Where Are My Children? (1916) User Reviews

Moral Qualms

[Cineanalyst · 7/10 · 30 January 2010]

Lois Weber primarily made message, sermonizing, or social-problem films, and of the few films of hers in circulation today, "Where Are My Children?" is the most polemic. It remains potentially objectionable and morally and politically interesting today, as it was upon its initial release, but the majorities on the issues and degrees of the controversies has changed since 1916. Birth control is now largely accepted, at least in liberal and developed nations. Abortion is likely more controversial today in the sense that probably most moralists viewed abortion as wrong in 1916, whereas people are now more split on the issue. In other words, legal and moral acceptance of birth control and abortion has expanded since the time of this film. On the other hand, eugenics, which then was in vogue and appears to have been considered the least lamentable in 1916 of the three subjects addressed, is now mostly dismissed as racist and classist pseudoscience, especially after its adoption by Nazi Germany.

The film's story centers on a married couple: a district attorney, who wants children and supports eugenics, and his wife, who is concealing her past abortions from him. The district attorney pleads for a birth control advocate in one trial (inspired by the then recent trial of Margaret Sanger) and then in a later case argues against an abortion doctor. Both of these issues serve the film's underlying promotion of eugenics for reproductive control; that is, contraceptives are desired to aid the non rich and white people in having fewer children, and abortion is decried for its use by rich white women, who supposedly have an obligation to have offspring. (Never mind that wealthier women, in reality, probably had the better access to contraceptives, whereas the poor more often resorted to potentially dangerous abortions.) The images of children's souls waiting at heaven's gate and the picture's final ghostly scenes also frame the film within Weber's Christian, spiritual beliefs. "Where Are My Children?" is a deplorably classist, racist, patriarchal and generally bigoted motion picture, and I wonder where people's minds are at when they see this film's main or only controversies as abortion or birth control.

Having already made such films as "Hypocrites" (1915), which contentiously featured nudity, Weber was, reportedly, the highest paid director in Hollywood. Apparently, the controversy from "Where Are My Children?" in particular, which was for a time not approved by the National Board of Review and was banned in Pennsylvania, convinced her to tone down the subjects in subsequent projects, despite the box office rewards controversy ensured (this film is said to have made some $3 million worldwide). Nevertheless, Weber was one of the best and most intelligent filmmakers of her time, and, consequently, this is a well-made film. "Where Are My Children?" features some especially nice lighting, aided by the reproduced tinting. The editing is expertly done, including plenty of matching, crosscuts and angle shifts. Weber used the doubles theme (couples, two trials, etc.) throughout to simplify the moral lessons, which is something she did to even greater effect in "Too Wise Wives" (1921), which included its reinforcement via reflections.

Wasn't the wife played by his real wife?

[jbmartin-2 · 7/10 · 31 July 2005]

I find it interesting that Mrs. Walton is credited as Helen Riaume (with no IMDb link). This appears to have been the same Helen Riaume who is credited elsewhere as "Mrs. Tyrone Power," and was Tyrone Power Sr.'s wife until the same year this was released. The content of this film is unusual enough, and having a married couple playing the leads and not credited as such adds to the interest.

In particular, the content was of a controversial nature in 1916, and is even more so today, with the sides reversed. The topic of abortion (called simply "birth control" in this movie) was not one that was raised often in films anyway, and moral guardians would have hesitated to let a movie through that favored the practice. The climate of Hollywood being what it is today, there might be no legal impediment to making a similarly anti-abortion film, but it would certainly be frowned upon, and perhaps de facto blacklisted.

Powerful ending; weak movie

[LarryR · 5/10 · 24 August 2000]

This is a heavy-handed, didactic melodrama that nevertheless doesn't descend to mere propaganda. Although a eugenics perspective is introduced in the beginning it is never explored even though it could have presented an excellent opportunity for conflict in Tyrone Power's character and situation. Most of the rest of the film is trite in its portrayal of a pristine young woman whose character and life are destroyed by an evil, sneering, all-but-drooling villain. Missing is an exploration of how such a young woman could succumb to this man. Instead, much time is spent in melodramatic mugging and obvious titles. Too bad, because the final scenes show brilliant early cinematic narration, making all the film's points more dramatically than the entire rest of the film.

powerful anti-abortion film

[didi-5 · 13 June 2010]

Quite apart from being one of the few chances to see a Tyrone Power film (father, not son); this Lois Weber film is a powerful anti-abortion piece - albeit one which is clogged with concerns around birth control and what looks to be misguided focus on the process of eugenics (i.e. determining strong genes and background before having children).

DA Richard Walton has always wanted children and cannot understand why his wife (played by the real-life Mrs Power, Helen Riaume) fails to conceive. Of course as we quickly find out, she has sent many unwanted children back to the portal of heaven where they wait to be called, by having numerous abortions and arranging for her friends to do the same, including the lazy social butterfly Mrs Carlo (Marie Walcamp).

There are three plot strands here - one concerning a progressive doctor (C Norman Hammond) who wishes to teach the poor about birth control and who is being prosecuted for obscenity; one concerning a virginal housemaid's daughter (Rena Rogers) who is seduced by Mr Walton's brother-in-law (William J Hope), with tragic consequences; and one about the trips to the abortion clinic of Dr Malfit (Juan de la Cruz) which are commonplace to Mrs Walton and her set.

Intercut with these stories are sights of the children waiting to be called into the womb - the unwanted as well as the wanted. This is perhaps the most artificial part of the film as the gates of heaven open and close to allow children to be called to earth or to return again to the portal of the unwanted. It works but looks rather old fashioned these days.

The ending is very moving, however, as Mr and Mrs Walton, knowing she is now unable to have children, are surrounded by the ghosts of their unborn as they descend into old age.

A preachy film but a powerful one. Amazing to think that items tackled here, over 90 years ago, could not be touched on again until the second half of the twentieth century.

Definitely Against (web)

[leplatypus · 7/10 · 13 July 2018]

I don't speak about my opinion on the issue of abortion but about the movie's one. So i'm sure that the Pro would reject it and the Against would praise it! I just notice that having upper classes as main characters is not recent because it already happens in 1916! As today those people are considered flawless, models for ill-born people (like told in the movie) and as expected it's always those shining white angels who sins the much! They moralize everyone but fails to see what happens in their own family! All the more that his wife is not the only one black sheep: her brother nearly abuses the daughter's housekeeper and just denies all responsability when it matters! The other thing that strikes much is the term Eugenic marriage: here it implies that WASP privilegied families marry among themselves to keep the superior gens. Definitely there are (awful) things that will never change. So it's a good movie because you can't just stand still!

A Bit Dated But Still Very Effective

[ldeangelis-75708 · 7/10 · 29 August 2022]

This is one of those movies that leaves an impression on you that remains long after you've watched it, particularly the final scene (which I won't reveal). There are some things (like images of tiny souls waiting to be born, and some sent back to Heaven, that might be found too cheesy for modern viewers, but it's the meaning behind it that counts.

Some people see this as an anti-abortion film, I saw it as a pro-birth control one. Unfortunately, in can also be seen as promoting eugenics, with its message of how only the right people should be breeding, giving the distinct impression that the meaning of this goes beyond the financial and personal circumstances.

I couldn't help thinking of all the upper-class, married, self-centered society women who got away with terminating their pregnancies without any trouble, whereas the lower-class, single, good natured housekeeper's daughter, seduced by the rakish brother of the (anti)heroine, suffers complications from the abortion she's coerced into and then dies. It's as if those other ladies (and I use that term loosely) are thought to be of more value, despite their behavior. Also, society tended to be less forgiving of a young woman's loss of innocence than a married woman's lack of morals.

It's the girl's death that brings about the hero's (Tyrone Power's dad, whom I didn't know also acted in movies, thinking he just performed on stage, but I digress) accusations against the doctor who performed all these abortions, leading to a court case, where he learns the real reason why he and his wife don't have any children. Sad to say, her comeuppance only adds to his misery.

If you're looking for a happy ending, you won't find it here.

Birth of a Baby

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 6/10 · 1 February 2023]

Local D. A. desperately wants to be a father. Problem is, his wife has figured out children are completely unnecessary. The couple are childless. One day the D. A. sees a very, um, white patient faint in the street and later die in the local abortion doctor's office so he puts the doctor on trial for manslaughter and gets a conviction (a foregone conclusion in those days). Only afterward does he bother to look at the doctor's log books, where he sees his wife - and all her well-to-do friends - had punched more than one hole in her Pay For 5 Abortions, Get 1 Free card.

Realizing what an unwitting hypocrite he's been, D. A. confronts his wife and her friends. But the D. A. and his wife remain childless. At most, they can only imagine the family they might have raised.

That pro-life theme is about 85 per cent of the movie. It's all earnestly over-acted and ham-fisted. About as subtle as a Michael Moore movie.

The same pro-life D. A. also prosecutes some guy for spreading birth control information. D. A. Believes in big families, so it's logically consistent that he doesn't want abortion or birth control getting in the way of that. Of course today we know that giving women access to birth control, clean water and antibiotics raises life expectancy from ''short, poor and unhappy" to ''roughly 81." Wasn't so clear-cut back then, when birth control was a no-no (and mystifyingly still is for superstitious weirdos in some parts of the world).

The subversive part (well, for today's audiences) of the birth control guy's trial is his reliance on some book about eugenics. For you kids out there, eugenics was early-1900s ''scientism" under the guise of knowing what was best for the huddled masses. The basic idea was that the poorz, ethnics (mostly bl3ks) and ''mental defectives" (to use the repulsive term of the time) were to be encouraged to NOT breed, and if they did (accidentally or immorally, in this movie's terms) they should be able to access abortion. That was the motivation behind Margaret Sanger (funded by Bill Gates Sr) and her Planned Parenthood slaughterhouses. Progressives wanted to keep the world clean, safe and mostly empty for rich white people.

These days, the 99% are asked for forego meat, gasoline-powered vehicles and home heating oil AND have unhindered access to abortion, all in the name of saving the planet. Today's Progressives don't really care about color. As long as the 99 percenters get picked off, leaving more for the Davos crowd. It's a straight line from A to B.

In that way, this movie is at least as insidious as Birth of a Nation. I wouldn't be surprised if racist war-monger and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson showed the two movies as a double bill to his Kay-kay-Kay guests in the White House.

Unabashed propaganda, but cleverly and interestingly done

[FISHCAKE · 3/10 · 13 December 2000]

Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.

A remarkable surprise

[cygnus58 · 8/10 · 29 August 2001]

This remarkable film has sometimes been described by historians as a movie about birth control, but it isn't, although birth control is presented as an alternative to abortion, which is the film's true subject. "Where Are My Children" is probably the most forthrightly anti-abortion movie ever made by a mainstream American studio, and how Lois Weber got away with it, I'll never know; a film like this couldn't possibly be made today.

I have no objections to a filmmaker using a movie as a vehicle for his or her convictions, as long as they're honest about it, and this movie is honest. Weber follows the logic of her plot, and her convictions, right to their end, without flinching from the logical and merciless conclusion. This is a gripping and powerful tragedy, well acted, written and directed. There is one unforgettable moment in which a quiet little gesture by Helen Riaume tells volumes; she has taken her friend to a doctor who performs abortions (and has done so for her), and while lingering in the waiting room, Helen yawns, as if terminating a pregnancy is a completely casual matter. It is a perfect, subtle sign about the depth of her corruption.

"Where Are My Children" isn't perfect; the scenes of souls in Heaven's antechamber, "waiting to be born," are a little heavy-handed, even if they give Weber the chance to use the trick photography she was so fond of. But the skill with which this movie is made is remarkable for 1916; this is a much more powerful movie than Griffith's "Intolerance," the most famous film of that year. I was amazed by "Where Are My Children," and I will never forget it.

Makes a strong case for legal abortion

[jscottdwyer · 5/10 · 3 March 2019]

Quite interesting film given its time and subject matter: birth control and abortion in pre-WW I America. There's even some mention of Eugenics, which was quite a popular theory of that time. I will avoid any spoilers but the movie is pro-birth control and very heavy-handily anti-abortion. But, inadvertently, the moral case is made for safe and legal abortions!

Controversial, but fascinating

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 23 June 2019]

A controversial film in its day for advancing the agenda of social crusader Margaret Sanger, and controversial today for reasons beyond the touchy anti-abortion stance it takes - most disturbingly, its support for eugenics, which was in vogue in many countries in the early part of the century. In a nutshell, the position the film takes is that "better" babies will lead to a better, crime-free society, and this in turn means that the better, elevated classes should be procreating, while the coarse, lower classes should be better educated and given birth control. Contraception would not only reduce the number of babies in slums, but it would also help prevent women from illegally turning to abortions, and committing murder in the process. So ... ugh.

As I type that out, it's hard for me to believe I liked it despite these notions, which aside from the education and birth control bits, are repugnant to me. And yet, I did. To start with, I found it remarkable that a movie made in 1916 dealt with birth control, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion, and that it was made by a woman, film pioneer Lois Weber, when she couldn't even vote. The movie unfortunately comes down on the side of supporting the patriarchy, but I found a feminine voice here, one that includes criticisms of men that I have to believe were apparent even then. And the spirit of the film, with its title cards in the beginning encouraging openness and conversation, as well as its intention - which believe it or not was progressive - strikes a chord with me. The steps along the road to progress are imperfect, just as we today are imperfect. Margaret Sanger's birth control organization would one day evolve into the Planned Parenthood we know today.

In one of my favorite scenes, a doctor is on trial for distributing a book advocating birth control. As he puts it, "I am accused of distributing indecent literature because I advocate birth regulation. The law should help instead of hinder me." He is doing nothing more than educate and exercise his right to free speech, and yet this was illegal in America at the time, per the Comstock laws of 1873, which Sanger herself was prosecuted for a couple of years before. We not only feel the unfairness of his conviction, but via the fantastic intertitle: "A jury of men disagreed with Dr. Homer's views," feel a double unfairness. The word "men" is not emphasized but it might as well have been in bold, all caps, underlined, and in large font, it stands out so much. Men have all the power for an issue that affects women far more.

This sad irony is pointed out further when we see that the guy who impregnates the maid's daughter can just move on with his life, while she will be viewed by society as a disgrace if she carries the baby to term out of wedlock, and as a murderer if she has a secret abortion. He's had his fun and goes whistling away; she's "ruined." While the majority of Americans at the time considered abortion murder and it was illegal, I have to believe they must have seen this unfairness. We also abhor this guy because he's older, and despite getting a slap in the face initially, continues to pursue this innocent girl. Her age is not stated but she's dressed and acts as a teenager, and Rena Rogers, the actress herself, was 16. As he aggressively puts his moves on her, an intertitle tells us "Practice teaches men of this class the bold methods that sweep inexperienced girls off their feet." I see a form of feminism in a woman putting this up on the screen.

Unfortunately, the film has some very heavy baggage, and I don't blame anyone for being offended by it. The education and birth control bits target the poor, who are shown as in desperate marriages with too many kids, leading to the mother's suicide in one case, and domestic abuse and a nasty fight between husband and wife in another. (Though as a side note to the latter, how realistic and sad it is that they both turn on the cop when he comes, instead of the woman getting actual help.) The poor shouldn't be having all these kids to begin with, because eugenically speaking, they are undesirable elements that lead to crime, which is a detestable notion not very far removed from those advanced by Hitler. The spectrum of ideas that at the time seemed to logically follow from Darwin included many that were horrifying, and adopted by those across the political spectrum, including Sanger and Weber.

As for abortion, the film is clearly against it, and while I personally disagree with that, it's harder to fault it for this, given the debate which still rages on in America, and the fact that this is also the opinion of five of nine Supreme Court justices in 2019. It lets us know this in no uncertain terms. Dr. Homer's birth control book contains the passage "Let us stop the slaughter of the unborn and save the lives of unwilling mothers." The wife of the District Attorney (Helen Riaume, who was Tyrone Power Sr.'s real-life wife) has not only stopped herself from having children more than once because she's not ready via abortion (and not told her husband about it), but she also refers her friend and her maid's daughter to the same doctor. The former's procedure goes routinely, but the latter's has a complication which leads to the girl's death. Rather than pointing out that these underground, unregulated abortions inherently had safety issues, and that maybe they should be legalized, the film sees it a different way. The doctor gets sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in prison, and we get the idea that this is a just and proper punishment.

Worse yet, when he blurts out to the D.A. that he should check out his own house, the latter figures out what his wife has been doing. The view is then that she's cheated him - "Where are my children?" his intertitle asks in a dramatic, accusatory way - and the couple are then sentenced to a lonely, childless life in old age, because her abortions have made it impossible for her to have kids even though she now wants them (of course). Ah the poor man, an "officer of the law, who must shield a murderess!" and who all night long "grieved for his lost children." The woman has wronged him, and throws herself at his feet. It's tough to watch, though I think this was just the reality of 1916.

I don't mean to justify or excuse the film, but I found it fascinating and still relevant. It was interesting to compare our progress today to this snapshot of social activism from 103 years ago, and it was thought provoking to me in the way that Weber intended per those first couple title cards, even if my views differ drastically from hers.

Surpassed my expectations; very powerful and will never forget it.

[Charlene Z. · 10/10 · 18 August 2000]

I saw this silent movie late last evening on Turner Classic Movies. It surpassed my expectations (especially being that there was no sound and that it was made in 1916!); I could not take my eyes away. The interesting concept of "the place where unborn children are" was very powerful. The emotions portrayed in this movie very very strong; excellent acting by all. It is a movie that I will never forget, am still thinking about it today-it was that moving!

Powerful Stuff

[gonboy67 · 10/10 · 3 December 2000]

What audiences of 80-plus years ago must have thought of this film is unimaginable....very provocative, powerfully written and acted. With a few expansions the story could even be interesting today: pro-life District Attorney finds out the secret behind all the childless marriages in his party-hopping wife's social circle. Final scene so bittersweet..and on the lighter side, some excellent women's fashion from the era in costuming. Highest recommendation.

The entire Power family appears in this film

[blanche-2 · 9/10 · 18 October 2018]

I've just finished reading the reviews of this film on IMDb. I think one person realized that Helen Riaume (it was actually Reaume) was actually the real-life wife of the star of the movie, Tyrone Power Sr. Both of their children, Ann Power and the very famous Tyrone Power (1914-1958) are in it as well. Ann probably plays a newborn, and two-year-old Tyrone Power appears at the very end as a "ghost child."

This is certainly a fascinating film. It's thought of as anti-abortion but as others have pointed out, that's just part of the picture. The DA RIchard Walton (Tyrone Power Sr.) is a firm believer in eugenics, which had support in this country before the Aryan race business came out of Nazi Germany. In eugenics, the white upper class had the children and the poor weren't supposed to have them, with the belief that "wanted" children (children of white upper class) would wipe out crime.

The beginning of the story centers around a doctor accused of mailing out contraception material - this is based on the Margaret Sanger case. The DA is a man who has longed to have children, but he and his wife never have. This is because his wife (Riaume) has been having abortions so she can keep up her society engagements. Apparently she's not alone.

Walton learns of this when the abortion doctor bungles a case and is put on trial for murder. It is then that Walton sees his patient book.

During the movie, we see the "unwanted" being returned to heaven - this is 1916, and Lois Weber's use of photography and effects is amazing.

The acting is very good, with Power Sr. a formidable presence and the petite Riaume excellent in the role of a woman with a secret.

This was an extremely controversial film at the time and probably would be today. What a lot of people don't realize is that back when this movie was made, abortion was a form of birth control and, as seen here, practiced by the upper classes.

HIghly recommended - it's a piece of history.

Excellent film about abortion

[chaplinfan · 10/10 · 5 September 2006]

This film, for its time, must have been quite shocking. It deals with abortion, specifically a married woman who goes to a "specific doctor" who helps women out. In this little morality play, starring Tryone Power Sr. (swashbuckling Tyrone's dad, who was in quite a number of films, including "The Big Trail," an early experimental wide screen film) is about his wife who prefers partying to raising children. The acting is typical of silents in the teens of last century, with not terribly good sets and quite a bit of histrionic acting. That said, this is an important film because it deals with subject matter that, almost a century later we still haven't resolved. Regardless of where your position is on abortion, films like this show that this problem has been around for a LOT longer than anyone would like to admit, much like the drug problem that was so ably parodied in Chaplin's "Easy Street" (where Charlie plays a cop who can only clean up the town when he's hopped up on cocaine or some other drug - remember, he falls thru a window onto a syringe and that magic elixir helps he defeat the bad guys). More to the point, this film doesn't go out of its way (for its time)to affix blame (aside from the doctor), and is somewhat poignant in the final montage of a couple growing old with no children. For serious film fans, this is must see film.

Rather surprising--and a very strange message when seen today

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 28 June 2009]

This film is part of a DVD set entitled "Treasures III"--a set of four DVDs all about social issues and reform. The second disk (where you'll find this one) is about women's issues in particular.

This is a very odd film when seen today. It isn't just that the film is about contraception and abortion but because of its weird eugenics message. Eugenics, if you are unaware of it, is the notion that the "fittest" in society have a moral obligation to procreate and the unfittest should must have their base desires under control or be eliminated in order to keep these "inferiors" from breeding. In 1916, this meant rich White folks had a moral obligation to make lot of babies and those who were less desirable (such as Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and the "feeble-minded") should be considered as prime candidates for birth control! Today this sounds terribly racist and like the Aryan ideal--it was a widely held and acceptable view at the time.

The story is told from the viewpoint of a prosecuting attorney and his family. The man wants kids but doesn't realize his lazy and selfish wife is getting abortions because kids will spoil her good time. Additionally, when her scum-bag brother gets the servant's daughter pregnant, the selfish wife sends this poor lady to her abortion doctor. However, when the servant's daughter dies, the husband prosecutes and finds out the truth about his wife. Then, in a closing moment, you see this couple through the years--childless and lonely--with the specters of their unborn children hovering about them.

While the film might be seen by some an an anti-abortion film, it is much more a polemic about White and educated folks not getting abortions or practicing birth control. In many ways, it's actually very well made and it generally makes its points, though they are a bit confusing and vague at times. However, some of the old fashion aspects of the film are very dated and strange--such as the trip to Heaven as the film begins to see the worlds where all the babies are kept until they are needed--the wanted ones, the unwanted ones, the surprise ones and the aborted ones. It's pretty creepy but also an amazing look into an important part of our history and the debates about eugenics.

The title, by the way, refers to what the saddened husband said to his now sterile wife after her repeated abortions.

Good Movie

[chichi57 · 9/10 · 12 December 2000]

I was very impressed. First of all, the acting was quite good for a silent film, IMO. They really got the emotions across very well. Also, the continuity and the results of the actions were very true. I wish I could get this movie.

A Small Sidelight to a Rediscovered Silent Classic

[theowinthrop · 4 June 2008]

I have never seen WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN? Not even when Turner Classics showed some time back on television. But in reading the synopsis of the film, and the various comments made, my failure to see it strikes me as my loss. It stars Tyrone Power Sr. at the height of his acting fame. It is directed and written in part by Lois Weber, who is usually considered the first major female film director. It deals quite honestly with the emotional problems connected to abortion with the parents opposed to it. In short it is rather unique for a 1916 production - and it actually has ended up one of the first films protected by the Library of Congress. Not a bad resume for a film.

But although I can't comment on the film's content or directing or the acting (nor even give it a rating), I can add a curious footnote to the movie. Except for the film MANHATTAN MELODRAMA, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN? is the only film I know of that played a role in an act of violence. MANHATTAN MELODRAMA, of course, is notorious as the Myrna Loy film that was seen by John Dillinger (in the company of the notorious informer, the "lady in red") when he was hiding in Chicago. As he left the Biograph theater there, he was shot down in the alley by FBI agents.

Not quite as notorious to us is WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN? It was used in a somewhat equally sinister way, as part of a murder alibi. On September 28, 1916, a Mr. Frederick Small murdered his wife at a cabin home they lived at near Lake Ossipee in New Hampshire. Small was doing it for insurance, but he planned to make it a perfect crime, by strangling his wife, and setting up a piece of machinery he constructed in the cabin to set a fire at a given time when he was gone, to burn down the cabin and destroy the body (so as to hide the proof of the strangulation). Small thought of almost everything. Edmund Lester Pearson, the first major American Criminal historian, discussed the case in his book FIVE MURDERS (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Doran Co., "THE CRIME CLUB", 1928) in his first chapter: "The Man who was Too Clever." He feels that he had never come across a homicide with so much time taken up in planning the actual crime as this one.

Small's alibi was that he would be taking a trip to Boston with a neighbor for business purposes. As he left the cabin, the driver of the car taking him to the railway station heard Small call out "Good bye!" Small later tried to expand this into having kissed his wife on the porch, but the driver did not recall that happening. When Small and his neighbor reached Boston, Small did things like sending a post card home from the hotel. He and his neighbor went to the local movie house (just about the time the fire should have been starting) and saw (as you can guess) WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?

Pearson in describing the evening's events on the trip (the most "sinful" being some drinks of rye whiskey that Small brought along) as a ghastly attempt at a so-called trip full of dissipation. So it seems, but I am fascinated at the choice of the film (which Pearson mentions dealt with abortion). Why did Small choose that one? I suspect it was the star power of Mr Tyrone Power Sr. I can't believe that Small was interested in the issue of abortion (he had no children anyway). In any event, Small and his neighbor returned to the hotel to "learn" the bad news about a fire. Small acted horrified, and immediately he and his neighbor packed and returned back to Lake Ossipee. Actually Small was in for a shock. While the cabin was gutted by the fire, the fire was so intense as to cause the chair that the corpse of Mrs. Small was sitting in to fall through the wooden floor into a section of the cabin's basement that was full of water from the lake. Mrs. Small's body was preserved, complete with the rope laced around her neck.

Small was tried and convicted of first degree murder, and hanged (after an appeal failed) in 1918. I doubt that Tyrone Power or Lois Weber were ever aware of the involvement of the movie they made together in such a curiously interesting little murder case.

A Powerful Lois Weber Film

[bump69 · 8/10 · 18 August 2000]

Although one may not agree with the sentiments of Where Are My Children?, nonetheless it is a powerful film dealing with a controversial subject, particularly for its day. Although Weber assumes a pedantic cloak in telling her story, she avoids sensationalizing it. One may disagree with her view of abortion as "perverting" woman's role in parenthood, but to me the focus of the film is the tragedy of Tyrone Power's character not having the children he so desperately wants.

The cast is quite good and from a historical perspective, note that this is the only known film of Helen Riaume, who plays Mrs. Walton. Also worth mentioning is the lovely Rena Rogers (Lillian), whose character serves as the fulcrum for the plot.

The last scene of the film is particularly moving, with Weber superimposing images of people into the picture, one of her favorite cinematic techniques. I highly recommend the film and look forward to viewing it again.

Remarkable presentation of subject matter, both emotional and logical.

[flavia18 · 9/10 · 7 February 2006]

I was amazed at both the subject matter of the movie, and how it was handled. This movie was incredibly even-handed; I can't understand how so many people insist that this is strictly an anti-abortion movie! Abortion is shown as both horrible and not: also condemned is the fact of women being forced to have children when they are not equipped to do so. The trial scene makes this very clear - not only is a reputable doctor shown as testifying for the benefits of abortion, but his views are fully aired in the movie. The rest of the film does show the prevailing society view - most notably the touching use of angels to represent children coming into the womb, as well as going back to Heaven. Of course, it is also quite possible that this might be a device of equivocation: that if the souls return to Heaven the same way they originally came down to earth, surely they can just come back down again...? But even more poignant than this depiction is the ghostly adult images of the children referenced in the title: the phantoms of what might have been not only surrounding the father, but quite firmly between him and his wife.

remarkable preachment

[kekseksa · 24 September 2015]

This film is most certainly not feminist but it was a courageous film to have made in 1910. Censorship already existed very strongly in the US and the idea that it only came in with the Hays Code in the thirties is a complete myth.

The film did have its imitators in the next year or so (a girl dies after an abortion in Enlighten thy Daughter 1917) and the subject would occasionally be raised rather obliquely in later films (The Road to Ruin 1928, 1934 and Ann Vickers 1933) or treated salaciously in exploitation films (Street Corner 1948) but it would not be until the 1960s that it would again become possible to treat such subjects seriously in US films (and even then it is primarily British rather than US films that come to mind). Plans to make a remake of Weber's film in 1936 had to be cancelled. As late as 1956, the revised Hays code insisted that "the subject of abortion shall be discouraged, shall never be more than suggested, and when referred to shall be condemned. It must never be treated lightly, or made the subject of comedy. Abortion shall never be shown explicitly or by inference, and a story must not indicate that an abortion has been performed, the word "abortion" shall not be used."

Weber's consideration of the question is entirely serious and all the aspects she considers, whatever one's opinion about voluntary miscarriage being legal of which there was not even the remotest possibility in 1916, remain entirely valid. Sometimes today the belief that women should have choice in these matters becomes confused with a vague idea that abortion is somehow completely problem-free, which it most certainly is not.

And Weber is entirely to be commended for taking up so strongly the case for birth control (an equally taboo subject)and against the 1873 Comstock Law that prevented discussion of it. This was also the subject of an unofficial sequel to this film (lost) called The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, in which she herself acted (and is the one arrested for promoting birth control). The film was, however, rather overshadowed by the appearance of Margaret Sanger's own film Birth Control even though the latter was effectively banned by the censors.

The film played to packed houses in sophisticated urban centres and won much critical praise because of its evident earnestness and religious iconography (one southern US newspaper described it as "one of the most remarkable preachments yet filmed") but it did also attract adverse criticism but it had to be shown in different (cut) versions in different parts of the country, and was particularly badly butchered (although not banned as is sometimes claimed) in Weber's home-state of Pennsylvania.

There are also some signs of a backlash. Photoplay later claimed that the films had spawned "a filthy host of nasty-minded imitators" and in 1917 when Essanay brought out a filmed called "Where is My Mother?" (evidently adapting the title of Weber's film) in its "Do the Children Count?" series, a particularly prissy reviewer in Moving Picture World praised it precisely because it avoided "distasteful reference to birth control and sex problems".

Attitudes Haven't Really Changed That Much a Century Later

[richardchatten · 8/10 · 24 January 2018]

This remarkable film provides a rare opportunity to see the celebrated British-born stage actor Tyrone Power (1869-1931), whose son - now far more famous than he - appears in the film as a toddler. The action takes place largely in and around the palatial home of district attorney Richard Walton (played by Power), which in the handsome tinted print currently available considerably helps sugar the pill of the unglamorous and sometimes harrowing detail of this extremely skilfully made film.

Only last week a British Tory MP caused red faces when comments he made five years ago proposing that the jobless have vasectomies became public knowledge; which shows that despite the Nazis' best effort to bring eugenics into disrepute, concern about Homo Sapiens' thinning gene pool continues unabated in the 21st Century, recently well expressed in the movie 'Idiocracy' (2006).

Initially the subject of 'Where Are My Children?' appears to be the advocation of contraceptive birth control as the means to end the misery inflicted upon impoverished women repeatedly bearing children they cannot afford to raise; but even here the implication is the rather heartless one that it would have been better had all the dishevelled and ill cared-for children we see never actually been born in the first place.

However, the focus then shifts to the affluent set, whose womenfolk are depicted as self-centred hedonists shirking their responsibility to future generations by not reproducing; an opinion you'll still hear being expressed today. These women seem to have maintained their state of pristine childlessness through regular abortions - like visits to the dentist - rather than the use of contraception.

Was this really the case a hundred years ago?

"Where Are My Children"??

[kidboots · 8/10 · 31 January 2016]

Lois Weber was one of the most influential directors of her day. Initially with dreams of being a concert pianist, for a time she joined an evangelical group and preached on street corners in the poorer areas in Pittsburgh and New York. When she and her husband Phillips Smalley drifted into films her heart was full of causes ie birth control, fighting civic corruption, that she wanted to bring to the publics attention. She advocated eugenics in "Where Are My Children" and the establishing scenes showed (in Miss Weber's view) the deterioration of human beings due to the proliferation of the lower classes and pleaded a case for birth control, even safe, legalized abortions. Eugenics was a belief in race purity and that only the healthiest and fittest in mind and body should have children - as typified in the film by Richard Walton's (Tyrone Power Snr.) sister and husband, also by the family next door that Walton longingly looks at. He is not so lucky - he and his wife are childless, she compensates with having several small dogs but as the film progresses it is shown that the wife loves her frivolous, lazy lifestyle - hence their childless state!!

In a particularly shocking sequence, a young wife in her set finds she is expecting and Mrs. Walton casually suggests a Doctor Malfit who will get her out of her predicament. They go to the doctor's, a distraught woman is sitting there but Mrs. Walton seems completely at home, making the viewer realise that she has been there before!!

Mrs. Walton's shifty looking brother arrives at the same time as the housekeeper's sweet daughter. Needless to say Lillian is swept off her feet by the glib talking brother and of course when she finds out the worst, brother eagerly implores sister to give him the name of that doctor!! Alas Lillian only lives long enough to tell her mother the truth!! and Walton moves quickly to bring the evil doctor to trial. When the sentence of 15 years is read out, the wild doctor names names - pointing the finger at Mrs. Walton's involvement. Walton returns home to a house full of luncheon guests - many of whom, reading from Malfit's private ledgers have made use of his personal services. With a "I should bring you all to trial for manslaughter" he banishes them before accusing his wife - "where are my children"!!

At the time "back alley" abortions were common and often the cause of some women's future inability to have children so Weber, who was also an admirer of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger, was keen to make a powerful message film. Even though it was banned in Pennsylvania it played to packed houses in Atlantic City. Celebrated stage actor Tyrone Power Snr. along with his then wife Helen Riaume (parents of Tyrone Power) played the Waltons, Marie Walcamp who became a Universal serial queen plays the young matron who is given the name of Mrs. Walton's doctor and Mary MacLaren, soon to be given the lead in Lois Weber's sensational "Shoes" makes her debut as a young housemaid.

Highly Recommended.

A dramatization about Eugenics, Birth Control and Abortion

[a-cinema-history · 8/10 · 1 November 2013]

This is a fascinating film as regards how fundamental moral issues could be shown on cinema during the 1910s and how moral values have shifted since then. Even more strongly than D.W. Griffith defends the superiority of the white race and how it should be defended. The film is in the first place defending eugenics, i.e. the fact that the reproduction of people with desired traits should be encouraged and reproduction of people with undesired traits should be reduced. The enthusiastic adoption of this theory by Nazi Germany demonstrated how pernicious it was. The film postulates that there are three categories of babies waiting to be born, the "chance" children, going forth to earth in vast numbers, the "unwanted" souls, that were constantly "sent back" and bore the sign of the serpent (devil?), and those souls fine and strong, sent forth only on prayer and marked with the approval of the Almighty. This explains the position taken by the main protagonist, District Attorney Walton: he thinks that there is no reason to prosecute somebody defending birth control, as he is working with poor people producing children who from a eugenics point of view are deemed undesirable. On the other hand he is deeply shocked when he discovers that his wife and her friends, who from the same eugenics point of view would produce perfect children, are getting abortions because motherhood would interfere with their leisurely life. It is therefore not an anti-abortion film, as it is now regarded by some people, but a film about the wrong people undertaking abortion. The unwanted children are just "sent back" to heaven. What is also striking, given the fact that the film was made by a female director, Lois Weber, together with her husband Phillips Smalley, is the very negative depiction of women. They are liberated enough to drive their own cars but the only thing in their life seems to be having drinks or tea together and refusing motherhood out of pure selfishness. This is all the more surprising that the person who inspired the scene of the man prosecuted for publishing a book about birth control was actually a woman, Margaret Sanger. Why did Lois Weber turn this positive female character into a man? Note also the patriarchal approach, Walton doesn't ask "Where are our children?" but "Where are my children?").

From the cinematographic point of view, the film presents several interesting characteristics. Acting is quite natural for the time and cross-cutting is used very efficiently. While camera movements are limited to a few small pans, the frequent change of camera angles and shots gives a dynamic editing. Lighting is also very creative, notably the use of back-lighting for the close-ups of female stars. The last scene with the couple getting old together with the ghosts of the children appearing at various ages is quite convincing.

excellent silent film

[phoebe7498 · 10/10 · 1 February 2007]

This silent film was so unusual for its time...it was wonderful! It was for sure a Pro-Life movie. Hopefully, many people will want to view it and enjoy it as much as I did! I would love to buy it if available. I have seen a lot of silent movies and especially enjoyed this one and "The Wind", "Intolerance", "Greed" and several others that I can't recall at this moment. I wish more of these kind of dramatical movies would be on Turner Classic Movies on cable TV. I also wish that more young people would be able to view it on their TV and be exposed to these great old movies. Maybe there would be a renewal of these great, old silent films.