Nursing a Viper (1909) User Reviews

Rampaging the Viperous French Nobility

[wes-connors · 3/10 · 12 November 2007]

During the French Revolution, wealthy couple Arthur Johnson and Marion Leonard are among the citizens spared, from the rampaging mobs, by professing Republican beliefs. Nobleman Frank Powell flees from murderous lower class Frenchmen; arriving at Mr. Johnson and Ms. Leonard's safe Republican-leaning home, he begs for safe haven. Johnson agrees to help the desperate Noble, and he allows Powell to stay in his home, disguised as a servant. "In spite of the aristocrats seemingly Republican sentiments, the insurrectionists, with the cry, 'Give us bread', ransack the house." Still, Powell is spared. Remaining on, he reveals himself a traitor, by attacking his savior's desirous wife, Ms. Leonard. After Johnson discovers he is "Nursing a Viper", what terrible revenge might he seek?

Nobility is viperous in this "Story of the French Revolution" from director D.W. Griffith. Note that wife Leonard wears an especially HUGE cross, which is no help in deterring the lecherous Powell; obviously, he is going for the less bloody sort of necking! The French peasants are shown to be particularly bloody in this one, of several, Griffith visits to the French Revolutionary period. The screen suggests much murdering, raping, and decapitating of the French Noble class.

*** Nursing a Viper (11/4/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Frank Powell, Arthur V. Johnson, Marion Leonard

"The reign of lawlessness"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 18 June 2008]

After the American Civil War, DW Griffith's second favourite period setting was probably the French Revolution. In 1909 he was going through something of a French phase, with numerous films set either in the revolution or at least that era. The Sealed Room is probably the best known of these but Nursing a Viper, made a few months later is of equal merit.

Around this time Griffith was really beginning to develop in terms of space and action. The second shot in the film, which shows a group of aristocrats hiding by a wall is one of his greatest from this period. It's a nice, rather painterly tableau, but it's also a very functional set-up. With the wall in the foreground and the building in the background on screen-right Griffith creates two contrasting spaces in the one shot, which in the context has a psychological impact. We, the audience are behind the wall with the aristocrats, in effect sharing their hiding place, but we are also in a position to see the approaching rioters. In a very short space of time the mob reaches the foreground, rushing towards the audience and overwhelming the screen.

Griffith films of this period were not generally well acted, the performances tending to be a bit overwrought and pantomimey, but they are not bad here, I suppose because the action in this film doesn't call for much subtlety anyway. Of particular note is the apparent rebel leader – I think played by Mack Sennet but it's a bit hard to tell with all those beards – who taunts an aristocrat before knifing him. The scenes of violence here are fairly grisly for the time, and there is a real feeling of chaos. In fact a fair few Biograph shorts prior to 1910 are quite violent and morbid – "good taste" and "morality" obviously didn't have quite the influence they later would.

This is one of the best action shorts that Griffith directed in 1909 (his busiest year in terms of the number of films made). It's not quite as good an action film as The Hessian Renegades, but certainly one of the highlights of this early part of his career.

Simply strong film-making.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 8/10 · 16 March 2010]

Compare this to most stuff that was being filmed in the early 20th century and there is no way denying it that this movie is quite a superior one.

You can say what you want about D.W. Griffith but he was one great film-maker that was a pioneer as well with his early movies. He is best known for he's epic and very long movies but of course he made some shorts ones as well, as was more custom for its time. This is one of his short movies, that runs just over 10 minutes.

What is especially great about this movie is the way it's set up. The movie has some great camera-angles, that capture everything in a compelling way. It's also a pretty fast moving picture, due to its editing pace.

As far as silent movies from the early 20th century go, this movie also has some real great writing. Yes, it's a short story of course but all of the sequences seem very well written and make the movie as a whole such a great and compelling one. It is of course also due to the fact how D.W. Griffith builds up its story toward the end that makes this movie such a good watch, even though the movie is over an 100-years old already.

A great short movie from the early days of motion picture film-making.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The Development of Visual Language

[Single-Black-Male · 13 January 2004]

It is better to watch D.W. Griffith's one-reelers in hindsight rather than just for pure entertainment. I don't think I would have enjoyed watching it in 1909, but in reflection you can see how he brought an honesty to visual language that made narrative transcend the novel.

The dramatic possibilities are well developed by the Biograph actors

[deickemeyer · 16 January 2015]

A graphic story of the French Revolution which illustrates convincingly an episode which might have occurred, perhaps did occur, during that period of bloodshed and terror. The dramatic possibilities of subjects of this character are well developed by the Biograph actors, and in this instance they seem to have outdone their own previous good work. The dramatic climax, when the husband returns in time to save his wife from the clutches of the man he had befriended, and when he thrusts him out into the hands of the infuriated mob, which was hunting him, are well managed and seem integral parts of the picture, as indeed they are. One cannot say that a picture like this is pleasant, but one cannot consistently question the dramatic quality, nor the art of the actors. Both rise to heights which are seldom reached in motion picture work and perhaps have never been surpassed. If some of the gruesome parts had been cut down the film would be more universally approved. But is it wise or necessary to depict those dark spots of past history? Why not let them be forgotten? - The Moving Picture World, November 20, 1909