The Whispering Chorus

Raymond Hatton who had a long and distinguished career since the very beginning of film is usually remembered for playing cantankerous old cusses as sidekicks in western films. But back in 1918 he was the protagonist/lead in Cecil B. DeMille's The Whispering Chorus, the story of a man tried and convicted for his own murder.

The character Hatton plays seems to be cursed. He embezzles from his boss and fearing discovery flees from his wife and mother. He gets what he considers a stroke of luck finding the body of a derelict. He mutilates the body and takes the dead man's identity. That would seem to guarantee success.

But here the cops get it backwards and declare Hatton under his real identity dead and the dead man wanted for the murder of Hatton. Quite a rude awakening when Hatton returns after 12 years.

Furthermore his wife marries a man who is now the governor of the state and he's played by DeMille silent regular Elliot Dexter. Quite the jackpot Hatton finds himself in.

The title The Whispering Chorus comes from the ghostly heads that appear to Hatton emphasizes every aspect of his nature. He has a genius for choosing the wrong path every time, listening to bad advice from his chorus of ghostly heads.

The special effects were state of the art for 1918, but DeMille also had a good story to work with and Hatton while such a loser does manage to obtain audience sympathy. In some ways this anticipates what Eugene O'Neill did on stage in Strange Interlude.

DeMille's Whispering Chorus is a haunting masterpiece that was ahead of it's time. The story line is highly creative - how the voices in your head can ruin your life. Basically, one man's degradation due to his cowardliness. This movie will make you think, which is exactly what DeMille intended. All in all, an excellent pre-20's silent film.

Raymond Hatton gives a fine performance as John Tremble. His change from a handsome upstanding man to a dirty tramp on the run is wonderfully done through make up - if compare a still of him from the first section of the film to a still from the end of the picture, he is almost unrecognizable as the same actor.

Kathryn Williams was a very attractive woman, and she portrays the role of Jane Tremble with delicacy. My personal opinion is that at the end of the movie, she acts in a very selfish manner, however, I think this is my 21st century eyes viewing early 20th century morals and is probably not the effect that DeMille, or screen writer Jeanie MacPhearson had in mind.

Thanks to Image entertainment, this 1918 film is available on DVD for new audiences to enjoy.

It's interesting how demille studied the market and constantly sabotaged his own films for better sales when that wasn't really a thing back then between directors/producers. Im sure all the erotic,promiscuous, submission, branding and sacrifice scenes sold well back then and they would today. I'm not saying you cant have them but in demille's films they make no sense and are there simply to sell more tickets. I don't know why i liked his 1910s films cause having watched them again, they're incredibly stupid. Carmen would be better without carmen. So is male and female without the male female aspect. The squaw man and the virginian are boring and amateurish and it's a miracle they were received that well but its clear why they were.

Which brings us to the whispering chorus which is actually pretty good until the last 20-30min. Other than the characters that have no progression or change (john is the dumbass, and others are the kind good people all throughout), The story has some focus unlike his other films during the teens that jump between many different unrelated subjects (usually bold and controversial ones like miscegenation, heredity, sexual submission, racism, ... ) and the disjointed parts come together naturally. But like the rest, it goes downhill on a pathetic attempt to end on a high note and have the audience leave satisfied.

I knew the film would end with a "sacrifice" without even watching it. Why? Because all his 1910s films have a heroic sacrifice that's incredibly insanely stupid. His first film, the squaw man 1914, ends both parts of the story with a sacrifice. Male and female, old wives for new and .... have one too. The cheat 1915 ends with a double back to back sacrifice as if the asian guy was the villain here.

And in the whispering chorus, you guessed it, another super stupid sacrifice where john dies to save jane. Save jane from what?!!! Her hardships (if there'd be any) are nothing compared to his death. The dramatization of her supposed problems is idiotic. Each scene here is idiotic in context because they were made independent of one another without thinking about the overall film. And how are you gonna have a film called "the whispering chorus" that starts with a poem about it and not consider that maybe killing an innocent man would hunt her for the rest of her life!

I don't think a film is good/bad because i agree/disagree with its message or even not having any message. But when the morals are the focus of your films and you're incapable of conveying them because you had to add these scenes to sell more tickets, then the film is bad based on what it wanted to achieve.

Cecil B. DeMille himself described this early feature as one of the first 'psychological' films ever made, but it's actually a more-or-less typical late-Victorian Age cautionary fable, expressed (as might be expected) with a heavy dose of morality and melodrama. The story shows how a single moment of weakness (in this case the desperate embezzlement of $1,000 by a poverty-stricken bookkeeper) will ultimately lead to misfortune, and worse. Haunted by a guilty conscience, the long-suffering victim gambles away (in the following order) his savings, his self-respect, his family, and finally his own identity. Reduced at last to a penniless, crippled vagrant, he is finally arrested and, after a series of misunderstandings, charged with his own murder! Most of the heavy-handed exposition and delivery is hilarious when seen today, and the inadvertent humor kills the lingering impact of the film's often striking (for 1918) visual artistry.

Back in the day movie directors weren't household names as they are today. Besides comedians Charlie Chaplin and Roscoe Arbuckle, directors of their own movies, the general public was largely unfamiliar with those helming their films behind the camera--that is with the exception of Cecil B. DeMille. Producing a string of successful films, DeMille purposely didn't pigeonhole himself into one particular genre. His March 1918 "The Whispering Chorus," an expressionistic, psycho thriller, proved the director was bold enough to branch out into areas rarely addressed in cinema up to this point.

"The Whispering Chorus" pleased movie critics with its stylized sophistication, bolstered by his art director Wilford Buckland, who created a darkened aura of what could be labeled a noir world where a devious act leads to life changing events. Buckland's Renaissance lighting highlights the leading character's angst of his act while secondary details lurking in the background augment his anxiety.

An underpaid account clerk for a large construction company embezzles a few thousand dollars to sustain his family while a panoply of voices in his head, the whispering chorus, lend him conflicting advice. He disappears when an investigation into the short account begins, leaving his bewildered wife. He devises a scheme when he comes upon a dead body to make it appear the corpse is him. Caught later with the clerk's ID, he's charged unbeknownst to police of killing himself.

Longtime screenwriter to DeMille, Jeanie Macpherson, adapted her intriguing script from a Perley Sheehan story, which could easily be confused with a later Raymond Chandler or James Cain potboiler. Her scenario gave DeMille the chance to frame a series of symbolic images throughout, including rose pedals falling to the floor as an electronic switch is pulled.