The Blot

After the first fifteen minutes or so, I thought it was going to be pretty dull, but this film steadily engaged me. The plot mainly revolves around the plight of a family in which the father is an underpaid college professor. Claire Windsor, as the daughter, was a revelation. It was also interesting to see a young and not-bad-looking Louis Calhern as her rich suitor. The film's charm lies in its characterizations, and the natural acting by the cast. Perhaps it was the talent of the players, or perhaps the directing of Lois Weber, or perhaps both. I felt like I was watching real people, not actors, and I really wanted to see how their lives developed. Really, this was just a sweet film and I would highly recommend it.

For an intellectual analysis, see Jennifer Parchesky's article "Lois Weber's The Blot: Rewriting Melodrama, Reproducing the Middle Class" in Cinema Journal 39.1 (1999) 23-53 [University of Texas Press].

Through an examination of social conditions during the 1920s, Parchesky defines the ethos, pathos & logos that Lois Weber most likely deduced in the writing and directing the film, the Blot.

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.

Pretty librarian Claire Windsor (as Amelia Griggs) begins to attract eligible men; they include the boy next door, their community's poor young minister, and wealthy student Louis Calhern (as Phil West). Since Ms. Windsor's parents are poverty-stricken, mother Margaret McWade (acting up a storm) would like her to marry Mr. Calhern. He is a student of Windsor's poorly-paid professor father Philip Hubbard. When Windsor becomes ill, the doctor orders Ms. McWade to provide her daughter with nourishing food - but the family doesn't even have enough money to make house payments, or feed itself and the family cats. Learning how the other half lives, Windsor's suitors come to her rescue - and teach viewers about humanity...

"Men are only boys grown tall," is our introduction. Guessing writer/director Lois Weber was trumpeting a call for charitable fairness, and higher pay for clergy and college professors; this is accomplished by the end of the narrative, as society's "boys" seem to have a better recognition of their responsibility. Within its narrative, "The Blot" hearkens an uneven distribution of income. Presently, much ado is made of Ms. Weber's gender. All sorts of readings are possible, most unsatisfying...

My enjoyment of the film is in its depiction of class - specifically the conflicts between "old money" (the extravagant West family), "new money" (the neighboring Olsen family), and "no money" (the lowly Griggs family). The real "class warfare" is between the lower classes, of course. Like today, the poor don't really resent the upper class, who live a lifestyle they do not even fully understand; those of middle and lower classes more often resent and envy each other, which is exactly what many (not all) of the super-rich want. Weber may not make her point, but she makes another one. The symbolism, much involving shoes, is strong. The setting is superb; it isn't more than you can see elsewhere, but it is conveyed exceptionally here.

******* The Blot (8/19/21) Lois Weber ~ Claire Windsor, Louis Calhern, Margaret McWade, Philip Hubbard

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).