Orphans of the Storm (1921) - film review

18th century Paris.  An aristocratic woman is forced to abandon her infant daughter on the steps of a cathedral.  The child, Louise, is found by a man who takes her home and rears her with his own daughter, Henriette.  Years pass and the two girls grow into handsome young women, but an outbreak of plagues robs them of their parents and Louise of her sight.  In the hope of finding a doctor to restore Louise’s sight, the two girls set out for Paris.  On the way, Henriette is abducted by the lecherous Marquis de Praille and taken to a bawdy party.  Meanwhile, Louise falls prey to the old hag Frochard, who intends to force her to beg for money.  With the support of the Chevalier de Vaudrey, a kindly young aristocrat, Henriette begins her search for her missing sister, just as Paris erupts into a violent and bloody revolution…

In one of his most ambitious and greatest films, D.W. Griffith skilfully combines melodrama and historical political intrigue to create one of the most spectacular and poignant of films of the silent era of American cinema.  Real-life sisters Lillian and Dorothy Gish play the two orphans of the title, bringing pathos and a sense of realism to a moving (albeit far-fetched) story of two innocents who get caught up in the turbulent events of the French Revolution.

Some brilliantly choreographed crowd scenes and convincing period exteriors give the film a breathtaking sense of scale, although these do not detract greatly from the central narrative, which is carried by some exceptional performances.  In addition to the aforementioned Gish sisters, Joseph Schildkraut makes an emblematic and likeable hero as the Chevalier de Vaudrey whilst Lucille La Verne turns in an amazing performance as the thoroughly vile hag Mother Frochard.  Even minor characters are well played and evoke sympathy, giving the film its rich composition, nearer to Grand Opera or a great work of literature than a conventional piece of cinema.

The central storyline is taken from a popular 19th century French play, although D.W. Griffith made a number of changes, notably moving the latter part of the story into the early stages of the French Revolution to crank up the drama and also to allow him to indulge in some bouts of social moralising and historical re-interpretation (Danton is apparently the French version of Abraham Lincoln).  Apart from Griffith’s muddled, and at time irritating, political commentary, the film’s only real weakness is the inclusion of certain scenes which, whilst providing background to the Revolution, have very little to do with the main story.  All those scenes with Danton and Robespierre feel painfully intrusive and belong in a separate film.

These faults aside, Orphans of the Storm is a monumental work that is both enjoyable to watch and a fine example of the art of filmmaking.  Despite its momentous background and epic scale, the film doesn’t allow us to lose sight of the individuals who make up the narrative.  After all, history is not made by events, but by people living those events.  The film’s dramatic and poignant ending shows not just Griffith’s creative flair as a cineaste, but also his profound compassion for human beings and an overriding preoccupation with social justice.  He may not always be subtle, but he is sincere.  Orphans of the Storm is probably his most worthy film.

© James Travers 2007

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?