Back Pay

Having recently inherited an uncle's large selection of silent films, I fell in love with silent diva Corinne Griffith. I managed to see four of her silent films (The Divine Lady, Black Oxen, The Garden of Eden, and Classified) and was totally astounded by her. We are very fortunate that talkies did not come in earlier, for we would have never gotten a glimpse at some great artistry. Many people claim that a great many silent stars were not good enough actors to survive in talkies. This is a shaky claim. Sound cinema and silent cinema are two totally different mediums. Acting techniques popular in the talkies would have not been effective in silent films. Hypothetically assuming that we had gone the other direction, from talking films to silent ones, it is quite legitimate to think that many talking stars would not survive in silent cinema: this is not, however, enough to claim they were not good enough at acting itself. Its just that they were not good at a particular type of acting. Case in point: Back Pay, a perfectly horrid vehicle for Corinne Griffith. It is stiff and stagey, poorly acted by all involved (especially the male lead), and preposterous. Griffith actually acts quite well in certain scenes, but not for the most part. She plays Hester, a woman who is board with her life and becomes the mistress of a big city magnate. She leaves her true love, Gerald, and when he goes blind in WWI, she realizes she loves him and decides to nurse him in his final days. Although remarkably short, (only about 50 minutes), the film drags on and one feels as if Gone With the Wind had played five times by the time its over. It is invaluable, however, as perhaps the best example of why some stars didn't make the transition to talking films. See it, you'll be happy you did just to get an idea of the times, but don't go out of your way.

Instead, see The Divine Lady, her best film, or The Garden of Eden, which has suddenly become easily available.

A reviewer has said "Back Pay is Griffith's only surviving talkie so it's impossible to tell if she was playing a part or if her voice was really her voice." I would like to answer that. In the late '70s I was at a film event that had King Vidor as a guest of honor (at least I think it was him, to the best of my memory). Mr. Vidor (or whoever it was) said that Corrine Griffith wasn't successful in talking films, "because she had a southern accent, and so it was good-bye Corrine!" That part I remember distinctly. This would indicate to me, that the voice in the film is really hers, and that is how she actually talked. As to the opening scene, I get the impression they have her singing "They Didn't Believe Me" in order to establish the period in which the story was supposed to be. That song was a huge hit during the teens and 1930 audiences certainly would have understood the time frame by that--since the clothes don't give anyone a clue. Finally I would like to say that no matter how good or bad the film is--any time we have a talking film of a silent star, it is priceless in the sense that we can know what they sound like. I think of how Mabel Normand and Fatty Arbuckle made so many pictures together. Fatty made several shorts in the 1930s just before he died, so we can know what he sounded like. Mabel never did make any talkies, and so we don't know how she sounded. Now someone might say, "Well who cares how they sounded?" Well, I like to know what people sound like, don't you? I think that's just natural curiosity and it's nice when it can be satisfied.

This early talkie is hampered by an inadequate cast. The story is similar to a lot of other precode movies- poor, small town girl leaves equally poor, small town, boy to go to big city to search for opportunities. She becomes a mistress of a rich man and part of a set of whore like gold-diggers. Her new life actually seems pretty good. She has a great apartment, her own stereotyped black maid to wait on her,lots of furs and jewelry. And her life back home was pretty dreary- she lived in a boring , small town. She had a dead end job in the local dept. store. And she lived with her aunt who ran a boarding house/brothel. The big city seems a huge step up. But of course, according to the morals of the film, she has erred.

The movie seems to take place in 1930-the cars are all late 20's vintage and the clothes are all stylish flapper stuff we are used to seeing in the movies of this time.

Then the movie turns totally preposterous- it seems there is a war going on. But where? in 1930? What war? Oh no. This is World War 1. So the movie pretends the year is 1917, even though we are clearly in 1928 or 1930.

The heroine's former small town beau is called to fight and he is wounded and she has to nurse him back... you get the idea. She learns and earns redemption.

She is played by Corrine Griffith who was a big silent star in her day. Her performance is inadequate at best. You can see why she failed in talkies. She speaks as if she has marbles in her mouth and the movie actually has the nerve to begin with her singing a song. As if she is showing us the breadth of her talent. The singing is so awful, that I can imagine, the audiences of the day, booing or laughing. I can't believe it wasn't cut. The male lead Grant Withers is also pretty bad,but unfortunately, the movie rests on Miss Griffiths shoulders and she can't make it work. This plot which was based on a Fanny Hurst story,was used in various forms in other pre codes and strong actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, Ann Harding, and many others, made them believable. Miss Griffith did not succeed here.

Written by Fannie Hurst (Imitation of Life, Back Street), Back Pay is a prime example as to why some silent film actresses took a nosedive. Talkies revealed Miss Griffith's shortcomings as an actress. Although a very beautiful lady, she seems very uncomfortable with dialogue and gives an inconsistent performance. Some of her scenes are well acted but most are not. To be fair, she did give some good performances--in silents--like her Oscar-nominated title role in The Divine Lady (1929). This was her last Hollywood film and her only surviving all-talkie. The other one, Lillies of the Field, is lost. A typical Fannie Hurst tear-jerking melodrama.

The copy of "Back Pay" that is being shown now on TCM is apparently a very truncated version. Over 20 minutes is missing--as some studio types thought this change would make for a better feature. It also is often a sign that a film is in trouble and the studio was desperate to make it more marketable. So, this review is only for this short version.

"Back Pay" starts with one of the most unintentionally funny musical scenes I can recall. Corinne Griffith is singing to her boyfriend but it seriously looks as if she is a zombie!! I have NEVER seen anyone sing with less energy or conviction. Heck, her lips barely even move nor does she even twitch! And, her boyfriend lies there as if he is dead! Seriously--you just have to watch this opening to believe it. Now I know this is an early talking picture--but even by the standards of 1930 it's pretty awful. And this gets me to the single biggest problem that ruins the film. Although I might have expected an early sound film to be stilted and have lousy acting, by 1930 this was NOT a problem in most films. So, had the film come out in 1928 or even 1929, I might have cut the film some slack. However, the director must have either been insane or totally incompetent as the actors (particularly but not exclusively Griffith) had poor delivery and many of the scenes should have been re-shot. Surely any sane director would have noticed the zombie-like delivery at the film's beginning--but this one apparently did not. And, repeatedly, the actors seemed to have little in the way of delivery--and they were allowed to give such lackluster performances. They either talk too fast, too soft or look stilted. As a result, the movie sucks. I know this sounds mean, but it irritated me that Miss Griffith was allowed to give such a bad performance--along with a cast of folks who seemed to have little idea how to act in a talking picture.

I you STILL decide to see this film, a few things to look for apart from Griffith's awful singing is the masseuse who can barely be understood, the scene with her old boyfriend where the actors keep talking over each other's lines as well as when actors inexplicably talk too fast in some scenes. Some might blame the actors, but isn't it the director's job to notice this and re-shoot these awful scenes?!