The Innocence of Ruth

This romantic drama has more than a few comic touches and also features Viola Dana in a short series of dances, including "The Dance of the Flowers" and "The Yama Yama Man," which was a rage of the day and is often associated with Irene Castle.

But at heart it's the story of an orphaned girl and her complicated relationship with her guardian (Edward Earle) and how they fall into the dark schemes of a ruthless financier (Augustus Phillips) who goes broke.

Directed by John H. Collins (Dana's husband) who also directed Dana in films like BLUE JEANS and THE COSSACK WHIP. This film is less sensational and deals with the assumptions of those who think there's something gong on between the guard and his ward.

Terrific music score by David Drazin.

Brad Sutton sends for his friend, Edward Earle. Sutton has been ruined by Augustus Phillips in that way that Wall Street operators do, and now he is dying. Will Earle look after his daughter, Viola Dana? She moves into his house and has a grand old time. When Earle's friends mock him for living on his ward's money, he says nothing, because passion is blossoming.

However, what goes around comes around, and Phillips feels the Wall Street wolves closing in on him. He devises a plan to drive a wedge between the lovers and make Miss Dana his, by telling her she is living on Earle's charity.

It's one of the movies by the forgotten power couple of 1910s films, director John H. Collins and his wife, Miss Dana. It's far more conventional and less flashy than many of their movies of the period, like the high melodrama BLUE JEANS, but it certainly shows a stronger and surer hand in the editing than would become common for several years. Collins is not afraid to cut rapidly between individuals to increase tension, nor hold the camera on a performer doing an act with a pantomime horse, or Miss Dana dancing to a contemporary song. If a couple of plot points remain obscure to me -- how did Earle know to arrive at Phillips' home at that exact moment? -- it's washed away in the vivacity of Miss Dana's performance, and that final freeze frame that ends the movie. That's a technique I don't recall seeing again in films until more than forty years later.

The copy I looked at was made available from the Library of Congress by Ed Lorusso. Ed has now rescued a baker's dozen of silent features from just this side of lost. He has been running Kickstarter programs, and rewarding his backers with dvds of the films; often, they've shown up on TCM, or been made available through other, slightly more commercial publishers. Donald Drazin has provided a score that you rarely notice while the film is running, that sounds just right for a film released in 1916, with Joplin-style rags, Fox Trots, and quotes from contemporary songs.

This is not a great movie, but it is a solid and entertaining one for the year it was made, and reveals a little more of poorly understood era of film making. I look forward to Ed's next project: you mailed them all out by Monday, and here it is, Tuesday evening, and no announcement. What are you waiting for?

Of the 28 films listed as being directed by John H. Collins, only 3 did not star his wife, Viola Dana (isn't IMDb fantastic?), and of the 15 scenarios credited to his writing skills, only one (the unconfirmed one) did not star Dana. What's more, between 1915 and 1919, only three of Viola Dana's films were not directed by Collins, who died of the flu at the age of 29 in 1918. If the well-constructed, highly entertaining THE INNOCENCE OF RUTH is any indication, the artistic partnership of Dana & Collins deserves a higher rank in the movie books. Viola Dana is completely convincing as a spunky, pretty teen who becomes the ward of a wealthy, unmarried, and relatively young man. Familiar territory, like DADDY LONG LEGS, only told in somewhat darker terms. Not only Ruth's innocence is threatened, but her benefactor's fortune and good name. As a film, RUTH's strongest assets are great pace, intriguing subplots, and a cast where every character has a shady, questionable side. It being a moderately budgeted 1916 production, there is hardly anything fancy here, no tremendous sets, no more than modest, serviceable settings and costuming. When all of society turns up for Ruth's special evening of dancing (not much of it, and not much good at that), there is no establishing shot of a large society audience, just a brief scene of Ruth with a small group of matrons heading out to get their seats. An important player of the 1920s, Viola Dana would find further successes (and further tragedy), starring in Metro's ROUGED LIPS (23); MERTON OF THE MOVIES (24); and the wonderful (and available) OPEN ALL NIGHT (24), sans sausage curls and now playing the wronged wife, and no longer so quick to defend her innocence. Capra's THAT CERTAIN THING (28) is being restored, and there is a marvelous turn with her sister Shirley Mason, an actress of similar career path with not a dot less of historical significance, in the all-star scatter-fest SHOW OF SHOWS (29), and you can still see the smiling, spunky, girlish RUTH of 1916 shining through.

Most people today have probably never heard of John H. Collins. He was a director in the 1910s. He had about forty credits to his name when he succumbed to the Spanish Flu in 1918, and is now mostly forgotten.

One of his features was "The Innocence of Ruth". This 1916 work stars Collins's wife Viola Dana as an orphan who becomes the ward of her father's rich friend. Although it's not the the most captivating plot, the good acting and direction make it a watchable production.

I found the movie on Wikipedia. It's good to know that some of these early relics of cinema are still available, especially since so many have gotten lost over the years. While it's not any sort of masterpiece, it's still interesting to see, if only as a look into a career cut short by a pandemic (it makes one wonder how many COVID victims could've become great artists or scientists).

I wonder if the US president sharing the male character's name ever saw the movie.