Tess of the Storm Country (1922) - John S. Robertson

John S. Robertson was an actor and director who enjoyed good reputation in the early decades of the twentieth century of the last millennium, when silent movies then was all that was known in the film art. Canadian-born filmmaker shot a lot of film exercises, worked during the transition from silent film to talkies, and led to some artistic luminaries then. It is the case of this film, which adapts the literary creation of Grace Miller White, and which has in its cast as acting first asset the mythical Mary Pickford, who was part of the founders of United Artists. The portrayed history presents the experiences of a wealthy family in US territory, whose patriarch built his house on top of a mountain, and lives bitter by a bunch of squatters who have settled at the foot of it, constantly trying to get rid of those people, for him undesirable individuals. Things get complicated when one of the occupants, beautiful and passionate young girl, gets emotionally attached to his eldest son, and even take care of the first born child of the sister of him, his grandson. The film is a good sample of the kind of pictures that were then made on American soil, decent and sober film, besides having in its cast the big female star of those days, essential Mary Pickford.

              

When the movie gets started, after a few Bible verses about respecting the neighbors, we see Elias Graves (David Torrence), having lunch with his children Frederick (Lloyd Hughes), Teola (Gloria Hope), besides the young Daniel 'Dan' Jordan (Robert Russell), her suitor. Elias lives upset by squatters living at the foot of the hill where his family resides; Dan, to please him, tries to get rid of them, along with Frederick, they both meet Tessibel 'Tess' Skinner (Pickford), small and stout girl, who puts them out of "her" land. Elias, owner of the land, requires all fishing nets are seized, and thus expel the invaders by hunger; while that is done, Teola urges Dan to marry. When Dan gives approval for the wedding, he is killed by Ben Letts (Jean Hersholt), invader who shoots him and blames Orn Skinner (Forrest Robinson), father of Tess. In the village the news spreads, Mr. Skinner is imprisoned, prosecuted without many hopes to return free, Tess suffers, while Frederick, who approached her, is attracted to the girl, the attraction is reciprocated, and he promises to look for her after finishing his studies. Letts, in the absence of the father, tries to marry Tess, and even attempts to rape her, but is stopped, while Teola, very affected, gives birth to Dan's child. Tess must take care for the poor baby, and hide her feelings for Frederick, but with a happy ending.

Just by starting the picture we see a personal dedication from the very Mary Pickford, in which, among other things, informs us, his audience, that Tess was her favorite interpreted character among all who she got incarnated, and at the end of film is not hard to imagine why. The central character of the film is delineated immediately when we appreciate barely a hint of personality, is presented to us eloquently when we see her braiding to death with poor Dan, take him to the ground and fill him with blows and kicks. Impossible not be surprised to see a petite female, flimsy-looking, beating a man who is much more tall than her (funny will see how the noble canid who saved her from a safe outrage, huge Great Dane, to stand on two legs and rebases her in size), attitude repeated many times during the feature; but is portrayed in her first action we see, do not hesitate and almost enjoys physical activity as unique, especially for a girl of his characteristics, because Dan is not the only one who tests her ardor in the first sequence. So we see the great Mary Pickford in her interpretation, in which even her walk is modified to generate the character of the fiery and rustic Tess, young lady of null manners and delicacy, chimeric hygiene habits, but immeasurable passion and kindness, characteristics outside the normal roles embodied by Pickford; maybe that's why, this being a distinct role, has been her favorite, being also the most challenging. Interesting is to appreciate the evolution of the character, the temperamental and almost wild girl from the start, to the noble and selfless young woman who takes care of the unfortunate orphan son of Dan. Certainly the whole acting burden is on her, it is indeed her film, was a test of character, and Pickford behaved at the height of his legend; whom was founder of United Artists, with her husband Douglas Fairbanks and immortal titans like David Wark Griffith and Charly Chaplin, becomes absolute protagonist of the film, her performance is strong, concise, compelling, it is easy to understand why by far she was the most beloved by the public at the stage of silent cinematic firmament, most dazzling cinema star then, and the best paid female star. It is worth mentioning that it was not her first time taking main role in a film, because a year earlier, in Little Lord Fauntleroy (1921), directed by Alfred E. Green and her brother Jack Pickford, took a similar responsibility. When the sound arrived to the seventh art, she adapted and incarnated more adult roles, something that viewers did not see with such good eyes. Anyway, she is undoubtedly one of the biggest female names of film scenario of those decades, and here we have a good justification for this assertion.

Robertson in his film proves to be a sober audiovisual narrator, obviously considering the resources and the availability of the time, a rather austerity in visual narrative is appreciated, where still shots dominate almost the entire film. The simplicity of his narrative is manifested in the absence of travellings, or following movements, in the absence of dynamism in the camera, a simple narrative language, sober, not glitzy or spectacular. This is however compensated by proper treatment of what is portrayed, no longer on the visual level but on the level of montage, structuring the story, and the plot, events, they feel properly connected; the jump of one sequence to another, from one moment to another, and the difference of sentiments contained therein, feels smooth, contrast generated when moving from one point to another (for example, after the death of Dan, immediately we see Teola, cheerful and preparing the invitations for a wedding that will never happen) gives greater strength to the story, increases the interest in the feature. But if something regrets who writes, is that scarce on the picture, and much, of close-ups, for the very proper performance of Pickford had been positively enhanced and reinforced with a proper of close-ups work, inundating the entire screen with her beautiful and expressive face; but again, the media and general still shots govern the film. That said, we can state that in fact is not the staging what stands out in the film, the main attributes are a solid story and even stronger performance of the protagonist, then already possessor of extensive filmography, abundant short films and not a few features integrated the career of the female acting celebrity. As initially said, this is a good example of average film made then in Hollywood, it is not a wonder as art cinema itself, but fulfills its purpose, attracts, entertains, is a decent entertainment, Hollywood film decline not yet begun; and thus, in defense of the filmmaker, we can say that this was the typical American cinema then, little deploy of true art. Without being mediocre pictures, are entertainment pictures, far from European cinema excercises, full of art in some cases; in USA, in that moment, interpreters used to shine more than directors. So we are presented with the story, the story of some unfortunate beings, victims of circumstances, noble beings some, low and contemptible other ones, such as Letts, and in the middle of all, she, the compendium of virtues, devotee of God, unblemished female, will find a happy ending in the arms of her lover. It was not surprising that the end of the picture is a happy ending, a happy corollary to all hardships and difficulties experienced, correct finishing touch for a film that although it is not near the great silent masterpieces, is a proper exercise with one of the greatest actresses of old American cinema. As a final detail, worth mentioning that this film is the second version of the story, the first was shot in 1914, also played by the Pickford. Filmic royalty.

Little Lord Fauntleroy (1921) - Alfred E. Green, Jack Pickford

At the dawn of the twenties of the twentieth century of the last millennium, the silent films were simply all that existed in the cinematic firmament, the sound was something as yet unreal, the stars shone for their interpretive virtues without speaking. The quintessential female star Mary Pickford then was adored by the public, the highest paid actress of the moment and founder, along with other stars, of the United Artists; it was therefore the most shining star, she starred her films without any problem. But even for such outstanding figure, what would happen in this film was remarkable. The film, which is an adaptation of the novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett, presents the story of a boy, apparent bastard, who lives with his mother in an American neighborhood; one day, with no more, he learns he has good lineage, and that is heir for title and fortune of an English earl, so his life takes an incredible turnaround, but also makes him face difficulties and unexpected tests. Is given the fact that the legendary Pickford would be chosen protagonist, but double-entry, and we will thus see her incarnating the infant heir to nobility, and her mother as well, both roles would fall in the female, whose brother is one of  the two directors of the film by the way, certainly not the most important, though. Typical American film of the era, whose greatest attraction is therefore to feature, doubly, the great Mary.

          

In a neighborhood and time non specified in New York, we see some children fight, one of them is Cedric Errol, who lives with his mother (both the Pickford). The quarrelsome boy and his mother, "Dearest", live quietly, the child's friends are Mr. Hobbs (James A. Marcus), Mrs. McGinty (Kate Price) and Dick (Fred Malatesta), members of the community. Meanwhile, in England, lives the Count of Dorincourt (Claude Gillingwater), whose eldest son has just died in a horseback riding accident, and to whom his butler Havisham (Joseph J. Dowling), tells his new heir, is a unrecognized son who lives in America. It is none other than Cedric, Havisham informs the mother and child the novelties, both doubt at the beginning with such a revelation, but end up travel to England, Cedric says goodbye to his friends. Cedric, the new little Lord Fauntleroy, stays at Earl's huge castle, but Dearest, despised by the old nobleman, is relegated to a castle lodge. Little Lord knows his grandfather, they get along easily, even is officially presented as his grandson and legal heir of title and fortune, although Dearest remains relegated. Things get complicated when a woman appears claiming and ensuring that is the true-heir mother, Cedric's fate is in jeopardy, but he and his old friends will fight for his future and happiness.

The scenes of the two characters together are certainly something that stands out in the film, considering the year in which this technical resource was achieved, we could consider a feat, because we actually see them virtually interact as they were two different people. It will not be an extraordinary nor immortal or undying result achieved in that paragraph, sequences in which both characters interact, but again, for the year of production, results obtained with this skill are digestible and appreciable. It will not lack any voice that stokes or questions about the real need or obligation to use that technique, that almost forced recourse simply to Mary Pickford embody both roles, at that point would have been preferable to use a real child, or leave only maternal role for her; views on such a singular fact will be many. But the true is that Canadian actress embodies both roles, and also makes it quite acceptably, although indeed I do not consider this her most brilliant performance, definitely she does not shy away from a challenge so unique. At then 29 years, Mary performs what I understand is her first adult role, and even secondary, the female star proves to live up to his legend, founder of United Artists, she worked with the biggest stars of American silent cinema. As we would see one year later in Tess of the storm country (1922) by John S. Robertson, the film becomes a full brilliance of its absolute protagonist, the Pickford; in any other case it would have been unthinkable for a woman to receive such a burden and acting responsibility so repeatedly, but in the case of Mary, it was just natural. Is as fun as remarkable that the minuteness of her size is positive, the petite actress perhaps inadvertently benefits from her small stature, and can be seen almost true, in terms of size, a child rather than a woman who reaches almost three decades of life; even delirious sequence is believed, without making it look absurd, the little Lord, the Pickford, fighting with another child.

His character child is soon delineated, an infant who has no minor problem braiding to fight, a simple child, but not lacking in courage. On the other hand, remains on the retina the image of the proud and aged patriarch, the Earl, who in the first meeting he has with his new heir, incredibly, snorts, we see him snorting what can not be anything else than cocaine, for unlikely as this may sound; even when the Little Lord wants to imitate his grandfather, we see him doing the same activity, and just as implausibly, we see the infant sneeze. Surely details quite curious, to put it in a way, that add an extravagant touch, and very funny, in the film. But definitely the story does not feel as a formidable and extraordinary story, at times, in the most critical moments of drama, feel these events somewhat forced, as a string of incredible events, improbable revelations, but those flow one after another, feeling rather light. So, in an instant the good Cedric goes from being humble, to a wealthy heir to an Earl; the other loses knighthood to another infant, to finally regain their lineage and heritage. Perhaps somewhat forced you feel the string of almost epiphanic events, certainly has not much dramatic force the way the facts are presented, the film suffers from something facile, like watching the chubby husband of the woman who claims to be mother of the true heir, we see him appearing at the same living room of the Earl, and telling his wife he has been looking for her, unmasking his lie completely. Also, compared to other roles of the great Pickford, it is no maximum dramatic requirement from child leading role, but considering the context and the time when these stories were treated, must have been received willingly. Those days, American films were often produced in large quantities, almost en masse, but quantity is not synonymous with quality, and without being a mediocre picture, certain austerity is shown on its narrative, lack of variety in its visual narrative resources, in the form of an almost always static camera.

Absence of travellings, or even a hint of dynamism in the camera, practically all the film we see static shots, still shots, quite economized narrative, which results in a technically not so attractive film, except for the resource that gets Pickford's duplicate participations united. That was the American cinema then, little art, genuine art, films industrializing, it was a source of entertainment, decent entertainment, but not an art itself; apparently the formula of adapting literary novels which pleased the audience was quite a spread custom in Hollywood, like this film. All these would land in involution and decadence of the current Yankee cinema, but at the time, pictures were a worthy entertainment and not inconsiderable, though distase lots of true-art films that were produced, for example, in Germany, with expressionism, among other countries. The film, reflecting the original book by Frances Hodgson Burnett, slides as well a sample of rivalry of Yankee feud with England, the suspicion that existed at one time, and to some point still exists between the two countries, but that conciliatory ending, so simple, according to the feature, is addressed to sublimate it. The film, incidentally, has in its credits two directors, in order of relevance, we have Alfred E. Green, one of the most prolific Yankees filmmakers of then, who began his artistic career as an actor, but ended up shooting over a hundred movies, a real prolific talent, although not considered among the titans; on the other hand, Mary's brother, Jack Pickford, a man whose greatest merit in the cinema was being brother to his sister, who tirelessly sought help for him in Hollywood, but most likely his contribution in this film, one of the two who allegedly directed, was little more than testimonial. The film is not close at any time to the great masterpieces of silent films, contemporaries to it, but, involving by twice the mythical Mary Pickford, an appreciable film is set, and definitely a must for fans of one of the great silent cinema muses.

Foolish Wives (1922) - Erich von Stroheim

Erich von Stroheim is one of the greatest filmmakers of the silent film era, was in the twenties of the last century when some of his greatest masterpieces would be produced, and in the case of the film now discussed is a work in which Austria-Hungarian is more versatile than ever. Von Stroheim acts as writer, director and lead actor in this film, which sets up a case that more than one occasion would happen to the director, severe mutilation of his work by producers, and is also one of the roughest and complicated filmmakings for the creator, by various factors. It presents the story of a swindler individual, a subject up to Monaco where masquerades as a Russian nobleman to try to seduce the wife of an eminent American diplomat, while maintaining links with two women, apparently his cousins, and also generates fraud and counterfeiting. Continues Von Stroheim following the main guidelines that lead many of his works, portrays with great precision and detail the Monegasque social scene, while shows, while graphics as hypocritical and dummy can become certain individuals, and how manipulable, frivolous Americans can be, particularly women. A feature whose original footage was brutally mutilated and reduced, however still continues maintaining much appeal.

             

It is first seen to Princess Olga Petchnikoff (Maude George) and Vera (Mae Busch) with Count Sergius Karamzin (von Stroheim), Russian army officer, all in the comfort of their rooms. Are visited by Cesare Ventucci (Cesare Gravina), an individual with whom they are producing counterfeit bills, they plan to circulate them. Count learns that a major US political official will arrive in Monte Carlo, and plans with cousins to get linked to that man, posing as Russian nobles. Arrive at Monaco's special envoy Andrew J. Hughes (Rudolph Christians), and his wife Helen (Miss DuPont), a woman who draws the attention of Sergius. Count manages to get intimate with her, situations where she feels attracted, while Andrew notes with annoyance that growing closeness. In turn, the Count deceives his maid, Maruschka (Dale Fuller) with false promises of marriage, economic ruin, and snatches the whole savings of her entire live. Sergius tries to pass off as true both their counterfeits and how to grow maid's money betting, without much luck. Count gets Helen carried to his room, interviews alone with her, but Maruschka, mad with jealousy, catches fire throughout the house. Finally tragic outcome will find Count, his cousins will also be stopped, and Helen stays with Andrew.

The first images we appreciate of the film are already showing us its central protagonists, the well Princesses Olga and Vera, as well as the Count, enjoying good times and having certain luxuries, because the filmmaker shows us images of the maid by putting pillows under the feet under the table. Along with this, we also see food and caviar, luxury sumptuous banquet, with a single idea or detailed shot the filmmaker is delineating his characters. Is the film a new instance of the taste of von Stroheim to blockbusters, big budget and that he justifies with a variety of technical resources in its realization to appreciate as many shots, panoramic shots of the city of Monaco, big general shots, shots of crowds, interesting frames, we appreciate its well-known thoroughness in work to portray these aspects, a characteristic that would stay forever in his artistic personality, the master shows the domain and expert knowledge of film language, the wide technician range he has to shoot his films, really a cinema maestro. And of course, his close-ups, something a task in which he was always efficient, close-ups that capture efficiently actoral records, their expressions and gestures, as in fact on the feature we can see great performances, starting with the director and screenwriter (what an individual von Stroheim, screenwriter, director and principal performer in this film, a real all-terrain filmmaker), following Miss DuPont. The use of light, shadows, the color contrasts is already quite good by the filmmaker, without it being yet his greatest work in that regard. It is able, however, to produce a superb chiaroscuro von Stroheim moments after the fire sequence, where is Maruschka. Within the obviousness that is the color range in a film in black and white, it is interesting to note the color difference used by the Austro-Hungarian, creating atmospheres that permeates every sequence, a resource already used in silent films, black and white cinema, with all cold or warm tones, sepia tones, obviously all to illustrate different times, night, indoors, outdoors, etc; among other major European titans, for example we have also seen this resource in prodigious Victor Sjostrom.

The image of the main character, Count, is also shown soon, firing at a target testing his marksmanship effectiveness, smoking proudly, and with the monocle which will not come off at all the feature; it is distinguished as a gentleman, or at least that appears to be, constructed to project that image to others. But his real personality is also readily diagrammed, when the daughter of Ventucci, a female of strange behavior, with apparent mental disorders, after being studied by the camera, is addressed by the count, who nevertheless shows intentions apparently dishonest with the woman. We see that he is an abject subject of reprehensible actions, from the beginning we see his personality in those instants. It is a manipulative individual and knowledgeable about how to get what he wants, seducing the wife of a diplomat, indicating a child to announce his false lineage with the most loudly as possible voice. On the feature mainly we appreciate that, falsehood, false of these characters, charades or artificial stuff, the film portrays his game, his falsehoods are portrayed such as the farce of banknotes that will circulate. It is therefore a bunch of swindlers, who make a false image, through which achieve their Machiavellian goals, seduce Helen in the case of Sergius. The Count is certainly one of the meanest characters built by the Austro-Hungarian, we see eloquent sequences, such as watching him giving some privacy to Helen to be undressed, but he, first turning around to pretend false respect and solemnity, then through a mirror looks her undressing, appreciates her relative nakedness with depraved smile. As if that was not enough, in those eloquent moments a goat appears, animal that literally puts its tail in the face of false noble, insistently puts its not so noble parts on his face. A certainly not very elegant figure presented by the filmmaker, but it serves to ridicule the figure of the swindler, potently to reinforce his ridiculous figure and personality, and incidentally outlines a certain comic scene thanks to the impertinent animal. The false noble first with subterfuges approaches Helen at night, the next morning he smooches with one of his cousins, and then still has time and mood to lie and deceive the maid. It is therefore a low, abject, vile being, and its image is reinforced by that perennial sardonic attitude, that sly smile that complements using military cap sideways, crooked, twisted, as the same character who wears it.

Another eloquent image of that character is as he relates to Maruschka, resulting almost unbelievable that the maid had actually believed that the Count would marry her, beseeching and suffering for the conduct of the false noble. But the figure comes when the Count pretends to mourn with her, the face between his hands, covered, until pouring a liquid pretending to be his own tears, but when she does not see, he laughs, outlines again that wry smile, he mocks women, and ultimately, in implausible way, gets money from his own maid, he tricks to keep the money; he is a wretch, and incidentally the title of the film is justified, the lewdness, frivolities that can be seen throughout social circles, particularly the upper stratum now. Even we see the Count wiping his mouth after kissing Maruschka -the female kisses a bird in extreme close-up, figure that we will see similar in Greed (1924)-, it is a harsh and effective portrait presented. The final piece of his personality will be graphed when the fire show us his true face, the face of cowardice. With that sequence is finished tearing apart the figure of Count, falsehood, lies, cowardice, all engaged in a cold Machiavellianism, but finally ridiculed. The subject treated by von Stroheim, the situations portrayed acquire greater vitality when we think about the context in which the picture is placed, the context is always vital to better understand and assess an artistic work. In the twenties of the last century, in the film industry Hollywood ceased to be the great artistic luminary, its main exponents, Griffith at the head, began a slow artistic decline, and the great European masters migrated to Yankee land, to shine with their own light in that environment. This is the case, among many others, of von Stroheim, a newcomer to the United States, seen as an exotic foreign, and the fact that Americans certainly ignored the manners of European royalty, is something that probably shocked and really amused the filmmaker, adapting it to some extent in his feature, as he ponders the frivolities and trivialities of human beings, lower levels of their personalities and instincts; probably he poured some of his own mind, insufflating that vitality all artistic creation has when it feeds on reality, real experiences.

We are also facing one of the pictures whose shooting was among the roughest for Erich, perhaps the greatest in that regard. Nine hours of footage in total were those produced by von Stroheim, material that was reduced to little more than two hours, another detail very similar to what would happen two years later in Greed, with all the frictions and difficulties that this entails, staying many sub plots in the air, many characters losing relevance, losing cohesion and fluidity the work in its entirety. There are alternate endings, like Helen having a baby, Count dying and being devoured by an octopus (! ...), countless asperities in final montage, not to mention the obvious and evident narrative ruptures, resulting of course of severe mutilation and reducted material, much of the original script was severely modified, many details changed, others simply eliminated, in another example of the cruel intervention of producers on a feature. Last but not least, Rudolph Christians, actor who plays the diplomat, had to be replaced, as he perished during filming, and replacement used, mostly appearing backwards, he appears with white hair, contrasting with the black hair of Christians, quite striking, knowing the meticulous detail Erich's personality. Certainly a very rich film from virtually all points of view from which to analyze it, a feature which directly influenced a great filmmaker like Jean Renoir, and curiously the French would use his referent idol von Stroheim in The Great Illusion (1937), clearly showing how well acting was suited for Austria-Hungarian director (actually, his production as an actor is tremendously greater than his production as a filmmaker, but the genius is not measured in quantity). Also interestingly, Renoir was characterized as well as a director and leading actor of his films at the same time; very similar both titans. Von Stroheim's feature is part unfortunately of lost pictures, those movies will never be appreciated as its creator genuinely wanted, not done as he wanted to create them, but as attempts to approach it; different versions over the years emerge but will not be more than that, efforts to rebuild impossible. Reductions from nine hours of shooting to two, a cruel mutilation that would make look not great thing those which suffered Orson Welles himself. Yet it is one of the referent pictures by a major filmmaker in silent cinema, the golden age of film art, a more-than-worthy -to-see work for connoisseurs of the best cinema.