A Tale of Two Cities

Frank Lloyd's silent version of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" may make you wonder why D.W. Griffith didn't direct his own version of the classic (not that he didn't come close, on a few occasions). Mr. Lloyd's Griffith-like direction is a plus; though, it's somehow not as good as the original. William Farnum, who was one of the leading actors of the teens, does a fine job in the leading role; seeing Mr. Farnum play both as reluctant French nobleman "Charles Darnay" and English alcoholic lawyer "Sydney Carton" is, today, the main attraction. While filled with decent performances, the more famous sound re-makes lose something by casting different men in the lead roles. Beautiful Jewel Carmen has no trouble attracting both men, as "Lucie Manette". And, Florence Vidor (King's wife) sews up stardom on the way to the guillotine. "A Tale of Two Cities" was considered a top production in its time, but it doesn't possess the timeless quality you'll find in many other silent movies.

****** A Tale of Two Cities (3/11/17) Frank Lloyd ~ William Farnum, Jewel Carmen, Charles Clary, Josef Swickard

During the French Revolution, alcoholic barrister Sydney Carton defends the husband of the woman he loves. This version of Dickens' novel is an early prestige movie featuring some impressive double exposure work, particularly in the timing of William Farnum who plays both Carton and the man he's trying to save from the gallows. Director Frank Lloyd flatters Griffith with his style but isn't subject to D.W.'s tendency to string scenes out and shows great control with the film's many crowd scenes.

Not a great film but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Farnum is excellent in a double role, and Jewel Carmen is sympathetic as Miss Manette. The film owes a lot to D. W. Griffith. The editing style, the plot development, the epic scope and the direction are all, strictly David Wark. However, give the director (Frank Lloyd) credit; he knew a good thing when he saw it, and even if he did copy Griffith, at least he did it well. Frank Lloyd eventually became a very capable director with his own style. Like Griffith he had a way of saying a lot in a few frames and doing it in a satisfying way. He moves things right along and so is able to keep the interest of even a modern viewer. If you are a film student, you could learn a lot about artistic economy from watching this film. However, most of us will just be happy that the director is able to keep our interest, and not waste our time with overly long scenes. Only in the very last couple of minutes does it drag slightly. But I suspect that what we see as dragging today, would have been considered art in 1917. There is also a creative use of double exposures and other effects that give the film a bit of visual excitement.

To the average intelligent viewer - don't go too far out of your way, but if you end up seeing it, it will keep your interest better than many modern films and you will be entertained.

Quite a good adaptation of Dickens' book. William Farnum plays the dual roles of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton. He is rather ho-hum as Darney, but he really shines as the brooding, wasted Carton. There are some clever scenes where Darnay and Carton appear side by side, and one scene where Carton stares into a mirror and sees Darnay's face staring back at him. The sets are impressive, and the storming of the Bastille is realistic and violent. Jewel Carmen, as Lucie Manette, is lovely. The climactic fight between Olive White (as Miss Pross) and Rosita Marstini (as Madame Defarge) is well staged - it really looks like they are beating the crap out of each other. The final scene is touching, as we "see" Carton's last thought. Frank Lloyd directed, but some sources claim William Desmond Taylor may have done some of the directing as well. Margaret Dumont supposedly has a bit in this, but I didn't spot her.

This 1917 adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities is nothing spectacular; however, William Farnum is absolutely great as Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay, stealing every scene he's in with great panache. One wishes the other actors had as much to do.

The big problem is that the filmmakers assume the audience has read the book and therefore they assume they only need to hit the major beats of the story without doing much to establish character. What results is a rather unimpressive narrative experience, though as I said, Farnum keeps things lively, as do a few moments of truly striking composition and lighting. Otherwise, only silent film nerds and fans of the novel (both of which I'm lucky to be in this instance) will get much out of this movie.