One of two things is true about this movie. The first possibility is that it is an example of early cinema, existing in a time of different norms and values, that looks very different by the standards of modern life. The second possibility is that it is a much more rare example of early cinema that underhandedly rebukes contemporary society, and is actually way ahead of its time in both its sly approach to its narrative and themes, and to the progressive, feminist perspective with which a modern viewer will sit to watch. Not least given the very name, 'Manhandled,' it's possible that the latter is true, and all those involved were fully cognizant of the power a feature might have to speak critically to the cultural demands, expectations, and mores placed on women, the poor treatment they receive that in turn goes unremarked, and the exploitation to which they might be subjected. Indeed, as the length goes on and the story becomes more dour, it does seem more and more that the title is currying sympathy for our protagonist instead of the anticipated disapproval. At the same time, if 'Manhandled' really is so forward-thinking, then it deliberately rides an impossibly thin line all the while - all but indistinguishable from the alternative - and after all, we're making a lot of assumptions about the filmmaker, writers, cast, and crew if we're to believe that this flick really was earnestly representative of a culture several decades beyond its own existence. I think it's more likely that this is something that is just perceived very, very differently now than was intended upon release, but to be honest, I also don't think that in any way diminishes its lasting value.
In a film with a premise seemingly primed for expression of old-fashioned, conservative values, with the idea of a woman descending into wicked ways, it's striking to me that the very first sight to greet us after the opening credits is a ruminative intertitle that speaks directly to the hypocritical double-standard that women live with every day. It's considered virtuous to treat a woman well, the picture tells us, as if she deserves the world - but if she dares to act in a manner so as to stake her claim and seize the day, well, that's just sinful and she deserves to be treated accordingly! The scenes to follow spotlight the brusque indifference with which protagonist Tessie gets treated, the modest, hard-working lifestyle in which she lives, and the smallness of her world and of other women around her; one hundred years later none of these come off the way that they were probably meant to in 1924. The first is intended for comedy after the fashion of Charlie Chaplin or Harold Lloyd, but to me reflects quietly cruel drama more closely resembling horror; the latter two are, I believe, intended to show us the impatience and selfishness of Tessie, especially contrasted with neighboring instances of humility and home-making, but instead I see a character who asks for only the rare nicety or special occasion and is casually denied them by a boyfriend who is too wrapped up in his own business to attend to her. And so it goes, as her vivid, recalcitrant, determined personality, a symbol of individuality, is meant to be interpreted as shamefully self-centered and inconsiderate. I'm not saying that Tessie is without fault, but what I am saying is that whereas the contemporary culture presumably wants us to see a portrait of a good woman sliding into immorality, I discern a glimpse at a young lady seizing an opportunity and getting backlash for it from all corners no matter what she does, with big doses of condescending, manipulative, patriarchal dominance on top.
True, it's possible that my own knowledge and experiences are informing an opinion more cynical and jaded than is befitting for 'Manhandled.' Through to the end, though, I believe that however it was designed in the Roaring Twenties, one can just as easily receive the movie as a backhanded retort to the most stodgy notions of where a woman belongs in the world, or as affirmation of them. Before all is said and done Tessie recognizes that her new acquaintances are all equally seedy and taking advantage of her. While boyfriend Jim chastises her for her recent behavior and indicated "indiscretions," the plain truth - visualized very plainly for us - is that Tessie's affections have never wavered; she was only reacting in the moment, and then simply trying to make her way in the world just as Jim was trying to make his, only her effort didn't meet with the same success. The expected thing for me to do would be to dismiss the flick out of hand for its antiquated values, and maybe that it indeed what it deserves. Yet like marginalized groups reclaiming words or symbols that have previously employed to harass, abuse, and target them, I believe it's also possible to consider these sixty minutes as something that may have been built with one intention, but which in another time can be viewed to opposite yet greater ends. I don't know what precisely this means for the quality of the screenplay, or the final product otherwise; all I know is that I have seen in the picture just what I've said, and I like it.
All the while this is well made by all the standards of silent cinema. The costume design is gorgeous, and the hair and makeup just as commendable, the sets are rather detailed and fetching. Between filmmaker Allan Dwan and cinematographer Harold Rosson some shots are particularly splendid, and Dwan's direction keeps the proceedings on steady, impactful dramatic footing. Scribe Frank Tuttle penned some gratifyingly strong scenes as the compelling narrative advances. Above all, while the cast turn in fine performances generally, Gloria Swanson definitely stands out with the lively, emotive acting she treats us to as Tessie. All these years later Swanson is almost known more for Billy Wilder's 'Sunset Boulevard' than for the primary years of her career, yet this piece is apt demonstration that it's not for nothing the star was regarded so well over time. Ultimately I don't know if I'd say that 'Manhandled' is a must-see, and furthermore one might wryly observe that discussion of the finer points of its themes and story ideas, and of trends in sociopolitical values over time, looms larger than the feature itself. One way or another, however, I find this both interesting and enjoyable in its way; not least for those who appreciate the silent era, this remains worth checking out on its own merits. Usually I might suggest one enter with awareness of the nature of the tale, or of the values on display; in this case I may be inclined to instead give an extra boost to a recommendation with a mind for seeing how others interpret the whole. Take that as you will.
In a film with a premise seemingly primed for expression of old-fashioned, conservative values, with the idea of a woman descending into wicked ways, it's striking to me that the very first sight to greet us after the opening credits is a ruminative intertitle that speaks directly to the hypocritical double-standard that women live with every day. It's considered virtuous to treat a woman well, the picture tells us, as if she deserves the world - but if she dares to act in a manner so as to stake her claim and seize the day, well, that's just sinful and she deserves to be treated accordingly! The scenes to follow spotlight the brusque indifference with which protagonist Tessie gets treated, the modest, hard-working lifestyle in which she lives, and the smallness of her world and of other women around her; one hundred years later none of these come off the way that they were probably meant to in 1924. The first is intended for comedy after the fashion of Charlie Chaplin or Harold Lloyd, but to me reflects quietly cruel drama more closely resembling horror; the latter two are, I believe, intended to show us the impatience and selfishness of Tessie, especially contrasted with neighboring instances of humility and home-making, but instead I see a character who asks for only the rare nicety or special occasion and is casually denied them by a boyfriend who is too wrapped up in his own business to attend to her. And so it goes, as her vivid, recalcitrant, determined personality, a symbol of individuality, is meant to be interpreted as shamefully self-centered and inconsiderate. I'm not saying that Tessie is without fault, but what I am saying is that whereas the contemporary culture presumably wants us to see a portrait of a good woman sliding into immorality, I discern a glimpse at a young lady seizing an opportunity and getting backlash for it from all corners no matter what she does, with big doses of condescending, manipulative, patriarchal dominance on top.
True, it's possible that my own knowledge and experiences are informing an opinion more cynical and jaded than is befitting for 'Manhandled.' Through to the end, though, I believe that however it was designed in the Roaring Twenties, one can just as easily receive the movie as a backhanded retort to the most stodgy notions of where a woman belongs in the world, or as affirmation of them. Before all is said and done Tessie recognizes that her new acquaintances are all equally seedy and taking advantage of her. While boyfriend Jim chastises her for her recent behavior and indicated "indiscretions," the plain truth - visualized very plainly for us - is that Tessie's affections have never wavered; she was only reacting in the moment, and then simply trying to make her way in the world just as Jim was trying to make his, only her effort didn't meet with the same success. The expected thing for me to do would be to dismiss the flick out of hand for its antiquated values, and maybe that it indeed what it deserves. Yet like marginalized groups reclaiming words or symbols that have previously employed to harass, abuse, and target them, I believe it's also possible to consider these sixty minutes as something that may have been built with one intention, but which in another time can be viewed to opposite yet greater ends. I don't know what precisely this means for the quality of the screenplay, or the final product otherwise; all I know is that I have seen in the picture just what I've said, and I like it.
All the while this is well made by all the standards of silent cinema. The costume design is gorgeous, and the hair and makeup just as commendable, the sets are rather detailed and fetching. Between filmmaker Allan Dwan and cinematographer Harold Rosson some shots are particularly splendid, and Dwan's direction keeps the proceedings on steady, impactful dramatic footing. Scribe Frank Tuttle penned some gratifyingly strong scenes as the compelling narrative advances. Above all, while the cast turn in fine performances generally, Gloria Swanson definitely stands out with the lively, emotive acting she treats us to as Tessie. All these years later Swanson is almost known more for Billy Wilder's 'Sunset Boulevard' than for the primary years of her career, yet this piece is apt demonstration that it's not for nothing the star was regarded so well over time. Ultimately I don't know if I'd say that 'Manhandled' is a must-see, and furthermore one might wryly observe that discussion of the finer points of its themes and story ideas, and of trends in sociopolitical values over time, looms larger than the feature itself. One way or another, however, I find this both interesting and enjoyable in its way; not least for those who appreciate the silent era, this remains worth checking out on its own merits. Usually I might suggest one enter with awareness of the nature of the tale, or of the values on display; in this case I may be inclined to instead give an extra boost to a recommendation with a mind for seeing how others interpret the whole. Take that as you will.