Mad Love Trailer

[Mrs Vindecco]

If anyone is a Peter Lorre fan, you can hardly have missed the video. It's the first thing that always pops up if you type in his name in youtube.

I think since reading the Sarah Thompson book, I have come to appreciate this video for more than fuelling my fangirl infatuation. As she pointed it out, this footage clearly seperates Peter Lorre, actor from the character of Dr Gogol. It introduces him as friendly, modest, intelligent complete with pet dog. The studio are trying their best to seperate scary Dr Gogol (sigh) with their artist, they also add in the Charlie Chaplin quote, so they are almost telling an audience "keep an eye out for this guy, he might be scary in this, but he'll be different in other films." I would love to know how producers or directers envisioned Peter when he first arrived in the US? I suspect they drew a blank, but they must have thought there was something more to him than a mere "horror boy".

[woofy]

I suspect that Hollywood producers were more familiar with the Hitchcock Lorre than with the Lang Lorre. And I'm 99.9% sure they had no inklings of his theatrical past. Just another "foreign 'type'" suitable for character roles and scary stuff.

[Mrs Vindecco]

Sept 6, 2012 15:08:41 GMT woofy said:

I suspect that Hollywood producers were more familiar with the Hitchcock Lorre than with the Lang Lorre. And I'm 99.9% sure they had no inklings of his theatrical past. Just another "foreign 'type'" suitable for character roles and scary stuff.

I agree that Hollywood would have identified with Peter through his work with Hitchcock rather then Lang. I know a lot of sources say that "M" made him in an "international star", but how many people in Europe and America would have seen "M"? I mean I have never had the impression that it was mainstream.

However, I do think in his early US days, Peter was viewed as a serious artist rather than an oddity. Thomas argues this, not just because of the trailer, but also by the way he was basically given a year to do research and review scripts. There were not many actors on full salary for a year that did nothing in front of the camera. I think after the failure of "Crime & Punishment", that all changed, but upto that point someone in power thought there was a lot more to Peter than the "scary stuff."

[woofy]

M has always been know to film buffs. The problem is that before the advent of classic film tv networks and the internet, the number of film buffs was infinitesimally small.
I've no doubt that many people in the film industry viewed Lorre as a serious artist. That doesn't necessarily translate into a marketable or successful screen presence, however. In the few American movies that Lorre was given "the lead" in, there was always some macabre element involved in the plot. Less so in his supporting roles, but even these were slightly off center.

From the Lorre list you know my feelings about C&P so I won't iterate them here. Suffice it to say that Lorre was completely miscast in the role of Raskolnikov. The only redeeming features of that film, imo, are the performances of Marian Marsh and Edward Arnold.