Review - The Blot

November 17, 2017

The Blot – US, 1921

Lois Weber’s The Blot begins with the following sentence: “Men are only boys grown tall.” The implication of this observation is that the world is filled with male “kidults,” young men for whom adulthood never truly began. Now, the concept of “kidulthood” is a fairly recent one, but it seems to apply most to adults who have the financial means to do the fun things in their later years that they either loved to do or wanted to do when they were younger. With money, the theory goes, one never really has to mature. In The Blot, we are introduced to three kidults – Phil West (Louis Calhern), Bert Gareth, and Walt Lucas. In the films opening scene, we see them doing everything but paying attention in class. Phil, for example, is drawing a caricature of their professor, Andrew Theodore Griggs (Philip Hubbard), and one of the other two is wrecking havoc with a lizard on a string. They are all in their twenties and wealthy, so, yes, the term kidult seems quite appropriate here.

It would not, however, be suitable for the other men in the film. They are more working-class and, perhaps more importantly, struggling to make ends meet. Therefore, they have a maturity and a purpose that the others lack. The professor, we soon learn, is woefully underpaid, as well as terribly under-appreciated. The film makes this clear by repeatedly contrasting the attire of the professor and his family with that of Phil and the other wealthy characters. It also makes sure that the audience knows the disparities that exist in the eating habits of Phil and his socialite friends and the professor’s family. The film also introduces us to a young reverend living on a small stipend that is sometimes paid late and a genuinely decent neighbor named Pete Olsen, who is aware of the plight of the professor’s family, but lacks the wherewithal to act on his altruistic impulses.

The film’s title, The Blot, is said to refer to one of society’s biggest shames: its appalling treatment of religious figures and educators, people who perform invaluable services, yet receive very little compensation for their diligence. And it is this message that Phil is tasked with learning. Luckily, the professor has a beautiful daughter named Amelia (Claire Windsor) who Phil has become smitten with, and as movies have shown us time and time again, the fastest road to an awareness of the needs and perspectives of other people is through the human heart. So, we watch as he visits the library she works at every day – each time returning the book that he checked out and “read” the previous night. One rainy day he gives her a ride home and sees her family’s hardship first hand and decides to help.

There’s a lot to like about The Blot. Its lead characters are generally well developed, and Phil’s arc is entirely believable. I admired the way the film explores important issues, yet does not provide easy answers or simplistic, fairy tale resolutions. In fact, for several of the characters, while the end brings closure, it does not bring happiness.  

Weber gets good performances from her cast, in particular Margaret McWade, who plays Amelia’s long-suffering mother, a woman whose spirit has been broken by economic difficulty. When we first see her, the look on her face powerfully conveys the long-term impact of financial insecurity. I also enjoyed the work of the actress (her name is not listed in the credits) who plays Mrs. Griggs’s next door neighbor. She has a way of looking at Mrs. Griggs that fully communicates her disgust for poverty and the people living in it. However, I never got the sense that she had a particular grudge against the professor’s family. Instead, she came across as someone who blames poor people for their conditions, as if all they needed to do to better themselves was roll up their sleeves and work a little harder. In fact, I doubt she’s ever really talked to them.

As for Amelia, she is what the script calls for her to be – decent, calm, reliable. In other words, exactly the kind of woman a rich man falls in love with in movies and ultimately changes his ways for. Amelia has a particularly powerful scene toward the end of the film, but other than that, she isn’t given much to do other than be decent. A similar problem can be found in the character of the reverend. Again, he’s a decent person, yet he is misused. Instead of just being an example of someone society has neglected, the film uses him as Phil’s competition, in essence pitting the rich kid and the poor kid against each other. The film would have been better off devoting more time to the part he plays in Phil’s transformation. The same could be said of Pete Olsen. By having this character also pine for Amelia’s love, Weber further muddies the waters. Instead of a film on social issues, we have a film in which three men pine for the same woman, and this distracts from the film’s much more important themes.

Of course, the film belongs to Calhern. A 1921 newspaper article proclaimed him “the newest arrival in stardom,” and it isn’t hard to see why. He has a natural presence in front of the camera, and he conveys an impressive range of emotions. It is through his character’s eyes that we see everything, and his transformation is meant to be ours. In other words, we too are supposed to feel inspired to rise up against the system and demand better salaries for the underpaid, and so if the film becomes a bit preachy toward the end, it’s understandable. This is a movie meant to wake people up to a deplorable reality, and it is, for the most part, an effective advocate for those it seeks to assist. Sure, it’s a too obvious in its imagery, and it goes back to the same symbols of inequality too often, but the film works. I cared for the main characters, and I was intrigued by Phil’s journey. Released during a time that would come to be called the Rolling Twenties and known for its infamous excess and lavishness, the film must have been a sober reminder that America’s economic prosperity had not reached everyone. It is a message that everyone needs to be reminded of sometimes, and The Blot, despite its occasional unevenness, continues to be able to both drive home this message and entertain. (On DVD and Blu-ray as part of Flicker Alley’s Early Women Filmmakers: An International Anthology)

3 stars

Review – Where are My Children?

March 3, 2009

Where are My Children? – U.S., 1916

Lois Weber’s well-acted 1916 film Where are My Children? is about a man named Richard Walton (Tyrone Power Sr.), a district attorney who appears to be completely oblivious to the paradox that exists in his way of thinking. On the one hand, he strongly believes in the theories of eugenics and laments that many of the criminals he sees in court are “ill-born.” Sharing this position is a doctor on trial for distributing materials that advocate what the film calls “birth regulation.” In his capacity as a family doctor, Dr. Homer (C. Norman Hammond) has seen sick children who appear almost inhuman and couples so uncivilized that they turn on each other violently despite the presence of their young children. The implication is that the world would be better off had these people not been born. On the other hand, Walton is a man who loves children. He is a friend to the kids in the neighborhood, and when his sister visits, he cannot wait to pick up her infant child and make it smile. His own expression of joy, however, fades slightly when he sees his wife holding not their child but a small dog. Apparently, his genes, as well as those of his wife, are the kind that should be reproduced.

And yet there are many in his circle of friends who are in the same boat as he is. Try as they may, many of their homes continue to be empty of the pitter-patter of little feet. For Richard Walton, this is a tragedy; his wife is of a different opinion. At a social gathering, we see that she is a woman who enjoys the freedom that not having children affords her. Drinks are poured, cigarettes are lit, and a general grand time is had by all. Children, I suppose, would ruin this. At one party, Mrs. Walton (Helen Riaume) is approached by her friend Mrs. Carlo (Marie Walcamp), who informs her that she is in a family way, but does not wish to be. Mrs. Walton advises her to see Dr. Malfit, a doctor who can make Mrs. Carlo’s problem magically go away and whose office Mrs. Walton seems all too familiar with. As the film moves along, we meet Lillian (Rena Rogers), the daughter of Richard’s long-time maid, and Roger (A.D. Blake), Mrs. Walton’s playboy brother. Roger takes an instant liking to Lillian. Unfortunately, being inexperienced in the ways of smooth-talking men such as Roger, Lillian soon falls for his charms. In a movie such as this one, that can only lead in one direction.

Where are My Children? asks us to see the act of having children in two conflicting ways. If one is from a poor family, is of questionable health, or is less educated, the film seems to be saying that birth control is acceptable, as its application will benefit society. However, if one is of higher social status, is better looking, and is of supposedly healthier genetic stock, the decision not to have a child is tantamount to committing treason or betrayal. The film seems to be saying that it is not the act of abortion that is wrong but the fact that women of the upper class are undergoing it. After all, would Richard protest if those he views as of inferior stock started having abortions? Somehow I doubt it.

One of the interesting elements of Where are My Children? has to do with children’s souls. In the film, there exists something called “chance” souls. This kind of soul descends from heaven when a woman becomes pregnant, and a month later, whisper its arrival into its future mother’s ears. This either sends the woman into a state of euphoria or – as is the case with Mrs. Carlo – sends her into a state of panic. If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, the soul becomes “unwanted” and must make the sad ascent to heaven having been rejected. It is a strangely affective technique of reinforcing the notion that these abortions are against the will of heaven.

Watching Where are My Children? I had conflicting emotions. I felt uncomfortable with Walton because even though he is clearly the protagonist in the film, he is still advocating a theory that was used as the rationale for the slaughter of not only thousands of German citizens but also millions of those the Nazis deemed genetically inferior. I was also uneasy with the idea that all it would take for Mrs. Walton to be a good mother is the decision to have a baby, as if all women from the upper class were naturally skilled at raising children. However, Where are My Children? has a surprising amount of power and heart. We sympathize with Mrs. Walton, as she begins to realize the consequences of her actions all these years, and we wonder just how many of those in her social circle are experiencing similar regrets at this moment. More importantly, we feel for Richard Walton, especially in the film’s closing moments as visions of what might have been fill the living room that only he and his wife will occupy for the rest of their days on the earth. In the end, it appears the availability of abortion has robbed an honorable man of what he most wanted, and there is indeed tragedy in that, no matter what side of the issue you are on. (on disc two of Image-Entertainment’s Treasures from the American Film Archives III: Social Issues in American Film)

3 stars

Review – Too Wise Wives

June 25, 2008

Too Wise Wives – U.S., 1921

Compare these two wives. Wife #1 lives only for her husband and her home. When her husband’s smoking bothers her, she remains silent, preferring to suffer the terrible aroma in silence than to ask him to smoke the “nicer” cigars she gave him for Christmas. When her husband drops ashes on the ground, she rushes over immediately and cleans them up. During breakfast, when her husband picks a fatty piece of chicken, she overrules his selection, placing his piece back on the platter and giving him a healthier, whiter piece in its place. Wife #2 takes a different tact. When ashes fall on the ground, she encourages her man to drop more, saying the habit is good for preventing moths. During dinner, she tells her husband not to eat something if it doesn’t appeal to him; after all, she reasons, he can just eat more later. Now, which wife is better?

It’s an odd question, isn’t it? Some might even say the question itself is sexist, as it assumes that these actions say something about the women’s personalities and characters. And yet this is the implication of Too Wise Wives. The first woman is knows as Mrs. David Graham (her first name is never revealed), a recently married woman who, according to an intertitle, is the “martyred” kind of wife, which I guess implies that she has sacrificed her own happiness for her husband’s. If only the little twerp appreciated it. Mr. David Graham seesaws back a forth between admiring his wife for her dutiful behavior and becoming frustrated with what he perceives as her non-acceptance of his personality and her over-dependence on making him happy. For example, he gets frustrated when she serves him chicken for breakfast despite the fact that he told her it was his favorite food. He is equally ungrateful when she knits him slippers.

The second woman is Mrs. Sue Daly, the wife of the very wealthy Mr. John Daly. The intertitles inform us that she is selfish and a poor housekeeper. However, she is also clever and a successful wife. I guess what makes her successful is her habit of accepting whatever her husband does and never disagreeing or suggesting another alternative. For this, she is rewarded with wealth and the ability to shop for the latest fashions. In addition, she is the former girlfriend of Mr. David Graham, and as such, Mrs. Graham is constantly in competition with the memory of Mrs. Daly, a fact that causes Mrs. Graham to become jealous and erupt in tears over and over again. To make matters worse for poor Mrs. Graham, it appears that Mrs. Sue Daly has unresolved issues with Mr. Graham and may be scheming to try to rekindle their relationship.

So I come back to my original question: Which wife is better? The film clearly wants to present Mrs. Graham as the “better” wife, for her motives are “purer.” However, the film doesn’t allow the viewer to completely turn against Mrs. Daly. This is a woman who – like many other women of the time – made a financial decision when she got married. This does not make her a villain; it makes her practical. Is it unreasonable that she would still harbor feelings for the one she let go of? I don’t think so. What she can be blamed for is setting her plan in motion when common decency should have told her to do otherwise.

Too Wise Wives is predictable and overly emotional. I have to admit that I got tired of watching Claire Windsor’s Mrs. Graham respond to every difficulty by resorting to crying. I was also put off by the idea that everything could be fixed if one woman learned how to trust and the other learned to value her husband. Were the men not to blame at all for the states of their marriages? The film is clearly a product of its time. However, thanks to its brevity, the film never becomes boring. In addition, the film is well-acted, and the fact that it was directed by Lois Weber, one of the first female directors in Hollywood, gives it an importance that it might not otherwise have.
(on DVD)

2 and a half stars

*Too Wise Wives is on Disc 3 of Image-Entertainment’s Origins of Film.