The Blot

source: The Blot

Lois Weber's silent The Blot remains a thrilling landmark of cinema, shimmering with empathy and immersed observation. The blot in question is that on a society which chronically underpays its teachers, in this case a kindly aging professor who seems to have no agenda beyond the transmission of knowledge. Meanwhile, his wife and daughter strain to keep up appearances and health and to make ends meet, the wife reduced to raiding the neighbours' garbage to feed her cat. Those neighbours, in contrast, are depicted in rolling in money from high-end shoemaking ($100 a week, we're told!), although their affluence pales in comparison to the true moneyed set. The narrative is driven by the professor's daughter, pursued by the neighbours' son, by a rich heir, and by an equally impoverished young minister, although the pursuit ultimately becomes as much collaboration as competition. The film explores the fine line between materialistic desire (even the minister covets rare books beyond his means) and genuine need; like much silent cinema, it's most riveting when placing us within structures of identification and emotion, for example as we repeatedly observe the wife's anguish and shame, and it has a consistent generosity of spirit, nudging us to favourably revise our impressions of several secondary characters. In the end, of course, things get somewhat better for the family, but one object of desire can't be divided into three, and Weber closes on a final look back at the house, by one of the unsuccessful suitors (and the way this plays out suggests that while different classes can at least relatively come together, some societal advantages will remain absolute). The film may not carry the cinematic innovation or intensity of the greatest silent masters, but it feels intimate and true and committed, still capable of moving viewers (this one anyway) to the verge of tears.

This is a particularly well-made drama about a college professor and his family who live in poverty. Their daughter is beautiful and attracts a particularly obnoxious rich young man. Without going into too many details, this is a moral tale where people are forced to live squalid lives through no choice of their own. It is also a story of reclamation of the soul. It is so easy to judge those who have so little. This is well acted and believable. It's also a story seen from a women's perspective.

This is a film that really must be seen in the proper context. When seen today, the messages in the film might at times seem highly moralistic and preachy, though for its day this film was exceptional and still has much to admire--particularly when you realize that the film was directed, produced and co-written by a lady--no small feat for 1921! The movie is about a professor and his family--and in particular his lovely daughter. They are dirt poor, as is the family friend, the preacher. They are all good folk but since life usually isn't fair, they barely manage to scrape by--mostly because teachers and preachers are often among the worst paid professions. In contrast, they have neighbors and students who are quite well off but also are shallow. All this reminds me of Mark Twain's hilarious short stories--"The Story of the Good Boy" and "The Story of the Bad Boy"--where he lampoons popular stories of the late 19th and early 20th century that advocated the importance of honesty and in the end, righteousness is always rewarded and evil is always punished. That's because this message is hit home in THE BLOT with a sledgehammer just like these stories kids were forced to read in school--and there isn't much subtlety at all about the object lessons. Too bad they usually weren't true! However, although lacking subtlety, the film is exceptional in many ways. First, the camera-work is lovely--with a real nice artistic look and feel to it. It sure helped that the accompanying modern sound track was so good and the quality of the print near-perfect. Second, although the story did seem very moralistic, as the film progressed, the characters actually became much more three-dimensional and believable and less like these caricatures. The seemingly bad people had an opportunity to grow and evolve and the good folks weren't always so gosh-darn perfect. In particular, I loved how Louis Calhern's character changed so much for the better--and it wasn't because God punished him or because he "got his comeuppance"--it was because he genuinely grew as a man. He was clearly the standout character in the film, even though the film mainly focused on the girl whose heart he wanted. For an older silent film, this movie is awfully long--at almost an hour and a half. Many features of the day were quite a bit shorter. Much of this is probably because THE BLOT takes such a leisurely pace. At first, I didn't care for this though as the film progressed I really appreciated it--as it gave the film much more depth and pulled you into the story. It's really a lovely film and one that seems so much better than its current 6.4 score would indicate. Plus, while I would agree with all the negative reviews that the film is highly moralistic, I would also argue that the context for this is understandable AND that the film isn't quite so "black and white"--as many of the supposedly "bad" people turn out to be quite decent--showing that the film actually has some depth.

A statistic that may be of interest. I have a database of silent films that contains about 2000 directors of all nationalities. It simply contains films I have personally watched and have copies of but is probably reasonably representative. Male directors are certainly far the majority but the list includes over eighty women directors (over forty for the US). Many it is true directed only one or two films but even so women directors were not as thin on the ground at this period as many people suppose and may well not have been any more thin on the ground than they are today. Although the US heads the list numerically, this is only because the 2000 includes far more US directors than there are for other countries because of the relatively high availability of US films. The actual proportion of women directors was much higher (as one might expect) in a more egalitarian post-Revolutionary Russia.... As for scriptwriters women are, as one would expect, better represented but still hugely under-represented. Out of again 2000 or so in all, 237 are women (about 170 for the US).

The title of 'The Blot' suggests a comedy, and until the half way mark the film itself resembles a gentle romantic comedy attractively shot on location in 1920s surburbia. But the mood darkens as the genteel poverty weighing down on the Professor's Wife (Margaret McWade) eventually breaks her spirit; and with the help of a few liberally sprinkled misunderstandings things get more and more fraught, until the meaning of the film's title is eventually sprung upon us. And once again a silent film concerns itself with a social ill nearly a hundred years ago that today remains still very much a part of 21st Century reality. Over thirty years later James Mason in 'Bigger Than Life' was playing a high school teacher forced to moonlight as a taxi driver in order to make ends meet. In many ways things seem to have got even worse in the sixty years that have passed since then; since although behind on the rent, the impecunious family in 'The Blot' somehow live in a house just as big as their prosperous neighbours, and which looks palatial compared with the rabbit hutches so many people in the wealthier countries live in today.

Do not watch this film if you are expecting the same type of story telling that you would get from the same point of view as now. This film definitely shows how the films of today compare story wise but also with camera composition. Although Weber stated that this movie was about underage teachers and professors of her time, it also focuses on various other key social criticisms that she had. One of these was the difference between the new money and old money. In many of the scenes that are shot back to back, there are comparisons between the idle wealthy that had been born into their money and those that had recently earned their wealth. Weber does well to depict both of these scenarios as in the wrong because there were still people close to them that were suffering from poverty.

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

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.

When Turner Classic Movies presented "The Blot" recently, I recorded it just in case. Despite my long-time interest in silent film, I had never heard of this one, and knew nothing about it. It is a film that works on several levels, and works well. Lois Weber, author and director, deserves much more recognition than she now gets. Her directorial talent just shines. The writing is not so glowing: The "message" of the film is not at all subtle, plus it is now badly out of date. College professors, and especially university professors, get paid pretty well. Ministers, on the other hand, are still often underpaid, unless they have become "televangelists" or the equivalent, and then they are often overpaid -- although that is, of course, very subjective. Still, the best part of this film, other than the look at a slice of the world circa 1921, is that nearly every one of the characters is -- and please pardon the wimpy word -- nice. Nearly every single person is one we can care about, can actually like. Other than Louis Calhern, who really stood out, none of the actors is known today, except perhaps to other silent movie scholars, but each of them performed well to exceptionally well. The TCM version had an excellent score by Jim Parker, about whom I know nothing else, but his score had to change pace constantly, as the scene shifted from happy to sad and back. Mr. Parker has a good grasp of mood, and a good working knowledge of appropriate jazz. I hope we'll be hearing a lot more from him. I strongly recommend this film.