The diptych consisting of ‘Der Tiger von Eschnapur‘ (in English distribution ‘The Tiger of Eschnapur‘) and ‘Das Indische Grabmal‘ (‘The Indian Tomb‘) opens the last and shortest stage of Fritz Lang‘s career. The credits of the films indicate 1958 as the year of production, although on IMDB both appear with the date 1959, presumably the year of the theatrical releases. Who is responsible for this change in direction in the late 1950s? Why did Fritz Lang return to Germany to make the last three films of his career? A quarter of a century of political and artistic exile had passed. The exile had begun in the spring of 1933 when he had received from Goebbels himself, in his office, the news that his film ‘The Testament of Dr. Mabuse’ had been banned. Lang had refused the offer to become the director of UFA studios and to collaborate with the Nazis. The director had then preferred exile, renounced his German citizenship, acquired the American one and made 24 films for American studios between 1936 and 1956. Now, under very different conditions, was the director who had always abhorred convention and never stopped exploring means of expression looking for a freedom that was lost in the conventions and restrictions imposed and self-imposed in Hollywood in the 50s? Or maybe funding for lavish projects like this was easier to come by in Europe where historical blockbusters with thousands of extras were all the rage?
The two films are actually two series of the same film. If it had been filmed nowadays, the producers would not have hesitated to release a single film with a duration of more than 3 hours. However, the American distributors then decided to cut about half of the scenes and project a truncated version on American screens, which was not very successful. The two complete series that are being watched today can be considered as a kind of mini-series. That’s exactly how they’re designed, with ‘Das Indische Grabmal‘ starting with a few minutes of recaps of the events of ‘Der Tiger von Eschnapur‘, as is now done on television, streaming or sequel films. Fritz Lang opened a gate here too, through which many others followed him.
It can be said that the two films constitute a remake. Fritz Lang started from a story written in the first decades of the 20th century, which had inspired a film script. The author was his ex-wife, Thea von Harbou, from whom he had separated when he emigrated and who had been the co-writer of some of his famous films from his first German period. The film had been made during the silent film era, but not by him but by another director. Lang rewrites it and develops it with the means and through the perpspective of the 50s. The story takes place in India, in an ambiguous historical period – it could be the 19th century or the first half of the 20th century. No automobile is seen, there is no mention of the English administration, but the Europeans in the film are dressed ‘modern’ for mid 50s. The main hero is an architect, Harald Berger (Henri Mercier in the French version), who is invited to build a hospital next to Maharajah Chandra’s lavish palace. On his way he meets the beautiful Seetha, a sacred dancer, whose life he saves when she is attacked by a tiger. The architect and the king both fall in love with the beautiful Seetha. Chandra rules like an enlightened tyrant, with openness to European culture but also with cruel, feudal-style repression of any opposition. The king’s brother and brother-in-law (Chandra was newly widowed) plot to dethrone him, and Harald and Setha will become actors in a complicated palace plot, with chases and battles in the desert or palace dungeons, and sacred dances, exotic and erotic at the same time.
I don’t have enough knowledge to judge how authentic the aspects of Indian culture that the two films are based on are. On the one hand, the exteriors were shot in India and the credits give thanks to the (real) manaradjah of an Indian province for support and help (probably with real sets and figuration). On the other hand, neither the production team nor the cast features any Indian names. The fascination with exotic adventures existed in German literature and then in German cinema since the late 19th century. One could call it Orientalism, but it also looked west (see Karl May’s series of books and the films inspired by it). Fritz Lang manages to avoid some stereotypes, but the casting of exclusively European and American actors doesn’t help. The most fascinating role is that of the dancer Seetha, a role played by Debra Paget, a Hollywood star of the 1950s, partner in films with Elvis and James Stewart, beautiful and bold, who ended her career much like Grace Kelly, through a lavish marriage to an oil tycoon. Fritz Lang films her with voluptuousness in two dance scenes (one in each of the films) that could not have been filmed in Hollywood in that decade. In several other scenes, such as the escape of the lepers, Fritz Lang, the expressionist director, resurfaces. It can be said that the story takes place in three worlds: that of nature dominated by the desert and haunted by wild beasts; that of the maharajah’s palace and that of the underground with tunnels and dungeons. The calm and symmetrical architecture, dominated by white and gold, on the surface contrasts with the darkness of the underground labyrinths. Finally, the film is full of religious references, the accuracy of which, again, is hard for me to confirm or dispute. But I’m sure that Steven Spielberg saw and studied these films before starting the ‘Indiana Jones’ cycle. Fritz Lang seems to have reached towards the end of his career a conclusion that Spielberg adopted from the beginning. Good cinema can also be good entertainment.