"Orphans of the Storm" is another of D.W. Griffith's historical spectacles, but stands out somewhat as more of a lavish costume drama, and it's based in French history rather than American history. The small interpersonal dramas of his films, whether or not they were set against a backdrop of historical grandeur, tended to be the same melodramatic fluff every time. This film is no exception. Additionally, aside from the Gish sisters, the acting was often overdone or very stiff. The costumes and sets were extravagant, though, for whatever that's worth.
As usual, Griffith painted history and his characters in black and white--diverting even the French Revolution to fit into a contrived happy ending complete with a luscious garden. His notions of the French Revolution weren't found in historical fact or the play "The Two Orphans", but are from Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities". There's another predictable last-minute rescue climax, too, which Griffith had been returning to since his Biograph shorts, and which doesn't compare favorably with its better incarnations in "The Birth of a Nation", "Intolerance" or "Way Down East". Furthermore, the dancing mobs are overdone, and the comic relief is again detracting and unnecessary, although minor compared to that which spoiled "Way Down East".
In comparison to Griffith's other melodramas, although it's overlong, convoluted and has many other faults, it lies somewhere in the mediocre. I think the major weakness of "Orphans of the Storm" and, indeed, most of Griffith's films from around this time and hereon, were their lack of technical innovation, which was what made Griffith's earlier work important. Every decent filmmaker had by then copied the techniques he'd helped invent, and so when Griffith continued into 1921 making the same kind of picture he made in 1915, the films lack the importance and novelty; instead, they sometimes appear derivative and unpolished.
One very technical example of Griffith's lack of continued innovation to look for are that several cuts in the film are temporal replays from a different perspective, such as Gish turning towards her lover with arms spread open in a medium shot and then doing so again for a long shot. It doesn't matter whether it's sloppy film-making or an intentional revival of a jarring transitional effect that had been supplanted by more seamless transitions (simple cuts, crosscuts and such) before Griffith even began making movies; my point is: he's not inventing cinema here.
As usual, Griffith painted history and his characters in black and white--diverting even the French Revolution to fit into a contrived happy ending complete with a luscious garden. His notions of the French Revolution weren't found in historical fact or the play "The Two Orphans", but are from Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities". There's another predictable last-minute rescue climax, too, which Griffith had been returning to since his Biograph shorts, and which doesn't compare favorably with its better incarnations in "The Birth of a Nation", "Intolerance" or "Way Down East". Furthermore, the dancing mobs are overdone, and the comic relief is again detracting and unnecessary, although minor compared to that which spoiled "Way Down East".
In comparison to Griffith's other melodramas, although it's overlong, convoluted and has many other faults, it lies somewhere in the mediocre. I think the major weakness of "Orphans of the Storm" and, indeed, most of Griffith's films from around this time and hereon, were their lack of technical innovation, which was what made Griffith's earlier work important. Every decent filmmaker had by then copied the techniques he'd helped invent, and so when Griffith continued into 1921 making the same kind of picture he made in 1915, the films lack the importance and novelty; instead, they sometimes appear derivative and unpolished.
One very technical example of Griffith's lack of continued innovation to look for are that several cuts in the film are temporal replays from a different perspective, such as Gish turning towards her lover with arms spread open in a medium shot and then doing so again for a long shot. It doesn't matter whether it's sloppy film-making or an intentional revival of a jarring transitional effect that had been supplanted by more seamless transitions (simple cuts, crosscuts and such) before Griffith even began making movies; my point is: he's not inventing cinema here.