User Reviews

In recent weeks I've seen two well-known silent Westerns, John Ford's 1924 epic The Iron Horse and the first version of The Spoilers, released in the spring of 1914, and the contrast between the two is striking. Ford's film holds up quite well for the most part and would likely be perfectly accessible and entertaining for most viewers accustomed to Hollywood Westerns of the sound era, while The Spoilers, made only ten years earlier, looks like an artifact from an ancient civilization, and requires considerable patience from modern viewers. Certain conventions of silent cinema that were well established by the mid-'20s were still in flux when this early feature was made, so while it is an interesting film in its own right it nevertheless has the inescapable feel of a museum piece. I would call The Spoilers must-see viewing only for dedicated silent film buffs, especially Western fans, but not for general audiences looking for undemanding entertainment.

The first thing a viewer must make allowances for here is the histrionic performance style, which hearkens back to the Victorian stage. In this film a player indicates sadness not simply with the appropriate facial expression but by dropping his arms to his sides and bobbing his head downward several times; another might indicate surprise by popping her eyes and abruptly throwing her arms across her face. In short, these actors are emoting to the rear balcony for filmmakers who have not yet recognized that the camera, parked only a few feet away, obviates the need for large-scale gestures. In addition to the acting, the titling technique is primitive. The dialog titles in this film identify each speaker by name and attach the name to that character's line of dialog, an obtrusive device that takes some getting used to. Also, sorry to say, the descriptive titles generally tell us what is going to happen before it happens, eliminating any suspense. (The low point where this technique is concerned occurs when we see the Broncho Kid riding his horse and a title informs us that he will injure himself in a fall; moments later, of course, he does just that.) At times the blocking of the actors is inept: during a dramatic scene in a bank a key player's face is obscured by an extra's hat, while in another sequence, a violent shoot-out, the editing makes it appear that actress Bessie Eyton is standing in two places at once. Other problems include an obviously painted backdrop of the ocean during a shipboard sequence, and an obviously Caucasian actor wearing black-face during a saloon scene. Within a few years even run-of-the-mill Hollywood films would boast better production values, subtler performances and smoother editing, but it's important to remember that when The Spoilers was made the standards were still being established.

Whatever its drawbacks, the film has a number of factors in its favor. The bulk of the story is set in an Alaskan mining town (which I guess makes it a "Northern" rather than a Western) and the town looks very authentic indeed: the buildings are ramshackle, the streets are muddy, and the store signs look as roughly lettered as they do in 19th century photographs. Later on, after genre films had been systematized, Hollywood tended to prettify its Western towns and give them fancy saloons with floor shows that look like they were choreographed by Busby Berkeley. Here, however, the saloon looks appropriately cruddy and the stage performers are about as clumsy as, one imagines, they actually were. Like the town itself the lead performers look rougher than we might expect, and certainly not as handsome as their successors in the saga's many remakes over the years, when the likes of Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich, John Wayne, Randolph Scott, etc., took these roles. In this first version we find chunky, middle-aged William Farnum in the lead, playing opposite a similarly weathered-looking Kathlyn Williams as saloon gal Cherry Malotte. Once we adjust to their dated acting styles these actors come off well, both charismatic and refreshingly "real" in appearance. Bessie Eyton and Tom Santschi are also notable in roles that call for rather less nuance. Santschi is a most despicable villain, taking a well-earned beating in the movie's most famous sequence, a no-holds-barred fight with Farnum that created a sensation when the film was released and is still rousing to watch.

I can see why The Spoilers was such a great popular success when it was first released, but I can also see why it isn't shown much outside museums, nowadays. For sheer entertainment value Ford's The Iron Horse is one of the best silent Westerns there is, but Ford didn't invent the genre. Historically-minded viewers determined to trace the genre's conventions back to the early days should see this film, which, allowing for its age, is an interesting and worthwhile experience.

This one stars William Farnum, with Marshall Farnum (his oldest brother) in a small role.

This was the first film version, and was William Farnum's first feature-length film. He was around 38 at the time, having spent his career on the stage. But he doesn't look too old for the part, although in a few scenes, he appears to have a bit of a gut. Still, he is well cast as the hero, and the story follows the Rex Beach novel pretty faithfully (I read it a few weeks ago). There is a print on youtube that is barely acceptable. The story revolves around a villain trying to seize Farnum's Alaskan gold mine. The villain, played by Tom Santschi, is somewhat atypical. Santschi was better-looking than Farnum, and taller. Although it's clear he is unscrupulous, he's not the hissable type. Farnum and Santschi are at odds over a gold mine and a woman, so you know that at some point, this is going to come down to a confrontation.

The climactic fight scene has been written about in magazines, and was even mentioned in Farnum's death notices. It is bizarre, to say the least. It is more like a wrestling match, with bear hugs, arm locks, etc., although a few punches are thrown. Shirts are torn. In one impressive show of strength, Santschi actually yanks Farnum off the ground and has him almost horizontally in the air for a moment. The fight lasts about 90 seconds. Several accounts of that fight have been given by Farnum, although they all seem to indicate that he and Santschi discussed the fight ahead of time and decided to really go at it. Farnum claims that the fight scene went on for five minutes more than it was supposed to, and that a lot of the fight scene was cut from the film. Some accounts say the film ran for almost two hours (it's 98 minutes on youtube), so perhaps it was shown at slower speeds in some places, making the fight last longer. In any event, the fight does look realistic, and the actors did their own fighting.

This is by no means a great film, but it does have historical significance.

At the top of the comments page is a request: if you've seen this title, please write a review for others. But there is so much to explain about this movie before a useful comment can be made, that it becomes a meaningful problem.

First and foremost, this is a silent picture in black and white. This means that, at the time I write this review, perhaps one person in ten thousand would be willing to see it at all. The prejudice against black and white movies is, I feel, foolish, but silent movies pose an even greater problem to the modern moviegoer. As brilliant as they may be, it is usually only the great comedies that make any sense to modern moviegoers. Silent movies are rewarding, yes, but they are not meant for the passive moviegoer who sits down and says "Entertain me!" You must pay attention. You must understand that you are dealing with a society that is long gone. Are there a hundred people alive in 2005 who saw this movie ninety-one years ago?

The last and foremost problem is that this is not a movie such as you are used to, a series of pictures that tell a story with occasional titles to convey dialogue or scene-setting. No, the titles tell the story and the movie illustrates it. This movie-making technique was dying out when this movie was made.

If you are willing to put in the work to look at this movie, here are some of the things you might wish to look for.

First, the prints available seem to be in good shape, but there seem to be issues with the continuity. Perhaps someone went back and edited the movie to make it shorter, and did a bad job. Perhaps when this print was assembled, there were technical issues with the cutting continuity. The acting is primitive, even by the standards of the era.

Despite those issues, the movie was such a success that it made its lead, William Farnum, a major star and made its production company, the Selig Polyscope, a lot of money -- always an important issue for commercial art. The good points of this movie are that it is much more complicated than later versions of this often-filmed movie. It hints at the complexity and philosophic issues of the Rex Beach novel it is based on. True, this makes characters appear out of nowhere and vanish just as suddenly, but such issues are not restricted to movies more than ninety years old.

It also has some beautiful cinematography, particularly the early, ship-bound sequences which seem to have been filmed on actual ships of the era. And once the action gets going, it gets moving fast, with explosions and fistfights aplenty.

So, is this movie worth your time? I'm afraid you'll have to look at it and tell me.

This was William Farnum's first feature-length film. He was around 38 at the time, having spent his career on the stage. But he doesn't look too old for the part, although in a few scenes, he appears to have a bit of a gut. Still, he is well cast as the hero, and the story follows the Rex Beach novel pretty faithfully. Interestingly, if you download the novel from googlebooks, it contains stills from the film, and those stills are in fairly good shape.

The story revolves around a villain trying to seize Farnum's Alaskan gold mine. The villain, played by Tom Santschi, is somewhat atypical. Santschi was better-looking than Farnum, and taller. Although it's clear he is unscrupulous, he's not the hissable type. Farnum and Santschi are at odds over the mine and a woman, so you know that at some point, they will square off. The climactic fight scene has been written about in magazines, and was even mentioned in Farnum's death notices. It is bizarre, to say the least. It is more like a wrestling match, with bear hugs, arm locks, etc., although a few punches are thrown. Shirts are torn. In one impressive show of strength, Santschi actually yanks Farnum off the ground and has him almost horizontally in the air for a moment. The fight lasts about 90 seconds. Several accounts of that fight have been given by Farnum, although they all seem to indicate that he and Santschi discussed the fight ahead of time and decided to really go at it. Farnum claims that the fight scene went on for five minutes more than it was supposed to, and that a lot of the fight scene was cut from the film. Some accounts say the film ran for almost two hours (it's 98 minutes on Youtube), so perhaps it was shown at slower speeds in some places, making the fight last longer. In any event, the fight does look realistic, and the actors did their own fighting.

This is by no means a great film, but it does have historical significance. Farnum's film career really took off, and he would eventually rake in $100,000 a year.