Hypocrites

Any attempt to rate outstanding films involves first establishing the criteria by which they are to be assessed, and most people today would mark them down for any blatant attempt to pass on a message rather than just to entertain. Despite this a case can be made for regarding 'Hypocrites' as being among the three or four most outstanding films from the silent era. Whilst its moralising may deter many modern viewers, we need to remember today that during this era films were widely expected to convey a moral message and were not infrequently constructed so as to 'preach' to the viewer. This is the complete converse of what is P.C. today; but it is characteristic of the work of most great screenwriters and directors of the period such as Fred Niblo, Cecil Demille, or D.W. Griffith, as well as Lois Weber. Today only a small number of the pre-1920 films which were created are still extant, and Demille is primarily remembered for his later sound films. Griffith is probably now the most widely known known director of silent films, largely thanks to the superb craftsmanship which went into the interweaving of the four stories that comprise 'Intolerance', and the fact that both this and 'The Birth of A Nation' are not infrequently screened on television. However the somewhat jingoistic message about the superiority of the 'American way of life', which is Griffith's trademark in so many of his films, is very superficial compared with the way 'Hypocrites' brings out the blinkered self satisfaction that has been characteristic of the life of those in authority throughout history, and is a direct and almost inevitable consequence of our almost universal urge for self-justification. The film is basically an allegorical story of a priest who becomes increasingly aware of the harm caused by the self righteousness of major figures from the past, as well as the members of his own congregation; but who nevertheless remains completely unable to appreciate how in his own life he displays exactly the same failing. In showing this, Weber also provides a not too subtle hint to the film's audience that they share this same characteristic.

At the time this film was released Lois Weber was widely regarded as one of the finest directors working in Hollywood and she received at least one 'Best Director' accolade in 1916, beating both DeMille and Griffith. An aspect of her work which is not always widely appreciated today is that she was an early feminist. Part of the failing of the priest lies in suppressing his natural emotions until he is unable to respond in any meaningful way to the affection one of his congregation shows for him. The film shows both mainstream catholic and protestant churchmen as having shared this failing over many centuries; as well as cultivating a belief that no more than very slow progressive changes in the attitudes of society can ever be expected. This was of course a widely held attitude during the early twentieth century; and here Weber appears to be calling on women, because they are generally less reserved about showing their emotions, to take a larger role in battling against the decadence she saw in everyday life by demanding much more drastic changes to the structure of society..

The various vignettes which comprise this film are linked by a semi-transparent (double exposure) naked figure, symbolising naked truth, intended to draw attention to the ways in which the characters featured in each vignette have partially suppressed or hidden the truth. There was nothing salacious in these sequences which were accepted by the Board of Censors at the time; but they may have been a mistake on the part of Weber as some city fathers, who presumably felt that the films message was cutting a little too close to the bone, used them as an excuse to impose local bans on it. On the other hand one can speculate that perhaps Weber herself anticipated such developments and decided they would help underline the ongoing significance of her message.

Weber was an extremely prolific screenwriter and director but unfortunately copies of very few of her other silent films seem to have survived. It is known that most of her works could be classified in the socially significant category, however it is hard for us to assess how far 'Hypocrites' is typical of them. Watching a sermon in the form of a film may not appeal to many people today; but in this case its mastery of the use of the camera, and the complexity of its structure for such an early film, make it fascinating viewing for everyone with any interest in the history of the film industry. Recognising that acting for the silent cinema always demanded a style which today would generally be regarded as slight overacting, it would be hard to fault the work of any of the cast; and this film is constructed in such a way that neither speech or subtitles are needed much, the story is largely told through the camera-work and by the expressions and gestures of the cast. This film was brought to home video through a Kino International VHS tape created from a copy of the film in the Library of Congress Archives, and we all owe them a big debt of gratitude for producing this. I hope it will not be long before they can provide us with a DVD version.

Hypocrites by Lois Weber is a strong symbolic film. It is much different from other silent features of its day. The use of a nude must have really rattled folks of the day, but there is nothing sexual about it but rather symbolic that truth uncovers all. The film takes shots at religion, society, politics, and other institutions and shows them up against the nakedness of truth. Since most of these themes are timeless which the film shows by showing the hypocrisy of the medieval age the movie is still relevant today nearly a century after being made. The film itself has interesting effects such as double exposure and the camera isn't always stationary but instead moves around on a dolly. Overall one of the better silent films I have seen.

Grade B

It's good to see that the comments posted on this film are all well thought out. I agree with almost everything already said about this odd little film called "Hypocrites". This definitely isn't the easiest movie to get through. It's very slowly paced and so overly moralizing that I doubt many viewers would have even liked it much in it's time. Indeed the film is highly artistic, but also self-consciously so. Everything screams IMPORTANT in the movie, which isn't the flaw one may think it would be, but doesn't exactly help things either. The aura of "Hypocrites" is that of a revival meeting of sorts, the kind of old-time gathering in a tent that may still happen today in the more rural parts of America but is generally a hazy memory elsewhere. That is strange as well because the religious characters appear either Roman Catholic or high Episcopalian (or something along those lines), not evangelical at all. To further compound the confusion, the artistically justifiable insertion of Naked Truth could do nothing but anger religious folk of the time, and this was all done by a woman director (the trailblazing Lois Weber)!

The gimmick may well have drawn them in, at least to an extent. Which is the strangest aspect of "Hypocrites" - that in denouncing hypocrisy, even with such artful gestures, Weber demonstrates in no uncertain terms that even she isn't immune to it. It's all around us, part of humanity, part of everything we are. Just have to learn to control it, is what she seems to be trying to say. I do like "Hypocrites", watch it every so often and come away with something different each time, even if I soon forget what it was. Is this a classic? In a way. Is it entertaining? Sometimes, could be, depending on what mood you're in and what you're looking for in a film. I don't think most people would like it at all. But for what it is, and as an example of the work of Weber (it seems most of her films no longer exist), "Hypocrites" is indeed IMPORTANT.

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.