Orphans of the Storm

Adolphe D'Ennery's novel was one of those countless melodramatic maudlin stories which were thriving in France of the 19th century. DW Griffith decided to transpose the action just before and after French revolution.The novel was rather reactionary and its historical background was thin and vague.

But Griffith's vision of the French Revolution is naive,to put it mildly.He was not apparently aware that the 1789 events were mainly a bourgeois move,and the poor were only a tool.The dichotomy Good Danton/Wicked Robespierre should make people who are looking for a sort of historical accuracy have a look at Wajda"s "Danton"(with G.Depardieu,in the eighties).

Forget history and you have a two-hour and a half silent movie with never a dull moment.Griffith is a wonderful storyteller,who had a great respect for his audience.Some sequences are still impressive today:the aristocratic orgy,when the Poor are starving at the gates of the palace is far from D'Ennery's timid depiction of the scene in the book;Lillian Gish,a wonderful actress who 'd been part of the cinema till the eighties,is so powerful in her part of the abducted maiden Henriette we can almost hear her when she screams out of despair:"is there a man of honor among you?Louise and the shrew who got her under her thumb begging in front of the cathedral as the snow is falling is a splendid picture,recalling a painter's work;even if Danton's coming to the rescue of a soon-to-be guillotined Henriette is thoroughly implausible,we cannot help but admire the director's maestria.

Few silent movies have stood the test of time as well as this one.

First of all, I find it desperately necessary to remind the viewer of silent movies of the danger of analyzing these pieces under the lens of the modern cinemagoer. The aesthetic values of silent cinema are incommensurable with the values of modern cinema. Aside from the obvious difference that one relies purely on image while the other has the benefit of sound, we must also not forget that the cinema of the silent era is cinema in its infancy, in a constant state of the most early self-discovery (which is not to say that cinema has necessarily "grown up" or "progressed" into our modern era; our cinema today is only different than the cinema of the silent era, neither better nor worse.) Basically, we should check ourselves before we ridicule these films on the basis of irising, masking, et cetera and ESPECIALLY the exaggerated emotion and overblown gesturing of the actors. The conventions of the art of acting have, of course, their basis in that of the theatre, which preceded film, and where emphatic gesturing and stressed emotion was conventional in conveying story even to those seated in the back row.

All editorializing aside, Griffith's _Orphans of the Storm_ is a shining example of the director's masterful grasp of narrative cinema. The story is almost Dickensian in its feel, from its very beginning alternating between no less than five separate subplots, all of which become inextricably intertwined before the backdrop of the larger plot of the impending revolution in France. The acting performances are not, in fact, excessively overplayed, but are actually quite subtle and touching, especially those of the two orphans, the Gish sisters.

The visuals are stunning: the costumes and decor are lush and the recreation of late 18th century Paris is excellent. Most impressive to me is Griffith's expert command of montage, primarily through intercutting, in creating a engrossing story that, while complex in structure, is easily grasped. The film starts out on wobbly legs, but soon breaks into a steady gallop, raging through the glorious revolution to an admittedly predictable, yet satisfying conclusion. A grand achievement for one of the titans of early cinema: I give it a 9/10.

DW Griffith's fall from grace during the 1920s wasn't just because his technique began to look old fashioned. It was that his stories got worse. His narrative structures were inspired by great works of literature, particularly that of Charles Dickens, but his plots were often sourced from obscure novels or trashy stage melodramas. These stories were often implausible and simplistic, shortcomings he could only make up for with his sensitive cinematic technique and the reliability of his actors.

Orphans of the Storm is rather lazily-written, full of one-dimensional characters, predictable situations, and sudden coincidences leaping over gaps in the plot, as two sisters, one of them blind, lose each other, find each other, then lose each other again amid the chaos of the French Revolution. However, it's (just about) possible to overlook a bad story so long as it's well told. Unfortunately, Griffith appears to be following the trend of having more and longer title cards, explaining every point and feeding us superficial lines of dialogue, where the action alone should tell us what is going on. In some scenes, such as those where Dorothy Gish's blindness is brought up, we get the worst of both worlds, having not only the point-labouring title cards, but also exaggerated pantomiming, with characters pointing emphatically at both eyes.

Griffith should have known that all his best moments were wordless and understated. Thankfully, he has not forgotten how to direct a good love scene, and those between Joseph Schildkraut and Lillian Gish are particularly effective, framed plainly in a series of close-ups, barely moving their faces but conveying a world of emotion. This was Schildkraut's first American picture, and he is one of the most pleasingly natural and convincing lead men Griffith had worked with thus far. With his fine, sharp features he was also appropriately handsome, although a few films later he would play Judas in King of Kings, and subsequently became a bit typecast. As for Gish, she is far more satisfying here in one of her serene and sensible roles, as opposed to the hysterical girly parts she was increasingly given. The other standout in this cast is Monte Blue as Danton, whipping a crowd into a frenzy without once resorting to hamminess.

It was a long-established rule that every major Griffith picture had to feature a battle somewhere in the middle, and end with a climactic ride-to-the-rescue. By 1921 these action sequences were becoming a trifle uninspired. The battle between revolutionaries and soldiers has a great build-up, but then resorts to bland god-shots, making the moment suddenly seem very cold. The finale is one of Griffith's least engaging, I think because while the ride itself is excitingly shot and edited, the business at the guillotine is just a lot of faffing around, a far cry from Bobby Haron's haunting walk to the scaffold in Intolerance.

In spite of all this, Orphans of the Storm – like every Griffith feature I have seen – does have its absolutely divine moments. There's a very dynamic sense of rhythm to the scene at the ball and the later celebration of the victorious revolutionaries. The reunion of Schildkraut and Lillian Gish is both powerful and sensitive. Griffith may have been beginning to slip, but at least he was failing beautifully.

In the Eighteenth Century in France, a few years before the French Revolution, the Countess de Linieres (Katherine Emmet) asks her minion to deliver her baby daughter Louise to an orphanage to protect her. However he leaves the baby on the stairs of a church. A peasant finds Louise and brings her home to his wife and they find a necklace with her name and money in the basket. They raise Louise with their daughter Henriette as sisters, but years later there is a plague and they die and Louise becomes blind. Louise Girard (Dorothy Gish) is totally dependent on Henriette Girard (Lillian Gish) and they travel to Paris expecting to find the cure of Louise's blindness. The rogue Marquis de Praille (Morgan Wallace) sees Henriette and becomes fascinated with her virginal beauty. He asks his men to abduct Henriette and brings her to his party. Louise is left alone in Paris and the scoundrel Mother Frochard (Lucille La Verne) forces Louise to beg on the streets for her. Meanwhile the noble aristocrat Chevalier de Vaudrey (Joseph Schildkraut) saves Henriette and they fall in love with each other. But Henriette explains that she had promised Louise that she would not marry until Louise could look upon her husband to approve him. Meanwhile Danton (Monte Blue), who is saved by Henriette, and Robespierre (Sidney Herbert) are plotting the French Revolution that explodes on the streets keeping the sisters apart.

"Orphans of the Storm" is another magnificent epic by D. W. Griffith and his last success. The film impresses in many aspects, such as the screenplay, the set locations and fantastic camera work, with impressive angles considering the size of the cameras and the technology in the early Twentieth Century. The plot is a combination of heavy drama, romance and action and sensitive viewers will certainly need a handkerchief to see the touching scenes of the sisters set apart. The suspenseful conclusion, with Danton and his men trying to deliver the pardon of Henriette and Chevalier de Vaudrey, is suspenseful and thrilling. The lovely Lilian Gish is another attraction with a wonderful performance. Last but not the least, "Orphans of the Storm" is a mandatory film for any cinema lover. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Órfãs da Tempestade" ("Orphans of the Storm")

I sometimes feel that people who are not sympathetic to the silent era and its genre should not view or comment on them.

As a long-time maven of silent films, I have no problem placing myself in that era and enjoying these movies on their own terms. Much has changed since those days, and most folks simply cannot appreciate the simplicity AND complexity of photoplays without words.

This film is magnificent and entertaining. I am not a fan of most "period pieces", but this transcends the typical fare. Check it out.