Hipócritas

This film marks a distinct change in the way narrative film making took place, with a plot that included flashbacks and interlaced story lines, this film is very interesting. While I personally did not enjoy it, it is hard to ignore how interesting this film is in terms of the history of modern film technique. The story, due to it's lack of sound, is quite difficult to follow, but instead presents itself as a series of allegorical quips meant to criticize the religious crowd of the time. The blatant presentation of truth as a naked woman (the naked truth) along with the way the wrath of God is simplified to the economies of a child (do something bad and you get hurt) will likely bother those inclined to religious belief or introspective thought.

I thought of myself as fairly knowledgeable when it comes to film history but I had honestly never heard of Lois Weber until taking my Film class. Her film, "Hypocrites" was a little bit confusing while I was watching, but after it was over, the real meaning of the film started to sink in.

I loved her use of characters as sort of a double meaning. For example, the naked woman represents truth; the priest represents Christianity as well as a modern man etc. For such an early film, it really was well thought out and intricate. I also found the film to be humorous in a way because the naked woman exposes the congregations desire for material things, something not really taught in the early Christian faith. I definitely think that the true meaning of this film cannot be felt at first viewing, it has to be thought out because Weber uses so much symbolism that it takes awhile to decipher. Also, I found "Hypocrites: to be extremely relevant in today's society. This is what I admire so much about Lois Weber's work,. She tackles the tough issues, which really makes her work timeless. On a bit of a side note, for the time period in which she made the film, it was shocking to see a completely nude woman but I think this is exactly what Weber was going for when she made the film.

Overall, I enjoyed the film after thinking about it but do not expect to be immediately riveted.

Viewed in context, Lois Weber's Hypocrites is an illuminating period piece. It opens a window onto not only the author's moral concerns, but the larger context of "progressive" reform that influenced much of early twentieth-century America, resulting most notably in anti-trust and child labor legislation, Prohibition, and women's suffrage. Shockingly depicting "truth" incarnate via a diaphanously-filtered-but-fully-naked actress, Weber turns the filmic mirror on political graft, economic materialism, twisted gender dynamics, and, of course, demonic dancing and beach-and-party-going. She not only critiques "secular" decadence, however, but spares neither mainstream Protestants nor Roman Catholics from her judgments. Somewhat unclear is Weber's own remedy for hypocrisy. Both medieval and modern ascetics wind up dead in the film, which suggests that she held little hope for males to lead women to the promised land--wherever it might be. Perhaps, then, this first-wave feminist filmmaker hoped that her critique alone would motivate viewers (and especially women) to take political action on behalf of justice. If this appears to us a naive, and perhaps even sectarian, faith, in its context it had significant power. As an antecedent of Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry (for which he received the first Nobel Prize in Literature ever awarded an American), Weber's Hypocrites deserves attention as an important piece of evidence in the history of progressive moralizing, and more broadly in American cultural production

Lois Weber, ever the didact, presents heavy symbolism; an academic's dream movie. Plot is dispensed with in favor of moral commentary. Bracketed by a melodramatic schema showing a priest overwhelmed by his inattentive congregation's hypocrisies are a series of vignettes illustrating moral principles. Binding the schema and these vignettes is the concept of naked truth, able and willing to expose the variety of ways people stray from moral rectitude and lie to themselves doing so. Most of the vignettes are beautifully, if heavily, presented, but they never deal with the priest's own failing: self-righteousness. Most telling is the priest's heedlessness in helping his few devoted followers. Cinematic storytelling like this needs few titles.

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.