Ah, the silent era. A time when, especially as full-length features were only just coming into their own in the 1910s, as seen here, movies were often marked with a definite air of contrivance. That's no particular fault, even as it certainly means modern viewers may have a hard time abiding these earliest pictures. However, taking into account various factors - the curtness and sometimes inelegance of editing, the state of technology in capturing footage in the first place with a slightly stilted frame rate, the use of intertitles to amplify divisions between scenes and moments, and direction and performances that exaggerate every gesture and expression - the developing medium served up its first features with an enhanced sense of having been staged, scene by scene, as though ported directly from live theater (as was sometimes almost literally true). That holds true even as details like set design and decoration, costume design, hair and makeup, lighting, and cinematography tend to show a great attentiveness for so young an industry. And so it is with 'Tigre reale' - the movie struggles, through no fault of its own, to balance a fluidity of storytelling with a marginally more inorganic, mechanical craft of film-making.
More substantively, however, I feel like 'Tigre reale' has difficulty finding its focus. Exposition bleeds into active tale with a nonchalance portending not ease of narrative flow, but confusion of what should be appropriately centered at any given time. With that, and also somewhat disjointed intertitles relating dialogue, the picture further bears a lack of total clarity as the story advances. This flaw is most apparent in the considerable central portion of the feature, a flashback in which Natka discloses her past to Ferlita, during which conveyance of the plot feels flagging and incomplete. Ultimately the tale being told IS whole, and cohesive - and compelling! - yet coherence and communication thereof is found more from the benefit of additional outside context than from the cinematic experience itself.
Yet, curiously, even as these issues severely dampen the enjoyment one may glean from it, 'Tigre reale' nonetheless boasts some impressive performances. I watch this and I see acting characterized by strong range, nuance, and physicality, highlighting the vibrant personalities of the characters. That goes most of all for star Pina Menichelli, whose portrayal of Natka is lively and spirited, and the deserving centerpiece of the picture. Scenes feel pointedly fabricated, and much of the story doesn't come across with nearly the effectiveness that one should hope, but somehow the cast draws from a wellspring of sincerity to impart a strength and weight that's otherwise floundering. Commendations to them all!
I find myself at odds. I love movies, and have a special soft spot for silent films, and I try to find the value in everything I watch, no matter its broad quality. I do think there's much to like about this picture - the acting more than anything else, but also the care put into visual elements generally, and the engaging drama of the overall narrative. On the other hand, rough craft exacerbates the weakness of storytelling that is already flimsy and almost nebulous at points. It is, to say the least, not easy to cultivate an appreciation for a film when the fundamental transmission of its content is so deeply imperfect. I want to like this more than I do, and am at least gratified that the last act largely sheds those problems that weigh so heavily on much of the length. But still, the harsh deficiencies that limit what 'Tigre reale' could have been can't be ignored.
For those who already love the silent era, and who don't mind digging through some muck to find the savory meat of a feature, 'Tigre reale' may be cautiously recommendable. For anyone else - well, time is perhaps best spent elsewhere.
