For Better, for Worse

Elliott Dexter and Tom Forman are best friends. Both love Gloria Swanson. Wanda Hawley loves Tom. Gloria loves Elliott. However, when Elliott turns down a commission as an Army surgeon during the war to do his duty as a pediatric surgeon, Gloria throws him over and marries Tom.

Tom goes off to war and loses his right hand and half his faces. He sends back word that he is dead. Meanwhile, Gloria runs over Mae Giraci. When Elliott turns out to be the only doctor in New York who can restore her legs, Gloria comes to realize that Elliott is not a coward and their love rekindles. Plastic surgeons restore Tom's face; he returns just in time for the party at which the lovers will announce their engagement.

This Demille film has a serious message about courage and duty. Almost all his movies had a serious core. However, as he so often did, he allowed the melodrama and pageantry his audience loved to overwhelm the message. It's a good show, with the occasional over-the-top touches that kept his audience happy. The result is a bit sub-prime for Demille, but still very watchable for the era.

Miss Swanson has a fairly complex role as the sort of high-minded woman who thinks that everyone needs to live up to her ideals, but can always find a fine excuse for doing what she wants. She acquits herself well, as do the others in their less complex roles, but even so, don't make this a great movie.

Very interesting film from 1919 about the ravages of World War I on American society.

Gloria Swanson plays a snooty girl who is loved by both a doctor (Elliott Dexter) and another man (Tom Forman). Her friend (Wanda Hawley) loves Forman. When the war starts Swanson spurns Dexter and marries Forman (whom she doesn't love) because Dexter is needed in the hospital and doesn't go off to war. Forman goes to war. Hawley is crushed by the marriage.

Forman is mangled in France and has word sent that he is dead. Swanson eventually reconciles with Dexter. But on the verge of their engagement party, Forman returns although he is hideously scarred and mutilated. Everyone battles to do the right thing now that they have been given another chance.

Intense film examines the misguided attempts by these people to deal with their errors and move on with their lives. An excellent and serious film but it still boasts a few DeMille flourishes when he shows a "history" of women who have stood by their warriors: Cyda the Viking maiden, the woman who waits for Richard the Lion Heart, and the American Revolution housewife (all played by Swanson).

Mae Giraci plays the orphan. Co-stars include Theodore Roberts, Sylvia Ashton, and Raymond Hatton as Buddy. And that's Jack Holt as the crusader.

This is one of the misplaced World War propaganda movie. It talks of patriotism, but frankly it was anything but that. In WW2, one could justify allies declaring war, there was a humanitarian reason behind it, which justified. Of course that was not really though of, till Pearl Harbour happened. But nothing justifies the WW1, in which, if one looks a bit dispassionately, Allies aided terrorism. How about the world powers uniting and declaring war, when retaliatory actions were taken post 9/11? In this case the act of terrorism was even worse, since not only the future head of state was murdered, but also not a tyrant, in fact may be their, AD Franz Ferdinand and Countess Sophie's life-story probably was as romantic as his aunt, Sissy's . The war was declared when Serbia procrastinated in taking actions against the assassins, or even may be, as some literature hint, triggered the war actively.

Going back to the movie, it hovered between sympathy for the killers and the backers up (the people who stayed and made the money to be used by the killers, as said by the heroine). But probably, considering the time, when the propaganda, even for a wrong cause, was necessary, I would gloss over it.

In this confusion, not only the heroines, but also of the director/ script writer's the whole plot become confusing. At one moment the public opinion was made to support the soldier, and the next moment, the civilian. To justify the heroine's aversion, the statement that more doctors were being killed than army person, was if nothing, but over-exaggeration of the ground realities.

The way the plot developed, the whole sympathy would go not to the lead stars, Dexter and Swanson, but to Tim Forman and Wanda Hawley, both of who were wronged against, one by unrequited love and other additionally by both the lead players. When the script didn't develop their roles, Dexter and Swanson ended up as negative characters of the story, which I am sure wasn't intended.

I wonder, when a person is, as looks, still on saline drips, would a doctor let him see his disfigured face? In fact actively encourage it, by ordering a nurse to get a hand mirror so he could?

Not good enough, even for 1919.