24 reviews
Very dated, but also exceptional for 1921
- planktonrules
- Dec 28, 2008
- Permalink
Domestic interactions, women as real women--a fast early drama
The Blot (1921)
Domestic interactions, women as real women
The first thing about of every writer's mouth about any Lois Weber film is that it is directed by a woman. A silent film. 1921. And it's true.
But taken straight, The Blot, is a sweet, well constructed domestic drama with surprisingly good acting and a faster pace of editing than even some classics from roughly the same time such as Griffith's Broken Blossoms (1919). The general plot is curious, clever, and complicated enough I got a little lost for awhile. And the middle of the film, once the situation is "set up" for us, develops slowly, even as it cuts between scenes rapidly. The final resolution is not quite clear until it happens, and the final shot is abrupt and poignant to the point of being brilliant and inspired.
There are countless (literally) silent movies of this general type from this period--that is, all kinds of stories that the hungry movie audience of the 1920s at up. And this one is not exceptional from a formal point of view (for example, it has no moving camera, depending on fast cutting and snappy acting for its pace). What makes it interesting (regardless of Weber's gender for now) is the realism of many of the small scenes--the joking at the beginning, the professor's daughter's ease with the camera. There are silent film stiffnesses (for lack of a better word), like the professor in front of the class (no wonder the students are bored) and the professor's wife, who unfortunately has a large role in her unconvincing sorrows. But there are shining moments, including the lead student, who I thought was rather brilliant and only later learned was one of my favorite less known silent actors, Louis Calhern. He makes it worth it alone.
We should ask, is there a woman's touch here? Does Weber give us a view of her female characters that is any different (or better) than what other (male) directors give us? Maybe yes! I'm no scholar for this period at all, and someone would have to dig up not only von Stroheim and other famous directors, but all the routine filmmakers that form the backdrop for the audience of the time (an audience rapt by spectacles, crime flicks, period pieces, comedies and stars themselves, no matter what the genre, like Rudolph Valentino). What strikes me here is the purely normal, domestic basis of most of the scenes--even a cat and its kittens form a second family as a lovable metaphor
The secondary and more interesting conflict is between two middle class families (one clearly with more money than the other), and the women that are in charge of the day to day life of those families. It makes homemaking (cooking, mostly) important. Women are shown to be smart, complicated (within the limits of the plot), and non-objectified. This last is probably where many feminist critics would begin, and it's worth stressing. Even if the heroine in a Griffith film, or a von Sternberg for that matter (they are hardly comparable in the same sentence) is believable and admirable, it is often from a male point of view. They are interesting as the objective (and object) for some man. This is even true for Chaplin, who treats his women with a whole different kind of reverence. But Weber is just a hair different, or at least we can think about it this way. If the professor's daughter is the young "heroine" or female lead, she is no siren, and she does not just conform to some model of mystery, coy sweetness, or plain old beauty. Not completely.
I think I stretch a point--but it's worth looking at. Beyond that, the main conflict, if you can call it that, the one that leads to the romance, is the reason for the title. The "blot" is the shame on a society that doesn't pay its professors (and pastors) the money they deserve. An odd theme (but a good one from my point of view--guess what I do for a living), and one that really just serves as an excuse for the rest of the entertainment. But it has social significance of its own, especially at the beginning of a greedy and capitalist "roaring" decade that The Blot helps kick off.
Check it out. You might be surprised. It's no Sunrise or Greed for sure, but it has its own inner fire.
Domestic interactions, women as real women
The first thing about of every writer's mouth about any Lois Weber film is that it is directed by a woman. A silent film. 1921. And it's true.
But taken straight, The Blot, is a sweet, well constructed domestic drama with surprisingly good acting and a faster pace of editing than even some classics from roughly the same time such as Griffith's Broken Blossoms (1919). The general plot is curious, clever, and complicated enough I got a little lost for awhile. And the middle of the film, once the situation is "set up" for us, develops slowly, even as it cuts between scenes rapidly. The final resolution is not quite clear until it happens, and the final shot is abrupt and poignant to the point of being brilliant and inspired.
There are countless (literally) silent movies of this general type from this period--that is, all kinds of stories that the hungry movie audience of the 1920s at up. And this one is not exceptional from a formal point of view (for example, it has no moving camera, depending on fast cutting and snappy acting for its pace). What makes it interesting (regardless of Weber's gender for now) is the realism of many of the small scenes--the joking at the beginning, the professor's daughter's ease with the camera. There are silent film stiffnesses (for lack of a better word), like the professor in front of the class (no wonder the students are bored) and the professor's wife, who unfortunately has a large role in her unconvincing sorrows. But there are shining moments, including the lead student, who I thought was rather brilliant and only later learned was one of my favorite less known silent actors, Louis Calhern. He makes it worth it alone.
We should ask, is there a woman's touch here? Does Weber give us a view of her female characters that is any different (or better) than what other (male) directors give us? Maybe yes! I'm no scholar for this period at all, and someone would have to dig up not only von Stroheim and other famous directors, but all the routine filmmakers that form the backdrop for the audience of the time (an audience rapt by spectacles, crime flicks, period pieces, comedies and stars themselves, no matter what the genre, like Rudolph Valentino). What strikes me here is the purely normal, domestic basis of most of the scenes--even a cat and its kittens form a second family as a lovable metaphor
The secondary and more interesting conflict is between two middle class families (one clearly with more money than the other), and the women that are in charge of the day to day life of those families. It makes homemaking (cooking, mostly) important. Women are shown to be smart, complicated (within the limits of the plot), and non-objectified. This last is probably where many feminist critics would begin, and it's worth stressing. Even if the heroine in a Griffith film, or a von Sternberg for that matter (they are hardly comparable in the same sentence) is believable and admirable, it is often from a male point of view. They are interesting as the objective (and object) for some man. This is even true for Chaplin, who treats his women with a whole different kind of reverence. But Weber is just a hair different, or at least we can think about it this way. If the professor's daughter is the young "heroine" or female lead, she is no siren, and she does not just conform to some model of mystery, coy sweetness, or plain old beauty. Not completely.
I think I stretch a point--but it's worth looking at. Beyond that, the main conflict, if you can call it that, the one that leads to the romance, is the reason for the title. The "blot" is the shame on a society that doesn't pay its professors (and pastors) the money they deserve. An odd theme (but a good one from my point of view--guess what I do for a living), and one that really just serves as an excuse for the rest of the entertainment. But it has social significance of its own, especially at the beginning of a greedy and capitalist "roaring" decade that The Blot helps kick off.
Check it out. You might be surprised. It's no Sunrise or Greed for sure, but it has its own inner fire.
- secondtake
- Sep 25, 2009
- Permalink
An interesting look at some social issues of 1920 America
Lois Weber was one of the few women directing films in the early part of the 20th century, and she tended to focus on socially conscious themes of her time. This film has to do with how society rewards educators versus other better-paid professions, even though those well-paid professionals needed the services of the educator to learn their trade in the first place. In this particular film the contrast is between a professor's family that is living on the professor's near-poverty wage and their prosperous next-door neighbors, the family of a shoe-maker. Made in 1920, it is a more realistic look at "genteel poverty" than you were likely to get at the movies at that time. In 1920 the poor were mainly shown as agrarian folk living in "Tobacco Road" style poverty or those living in crime-ridden tenements. This shows that the poor can live in middle class areas with the veneer of a middle-class lifestyle but just be lacking in funds to finance anything that comes at them that is out of the ordinary.
The film focuses on the professor's daughter and her two suitors. One is an equally poverty-stricken preacher, the other played by a 26 year old Louis Calhern, is a wealthy student of the professor's. The professor's daughter becomes ill, and the doctor says that what she needs is "nourishing food". Her mother decides to do what she has never done before, go into debt. However, the grocer demands cash upfront for all purchases. The desperate mother returns home and notices that the next-door neighbor has a very tempting chicken cooling in the kitchen window. What she does next, the daughter's reaction, and the kindly gestures of Calhern's character lead up to a well-played yet predictable ending.
This film reveals several interesting points about life that was true until the 1960's. One fact is that one of the most expensive commodities in life until that time was food. That is why the professor's family is less worried about calling a doctor for the daughter than they are about how they are going to afford the balanced diet their daughter requires for recovery. Another expensive commodity was furniture, as is pointed out by the professor's worn home furnishings. Today cheap and attractive furniture abounds, and it might leave some scratching their heads when they see families terrified of someone coming and taking their furniture for payment of a debt. Nobody would do that today since used furniture is practically worthless.
This film is worthwhile viewing, and one of its best points is that it doesn't paint anyone in the film as either completely good or bad. The qualities and weaknesses of all of the players are shown realistically, and overall I recommend this film.
The film focuses on the professor's daughter and her two suitors. One is an equally poverty-stricken preacher, the other played by a 26 year old Louis Calhern, is a wealthy student of the professor's. The professor's daughter becomes ill, and the doctor says that what she needs is "nourishing food". Her mother decides to do what she has never done before, go into debt. However, the grocer demands cash upfront for all purchases. The desperate mother returns home and notices that the next-door neighbor has a very tempting chicken cooling in the kitchen window. What she does next, the daughter's reaction, and the kindly gestures of Calhern's character lead up to a well-played yet predictable ending.
This film reveals several interesting points about life that was true until the 1960's. One fact is that one of the most expensive commodities in life until that time was food. That is why the professor's family is less worried about calling a doctor for the daughter than they are about how they are going to afford the balanced diet their daughter requires for recovery. Another expensive commodity was furniture, as is pointed out by the professor's worn home furnishings. Today cheap and attractive furniture abounds, and it might leave some scratching their heads when they see families terrified of someone coming and taking their furniture for payment of a debt. Nobody would do that today since used furniture is practically worthless.
This film is worthwhile viewing, and one of its best points is that it doesn't paint anyone in the film as either completely good or bad. The qualities and weaknesses of all of the players are shown realistically, and overall I recommend this film.
Deserves to Be Seen
Blot, The (1921)
*** (out of 4)
There's no question that THE BLOT is a message picture and while it does go overboard at time the thing's heart is in the right place and there's no question that much of it is very touching. The film centers around a poor Professor (Philip Hubbard) and his beautiful daughter Amelia (Claire Windsor) who is wanted by a rich man, Phil (Louis Calhern) who just happens to be her father's student. The family are struggling with very severe poverty, which soon begins to weigh on Phil who wonders why some eat and throw away so much while others are near death because of the lack of nutrition. Director Weber has pretty much been forgotten today but at one point she was a very key figure in the early days of cinema with such films as HYPOCRITES and of course this one. I think a lot of people might roll their eyes to the heavy preaching but at the same time there's quite a bit of good in this film and you really can't blame it too much since its heart is in the right place. I'm really not sure how well this movie went over in 1921 but it's clear that it was a cry or at least plea that those who have plenty should share with those less fortunate. I guess that message rings just as true today considering what's going on in this country as it did in 1921 but you can't help but be impressed with the way the story plays itself out. There's quite a bit going on in this picture with various characters having a connection to this poor family and either wanting to help them or hurt them. This includes a neighbor who doesn't care how poor they are and she gets her chance for revenge when the poor mother finally cracks and steals a chicken from her. The story of the rich student who falls in love with the poor girl is handled perfectly and the way he wants to help but can't simply because the poor family are so proud is handled extremely well too. The performances are a major plus with Windsor doing a very good job as the daughter and Calhern is equally as good. The two of them create a nice spark together and Hubbard is one you can't help but care for. Again, there are some moments that are just way too over the top including the daughter's reaction to the mother stealing the chicken because this reaction is so out there that you'd think she saw her mom shoot some handicapped children. Another problem is the final ten-minutes and how the story plays out. I won't ruin what happens but it just doesn't work. THE BLOT seems to have been forgotten but that's a real shame because there's enough here to make it worth viewing and like many other Weber films it's worthy of being rediscovered.
*** (out of 4)
There's no question that THE BLOT is a message picture and while it does go overboard at time the thing's heart is in the right place and there's no question that much of it is very touching. The film centers around a poor Professor (Philip Hubbard) and his beautiful daughter Amelia (Claire Windsor) who is wanted by a rich man, Phil (Louis Calhern) who just happens to be her father's student. The family are struggling with very severe poverty, which soon begins to weigh on Phil who wonders why some eat and throw away so much while others are near death because of the lack of nutrition. Director Weber has pretty much been forgotten today but at one point she was a very key figure in the early days of cinema with such films as HYPOCRITES and of course this one. I think a lot of people might roll their eyes to the heavy preaching but at the same time there's quite a bit of good in this film and you really can't blame it too much since its heart is in the right place. I'm really not sure how well this movie went over in 1921 but it's clear that it was a cry or at least plea that those who have plenty should share with those less fortunate. I guess that message rings just as true today considering what's going on in this country as it did in 1921 but you can't help but be impressed with the way the story plays itself out. There's quite a bit going on in this picture with various characters having a connection to this poor family and either wanting to help them or hurt them. This includes a neighbor who doesn't care how poor they are and she gets her chance for revenge when the poor mother finally cracks and steals a chicken from her. The story of the rich student who falls in love with the poor girl is handled perfectly and the way he wants to help but can't simply because the poor family are so proud is handled extremely well too. The performances are a major plus with Windsor doing a very good job as the daughter and Calhern is equally as good. The two of them create a nice spark together and Hubbard is one you can't help but care for. Again, there are some moments that are just way too over the top including the daughter's reaction to the mother stealing the chicken because this reaction is so out there that you'd think she saw her mom shoot some handicapped children. Another problem is the final ten-minutes and how the story plays out. I won't ruin what happens but it just doesn't work. THE BLOT seems to have been forgotten but that's a real shame because there's enough here to make it worth viewing and like many other Weber films it's worthy of being rediscovered.
- Michael_Elliott
- Nov 18, 2010
- Permalink
If the Shoe Fits, Wear It Out
Pretty librarian Claire Windsor (as Amelia Griggs) begins to attract eligible men; they include the boy next door, their community's poor young minister, and wealthy student Louis Calhern (as Phil West). Since Ms. Windsor's parents are poverty-stricken, mother Margaret McWade (acting up a storm) would like her to marry Mr. Calhern. He is a student of Windsor's poorly-paid professor father Philip Hubbard. When Windsor becomes ill, the doctor orders Ms. McWade to provide her daughter with nourishing food - but the family doesn't even have enough money to make house payments, or feed itself and the family cats. Learning how the other half lives, Windsor's suitors come to her rescue - and teach viewers about humanity...
"Men are only boys grown tall," is our introduction. Guessing writer/director Lois Weber was trumpeting a call for charitable fairness, and higher pay for clergy and college professors; this is accomplished by the end of the narrative, as society's "boys" seem to have a better recognition of their responsibility. Within its narrative, "The Blot" hearkens an uneven distribution of income. Presently, much ado is made of Ms. Weber's gender. All sorts of readings are possible, most unsatisfying...
My enjoyment of the film is in its depiction of class - specifically the conflicts between "old money" (the extravagant West family), "new money" (the neighboring Olsen family), and "no money" (the lowly Griggs family). The real "class warfare" is between the lower classes, of course. Like today, the poor don't really resent the upper class, who live a lifestyle they do not even fully understand; those of middle and lower classes more often resent and envy each other, which is exactly what many (not all) of the super-rich want. Weber may not make her point, but she makes another one. The symbolism, much involving shoes, is strong. The setting is superb; it isn't more than you can see elsewhere, but it is conveyed exceptionally here.
******* The Blot (8/19/21) Lois Weber ~ Claire Windsor, Louis Calhern, Margaret McWade, Philip Hubbard
"Men are only boys grown tall," is our introduction. Guessing writer/director Lois Weber was trumpeting a call for charitable fairness, and higher pay for clergy and college professors; this is accomplished by the end of the narrative, as society's "boys" seem to have a better recognition of their responsibility. Within its narrative, "The Blot" hearkens an uneven distribution of income. Presently, much ado is made of Ms. Weber's gender. All sorts of readings are possible, most unsatisfying...
My enjoyment of the film is in its depiction of class - specifically the conflicts between "old money" (the extravagant West family), "new money" (the neighboring Olsen family), and "no money" (the lowly Griggs family). The real "class warfare" is between the lower classes, of course. Like today, the poor don't really resent the upper class, who live a lifestyle they do not even fully understand; those of middle and lower classes more often resent and envy each other, which is exactly what many (not all) of the super-rich want. Weber may not make her point, but she makes another one. The symbolism, much involving shoes, is strong. The setting is superb; it isn't more than you can see elsewhere, but it is conveyed exceptionally here.
******* The Blot (8/19/21) Lois Weber ~ Claire Windsor, Louis Calhern, Margaret McWade, Philip Hubbard
- wes-connors
- Jun 8, 2012
- Permalink
HIST American Film
While watching "The Blot" I found myself pleasantly surprised by so many things about it. Unlike many who have reviewed this film I did not find it the least bit slow. In fact I was very surprised by all the many fast camera cuts and jumping between scenes, that were used and I was very surprised at how well they seemed to make up for the lack of moving cameras that they had at the time. In light of that and many other things, it was quite obvious to me that Lois Weber was extremely talented and ahead of her time. What I enjoyed most about this film was Lois Weber's skill in framing and shooting scenes. The extreme contrast and grainy contrast throughout the film made it seem that nearly every other shot, if put on pause, would make a beautiful, old-fashioned photograph that you might find framed and hung on the wall.
"The Blot", heavy with social issues and purpose that applies to its time, is a very enjoyable and lovely silent film. It does not surprise me that Weber was the highest paid director of her time.
"The Blot", heavy with social issues and purpose that applies to its time, is a very enjoyable and lovely silent film. It does not surprise me that Weber was the highest paid director of her time.
- s-diblasicrain
- Oct 4, 2009
- Permalink
Has some interesting relevance to society today
I found this an enjoyable film and was surprised to find it was filmed in Boyle Heights--in the early 1920s a very fashionable neighborhood; some of the houses are still there.
At one point in the film an article in Literary Digest for April 30, 1921, "Impoverished College Teaching," is shown. I put this information on Google and found that all of the articles in Literary Digest have been digitized, and I had no trouble downloading and printing this one. I must disagree with the reviewer who said that university professors are paid pretty well today. Maybe some are at the university level, but community college professors, especially adjuncts, are notoriously underpaid--the article has relevance on this issue almost a century later.
I only knew of Louis Calhern from his later films such as The Asphalt Jungle and Athena, so it was interesting to see him early in his career.
It was also interesting that the women in this film have clothing rather different from Weber's film of the same year, Too Wise Wives, where they are very overdressed. Of course, the styles would drastically change when the Flappers showed up a few years later.
At one point in the film an article in Literary Digest for April 30, 1921, "Impoverished College Teaching," is shown. I put this information on Google and found that all of the articles in Literary Digest have been digitized, and I had no trouble downloading and printing this one. I must disagree with the reviewer who said that university professors are paid pretty well today. Maybe some are at the university level, but community college professors, especially adjuncts, are notoriously underpaid--the article has relevance on this issue almost a century later.
I only knew of Louis Calhern from his later films such as The Asphalt Jungle and Athena, so it was interesting to see him early in his career.
It was also interesting that the women in this film have clothing rather different from Weber's film of the same year, Too Wise Wives, where they are very overdressed. Of course, the styles would drastically change when the Flappers showed up a few years later.
Class Structure a Hundred Years Ago
This is a particularly well-made drama about a college professor and his family who live in poverty. Their daughter is beautiful and attracts a particularly obnoxious rich young man. Without going into too many details, this is a moral tale where people are forced to live squalid lives through no choice of their own. It is also a story of reclamation of the soul. It is so easy to judge those who have so little. This is well acted and believable. It's also a story seen from a women's perspective.
Wonderfully engaging
I tuned into "The Blot" mostly to see what Louis Calhern was like in his younger days. But what I found was an engaging, multi-faceted story.
Like a Robert Altman film, "The Blot" tells its tale with a host of interesting characters who interact at various points. The characters are fleshed-out, not just stereotypes.
Without giving away the plot, let me just say that I loved the use of shoes (and even shoe-polishing) to point out class differences. And the scene with the chicken dinner is poignant on many levels.
Highly recommended!
Like a Robert Altman film, "The Blot" tells its tale with a host of interesting characters who interact at various points. The characters are fleshed-out, not just stereotypes.
Without giving away the plot, let me just say that I loved the use of shoes (and even shoe-polishing) to point out class differences. And the scene with the chicken dinner is poignant on many levels.
Highly recommended!
- TomInSanFrancisco
- Jan 12, 2009
- Permalink
Lovely film
After the first fifteen minutes or so, I thought it was going to be pretty dull, but this film steadily engaged me. The plot mainly revolves around the plight of a family in which the father is an underpaid college professor. Claire Windsor, as the daughter, was a revelation. It was also interesting to see a young and not-bad-looking Louis Calhern as her rich suitor. The film's charm lies in its characterizations, and the natural acting by the cast. Perhaps it was the talent of the players, or perhaps the directing of Lois Weber, or perhaps both. I felt like I was watching real people, not actors, and I really wanted to see how their lives developed. Really, this was just a sweet film and I would highly recommend it.
has historical value
Like most of the other reviewers, I found "The Blot" disappointingly slow and preachy, with some flaws in its dramatic structure. However, the film does have value as a study of 1920's social conflicts that people nowadays may not realize even existed. For example, the heroine's mother looks down upon her wealthier next-door neighbors because their money comes from selling shoes (while at the same time she steals from their garbage can to feed the pet cat she can't otherwise afford). How many people today think there is anything "low" about selling shoes? When a group of teenagers boisterously starts an impromptu jazz-piano-and-dance session in a living room, the message is that these kids are vulgar and out of control. But many parents in 2007 would get down on their knees in gratitude if their teenagers engaged in such innocent pastimes. If it wasn't for filmmakers like Lois Weber, such changes in popular opinion would go by unnoticed. In addition, the film does succeed in portraying some of the small heartbreaks of "genteel poverty" and neighborhood rivalry with genuine feeling. And aren't voters everywhere still arguing about whether teachers are fairly compensated for their work?
Wikipedia claims that "The Blot" is unusual for the time in its use of natural light and real locations.
According to film historians, Lois Weber was considered one of the best and most important directors in her day. The fact that modern viewers have trouble relating to the way she tells her stories is in itself evidence that times have changed in ways we might not yet understand. Just one of the many arguments for film preservation.
Wikipedia claims that "The Blot" is unusual for the time in its use of natural light and real locations.
According to film historians, Lois Weber was considered one of the best and most important directors in her day. The fact that modern viewers have trouble relating to the way she tells her stories is in itself evidence that times have changed in ways we might not yet understand. Just one of the many arguments for film preservation.
Weber does not just focus on the poverty stricken family of the professor...
- marnee_lynn
- Sep 12, 2011
- Permalink
The most boring silent film I've ever seen
After all the hype I had read about this film I was expecting a whole lot more, but truthfully it was a dud. I was so bored I actually fell asleep during segments and barely made it to the end without looking like Rip Van Winkle. There is no chemistry between the actors, the plot is dry as toast, and we are supposed to be impressed just because a woman directed this tripe? Sorry, count me out.
Don't waste your time. If you want to watch a compelling film about small town life in America watch Way Down East with Lillian Gish or Hail The Woman with Florence Vidor. Both those films have a spiritual aspect to them that increase their poignancy. "The Blot" was just a Blob.
Don't waste your time. If you want to watch a compelling film about small town life in America watch Way Down East with Lillian Gish or Hail The Woman with Florence Vidor. Both those films have a spiritual aspect to them that increase their poignancy. "The Blot" was just a Blob.
- overseer-3
- Jan 15, 2004
- Permalink
A Lecture
- Cineanalyst
- Jun 11, 2010
- Permalink
Absolutely fascinating as history, as "message," and as film
When Turner Classic Movies presented "The Blot" recently, I recorded it just in case. Despite my long-time interest in silent film, I had never heard of this one, and knew nothing about it.
It is a film that works on several levels, and works well.
Lois Weber, author and director, deserves much more recognition than she now gets. Her directorial talent just shines.
The writing is not so glowing: The "message" of the film is not at all subtle, plus it is now badly out of date. College professors, and especially university professors, get paid pretty well.
Ministers, on the other hand, are still often underpaid, unless they have become "televangelists" or the equivalent, and then they are often overpaid -- although that is, of course, very subjective.
Still, the best part of this film, other than the look at a slice of the world circa 1921, is that nearly every one of the characters is -- and please pardon the wimpy word -- nice.
Nearly every single person is one we can care about, can actually like.
Other than Louis Calhern, who really stood out, none of the actors is known today, except perhaps to other silent movie scholars, but each of them performed well to exceptionally well.
The TCM version had an excellent score by Jim Parker, about whom I know nothing else, but his score had to change pace constantly, as the scene shifted from happy to sad and back.
Mr. Parker has a good grasp of mood, and a good working knowledge of appropriate jazz. I hope we'll be hearing a lot more from him.
I strongly recommend this film.
It is a film that works on several levels, and works well.
Lois Weber, author and director, deserves much more recognition than she now gets. Her directorial talent just shines.
The writing is not so glowing: The "message" of the film is not at all subtle, plus it is now badly out of date. College professors, and especially university professors, get paid pretty well.
Ministers, on the other hand, are still often underpaid, unless they have become "televangelists" or the equivalent, and then they are often overpaid -- although that is, of course, very subjective.
Still, the best part of this film, other than the look at a slice of the world circa 1921, is that nearly every one of the characters is -- and please pardon the wimpy word -- nice.
Nearly every single person is one we can care about, can actually like.
Other than Louis Calhern, who really stood out, none of the actors is known today, except perhaps to other silent movie scholars, but each of them performed well to exceptionally well.
The TCM version had an excellent score by Jim Parker, about whom I know nothing else, but his score had to change pace constantly, as the scene shifted from happy to sad and back.
Mr. Parker has a good grasp of mood, and a good working knowledge of appropriate jazz. I hope we'll be hearing a lot more from him.
I strongly recommend this film.
- morrisonhimself
- Apr 17, 2009
- Permalink
For an intellectual analysis of this film, see the following...
For an intellectual analysis, see Jennifer Parchesky's article "Lois Weber's The Blot: Rewriting Melodrama, Reproducing the Middle Class" in Cinema Journal 39.1 (1999) 23-53 [University of Texas Press].
Through an examination of social conditions during the 1920s, Parchesky defines the ethos, pathos & logos that Lois Weber most likely deduced in the writing and directing the film, the Blot.
Through an examination of social conditions during the 1920s, Parchesky defines the ethos, pathos & logos that Lois Weber most likely deduced in the writing and directing the film, the Blot.
- bluestylus
- Mar 29, 2002
- Permalink
Ham-Fisted Virtue-Signaling
Lois Weber's Masterpiece
By the time the 1920's rolled into high gear, director/writer/producer Lois Weber, later labeled as "the most important female director the American film industry has known," had just signed a five-picture deal with Paramount Pictures. Previously, her many movies, estimated between 200 and 400, of which only 20 survive, addressed current societal issues of her day. Reading in a magazine about the impoverished plight of poorly paid educators, she decided to bring the issue to the forefront in her fourth movie for Paramount.
She illustrates the extreme poverty of a fictitious college professor and his family's battle to simply feed themselves in September 1921's "The Blot." They are so poor the professor's wife has to make daily decisions on what low cost foods to feed the family of three to survive. Their daughter, meanwhile, needs to work long hours in the library to help her parents make ends meet.
"The Blot" is considered Weber's masterpiece. The subject matter alone, unique in addressing a problem society by and large ignored, spotlights those whose value to civilization, so crucial in raising the educational awareness in the classroom, are often ignored by beancounters in the administration hierarchy when it comes to the paycheck. Weber felt such educators were unappreciated while consumer product manufacturers (similar to today's high tech firms) are paid considerably more. Her film points out as an example of the professor's next door neighbor, Hans Olsen, a shoemaker, earning considerably more money than the educator.
As a naturalist director, Weber opted for realistic settings rather than film inside a sterile studio. She used buildings around the old University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), before the campus was relocated to Westwood. These Vermont Avenue homes and classrooms highlight a middle class neighborhood that behind some doors food became the most prized commodity for living.
Before "The Blot" was released Paramount decided to cancel its agreement with her because the company felt its audiences were becoming bored with her social messages, despite the high craftsmanship her films displayed. Weber scurried around to find another distribution company to place the movie into theaters. F. W. Warren Corporation was willing to handle the task, but its association with small theaters wasn't enough to make a profit for the film, forcing her to close her production studio. Upon retrospect, one film historian noted that Weber failed to adapt her movies to the changing tastes of viewers while refusing to "feature big-name stars or to glamorize consumerist excess in her films."
Advising young women to avoid filmmaking careers after her personal situation soured, Weber was in and out of the movie industry for several more years. The apex of her creativity concluded with "The Blot." Her final movie, low-budgeted 1934's "White Heat, was her only talkie she directed. In November 1939, at age 60, divorced and destitute, Weber died of a bleeding ulcer. With little public fanfare, she was cremated with the location of her remains unknown.
She illustrates the extreme poverty of a fictitious college professor and his family's battle to simply feed themselves in September 1921's "The Blot." They are so poor the professor's wife has to make daily decisions on what low cost foods to feed the family of three to survive. Their daughter, meanwhile, needs to work long hours in the library to help her parents make ends meet.
"The Blot" is considered Weber's masterpiece. The subject matter alone, unique in addressing a problem society by and large ignored, spotlights those whose value to civilization, so crucial in raising the educational awareness in the classroom, are often ignored by beancounters in the administration hierarchy when it comes to the paycheck. Weber felt such educators were unappreciated while consumer product manufacturers (similar to today's high tech firms) are paid considerably more. Her film points out as an example of the professor's next door neighbor, Hans Olsen, a shoemaker, earning considerably more money than the educator.
As a naturalist director, Weber opted for realistic settings rather than film inside a sterile studio. She used buildings around the old University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), before the campus was relocated to Westwood. These Vermont Avenue homes and classrooms highlight a middle class neighborhood that behind some doors food became the most prized commodity for living.
Before "The Blot" was released Paramount decided to cancel its agreement with her because the company felt its audiences were becoming bored with her social messages, despite the high craftsmanship her films displayed. Weber scurried around to find another distribution company to place the movie into theaters. F. W. Warren Corporation was willing to handle the task, but its association with small theaters wasn't enough to make a profit for the film, forcing her to close her production studio. Upon retrospect, one film historian noted that Weber failed to adapt her movies to the changing tastes of viewers while refusing to "feature big-name stars or to glamorize consumerist excess in her films."
Advising young women to avoid filmmaking careers after her personal situation soured, Weber was in and out of the movie industry for several more years. The apex of her creativity concluded with "The Blot." Her final movie, low-budgeted 1934's "White Heat, was her only talkie she directed. In November 1939, at age 60, divorced and destitute, Weber died of a bleeding ulcer. With little public fanfare, she was cremated with the location of her remains unknown.
- springfieldrental
- Oct 18, 2021
- Permalink
Well-made silent.
Another Silent Problem Picture Unfortunately Still Topical Today
The title of 'The Blot' suggests a comedy, and until the half way mark the film itself resembles a gentle romantic comedy attractively shot on location in 1920s surburbia. But the mood darkens as the genteel poverty weighing down on the Professor's Wife (Margaret McWade) eventually breaks her spirit; and with the help of a few liberally sprinkled misunderstandings things get more and more fraught, until the meaning of the film's title is eventually sprung upon us. And once again a silent film concerns itself with a social ill nearly a hundred years ago that today remains still very much a part of 21st Century reality.
Over thirty years later James Mason in 'Bigger Than Life' was playing a high school teacher forced to moonlight as a taxi driver in order to make ends meet. In many ways things seem to have got even worse in the sixty years that have passed since then; since although behind on the rent, the impecunious family in 'The Blot' somehow live in a house just as big as their prosperous neighbours, and which looks palatial compared with the rabbit hutches in which so many people in the wealthier countries live today.
Over thirty years later James Mason in 'Bigger Than Life' was playing a high school teacher forced to moonlight as a taxi driver in order to make ends meet. In many ways things seem to have got even worse in the sixty years that have passed since then; since although behind on the rent, the impecunious family in 'The Blot' somehow live in a house just as big as their prosperous neighbours, and which looks palatial compared with the rabbit hutches in which so many people in the wealthier countries live today.
- richardchatten
- Mar 20, 2018
- Permalink
1920's Materialism - A Jolt Down to Earth!!
Lois Weber: America's First Major Woman Director.
- TheCapsuleCritic
- May 26, 2024
- Permalink
"the few"
A statistic that may be of interest. I have a database of silent films that contains about 2000 directors of all nationalities. It simply contains films I have personally watched and have copies of but is probably reasonably representative. Male directors are certainly far the majority but the list includes over eighty women directors (over forty for the US). Many it is true directed only one or two films but even so women directors were not as thin on the ground at this period as many people suppose and may well not have been any more thin on the ground than they are today.
Although the US heads the list numerically, this is only because the 2000 includes far more US directors than there are for other countries because of the relatively high availability of US films. The actual proportion of women directors was much higher (as one might expect) in a more egalitarian post-Revolutionary Russia....
As for scriptwriters women are, as one would expect, better represented but still hugely under-represented. Out of again 2000 or so in all, 237 are women (about 170 for the US).
Although the US heads the list numerically, this is only because the 2000 includes far more US directors than there are for other countries because of the relatively high availability of US films. The actual proportion of women directors was much higher (as one might expect) in a more egalitarian post-Revolutionary Russia....
As for scriptwriters women are, as one would expect, better represented but still hugely under-represented. Out of again 2000 or so in all, 237 are women (about 170 for the US).
Remains a landmark of cinema
- philosopherjack
- Nov 21, 2018
- Permalink