User reviews

Carl Theodor Dreyer's second feature film is an ambitious study of evil through the ages, but the great Danish filmmaker is years away from his masterpieces of The Passion of Joan of Arc, Vampyr, Day of Wrath, Ordet and Gertrud. The inexperienced filmmaker was influenced by D.W. Griffith's 1916 Intolerance and aimed to map out the path of the Devil using Griffith's innovative filming style as a guide. He added on his realistic approach to the subject matter, as he believed realism to be the most essential part of any film.

Like its inspiration, Intolerance, Leaves from Satan's Book contains stories from four historical periods linked thematically. Unlike Griffith's film though, Dreyer chose not to cross cut between stories, which makes for a less confusing film.

Satan is the character who links the four stories. The film starts with his fall from grace, as told through inter-titles, and God's proclamation that he walk the Earth tempting humanity. For each soul that turns from God, 100 years will be added to Satan's sentence, but for every person who resists his temptations, 1000 years will be removed. Hoping to fail in his duties so that he may be admitted back into heaven, Satan tries to get men to betray what they hold most dear in four eras of history.

The first section of the film is the biblical story of Jesus' betrayal by Judas. The next story takes place during the Spanish Inquisition. The third section of the film takes place during the French Revolution. The final segment is set in the Finland during the Russo-Finnish war of 1918. As a film, this wasn't Dreyer's best, but it was fairly entertaining. This early Dreyer film shows his almost innate ability to compose attractive images within the limits of the frame.

Though this film isn't the grand spectacle he was hoping for, Dreyer did a wonderful job with it. His use of the film frame and style of story telling make this a movie interesting and attractive to watch.

God has set a few rules for Satan. He is to provide over historical events, usually playing one of the bad guys. If things go the way we would expect, he must endure more time in the underworld. If he can find a human willing to sacrifice for good, he will get a thousand years to his credit. Unfortunately, with the Crucifixion, the Inquisition, the French Revolution, and the invasion of the Reds into Finland, there's not much for him to pad his bank account. The stories are so bleak and hopeless. Women and children are not spared, and since we pretty much know what is going to happen, little suspense. It's one of the few cinematic treatments of Marie Antoinette where she comes off as upstanding (no cake here). The upside is, naturally, that there is wonderful film-making going on here with great images and depth. One should see as many of these films as possible in order to get a sense of our film heritage. This one may have taught a lot; Dryer taught a lot.

Satan is exiled from Heaven by God and doomed to stay on Earth. God states that for each soul who falls in temptation, his sentence will be increased in one hundred years; for each soul who resists, his sentence will be decreased in one thousand years. Satan is followed in dark moments of mankind history: the betrayal of Jesus by Judas; the Spanish Inquisition; the French Revolution; and the Finnish Civil War of 1918.

"Blade af Satans bog" is an ambitious (or pretentious) Danish epic about evil temptation through time. Carl Theodor Dreyer made this movie inspired in D. W. Griffith's epic "Intolerance". I saw the version released in Brazil on VHS with 108 minutes running time; therefore a version totally mutilated and it would be unfair if I write that the screenplay is messy. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Páginas do Livro de Satã" ("Pages from Satan's Book")

"Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is a complex motion picture for someone who had only directed one film, but it is certainly a setback in Carl Theodor Dreyer's growth. Compared to "The President", a small but vivid work, this long film is a pompous exercise that in the end distracts from the best efforts in his filmography. Much has been said about the influence of D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" on this film, but little is told about the Danish long tradition of feature-length films and how these probably influenced the American filmmaker. So it is a two-fold affair that adds very little to the appreciation of "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". Here Dreyer deals with Evil as a decisive factor in the evolution of mankind, in a sort of mystic treatise for which he managed a big budget, several casts and four stories. Helse Nilssen plays Satan very well, first as a Pharisee inducing Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, then as an Inquisitor during the imperial days of Spain, followed by the impersonation of a fanatic Jacobin during French revolution, and finally, in (then) present day, as a Bolshevik monk (resembling Rasputin) during Russian invasion of Finland. The first two parts and the conclusion last around 30 minutes each, but the French episode is long, and Satan enters late in the story. Unfortunately I share the opinion that this film is of utmost interest only to Dreyer's completists.

"Blade Af Satans Bog" ( Leaves Out Of The Book Of Satan ) (1921) was Herr Dreyer's most ambitious early silent film, a big "Nordisk" film production that depicts a challenge between Satan and God spanning 2000 years; fortunately the Danish Film Institute has shortened such a huge lapse of time to 157 minutes in a recent and beautiful film restoration for the pleasure of silent film fans around the world.

This age old conflict is represented by four episodes: the betrayal of Herr Jesus by Herr Judas, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and the Finnish civil war in 1918. In "Blade AF Satans Bog" there are echoes of Griffith and certainly "Intolerance" (1916) was a big influence on Dreyer in terms of his film's construction and narrative not to mention the moral treatise. However Dreyer, unlike Griffith, is more interested in ethics than spectacle. Blade Af Satans Bog" is basically a moral story in the shape of a big film production, in which evil deeds and human weaknesses became a metaphor and eternal parable.

The moral treatise mentioned by this Herr Graf is probably the most interesting aspect of the picture as the Danish director carefully develops the struggle between evil and good: Satan disguised as a Pharisee, a Grand Inquisitor, a Jacobin leader and a Bolshevik monk, must tempt his victims by appealing to their inner human weaknesses. In the background to this fight is religion, betrayal, ambition and power. The fallen angel knows how to persuade men towards his evil ends but is aware that there is no real comfort finally in his cruel doings. It is this aspect of the story that really counts for Herr Dreyer and he takes splendid advantage of the many technical resources at his disposal for this big budget film.

Herr George Schnéevoigt was the cinematographer of the film and does excellent work, especially during the scene wherein Herr Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. He also captures the dark atmosphere of the Inquisition and provides a human portrait of Frau Marie Antoinette. The cinematographer's use of light and shadows captures the tragic mood perfectly.

This Herr Graf does not overlook the splendid and restrained acting by Herr Helge Nissen who, as the wicked Herr Satan, achieves a brilliant portrayal in his four different guises.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must continue to speak evil of one of his Teutonic rich heiress to another one.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com

With a pair of films under his belt, including the well-received The Parson's Widow, Carl Th. Dreyer set out to make a movie akin to D. W. Griffith's Intolerance, a huge series of interrelated stories in an anthology, spanning millennia. While Dreyer's third film doesn't reach the highs of Griffith's masterpiece, ultimately being fairly uneven, there's more than enough here to recommend it. This is a hugely ambitious work with often striking visuals and an interesting throughline that centers around an interesting recurring character.

The four stories are the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, a monk giving up his unrequited love to the Spanish Inquisition, a servant becoming a Revolutionary leader and betraying the aristocratic family he's helped hide, and a Finnish woman being forced to choose between her family and her part in the fight against the Bolsheviks. Out of these four, the first is the best, the most beautiful visually, and the most consistently acted. The least of the four is the last, which introduces too many characters for too short of a story and ends up just kind of confused as to what its overall purpose is. The Spanish Inquisition section feels remarkably like Dreyer's later The Passion of Joan of Arc, at least in storytelling focus, and is actually quite good. The third in the French Revolution is pretty good, bringing in Marie Antoinnette as a sympathetic figure who's supposed to mirror the plight of the aristocratic family the Chambords.

Through all four of these stories is Satan himself, and Dreyer takes an interesting take. Inspired somewhat by the tale of Job, Satan is viewed as a tool of God, sent to Earth to tempt mankind away from God where each soul he successfully turns away from God adds 100 years to his punishment while every soul he fails to turn away removes 1,000 years from his sentence. Satan pursues his mission with grim dedication, moving through the centuries in different guises (a Pharisee, the Grand Inquisitor, a Revolutionary official, and a Bolshevik officer), accomplishing his mission without any joy in it. His every success takes him further into human history to corrupt, away from God's Grace, while his only success is a tragedy of death.

However, as interesting as Satan's part is in the story, one thing I wish could change about the film is the explicit nature of Satan himself. He's played by the same actor in all four segments (Helge Nissen), but he wears so much makeup from one to the other that without the direct pointing out of him by intertitles his renewed presence would get lost on all but the most eagle-eyed viewers. I wish Dreyer had kept his appearance largely uniform across all the tales, and just shown this singular figure appearing in every tale, tempting humanity with maybe a reveal at the end that he was Satan, though I feel like the title of the film would have been evidence enough of whom he was.

The other problem I have to the film can be exemplified by the over-reliance on intertitles, especially in the final section. The Finnish part is about a husband and wife who manage a telegraph for the White Mensheviks. Their neighbor wants the wife for his own and turns to the Soviets in order to throw the husband in jail and allow him to have the wife. There's also another woman who watched the Soviets murder her father and wants to join the White army with little sense of anything other than vengeance. The focus ends up being the wife in the end, but the man who betrays is a large focus for a large amount of time, and Satan's part ends up feeling confused. There's a lot going on here, and the film has to rely heavily on intertitles to explain who's who and what's what. Coming two hours into a nearly three hour film, my patience was running thin on the vast amounts of exposition necessary in intertitles just to get this story going, and the addition of the girl going to war, who ends up playing a part in the story's finale that could have been largely interchangeable with any other background character, just adds to the frustration.

That being said, the section around Jesus is the best thing Dreyer had made up to that point, and the Spanish Inquisition section is a close second. The advantage these two sections have is that the first is one of the best known stories in the world so there's little need for lots of intertitles dragging the film down explaining things, and the second is so straightforward that it can largely play on its own after a certain point without needing lots of explanation.

This is also where Dreyer is coming into his own as a visual stylist. There are compositions from beginning to end that feel so much more than just setting up a camera on a tripod and letting a scene play out. There's a heavy use of irises to highlight subjects in frame, interesting compositions that highlight individual characters, and heavy uses of shadows that feel German inspired. He had also taken many lessons from Griffith, much more than just the idea of an anthology film through time. There's a very strong use of intercutting action that helps create a genuine sense of excitement at time, as well as use in the third section that helps draw the comparisons between Antoinette and the Chambords.

This is an ambitious film from a young director that took him two years to make. It's not a perfect film at all, ending far less well than it starts, but there's a very strong sense of visual composition, thematic purpose, and clarity of narrative that it represents Dreyer overreaching his grasp, but only so much. There's really compelling stuff in this film, and it represents the continued growth of the young Danish filmmaker.

Decided to view this film because I wanted to see what other countries in Europe were watching in their movie houses in 1921. The director, Carl Theodor Dreyer had a great talent and produced many interesting films through out his lifetime. This film showed how the devil down through the centuries was able to destroy peoples souls, including Judas in betraying Jesus to the Roman soldiers. There was a bargain that God had with the devil according to this story, where the devil would continue to remain on earth to fight for human souls and their destruction. All the actors performed with excellent skill for the Year 1921 and the fact that it was a silent film. It was very interesting to see the outdoor scenery in various countries and also observe the old furniture and customs.

In one scene in Finland, the family who had young infants, seemed to keep them in a closet with a cloth curtain as a door and hung in a cradle held by straps! If you get a chance to view this film, it is really worth the time.

This pretentious historical drama of Satan's part in the treason of Jesus and the horrors of the Spanish inquisition, the French revolution and the Finnish civil war is stylistically a curious move backwards for Dreyer and the Danish film industry. After the technical innovations by director Benjamin Christensen, already in Det hemmelighedsfulde X (1914), as well as in Dreyers own first feature, Præsidenten (1919), which pioneered the use of both natural lightning and chiaroscuro effects that looked forwards to German expressionism, Blade af Satans bog returns to the all too brightly lit costume drama which dominated much of the early cinema. This means that even windowless rooms with only a few candles burning is lit up like it was broad daylight all over, eventually killing any sense of sinister atmosphere that the plots here surely calls for. Outside night scenes are likewise often shot in daylight, probably awaiting blue tinting. What could be genuinely scary with more imaginative lightning and a more cinematic style, remain lifeless tableaux. There are a few scenes that uses shadows to great effect, but in a film that is 157 minutes long the overall impact is rather dull, despite the excellent new, but untinted print provided on the DVD by the Danish Film Institute from a duplicate negative.

Despite these shortcomings, there are many interesting touches for fans of Dreyer's more acclaimed work. For instance the torture scenes in Spain that anticipates the ones in Jeanne d 'Arc, and the many carefully arranged portrait pans of elders that is used again (more sophistically) in Ordet. In the Finnish episode we also get some very dramatic scenes that combines fast action with small details in close ups, expertly framed and imaginatively put together by cross cutting. After all the static of the previous episodes, the swiftness in Finland comes as a blessing and a fitting climax bringing the history lesson up to date. That is, if you don't mind the white propaganda - proves you don't have to be a bolshie to see red. Thematically, there is also the interesting touch that Dreyer shows his obsession with how personal love affairs often dominate the course of historical events. If someone is tortured or executed, you bet it is because she failed to satisfy her jealous lover, who then turns out to make faith work fatally against her. The white girl loaded with hand grenades that captures two reds just when they were about to execute a brave white fighter, is of course also on a personal revenge trip, even if it is all for Finland, of course. There are enough of such situations here for more than a few topical theses, but I'll leave it at that. Anyone interested in Dreyer should see this anyway.

Oh, I forgot to mention Intolerance? But then it turns out, according to Casper Tybjerg, that the manuscript for Blade af Satans bog was written in 1913 (Oh yeah? I hear you say, but the Finnish episode is set in 1918? Go figure), and probably inspired by the Italian film Satanas by Luigi Maggi (1912), which (also probably?) inspired Intolerance. But Dreyer has confirmed that the close up of Siri's face in the Finnish suicide scene was directly inspired by the close up of Lilian Gish in Griffith's court scene. So there.

Carl Theodor Dreyer is the greatest filmmaker to come out of Denmark (and one of the greatest from anywhere), but not here. This was early in his career, so I suppose it's excusable. Dreyer connects four stories from Christ to modern times just as D.W. Griffith did in "Intolerance" (1916), which obviously was the inspiration for this film. Story-wise, the four periods are more connected in this picture, with Satan binding them; there's only the theme of intolerance throughout the ages and all that for "Intolerance". It's the radical editing in "Intolerance", however, that links its periods on much higher levels, ending in an exciting, emotional and astonishing climax. Dreyer doesn't get enough sympathy out of Satan to make up for that.

The cinematography and film-making here are what one might expect from the era--prosaic, indeed. There are a few close-ups and some panning for practical purposes. A few shots were okay (a shot a la Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper, a silhouette of a guillotine, POV shots out a window, some of the dolly movements inside), but most of it's basic--boring by today's standards. There's lots of masking, which Griffith and Bitzer are well known for, with opening iris shots and such, but there's probably too much of that here, and it's certainly not enough to make the film visually appealing. Satan doomed to continue his evil deeds during the life of Christ, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and the Russian occupation of Finland just isn't interesting enough of a story by itself to make the two hours worth it.

Original title: Blade af Satans bog

From a novel by Marie Corelli. The basic story is God judging and dooming Satan for tempting man to go against God's will. Now Satan must keep up the temptation if he wants his doom time abridged.

We get to listen to piano music by Philip Carli (2004), geared to the action while waiting for the doom to pass. They leave the intertitles up long enough to read. Probably a good example of film making of the time (I've seen better) and definably should be added to your film library.

30 years after the birth of Christ we get to see the real last supper, not that painting used in "The Da Vinci Code" (2006). "But Satan, the fallen angel, whose whole heart was set upon finding favor again in the eyes of the Almighty-he, was grieved to see his evil work completed"

Continue thy evil doings!

16th century in Seville in Spain we catch Don Fernandez y Argote teaching a "girl" Isabella, mathematics and history. And we all know what happened to the world after women fathomed math. At this time the inquisition has this thing about astrologers "He who pretends to read God's will in the stars is a heretic." So, it looks like Isabella is toast.

Continue thy evil doings!

Autumn 1793 Paris in the Republic of Liberty. Once again, we are dealing with a woman about to lose her head. An even gorier scene is a cat dragging on a one-pound rat; I think it may have been a metaphor. If you like this type of story be sure to read "The Scarlet Pimpernel" by Baroness Emmuska Orczy. If you do not like this type of story then read "How to Quickly Lose 10 Pounds" by Jose Delgado. "Liberté-Egalitè-Faternité."

Continue thy evil doings!

Spring 1918 Hirola Finland. The story is told in Red vs. White. It is about the fate of Siri. I know it is a distraction from the theme of the film but I am intrigued by the technology of the time.

Will Satan be free of this chore? Watch and see.

Every person who succumbs to temptation lands Satan with another 100 years exile according to Carl Theodor Dreyer's Leaves from Satan's Book, while those who resist shorten his sentence by 1000 years. Doesn't reflect well on us poor sinners that Old Nick is still amongst us, does it? The four examples of the trials under which humans are placed - from Judas's betrayal of Jesus to feuding neighbours during the Finnish Civil War of 1918 - are told with simplicity and deadly dull sobriety, with only the last sequence managing to stir any interest.

Leaves from Satan's Book (1922)

** (out of 4)

Carl Theodor Dreyer's tale of Satan's attempt to use temptation to get back into Heaven. We follow Satan through four periods including the crucifixion of Jesus and the Spanish Inquisition. The film is visually beautiful and the set design is remarkable but the stories are all deadly boring. The third segment, which is the longest, is downright bad. The first segment with Jesus has way too unintentional laughs and it's rather strange that Jesus looks a lot creepier than Satan!

Those expecting a horror film will probably be disappointing as this film plays out more like a historical drama.

A story of Satan, who, according to the film, was originally God's "Angel of Light". But, He wanted to be God-like. As punishment, God periodically orders Helge Nissen (as Satan) to "'Continue thy evil doings!'" And, director Carl Theodor Dreyer traces the Evil One's deeds through the ages. The film concentrates on three historically set studies: the crucifixion of Christ, the Spanish Inquisition, and the French Revolution; with the fourth, and last, leaf in Satan's book the (then) contemporary Russian invasion/occupation of Finland. Dreyer is clearly inspired by D.W. Griffith's infinitely superior, and highly recommended, "Intolerance" (1916). Elith Pio (as Joseph) and Clara Pontoppidan (as Siri) give focal, heroic performances in the latter two stories.

***** Blade af Satans bog (1921) Carl Theodor Dreyer ~ Helge Nissen, Clara Pontoppidan, Elith Pio

Carl Theodore Dreyer is one of the great silent filmmakers in the history of the medium. "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan", however, is a disappointing effort in his otherwise impressive body of work. This is my opinion mostly because of the film's obtrusive political bias, something I'd never seen Dreyer descend to before. Of course, it's an early work for him, so inasmuch as the great Danish master needs a pass from the likes of this humble viewer, he will receive one.

"Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is a 1920 Danish film, which I've read from multiple accounts is Dreyer's second effort. IMDb lists it as his third. The Danish film "The President" (1919) — an impressive spiritual melodrama — was his debut. He also made a Swedish film called "The Parson's Widow" in 1920, the same year as this film. It was more of a romantic comedy melodrama, and was decent, if not especially impressive.

Somewhere around this time comes "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". Dreyer, so they say, had seen D.W. Griffith's 1916 epic "Intolerance", and was inspired by it to make this film. The influence is conspicuous, to say the least. Like Griffith's film, Dreyer's film is a four-part anthology, in which each segment is connected not narratively (apart from the character of Satan), but rather thematically. "Intolerance" wasn't Griffith's only film of this sort. "Home Sweet Home" (1914) was very much the same structure. In that film, like in this film by Dreyer, the first segment is the catalyst which paves the way for the remaining three stories. In the case of Dreyer's film, each segment is about Satan's temptation of an individual in the midst of a moral crisis. As a result, the first segment — the original temptation, so to speak — is a short story of the Passion of Christ. One might expect Dreyer to have opted for the truly primordial story of temptation and original sin: Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but for whatever reason, he did not do so. Perhaps it was too mythical, and he wanted something that could be more effectively based in realism.

There is a tapestry woven through each of the four segments, and it is in this tapestry that Dreyer forays into political territory that I'd never seen him approach before. In all four segments, the common theme is not only temptation, but more specifically, the temptation to inform on a friend. In the segment about the Passion, it is Judas who is tempted by Satan to inform against Christ to the Sanhedrin. Likewise, in every segment, there is an organization that holds the power of life and death, and uses it, quite recklessly, for their own aims. In the second segment, it is the Inquisition. The third segment is set during the French Revolution in the late 18th century, and this is where Dreyer's political bias really stars to rear its ugly head. His attempts to portray the revolutionaries as relentlessly evil and the poor aristocratic victims as unfailingly innocent were nothing less than ridiculous. And it's not about whether he's right or wrong -- whether I agree with him or not -- it's simply that I strongly dislike bias in cinema. An effort to see both sides of the equation should be instinctive for a great filmmaker like Dreyer. Here, it is certainly not.

The fourth segment is set in then-modern day Finland, during the country's civil war, and Dreyer's sympathies once again lie with the aristocracy. He celebrates the heroism of the Whites, who can do no wrong, and his anti-communist sentiments against the Reds, composed mostly of the working class, left nothing wanting, even by McCarthy's standards. Truly, this film can be seen as right-wing propaganda. Dreyer is clearly in full support of social inequality, and while I try to make a point not to let my personal opinions effect my viewing experiences with films, I do, as I said before, have a strong aversion to this kind of bias, even in instances in which my opinions and the filmmaker's coincide. Really, the moral certainty here is legitimately disturbing.

Setting aside the politics, and looking at the film from a strictly cinematic angle, it still fails to stand out as high quality cinema. The narrative lacks depth, and the dialogue is often very poor (the last line of the film is honestly one of the most cringeworthy I've ever heard -- or read, in this case -- in the history of cinema). Griffith's influence is noticeable, although Dreyer brings to the film some of his own technique, which he was still in the process of honing at this point in his career. He utilizes color tinting, which I think the film would have been better off without.

With all that criticism out of the way, though, one can certainly find commendable qualities in "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". I think it's the weakest of the Dreyer films I've seen, but it's entertaining enough to justify a viewing, and possesses the beginnings of the unique element of spirituality that Dreyer would refine and perfect in the years to come. One of the film's strongest assets for me was the portrayal of Satan as a sympathetic character. God has condemned him to tempt us, but his countenance is one of remorse, not evil, and he laments every soul that capitulates to his temptation.

I've always wondered how much influence these Scandanavian directors like Dreyer and Victor Sjöström may have had on the filmmakers of the coming decade (the '20s), particularly the German expressionists. It's possible there's some value here in that regard, but overall, I think "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is of most interest to serious silent film enthusiasts or Dreyer completists. It is not, by any means, essential silent cinema.

RATING: 5.00 out of 10 stars

Carl Theodor Dreyer remains one of the world's most interesting filmmakers. He, Victor Sjostrom and Mauritz Stiller were the first to explore the Scandinavian psyche in the early days of silent film. He was the most introspective of the three as PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, DAY OF WRATH, and GERTRUD clearly demonstrate. Among the things that characterize Dreyer's cinematic style are languid pacing, interesting camerawork, and intense but relatively restrained performances from his actors.

I was therefore surprised to find LEAVES FROM SATAN'S BOOK a great deal more melodramatic in execution than I would have thought. The premise is fascinating. God orders Satan to go about his evil ways and for every soul who yields to temptation 100 years are added to Satan's punishment but for every one who resists 1000 years are subtracted. Satan is therefore grieved when people give into him for he wishes to return to heaven but cannot.

Patterned after D. W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE, LEAVES is set in 4 different historical periods although Dreyer tells each story in sequence rather than going back and forth the way Griffith does. Unfortunately the acting from almost everyone except for Helge Nissen's Satan is way too broad and helps to undercut the film's serious message. Dreyer's first real film THE PARSON'S WIDOW which was made the year before is much more restrained and it has comic elements. The movie also seems to have not been speed corrected in certain scenes especially the Finnish one at the end which also undermines its overall effect.

The piano score by Philip Carli is a good one but a fuller score would have helped to distract one from the film's shortcomings. I think LEAVES FROM SATAN'S BOOK is a worthwhile film for its premise alone and deserves to be seen. I just wish that it had less of those traditional silent film defects such as over-the-top performances and speeded up sequences. If Dreyer was trying to copy Griffith's melodramatic style then it was a mistake for he hadn't Griffith's skill as a cinematic storyteller. If he wasn't then it was just a rare misfire from one of the great directors early in his career...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

Interesting historical note: D. W. Griffith directed THE SORROWS OF SATAN in 1926 which is based on the same source material but is a very different film and not necessarily a better one.