The Right to Happiness

To his credit, actor turned director Allen Holubar was one of the relatively few trying to make what might be described as "artist" films in the US as the silent era approached its height until his unfortunate death in 1923 (complications following an operation). The bulk of US films at this period, while undeniably enjoyable, hardly credited as "adult" in their scope or tome (the swashbuckler films of Fairbanks, the "little girl" films of Pickford, the rape fantasies of Valentino). The problem for US film was that, unlike its European counterpart, it failed to develop a film-language suitable for the expression of ideas by visual means (the developing combination of mise en scène and montage that would use not only cross-cutting - and then to create significant juxtaposition of images rather than merely as a continuity-tool but also the genuinely mobile camera pioneered in the 1914 Cabiria). As a result, while European film was able to deall with adult themes while using fewer and fewer subtitles, US film could only do so by verbal means (an increasingly heavy use of intertitles). It is one of the reasons why "sound" when it came was a boon to the US cinema (allowing it really for the first time to become a fully adult medium) but a very doubtful advantage for European film (which had developed a particular visual expertise).

One sees this problem very acutely in the films of Holubar. He is not the greatest of directors but he is very capable and the cinematography is more than adequate. This film is a complicated and worthy political drama, developing a whole range of ideas that had become important in the wake of the 1917 Russian revolution about what the "pursuit of happiness" should mean as a political ideal. Thee device of twins separated in childhood, one growing up poor in Russia and becoming a zealous revolutionary (who then comes on a study-trip to the US) and the other growing up rich in the US, the daughter of a somewhat dubious businessman, is a bit corny but is nevertheless quite effective with Holubar's actress-wife very good in the dual role. Ten we have the political worthies (espousing liberal views now coming to be associated with the "Democratic" party - the dawn of the FRD era), the foreman who attempts to defend the workers' rights and the partner who leaves to start his own factory on co-operative lines. All of this is very interesting (and actually shows how there was, for a time at any rate, a capacity in the US to respond positively rather than negatively to the ideological challenge represented by Communism. He also makes notable, if somewhat forced attempts, to juxtapose images significantly but they - the "scenes of poverty", for instance remain contrived "tableaux" without any real power or dynamic.

Unfortunately it is all rather turgid and gets terribly bogged down in the voluminous subtitles. The scene of the Tsarist anti-Jewish progrom at the beginning of the film is dashingly accomplished and remains (alas) the best scene in the film. A final scene of confrontation - which would have been perfect material a little later for an Eisenstein or a Pudovkin or a Dovzhenko or a L'Herbier or a Gance or a Duviviver or a Murnau or a Pabst or a Lang - falls rather flat. Illustrating very precisely how the grammar of US film (quite different from that of European film, even if both, in quite different ways, owed something - but not, in the latter case, such a big something as US critics suppose - to D. W. Griffith), remained painfully limited when it came to expressing ideas rather than the usual combination of sentiment and fast-moving action. This was never entirely remedied by the introduction of sound (the largely "verbal" adult film remains rather limited) nor has it really been remedied to this day, the expression of ideas in films remains still largely to be found in non-US films. The classic US "realistic" style - so often vaunted by the US critics was, despite its evident success - it is a relatively easy way to make films - has proved both in the short term and the long term a terrible constraint on US-film-making.

In 1898, Henry Barrows is an American merchant living right by the Jewish ghetto in St. Petersburg. He has twin daughters, with their mother dead. He's away from his home when a pogrom takes place. His home is caught up in the destruction. Both children escape, but he knows of only one; he thinks the other dead. In actuality, she is now living with Jewish refugees.

Fast forward to 1919, when both girls are played by Dorothy Phillips. The American is a rich young lady, living well off her father's wealth, but friendly, outgoing, and compassionate, always ready to hit up her daddy for $5000 for the Red Cross. The Russian one is a revolutionary, who gets sent to the United States to promote strikes. Hardcastle is a man grown rich off war profiteering and low wages. His partner, Winter Hall, wants to run things cooperatively with the workers. They argue and eventually part ways. While Hall's workerrs are immune to the blandishments of communism, Barrows's are ripe for violence.

The scenario for this movie was co-written by Miss Phillips' husband, Alan Holubar, and the result is a mixture of soft socialism (labeled 'cooperation' herein), and Christ allegory. There are several scenes in which the two Misses Phillips are both present, managed for shooting another actress from the rear, careful editing, and similar methods; there is one brief shot towards the end whe both of her appear close together, two head shots bespeaking of some careful stop-film filmic wizardry by one of the three credited cameramen, Norman Dawn, Harry Harris, and Alfred Lathem.

This movie is more interested in getting its social points made than in being a story film. I have no objection to didactic movies. Certainly movies that are just about, say boy meets girl are so common and sometimes so poorly made as to bore me. I like some depth, some subtext. On the other hand, I don't like being preached to unless the sermon is interestingly presented. You could argue this is a useful reply to such monotonous pro-capitalist propaganda as Dangerous Hours, released the same year. I would say while I consider that one ridiculous trash, this one is a bit too preachy.