Manslaughter

Leatrice Joy is the rich, careless girl who runs down a police officer; Thomas Meighan is the District Attorney who is first her lover, and then her prosecutor; Lois Wilson is the subplot, Miss Joy's maid, placed in prison for stealing Miss Joy's jewelry and pawning them....so she can send her sick son, under doctor's orders, to a warm climate. Meighan suggests mercy rather than justice to Miss Joy, but at first she's too angry, and later, too hung over.

There are the usual Demille scenes of people having a great time getting drunk in wild costumes, and even worse, dancing; later, during Meighan's summing up, there's a flashback sequence in which barbarians in hairy vests and winged helmets break into where the Vestal Virgins are sleeping one off. Finally, there's redemption for the ladies in vague homilies and multi-denominational Christianity. Meanwhile, Meighan has been been going through his own spiral, thanks to the demon rum, but there's hope even for him, in the love of a good woman.

My vague and sarcastic gassing is not intended to put down this version, so much as to be entertaining while giving away as little as possible to those who have not seen this movie. Let's be honest: there are some people whose opinion is worthwhile, who claim this is the worst movie Demille ever made. I can see why. It's at the end of his cavort-for-six-reels-and-repent-in-the-seventh phase, and the public was growing a tad tired of them by this point. I don't think it's worse than any of the others. In fact, I think it rather typical. Had public tastes not changed, he would have kept on making them.

No, if there are issues, it's that remaining with the same format meant Demille's evolution from one movie to the next had to be incremental rather than revolutionary. Also, I don't think Miss Joy brings much to the part that a more skilled comedienne might have. However, Bebe Daniels was off doing comedies for another division of Paramount, and Gloria Swanson likewise. Contrariwise, Meighan is fine, and Miss Wilson, while poorly served, doesn't let the side down. The result is an entertaining movie that if not the overwhelming success that Demille had grown used to by this point, is certainly worth your time.

Pretentious, preachy, magazine-style "sob story" film delivers on all its basic promises, which are few. There's the obligatory "Roman Orgy" scene, of course. Well, the "hero" is, although he's the D.A., inexplicably hanging out at a "bootlegger" party, and he starts spouting off about how awful it all is -- girls racing on pogo sticks!!! -- just like ancient Rome. He comes off as self-righteous and boring. Later on in the film, he becomes a self-righteous, boring drunk, and the girl he sent to prison for manslaughter "saves" him (!). Best scene: the cop on the bike flipping over a car.

Thomas Meighan (as Daniel J. O'Bannon) is a district attorney in love with "speed-mad" Leatrice Joy (as Lydia Thorne). Mr. Meighan loves Ms. Joy, "for the girl he thinks she could be," but not the geared up speed freak she is. One day, Joy takes her sporty car out to race a locomotive, and wins! Later, cop Jack Mower (as Jim Drummond) stops her; but, Ms. Joy drops him a diamond necklace, and speeds off to party. Lois Wilson (as Evans) is Joy's maid; to save her ailing son, she steals a jeweled ring from Joy. After Ms. Wilson is sent to the pokey, Joy commits manslaughter. Will D.A. Meighan let her get off?

Bacchannalian parties, which alternate between present and ancient Roman debauches, is a sure sign Cecil B. DeMille is directing. The O'Bannon character's flashbacks to ancient Rome are ludicrous DeMille indulgences. The better indulgence is the generous time DeMille's camera spends in a prison for women; his female prisoners are a lively bunch! The performances are sometimes entertaining, especially Joy and Wilson. Meighan starts off slow, but eventually succumbs to degradation. While fun is spots, this is NOT a great film. The love between Meighan and Joy is not particularly convincing; he shows more interest in Wilson, and might have been wise to run off with her. The story is sometimes inexplicable.

Symbolism likens a doughnut to a life preserver - so, why not a wheel? Coin collectors might enjoy the change in Meighan's pocket when he's down and out - two buffalo nickels and a standing liberty quarter.

***** Manslaughter (1922) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Thomas Meighan, Leatrice Joy, Lois Wilson

Manslaughter (1922)

As one intertitle says early on: "Modern girls don't sit by the fire and KNIT." And so the leading character, played with great verve by Leatrice Joy (unknown to me), races, literally, to a huge dilemma. A man is killed, and a district attorney falls in love with the wrong woman. There are parties, and some hugely extravagant (for the time) scenes that director DeMille loved to stage. It's all kind of fun and the drama relatively dramatic. But none of it rises above. The conflicts are a bit drained of actual tension (partly the acting, partly the script) and the overall flow is surprisingly slow. The fun parts sometimes seem like interludes that may have once held their own, but no longer (and maybe not then, either).

I expected more, which is always a problem, but if you want to get into early DeMille, before he turned into a blockbuster hack, there are at least 10 other films I've seen (actually) that are much better. (Look for almost any drama between 1918 and 1921, a really fertile period for him and his loyal cinematographer, Alvin Wycoff.) As for the title, there might have been a great double entendré there, with both the man killed and the man in love, but it never quite gels.

The plot, even if a little dragged out, would be allright; we just can no longer stand seeing - especially in the scenes of ancient Rome (which are by the by perfectly unnecessary) - everyone waving their arms like madmen, and - not all through the film, I must say, but in a consistent part of it - the actors too often resorting to those stereotyped gestures that characterize many films of the first (and last) silent cinema: gestures probably taken from contemporary theatre, but - since in silent cinema, by definition, no words could be uttered - exaggeratedly amplified to be sure of getting the message across.

Other powerful means were also available to early cinema: just think of close-ups, or the expression of a face... Similar cinematic tricks were not possible in the theatre: they were some of the tools of cinema as a new means of expression, or - in rare cases - art.

Among the filmmakers, some realized it earlier, some later...