Love Never Dies

It remains true that some of the best films ever made hail from the silent era; in my opinion King Vidor's own 1928 drama 'The crowd' is one of them - a simple story, beautifully told. It's also true that there are no few titles of the time that are less outwardly impressive, and their chief lasting value might be for the ardent cinephile who appreciates the place they hold in the history of cinema. This is hardly to discount the hard work of those involved, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at Vidor's 1921 work 'Love never dies' as a reflection of the notion of "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." All the component parts are here for a motion picture, and it's suitably enjoyable on its level, with some bits more admirable than others. All the component parts are also here to broadly characterize it as rather common, or arguably middling, and unlikely to change the minds of anyone who isn't already enamored of the silent era. For better and for worse, the viewing experience in this case is a very mixed bag.

It's no one's fault that the image quality of the surviving print was diminished before it was digitally preserved. Concerns of greater substance include the very direct, somewhat unsophisticated storytelling, imparting a tale with some facets that exceed our suspension of belief, and with melodrama fit for a Lifetime original movie. There are additional elements of considerable, ham-handed kitsch, and expression of old-fashioned, dated values, which only add layers to the nature of the storytelling. Such aspects also inform the acting. Some performers come off better than others, including Madge Bellamy with tinges of meaningful nuance and emotional range. On the other hand, there's also Frank Brownlee with a laughable, stark bluntness that would be ripe for parody, and in general 'Love never dies' counts among fare with the more exaggerated facial expressions and body language that defined the earliest years of the medium.

In fairness, in a short runtime of just over one hour, the flick leaves a better mark in fits and starts, and maybe more so as it goes along. As the melodrama kicks up around halfway through Vidor latches onto some more shrewd moments, and guides his cast and cinematographer Max Dupont into some small shots that are low-key brilliant. The sets, costume design, hair, and makeup may not make us altogether bat our eyes, but are lovely all the same, not to mention the filming locations. And if nothing else is true about this film, the major sequences of stunts and effects to come in the second half are outstanding, almost certainly the top highlights here and about on par with some of the best of contemporary cinema. In fact, while there are rough spots and a prevailing, decided lack of tact and subtlety, there is also a welcome earnestness to the narrative at its core. For as solid as 'Love never dies' is when notable care is taken in its craftsmanship, one just wishes that the writing, direction, and acting were so thoughtfully considered throughout the whole length. Heavily accentuating the issue, there comes a point in the last ten to fifteen minutes when the plot development suddenly becomes emphatically muddled, garbled, rushed, and downright sloppy. It's an abrupt change so severe that if one didn't know any better one would assume that an entire reel or two had been lost to the ravages of time.

For as splendid as the picture is when it's "firing on all cylinders," it deserves more recognition and remembrance; for as so-so or even outright troubled as this is at its weakest points, maybe I'm being too kind in my assessment. It turns out that the impression the feature makes so early on is all too accurate - it's passably entertaining such as it is, but likely something that only a silent devotee will get the most out of, and definitely not an exemplar of the timeframe. I'm glad for those who get more from it than I do, and I repeat that there is a lot to like. In its root form the story is swell, and it's just regrettable that in execution the result is quite flawed. If you're receptive to older movies then 'Love never dies' is still worth checking out if you have the opportunity; just don't go out of your way for it, and save it for a lazy day.

This may not be one of the best silent films ever made, nor is it one of the best made by the great King Vidor, but it is still vastly entertaining and visually exciting. Lloyd Hughes is the hero, and he's an amazingly beautiful man. He's the son of a prostitute and hides this from his girlfriend, the sweet Madge Bellamy. But after they get married... Somehow this all leads to a spectacular train crash and boats careening down rapids. Vidor keeps the pace and emotion happening through brilliant camera movements and angles, and the use of emotive close-ups of faces. The story is constantly surprising and the acting excellent. It ends rather abruptly, but I suspect the print I saw was incomplete.

The review that ought to be seen is "Larry41OnEbay-2" He apparently saw the whole 80 minute original, or, at least refers to a contemporaneous review that did. The version I saw ends abruptly and incompletely, despite a great movie, and leaves out some elements he mentions (the mother's story, the final happy resolution...) that I was guessing should be there. The review of "HarlowMGM" is also good, but lacks the 80-minute details.

Personally, I rated the movie with the greats, even though I guessed it was incomplete. King Vidor was a great director and it is tragic to have his movie fragmented. I had not previously seen the two stars and was impressed by them, as well. I hope that Kino or Flicker Alley could find a more complete version and make it available.

I can't agree with Mr. Atfield - the film just doesn't make sense or hold together. First the man is ashamed of his mother, then later reunites with her. First the girl stands by her man, then later lets her father take her away from him. The man doesn't even try to get an explanation as to why she's supposedly left him - he just runs away and allows a train wreck to end his identity. None of these people are remotely stable or likeable - they are totally shallow people. And a society where a father can reclaim his married daughter because her husband's mother is a whore and/or justifiably be ready to kill him because of the sins of his mother just can't be taken seriously. It's mentally ill as is every character in this choppy and ridiculously melodramatic silent. Quite poor in every department and quite unlikeable. However, I must agree with one thing- Lloyd Hughes is a gorgeous hunk.

We don't know who are (were) John's parents (let alone those of the girl who calls him "brother"), and we don't even need to know. From another angle, we'd very much like to know why Liz Trott - a woman with a bad reputation in town - makes John believe that she is his real mother; and we will have no answer through the entire movie (wait: through the remaining part of it; some footage might be missing). Then, why this make-believe? It is totally irrilevant to the plot, so: why is it there?

In trying to shed some light on the matter I even consulted some synopsis of the film: in one of these (from an importante specialized site) I read that, at the conclusion of the story, John - who has been haunted his whole life by his association with Liz - was relieved to come to know that between himself and her there was no kinship at all. Ingenious, and totally made up.

All movie long, again, there is no such revelation, nor any hint about why Liz should have waited so much time to relieve his foster-son of the burden she herself had put on him, or about who might have told him the truth.