The Red Kimono

I just saw this film as part of TCM's Women Pioneers in Film series. I have heard a lot about Dorothy Davenport Reid's moral crusade, and was expecting a dry and preachy kind of film. However, the film hardly ever bogs down into preachiness and has enough dramatic momentum to move things along at a good clip. Priscilla Bonner, whom I had only seen in "It", does an excellent job as Gabrielle--we feel sympathy for her plight but she never bogs down in pathos.

"The Red Kimona" is a social commentary film that in some ways is very, very, very old fashioned and hokey. Interestingly, on the other hand, it also manages to be very modern in its sensibilities as well! This odd combination of the old and new make for a film that is interesting to watch but not exactly a must-see as far as silent films are concerned.

The film is a piece of social commentary. The subject of the film is a young woman who comes from a horrible home. Her mother and father are wretched jerks and she's longing for love. When she meets a man who says he loves her and wants to marry her, she's thrilled--not knowing that he has no such intentions. Instead, he forces himself on her and then keeps her as a virtual slave. She eventually escapes and later kills him when she discovers he's about to do this same thing to another woman. All this happens early in the film and most of the plot actually involves her life after these tragedies--and how society often fails women like this--treating them like lepers instead of victims. In fact, it's rather frank discussion of this is quite shocking for the times and must have raised a few eyebrows! The movie is interesting due to its social advocacy as well as the sensationalistic actions. However, despite this, the movie also is very preachy (with lots of Biblical references that seem a bit out of place and heavy-handed) and very conventional--like a 19th century play. As a result, it's interesting more as a curio than for its dramatic structure.

Overall verdict--it's worth seeing if you are a fan of silents, but otherwise it's skippable. Not bad, but not great.

Walter Lang directs this gripping if somewhat contrived saga adapted by Dorothy Arzner from a story by Adela Rogers St. Johns about fallen woman Gabrielle Darley (Priscilla Bonner). The first moments are bizarre, as we see Mrs. Wallace Reid (nee Dorothy Davenport), the film's producer, turning the pages of a bound collection of archival newspapers from 1917; she pauses at a story about Darley. She then turns to the camera and "talks" to the audience. This being a silent film, of course, we hear nothing but see her spoken words as text. I have never seen this device in a silent film before.

We then enter the Darley saga at mid-point in the red light district of New Orleans as the heroine learns from a fellow prostitute that the man who lured her into sin (Carl Miller) has deserted her to go to Los Angeles to get married. After some embarrassingly awkward histrionics by Bonner, whose emoting improves remarkably as the story progresses, we see her in the streets of L.A. and bingo, she just happens to run into Miller at a jeweler's shop as he is about to buy a wedding ring for the other woman! (Perhaps continuity scenes were filmed but cut here.) She confronts him, he shrugs her off as if her sudden appearance from hundreds of miles away is minor and unsurprising annoyance, she shoots him on the spot, sinks to her knees in penitent prayer and is promptly arrested and sent to jail.

Her case becomes a cause celebre, attracting hordes of curious sensation seekers, among whom is a then-common social-uplift type (Virginia Pearson) which was also satirized in Griffith's "Intolerance," who takes Darley in as a sort of trophy to show her trendy friends. And we are gradually drawn into the plight of this character by good acting, excellent photography (despite a few lapses into proscenium arch-ism), vivid characters as we root for Darley whose efforts to redeem herself seem to be crushed at every turn due to societal disapproval of her sordid past. Overall, the fashions and hairdos are very 1925 despite the fact that the whole story wraps up by 1917. In the beautifully preserved print I saw there is an appropriate and unobtrusive score by the prolific Robert Israel. The title derives from a hand- tinted garment owned by Darley which plays no important role in the story and seems to be a crude attempt at symbolism.

A woman recounts the true story of Gabrielle (Priscilla Bonner). Gabrielle finds her boyfriend Howard Blaine buying a wedding ring for someone else and she shoots him dead. In the ensuing trial, she recounts how she followed him from her small town to the big city where he convinced her to prostitute herself.

The red kimona refers to one scene in the movie when Gabrielle looks into a mirror. She first wishes to see a bridal gown but then sees that she reflects the red kimona of prostitution. The red in the kimona is probably hand painted one cell at a time. There is also a scarlet A and a red street light later in the movie. There are other notables about the production. It had a woman filmmaker and they got sued by the real person when they used her real name. The irony is hard to ignore. The drama of the story does fade as it gets away from the initial shooting incident. It meanders a bit. I get the scarlet letter idea. It gets a bit preachy and also preachy about being preachy. It's a fallen woman movie on one hand and points a finger at the gawkers staring at the fallen woman. The film leans on its Christian values and in a way, it has a lot in common with modern Christian movies except the modern ones don't like to talk about sex. It was probably very progressive for its time.

This film was the subject of a landmark California lawsuit. Gabrielle Darley was a former prostitute who had been involved in a prominent murder trial in which she was acquitted. After the trial, she reformed and led an exemplary life. The film makers used her true name in advertising the film and said it was about her life. They also used events from her life prior to the trial. She sued for invasion of privacy, a suit that had been recognized in other states but not in California. Although the California Court of Appeal was not ready to recognize the right of privacy, it held that use of her name and events from her life was a violation of Darley's right to the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the California Constitution. The precedent evolved into eventual recognition of the right to privacy in California. (See, Melvin v Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285)