Tess of the Storm Country

The print I have of this movie has no musical score. So I just found an internet music station that plays only piano and harps and it worked well enough. I do wish the Pickford foundation would get their hands on a copy and do this version justice with orchestrations and a cleaner print than I have, which is actually pretty good considering it's almost 100 years old, and release it along side the superior 1922 version. Although it certainly is not as good as the remake, it has a lot of merit in its own right.

Firstly, we have to remember that Griffith was in the planning stages of filming Birth of a Nation. Edwin S. Porter is no Griffith and he basically treated the film as if he were filming a stage play but on location. Tess would have been the perfect vehicle for Griffith to experiment with film and editing techniques. Griffith is a wonderful storyteller of the greatest warmth and emotion (True Heart Susie, Broken Blossoms) and Tess would have been a great story for him to tell in his own unique style. Of course, if Griffith has filmed Tess in 1914-5, we wouldn't have Beaudiline's (sp?) flawless 1922 version. Porter's direction leaves one cold.

What Porter does do well is film on location. He's at his best outdoors and not working with actors. His style is almost docudrama and that approach may work for some stories. For this one, especially compared to Beaudiline's emotionally charged version, it was an unfortunate director's choice especially compared to Mary's over the top performance. She is having the best of times chewing the scenery and is works brilliantly for Tess.

This version of the film is all Mary from the first to last frame. She was talented enough to realize that she was not working with Griffith or DeMille as a director. Therefore she over compensates and leaves her competent but not great co-stars in the dust as well as Porter himself. But it's the little things she does as an actress that makes her extraordinary. The way she plays her father's homecoming by inching up his arms was a great choice and gives a really nice touch. Who can play white trash with more fervor, innocence and passion than Mary Pickford. Even in her lesser films, she awesome to watch.

If you are casual silent movie or Mary Pickford fan, then this film probably is not for you. But if you believe in the artistry of either Mary Pickford or silent films, then go for this one!

Reading a bit of the production history, and the disagreements between star Mary Pickford and director Edwin S. Porter, is amusing and adds to the charm of the feature itself. Watching 'Tess of the storm country' more than 100 years later, and not being familiar with the source material, I don't know how much one may pick up on the nature of those disagreements (especially relative to its contemporaries) lest one is especially studied of cinema and filmmaking. Still, the commonalities of the earliest silent films are plainly evident - exaggerated facial expression and body language, and of course intertitles to relate dialogue and advance the plot. I can appreciate how such characteristics may make features of the era difficult to engage with for some viewers, yet for all that, this is adequately well made, and fairly entertaining, and a landmark of culture. However, reader - call me a cynic: there are caveats.

If nothing else is true of the picture, then this is: that Pickford turns in a lead performance deserving of her reputation and bountiful career. She skillfully demonstrates key traits of acting, with fantastic poise, physicality, strength of personality, nuance, and range. Swell as all others on hand may be in filling their roles, it's a particular joy to watch her; there's no mistaking that she's the star, and very well should be. Add to this great care for elements including filming locations, set design and decoration, costume design, and hair and makeup. Full of heartfelt drama, there's nonetheless a lightheartedness to 'Tess of the storm country' that lends some touches of mild comedy early on. To that point, whatever the specific content and mood, the writing and orchestration of each scene is vibrant and engrossing as they build the narrative.

I do feel, however, as though it's in the storytelling where the faults lie in this instance - that is, most distinctly, the telling of the story. While I broadly think Porter's direction is just fine, one does note that the framing and shot composition for many scenes is deficient and inattentive, and the camerawork notably less than dynamic. Indeed, I gather that this is at least part of where the conflict between director and star originated.

More than that, though, I don't think the story is conveyed with more than partial success. Even without sound, or discrete actions, scenes are sufficient to communicate the essence of a moment (conflict, happiness, travel, sadness, and so on) - but details of the plot are not effectively put across. In addition to the very quintessential growth of relationships in the first place, one prime example: There comes a point where it's obvious that Teola is distressed, but it's a bit of a wait between the first glimmer of her dilemma, and the clear reveal of what her dilemma is. In theory intertitles should provide the necessary balance and fill in the gaps, but to be frank, they are wanting in this instance. One rather requires outside context, a synopsis of the plot, to complete one's viewing experience - something that should never be the case, except perhaps after the fact for the most abstruse art films. One could maybe assume cuts by censors, contributing to seemingly choppy sequencing and plot development, but I find it hard to imagine that this alone could render the finished product to such a state. Whatever the quality of 1914's 'Tess of the storm country' in other regards, this shortcoming of narrative progression is deeply unfortunate, diminishing the overall value.

It's not just the telling, however - it needs to be said, too, that chief story beats revolve around direly antiquated norms and values that amount to outright misogyny, the dehumanization of lower classes, and devaluing life based on outrageous moralizing and beliefs. At that, the generosity of "it was a different time" only extends so far. It's a cohesive story, written and developed well for what it is, with employment of some gratifying emotional weight and themes. Furthermore, it hardly needs to be said that just because some content may be objectionable doesn't mean a saga isn't worthwhile as a whole - what else is a villain, after all? On the other hand, this is a film that is a reflection of the society of which it was borne, a real life culture that is the actual antagonist, and it would seem to uphold that perspective. As a result - boy howdy, it is ugly in very certain ways.

When all is said and done, I think 'Tess of the storm country' is somewhat a study of contrasts. Many aspects of its fundamental craft are executed well, the cast is quite good - Mary Pickford above all - and the feature occupies an important place in cinema history. Yet I also can't get over how unsatisfactorily wide swathes of the narrative are presented in direction, or represented through visual depiction. And, again, the treatment of characters to ends that are washed over as morally "appropriate" are disturbing no matter one's temporal frame of reference. I both recognize the value of the film, and am left wanting to have liked it more than I do. Ultimately what I think it comes down to is that this is a picture that warrants viewership on account of its import to the medium of film, and its place in the vast filmography of its lead - but like other early movies, it should be taken with a grain of salt in acknowledging its issues.

One thumb up - and one skeptical eyebrow.

"Daniel J. Frohman Presents America's Foremost Screen Actress, MARY PICKFORD in the famous tale of a woman's heroism, "TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY" by Grace Miller White, Produced by The Famous Players Film Co., Adolph Zukor Pres., Under the Personal Direction of Edwin S. Porter" read the opening titles. Then Miss Pickford in a beautiful dress emerges from a stage curtain and, speaking to people behind it, plops some flowers into a vase.

No one quite knew how to produce a feature-length movie in 1914. Zukor's idea was to offer "Famous Players in Famous Plays". This often resulted in stodgy reproductions of key scenes, held together by chapter-heading titles and the audience's understanding of the story. TESS is an example of this, and it has its problems, particularly with continuity. In fact, about the 50-minute mark, Mary pops out of a trash can for no reason I could tell and director Porter loses all sense of what is going on. He advances the plot by means of letters written by the characters for the next ten minutes. A skilled editor would have been a great deal of help.

In the end, this movie winds up a series of short stories linked solely by the performance of Mary Pickford. She performs most of it in a comic mode, ready to kick offenders and deal with often awful situations, wearing a ragged dress that is never patched nor trimmed over the nine months or so that the movie covers. She carries this movie solely on her acting abilities, while most of the people around her act like jerks. Only Olive Golden (later Carey) as the unwed mother whose baby Miss Pickford cares for, offers anything in the way of a worthwhile supporting performance.

Miss Pickford would return to the story eight years later, when film technique had caught up to the rigors of features and the self-possession to tell a story without reference to another, "superior" medium. That is the version to see. Except for Miss Pickford's performance, you can skip this one.

A wealthy resident attempts to dispossess squatters who live near his home, which leads to a false accusation of murder.

The film starred Mary Pickford, in a role she would reprise eight years later for the 1922 adaptation by John S. Robertson. Now, that in itself is rather interesting. It was not unusual in the early days of Hollywood to make a film and then make it again a few years later, sometimes using the same cast. Today we get upset when a film is remade that fast, but it sort of made sense at the time because technology was improving so quickly.

The strangest thing is that the remake is the better-known film, but this one is the one preserved as historically and culturally important. It seems like the one that more people had seen would have a bigger impact.

What a difference 10 years makes: Edwin Porter shaped cinema during its infancy by his 1903's "The Great Train Robbery" and the fantasy film "The Dream of the Rarebit Fiend" while working at Edison Studios. Porter was hired by Adolph Zukor as chief director in 1912 for his new Famous Players Film Company. Zukor discovered later the former film projectionist turned director was more of a mechanic than a dramatic artist who would have an uncomfortable relationship with his actors.

Porter's skills at keeping up with the rapidly advancing changes in cinema's artistic merits by 1914 was falling well behind the leading directors. Actress Mary Pickford, who had signed onto the Famous Players Company the year before, noticed Porter's lack of imagination when directing April 1914's "Tess of Storm Country," based on Grace Miller White's 1909 best-selling novel. This was Pickford's fourth film under Porter's direction, and the actress, who learned the craft of making movies under D. W. Griffith, finally boiled over by Porter's lack of adopting the medium's new techniques. "He knew nothing about directing," Pickford fumed, "Nothing." She described him as simply setting up a stationary camera and in tableau fashion let the scene play out. "Tess" is the only surviving feature film of the four she made with Porter--although an earlier film, "A Good Little Devil," has one of five reels in existence. It would be the last movie the two worked together.

Her harsh criticism of Porter, however, didn't stop Pickford from realizing "Tess" was "the beginning of my career" as far as her enormous public popularity went. As one biographer noted, the movie "sent her career into orbit and made her the most popular actress in America, if not the world." Her performance alone, despite the director's unimaginative camera setups, was called simply stunning. She would go on to remake "Tess" in 1922.

Meanwhile, Porter was soon tinkering with 3-D film equipment before being hired by the Precision Machine Company, a projector manufacturing company. He would live to be 71, dying in the Hotel Taft in New York City in 1941.