They make movies about all kinds of things
these days.
From superheroes saving the universe and women
of color using math to win the space race,
to the brutal horror of something like The
Human Centipede.
Ew.
But there are some topics that filmmakers
shy away from, even today.
While movies can take bold stands on controversial
issues, they usually root stories in safer territory.
In fact, back in the 1910s in the heart of
Hollywood, a director named Lois Weber found
a lot of success making films about the most
pressing social issues of her time.
And one of her signature films is a drama
from 1916 that took on one of the most contentious
subjects in American life: abortion.
[intro music plays]
Lois Weber was kind of an anomaly in the early
days of Hollywood.
She was an extremely successful filmmaker
in an industry that’s dominated by men.
Weber began her film career in the transitional
period of cinema history, around 1907 to 1913,
when mainstream movies started to look like
movies today.
They were feature-length fictional narratives,
told with traditional film grammar, and supported
by a star system.
A big name associated with the time is D.W. Griffith,
who used sophisticated tools of
film grammar – things like close-ups, cross-cutting,
and subtle performances – to involve audiences
in the emotions of his characters.
Collaborating with her husband Phillips Smalley,
Lois Weber made a series of wildly successful
films that also experimented with film grammar
to engage people.
She pioneered some unusual techniques, from
split screens to superimpositions.
She was one of the first filmmakers to experiment
with synchronous sound.
And she was the first female director to own
her own film studio.
Not only that, but all of her early films
tackled hot button issues more directly than
the work of most of her peers.
With titles like Shoes, The People vs. John
Doe, and The Devil’s Brew, she took on subjects
like child labor, capital punishment, and
temperance.
In 1917, she made a film called Is a Woman
a Person?
– released as The Hand the Rocks the Cradle.
It was about Margaret Sanger’s real-life
arrest for spreading information about birth control.
Weber was quoted at the time saying, “My
close study of the editorial page has taught
me that … its effect is far reaching upon
thousands of readers.
I feel that, like them, I can … also deliver
a message to the world … that will receive
a ready and cheerful response from the better
element of the big general public.”
One reason she was able to grapple with these
social issues so directly is that she was
making her films before 1930.
That’s when Hollywood instituted the Motion
Picture Production Code, also known as the
Hays Code, which we covered in Crash Course
Film History with Craig.
Besides prohibiting things like nudity, sex,
violence, and drug use, the Hays Code said
that films couldn’t directly address controversial
issues.
Filmmakers had to rely on subtext and innuendo
instead.
So Lois Weber’s films can be kind of startling
for us to watch nowadays.
We’re used to old, black-and-white movies
feeling restrained or stuffy – not confronting
social issues that are still relevant even
today.
And one of the best examples of her work comes
from 1916.
Where Are My Children dives straight into
the controversial topic of abortion.
The film combines Weber’s sophisticated
grasp of cinema, her deep desire to explore
social issues, and her sometimes flawed point
of view.
There are a couple ways to dissect Where Are
My Children, and first we’re going to look
at it through a historical lens – in terms
of social issues as well as filmic techniques.
Where Are My Children tells the story of a
District Attorney named Richard Walton, played
by the imposing Tyrone Power, Sr., and his
wife, known only as Mrs. Walton, played by
Helen Riaume.
The couple is childless, and the film goes
to great lengths to show how much Mr. Walton
wants kids.
We see him looking wistful, enjoying the neighborhood
children, and fawning over his sister’s baby.
Mrs. Walton, we discover, would rather play
with her puppy and hang out with other high
society women than raise children.
When one of Mrs. Walton’s friends confides
in her that she’s pregnant, Mrs. Walton
brings her to Dr. Malfit, a physician who
has performed abortions for Mrs. Walton and
many of her friends.
Also…
Dr. Malfit?
Coulda just named him Dr. Bad Guy or Dr. Evil.
But, whatever...
As the film progresses, Mrs. Walton has a
change of heart and decides that she is
ready to start a family.
And then, we’re told that her history of
abortions has left her unable to bear children.
Meanwhile, her lecherous brother comes to
visit and seduces her housekeeper’s young
daughter, leaving her pregnant.
The young woman seeks help from Mrs. Walton,
who sends the girl to Dr. Malfit.
This time, the procedure goes badly and the
young woman dies.
Enraged, Mr. Walton attacks his brother-in-law
and prosecutes Dr. Malfit, who is sentenced
to fifteen years hard labor.
Before the doctor is taken away, he warns
Mr. Walton to examine his own family before
he starts casting blame.
In the doctor’s ledger, Mr. Walton discovers
his wife’s name, along with many of her friends.
He confronts them and accuses his wife of
murder.
In the film’s final moments, we see the
Waltons sitting by the fire, visited by the
spirits of the children they never had.
It’s a remarkable effect that keeps unfolding,
as the Waltons grow old before our eyes and
their now-grown children fade into and out
of the shot one last time.
Not exactly a happy ending!
Now, this film grapples with tough ideas like
reproductive rights, which isn’t an easy
conversation to have.
But if you look closely at what the movie’s
trying to say, what at first seems like
a progressive stance ends up being a bit self-contradictory.
Early in the film, Mr. Walton somewhat reluctantly
prosecutes a man for distributing pro-birth-control
literature, which at the time was illegal.
During the man’s testimony, we flash back
to his work with the poor, their homes full
of disease, domestic abuse, and even suicide.
The defendant argues that if these women had
access to birth control, there would be less
suffering in their communities.
When the jury, which is clearly made up of
only men, vote to convict the defendant, Mr.
Walton seems troubled by the verdict.
So at face value, Where Are My Children seems
to be advocating for more access to birth
control, or at the very least more access
to information about birth control.
However, its argument is based on a notion
that we now recognize as deeply flawed: eugenics.
Eugenics was a pseudo-science that was popular
in the early 20th century.
Essentially, it’s the idea that controlling
which humans can have babies could increase
so-called “desirable” genetic and behavioral
traits across a population.
It was an incredibly racist and classist movement.
Proponents of eugenics like Karl Pearson of
the University of London argued that the relatively
high birth rate among the poor was a threat
to civilization.
Taken to its logical extreme, eugenics was
practiced by the Nazi regime in Germany in
the 1930s, paving the way for the Holocaust.
And while Weber’s film does argue for
access to birth control for poor women,
the wealthy women are punished for seeking
abortions.
They’re subjected to Mr. Walton’s fury,
Mrs. Walton can’t have children anymore,
and the housekeeper’s daughter dies.
In general, the film portrays the women of
the elite class as selfish and irresponsible,basically
shaming them for not wanting to be mothers.
That’s reinforced by Mr. Walton, who’s
presented as a noble and ultimately tragic
figure because he never gets the family he
wanted.
So while it’s cool that this film directed
by a woman grapples boldly with controversial
subject matter, it’s important to recognize
that it also falls victim to some grave misconceptions
and prejudices of the time.
We can think critically about this film as
a sort of cultural time capsule because of
our current understanding and discussions
of these complicated ideas.
But we can also evaluate this film from a
technical point of view.
And through that lens, it’s a remarkably
sophisticated work, for being made just twenty-one
years after the birth of movies.
At key moments throughout the film, Weber
uses close-ups to great effect.
Remember that camera technique and language
was still being developed alongside actors’
performances.
When the housekeeper’s daughter realizes
she’s pregnant, Weber cuts to a closer shot
to register her conflicted emotions.
Or when Dr. Malfit is sentenced to hard labor,
we get a close-up to see his desperation.
And that moment leads to Weber’s most
sophisticated use of dramatic irony, which
was also pretty new to cinema in 1916.
Dramatic Irony is where the audience understands the
full significance of a moment or action, but
the characters in the story don’t yet.
After Mr. Walton has read Dr. Malfit’s ledger
and found the names of his wife and her friends,
he returns home to confront them but doesn’t
speak right away.
We know what’s about to go down, but Mrs.
Walton and her partying friends don’t.
And that suspense makes the eruption of anger
that much more effective.
Now, other filmmakers at that time were good
at special effects, and Weber had skills too.
The film opens with a title card announcing:
“the great portals of Eternity,” followed
by a special effects shot of a huge gate opening
to reveal pillars, angels, and celestial clouds.
She’s using forced perspective, superimpositions,
and smoke to create an impressive, heavenly effect.
But Weber also used special effects to get
us to feel for the characters.
She found ways to trick our eye and affect
our heart.
Twice when characters discover they’re pregnant,
Weber superimposes a little cherub into the
shot, as though an angelic unborn soul is
whispering to the would-be mother.
It’s an impressive way to give us important
plot information, especially in a silent film.
But this also helps us empathize with the
characters’ conflicted emotions.
And the final shot of the film, where the
aging Waltons are visited by the spirits of
the children they never had, is undeniably
moving.
No matter how you feel about how the filmmakers
portrayed the characters and the idea of abortion,
this shifting image illustrates the pain and
regret that can come with thinking about roads
not taken.
So Where Are My Children is a landmark achievement,
representing a director at the height of her
power, combining technical mastery with a
deep understanding of complex human emotions.
And it’s Lois Weber’s time capsule that
tackles a social issue so controversial that
most modern mainstream filmmakers hesitate
to touch it today.
Next time, we’ll travel across the globe
and ahead in time to an equally heartbreaking
story of social taboos and unrequited love
from a contemporary master of cinema: In The
Mood for Love, directed by Wong Kar-wai.
Crash Course Film Criticism is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of their latest shows,
like PBS Infinite Series, PBS Space Time, and Origin of Everything.
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
with the help of these nice people and our
amazing graphics team is Thought Cafe.
