Reading a bit of the production history, and the disagreements between star Mary Pickford and director Edwin S. Porter, is amusing and adds to the charm of the feature itself. Watching 'Tess of the storm country' more than 100 years later, and not being familiar with the source material, I don't know how much one may pick up on the nature of those disagreements (especially relative to its contemporaries) lest one is especially studied of cinema and filmmaking. Still, the commonalities of the earliest silent films are plainly evident - exaggerated facial expression and body language, and of course intertitles to relate dialogue and advance the plot. I can appreciate how such characteristics may make features of the era difficult to engage with for some viewers, yet for all that, this is adequately well made, and fairly entertaining, and a landmark of culture. However, reader - call me a cynic: there are caveats.
If nothing else is true of the picture, then this is: that Pickford turns in a lead performance deserving of her reputation and bountiful career. She skillfully demonstrates key traits of acting, with fantastic poise, physicality, strength of personality, nuance, and range. Swell as all others on hand may be in filling their roles, it's a particular joy to watch her; there's no mistaking that she's the star, and very well should be. Add to this great care for elements including filming locations, set design and decoration, costume design, and hair and makeup. Full of heartfelt drama, there's nonetheless a lightheartedness to 'Tess of the storm country' that lends some touches of mild comedy early on. To that point, whatever the specific content and mood, the writing and orchestration of each scene is vibrant and engrossing as they build the narrative.
I do feel, however, as though it's in the storytelling where the faults lie in this instance - that is, most distinctly, the telling of the story. While I broadly think Porter's direction is just fine, one does note that the framing and shot composition for many scenes is deficient and inattentive, and the camerawork notably less than dynamic. Indeed, I gather that this is at least part of where the conflict between director and star originated.
More than that, though, I don't think the story is conveyed with more than partial success. Even without sound, or discrete actions, scenes are sufficient to communicate the essence of a moment (conflict, happiness, travel, sadness, and so on) - but details of the plot are not effectively put across. In addition to the very quintessential growth of relationships in the first place, one prime example: There comes a point where it's obvious that Teola is distressed, but it's a bit of a wait between the first glimmer of her dilemma, and the clear reveal of what her dilemma is. In theory intertitles should provide the necessary balance and fill in the gaps, but to be frank, they are wanting in this instance. One rather requires outside context, a synopsis of the plot, to complete one's viewing experience - something that should never be the case, except perhaps after the fact for the most abstruse art films. One could maybe assume cuts by censors, contributing to seemingly choppy sequencing and plot development, but I find it hard to imagine that this alone could render the finished product to such a state. Whatever the quality of 1914's 'Tess of the storm country' in other regards, this shortcoming of narrative progression is deeply unfortunate, diminishing the overall value.
It's not just the telling, however - it needs to be said, too, that chief story beats revolve around direly antiquated norms and values that amount to outright misogyny, the dehumanization of lower classes, and devaluing life based on outrageous moralizing and beliefs. At that, the generosity of "it was a different time" only extends so far. It's a cohesive story, written and developed well for what it is, with employment of some gratifying emotional weight and themes. Furthermore, it hardly needs to be said that just because some content may be objectionable doesn't mean a saga isn't worthwhile as a whole - what else is a villain, after all? On the other hand, this is a film that is a reflection of the society of which it was borne, a real life culture that is the actual antagonist, and it would seem to uphold that perspective. As a result - boy howdy, it is ugly in very certain ways.
When all is said and done, I think 'Tess of the storm country' is somewhat a study of contrasts. Many aspects of its fundamental craft are executed well, the cast is quite good - Mary Pickford above all - and the feature occupies an important place in cinema history. Yet I also can't get over how unsatisfactorily wide swathes of the narrative are presented in direction, or represented through visual depiction. And, again, the treatment of characters to ends that are washed over as morally "appropriate" are disturbing no matter one's temporal frame of reference. I both recognize the value of the film, and am left wanting to have liked it more than I do. Ultimately what I think it comes down to is that this is a picture that warrants viewership on account of its import to the medium of film, and its place in the vast filmography of its lead - but like other early movies, it should be taken with a grain of salt in acknowledging its issues.
One thumb up - and one skeptical eyebrow.
If nothing else is true of the picture, then this is: that Pickford turns in a lead performance deserving of her reputation and bountiful career. She skillfully demonstrates key traits of acting, with fantastic poise, physicality, strength of personality, nuance, and range. Swell as all others on hand may be in filling their roles, it's a particular joy to watch her; there's no mistaking that she's the star, and very well should be. Add to this great care for elements including filming locations, set design and decoration, costume design, and hair and makeup. Full of heartfelt drama, there's nonetheless a lightheartedness to 'Tess of the storm country' that lends some touches of mild comedy early on. To that point, whatever the specific content and mood, the writing and orchestration of each scene is vibrant and engrossing as they build the narrative.
I do feel, however, as though it's in the storytelling where the faults lie in this instance - that is, most distinctly, the telling of the story. While I broadly think Porter's direction is just fine, one does note that the framing and shot composition for many scenes is deficient and inattentive, and the camerawork notably less than dynamic. Indeed, I gather that this is at least part of where the conflict between director and star originated.
More than that, though, I don't think the story is conveyed with more than partial success. Even without sound, or discrete actions, scenes are sufficient to communicate the essence of a moment (conflict, happiness, travel, sadness, and so on) - but details of the plot are not effectively put across. In addition to the very quintessential growth of relationships in the first place, one prime example: There comes a point where it's obvious that Teola is distressed, but it's a bit of a wait between the first glimmer of her dilemma, and the clear reveal of what her dilemma is. In theory intertitles should provide the necessary balance and fill in the gaps, but to be frank, they are wanting in this instance. One rather requires outside context, a synopsis of the plot, to complete one's viewing experience - something that should never be the case, except perhaps after the fact for the most abstruse art films. One could maybe assume cuts by censors, contributing to seemingly choppy sequencing and plot development, but I find it hard to imagine that this alone could render the finished product to such a state. Whatever the quality of 1914's 'Tess of the storm country' in other regards, this shortcoming of narrative progression is deeply unfortunate, diminishing the overall value.
It's not just the telling, however - it needs to be said, too, that chief story beats revolve around direly antiquated norms and values that amount to outright misogyny, the dehumanization of lower classes, and devaluing life based on outrageous moralizing and beliefs. At that, the generosity of "it was a different time" only extends so far. It's a cohesive story, written and developed well for what it is, with employment of some gratifying emotional weight and themes. Furthermore, it hardly needs to be said that just because some content may be objectionable doesn't mean a saga isn't worthwhile as a whole - what else is a villain, after all? On the other hand, this is a film that is a reflection of the society of which it was borne, a real life culture that is the actual antagonist, and it would seem to uphold that perspective. As a result - boy howdy, it is ugly in very certain ways.
When all is said and done, I think 'Tess of the storm country' is somewhat a study of contrasts. Many aspects of its fundamental craft are executed well, the cast is quite good - Mary Pickford above all - and the feature occupies an important place in cinema history. Yet I also can't get over how unsatisfactorily wide swathes of the narrative are presented in direction, or represented through visual depiction. And, again, the treatment of characters to ends that are washed over as morally "appropriate" are disturbing no matter one's temporal frame of reference. I both recognize the value of the film, and am left wanting to have liked it more than I do. Ultimately what I think it comes down to is that this is a picture that warrants viewership on account of its import to the medium of film, and its place in the vast filmography of its lead - but like other early movies, it should be taken with a grain of salt in acknowledging its issues.
One thumb up - and one skeptical eyebrow.