Directed by pioneer filmmaker Lois Weber, THE BLOT, made in 1921, is a feature film detailing issues of poverty, class, and ethics. Weber made great attempts to keep a level of realism to this family melodrama through her use of location shooting, natural lighting, and non-professional actors in supporting roles.
THE BLOT was restored by Kevin Brownlow and David Gill and showcased at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. The restoration of Weber's work has secured her a place in the annuals of film history next to directors such as D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille.
Suggested Supplemental Screenings: BIRTH OF A NATION (Griffith, 1915), THE CHEAT (DeMille, 1915), BROKEN BLOSSOMS (Griffith, 1919), WAY DOWN EAST (Griffith, 1920)
I must say that I was surprised at how much I enjoyed The Blot. At the beginning, I had this thought run through my head that it was going to be one of those movies that I don't really enjoy even when there is sound to it so this is going to be a long screening. I was, thankfully, wrong.
ReplyDeleteI really connected with the movie's characters. There is something about how poor, but absolutely proud the Griggs family is, that is surprisingly moving. Many people at the screening laughed at the matriarch of the family, but I didn't. I don't know whether it was supposed to be funny or not, but the despair and yearning of her character struck me as simply tragic. She just wants enough money to survive, but she is too proud to ask for it. I was especially interested in the scene where she decides that she will steal her neighbors chicken to feed her family. There was something about the way that it tortured her to do it that really had me enraptured.
Another thing that I enjoyed quite a bit was the film's use of the cats. I happen to have cats back home and so I was instantly endeared to the family. I connected with the idea of how awful it would be if my family had so little means that it was a challenge to feed our pets. Its a scary thought. There is also something heartbreaking about the innocence of these animals, and the film uses this wisely. The cats in the house are always innocent and playful, no matter what the situation. When the neighbor pulls the trashcan to the side of her house and Mrs. Griggs comes out and pets the cat, rubs her head against it, and then seen where the trash can has been pulled, it is actually sad.
I happened to love the score that was composed for the film. It was very entertaining, light hearted when it needed to be, and when it was sad, it swelled into such beauty. Without it, I don't think I would have enjoyed the film as much.
I know that one could argue that whole story is kind of cheesy, and that by now we may have seen many variations of it. There is something very nice about it though. All the characters mean well, and those who don't aren't bad people, just misinformed. Plus, as a bonus, it side steps a completely happy ending, which I very much enjoyed. The story leaves the preacher to walk home alone at night, look back longingly at the house and then continue. I really enjoyed this moment, because they let it be solemn, unlike some films which would have made everyone happy at the end.
Another moment that I enjoyed in the same way as the last minute of the movie, is Juanita's ark. Instead of being the character that tried to thwart the relationship (which is what I thought she would become), she realizes what this girl means to her crush, and then sees her, and decides that she cannot compete and gives up. It gave her character depth, rather than just being the loud mouthed rich girl.
The Blot was a rather enjoyable silent film to watch compared to others because of its story and cinematography. Written and directed by Lois Webber, The Blot follows the story of Phil West a student who falls in love with Amelia Griggs the daughter of Phil’s professor. Phil West enjoys lavish dinners, fancy cars, and trips to the country club where as the Griggs family can hardly afford eat. As Phil gets to know Amelia better he begins to question if his extravagant lifestyle is important when people especially like Amelia and her family can’t even afford to buy food. Weber raises questions of social status, poverty, and morals. The story is narrated by the use of intertitles and letters. Weber is able to keep the audience into the film through her use of actual locations and natural actors. All of the locations in the film were real places not constructed sets inside a studio, which gives the viewer a greater sense of realism. Also the acting was very natural as opposed to exaggerations seen in other silent films. Another interesting aspect of her film was the cinematography. She varied her shots by using close ups, longs shots, medium shots and inserts. There were a few pans and tilts but the camera remained static for the most part. In other silent films I had seen the camera would remain in a wide shot for the entire movie where as in The Blot it was always changing from shot to shot. I also really liked the use of fades and dissolves to show the passing of time. I really like when some drew a picture of Amelia on paper and then Weber transitioned to her using a dissolve. I would be interested in seeing more of Lois Weber’s work.
ReplyDeleteWhile viewing "The Blot", I was constantly surprised with how well it was shot. Many of the scenes had an almost modern feel to them. Characters were positioned properly in the frame, shots were not long and tedious, and most importantly close ups were used when needed. "The Blot" had an interesting story line concerning class relations in the early 1920's. In a sense, the film serves as a commentary on unrequited love and forgiveness. The two warring households in the film are the the Griggs family, a poor working class group, and the other family which the name escapes me at the moment, which is upper-middle class. I found it interesting that the filmmakers decided to use real locations and lighting. It was great to see that they were able to capture performances at night which gave the film a more realistic feel. I did think that the film was far too melodramatic. Example, the mother of the Grigg family. Each scene she would walk in with the saddest expression, even if nothing sad had yet to occur. Every look was followed by a sigh and a woe is me type eye roll. Often it was seen as comical and took me out of the story. It was interesting to see the lifestyles of people from different backgrounds of the twenties be portrayed on film. It gave me more of an understanding what life was really like during the flapper era. All in all, the film was nothing what I expected and left me wanting to know more after the ambiguous ending between the two potential lovers.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Lois Webber’s 1921 feature film, The Blot, a lot more than expected. It is a typical story of poor vs. rich but with the characters and actors made it much more realistic and fresh than any movie I seen with this theme.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Grigg is a professor at a top university. This is where he nurtures and educates the children of the rich. Yet with all of this knowledge he is barely making enough money to support his family. His wife tries to make due of having very little to no money by only cooking bread and soup on most nights. His daughter, Amelia, works at the Public Library to help out with the bills. The whole family tries their hardest to be strong but eventually they wear down and in one scene Mrs. Grigg goes into the kitchen by herself to cry. One of Mr. Grigg’s students, Phil West, has a fancy towards Amelia and woos her into liking him. He eventually sees that the university, which his father is on the board of, pays Mr. Grigg close to nothing and the girl he likes barely eats a good meal as he dines on the finest food in the world. Phil West tries to help the Grigg’s on his own but at the end of the film he brings up the low salary to his father and the College Board gives all the professor’s a pay raise.
This film is still relatable 89 years after its initial release. The economy in the world is horrible and a lot of people have been laid off and are out of work. The economy has affected my family and has made my family cut back on the lifestyle we use to live. I can see my mom in Mrs. Grigg. All my mom wants in the world is to see her kids happy and be able to have whatever they want in world. When I saw Mrs. Grigg’s face, in the scene when she was denied the chicken at the supermarket because she did not have not enough cash, it reminded me of when my mom gets her credit card decline. Then in the scene where Mrs. Grigg tries to steal the chicken from the Olsen’s home I could see my mom once again trying whatever she could to make her sure her kids had the best of the best.
The Blot was just a great film. It made me feel for the characters and had me on the edge of my seat wondering if they will have a happy ending. I am shocked that this film was not successful when it was first released and if it was released today I think it would be well received.
I believe the Blot was an interesting feature film because it reflected the needs of the society during the nineteen twenty’s, post World War one an era of much economic depression. This film gave me a true perspective of how greatly families were affected by this economic depravation. Even though it was a silent film I have to admit that it kept me entertained most of the times.
ReplyDeleteThe score of the film was really good and went well with the character’s actions and reactions, it sure helped the film seem more realistic and at the same time make it more interesting. Lois Weber through this film demonstrated her social concerns in society, meaning deprivation in a consumer driven economy.
The subject of the film I believe helped me identify with each characters needs and it amazed me that at this time when the film was first shown during the 1920’s that it was not successfully received. The economic depression could have been a major cause for its failure. I do believe that it was a little long for a silent film; maybe if Lois had shortened the film a bit it would have had a greater success.
The Blot definitely made me connect with the situation at the time and the characters well played emotions. The end of the film was also unexpected which gave it a nice twist, since one was hoping she would have chosen one of her three loved ones but she did not making it interesting for the audience.
I had to say for being filmed on real locations the sets where pretty detailed and the fact that the setting was natural gave The Blot a sense of realism. Because of the fact that it was a silent film, the non-professional actors were also less noticeable and also contributed to the real feel. Weber also used natural lighting which I didn’t notice until reading about it. Nowadays, if a film like this were made, it would probably go greatly unappreciated. The story moved very slow and revolved around interesting and very relatable characters that the viewers at the time probably greatly identified with, but it is a little stale because the plot revolves around events of little significance. One element that I felt made the story move slowly was the title cards, which were quite numerous and often really wordy. Obviously in a silent film the title cards are necessary without any dialogue. I did find it interesting though how she intercut shots of characters with the title cards. I was surprised by the pride that Mrs. Griggs shows by putting back the stolen chicken, and then her daughter, who witnessed her momentarily stealing the bird, attempts to come clean and return the chicken that her mother had decided not to steal. The character Phil West also showed a lot of compassion for the Griggs family, for example when he crumples up some dollar bills and leaves them lying on the counter for them to find. He also tries to ensure higher pay for the Professor. He is very wealthy and enjoys lavish dinners and luxuries, while the Griggs’ are living in poverty, yet the Griggs’ are not eager to accept Phil’s charity. Phil West looks past Amelia’s social situation and sees her for who she is. I noticed that most of the shots were still camera. There was also some use of cross-cutting, which shows that Lois Weber, a pioneer at the time, was actually quite advanced in film making technique, even though she had become the first woman to direct a feature 7 years earlier in 1914. Probably could have been shorter, but was an interesting, enjoyable film on some levels, and was probably revolutionary at its heyday.
ReplyDelete“The Blot,” written and directed by Lois Webber, was a surprisingly good film. Once you get over the non-stop elevator music, it becomes a rather moving and well-developed story. The way the sub-plots tied together was impressive considering the limited resources Webber had. I also enjoyed the social overtones that were addressed, such as teachers not being paid well enough. It is fascinating that these issues are still prevalent in our current day and age. The Griggs represent a familiar portrait of a struggling American family, both in the 1920’s and today. From a technical standpoint, I was very impressed with Webber’s direction and even more with the cinematographer. Even though there were some jump cuts and continuity errors, I was really never taken out of the moment by a technical error. The lighting seemed natural and the shots were framed much like they are today.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first experience watching a silent full-length feature film. At first I dreaded the idea of having to sit through an hour and a half of such an old silent film, and with a name like “The Blot” I had no idea what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that “The Blot” was not like a lot of the other shorter silent films I’ve seen before.
ReplyDeleteThough rather long and slow-paced, Lois Weber’s film is interesting and unique in that it has a very clear and easy-to-follow plot. Not only that, it has main characters as well as supporting characters which carry out this melodramatic story. Even more interesting is the social commentary that Lois Weber makes in this film. Weber depicts the social dynamic of the poor and “rich” classes in a way that is very compelling and relatable, and poses moral dilemmas.
I have to say that the Professor’s wife really annoyed me with her constant sour face, dragging her feet, always looking over at the neighbors and what they had that they lacked. It was just a little overdone…all I kept thinking was “I get the point, your poor!” So that made it a little hard to sympathize with her, especially since it seemed like she was the only one really concerned with their poverty while the professor and their daughter were out working without complaining.
I think that the ending was a little anti-climatic. It doesn’t have a happy ending and nothing really gets solved; it kind of just leaves one with the hope that maybe these characters’ situation might change. Visually I felt that it was excellent. It felt very much like the types of films we watch today (except for the title cards, of course), but just the way it flowed and the diversity of shots, natural lighting and shooting on location vs. sets I thought was really cool for a film of this time.
This film definitely marks a turning point for my own perspective on early silent film. Like a few others, the idea of a full-length silent feature didn’t strike me as appealing, but after sitting down and taking the film for what it is, getting swept along with the story, it’s easy to forget how long ago it was made. Story telling, in its constantly evolving forms, is indeed timeless. I was surprised at first by the quick cuts and clever camera placement, awakening my attention more than I had expected. Past the narrative and film-work, I found myself pondering the grand-scale of the score written mainly on piano (also thinking about how exhausting it would be to write almost an hour and a half straight of piano playing). As the film reached it’s first hour, I was even more impressed that the music was still faithfully supporting the narrative: building up tense moments, setting mood, matching action, uniting characters through recurring melodies, and so on. The film as a whole has a refreshingly subtle approach to its characters, a welcome diversion in a film period dominated by over-bearing theatre actors. The people are relatable, the situations intimate and awkward, and through these we feel more attached, our attention kept on faces rather than voices. Title cards even separate the two (save the few exceptions that introduce characters along with a neatly seated vignette of their likeness alongside the text, much like a children’s story book). All these elements fit perfectly together in a simple, yet very entertaining movie. And I must say, I can’t help but laugh thinking of that poor kid that gets pushed by our lead “Hero” on the lawn as he rushes to investigate his fainted damsel-in-distress.
ReplyDeleteThe Blot was the first feature-length silent film I’ve seen. I did not know what to expect coming into the film. However, by the end, I was surprised by the techniques used and I enjoyed it more than I was going to. Compared to some other silent films, the performances by the actors were much more realistic and not as over-the-top. Granted, Amelia Griggs almost fainting because she saw her mom about to steal the neighbor’s chicken was overly dramatic, but it probably shows how bad she feels that her mom has turned to stealing in order to have better food. The use of close-ups allows the audience to share some kind of intimacy with the characters, especially with Mrs. Griggs, who seems to be the one who is significantly affected by poverty. She wants to provide for her daughter but there is not much that she can do with the money she has. I enjoyed the theme of the film: the idea of giving to those who are in need. The theme was explicitly prominent throughout the film. The class difference was mainly shown through the families’ possessions. For example, the neighbors owned a new car, which they were admiring while the Griggs watched from their house. Also, even the clothes - when comparing Phil West and the other man who wanted Amelia’s love - show class differences.
ReplyDeleteThe title cards were also very useful, especially towards the beginning. Title cards explained personalities and character’s backgrounds. The title cards also left a still image of the character they were referencing, which made it easier to understand who was who.
The film could have been shorten significantly. The fact that the Griggs were poor was shown in almost every way possible. The length of the film seems to express Lois Weber’s passion for the subject matter the film conveyed. In the end, The Blot tells the story of love against poverty and the rich helping the poor.
Lois Weber’s film, “The Blot” combined entertainment with expository social commentary. Although the movie was silent, Weber efficiently made the audience understand and empathize with the plight of the Griggs’s poverty and class struggle. Although slightly overacted at times, to the point where it was unintentionally funny, I completely felt sympathy for the characters and was left in suspense over which suitor Amelia would choose and to what lengths Mrs. Griggs would go to exude a façade of “Keeping up with the Jones’s”. The overall theme seemed to juxtapose the Griggs’s neighbor’s ostentatious displays of wealth (double chicken dinners, raucous parties around the piano, a brand new automobile) with the meager life of the Griggs (starving cats, weak tea and threadbare rugs). It was through the series of shots contrasting the two, combined with the deep sadness conveyed in Mrs. Griggs’ eyes that the audience truly becomes aware of the Grigg’s families predicament.
ReplyDeleteInter-titles assisted in adding clarity, moved the plot along and added humor at times.
The costumes also do a great job of drawing a dividing line, illustrating a visual difference in the character’s lives and how they perceive themselves. Weber seemed to choose shoes as a common close up shot to depict the difference in wealth among characters. Their shoes were often a visible source of shame or pride… even the Olsen’s baby had $18.00 (probably quite pricey at the time) shoes as a play-toy much to the despair of Miss Griggs who’s shoes were tattered with holes. The minister went so far as to put goose grease on his loafers because of his embarrassment at the lack of shine compared to his new friend, the wealthy university student. The facial expressions of especially the mother (Griggs) intercut with holes in the rug or tears in the sofa painted a crystal clear picture into her mind and how she felt shame among the guests in her home.
The character of Amelia stood out to me greatly because it seemed like a peek into the star system that was to come. Her face almost seemed to glow on screen in a highly romanticized and idealized fashion and close up shots were heavily used. I could picture The Blot being remade today with a lovable young starlet taking on the role. Although a lot of the charm resides in the exact form in which the film in presented, (silent, black and white, etc.) there is still a strong enough story that The Blot is still a relevant picture. I know I’ve been discussing it with friends and classmates ever since I left the Cosford which says something within itself.
--Brianne McKay
“The Blot” was surprisingly a film that I genuinely enjoyed watching. The beginning of the film was slightly slow and did not draw me in immediately, but as the story progressed I became intrigued by the different classes, families and love affairs. I was uninterested at the thought of watching a silent film for approximately 80 minutes but the storyline kept me attentive. It was interesting to watch a 1920’s film, as I haven’t watched many, and appreciate the skills that early filmmakers had even in the 20’s. I liked how Lois used a real environment/neighborhood throughout the film, rather than a studio set, giving the film an additional amount of realism. The detail in the homes made the film extremely realistic and clear with the close up shots revealing tattered shoes, torn rugs, worn out chairs and barely any food. Lois Weber paid attention to detail and really brought emotions out of the audience, while looking at the sad expressions from the Griggs family, especially from the struggling mother. Another factor of the film that I liked was that everything that was going on then, could easily or does in fact still occur now to a certain extent. There are teachers/professors that are educating the rich, yet are working for such low wages (as it would not allowed for a professor to work for free today, one would just quit). Also there are plenty of rich families living in such abundance today, while others are dirt poor, barely getting by. Then there were two men and even a third young gentleman that is in love with Amelia. The mother wants her daughter to be with the rich man to obviously help out the family and the other fellow is just a man barely getting by, who used goose grease to place on his shoes, in desperation for them to shine like his new friend’s. It was also interesting to see when the female went to approach Amelia at the library but then realized that Amelia is a true beauty and that she could not compete with her. All and all I enjoyed watching the film and could go on and on, naming different scenes that I loved.
ReplyDeleteI actually thoroughly enjoyed Lois Weber’s “The Blot”. There were a lot of things to enjoy. First off, the score was perfectly qued up with each and every action and expression on character’s faces, to the point where it could be taken as comical to a modern audience. If however, you take a moment and allow yourself to think about the style of films back then and the actual story, the melodramatic music coupled with the more theatrical acting works quite nicely and effectively tells the story. The melodramatic music is at its best when the mother is upset about their financial situation or the Professor is trying to teach his class. You get playful music while the students play pranks on each other and draw pictures and then all of a sudden the professor lets out a sigh and the music instantly changes.
ReplyDeleteThis movie has a fully developed narrative that, unlike the other films we’ve watched, is routed in realism. The characters actually developed over the course of the story, which is seemingly a head of its time. There was no real antagonist or evil force or anything. The woman next door seemed pretty malicious at first (laughing as she closed the trash can and moved it or placing the food in the window for the poor people to envy). Now that I’ve put those memories to the page, she was a total bitch but by the end she had a change of heart and was helping them out.
What really interested me was how they ended the film. I thought we might see the classic last scene, where we see the couple finally together, smiling but instead the focus was on the suitors who epically failed (Peter and the Minister). It was sad to get a close up of the minister’s tears, watch him walk down the street, and then fade to black without the redeeming fade back in to see happy couple. Instead it was just credits.
I enjoyed looking at the film because it had good music and I also like the way that it showed all the actors one by one and it gave you a little bit of their back ground when they showed who they are. I also like the make-up that was used in this film. I also liked the way that Lois Weber showed how everyday women work around the house, the ECU are really nicely done, the cars in the film are to die for. I thought that the mother’s time was really old. I did like that fact that Lois Weber showed how to start the car, that made me feel as if I was in the film, so not only looking at it but actually in the film. I liked how nice the actor’s faces liked when they were in close-ups. As I watch the movie more and more, I come to realize a great roll in the back ground music, mixed with the characters emotions, prove a great point speaking is not always necessary to tell a story. The film portrays a family community and appears to be real life instead of just a movie filmed in a studio. Lois weber went into great deal by focusing on quality’s you would find in a real home. Lois Webber also portrays rivalry between neighbors among the upper class and lower class even between neighbors. Amelia portrays the lower class in away; she is not content with what one has but wants a life of “Phil”. The way both party’s attire were greatly detailed showed difference in classes, neighbors brand new car, chickens and home to Amelia’s used down shoes, old rug, as well as chair, Amelia’s hairstyle was nothing to be proud of either. As the movie continues, I came to the conclusion “class” is a much highlighted theme in the movie as well as the main idea. “One wants the life of another; instead of cherish what one has”. One of the others themes brought up, that I noticed was giving to those in need by the wealthy. Even though the film was shot in such early times of filming pioneers, the backgrounds, including light were shot very well, for an early movie the lightning conditions were excellent, over all I really enjoyed looking at this movie I don’t know if I liked the story or if like Phil but I really enjoyed this one film.
ReplyDeleteWas this anywhere near the beginning of sound in movies? Because the wealthy boy that ends up getting the girl in the end looks really familiar. In anycase I really enjoyed this movie even though the people around me didn’t like it. I felt that the storyline was easy enough to follow, the characters were quiet established, and the animals were really cute. What more can you ask for in a movie.
ReplyDeletePrior to watching I really didn’t think that they could keep attention for over an hour just by pictures and a music score. The pictures during the text did keep most attention during the scenes ut I think it was more of the storyline that could keep the audience focused. There were different threads to the story such as the connection between the next door neighbor and the poor girl or the two wives and their struggle to always best each other. Within the two families I felt the wives certainly had more control over their husbands. Both husband seemed to sit back when it came to the household and the problems that were going on within it. Great example is the neighbor’s husband trying to read. It gets to the point of instead of telling his kids to be quiet he just gets up and walks outside.
Money is a big issue in this movie however the wife of the poor family always seemed to have a “woe is me” attitude and was constantly on the lookout for the “last chance” to fall into some sort of money. We’re not sure how long she’s been that way so maybe a lifetime of that living could do that to a person, but I still believe the gold digger was a little overplayed. Regardless I do think this was an excellent cast and would like to see more work they have done.
As far as the director I like the shots he chose for each scene, especially the add-ins such as the money on the table and the wrapped up paper that was about to be burned in the fire. Everything was cut together nicely and rarely was there a time when I felt a shot was too long or short. Other then the movie being a bit too long itself it was a pleasure to watch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete‘The Blot’ seems to be a revolution in silent films as its carefully constructed camera angles, shot frames and overall techniques were far ahead of its time. Not to mention the updated version of title cards using pictures of the actor or actress it was referencing . Weber employed the use of close ups to emphasize emotion in the characters and also to further differentiate the families from one another in this socially relevant film. Because of these new and improved items ‘The Blot’ seemed less like an old silent film and more like a film one would see today. The silence wasn’t distracting and didn’t drone on as the acting was impressive and not overdone. The acting in ‘The Blot’ was different than other clips of short films we have seen in the sense that it was more realistic and less of a performance. Performance wasn’t the only thing I found to be more realistic as the costumes in ‘The blot’ served less as costumes, like many films of the time, and more to represent the character and aid in the story telling. There was a clear-cut difference between the wealthy family and the poorer family with their costumes that wasn’t overdone.. This social commentary on the classic rich vs. poor used real locations to film which I found impressive and again ahead of her time. In all I have a new found respect for both Lois Weber and the power of silent films.
ReplyDeleteThe film is an allegorical melodrama about the class struggles within society. The director Lois Weber was one of the few women recognised for her directorial achievements at the time. She made close to eighty films by the time of her death.
ReplyDeleteIn screening The Blot, it became apparent how important music can be to a film. In this film, the music successfully highlighted the story's emotional undertones. As a contrast to some of the other films we have seen, he music served as an aid to the story, instead of just being there to entertain. Sometimes in silent films I feel as thou the music has been added with no regards to what is happening in the story.
I enjoyed the story and would like to know what modern films have been influenced by it. The camera use seemed to be much more sophisticated than anything prior. The camera work itself served to further distinguish the differences in class and aided in giving us visual cues as to what we should feel. Overall, I enjoyed watching the Blot. For a silent film, it successfully held my attention and was never outstandingly dull.
Like the majority of my classmates, I was also incredibly surprised by how much I enjoyed Lois Weber’s The Blot. To be honest I was thinking I would have fallen asleep by the first twenty minutes of the film. To me, a silent film meant random incoherent scenes strung together by title cards that explained what the actors were supposed to be conveying instead of flailing around like headless chickens. Instead, the acting was incredibly realistic and believable (sans the melodramatically emotional mother- whom by the way I LOVED). The story line was simple, yet very much engaging. I loved the dynamic of the small town and the little sub-stories behind each family and the music associated with each. I especially loved how so much drama revolved around one not-even-stolen chicken. And to think crimes nowadays include assault and battery! While I did enjoy many aspects of Weber’s film, there were a couple things I think could have been changed or cut out.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I didn’t think the “love square” was entirely necessary. The story would have been just as strong (if not stronger) if it focused solely on the love triangle between on Amelia, Phil West, and the Reverend. Including the Olsen son made things overly complicated and seemed out of place. True he played a significant role in the pardoning of Amelia, but I felt that that role could have easily been intertwined with Phil West’s character.
Next, the movie seemed to focus on two luxuries: a good pair of shiny leather shoes and “nourishing food” (aka chicken). I expected Phil West to buy the chicken and that something was going to be done about Amelia and her mother’s lack of quality shoes. Perhaps it was just a nervous tick/observation of mine, but I really wanted them to follow through with fulfilling their nice-pair-of-heels deficiency if they focused on their feet.
Lastly, the film had such a SAD ending. True, the reverend and professor get a raise they both deserve, but the last shot was tremendously depressing! The poor reverend walking by his lonesome on a windy, black path of utter rejection. That just makes it seem like the moral of the story is that if both suitors are nice and wholesome gentlemen, choose the one that’s richer. But then again, I guess that has always been the case. Oh well.
“The Blot”
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this film more so than the others we have screened, because I thought it was more advanced not only with cinematography or the style of editing, but more so with the story and character development. These two aspects of the film were so much more sophisticated compared to ‘Les Vampires’ or any other film we have watched. I think that this feel of sophistication in the character development came from the advanced title cards that Lois Weber presented through out the film. She even left the action proceed in conjunction with the title card, so that she was able to write more and not stop the film for the audience to read it. I liked that she describes what kind of family and what the background of each character, because often times in silent films the audience is unable to pick up on the back-story of many of these characters. With out these little biographies presented the story would not have worked as well.
This film showed me that a lot of the films that we watch today has unnecessary dialogue, because with a few cards telling the audience what is going on in few instances the story was still able to be told. It shows the audience that even this film may not have been as effective comparatively to some great love stories it still did each character justice. It still was able to grab the audience’s attention and made them feel for these characters. Lois Weber was ale to do this in such a limited amount of dialogue shows that her film was more effective, because she still reached the audience without the extraneous dialogue used in most of the films made today.
I thought it was alarming that the social situations faced in the 1920s, portrayed in this film, still exist in the world today. This issue of underpaying educators shows the struggle that these people faced with barely being able to feed their sick daughter, but are educating the future leaders of the country. It shows that this warped perception of what educators should be paid has been a problem for a very long time. It shows the mother (wife to the professor) so proud that she can not even feed her daughter the proper food she needs in order to build her strength when she is sick when she is near on her death bed, and this is close to my heart because of the struggles of someone who is college educated someone who is building the future not even able to feed their family. The film did a great job of showing this struggle especially with the mother’s character.
Sarah Garcia
I really enjoyed the Blot. It’s a large jump in film development in comparison to Les Vampires, and the acting has stepped into a new realm of realism. The technique and cinematography was obviously increasing in quality and structure. The acting was refreshing and as the conflicts were clearly developed, the characters were clearly established. It was well directed for its time, and it held my interest for the length of the film.
ReplyDeleteThe first scene, where they present the men of the university still acting like boys, the title cards and establishment of characters was well done and immediately captures the connection of the audience to the film.
The romance was presented very piously but more flirtatious than previous films of its generation, showing the growth and tolerance of intimacy in films. The love triangles were more in depth and intimate than any of the films we’ve studied so far.
The greatest, and most depressing, character to me was the mother, sulking in her poverty with gloating neighbors shoving her poverty in her face. It was so heavy and grieving just watching her act so defeated, but I found it so awful that it was humorous. Even though her character was resolved at the end with her bountiful basket of free food, it wasn’t enough to shake off the extreme depression she engraved and I couldn’t help but think about what she’s going to do when the food runs out. My hopes are that her daughter marries the rich dude and he lifts them out of poverty, as the ending seems to promise.
The conflict allowed more story to unfold and the characters were much more identifiable than they’ve been in past films. It is a stark growth in film of its time. I find it really exciting to see the development in both the time period and film technique watching these films chronologically.
-Allison Basham
The Blot was the first film in this class that I genuinely enjoyed. Lois Webber definitely captured the audience in her film by shortening shots to create suspense, intercuts and interchanging medium, wide,and close up shots. It was filmed very dynamically, a change from Les Vampires or any of the Lumiere films we have seen.
ReplyDeleteThe conflicts and characters were developed enough that the audience was able to emotionally connect with the "villain" (the foreign, rich woman) and the professor's wife. However, I thought the role of the daughter as rather pointless. Apart from aiding the rich lover boy from providing material goods, she was pretty much sick for the entire film. The romance between her and the minister was also left slightly unclear.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. It did not feel like I was staring at my watch until the film was over. I was perpetually engaged and I'm glad that a female director was able to capture an audience with innovative shots and characters; Specially because the art of cinema was at the eve of its existence.
-Nathalie Fernande
The Blot, a classical silent movie about the day to day clashes between close neighbors. It also shows the importance of class, and how the representation of class used to be one of the most important things people used to care about in the 20's. Classes are divided into 3, the high, middle, and lower class; three of which are represented in the film.
ReplyDeleteReoccurring motifs of shoes are what highlight the wealth of each family shown. Throughout the film, the wealthy student keeps on looking at his lovers shoes to see the actual state that she is in. He also later asks her about her father's income, while in other words wanting to see if his status and his reputation would allow him to continue the relationship with her. The mother also gets overwhelmed when her daughter is seen with this wealthy man, just to win the wealth competition between her and her neighbor. We see the importance of the shoe throughout the film, as representing the persons status, even when goose fat is rubbed on the shoe.
The Blot just shows the importance of status between families and neighbors. We see that especially when the neighbor house buy a brand new car, and all get extremely excited, yet when their neighbors see them, all their excitement gets hidden and act normal as if nothing new. However, no matter how poor the families are, they would never dare lower their level to the stage in which they replace hope with stealing. we see the mothers reaction when the neighbor places the three chickens in front of the window. The mother is seen dealing with the fact that they have reached a stage where stealing food is a must. Strong emotions build up while she travels from one house to the other, and takes the chicken hesitantly, before the gossip gang arrive at the scene of the crime. She returns the piece of chicken immediately, and runs home, while in the arrival of a huge basket of groceries.
I really enjoyed watching this film, especially with the smooth cuts, especially coming from a 1921 movie. It just represents the things society used to care for and respect, such as status, and class. These two things were necessities in peoples lives, and lowering them would create somewhat of an identity crises, and emotional gap.
The Blot was an excellent film. I can see how it got so much acclaim because of the new techniques introduced within this film. It included cross cutting, fades and zooms. This was a huge phenomenal for the time period. It also included some intercuts and many natural locations. When most directors were still using many, large sets, Lois Weber was incorporating live locations. She took the chance to be different and that’s what got her recognition. When people stand out and differ from the norm, that’s how they get respect in the entertainment industry. It was a fresh motion picture for audiences. It was also a great film for its time for depicting social issues that directors at that time weren’t exploring. She wasn’t afraid of discussing poverty or teacher salaries. She also was the first (of the movies we’ve seen so far) to discuss relationship issues involving multiple men vying for a woman’s attention. This film also had the most natural acting of all the films we’ve seen so far. All the other films had these overly dramatic actors that just made the films hilarious even when they weren’t intended to be or just plain senseless. I usually don’t enjoy silent films because there’s no action incorporated within the film or any excitement, from the acting to the story line to the scenery to the editing. But this film broke those barriers; I actually enjoyed this because of those different subjects: the acting, editing, etc. My favorite character in the film was the mother. She had so many different sides of her that she exposed to the audience. At one moment, she’s a devoted wife, at another she’s a caring mother who only wants the best for her daughter and then the next, she’s a struggling American just trying to make it day to day. I liked the story line because I never knew which guy the main girl was going to end up choosing or which girl the main guy was going to end up being with. At times I thought the main girl was either going to choose the main guy or not going to choose anyone at all. Then I also considered the main guy choosing either the main girl or just following his norm of his society by choosing the wealthy girl who was obsessed with him. I liked the cross cutting of the main guy trying to fight for better pay for the teachers at his school and the clergy. It included the work he was doing but as well as the emotions the two guys were going through.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t enjoy the blot. I thought I was very well done and Lois Webber did a great job for the time, but I think we’re so used to modern films with fast cuts that when you see a drama like this one on screen, it’s fairly easy to feel turned off.
ReplyDeleteI did appreciate it, but it’s not something I’d watch for my personal enjoyment. I actually thought the actress who played the mother did a very good job. She these facial expressions worthy of an Oscar, the only problem was that after an hour of watching that it became irritating.
I really like the score. I thought it suited the film well. Now, I don’t know if it was written years later, or if it’s the original one. Because many movies back then had a live piano player in the theater improvising over the scenes, and it was never the same score. But I’m not really sure when that started happening.
What I really like about the film was the use of location shooting. I think most of the films so far used sets, but they filmed around the same neighborhood and in the streets and in a real house.
I thought the story line itself was interesting because Webber raises social issues like class relationships, portraying the differences between Phil and Amelia, the main characters. Overall it was a good film made by a female director in the 1920’s which is a big accomplishment, but I didn’t enjoy it.
I was pleasantly surprised with this film. Pretty sad and depressing tale to it though, although, doesn't that make it all the more appealing. It's interesting to see this idea of love and money on screen, and which do you choose. Pretty crappy that the reverend was left on his lonesome though.
ReplyDeleteI think Weber was pretty brave to discuss ideas revolving around money and society in such an obvious and explicit way. It's nice to think that there was someone 'pushing the envelope' even back then.
The idea of addressing such realistic issues, in such a realistic way is refreshing, and to actually see 'film-making' as we know it today is fascinating. All the more because it's a woman behind the camera.
This was the first silent film that we've watched where I actually felt connected to characters and story-line. It's the first time I've felt a sense of voyeurism from early cinema.
The blot was a very interesting film, but I had some problems with the film. Although it was an interesting silent film and kind of kept me connected, I felt that it was too repetitive with the mom being poor. The same music kept playing every time she was sad. It might have been better if there was different music or actual sound. That was the main problem that kept getting on my nerves, but not enough to go bonkers.
ReplyDeleteNow on to the positives. I really liked how they displayed realism in the movie. Instead of prolonged shots of boring stuff (i.e. Porter) I was actually interested in the developing story. I thought that the rich guy was going to be stuck up and snoody until the end where he finds out they were poor, but it was different in a sense that he found out and told all of his other buddies that they needed to help out this family. It wouldn't have happened without the beautiful daughter, but still, its a movie.
Another good thing about the movie was that there wasn't really a villain unless you count the neighbor over weight wife, but still not really someone who would compete with Darth Vader or The Joker. It's realistic because someone would actually not let the neighbor cat to eat out of the garbage and be mean to someone stealing your delicious fried chicken. But overall the first silent film to grab my attention and not bore me with continuous classical music and long over done shots.
I enjoyed the film to a certain extent. It was the first we’ve seen that seemed to express and consider an intellectual and pressing social issue. It’s interesting through the last few screenings to see the way film was quickly maturing to satisfy a growing and demanding audience. The film successfully placed the audience in a recognizable and engaging environment. The situation felt realistic and sincere as well, where characters and thematic elements had a definite purpose and place within the film. Additionally the film had a momentum and arc that we as an audience now expect and demand, but given the other films we watched and one’s within the same time period there is an evident progression in storytelling and purpose. I really appreciated the simple nature of a more realistic performance in acting, smoother cuts and logical transition, especially when considering that this medium was one that was still being explored and developed.
ReplyDeleteWhere the Blot broke down for me, and the reason overall I could not enjoy the film were the technological restrictions that were in place at the time. I felt that the story succeeded in delivering a good topic and delivery, but the actual modes to propel the story never had me truly engaged. The lack of sound forced the director and film to use title screens replace dialogue and action, although the dialogue and actual delivery of it was slow. It’s clear that in their attempt to deliver the story, or any for that matter, communication is essential, but without the actual sounds and pace of dialogue the movie, at least in this period, is not as entertaining. I can appreciate silent film when the director and film itself embraces the silence and uses it to its advantage, rather than the blot that simply tried to find ways to compensate for the limitation.
I also found it interesting to see the development of recognizable characters, and an introduction to some stereotypes. The young affluent students were non-chalant and lived a life of extravagance. The poor family and teacher barely have enough food to eat. The women in general, were very weak, responding over dramatically to the slightest situations. It’s even more amazing just how much film themes and stories in general are recycled as the wealthy student realizes the flaws in his lifestyle to create the moral turnaround and reveal the issues in the film. The wife when stealing the chicken cannot bear the thought of her sin and puts it back, only to have her good decision appeased with a basket of food and supplies. I’m trying to say that a lot of the characters and arcs were very familiar, and you can see the development of these certain go-to themes and characters in films and other mediums up to contemporary times. What made the movie good, however, was that these stereotypes were not overwhelming or too noticeable – the characters felt real.
-Daniel B.