Where Are My Children?

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.

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.

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.

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.