Sally of the Sawdust

Seems to have been made as a vehicle for W.C. Fields and Carol Dempster and they dominate it. Fields already has his film character well developed. Carol Dempster seems to dance through the film and her acting reminds me of Mary Pickford, who also worked a long time under D.W. Griffith. Typical of later Griffith films technically.

Later remade as Poppy (the original title) with Fields in the same role.

It's not often realised how strong the links were between silent cinema and the theatrical entertainment world of Vaudeville. W.C. Fields, like many Vaudeville comedians started out in pantomime – juggling, pratfalling and other staples of silent comedy. Fields would later add dialogue to his act and cultivate his now familiar persona, eventually progressing onto full-length comic dramas. Sally of the Sawdust, his first feature-length movie creates an odd shift in his career. It is adapted from his most recent stage hit Poppy, and yet the very different medium of pre-talkie cinema meant he had to rely upon the old routines from his pantomime days.

The picture sees him teamed up with pioneer director D.W. Griffith, now sadly long past his glory days. Griffith was never really much of a comedy director. He doesn't seem to have the confidence in his performers to let them do their stuff and allow the scenes to play out. Instead he seems stuck in the Keystone Cops mode of slapstick, which is always very frenetic, with lots of cuts. In a way this works out well because Griffith could at least direct a good action sequence, and scenes like the punch-up at the circus even if not very funny are at least nicely timed and escalated. Besides, even if the comedy fails the general air of irreverence stops the picture from getting too mawkish.

It is also rather nice to see Griffith returning to a simple, human story, as his usual epics with ride-to-the-rescue finales had been getting a little stale of late. Sally of the Sawdust more than any other harks back to the short films he made in the early teens for the way he focuses on individuals rather than wider social processes. There are some good examples of the way he builds up an emotional story. In the prologue, when the daughter is kicked out, we see the mother and father turn away from each other to face opposite walls, the camera well back in the large space, a perfect evocation of this cold, fractured household. And Griffith is still so good at expressing a feeling with the most delicate of close-ups, showing us for example Carol Dempster's hand clutching at the grass as she canoodles with Alfred Lunt. Acting performances vary immensely across Griffith's body of work, but the relatively restrained turns from Dempster and Elfie Shannon as old Mrs Foster add immensely to the poignant final scenes.

But what of W.C. Fields himself? We here and there see him going off into some bit of comedy business, but the truth is as a slapstick comic he is nothing really exceptional. He doesn't have the energy or flexibility to keep up with the wilder slapstick, and sequences like the one where he keeps knocking off his own hat just look out of place. Of course there is a lot more for him to do in Sally of the Sawdust, and Fields is at his funniest when simply acting out bits of the play (presumably kept intact from the original stage version) in his own characteristic manner. When trying to evade the police, he emerges from his hiding place wrapped in a cloak disguised as an Indian, and it is the way he strolls towards the camera, nonchalantly puffing on a cigar, that makes the moment funny. Still, there is clearly something missing from the act – the delivery, the voice, not to mention the opportunity to develop a curmudgeonly character without having to occasionally play the clown. It is no wonder his screen career never really took off until the arrival of the talkies.

SALLY OF THE SAWDUST is not a major Griffith film, but it is quite good for the most part. The story has been described well in other reviews, so I'll limit my comments to other aspects of the film. WC Fields shows the beginnings of his trademark cantankerous persona; indeed, the movie survives mostly due to his presence. Fields shows natural ability and is an asset to all of the scenes in which he is present.

However, he was not the "star" of this movie. That title would go to Carol Dempster. Dempster is something of a polarizing figure for silent film fans. Many have labeled her as a talentless and unattractive Lillian Gish wannabe whose supposedly awful performances led to DW Griffith's creative and commercial downfall. It's true that Dempster could be inconsistent as a performer, but when she was good, she was superb. Dempster really appears to enjoy this role, and it shows. She is by turns irreverent, spunky, feisty, happy, and touchingly sad; you can see the ache in Sally's heart as she yearns for the love of family. Dempster is highly expressive and uses her trademark athleticism and dancing skills to great effect. She radiates a kooky charm throughout and many of her facial expressions are amusing. I personally thought she carried the role very well, and I have watched this movie multiple times in order to relive moments from her performance.

As a movie overall, the film has its strengths and weaknesses. Griffith had obviously mastered the art of cinematography and there are some nice sequences at the circus, as well as the protracted chase scene near the end of the movie. The editing, as has been noted above, is comically bad. The most outstanding example is when the cops come to bust McGargle's shell game operation and take Sally away, it's clearly night time, but the cut to McGargle's escape is in broad daylight! Also, as has been noted, Griffith was NOT a comedy director. One can only imagine the zaniness that Buster Keaton or Hal Roach would have brought to the chase scene, but Griffith doesn't have the right feel for it. The movie is more amusing than laugh-out-loud funny. Whatever does work in the movie is more due to the cast (minus Alfred Lunt, whom I found very bland as the would-be boyfriend) than the script or direction.

In conclusion, SALLY OF THE SAWDUST, while not a "great" film, has two great performances (by Fields and Dempster) and is an agreeable way for silent movie fans to spend two hours.

Employing his juggling expertise and visible nuances he carried into his sound pictures one can almost hear W.C. Fields voice as you read his title cards in Sally of the Sawdust. Younger, thinner and with less dissipation about him Fields plays of all things a doting parent to Sally (Carol Dempster) an orphan with a traveling circus.

Before Sally is born her well bred and off mother decides to run off with a show person against parents wishes and is disowned. With the father dead and the mother dying Poppy (Fields) agrees to return the child to her parents but then he decides to raise her himself. Together they tour and perform into her adulthood when the day of reckoning approaches, further complicated by Sally's romance with a swell and member of her grandparents polite society who disdain show people.

Directed by D.W. Griffith in the latter half of his career, Sally has a dated look for a 25 silent with many scenes hearkening back to his halcyon period a decade earlier as his famous montage style looks more like a Mack Sennett Keystone short in spots. Once again he focuses on societal hypocrisy and intolerance but it comes across hackneyed. Silent film had moved into its golden era and Griffith remained inert while Vidor, DeMille and Ingram were taking form and content to another level.

Fields is both funny and touching as he protects Sally and tries to make a living in a variety of dubious enterprises. Dempster is remarkably agile as she takes her licks in more than one scene as well as have a chameleon like look that goes from homely tomboy to deco sleek vamp. It is the energy and talent of both that carry Sally as they leave D.W. anachronistic style in the dust.

The plot of "Sally of the Sawdust" is the usual melodramatic stuff-- an orphan, rags-to-riches-- but the film rises above most silents thanks to four people:

This is not, of course, D. W. Griffith's masterpiece, but it does showcase his film-making savvy in full maturity. He uses all his innovations, which are techniques we take for granted now: close- ups, cross-cutting, a mobile camera, and the ability to modify acting from theatrical exaggeration to cinematic subtlety.

W. C. Fields also showcases his skills-- not his signature gruff delivery, but his remarkable dexterity as a physical comedian. He does a few inventive juggling acts, cut too short to be fully appreciated, and some very deft pickpocketing, but it seems that every prop that comes within reach gets manipulated for comic effect-- hat, cane, car roof, dog, cash. He's a joy to behold.

Much has been said against Carol Dempster as an actress, but not by me. She was 22 at the time, playing a teenager, and her combination of grace and awkwardness is engaging, particularly when she dances. She's not a beauty-- though she's positively luminous in the scene where she's gussied up like a Talmadge sister-- but her plainness enhances her simple affection for Fields, her guardian.

Finally, there is Alfred Lunt in one of his rare film roles, as a dashing leading man. He and his British wife Lynne Fontane (a lavender marriage) made one talkie together-- a wonderfully funny one, "The Guardsman," in 1931-- after which they quit movies forever for the Broadway stage, where they reigned from 1923 to 1957. So famous and powerful were they that they would only accept theatrical contracts which allowed them to work together. As for movies, Fontanne wrote to the Hollywood producer who tried to lure them back with huge flippin' wadges of cash, "We can be bought, but we cannot be bored."