User reviews

I find it interesting that Mrs. Walton is credited as Helen Riaume (with no IMDb link). This appears to have been the same Helen Riaume who is credited elsewhere as "Mrs. Tyrone Power," and was Tyrone Power Sr.'s wife until the same year this was released. The content of this film is unusual enough, and having a married couple playing the leads and not credited as such adds to the interest.

In particular, the content was of a controversial nature in 1916, and is even more so today, with the sides reversed. The topic of abortion (called simply "birth control" in this movie) was not one that was raised often in films anyway, and moral guardians would have hesitated to let a movie through that favored the practice. The climate of Hollywood being what it is today, there might be no legal impediment to making a similarly anti-abortion film, but it would certainly be frowned upon, and perhaps de facto blacklisted.

This is a heavy-handed, didactic melodrama that nevertheless doesn't descend to mere propaganda. Although a eugenics perspective is introduced in the beginning it is never explored even though it could have presented an excellent opportunity for conflict in Tyrone Power's character and situation. Most of the rest of the film is trite in its portrayal of a pristine young woman whose character and life are destroyed by an evil, sneering, all-but-drooling villain. Missing is an exploration of how such a young woman could succumb to this man. Instead, much time is spent in melodramatic mugging and obvious titles. Too bad, because the final scenes show brilliant early cinematic narration, making all the film's points more dramatically than the entire rest of the film.

Quite apart from being one of the few chances to see a Tyrone Power film (father, not son); this Lois Weber film is a powerful anti-abortion piece - albeit one which is clogged with concerns around birth control and what looks to be misguided focus on the process of eugenics (i.e. determining strong genes and background before having children).

DA Richard Walton has always wanted children and cannot understand why his wife (played by the real-life Mrs Power, Helen Riaume) fails to conceive. Of course as we quickly find out, she has sent many unwanted children back to the portal of heaven where they wait to be called, by having numerous abortions and arranging for her friends to do the same, including the lazy social butterfly Mrs Carlo (Marie Walcamp).

There are three plot strands here - one concerning a progressive doctor (C Norman Hammond) who wishes to teach the poor about birth control and who is being prosecuted for obscenity; one concerning a virginal housemaid's daughter (Rena Rogers) who is seduced by Mr Walton's brother-in-law (William J Hope), with tragic consequences; and one about the trips to the abortion clinic of Dr Malfit (Juan de la Cruz) which are commonplace to Mrs Walton and her set.

Intercut with these stories are sights of the children waiting to be called into the womb - the unwanted as well as the wanted. This is perhaps the most artificial part of the film as the gates of heaven open and close to allow children to be called to earth or to return again to the portal of the unwanted. It works but looks rather old fashioned these days.

The ending is very moving, however, as Mr and Mrs Walton, knowing she is now unable to have children, are surrounded by the ghosts of their unborn as they descend into old age.

A preachy film but a powerful one. Amazing to think that items tackled here, over 90 years ago, could not be touched on again until the second half of the twentieth century.

This is one of those movies that leaves an impression on you that remains long after you've watched it, particularly the final scene (which I won't reveal). There are some things (like images of tiny souls waiting to be born, and some sent back to Heaven, that might be found too cheesy for modern viewers, but it's the meaning behind it that counts.

Some people see this as an anti-abortion film, I saw it as a pro-birth control one. Unfortunately, in can also be seen as promoting eugenics, with its message of how only the right people should be breeding, giving the distinct impression that the meaning of this goes beyond the financial and personal circumstances.

I couldn't help thinking of all the upper-class, married, self-centered society women who got away with terminating their pregnancies without any trouble, whereas the lower-class, single, good natured housekeeper's daughter, seduced by the rakish brother of the (anti)heroine, suffers complications from the abortion she's coerced into and then dies. It's as if those other ladies (and I use that term loosely) are thought to be of more value, despite their behavior. Also, society tended to be less forgiving of a young woman's loss of innocence than a married woman's lack of morals.

It's the girl's death that brings about the hero's (Tyrone Power's dad, whom I didn't know also acted in movies, thinking he just performed on stage, but I digress) accusations against the doctor who performed all these abortions, leading to a court case, where he learns the real reason why he and his wife don't have any children. Sad to say, her comeuppance only adds to his misery.

If you're looking for a happy ending, you won't find it here.

Local D. A. desperately wants to be a father. Problem is, his wife has figured out children are completely unnecessary. The couple are childless. One day the D. A. sees a very, um, white patient faint in the street and later die in the local abortion doctor's office so he puts the doctor on trial for manslaughter and gets a conviction (a foregone conclusion in those days). Only afterward does he bother to look at the doctor's log books, where he sees his wife - and all her well-to-do friends - had punched more than one hole in her Pay For 5 Abortions, Get 1 Free card.

Realizing what an unwitting hypocrite he's been, D. A. confronts his wife and her friends. But the D. A. and his wife remain childless. At most, they can only imagine the family they might have raised.

That pro-life theme is about 85 per cent of the movie. It's all earnestly over-acted and ham-fisted. About as subtle as a Michael Moore movie.

The same pro-life D. A. also prosecutes some guy for spreading birth control information. D. A. Believes in big families, so it's logically consistent that he doesn't want abortion or birth control getting in the way of that. Of course today we know that giving women access to birth control, clean water and antibiotics raises life expectancy from ''short, poor and unhappy" to ''roughly 81." Wasn't so clear-cut back then, when birth control was a no-no (and mystifyingly still is for superstitious weirdos in some parts of the world).

The subversive part (well, for today's audiences) of the birth control guy's trial is his reliance on some book about eugenics. For you kids out there, eugenics was early-1900s ''scientism" under the guise of knowing what was best for the huddled masses. The basic idea was that the poorz, ethnics (mostly bl3ks) and ''mental defectives" (to use the repulsive term of the time) were to be encouraged to NOT breed, and if they did (accidentally or immorally, in this movie's terms) they should be able to access abortion. That was the motivation behind Margaret Sanger (funded by Bill Gates Sr) and her Planned Parenthood slaughterhouses. Progressives wanted to keep the world clean, safe and mostly empty for rich white people.

These days, the 99% are asked for forego meat, gasoline-powered vehicles and home heating oil AND have unhindered access to abortion, all in the name of saving the planet. Today's Progressives don't really care about color. As long as the 99 percenters get picked off, leaving more for the Davos crowd. It's a straight line from A to B.

In that way, this movie is at least as insidious as Birth of a Nation. I wouldn't be surprised if racist war-monger and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson showed the two movies as a double bill to his Kay-kay-Kay guests in the White House.

Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.

This remarkable film has sometimes been described by historians as a movie about birth control, but it isn't, although birth control is presented as an alternative to abortion, which is the film's true subject. "Where Are My Children" is probably the most forthrightly anti-abortion movie ever made by a mainstream American studio, and how Lois Weber got away with it, I'll never know; a film like this couldn't possibly be made today.

I have no objections to a filmmaker using a movie as a vehicle for his or her convictions, as long as they're honest about it, and this movie is honest. Weber follows the logic of her plot, and her convictions, right to their end, without flinching from the logical and merciless conclusion. This is a gripping and powerful tragedy, well acted, written and directed. There is one unforgettable moment in which a quiet little gesture by Helen Riaume tells volumes; she has taken her friend to a doctor who performs abortions (and has done so for her), and while lingering in the waiting room, Helen yawns, as if terminating a pregnancy is a completely casual matter. It is a perfect, subtle sign about the depth of her corruption.

"Where Are My Children" isn't perfect; the scenes of souls in Heaven's antechamber, "waiting to be born," are a little heavy-handed, even if they give Weber the chance to use the trick photography she was so fond of. But the skill with which this movie is made is remarkable for 1916; this is a much more powerful movie than Griffith's "Intolerance," the most famous film of that year. I was amazed by "Where Are My Children," and I will never forget it.

Quite interesting film given its time and subject matter: birth control and abortion in pre-WW I America. There's even some mention of Eugenics, which was quite a popular theory of that time. I will avoid any spoilers but the movie is pro-birth control and very heavy-handily anti-abortion. But, inadvertently, the moral case is made for safe and legal abortions!

A controversial film in its day for advancing the agenda of social crusader Margaret Sanger, and controversial today for reasons beyond the touchy anti-abortion stance it takes - most disturbingly, its support for eugenics, which was in vogue in many countries in the early part of the century. In a nutshell, the position the film takes is that "better" babies will lead to a better, crime-free society, and this in turn means that the better, elevated classes should be procreating, while the coarse, lower classes should be better educated and given birth control. Contraception would not only reduce the number of babies in slums, but it would also help prevent women from illegally turning to abortions, and committing murder in the process. So ... ugh.

As I type that out, it's hard for me to believe I liked it despite these notions, which aside from the education and birth control bits, are repugnant to me. And yet, I did. To start with, I found it remarkable that a movie made in 1916 dealt with birth control, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion, and that it was made by a woman, film pioneer Lois Weber, when she couldn't even vote. The movie unfortunately comes down on the side of supporting the patriarchy, but I found a feminine voice here, one that includes criticisms of men that I have to believe were apparent even then. And the spirit of the film, with its title cards in the beginning encouraging openness and conversation, as well as its intention - which believe it or not was progressive - strikes a chord with me. The steps along the road to progress are imperfect, just as we today are imperfect. Margaret Sanger's birth control organization would one day evolve into the Planned Parenthood we know today.

In one of my favorite scenes, a doctor is on trial for distributing a book advocating birth control. As he puts it, "I am accused of distributing indecent literature because I advocate birth regulation. The law should help instead of hinder me." He is doing nothing more than educate and exercise his right to free speech, and yet this was illegal in America at the time, per the Comstock laws of 1873, which Sanger herself was prosecuted for a couple of years before. We not only feel the unfairness of his conviction, but via the fantastic intertitle: "A jury of men disagreed with Dr. Homer's views," feel a double unfairness. The word "men" is not emphasized but it might as well have been in bold, all caps, underlined, and in large font, it stands out so much. Men have all the power for an issue that affects women far more.

This sad irony is pointed out further when we see that the guy who impregnates the maid's daughter can just move on with his life, while she will be viewed by society as a disgrace if she carries the baby to term out of wedlock, and as a murderer if she has a secret abortion. He's had his fun and goes whistling away; she's "ruined." While the majority of Americans at the time considered abortion murder and it was illegal, I have to believe they must have seen this unfairness. We also abhor this guy because he's older, and despite getting a slap in the face initially, continues to pursue this innocent girl. Her age is not stated but she's dressed and acts as a teenager, and Rena Rogers, the actress herself, was 16. As he aggressively puts his moves on her, an intertitle tells us "Practice teaches men of this class the bold methods that sweep inexperienced girls off their feet." I see a form of feminism in a woman putting this up on the screen.

Unfortunately, the film has some very heavy baggage, and I don't blame anyone for being offended by it. The education and birth control bits target the poor, who are shown as in desperate marriages with too many kids, leading to the mother's suicide in one case, and domestic abuse and a nasty fight between husband and wife in another. (Though as a side note to the latter, how realistic and sad it is that they both turn on the cop when he comes, instead of the woman getting actual help.) The poor shouldn't be having all these kids to begin with, because eugenically speaking, they are undesirable elements that lead to crime, which is a detestable notion not very far removed from those advanced by Hitler. The spectrum of ideas that at the time seemed to logically follow from Darwin included many that were horrifying, and adopted by those across the political spectrum, including Sanger and Weber.

As for abortion, the film is clearly against it, and while I personally disagree with that, it's harder to fault it for this, given the debate which still rages on in America, and the fact that this is also the opinion of five of nine Supreme Court justices in 2019. It lets us know this in no uncertain terms. Dr. Homer's birth control book contains the passage "Let us stop the slaughter of the unborn and save the lives of unwilling mothers." The wife of the District Attorney (Helen Riaume, who was Tyrone Power Sr.'s real-life wife) has not only stopped herself from having children more than once because she's not ready via abortion (and not told her husband about it), but she also refers her friend and her maid's daughter to the same doctor. The former's procedure goes routinely, but the latter's has a complication which leads to the girl's death. Rather than pointing out that these underground, unregulated abortions inherently had safety issues, and that maybe they should be legalized, the film sees it a different way. The doctor gets sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in prison, and we get the idea that this is a just and proper punishment.

Worse yet, when he blurts out to the D.A. that he should check out his own house, the latter figures out what his wife has been doing. The view is then that she's cheated him - "Where are my children?" his intertitle asks in a dramatic, accusatory way - and the couple are then sentenced to a lonely, childless life in old age, because her abortions have made it impossible for her to have kids even though she now wants them (of course). Ah the poor man, an "officer of the law, who must shield a murderess!" and who all night long "grieved for his lost children." The woman has wronged him, and throws herself at his feet. It's tough to watch, though I think this was just the reality of 1916.

I don't mean to justify or excuse the film, but I found it fascinating and still relevant. It was interesting to compare our progress today to this snapshot of social activism from 103 years ago, and it was thought provoking to me in the way that Weber intended per those first couple title cards, even if my views differ drastically from hers.

I saw this silent movie late last evening on Turner Classic Movies. It surpassed my expectations (especially being that there was no sound and that it was made in 1916!); I could not take my eyes away. The interesting concept of "the place where unborn children are" was very powerful. The emotions portrayed in this movie very very strong; excellent acting by all. It is a movie that I will never forget, am still thinking about it today-it was that moving!

What audiences of 80-plus years ago must have thought of this film is unimaginable....very provocative, powerfully written and acted. With a few expansions the story could even be interesting today: pro-life District Attorney finds out the secret behind all the childless marriages in his party-hopping wife's social circle. Final scene so bittersweet..and on the lighter side, some excellent women's fashion from the era in costuming. Highest recommendation.

I was very impressed. First of all, the acting was quite good for a silent film, IMO. They really got the emotions across very well. Also, the continuity and the results of the actions were very true. I wish I could get this movie.

This film is most certainly not feminist but it was a courageous film to have made in 1910. Censorship already existed very strongly in the US and the idea that it only came in with the Hays Code in the thirties is a complete myth.

The film did have its imitators in the next year or so (a girl dies after an abortion in Enlighten thy Daughter 1917) and the subject would occasionally be raised rather obliquely in later films (The Road to Ruin 1928, 1934 and Ann Vickers 1933) or treated salaciously in exploitation films (Street Corner 1948) but it would not be until the 1960s that it would again become possible to treat such subjects seriously in US films (and even then it is primarily British rather than US films that come to mind). Plans to make a remake of Weber's film in 1936 had to be cancelled. As late as 1956, the revised Hays code insisted that "the subject of abortion shall be discouraged, shall never be more than suggested, and when referred to shall be condemned. It must never be treated lightly, or made the subject of comedy. Abortion shall never be shown explicitly or by inference, and a story must not indicate that an abortion has been performed, the word "abortion" shall not be used."

Weber's consideration of the question is entirely serious and all the aspects she considers, whatever one's opinion about voluntary miscarriage being legal of which there was not even the remotest possibility in 1916, remain entirely valid. Sometimes today the belief that women should have choice in these matters becomes confused with a vague idea that abortion is somehow completely problem-free, which it most certainly is not.

And Weber is entirely to be commended for taking up so strongly the case for birth control (an equally taboo subject)and against the 1873 Comstock Law that prevented discussion of it. This was also the subject of an unofficial sequel to this film (lost) called The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, in which she herself acted (and is the one arrested for promoting birth control). The film was, however, rather overshadowed by the appearance of Margaret Sanger's own film Birth Control even though the latter was effectively banned by the censors.

The film played to packed houses in sophisticated urban centres and won much critical praise because of its evident earnestness and religious iconography (one southern US newspaper described it as "one of the most remarkable preachments yet filmed") but it did also attract adverse criticism but it had to be shown in different (cut) versions in different parts of the country, and was particularly badly butchered (although not banned as is sometimes claimed) in Weber's home-state of Pennsylvania.

There are also some signs of a backlash. Photoplay later claimed that the films had spawned "a filthy host of nasty-minded imitators" and in 1917 when Essanay brought out a filmed called "Where is My Mother?" (evidently adapting the title of Weber's film) in its "Do the Children Count?" series, a particularly prissy reviewer in Moving Picture World praised it precisely because it avoided "distasteful reference to birth control and sex problems".

Although one may not agree with the sentiments of Where Are My Children?, nonetheless it is a powerful film dealing with a controversial subject, particularly for its day. Although Weber assumes a pedantic cloak in telling her story, she avoids sensationalizing it. One may disagree with her view of abortion as "perverting" woman's role in parenthood, but to me the focus of the film is the tragedy of Tyrone Power's character not having the children he so desperately wants.

The cast is quite good and from a historical perspective, note that this is the only known film of Helen Riaume, who plays Mrs. Walton. Also worth mentioning is the lovely Rena Rogers (Lillian), whose character serves as the fulcrum for the plot.

The last scene of the film is particularly moving, with Weber superimposing images of people into the picture, one of her favorite cinematic techniques. I highly recommend the film and look forward to viewing it again.

This remarkable film provides a rare opportunity to see the celebrated British-born stage actor Tyrone Power (1869-1931), whose son - now far more famous than he - appears in the film as a toddler. The action takes place largely in and around the palatial home of district attorney Richard Walton (played by Power), which in the handsome tinted print currently available considerably helps sugar the pill of the unglamorous and sometimes harrowing detail of this extremely skilfully made film.

Only last week a British Tory MP caused red faces when comments he made five years ago proposing that the jobless have vasectomies became public knowledge; which shows that despite the Nazis' best effort to bring eugenics into disrepute, concern about Homo Sapiens' thinning gene pool continues unabated in the 21st Century, recently well expressed in the movie 'Idiocracy' (2006).

Initially the subject of 'Where Are My Children?' appears to be the advocation of contraceptive birth control as the means to end the misery inflicted upon impoverished women repeatedly bearing children they cannot afford to raise; but even here the implication is the rather heartless one that it would have been better had all the dishevelled and ill cared-for children we see never actually been born in the first place.

However, the focus then shifts to the affluent set, whose womenfolk are depicted as self-centred hedonists shirking their responsibility to future generations by not reproducing; an opinion you'll still hear being expressed today. These women seem to have maintained their state of pristine childlessness through regular abortions - like visits to the dentist - rather than the use of contraception.

Was this really the case a hundred years ago?

This is a fascinating film as regards how fundamental moral issues could be shown on cinema during the 1910s and how moral values have shifted since then. Even more strongly than D.W. Griffith defends the superiority of the white race and how it should be defended. The film is in the first place defending eugenics, i.e. the fact that the reproduction of people with desired traits should be encouraged and reproduction of people with undesired traits should be reduced. The enthusiastic adoption of this theory by Nazi Germany demonstrated how pernicious it was. The film postulates that there are three categories of babies waiting to be born, the "chance" children, going forth to earth in vast numbers, the "unwanted" souls, that were constantly "sent back" and bore the sign of the serpent (devil?), and those souls fine and strong, sent forth only on prayer and marked with the approval of the Almighty. This explains the position taken by the main protagonist, District Attorney Walton: he thinks that there is no reason to prosecute somebody defending birth control, as he is working with poor people producing children who from a eugenics point of view are deemed undesirable. On the other hand he is deeply shocked when he discovers that his wife and her friends, who from the same eugenics point of view would produce perfect children, are getting abortions because motherhood would interfere with their leisurely life. It is therefore not an anti-abortion film, as it is now regarded by some people, but a film about the wrong people undertaking abortion. The unwanted children are just "sent back" to heaven. What is also striking, given the fact that the film was made by a female director, Lois Weber, together with her husband Phillips Smalley, is the very negative depiction of women. They are liberated enough to drive their own cars but the only thing in their life seems to be having drinks or tea together and refusing motherhood out of pure selfishness. This is all the more surprising that the person who inspired the scene of the man prosecuted for publishing a book about birth control was actually a woman, Margaret Sanger. Why did Lois Weber turn this positive female character into a man? Note also the patriarchal approach, Walton doesn't ask "Where are our children?" but "Where are my children?").

From the cinematographic point of view, the film presents several interesting characteristics. Acting is quite natural for the time and cross-cutting is used very efficiently. While camera movements are limited to a few small pans, the frequent change of camera angles and shots gives a dynamic editing. Lighting is also very creative, notably the use of back-lighting for the close-ups of female stars. The last scene with the couple getting old together with the ghosts of the children appearing at various ages is quite convincing.

This silent film was so unusual for its time...it was wonderful! It was for sure a Pro-Life movie. Hopefully, many people will want to view it and enjoy it as much as I did! I would love to buy it if available. I have seen a lot of silent movies and especially enjoyed this one and "The Wind", "Intolerance", "Greed" and several others that I can't recall at this moment. I wish more of these kind of dramatical movies would be on Turner Classic Movies on cable TV. I also wish that more young people would be able to view it on their TV and be exposed to these great old movies. Maybe there would be a renewal of these great, old silent films.