The Blot

Like most of the other reviewers, I found "The Blot" disappointingly slow and preachy, with some flaws in its dramatic structure. However, the film does have value as a study of 1920's social conflicts that people nowadays may not realize even existed. For example, the heroine's mother looks down upon her wealthier next-door neighbors because their money comes from selling shoes (while at the same time she steals from their garbage can to feed the pet cat she can't otherwise afford). How many people today think there is anything "low" about selling shoes? When a group of teenagers boisterously starts an impromptu jazz-piano-and-dance session in a living room, the message is that these kids are vulgar and out of control. But many parents in 2007 would get down on their knees in gratitude if their teenagers engaged in such innocent pastimes. If it wasn't for filmmakers like Lois Weber, such changes in popular opinion would go by unnoticed. In addition, the film does succeed in portraying some of the small heartbreaks of "genteel poverty" and neighborhood rivalry with genuine feeling. And aren't voters everywhere still arguing about whether teachers are fairly compensated for their work?

Wikipedia claims that "The Blot" is unusual for the time in its use of natural light and real locations.

According to film historians, Lois Weber was considered one of the best and most important directors in her day. The fact that modern viewers have trouble relating to the way she tells her stories is in itself evidence that times have changed in ways we might not yet understand. Just one of the many arguments for film preservation.

While watching "The Blot" I found myself pleasantly surprised by so many things about it. Unlike many who have reviewed this film I did not find it the least bit slow. In fact I was very surprised by all the many fast camera cuts and jumping between scenes, that were used and I was very surprised at how well they seemed to make up for the lack of moving cameras that they had at the time. In light of that and many other things, it was quite obvious to me that Lois Weber was extremely talented and ahead of her time. What I enjoyed most about this film was Lois Weber's skill in framing and shooting scenes. The extreme contrast and grainy contrast throughout the film made it seem that nearly every other shot, if put on pause, would make a beautiful, old-fashioned photograph that you might find framed and hung on the wall.

"The Blot", heavy with social issues and purpose that applies to its time, is a very enjoyable and lovely silent film. It does not surprise me that Weber was the highest paid director of her time.

Lois Weber was one of the few women directing films in the early part of the 20th century, and she tended to focus on socially conscious themes of her time. This film has to do with how society rewards educators versus other better-paid professions, even though those well-paid professionals needed the services of the educator to learn their trade in the first place. In this particular film the contrast is between a professor's family that is living on the professor's near-poverty wage and their prosperous next-door neighbors, the family of a shoe-maker. Made in 1920, it is a more realistic look at "genteel poverty" than you were likely to get at the movies at that time. In 1920 the poor were mainly shown as agrarian folk living in "Tobacco Road" style poverty or those living in crime-ridden tenements. This shows that the poor can live in middle class areas with the veneer of a middle-class lifestyle but just be lacking in funds to finance anything that comes at them that is out of the ordinary.

The film focuses on the professor's daughter and her two suitors. One is an equally poverty-stricken preacher, the other played by a 26 year old Louis Calhern, is a wealthy student of the professor's. The professor's daughter becomes ill, and the doctor says that what she needs is "nourishing food". Her mother decides to do what she has never done before, go into debt. However, the grocer demands cash upfront for all purchases. The desperate mother returns home and notices that the next-door neighbor has a very tempting chicken cooling in the kitchen window. What she does next, the daughter's reaction, and the kindly gestures of Calhern's character lead up to a well-played yet predictable ending.

This film reveals several interesting points about life that was true until the 1960's. One fact is that one of the most expensive commodities in life until that time was food. That is why the professor's family is less worried about calling a doctor for the daughter than they are about how they are going to afford the balanced diet their daughter requires for recovery. Another expensive commodity was furniture, as is pointed out by the professor's worn home furnishings. Today cheap and attractive furniture abounds, and it might leave some scratching their heads when they see families terrified of someone coming and taking their furniture for payment of a debt. Nobody would do that today since used furniture is practically worthless.

This film is worthwhile viewing, and one of its best points is that it doesn't paint anyone in the film as either completely good or bad. The qualities and weaknesses of all of the players are shown realistically, and overall I recommend this film.

Pretty librarian Claire Windsor (as Amelia Griggs) begins to attract eligible men; they include the boy next door, their community's poor young minister, and wealthy student Louis Calhern (as Phil West). Since Ms. Windsor's parents are poverty-stricken, mother Margaret McWade (acting up a storm) would like her to marry Mr. Calhern. He is a student of Windsor's poorly-paid professor father Philip Hubbard. When Windsor becomes ill, the doctor orders Ms. McWade to provide her daughter with nourishing food - but the family doesn't even have enough money to make house payments, or feed itself and the family cats. Learning how the other half lives, Windsor's suitors come to her rescue - and teach viewers about humanity...

"Men are only boys grown tall," is our introduction. Guessing writer/director Lois Weber was trumpeting a call for charitable fairness, and higher pay for clergy and college professors; this is accomplished by the end of the narrative, as society's "boys" seem to have a better recognition of their responsibility. Within its narrative, "The Blot" hearkens an uneven distribution of income. Presently, much ado is made of Ms. Weber's gender. All sorts of readings are possible, most unsatisfying...

My enjoyment of the film is in its depiction of class - specifically the conflicts between "old money" (the extravagant West family), "new money" (the neighboring Olsen family), and "no money" (the lowly Griggs family). The real "class warfare" is between the lower classes, of course. Like today, the poor don't really resent the upper class, who live a lifestyle they do not even fully understand; those of middle and lower classes more often resent and envy each other, which is exactly what many (not all) of the super-rich want. Weber may not make her point, but she makes another one. The symbolism, much involving shoes, is strong. The setting is superb; it isn't more than you can see elsewhere, but it is conveyed exceptionally here.

******* The Blot (8/19/21) Lois Weber ~ Claire Windsor, Louis Calhern, Margaret McWade, Philip Hubbard

For an intellectual analysis, see Jennifer Parchesky's article "Lois Weber's The Blot: Rewriting Melodrama, Reproducing the Middle Class" in Cinema Journal 39.1 (1999) 23-53 [University of Texas Press].

Through an examination of social conditions during the 1920s, Parchesky defines the ethos, pathos & logos that Lois Weber most likely deduced in the writing and directing the film, the Blot.