William Beaudine was a New York filmmaker who had among his characteristics as an artistic creator an almost unique prolificacy, with hundreds of filmic exercises in his resume, is certainly one of the most prolific Yankee filmmakers. But without a doubt, among such a large number of artistic production, the feature now commented has particular consideration or a special place, it is certainly a remarkable cinematic creation, from many points of view. Beaudine adapts literary work whose authorship belongs to Winifred Dunn, which presents the endearing story of Molly, an orphan who lives, along with other infants of their condition, in a secluded place, inhospitable swamp, in which an abject individual is allegedly responsible for caring for the orphans, but what actually does is starve them, keep the money their relatives send for their care, just provides hunger and disease; everything changes when Mama Molly, as her peers call her, decide guide them to a way out of that hell. To play the famous character we have one of the greatest muses of the silent stage of Hollywood cinema, the great Mary Pickford, who, at that point in her career was not reluctant, nor much less, to be the main protagonist of almost all films that she starred, and presents us one of her most memorable performances. This, coupled with a quite appreciable staging by the New York director, completes a rather appetizing and enjoyable feature.
The film begins with images of a rustic house in the middle of the swamp, designed by the devil himself apparently, where we see Mr. Grimes (Gustav von Seyffertitz), cruel man that gets rid of a letter and a toy for an orphan. Then we see Molly (Pickford), the eldest of a group of orphans hosted in the midst of this arid land in charge of Grimes, who lives with his wife, Ms. Grimes (Charlotte Mineau), in a midden where all there is is hunger, diseases, where they pray and ask God to take them out of that ordeal. So goes life in that isolated site, the old tyrant even sells one of the children without thinking after being offered good price. Everything changes when a new baby arrives home-swamp, Doris, one baby who has been stolen from Dennis Wayne (Roy Stewart), wealthy individual who does not delay in giving his offspring search, initiating police investigations. The old Grimes at the beginning wants to get rid of the baby, but a reward is offered for the child, and as soon as he learns about that booty, tries to get that unexpected gain. Molly naturally does not allow the old fellow to put his hands on the child, and takes refuge in a barn. Everything will depend on the courageous Molly, who seeks a way out of that hell to all her companions and brothers, but she will find in the figure of Mr. Wayne a point of perfect escape to all lived ordeals.
The beginning of the movie is powerful and eloquent, with a text on a sort of biblical passage, in which it talks about how the devil had his participation in the creation of the world, his contribution was to create a swamp, infernal masterpiece of terror, and God, observing such a good job, left it there. To that idea or concept, quite strong, adds the filmmaker as the next image of the infernal swamp mentioned, a large frame, a remarkable wide shot that shows almost like a map of that place as hell itself, we see two dilapidated houses, rustic constructions in the middle of wetlands, and swampy inhospitable site, which, exposed after what the original text informed, already is delineating what we are about to see. After generating the doubly eloquent beginning, the prologue continues, and tells us that the devil outdid himself carrying Mr. Grimes to that site. The figure, which seemed exaggerated, is then justified with equal forcefulness when we see the individual, reading a love letter from some family to a child, but he, far from being softened, wrinkles the sheet of paper, and throws the doll, a gift intended for the infant, to quicksand surrounding the swamp; his presentation is indeed infernal, is almost a demon what we see, cruel and heartless, unceremoniously disposes of loving personal effects. Very effective the presentation, the outline that makes us of one of the central characters of the film, a dastardly old man who starves children, even stealing babies, all for his own benefit, it is a demonic being, living in a demonic place, the swamp plagued by insanity and surrounded by quicksand. The scenario that director manages to portray is also remarkable, the way he prints this inhospitable, wild territory, is one of the strengths of the film, and we appreciate lush and powerful trees, impressive and at the level of the stage, dark unforgiving marsh, with mentioned quicksand as a perennial threat, an element that is omnipresent. Special mention to crocodiles, deadly reptiles that also appear in remarkable close-ups with all its intimidating presence, virtually interacting with interpreters -of course, this thanks to an efficient and commendable work of montage-, constituting much of the force that bounces that infernal location. All of this set a superb exercise of film shooted outdoors, such a Herculean task as proud are the results, a memorable film.
It is also a very significant work of visual storytelling, because for the time, and comparing with other contemporary exercises, a remarkable dynamism of the camera is deployed, we see a variety of very appreciable and enjoyable expressive resources. We observe, concatenated skillfully, close-ups, long shots, low-shots, high-shots, framings -such as the one opening the film- so strong and expressive, which lie in striking compositions in many cases. This is something that always, always, a great filmmaker manages to generate from the beginning, from its initial images, simply so is his film language, and so is the language of William Beaudine, this dynamism in his visual narrative, appreciating the vast majority of Yankee contemporary exercises, is certainly worthy of appreciation and valuation. This is quite notticeable when we consider the Hollywood context, because at that time, twenties, we spoke of a time when the Yankee film industry was becoming increasingly that, an industry, a business, and not an art. His great luminaries and emblems, led by David Wark Griffith, Mack Sennett as another great exponent, began a gradual artistic decline, the brightest filmmakers in Hollywood were not, paradoxically, Americans; shone on US soil Europeans migrating talents such as Erich von Stroheim, Josef von Sternberg, Paul Fiejos, Paul Leni, among other great talents. Beaudine is as a warm and valuable exception, when his countrymen cinema colleagues generated mass-produced films like commercial goods -without going any further, several of the biggest films of Pickford, which will be cited in subsequent lines, outshined mostly thanks to her interpretation, rather than cinematographic productions themselves-, the New Yorker is able to pleasantly surprise with this film; now, make no mistake, Beaudine in his very extensive filmography, among numerous short films and television episodes, not a few features with those guidelines surely produced, but this film is an enduring cornerstone which bears his imprint.
An interesting feature of the film is the striking variety of dramatic colors in its content, as more than one gender, or some feature of various genres we observe. The film surely does not lack comic dose, which collaborates the good performance of Pickford, but the merit in that paragraph is certainly for the filmmaker, who gets impregnated his film that warm comic halo. Naturally has a lot of drama the picture, properly balancing the touch of hilarity of certain sequences with all the power and strength of the drama presented of a mean old man who has many orphans in a hovel home, deceiving relatives, who believe that the old man takes care of them, but what he does is keep the money, only to have them all starving and suffering from disease; even steals babies, for ransom, it is thus an abject being. At this hodgepodge of drama and comedy, gets added perhaps the most obvious and powerful guideline, religious guideline, since the movie is a kind of parable of Christian history, in which even see oneirically Molly interact with Jesus Christ. But there are also obvious allegories, after seeing Christ himself, we might see Moses in the figure of Molly, who takes not the Jews, but orphans, not out of Egypt, but the infernal Grimes house, leads them no through the desert, but the terrible and deadly swamp, to reach not the Red Sea, but other water concentration. As we can see, Beaudine gets to actually set a remarkable, varied, rich and at one time enriching film, is not difficult to understand the tremendous enthusiasm of a large figure as Ernst Lubitsch, who called the film "one of the eight wonders of the world". Exaggerated or not the assertion, we are definitely at an outstanding film, with not too many contemporary Yankee films that may make comparison. Filmmaker achieved, as said, to generate nice images, like the hands of orphans saying goodbye, through a cracked door, to the child who just sold Grimes, setting a tender picture, expressive and eloquent.
And there is obviously the maximum actoral asset, the Pickford, playing a role as generally were her characters, an immaculate, spotless and devout God female, and the latter detail in this film will be reinforced more than ever. It's like a superior mother, saving mother for all infants, even considering that basically she is one more of them, is one of the most beloved roles by the Canadian, matriarch who guides her children to salvation. Also, in a simile way as in other notable features starred by Mary, we will see the Canadian actress benefiting from her slight figure, his small stature, and we see the star, whom by the date counted 34 years, playing an orphan girl. With the help of the camera, and make-up course, without neglecting ever the smallness of the interpreter, is enabled such a feat, and the truth is that the results do not disappoint, something not strange to the connoisseur of the films of Pickford, because in
Little Lord Fauntleroy (1921), directed by Alfred E. Green and her brother Jack Pickford, she even played a child; similarly, in
Tess of the storm country (1922) by John S. Robertson, albeit not an infant, also she plays a female character well below his actual age. That was the normal landscape of Hollywood then, Pickford, part of the United Artists founding-figures quartet, was certainly a shining star, was absolute master of most of her films, towering, adored by the public and the best paid too. Had equal or greater prominence and power that many Hollywood male interpreters, with Mabel Normand and Lillian Gish was among the greatest muses, and this film is just another sample of glittering actress. Excellent film, by one of the most prolific American filmmakers has ever been, not considered among the brightest, though, but in this case, leading one of Hollywood's greatest goddesses, articulates a timeless film, which for the connoisseur of silent cinema has many reasons to be considered necessary and essential.
In the first and second decades of the last century, the silent cinema was master of visual arts worldwide, and Hollywood was the main and indisputable focus of film production and creation. Those were the years of David Wark Griffith, Chaplin, among other giants; American Thomas H. Ince is one of the filmmakers who had the privilege of working with the greatest geniuses of cinema in his country, those who never reached their level of fame or popularity, but he has his place earned for those who know the history of cinema beyond its highest and unavoidable exponents. The good filmmaker Ince this time shots what would be one of his most celebrated and remembered exercises, a film in which prints with passionate force his feelings towards the context in which he lived, the effervescent war scenario, years before the First World War. So it tells the director the story of an earl, distinguished individual who participates in a war, commanding a submarine, disobeys orders of the King himself to whom he serves, flouts the order to bomb a defenseless boat of civilians, dies in combat, but Jesus Christ will rise him again, and return to earth through him to correct the situation. Without using bright stars, but with a large budget, sets Ince one of his most respectable works, but as well on of the lesser known, although not a few successes and virtues has the feature.
We see shots of the city, its crowd, and by the way of this, shots with crowds, known was his fondness for controlling scenes such as these, that in certain pictures Ince even hired additional extras, apart from the numerous which already had his production. We will ppreciate large shots covering everything, but also other frames where centrally-designed images appear, where the center of these images are vanishing point, such as the King in the opening minutes, chatting and having abolished with the military authorities in the portrayed table. In some of the frames for the first few minutes of the film, already is appreciating the thoroughness and planning in the direction that both have characterized the films of Ince, in the design and composition of his images, and the way we are present to them. The narrative and expressive language of the director is rather sober, as mentioned, good composition, good frames but static, lacking movements or travellings, something not inconsistent with the year of film, 1915; rigorous filmmaker shone in other fields of audiovisual expression, while in the dynamics, ease and camera movement, was rather little given to experiments. Thus, without being aesthetic, visual beauty, one of the main characteristics of the films of American director, we will observe some nice chiaroscuro, beautiful and powerful color contrast in some outdoors sequences with the sky and clouds as a counterpoint to the dark soil. Or when Ferdinand, dead, began his metaphysical journey to know Jesus, again we see the contrast; there is appreciated a good job in the field of photography. Worthy to emphasize, yes, the resources used to surreal dream sequences or to generate unfoldings, with image overlays to achieve these effects, also some fading effects for certain images. All set a correct final result of those sequences, where the divine epiphany is portrayed, interaction also with the king, warmly a double-plane interaction is depicted, dream-realistic interaction, something appreciable for then-cinema. We even travel to conscience of the character, the king, with the moral dilemma he is having after the epiphany with Jesus Christ, the journey into the psyche of the character, a significant resource and, for the time, relatively new.
In that sense, it is also remarkable that the film portrays a metaphysical atmosphere, extra-human environment, a kind of Dantesque journey, when the soul of Count trips to another world, trips -after that great chiaroscuro quoted before- to a world among tormented souls. Dark space where he will find Christ, shady and dense representation which is his version of those metaphysicians issues, broadly interesting that the picture is a personal version by Ince of both the surreal environment, and the Calvary of Christ, seen contemporaneously. The war sequence is also well made, frantic and literally explosive sequence portraying correct and vividly, for the time, war hell, the nightmare of war, gunfire, explosions everywhere, bodies flying through the air. The film is, as used to happen with Ince, a film of high-profile, a high budget work, which apparently has in these elaborate and frantic images of war a justification to that budget, because outside that for the time visually colorful display, we don't find greater feats. Among the figures that develops the feature we have the biggest paradox of all, with the war, the most pathetic and cruel achievement of civilization, claiming lives everywhere, we have the so-called civilization, which has no mercy on wrecking and destroying the weak and defenseless. Manifest allegory have this matter in the good Count Ferdinand flouting orders, he disobeys his king, flouts civilization, rejects abusing the weak and defenseless ship carrying civilians, figure where we see symbolized the absurdity, the paradox of civilization, a way of organizing which finally seeks the destruction, extinction of life. As the central character, the conflict in the mind of the protagonist, Ferdinand, is vital, he is an exemplary vassal for the king, but above all is a servant of the Lord, is torn between God and the unquenchable thirst for blood of men. However, and according to the tone of the film, there is room for redemption, to retrain, like the king, moralizing and religiously Christian is certainly above all the feature. It is a spirited and daring manifesto, in the days when film titans like Griffith and Chaplin -just to mention those who shone in North America- were eclipsing colleagues, the prolific Ince resists, will not be the major focus or receive greatest praises, but is an important part of the history of American cinema (it is said that the film helped Woodrow Wilson to get reelected as Yankee president), in his propagandistic content, even he portrays often the peace corps, a team of courageous nurses who put their grain of sand on the national target. Some catalog the movie as masterpiece, others just as a good picture; the fact is that is a fundamental part of the stage of American silent films, an extraordinary feature.
