It's been said, especially by those who have difficulty engaging with older movies, that the silent era tends to represent "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." That's not true across the board, but some titles fit more neatly into that ethos than others. In the first minutes here we're fleetingly introduced to a glut of characters, more than has been true in some other contemporary fare, and hopefully we can keep track of who is who as the story progresses and those characters are used meaningfully. Plot development is a little choppy as sequencing and intertitles hop to and fro between discrete scenes; there are expressions herein of cultural norms and values that are decidedly old-fashioned, even if some persist to this day in one form or another (e.g. Gossip, prejudice). And, well, there's no getting around the fact that blackface is used here, too. None of this is to say that 'Down home' can't still be enjoyable on its own merits, but it can be so probably only for those who are already enamored of the silent era, and even at that it's hardly a must-see classic of the timeframe.
More substantively, the thrust of the story is familiar and (sadly) timeless. However, while I mean no disrespect to anyone who worked on this picture, the cinematic realization of that story isn't always fully impactful or satisfying. There's a certain blithe casualness to Irvin Willat's direction that means each scene and performance comes across as more perfunctory than meaningful, as if the participants weren't putting their whole heart into the execution. This isn't the case with the entirety of the length, but it's the case with enough of it to be distinctly noticeable. In one prominent example, we see a scene in which Nance (Leatrice Joy) is playing the piano in an inn, and it's clear that Joy is just randomly tapping her hands across the keys rather than even putting on airs of actually playing; concurrent goings-on in the same scene carry the same halfhearted sensibility.
This is unfortunate because I do recognize the earnest hard work of those who contributed. Though given weak treatment in the ultimate presentation, I recognize the skill of the cast. The production design is swell, and the costume design, and what modest stunts or effects are employed look great. Sincerity courses through the feature, not least in the progressively minded intimations of the town's new clergyman who seeks to change the backwards modalities of the small village. Still, even that sincerity struggles, for the latter facet feels too much like a sidestep that's not woven into the foremost narrative with convincing fullness; moreover, the inclusion is achingly heavy-handed, and what was progressive for 1920 is still antiquated by the standards of the twenty-first century. And to whatever extent and in whatever ways plot development was troubled from the outset, in the back stretch of the film it feels altogether lackadaisical, just passively strolling along like someone admiring the sunshine and flowers in a garden.
Please understand - I genuinely like 'Down home.' I think it's well made more than not, from most all on hand. Yet in both his direction and his writing, adapting a novel of some years before, Willat approaches the material with a nonchalance that does no one any favors. Frankly it rather seems like the plot gets lost at a few different points, and characters sort of suddenly come and go from the proceedings. A complete, coherent tale is told, but so meagerly that one could be forgiven for thinking that considerable sections were somehow just outright missing or dropped from the narrative. Were more attentive care applied to round out the storytelling, and make each scene count as we see it, the result would surely stand out much more among its contemporaries. Such as it is I think the movie is mildly entertaining and satisfying, but compared to countless other titles one could check out from the silent era alone, there's no major reason to go out of one's way for this. Leave 'Down home' to the avid cinephiles, save it for a quiet, lazy day, and let's just leave it at that.
More substantively, the thrust of the story is familiar and (sadly) timeless. However, while I mean no disrespect to anyone who worked on this picture, the cinematic realization of that story isn't always fully impactful or satisfying. There's a certain blithe casualness to Irvin Willat's direction that means each scene and performance comes across as more perfunctory than meaningful, as if the participants weren't putting their whole heart into the execution. This isn't the case with the entirety of the length, but it's the case with enough of it to be distinctly noticeable. In one prominent example, we see a scene in which Nance (Leatrice Joy) is playing the piano in an inn, and it's clear that Joy is just randomly tapping her hands across the keys rather than even putting on airs of actually playing; concurrent goings-on in the same scene carry the same halfhearted sensibility.
This is unfortunate because I do recognize the earnest hard work of those who contributed. Though given weak treatment in the ultimate presentation, I recognize the skill of the cast. The production design is swell, and the costume design, and what modest stunts or effects are employed look great. Sincerity courses through the feature, not least in the progressively minded intimations of the town's new clergyman who seeks to change the backwards modalities of the small village. Still, even that sincerity struggles, for the latter facet feels too much like a sidestep that's not woven into the foremost narrative with convincing fullness; moreover, the inclusion is achingly heavy-handed, and what was progressive for 1920 is still antiquated by the standards of the twenty-first century. And to whatever extent and in whatever ways plot development was troubled from the outset, in the back stretch of the film it feels altogether lackadaisical, just passively strolling along like someone admiring the sunshine and flowers in a garden.
Please understand - I genuinely like 'Down home.' I think it's well made more than not, from most all on hand. Yet in both his direction and his writing, adapting a novel of some years before, Willat approaches the material with a nonchalance that does no one any favors. Frankly it rather seems like the plot gets lost at a few different points, and characters sort of suddenly come and go from the proceedings. A complete, coherent tale is told, but so meagerly that one could be forgiven for thinking that considerable sections were somehow just outright missing or dropped from the narrative. Were more attentive care applied to round out the storytelling, and make each scene count as we see it, the result would surely stand out much more among its contemporaries. Such as it is I think the movie is mildly entertaining and satisfying, but compared to countless other titles one could check out from the silent era alone, there's no major reason to go out of one's way for this. Leave 'Down home' to the avid cinephiles, save it for a quiet, lazy day, and let's just leave it at that.
