I viewed an extremely bad print of the 1924 independent production 'Which Shall It Be?' that showed significant nitrate deterioration. I can't verify this, but I believe that a 1919 film also cried 'Which Shall It Be?' is based on this same story, or one very similar.
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. John Moore and his wife are one of those poor but honest couples: in fact, they're so poor that Mrs Moore apparently hasn't even got a name of her own ... unless it was in an intertitle that was so deteriorated that I skipped it with my hand-held Steenbeck viewer. All they've got in the world are seven twee widdle kiddywinks. In a reverse of the von Trapp brats in 'The Sound of Music', the Moore spawn are five laddies and two lassies. The elder daughter, May, is allegedly quite talented on the violin. (This being a silent film, we can only see her sawing a fiddle while Paul Weigel beats time.) As young May Moore, child actress Miriam Ballah has a fringe haircut that's quite pretty and doesn't look overly elaborate for the child of an impoverished family.
Well, it turns out that -- much like Willy Loman -- poor John Moore has a wealthy brother (David Torrence) who ignores his pauper sibling except on rare occasions when he shows up just to ignite a plot point. Now he offers a proposition: since John Moore and his wife are too poor to raise seven weans and bairns properly, Uncle Robert (the rich brother) will take one child off their hands, and raise that child to wealth and privilege in his mansion. In exchange, John Moore will receive a lifetime pension, a house and land(!) Well, before you can say "Bob's your uncle", the family's in favour of this. But now a sticky wicket rears its ugly head: which child shall be chosen? (Hence the title.) It's little May for the chop.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I should make a personal confession here. I came from a large and impoverished family (in Scotland), and my biological parents had too many children for their meagre dole payments. They chose to keep my fraternal twin brother but decided to dispose of me, handing me over to HMG's 'child migrant' scheme. In hindsight, this turned out to have a positive effect: it got me out of an abusive family situation. However, more than a half-century later, I continue to obsess and rage that my family chose to reject me whilst keeping my twin brother. (They did briefly try to bring me back, when my fraternal twin needed a new kidney.) Because of my own memories, I was deeply affected by this 1924 film, on several emotional levels. I expect that I should consider this a point in the movie's favour. However, I doubt that a typical viewer in either 1924 or today -- one without my own memories and angst -- would be nearly so affected by this movie.
BIG SPOILER NOW. The film's ending is the most blindingly obvious one possible: namely, that the entire family decide that they're collectively better off staying together as a family, and the rich uncle merely contributes a cheque to the proceedings. Cheque please, indeed!
Ethel Wales (as the nameless mum) and David Torrence (as Uncle Bob) give much better performances than Willis Marks does in the central role as the father of this clan. British readers will know what I mean when I say that this is a "Bob's your uncle" movie. I choose not to rate this film, partly for personal reasons but also down to the fact that I viewed a very damaged print that obscured several scenes. "Which Shall It Be?" fails to answer another question: "Why Should We Care?".
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. John Moore and his wife are one of those poor but honest couples: in fact, they're so poor that Mrs Moore apparently hasn't even got a name of her own ... unless it was in an intertitle that was so deteriorated that I skipped it with my hand-held Steenbeck viewer. All they've got in the world are seven twee widdle kiddywinks. In a reverse of the von Trapp brats in 'The Sound of Music', the Moore spawn are five laddies and two lassies. The elder daughter, May, is allegedly quite talented on the violin. (This being a silent film, we can only see her sawing a fiddle while Paul Weigel beats time.) As young May Moore, child actress Miriam Ballah has a fringe haircut that's quite pretty and doesn't look overly elaborate for the child of an impoverished family.
Well, it turns out that -- much like Willy Loman -- poor John Moore has a wealthy brother (David Torrence) who ignores his pauper sibling except on rare occasions when he shows up just to ignite a plot point. Now he offers a proposition: since John Moore and his wife are too poor to raise seven weans and bairns properly, Uncle Robert (the rich brother) will take one child off their hands, and raise that child to wealth and privilege in his mansion. In exchange, John Moore will receive a lifetime pension, a house and land(!) Well, before you can say "Bob's your uncle", the family's in favour of this. But now a sticky wicket rears its ugly head: which child shall be chosen? (Hence the title.) It's little May for the chop.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I should make a personal confession here. I came from a large and impoverished family (in Scotland), and my biological parents had too many children for their meagre dole payments. They chose to keep my fraternal twin brother but decided to dispose of me, handing me over to HMG's 'child migrant' scheme. In hindsight, this turned out to have a positive effect: it got me out of an abusive family situation. However, more than a half-century later, I continue to obsess and rage that my family chose to reject me whilst keeping my twin brother. (They did briefly try to bring me back, when my fraternal twin needed a new kidney.) Because of my own memories, I was deeply affected by this 1924 film, on several emotional levels. I expect that I should consider this a point in the movie's favour. However, I doubt that a typical viewer in either 1924 or today -- one without my own memories and angst -- would be nearly so affected by this movie.
BIG SPOILER NOW. The film's ending is the most blindingly obvious one possible: namely, that the entire family decide that they're collectively better off staying together as a family, and the rich uncle merely contributes a cheque to the proceedings. Cheque please, indeed!
Ethel Wales (as the nameless mum) and David Torrence (as Uncle Bob) give much better performances than Willis Marks does in the central role as the father of this clan. British readers will know what I mean when I say that this is a "Bob's your uncle" movie. I choose not to rate this film, partly for personal reasons but also down to the fact that I viewed a very damaged print that obscured several scenes. "Which Shall It Be?" fails to answer another question: "Why Should We Care?".