Love's Prisoner

If you are among the many Olive Thomas fans, your breath >will all but leave you as you see her alive and well, moving around and beautiful as ever! The film itself isn't too great but if they found lost >footage of Olive just reading a book for 90 minutes, I'd >be as ecstatic. Olive plays a young woman who lives with >her 3 sisters and their Father, who is arrested [at the >very beginning] for crimes of his past. The girls must >survive so Olive gets a job and they all move in with the >kindly old neighbor gentleman. Olive has a miserable run >of luck and decides crime is her only option. The last bit of the film is missing and an attempt to explain the ending is what you get via title cards. The >music score is rather ersatz due to being played entirely >on an electronic keyboard. At any rate, this is a rare opportunity to see the mythical Olive Thomas and proof that she shines as bright >as any star in the heavens.

Some silent films are more adept than others at churning out a pace and plot progression that are smooth and natural despite the use of intertitles. In less successful instances, a picture may come across as little more than a tale of the written word in which some scenes are produced visually to add flourish. To some degree I think 'Love's prisoner' struggles to find balance for much of the length, or the fluidity that would make it more engaging and endear the feature to more viewers. Still, despite that difficulty, and the simplicity of the tale at hand, overall I think the title is an alright watch, suitably compelling.

Perhaps more so than in other pictures of the era, I feel like the cast is somewhat constrained by the structure of the film that cuts frequently between shots and scenes, or to intertitles. One can only inject so much personality into captured footage that lasts for seconds at a time, and it's thusly hard to assess performances on the same basis. For what it's worth, I think the assembled actors illustrate as much skill as they can in the space they are allotted, with displays characterized by practiced physicality, and nuanced range and personality. That most notably goes for Olive Thomas, starring in the lead role as Nancy. If her portrayal (or others') seems less expansive and impressive, I think that's owed to the limitations of the movie more than anything else, but all do their part to bring the story to life.

Of greater interest to me, in most any film, is the writing; the most finely produced barn-burner means little if the story doesn't hold up. In 'Love's prisoner' at large, I think scenes are written and executed well, capably assembling the tableau piece by piece. Characters, meanwhile, seem like little more than set pieces, and it's to the credit of the cast that they infuse some liveliness into their parts. The narrative writing is more tricky, as I think it's interesting enough and well considered in the broad strokes, but is less solid in the details from moment to moment. I appreciate that one key plot point is withheld as a secret to be revealed late in the length, when it would have the most impact - but indelicate editing and sequencing means that it feels shoehorned in. Yet this is small and forgivable compared to the shortcuts that seem to be taken in the storytelling as it presents to us, abbreviations heightened by the arguable overuse of intertitles. Most dire of all - after a series of scenes relating the indicated reveal, the film ends very abruptly and unsatisfactorily with a block of text imparting a wealth of plot, at least five story beats by my accounting, before "The end" immediately graces our vision. Did cuts by censors chop up the narrative so badly that such an approach was necessary? Did screenwriter E. Magnus Ingleton just have a bit of writer's block, unable to conjure suitable connective threads to tie the picture together?

Whatever the case may be, it's unfortunate that some material seems omitted in completing the saga, and other bits inelegantly skipped over. All the more regrettable because there is also some unexpectedly progressive (for the early 20th century) commentary and themes about the unjust pipeline linking poverty and criminality. If briefly, 'Love's prisoner' further broaches the lack of means by which an impoverished individual may uplift themselves and change their circumstances, and the stigma and presumption of guilt for those who have a sordid past. There were some grand ideas in the screenplay, and the story shows promise, but the rendition is simply too heavy-handed in its making to come off as more than a partial success.

For all that, despite the shortcomings, I think the film is one worth watching. It marks a time early in cinematic history, helping to delineate the progression of the medium from its earliest days. And, critically, it's one of the few surviving pictures of lead Olive Thomas, who among her co-stars does the most to capture our imagination here. There is value in 'Love's prisoner' - but you don't need to go out of your way to find it, and I think one must mind the humble origins in watching.

Not altogether bad - just leaves a tad too much to be wanting.

Is "Love's Prisoner" the newly discovered classic that some romantic silent film fans would like you to believe? Why, far from it. Rather, this commonplace crook melodrama starring the already waning Olive Thomas remains a perfect example why the once so proud Triangle Film Corp. dismantled its talent roster and sold all physical assets to Sam Goldwyn mere months after it was released in June of 1919. Here's the downtrodden Olive with a father in prison and two younger sisters to care for. She obtains a job hawking cocoa in a drugstore but before you can say "gold digger" she nabs herself a titled gentleman who obligingly leaves her a wealthy widow. Then she remembers how the other half lives and decides to play Robin Hood. Does she fall in love with the detective (Joe King) assigned to hunt her down? We don't really know; "Love's Prisoner" survives sans the final reel. But bad melodrama being what it is, she probably does. Of course, anything with the star-crossed Olive Thomas has a certain historic value -- even if she appears far from the raving beauty of legend -- but "Love's Prisoner" is hopefully not a typical example of the lady's cinematic oeuvre.

For those of you who are Olive Thomas fans, rejoice that Grapevine Video has released one of her very very few existing films for the general public. A delight from beginning to end. Olive is radiant.

"...you're an angel---even if you haven't got wings"--just another heavy-handed quote from "Love's Prisoner"

When the film abruptly begins, you learn that the police are scum and have harassed a man to death due to his once having been in prison. His daughter, Nancy, hates the police and blames them for her desperate straights in life. Forced to get a job and scrimp and save to take care of her two younger siblings, her life is not easy.

Here is where the movie gets really stupid. It is possible that originally there was more to this but you see her meet a British member of the royalty. Then, on a SINGLE intertitle card it tells you that they married and then he soon died--leaving her a widow!! I cannot believe that so much was summed up in a sentence or two.

Now Nancy learns the sad truth--most of the dead husband's money and property is in England and his family is fighting her for it. Instead of reacting normally, she just gives up claim to all the English estates and lives in a single home but without enough money to maintain the opulent lifestyle. So, this leaves her poor but outwardly comfortable. To make ends meet, she robs her guests when she has big society parties. So, she refuses to fight for her rightful claim to her husband's entire estate and resorts to a life of crime--now that's excellent thinking! Into this mess, a dashing officer is called to investigate. What happens next? Well, it's also summed up on one intertitle card!

My score of 4 is awfully low but reflects the movie as it exists today. Had the film been more complete, my score would have probably been a bit higher. However, even in its complete form it would be a film with a few serious drawbacks. As it is, the film is about 47 minutes long even though it's missing the opening credits and the finale. Instead of a resolution to the film, you are given a single intertitle card which explains everything you WOULD have seen in the last portion of the film. Because of this, it's not a film I'd recommend to anyone unless they are a die-hard cinemaniac or a film historian. It's a shame, as it's one of the few Olive Thomas movies we still have (this and "The Flapper").