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.

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.

The story is often exciting and often moving, yet the chance to see Lillian and Dorothy Gish together might be the best reason of all to watch Griffith's silent classic, "Orphans of the Storm". The story combines the tumultuous backdrop of the French Revolution with a worthwhile melodrama involving the ordeals of two sisters who are practically alone in the world.

The French Revolution used to be a frequent setting for some fine films - between the ideas involved and the upheavals that it brought, it's almost ready-made for cinema. Here, as the two sisters, Lillian and Dorothy are struggling to help each other when they are caught up in the turmoil around them, and they find themselves involved with everyone from the lowest classes of society up to some of the best-known personalities of the Revolution.

The historical background is often stylized, and it is mainly there to lend drama to the story about the sisters, rather than to provide an accurate look at history. The characterizations of some of the revolutionary leaders are interesting, but they are not always accurate. Yet from a purely dramatic viewpoint it works well. The involved story, along with the personal appeal of Gish sisters, combine to win the audience's sympathy quickly, and to heighten the tension as the story plays out. It's a well-acted and memorable melodrama.

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.

Two ORPHANS OF THE STORM caused by the French Revolution desperately search for each other in the violent chaos of Paris.

History's sweeping drama comes alive in this powerful epic film from legendary silent movie genius D. W. Griffith. Although much happens on a broad canvas, the director never loses sight of the intimate details of the heroines' pitiful plight. In denouncing tyranny, Griffith always manages to keep the viewer engrossed in how the State's insidious evil affects the individual.

Much of the film's success is due to the remarkable acting of the Gish Sisters, Lillian & Dorothy. Acclaimed for her comedic talents, Dorothy here gives an almost completely serious performance, portraying a blind girl cruelly separated from her beloved sister and forced to beg in the streets. Lillian, her classic face mirroring a myriad of emotions, plays the sibling persecuted by both lecherous aristocrats and rapacious revolutionaries. The scene in which Lillian, in an upper chamber, hears Dorothy singing in the alley below but is unable to reach her, is almost unbearable in its emotional intensity.

A young Joseph Schildkraut plays Lillian's blue-blooded suitor, giving the viewer an intimation of the very fine character actor he would become with the advent of talking pictures. Lucille LaVerne steals more than a few scenes as the filthy harridan who enslaves and terrorizes Dorothy. Frank Puglia makes a poignant mark as Miss LaVerne's pathetic, downtrodden son. Comic actor Creighton Hale gives a lively performance in a small role as a mischievous, periwiged servant.

A fascinating aspect of the film is its vivid rendering of two historical characters of great significance in the history of France. Georges Danton was probably not as noble as he is portrayed by Monte Blue, nor was Maximilien Robespierre necessarily as evil as Sidney Herbert depicts him. What is certain is that both men were responsible for the deaths of thousands of individuals during the Reign of Terror. Fittingly, each man had his own rendezvous with Madame Le Guillotine in 1794.

Movie mavens will recognize an unbilled Louis Wolheim as the executioner awaiting Miss Lillian on the scaffold.

Griffith handles the sequences involving surging masses of extras with admirable dexterity. He also freely borrows a few plot elements from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. In fact Miss LaVerne, with scarcely a costume change, would play the role of The Vengeance in MGM's 1935 version of that classic, violent novel.