What's especially awkward about this film is that, a few years after the advent of talkies, it feels at least in part as though everyone involved was still trying to figure out how to operate in the sound era. I've seen a few of Priscilla Dean's surviving silent films, and I think she was an outstanding actor; for the few minutes she has on-screen here she looks like a fish out of water, not knowing what to do, and she sticks out like a sore thumb. The transitions orchestrated by editor Carl Pierson, and the cinematography of Archie Stout, both feel weirdly embellished at times, as if they were trying to recall the especially visual presentation of silent movies but were overcompensating. If we're feeling magnanimous maybe we could suppose that deficiencies of both the audio and the fundamental image could be chalked up to deterioration of prints prior to preservation; all I know is that other early sound pictures didn't have the same problems across the board of often muddled, indistinct dialogue and sound effects, and extra poor lighting that rendered some scenes indiscernible. In some ways, 'The law of the sea' would probably have turned out better if it had been made five years earlier.
However, would that it were just a matter of seeming ill adjustment to a new paradigm in film-making. While Dean sadly struggles most, the performances are uneven generally as they waver between honest and inauthentic - and so is Otto Brower's direction, which further sometimes feels altogether weak-kneed or scattered. Too much of Paul Jones' dialogue is questionable if not downright senseless, though this is regrettably somewhat fitting for the tale whipped up by Lee Chadwick. There's a period of about twenty minutes - one-third of the runtime - where it feels like the plot just disappears; even beyond this the narrative is decidedly light, and plot development kind of meager. Characters are sloppily written. While on paper it's a suitable story, in execution it's pointedly unconvincing, and rather more so as the digital timer plods on, not least with dubious sequencing from Pierson. Poor writing, poor direction, poor editing, uneven acting: did anything here turn out well?
There are good ideas, certainly. Strictly speaking, in both writing and realization the climax might be the single strongest part of the feature. In fairness, the production design and art direction are fairly sharp, and I appreciate the costume design, and hair and makeup work. These points of quality are not enough, however; at best it's too little, too late. For what is done well I'd love to say that I like this more than I do, but the fact remains that the value is far outweighed by content and craftsmanship that ranges from iffy to empty. It's unfortunate that this was among the last pictures made by Dean, for it is not of good quality, and all the generosity of spirit we can muster doesn't wash away how very rough the ride is. Whether from the silent era or after talkies rolled around, some of the best movies ever made hail from the medium's earliest years. This is not one of those. There are worse ways to spend your time, and an ardent cinephile may yet derive pleasure from the mere experience of watching such an older title, but otherwise I can't really imagine ever recommending a floundering piece like 'The law of the sea.' Thumbs down.
