Adapted from Mark Twain's time-honored novel, 'Tom Sawyer's' narrative is surely familiar and no great surprise to anyone who retains at least a vague memory from whenever they may have read it. Already reflecting the more straightforward and less complicated side of storytelling, the tale seems more simple still when distilled into cinematic form. Yet that's rather suitable for this 1917 rendition, as each passing moment of rascally Tom's shenanigans in a relatively rigid progression echoes the slightly indelicate presentation. For this is one of those silent films that almost feels more like a plot being conveyed by written word, for which only select instances are granted the flourish of a visual depiction, than a feature of natural and fluid plot development. In that way it seems a bit like an extension of the very earliest shorts, in which brief descriptions preceded brief shots, once and again.
Meanwhile, Julia Crawford Ivers' screenplay, and William Desmond Taylor's direction, conjure scenes that sometimes bear a marginal air of playful inauthenticity in how they unfold, a mirror in their own fashion of those same, more strictly delineated first motion pictures. After all, with so exacting and limited a film structure, I think it's hard as a viewer to sometimes get a real sense of an actor's skills - and I'd have to think it's difficult, too, for an actor to get into character, and into the heat of the moment, as they would in titles of the more openly creative and artistic side of cinema. As if to emphasize the point, before you know it 'Tom Sawyer' is already three-quarters over. In that time, adequate as everyone's contributions have been, I just don't see a great deal to truly capture the imagination here. What adventure and drama there is in Twain's saga isn't conveyed with total effectiveness.
Even in the years before 'Tom Sawyer,' some filmmakers of the silent era produced features that indeed attained a more robust and satisfying smoothness and sincerity. By comparison, that sadly reinforces the weaknesses of the stiff, somewhat dispassionate show here. Please don't mistake my pointed analysis for pure criticism, though. For what it's worth, I think this is duly enjoyable - a fine cross-section of film in the early twentieth century, a guidepost in tracing the evolution of the art form. I think all involved, cast and crew alike, put in able work to realize a literary classic in a new medium. I just think the final result lacks the vigor and artistic flair that would allow it to meaningfully live and breathe, have impact, and otherwise stand tall on its own merits - and I say that as someone who loves silent movies.
1917's 'Tom Sawyer' isn't a bad way to spend 1 hour, so long as you're aware of or receptive to the type of olden movie that it represents. Recommended most of all for viewers who can't get enough of Mark Twain, or who can appreciate films in all their great diversity.
