I agree with the majority of reviewers that Murnau took a hackneyed story, but by virtue of his direction and sense of the potential of the medium, produced a memorable and beautiful film. The character I remembered most from my first viewing was Richard Alexander, whose naturalness stood out from some of the overplaying of the leads. Upon watching it again, I was surprised that he wasn't listed in the opening titles, despite the fact that he probably had the third most screen time.
To me, it seems obvious that Guinn Williams was supposed to have this role. He played the amoral, genial villain in Lucky Star (1928), and was Fox's natural pick for the villain here. I think Murnau found out early in the filming that Williams was unsuited for the role of immoral, conniving rapist. As in some films of the period (The Public Enemy comes to mind) it wasn't unusual for roles to be switched if the lead was found wanting. The choice of Alexander was perfect. How it came about would be an interesting story.
To me, it seems obvious that Guinn Williams was supposed to have this role. He played the amoral, genial villain in Lucky Star (1928), and was Fox's natural pick for the villain here. I think Murnau found out early in the filming that Williams was unsuited for the role of immoral, conniving rapist. As in some films of the period (The Public Enemy comes to mind) it wasn't unusual for roles to be switched if the lead was found wanting. The choice of Alexander was perfect. How it came about would be an interesting story.
