gavin6942 Two orphaned sisters (Lillian and Dorothy Gish) are caught up in the turmoil of the French Revolution, encountering misery and love along the way.The last Griffith film to feature Lillian and Dorothy Gish, it is often considered Griffith's last major commercial success, after box-office hits such as The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, and Broken Blossoms. Like his earlier films, Griffith used historical events to comment on contemporary events, in this case the French Revolution to warn about the rise of Bolshevism. The film is about class conflict and a plea for inter-class understanding and against destructive hatred.For me, the best Griffith will always be "Broken Blossoms", but his whole method is interesting. Making such epic films to make a political point... it's admirable, and even more admirable considered how much time must have went into making such long films at that point in time. I can only imagine how much film he had to burn through to get what he ended up with.

Tweekums Set at the time of the French Revolution this film follows two women, Henriette and Louise who have been raised as sisters. A plague has killed their parents and left Louise blind so the head to Paris hoping to find a doctor who may cure her. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan; Henriette is snatched by people working for a lecherous aristocrat then Louise falls into the clutches of a spiteful hag who forces her to beg on the streets. Luckily for Henriette she is saved by the kind aristocrat Chevalier de Vaudrey; they set off to find Louise but they have made powerful enemies. When the revolution comes it looks as though life in France will get better but it isn't long before the callous aristocracy has been replaced by a new more brutal regime and it looks as if Henriette and Chevalier may fall victim to the guillotine!This film by G. W. Griffiths probably won't be watched by too many people as it is both monochromatic and silent; which is a pity as it really is rather good. I say monochromatic rather than black and white as the scenes are shown through different coloured filters; this serves to emphasise the atmosphere of each scene. I was surprised just how quickly I got used to the fact that I couldn't hear what the characters were saying; occasional inter-titles explained key points and the casts emoting was good enough to convey the meaning of what was being said.The way the story is told may seem a little melodramatic to modern viewers and it isn't subtle about telling us just who is good and who is bad… in one scene an aristocrats carriage runs over and kills a peasant and he is more concerned about his horses and Robespierre couldn't have been more villainous if he'd t been depicted stroking a white cat like Blofeld in a Bond film! This wasn't a problem though as the story moves along at a cracking pace. There is plenty of drama as well as a romantic subplot involving Henriette and Chevalier all of which leads to a fine ending; right up until the last moment I wasn't sure whether or not that couple would survive. The cast did a fine job; especially real life sisters Lillian and Dorothy Gish who play Henriette and Louise.Overall I'd certainly recommend this and not just to people fascinated by early cinema; the two and a half hour run time goes by faster than plenty of modern films!

JoeytheBrit Henriette (Lillian Gish) and her sort-of adoptive sister Louise (Dorothy Gish) must travel to Paris on the eve of the French revolution so that Louise can have an operation to reverse the blindness she suffered as a result of the plague (which also claimed her adoptive parents). However, they soon become separated once in Paris: while Louise is left at the mercy of an unscrupulous beggar woman, Henriette finds herself the target of a salacious nobleman with plans to ravish her at his midnight orgy.How's that for bodice-ripping melodrama? D. W. Griffith, who could still just about do no wrong back in 1921, produced yet another drama on an epic scale, little realising he was on the cusp of an irreversible decline that would see him unable to win work of any kind within a decade. There's little sign of his powers waning here as he delivers a big, ambitious spectacle that sets the intimate relationship of two half-sisters against the broad canvas of the French revolution. Judging from the inter-titles, Griffith's prime motivation was to highlight the similarities between the manipulation of the revolution by such men as Robespierre with the then-recent revolution in Russia and the dangers of such an event occurring in (gasp!) America. Of course, we all now know that D. needn't have worried himself, but his sincerity is certainly evident in the attention to detail, and the lavish sets and costumes of the film. The debauched midnight party is something to behold, and put me in mind of all those modern day films and videos in which young and edgy directors think they're doing something special by adding a kitsch glamour to the frocks and wigs of the noble women in their period films. The fact is Griffith was eighty years ahead of them.Sadly, as with most of Griffith's films when viewed today, there's a down-side due to the horrendous over-acting of some of his players. Lillian Gish is OK most of the time – she always seemed to exercise an admirable restraint in her performances no matter who she was working under – but her little sister Dorothy goes over the top a little too often. Even she is outplayed by Monte Blue, who plays Danton, in his big climactic scene; clutching one hand to his chest, he holds his other aloft as if tightly grasping a half-inflated balloon partially filled with water, and pulls wild faces as he begs the People's Court to have mercy on the poor little orphans. As a device to emphasise the drama of the moment it no doubt worked fine ninety years ago, but today such displays border on the comical.The pace of the film is surprisingly good considering its age and running time – a bum-numbing 150 minutes – and despite introducing the audience to a large cast of characters within the first ten or fifteen minutes, Griffith does a good job of not confusing his audience. Needless to say, the last reel, with the customary race against time to save the imperiled heroine, is a master-class in cross-cutting and still manages to get pulses racing even today.Despite the melodramatics from certain members of the cast, I found Orphans of the Storm a more accessible and enjoyable film than the likes of Birth of a Nation and Intolerance, which are held in higher esteem by most people. Griffith's touch seems much more assured than with BoaN, and the storyline is obviously less fragmented than it is in Intolerance.

hcoursen This film demonstrates Griffith's genius in creating a massive scale and in linking disparate plot elements. By 1921, however, some of Griffith's innovations had become mere mannerisms, particularly the cross-cutting that leads to his climax, as introduced in "Birth of a Nation" and used, with powerful effect, in "Hearts of the World." The cross-cutting at the end of "Orphans" goes on much too long. Lillian Gish must have grown old staring down into the basket. Some techniques -- a blank screen followed by a face (memory) and a narrow focus on a face (point of view), for example, are still effective. I know that over-elaboration is a staple of the silent screen, but at times, it is over-the-top here. Constrast, for example, the more subtle approach of an actor like Alice Terry. Danton did argue for moderation, once he believed that the Revolution had succeeded. His oration in this film is, like much of it, simply unbelievable. The idyllic ending also strains credulity. How did this particular group of aristocrats escape the blade and retire to a country estate?