Little Dorrit

“That Charles Dickens, the creator of ‘Little Dorrit’ and the group of quaint and grotesque characters that accompany her through the weavings of the story of his imagination, would be pleased with its presentation in film by the Thanhouser Company, with Maude Fealy playing a graceful lead, there can be no doubt. What impresses itself most vividly on the mind when the two reels of the picture have reached their limit and Little Dorrit has emerged from the church, where she was christened as a bride, is that the production has fallen short in the matter of composition very little, if any; that the true Dickens atmosphere is there, and that the general characterization has been accomplished remarkably well. Maude Fealy, in the role of Little Dorrit, is just as fresh and dainty and quite as old-fashioned, clothed with a simple grace, as if she had just stepped from a thumb-worn volume of the master character painter. James Cruze, as old man Dorrit, has to the casual observer’s knowledge not made one misstep, while William Russell is all that could be desired as Arthur Clennam. The production is of such merit that it could safely be used for educational purposes, as well as for entertainment in the theatre.”

This review is reprinted in the narrative section of the present work.

REVIEW by Louis Reeves Harrison, The Moving Picture World, August 9, 1913:

“Not to be classed with The Snare of Fate and the beautiful story of the blind princess recently released by the same company. I saw the first applauded generously by a large audience at the Wadsworth and learned that the latter had been the subject of much favorable comment in another audience, one lady remarking, as she left the theatre, that it was the most beautiful play ever shown on the screen. Little Dorrit is produced with care and good taste, but that and the title constitutes nearly the sum of its values. The novel is really a satire in English Civil Service as represented by the Circum Locution Office long ago. The motive is of other days. So is the debtors’ prison as occupied by the Father of the Marshalsea, Little Dorrit’s father. Her simple story is really one of a tangled minor interest so far as the original work is concerned. As portrayed on the screen it shows her eventless birth and growth in the prison, her work as a seamstress, her devotion to her father while he lived, and her marriage to Clennam. The enormous amount of space devoted to showing that her character was an unselfish one is almost destitute of dramatic action, and tension is nowhere visible.

“The skilled dramatist of today could show that the leading character was unselfish in a few preparatory scenes. Let us grant that she is unselfish—that is a matter of characterization—her career, thereafter, is almost truly negative. A chance acquaintance discovers an inheritance and eventually marries her. In scenario form the story would read, ‘Unselfish girl, born in prison, receives inheritance and releases her father. At his death she marries the man who found the money.’

“Dramatists and critics may disagree as to details, but all men skilled in the business are united in one opinion which was admirably voiced by Boucicault. The one object of his life was to interest the people in front. The one study of his life was the mixed audience he addressed. ‘To be realistic,’ he said, ‘the drama must reflect the period in which it is produced.’ He tried all kinds and found the adaptation of motive gone stale was a bore to those in front. Dion Boucicault succeeded and failed often enough to set him thinking, and he came to the conclusion that people are most deeply affected by destiny closely akin to their own. We are interested in our problems, and our tragedies and comedies, and what our fate is to be. You can paste it up in the studio that ‘drama must reflect the period in which it is produced.’

“Director and actors have done their best to make the Little Dorrit adaptation interesting. There is nothing to be accomplished by singling them out—they have made the most of their opportunities—for they can all do better. Put the spirit of Dickens into a play of today, and to problems of the hour, burning questions that quickly light the flame of human emotion. Charles Dickens was essentially the defender of the humble. He illustrated over and over again that to be illustrious was nothing; to be merely useful was not enough. We must reach out into the hearts of others and live their thoughts and feelings in order to appreciate the full meaning of existence. Use the spirit of Dickens in a modern play.”