Hypocrites

Hypocrites follows the parallel stories of an early Christian ascetic and a modern minister with actor Courteney Foote in both roles, as well as numerous other actors in dual roles. The first story shows a medieval monk who has devoted his efforts to completing a statue of Truth, which gathers much attention from his village. However, when he reveals the statue, he is murdered by a mob when his work turns out to be an image of a naked woman. Gabriel, the lead of the contemporary story, is a minister for a congregation that is extrinsically motivated by the appearance of religion. In a dream, he leads his congregation up a steep path to find Truth, but because of their lack of faith and selfishness, he loses all of his followers on the rough terrain.

The director, Lois Weber, effectively achieves her goal of emphasizing hypocrisy in certain religious institutions. One of the film's inter-titles states, "Truth is welcome if clothed in our ideas" which emphasizes the double standards of the worshipers. This quote effectively sums up the basic message that Weber wanted to portray in the film. However, I feel that the use of inter-titles became a bit redundant. Her use of images and the portrayal from the actors was effective enough without needing any explanation.

From an entertainment standpoint, Hypocrites is slow and anticlimactic. There are numerous long takes that are used to emphasize the actions of the hypocrites. The film could benefit from some editing that would make it flow faster without losing the central message. However, when one considers the controversy involved in the topic as well as the risqué use of nudity, any cinephile would appreciate the influence of this film and of Lois Weber as it stands as social commentary.

Hypocrites by Lois Weber is a strong symbolic film. It is much different from other silent features of its day. The use of a nude must have really rattled folks of the day, but there is nothing sexual about it but rather symbolic that truth uncovers all. The film takes shots at religion, society, politics, and other institutions and shows them up against the nakedness of truth. Since most of these themes are timeless which the film shows by showing the hypocrisy of the medieval age the movie is still relevant today nearly a century after being made. The film itself has interesting effects such as double exposure and the camera isn't always stationary but instead moves around on a dolly. Overall one of the better silent films I have seen.

Grade B

It's good to see that the comments posted on this film are all well thought out. I agree with almost everything already said about this odd little film called "Hypocrites". This definitely isn't the easiest movie to get through. It's very slowly paced and so overly moralizing that I doubt many viewers would have even liked it much in it's time. Indeed the film is highly artistic, but also self-consciously so. Everything screams IMPORTANT in the movie, which isn't the flaw one may think it would be, but doesn't exactly help things either. The aura of "Hypocrites" is that of a revival meeting of sorts, the kind of old-time gathering in a tent that may still happen today in the more rural parts of America but is generally a hazy memory elsewhere. That is strange as well because the religious characters appear either Roman Catholic or high Episcopalian (or something along those lines), not evangelical at all. To further compound the confusion, the artistically justifiable insertion of Naked Truth could do nothing but anger religious folk of the time, and this was all done by a woman director (the trailblazing Lois Weber)!

The gimmick may well have drawn them in, at least to an extent. Which is the strangest aspect of "Hypocrites" - that in denouncing hypocrisy, even with such artful gestures, Weber demonstrates in no uncertain terms that even she isn't immune to it. It's all around us, part of humanity, part of everything we are. Just have to learn to control it, is what she seems to be trying to say. I do like "Hypocrites", watch it every so often and come away with something different each time, even if I soon forget what it was. Is this a classic? In a way. Is it entertaining? Sometimes, could be, depending on what mood you're in and what you're looking for in a film. I don't think most people would like it at all. But for what it is, and as an example of the work of Weber (it seems most of her films no longer exist), "Hypocrites" is indeed IMPORTANT.

By today's standards, this is a very archaic film. However, compared to other films of the day, HYPOCRITES was a technical work of art. Unlike many directors of the day, Lois Weber used camera movement throughout the story--at a time when many directors kept the camera relatively still. In addition, she employed the use of double-exposures to create an ethereal and unusual look for the film. Together, these make this movie look so much nicer than a typical film from 1915.

On the other hand, the film is exceptionally moralistic and preachy--something that is quite typical of the day. But, in an odd twist, despite the moralizing, the film employed significant amounts of full nudity--though, believe it or not, in an artistic and inoffensive manner--though some audiences of the day freaked out at this! The film begins with a preacher delivering his sermon to a very unworthy audience. Most seem bored by the service and some even talk or read during the message--showing that the preacher was "casting his pearls before swine". So far, I liked the movie a lot--as a film about supposedly good people who were spiritually dead inside was intriguing. However, the film quickly lost me, as the movie shifted into an allegory--showing the same preacher now as an aesthetic saint trying to lead people on the "Road to Truth"--as illustrated in a trek up the side of a steep hill. In addition, Truth itself was now illustrated in the form of a nude woman who is almost ghost-like whenever she appears. Why is she naked? Well, because in Truth there is no shame and nudity, Weber reasoned, is nothing to be ashamed of in and of itself (a VERY modern notion).

At the time, many liked the film and many were shocked. Today, the nudity, while very explicit, seems rather innocent and I would certainly let kids see the film because there is no attempt to provide "cheap thrills". Overall, however, I wish the film had been a bit less obvious as well as not so preachy. The idea was great, but when seen today, it all seems terribly old fashioned...despite the nudity and excellent film work. Not bad, but in my opinion, not among the very greatest silent films.

This was my first time ever watching a silent film and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I believe one of the most important things that I noticed while watching this film was that I can create my own words or theme for the film. The film doesn't push its thoughts into your head, but allows you to think and create your own scenes. Many movies today don't afford you this opportunity and I believe it is one that is greatly missed whether we recognize it or not. In the beginning the film had me lost and wondering what exactly was going on or what I should be looking for, but then it quickly changed and speed up once the pastor finished his sermon. I noticed the way the people where criticizing him and the way that people were disrespecting the sanctuary, because there was no sound it wasn't hard to notice those incidents. I also enjoyed the way the movie moved from the present into a type of dream. The way the dream ran parallel to reality was great because then it gave the viewer a better understanding of what the director was actually trying to convey. The way the preacher was saying that the people don't want to accept the truth or don't like to see the truth was shown in the dream. It was shown when he went in search of the truth and it was on "the road less traveled" and only a few people had the urge to even try to make it up the path. Some tried and found it too hard, but only one person actually made it all the way up with the priest. I think the director was saying that most people really don't care about that truth and if something is too demanding or requires too much of their time or effort then they aren't going to work for it. They believe that there has to be another way and if not then it obviously wasn't worth their time to begin with. The author also presented the view that the truth is ever fleeting and that many aren't prepared for it to be revealed to them.