Martin's fear of murder is simply by association with the neighborhood crime. Finally, Martin relates a childhood story, which is revealed to be the origin of his troubles, and once discovered, he is 'cured'. Martin returns home to his wife and embraces her cousin. They retire to the country, with their newborn child. Pabst took full advantage of Expressionist technique to interpret and present the distorted and frighteningly unreal world of the subconscious in what was ultimately a well constructed advertisement for the new practice of psychotherapy.

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on." Shakespeare.

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 16 February 2024]

This film of G. W. Pabst although far from being one of his best, lays claim to being the first attempt to bring together Expressionism and the psychological theories being expounded at the time by Siegmund Freud and his contemporaries. Producer Hans Neumann much admired Freud's seminal 'Interpretations of Dreams' but faced with Freud's reluctance to become involved he recruited two of his assistants as 'technical advisors'.

Suffice to say it is the dream sequence, filmed in the style of the French avant-garde, that is the source of the film's notoriety, not to mention its menacing images of razors and knives. These elements were to prove influential, not least in the extraordinary 'knife' scene from Hitchcock's 'Blackmail' and perhaps in Salvador Dali's contribution to the same director's 'Spellbound'.

The central figure here is played by the brilliant but controversial Werner Krauss who was never able to shake off the stigma of his collaboration with the Nazis and who, despite the admiration of his fellow actors, was to die in obscurity.

The weakness here lies in the discrepancy in his age and that of his gorgeous young wife played by Ruth Weyher, especially as they are referred to in the script as having been childhood sweethearts!

As the film had a documentary purpose it was marketed by UFA's 'Kulturfilm' department and despite its visual attractions and technical expertise the psychoanalytical aspect is somewhat simplistic and it is hardly surprising that the eminent Dr. Freud distanced himself from it.

Great fun for psychology students and therapists--other might just feel confused or bored.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 26 April 2011]

Freudian psychiatry was all the rage back in the 1920s. It was the first psychotherapy and did much to popularize the notion of individual therapy to cure mental illness. And, not surprisingly, it was particularly popular in the German-speaking world. So, the fact that the German film maker G.W. Pabst would make a film based on Freud's theories isn't surprising at all. Just understand that since this type of therapy was the first, much of his work today might be seen as quaint or even obsolete. This isn't a slam against Freud--as he had to start somewhere. But the film's HUGE reliance on symbolism, insight and long-term treatment are, for the most part, not part of most therapies today--so don't expect this is like therapy in the 21st century. It's because of this that the film makes a wonderful viewing experience for psychology students--to understand the history of the treatment of mental illnesses. It brings to life Freud's ideas and shows the style of treatment he popularized.

The story is about a couple--in particularly the husband. For unknown reasons, he's recent had a fantasy of stabbing his wife! Fortunately he realizes this is sick and is seeking help from a psychotherapist. After months of probing into his conscious and unconscious, the man's deep-seeded neurosis is uncovered and cured. And, as a result the marriage is saved and the family has a happy ending.

The film has some wonderful dream sequences and lots of deliberate symbolism--and I thought this was all very clever. However, as an ex-psychology teacher and therapist, I was intrigued that the film makers did explore many common themes in Analytic psychology BUT a couple very obvious interpretations were never mentioned in the film--possibly because they were much more sexual than the interpretations given in the movie (though most therapists of the day would have seen them). First, there was LOTS of phallic imagery but the film never went there to discuss them. Any analytic therapist of the day would have jumped at the thrusting of the knife scene by the patient as well as his feelings of impotence. Also, his desire to kill her specifically with a knife is, according to Freudians, a VERY sexual sort of killing--again, with STRONG phallic connotations! I thought this was pretty funny--along with phallic images of trains and towers in the film--all of which, again ACCORDING TO FREUDIANS, would represent the sex act and sex organs. Now I am not saying I believe all this, but classical Analytic theory is based on this sort of interpretation...really.

Overall, great fun for me, as in addition to psychology, I have taught history and this film is a great way to combine the two disciplines. I am sure this is not everyone's cup of tea--but it was, at least to the right audience, quite interesting--and one of the very earliest films to explore the Freudian/Analytic style of thinking and conceptualizing illness.

By the way, if you enjoy movies about phallic imagery, dream interpretations and the like, try watching the COMPLETE Hitchcock film "Spellbound". I say complete, because Salvador Dali helped create a Freudian dream sequence that is great fun to watch but which in some versions is truncated. Also, Dali made an experimental film for Disney that was never released that is based on Freud's work that only recently has surfaced on the internet. It's wild and worth finding as well.

Psychonalytic silent movie

[zniva-96130 · 8/10 · 27 October 2018]

The first movie to focus psychoanalytic knowledge - well done

Beware the Murnau Restoration

[mlink-36-9815 · 1/10 · 13 March 2013]

There are a lot of important elements the restorers chose to omit from the movie. There are letters that are opened & are supposed to appear on screen for the audience to read. Gone. A man pulls up on a bike delivering a telegram. Gone. All references to the name of the man Martin Fellman are omitted. When he comes home after leaving his key,he sits down in front of the idol. It disappears leaving only a baby image. Gone. His wife see a dog & litter of puppies, She says: "I wish I had a child." Gone. The Murnau people made the movie incoherent by this censorship. Its a disgrace. They had no right to do these changes to the movie as they are not part of the creative process.

Secrets I ended up not caring about

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 17 June 2016]

"Geheimnisse einer Seele" or "Secrets of a Soul" is a German black-and-white silent film from 1926, between World Wars I and II and it has its 90th anniversary this year. The director is the notable Georg Wilhelm Pabst and there are no less than four writers who worked on this one. It is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth I must say as I developed little interest in the story or characters and I would not say this is the actors' fault. Some of the names will appear familiar to you if you care about German silent film from the 1920s, most of all lead actor Werner Krauss of course, who is playing the tormented scientist here. There are differing runtimes indicated for this one from slightly over an hour to slightly over 1.5 hours, so parts of the film may be lost or it is just a case of differing frames per second. Overall, I cannot say which version is best to watch, because I just did not care about the film or the characters at all. It's a shame as there was definitely more potential here looking at the cast, the director and basic story elements. But the premise was not fulfilled. Watch something else instead.

Freud and Horror

[spoilsbury_toast_girl · 2 June 2008]

This film appears to be a relative to the common horror film and beautifully carves out its closeness to the psychoanalysis: Everyone who's busy with that genre can benefit from the Pabst film. It becomes pretty obvious during the insane and worth seeing dream sequences which foreshadows an Andalusian dog shot three years later. In a period of several minutes they form a phantasmagoric island within the film, which is continually reverted to during the analytic situations. An aesthetic experience of an unique quality, tremendously powerful in its imagery. But on the whole, the film has the effect of being too reduced, even perhaps reducing, too trimmed and too coarse in respect of content.

The knife

[chaos-rampant · 6 September 2012]

I come to this as someone who thinks the presentation of dreams - much more than dreams themselves - imitates the ways we use to structure the self that presents the world to us. Charting the cinematic effort of that is exciting to me.

And well, this is an interesting film to say the least, and from an interesting time. The backstory is that Freud himself approved of it and moreover sent two from his trusted Viennese circle to aid and supervise the UFA production on what would be a rational explication of psychoanalysis. You should know that his were radical , modern ideas in their time and for twenty years had been a sensation. And the Weimar public at large was struggling with deep-seated nightmares of their own, evidenced in Caligari and elsewhere, so it was very receptive to the new science for sleep, and probably every bit as confused about it as the somnambulist in Caligari.

But oh boy, haven't our narrative devices come far since Freud.

In the film, we have suddenly strange , unsettling urges followed by a puzzling nightmare, and then a psychoanalyst sits us down to kindly explain and assuage irrational fear.

Nevermind the obtuse focus on sex and symbolic interpretation of dreams, that was Freud. The emphasis on phallic imagery, the incidental aversion to knives linked to imaginary castration in the patient. Jung would make the transition to a character-based dreamworld, and we are growing out of that too. We are insanely more complicated beings these days than a logic like Freud's can explain, our dreams much more layered, and you can see that in contemporary filmmakers who are dabbling with dream.

We are unsure these days where day begins, that much (night) was certain then. Our dreams also come from movies and TV, from tweets and instagram, and we're beginning to understand what the Buddhist had been saying all along; the mind's function is to project snippets of narrative around a fictional self, and the most loaded dream is no different in mechanism to the most trivial thought. You are always at the center of an illusionary world you have set in motion, but you won't know that without a center in emptiness.

The trigger for it is something to consider though. A murder (by knife) has taken place the day before in the same street, a wife killed by the husband. The same urge somehow surfaces in our guy.

The actual nightmare has dated, along with the logic behind it and German expressionism. It is this eerie confluence of semiconscious machinery that still carries power. It is this aspect of dreaming Pabst would cultivate in later works.

Step forward in cinematic techniques

[Reichswasserleiche · 31 May 2009]

Although I am no fan of psychoanalysis and Freud, this film is worth a watch for the cinematographic techniques and the visuals. The story is a bit bland, but it does give the viewer a taste of what psychoanalysis is.

My favourite scene would definitely have to be the dream scene, hands down. Every section of the dream is so well done that I wonder how Pabst filmed such things. There are some crazy things going on like a gate that grows really high, the husband (Krauss) flying and then getting shot down, a montage of his wife (Weyher) and friend/wife's cousin, and the baby coming out of the river are… surreal. I really can't come up with another word to describe the dream scene. My personal favourite out of all these has to be when the bells turn into heads. I can't really figure out who the head on left belongs to (I think it's either a nurse or someone who works in his house), but the one in the center is his wife and the one on the right is his assistant (Walther). When I first saw the scene, I almost yelped because it creeped me out and it really must have been a terrifying thing to see because apparently the laughter was something that the protagonist (the husband) couldn't get out of his head. I wish that I can supply more screencaps from this film, but then it would just crowd up the entry. Oh well. Going on, the dream really brings together events from past, present, and his unconscious because the presents he received from his wife's cousin (Trevor) are in the scene, the creepy doll/baby reflects the protagonist's want for a child but also reflects a scene from his childhood, the totally crazy wife-stabbing scene triggers the protagonist's fear of knives, his jealousy over his wife's cousin, and his odd impulse to kill his wife.

Throughout the film there are various motifs, repetitions and recreation of certain scenes, and symbolism. The very first motif in this film would be knives. The very first shot of the movie is of the husband's razor and whenever there is a knife/sharp object in the scene, it is always emphasized with an insert shot. Most of the time, the ones that usually have an insert shot are shown twice: the first time is when the husband isn't scared of them and the second time is when the husband is afraid to touch or see them. So what could this mean? It seems silly to be scared of knives, right? This is when the psychoanalytic part comes in. His fear of knives symbolize his insecurity about his masculinity. Out of all the knives, the one that the cousin gives him is the biggest and longest one and his jealousy of his wife's cousin is exposed later in the film. This could be tied into him being insecure because he still does not have a child and of course, the knife can be a phallic symbol. In Picture 3, the shadow you see is of the cousin and notice where his head is? Yes, between the wife's legs! And then it cuts to the husband's face where he look uncomfortable to see the shadow. In addition to the whole knife = masculinity argument, his fear of knives makes him even less masculine because he becomes a little kid who can't take care of himself. His mother has to cut his food for him when he isn't there and on top of that, she cuts them into little pieces! Now that I think about it, a lot of the motifs refer to the husband's want for a child and not having one, which connects to his masculinity. I can list quite a few, but I'll just discuss one more! The prison bars/gates in the dream scene prevent the husband from going to certain places, particularly places where his wife and her cousin are. Gates would prevent him from going near his wife and her cousin multiple times in the main dream scene and in his other one where his wife is part of an orgy-like scene. In a scene of the present, there is a scene when the husband returns home and the psychoanalyst says that he looks reluctant to go back to his own house. The gate is what separates him from his wife and her cousin inside the house. Maybe he doesn't want to go because he's scared that he'll see them together like he saw in his dream. Another thought I had was that the gate was also a symbol of how he will reach his cure. By meeting the psychoanalyst and having the psychoanalyst returning the key so that he can go home, the psychoanalyst is "opening the gate" to his cure. Just a thought. And talking about symbolism, see Picture 1 because the tree represents the couple's marriage and their hopes for a child, but while the tree grows, they don't have a real child.