Post by rmichaelpyle on Apr 24, 2010 11:00:53 GMT -6
I decided to watch both the silent and sound film versions of the play "Within the Law" to see if one or the other was better - or to see how similar or dis-similar each is from one another. Each has only recently been released on DVD, the silent as a set of two Norma Talmadge films on a DVD, the sound version "Paid" as one of April's [2010] releases through the Warner Archive Collection. The silent version keeps the name of the play, while the sound version changes its title to "Paid".
Norma Talmadge was one of the single most popular actresses of the 1920s, especially as a dramatic actress. Many of her films survive, but nearly none have been released for home viewing, and, as a result, most film lovers still know almost nothing of her talent. The new release of two films of Norma Talmadge has both a comedy and this very serious film on it. She shines in both of them. Her ability to move an eyebrow, blink an eye, cock her head, or whatever, to move mountains emotionally is a singular compliment to her acting ability. "Within the Law" (1923) begins with Norma (as Mary Turner) being convicted of theft from the store at which she's worked for five years - for ten dollars a week! We as the audience are allowed to know that many of the girls seemingly steal small things to "keep up" because the salary is just not enough. We are also led to believe that Mary hasn't stolen anything, and she didn't steal the money for which she's now put in prison. Indeed, early on we learn that another girl stole the money, but she's not caught. The prison sentence is only a small portion of the film, but we see Mary turn from a very innocent girl into a calculating and hardened individual. We also see her meet Aggie Lynch, played by that wonderful silent actress Eileen Percy, and they become fast friends. When Mary's let out of prison, she has the choice of prostitution or suicide at one juncture, and she chooses the latter, however Joe Garson (Lew Cody) saves her and takes her to a room where, lo and behold, Aggie Lynch is his live-in girl. While she's recovering, Mary sees a newspaper article which is telling for the times: it mentions how rich people use the law to further their own ends, legally, financially, and so forth, but nevertheless shadily and without compunction. This is where the title of the play and silent film come from. From this point forward we see Lew Cody, Norma Talmadge, and Eileen Percy using the law in very shady ways to make a very nice - no, let that read 'fabulous' - living. Over and over they bilk [usually] older gentlemen out of money because of one thing or another - and 'legally' do it. Finally, Mary meets up with the son of the store owner who had her put in prison. She pretends to fall in love with him, while he indeed falls in love with her. Her revenge is beginning to be complete. Of course, in the end, she does indeed love the son of the store owner. Meanwhile, other complications arise and Mary is nearly implicated in a murder which she didn't commit.
Now, how does all this compare with the sound version? The sound version, "Paid" (1930), stars Joan Crawford in a role which really set the tenor for the rest of her early career, and which propelled her into the front ranks of actresses in the early sound days. "Our Dancing Daughters" and "Our Modern Maidens" had given her really fine exposure in the silents, but "Paid" seemed to solidify her career as a sound actress, and "Our Blushing Brides" came on the tail end of the silent era, but in the sound era, and continued her trend as a flapper, too. So now she was a flapper with the ability to take rotten or poor beginnings and rise far above all that, where many of those kinds couldn't.
Crawford's "Paid", to be honest, is a better film than the silent "Within the Law". It probably has more to do with the tightness of direction than anything else. Sam Wood's direction was better than Frank Lloyd's. Sam Wood also directed Crawford in other of her early talkies, and they seemed to work well together. Both films are acted superbly by all involved, down to the smallest character part. Lew Cody does a superb job in the silent as the slimy thief who works with Talmadge, Percy, and others to bilk their respective suckers. In the sound version, Robert Armstrong plays the part, and he's good, but probably not as good as Cody. Still, he's perfectly cast as the slimy hood. Marie Prevost plays the part that Eileen Percy had played in the silent. She's outstanding, as she nearly always is. Douglas Montgomery plays the son of the store owner, and he's uniformly good also. John Miljan plays the part DeWitt Jennings had played in the silent, that of the police inspector, Burke. Jennings was much more intense and slimy, if you will, but Miljan has a calculating way about him which is wonderful to watch. Robert Emmett O'Connor as Detective Cassidy in the sound version is far better than Lincoln Plumer in the silent. He was always someone the audience just loved to hate, and he makes the part fun to watch. By the way, in the sound version Crawford earns $16 a week at the store at the beginning of the film, as opposed to Talmadge earning $10 a week in the silent! A telling difference between 1923 and 1930...
All in all, without going into any more detail, both films are wonderful evocations of the play, and both play well, the better one by a head being "Paid", the sound version. However, the silent with Talmadge nevertheless is wonderful to see just to see how great an actress Talmadge was. Too bad more of her films are not available for viewing. As far as "Paid" is concerned: the condition of the film is good, sometimes mediocre, but never bad; yet it is definitely not pristine like some of the Warner Collection releases. "Within the Law" is in fine condition, and it is not until the end that there is a slight nitrate deterioration that is evident.
Both of the films are very highly recommended, and I also recommend, if possible, that one views the silent, then the sound, in succession, and evaluate and appreciate the two together.
Norma Talmadge was one of the single most popular actresses of the 1920s, especially as a dramatic actress. Many of her films survive, but nearly none have been released for home viewing, and, as a result, most film lovers still know almost nothing of her talent. The new release of two films of Norma Talmadge has both a comedy and this very serious film on it. She shines in both of them. Her ability to move an eyebrow, blink an eye, cock her head, or whatever, to move mountains emotionally is a singular compliment to her acting ability. "Within the Law" (1923) begins with Norma (as Mary Turner) being convicted of theft from the store at which she's worked for five years - for ten dollars a week! We as the audience are allowed to know that many of the girls seemingly steal small things to "keep up" because the salary is just not enough. We are also led to believe that Mary hasn't stolen anything, and she didn't steal the money for which she's now put in prison. Indeed, early on we learn that another girl stole the money, but she's not caught. The prison sentence is only a small portion of the film, but we see Mary turn from a very innocent girl into a calculating and hardened individual. We also see her meet Aggie Lynch, played by that wonderful silent actress Eileen Percy, and they become fast friends. When Mary's let out of prison, she has the choice of prostitution or suicide at one juncture, and she chooses the latter, however Joe Garson (Lew Cody) saves her and takes her to a room where, lo and behold, Aggie Lynch is his live-in girl. While she's recovering, Mary sees a newspaper article which is telling for the times: it mentions how rich people use the law to further their own ends, legally, financially, and so forth, but nevertheless shadily and without compunction. This is where the title of the play and silent film come from. From this point forward we see Lew Cody, Norma Talmadge, and Eileen Percy using the law in very shady ways to make a very nice - no, let that read 'fabulous' - living. Over and over they bilk [usually] older gentlemen out of money because of one thing or another - and 'legally' do it. Finally, Mary meets up with the son of the store owner who had her put in prison. She pretends to fall in love with him, while he indeed falls in love with her. Her revenge is beginning to be complete. Of course, in the end, she does indeed love the son of the store owner. Meanwhile, other complications arise and Mary is nearly implicated in a murder which she didn't commit.
Now, how does all this compare with the sound version? The sound version, "Paid" (1930), stars Joan Crawford in a role which really set the tenor for the rest of her early career, and which propelled her into the front ranks of actresses in the early sound days. "Our Dancing Daughters" and "Our Modern Maidens" had given her really fine exposure in the silents, but "Paid" seemed to solidify her career as a sound actress, and "Our Blushing Brides" came on the tail end of the silent era, but in the sound era, and continued her trend as a flapper, too. So now she was a flapper with the ability to take rotten or poor beginnings and rise far above all that, where many of those kinds couldn't.
Crawford's "Paid", to be honest, is a better film than the silent "Within the Law". It probably has more to do with the tightness of direction than anything else. Sam Wood's direction was better than Frank Lloyd's. Sam Wood also directed Crawford in other of her early talkies, and they seemed to work well together. Both films are acted superbly by all involved, down to the smallest character part. Lew Cody does a superb job in the silent as the slimy thief who works with Talmadge, Percy, and others to bilk their respective suckers. In the sound version, Robert Armstrong plays the part, and he's good, but probably not as good as Cody. Still, he's perfectly cast as the slimy hood. Marie Prevost plays the part that Eileen Percy had played in the silent. She's outstanding, as she nearly always is. Douglas Montgomery plays the son of the store owner, and he's uniformly good also. John Miljan plays the part DeWitt Jennings had played in the silent, that of the police inspector, Burke. Jennings was much more intense and slimy, if you will, but Miljan has a calculating way about him which is wonderful to watch. Robert Emmett O'Connor as Detective Cassidy in the sound version is far better than Lincoln Plumer in the silent. He was always someone the audience just loved to hate, and he makes the part fun to watch. By the way, in the sound version Crawford earns $16 a week at the store at the beginning of the film, as opposed to Talmadge earning $10 a week in the silent! A telling difference between 1923 and 1930...
All in all, without going into any more detail, both films are wonderful evocations of the play, and both play well, the better one by a head being "Paid", the sound version. However, the silent with Talmadge nevertheless is wonderful to see just to see how great an actress Talmadge was. Too bad more of her films are not available for viewing. As far as "Paid" is concerned: the condition of the film is good, sometimes mediocre, but never bad; yet it is definitely not pristine like some of the Warner Collection releases. "Within the Law" is in fine condition, and it is not until the end that there is a slight nitrate deterioration that is evident.
Both of the films are very highly recommended, and I also recommend, if possible, that one views the silent, then the sound, in succession, and evaluate and appreciate the two together.
