The 1914 rendition of 'Tess of the storm country' holds an important place in cinema history and in the career of Mary Pickford, yet bears only just enough value to scarcely rise above "middling." Deep inadequacies of writing and direction meant that without outside context, it wasn't always clear who characters were, or what their place was in the story; what was happening in any given scene, or how the plot was developing. Scenes as they presented were less than totally engaging, and the narrative seemed to uphold those same antiquated values that in other ways it would purport to repudiate. By Pickford's own accounting, when the opportunity arose for a remake, there was concentrated effort to improve upon the previous film. Frankly, and thankfully, it shows - 1922's 'Tess of the storm country' isn't without its own problems, but it most certainly is a commendable achievement, a notable contrast to its antecedent.
To be honest, there's no aspect of the picture that didn't receive a boost the second time around. While details like hair and makeup, costume design, set design and decoration, and props were well considered in 1914, these are even more attentively realized in the updated version. Editing and sequencing, lighting, shot composition, and camerawork, in this production helmed by new director John S. Robertson, far supersedes the regrettable deficiencies under Edwin S. Porter that gravely dampened enjoyment and poignancy. Why, every scene as it presents is far more dynamic and vibrant, offering greater entertainment, emotional weight, or excitement, as the narrative would portend. And with that, the performances of all involved are likewise distinctly expanded to encompass far more rich, immersive, and absorbing displays. Pickford's turn in 1914 was one of the few truly admirable facets thereof, and like all her co-stars, in 1922's 'Tess' we see demonstrations of skill - range, nuance, physicality, poise, personality - that are absolutely, without question, superior and more worthy. I dare say, in all bluntness, that there is little comparison to be made. And if one has no interest in comparison, or is viewing the 1922 picture alone - well, there's no need at all to go back a further 8 years.
Most crucially, the higher quality here definitely applies as well to the screenplay. Maybe the faults perceived in 1914's rendition weren't entirely the responsibility of writer B. P. Schulberg; it's possible outside factors were at play to diminish the result. Whatever the case may be, though, Elmer Harris' take on the novel, as we in the audience see it, is simply much better. The prior feature carried a little bit of light amusement at times; here, we get some genuine comedy, as real as those moments that are heartfelt, or thrilling, or in any other way rousing. There is never any doubt or mystery about who a character is, or what their role they play in the narrative. Parts are written and portrayed with far more depth, complexity, and diversity. If anything, the pace is arguably just a hair too relaxed, and the content slightly overfull, but the plot advances steadily and without any murkiness or confusion.
Well... almost; there's one concrete criticism I have to make. To be sure, 1922's 'Tess of the storm country' is a significantly better film than 1914's. However, it is not perfect - and in fact, regrettably it does share to a degree in one of the same flaws that so hampered what its predecessor could have been. The character of Teola is central to the plot after a certain point - and therefore likewise is critical to the themes at work, and the values the movie would seek to impart. 1922's treatment of these matters is assuredly an improvement on the flailing shortcomings of 1914, in which the incidence of Teola's dilemma was first barely even suggested long before its nature was made plain. Yet, still, Harris' screenplay comes up a little short and a little late in not just cementing the woman's troubles - but indeed, in even indicating she has any in the first place. Just a little bit more elucidation, a little earlier, would have gone a long way.
And that brings us to one last important point. 1914's film played with notions including hypocrisy, the dehumanization of lower classes, misogyny, and devaluing life based on outrageous moralizing and beliefs. Yet in nigh the same breath as the story held up these indecencies as terrible concepts to be opposed, it treated its characters in such a way as to suggest it wanted to support those very same twisted norms. It was rather grotesque, and I feared what I might see in the remake. I am gratified, truly, that the error was not repeated. The real antagonist in 1914 was the culture in which the film was made, and which it reflected. In 1922, the tragedy, hardship, and prejudice that characterizes so much of the narrative is met at great length not with affirmation, but with love, just reward, and insight. The unseemly sociopolitical circumstances of the real world, that may indeed wish to instill the villainy to which we bear witness, is repulsed with welcome warmth and heart.
The disparity between one 'Tess' with Mary Pickford and another is astounding. Whatever the issues were that led to 1914's picture being what it was, the film turned into such a hodgepodge mess of unintelligibility and gloom that it's difficult to appreciate except for the slice of cinema history it represents. Eight years later, the endeavor to simply create something better unquestionably met with great success: if my reaction to the first is at best begrudging acknowledgement, my response to the second is at worst a marginally offbeat round of applause. This is a terrific feature, everything its precursor should have been, and certainly of its own accord but especially as a remake, is very much deserving of high regard and wide recognition. If you have a chance to watch 1922's 'Tess of the storm country,' this is a fine way to spend 2 hours.
1 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink