Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaProfessor teaches unmotivated wealthy students. Neighbor Olsen is rich, Griggs family is poor. Olsen and Reverend Gates admire Amelia Griggs. Wealthy student Phil befriends Reverend, recogni... Leggi tuttoProfessor teaches unmotivated wealthy students. Neighbor Olsen is rich, Griggs family is poor. Olsen and Reverend Gates admire Amelia Griggs. Wealthy student Phil befriends Reverend, recognizes class divide, tries to help.Professor teaches unmotivated wealthy students. Neighbor Olsen is rich, Griggs family is poor. Olsen and Reverend Gates admire Amelia Griggs. Wealthy student Phil befriends Reverend, recognizes class divide, tries to help.
William H. O'Brien
- Student
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Gertrude Short
- Miss Olsen
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Larry Steers
- Dinner Guest
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
Blot, The (1921)
*** (out of 4)
There's no question that THE BLOT is a message picture and while it does go overboard at time the thing's heart is in the right place and there's no question that much of it is very touching. The film centers around a poor Professor (Philip Hubbard) and his beautiful daughter Amelia (Claire Windsor) who is wanted by a rich man, Phil (Louis Calhern) who just happens to be her father's student. The family are struggling with very severe poverty, which soon begins to weigh on Phil who wonders why some eat and throw away so much while others are near death because of the lack of nutrition. Director Weber has pretty much been forgotten today but at one point she was a very key figure in the early days of cinema with such films as HYPOCRITES and of course this one. I think a lot of people might roll their eyes to the heavy preaching but at the same time there's quite a bit of good in this film and you really can't blame it too much since its heart is in the right place. I'm really not sure how well this movie went over in 1921 but it's clear that it was a cry or at least plea that those who have plenty should share with those less fortunate. I guess that message rings just as true today considering what's going on in this country as it did in 1921 but you can't help but be impressed with the way the story plays itself out. There's quite a bit going on in this picture with various characters having a connection to this poor family and either wanting to help them or hurt them. This includes a neighbor who doesn't care how poor they are and she gets her chance for revenge when the poor mother finally cracks and steals a chicken from her. The story of the rich student who falls in love with the poor girl is handled perfectly and the way he wants to help but can't simply because the poor family are so proud is handled extremely well too. The performances are a major plus with Windsor doing a very good job as the daughter and Calhern is equally as good. The two of them create a nice spark together and Hubbard is one you can't help but care for. Again, there are some moments that are just way too over the top including the daughter's reaction to the mother stealing the chicken because this reaction is so out there that you'd think she saw her mom shoot some handicapped children. Another problem is the final ten-minutes and how the story plays out. I won't ruin what happens but it just doesn't work. THE BLOT seems to have been forgotten but that's a real shame because there's enough here to make it worth viewing and like many other Weber films it's worthy of being rediscovered.
*** (out of 4)
There's no question that THE BLOT is a message picture and while it does go overboard at time the thing's heart is in the right place and there's no question that much of it is very touching. The film centers around a poor Professor (Philip Hubbard) and his beautiful daughter Amelia (Claire Windsor) who is wanted by a rich man, Phil (Louis Calhern) who just happens to be her father's student. The family are struggling with very severe poverty, which soon begins to weigh on Phil who wonders why some eat and throw away so much while others are near death because of the lack of nutrition. Director Weber has pretty much been forgotten today but at one point she was a very key figure in the early days of cinema with such films as HYPOCRITES and of course this one. I think a lot of people might roll their eyes to the heavy preaching but at the same time there's quite a bit of good in this film and you really can't blame it too much since its heart is in the right place. I'm really not sure how well this movie went over in 1921 but it's clear that it was a cry or at least plea that those who have plenty should share with those less fortunate. I guess that message rings just as true today considering what's going on in this country as it did in 1921 but you can't help but be impressed with the way the story plays itself out. There's quite a bit going on in this picture with various characters having a connection to this poor family and either wanting to help them or hurt them. This includes a neighbor who doesn't care how poor they are and she gets her chance for revenge when the poor mother finally cracks and steals a chicken from her. The story of the rich student who falls in love with the poor girl is handled perfectly and the way he wants to help but can't simply because the poor family are so proud is handled extremely well too. The performances are a major plus with Windsor doing a very good job as the daughter and Calhern is equally as good. The two of them create a nice spark together and Hubbard is one you can't help but care for. Again, there are some moments that are just way too over the top including the daughter's reaction to the mother stealing the chicken because this reaction is so out there that you'd think she saw her mom shoot some handicapped children. Another problem is the final ten-minutes and how the story plays out. I won't ruin what happens but it just doesn't work. THE BLOT seems to have been forgotten but that's a real shame because there's enough here to make it worth viewing and like many other Weber films it's worthy of being rediscovered.
Lois Weber was one of the few women directing films in the early part of the 20th century, and she tended to focus on socially conscious themes of her time. This film has to do with how society rewards educators versus other better-paid professions, even though those well-paid professionals needed the services of the educator to learn their trade in the first place. In this particular film the contrast is between a professor's family that is living on the professor's near-poverty wage and their prosperous next-door neighbors, the family of a shoe-maker. Made in 1920, it is a more realistic look at "genteel poverty" than you were likely to get at the movies at that time. In 1920 the poor were mainly shown as agrarian folk living in "Tobacco Road" style poverty or those living in crime-ridden tenements. This shows that the poor can live in middle class areas with the veneer of a middle-class lifestyle but just be lacking in funds to finance anything that comes at them that is out of the ordinary.
The film focuses on the professor's daughter and her two suitors. One is an equally poverty-stricken preacher, the other played by a 26 year old Louis Calhern, is a wealthy student of the professor's. The professor's daughter becomes ill, and the doctor says that what she needs is "nourishing food". Her mother decides to do what she has never done before, go into debt. However, the grocer demands cash upfront for all purchases. The desperate mother returns home and notices that the next-door neighbor has a very tempting chicken cooling in the kitchen window. What she does next, the daughter's reaction, and the kindly gestures of Calhern's character lead up to a well-played yet predictable ending.
This film reveals several interesting points about life that was true until the 1960's. One fact is that one of the most expensive commodities in life until that time was food. That is why the professor's family is less worried about calling a doctor for the daughter than they are about how they are going to afford the balanced diet their daughter requires for recovery. Another expensive commodity was furniture, as is pointed out by the professor's worn home furnishings. Today cheap and attractive furniture abounds, and it might leave some scratching their heads when they see families terrified of someone coming and taking their furniture for payment of a debt. Nobody would do that today since used furniture is practically worthless.
This film is worthwhile viewing, and one of its best points is that it doesn't paint anyone in the film as either completely good or bad. The qualities and weaknesses of all of the players are shown realistically, and overall I recommend this film.
The film focuses on the professor's daughter and her two suitors. One is an equally poverty-stricken preacher, the other played by a 26 year old Louis Calhern, is a wealthy student of the professor's. The professor's daughter becomes ill, and the doctor says that what she needs is "nourishing food". Her mother decides to do what she has never done before, go into debt. However, the grocer demands cash upfront for all purchases. The desperate mother returns home and notices that the next-door neighbor has a very tempting chicken cooling in the kitchen window. What she does next, the daughter's reaction, and the kindly gestures of Calhern's character lead up to a well-played yet predictable ending.
This film reveals several interesting points about life that was true until the 1960's. One fact is that one of the most expensive commodities in life until that time was food. That is why the professor's family is less worried about calling a doctor for the daughter than they are about how they are going to afford the balanced diet their daughter requires for recovery. Another expensive commodity was furniture, as is pointed out by the professor's worn home furnishings. Today cheap and attractive furniture abounds, and it might leave some scratching their heads when they see families terrified of someone coming and taking their furniture for payment of a debt. Nobody would do that today since used furniture is practically worthless.
This film is worthwhile viewing, and one of its best points is that it doesn't paint anyone in the film as either completely good or bad. The qualities and weaknesses of all of the players are shown realistically, and overall I recommend this film.
Like most of the other reviewers, I found "The Blot" disappointingly slow and preachy, with some flaws in its dramatic structure. However, the film does have value as a study of 1920's social conflicts that people nowadays may not realize even existed. For example, the heroine's mother looks down upon her wealthier next-door neighbors because their money comes from selling shoes (while at the same time she steals from their garbage can to feed the pet cat she can't otherwise afford). How many people today think there is anything "low" about selling shoes? When a group of teenagers boisterously starts an impromptu jazz-piano-and-dance session in a living room, the message is that these kids are vulgar and out of control. But many parents in 2007 would get down on their knees in gratitude if their teenagers engaged in such innocent pastimes. If it wasn't for filmmakers like Lois Weber, such changes in popular opinion would go by unnoticed. In addition, the film does succeed in portraying some of the small heartbreaks of "genteel poverty" and neighborhood rivalry with genuine feeling. And aren't voters everywhere still arguing about whether teachers are fairly compensated for their work?
Wikipedia claims that "The Blot" is unusual for the time in its use of natural light and real locations.
According to film historians, Lois Weber was considered one of the best and most important directors in her day. The fact that modern viewers have trouble relating to the way she tells her stories is in itself evidence that times have changed in ways we might not yet understand. Just one of the many arguments for film preservation.
Wikipedia claims that "The Blot" is unusual for the time in its use of natural light and real locations.
According to film historians, Lois Weber was considered one of the best and most important directors in her day. The fact that modern viewers have trouble relating to the way she tells her stories is in itself evidence that times have changed in ways we might not yet understand. Just one of the many arguments for film preservation.
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).
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).
I tuned into "The Blot" mostly to see what Louis Calhern was like in his younger days. But what I found was an engaging, multi-faceted story.
Like a Robert Altman film, "The Blot" tells its tale with a host of interesting characters who interact at various points. The characters are fleshed-out, not just stereotypes.
Without giving away the plot, let me just say that I loved the use of shoes (and even shoe-polishing) to point out class differences. And the scene with the chicken dinner is poignant on many levels.
Highly recommended!
Like a Robert Altman film, "The Blot" tells its tale with a host of interesting characters who interact at various points. The characters are fleshed-out, not just stereotypes.
Without giving away the plot, let me just say that I loved the use of shoes (and even shoe-polishing) to point out class differences. And the scene with the chicken dinner is poignant on many levels.
Highly recommended!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizCollege scenes were filmed at the University of California, Los Angeles, which was located at the time on Vermont Avenue in Hollywood, and later relocated to Westwood. The site on Vermont is now (2011) occupied by Los Angeles City College. None of the original buildings which appeared in this film have survived.
- BlooperWhen Juanita visits the library to see Amelia, she puts her hand on the railing twice. Between shots, she is holding her fur piece differently as well.
- Citazioni
Intertitle: Men are boys grown tall.
- ConnessioniFeatured in The Silent Feminists: America's First Women Directors (1993)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- What Happened Next Door
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 31 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
