Hypocrites (1915) User Reviews

Technically brilliant...

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 15 December 2009]

By today's standards, this is a very archaic film. However, compared to other films of the day, HYPOCRITES was a technical work of art. Unlike many directors of the day, Lois Weber used camera movement throughout the story--at a time when many directors kept the camera relatively still. In addition, she employed the use of double-exposures to create an ethereal and unusual look for the film. Together, these make this movie look so much nicer than a typical film from 1915.

On the other hand, the film is exceptionally moralistic and preachy--something that is quite typical of the day. But, in an odd twist, despite the moralizing, the film employed significant amounts of full nudity--though, believe it or not, in an artistic and inoffensive manner--though some audiences of the day freaked out at this! The film begins with a preacher delivering his sermon to a very unworthy audience. Most seem bored by the service and some even talk or read during the message--showing that the preacher was "casting his pearls before swine". So far, I liked the movie a lot--as a film about supposedly good people who were spiritually dead inside was intriguing. However, the film quickly lost me, as the movie shifted into an allegory--showing the same preacher now as an aesthetic saint trying to lead people on the "Road to Truth"--as illustrated in a trek up the side of a steep hill. In addition, Truth itself was now illustrated in the form of a nude woman who is almost ghost-like whenever she appears. Why is she naked? Well, because in Truth there is no shame and nudity, Weber reasoned, is nothing to be ashamed of in and of itself (a VERY modern notion).

At the time, many liked the film and many were shocked. Today, the nudity, while very explicit, seems rather innocent and I would certainly let kids see the film because there is no attempt to provide "cheap thrills". Overall, however, I wish the film had been a bit less obvious as well as not so preachy. The idea was great, but when seen today, it all seems terribly old fashioned...despite the nudity and excellent film work. Not bad, but in my opinion, not among the very greatest silent films.

Very odd curio

[sean4554 · 7/10 · 26 October 2009]

It's good to see that the comments posted on this film are all well thought out. I agree with almost everything already said about this odd little film called "Hypocrites". This definitely isn't the easiest movie to get through. It's very slowly paced and so overly moralizing that I doubt many viewers would have even liked it much in it's time. Indeed the film is highly artistic, but also self-consciously so. Everything screams IMPORTANT in the movie, which isn't the flaw one may think it would be, but doesn't exactly help things either. The aura of "Hypocrites" is that of a revival meeting of sorts, the kind of old-time gathering in a tent that may still happen today in the more rural parts of America but is generally a hazy memory elsewhere. That is strange as well because the religious characters appear either Roman Catholic or high Episcopalian (or something along those lines), not evangelical at all. To further compound the confusion, the artistically justifiable insertion of Naked Truth could do nothing but anger religious folk of the time, and this was all done by a woman director (the trailblazing Lois Weber)!

The gimmick may well have drawn them in, at least to an extent. Which is the strangest aspect of "Hypocrites" - that in denouncing hypocrisy, even with such artful gestures, Weber demonstrates in no uncertain terms that even she isn't immune to it. It's all around us, part of humanity, part of everything we are. Just have to learn to control it, is what she seems to be trying to say. I do like "Hypocrites", watch it every so often and come away with something different each time, even if I soon forget what it was. Is this a classic? In a way. Is it entertaining? Sometimes, could be, depending on what mood you're in and what you're looking for in a film. I don't think most people would like it at all. But for what it is, and as an example of the work of Weber (it seems most of her films no longer exist), "Hypocrites" is indeed IMPORTANT.

my thoughts

[reddman9987 · 7/10 · 9 May 2011]

This was my first time ever watching a silent film and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I believe one of the most important things that I noticed while watching this film was that I can create my own words or theme for the film. The film doesn't push its thoughts into your head, but allows you to think and create your own scenes. Many movies today don't afford you this opportunity and I believe it is one that is greatly missed whether we recognize it or not. In the beginning the film had me lost and wondering what exactly was going on or what I should be looking for, but then it quickly changed and speed up once the pastor finished his sermon. I noticed the way the people where criticizing him and the way that people were disrespecting the sanctuary, because there was no sound it wasn't hard to notice those incidents. I also enjoyed the way the movie moved from the present into a type of dream. The way the dream ran parallel to reality was great because then it gave the viewer a better understanding of what the director was actually trying to convey. The way the preacher was saying that the people don't want to accept the truth or don't like to see the truth was shown in the dream. It was shown when he went in search of the truth and it was on "the road less traveled" and only a few people had the urge to even try to make it up the path. Some tried and found it too hard, but only one person actually made it all the way up with the priest. I think the director was saying that most people really don't care about that truth and if something is too demanding or requires too much of their time or effort then they aren't going to work for it. They believe that there has to be another way and if not then it obviously wasn't worth their time to begin with. The author also presented the view that the truth is ever fleeting and that many aren't prepared for it to be revealed to them.

Undoubtedly one of the greatest silent films - watch it if you can.

[bbhlthph · 20 April 2006]

Any attempt to rate outstanding films involves first establishing the criteria by which they are to be assessed, and most people today would mark them down for any blatant attempt to pass on a message rather than just to entertain. Despite this a case can be made for regarding 'Hypocrites' as being among the three or four most outstanding films from the silent era. Whilst its moralising may deter many modern viewers, we need to remember today that during this era films were widely expected to convey a moral message and were not infrequently constructed so as to 'preach' to the viewer. This is the complete converse of what is P.C. today; but it is characteristic of the work of most great screenwriters and directors of the period such as Fred Niblo, Cecil Demille, or D.W. Griffith, as well as Lois Weber. Today only a small number of the pre-1920 films which were created are still extant, and Demille is primarily remembered for his later sound films. Griffith is probably now the most widely known known director of silent films, largely thanks to the superb craftsmanship which went into the interweaving of the four stories that comprise 'Intolerance', and the fact that both this and 'The Birth of A Nation' are not infrequently screened on television. However the somewhat jingoistic message about the superiority of the 'American way of life', which is Griffith's trademark in so many of his films, is very superficial compared with the way 'Hypocrites' brings out the blinkered self satisfaction that has been characteristic of the life of those in authority throughout history, and is a direct and almost inevitable consequence of our almost universal urge for self-justification. The film is basically an allegorical story of a priest who becomes increasingly aware of the harm caused by the self righteousness of major figures from the past, as well as the members of his own congregation; but who nevertheless remains completely unable to appreciate how in his own life he displays exactly the same failing. In showing this, Weber also provides a not too subtle hint to the film's audience that they share this same characteristic.

At the time this film was released Lois Weber was widely regarded as one of the finest directors working in Hollywood and she received at least one 'Best Director' accolade in 1916, beating both DeMille and Griffith. An aspect of her work which is not always widely appreciated today is that she was an early feminist. Part of the failing of the priest lies in suppressing his natural emotions until he is unable to respond in any meaningful way to the affection one of his congregation shows for him. The film shows both mainstream catholic and protestant churchmen as having shared this failing over many centuries; as well as cultivating a belief that no more than very slow progressive changes in the attitudes of society can ever be expected. This was of course a widely held attitude during the early twentieth century; and here Weber appears to be calling on women, because they are generally less reserved about showing their emotions, to take a larger role in battling against the decadence she saw in everyday life by demanding much more drastic changes to the structure of society..

The various vignettes which comprise this film are linked by a semi-transparent (double exposure) naked figure, symbolising naked truth, intended to draw attention to the ways in which the characters featured in each vignette have partially suppressed or hidden the truth. There was nothing salacious in these sequences which were accepted by the Board of Censors at the time; but they may have been a mistake on the part of Weber as some city fathers, who presumably felt that the films message was cutting a little too close to the bone, used them as an excuse to impose local bans on it. On the other hand one can speculate that perhaps Weber herself anticipated such developments and decided they would help underline the ongoing significance of her message.

Weber was an extremely prolific screenwriter and director but unfortunately copies of very few of her other silent films seem to have survived. It is known that most of her works could be classified in the socially significant category, however it is hard for us to assess how far 'Hypocrites' is typical of them. Watching a sermon in the form of a film may not appeal to many people today; but in this case its mastery of the use of the camera, and the complexity of its structure for such an early film, make it fascinating viewing for everyone with any interest in the history of the film industry. Recognising that acting for the silent cinema always demanded a style which today would generally be regarded as slight overacting, it would be hard to fault the work of any of the cast; and this film is constructed in such a way that neither speech or subtitles are needed much, the story is largely told through the camera-work and by the expressions and gestures of the cast. This film was brought to home video through a Kino International VHS tape created from a copy of the film in the Library of Congress Archives, and we all owe them a big debt of gratitude for producing this. I hope it will not be long before they can provide us with a DVD version.

Heavy Handed Goodness

[cutsman-2 · 7/10 · 1 May 2010]

In the current age of cinema heavy handed, message a dozen. Usually being released right around awards season; it mixes melodrama and message into something that after watching should make us reevaluate our lives. Sometimes these can be successful to an extent, Crash, and other times completely fail, like the illegal immigrant movie Crossing Over. Both can't quite escape their own heavy-handed message. What is surprising is that Hypocrites, nearly escapes the fate, an early example of truly thought provoking cinema. Directed by Lois Weber and released to much critical rave in 1915, Hypocrites follows the parallel stories of a monk in the eighteenth century and a modern day priest as they struggle to find truth and combat the hypocrisy of society. A beautiful nude see-through woman represents truth and is the desire of the monk. He follows her around and attempts to make art out of her. It goes without saying that them monk finds God's truth in the beauty of humans, which after all we were created in his image. Once the monk finishes the sculpture of the nude woman he wishes to present it to society. Once presented the society of the day are outraged by the nudeness, afraid to see the real truth, and chose to cover it up with cloth. Discouraged the monk makes the pound statement that the hypocrisy of society covers up the truth. And there in lies the problem of the film with me. While I really enjoyed the film and especially the work of the lead Courteney Foote, I felt that it was too blatant, the imagery alone should have been powerful enough for the audience to see the hypocrisy of the truth but instead Weber chooses to explain to the audience instead of interpret. While I understand that the medium was relatively new, modern filmmakers fall into the same problems, saying to much instead of leaving anything to the interpretation of the audience. In face I would argue that it is more common today where the studios make movies for the lowest common demeanor. That problem I found with the film is a quibble I would say instead of a real problem. The cinematography is gorgeous as are the sets. The message of the movie and imagery was enough to get it banned in some places, perhaps that is why the filmmaker felt the need to particle hit the audience over the head with the message, however nearly 100 years later it is still a message that resonates. Despite the heavy handedness of it all, Hypocrites is hard not to recommend to the film buff.

Needs to be Watched More than Once

[ErinKan214 · 7/10 · 29 April 2011]

I thought of myself as fairly knowledgeable when it comes to film history but I had honestly never heard of Lois Weber until taking my Film class. Her film, "Hypocrites" was a little bit confusing while I was watching, but after it was over, the real meaning of the film started to sink in.

I loved her use of characters as sort of a double meaning. For example, the naked woman represents truth; the priest represents Christianity as well as a modern man etc. For such an early film, it really was well thought out and intricate. I also found the film to be humorous in a way because the naked woman exposes the congregations desire for material things, something not really taught in the early Christian faith. I definitely think that the true meaning of this film cannot be felt at first viewing, it has to be thought out because Weber uses so much symbolism that it takes awhile to decipher. Also, I found "Hypocrites: to be extremely relevant in today's society. This is what I admire so much about Lois Weber's work,. She tackles the tough issues, which really makes her work timeless. On a bit of a side note, for the time period in which she made the film, it was shocking to see a completely nude woman but I think this is exactly what Weber was going for when she made the film.

Overall, I enjoyed the film after thinking about it but do not expect to be immediately riveted.

Truth is a hard pill to swallow. Take 2 and call me in the morning

[CoolReviewBro · 7/10 · 22 January 2011]

Bill Maher does not have a monopoly on films pertaining to religion and hypocrisy. Watch Lois Weber's Hypocrites and you will agree. Don't let the film's old age fool you, however, for this film is both deep and relevant to modern society and modern film-making. As the title suggests, hypocrisy is the subject of the film and the most poignant reflections of hypocritical behavior come from Gabriel, the Ascetic's projection of "Truth": a semi-transparent naked woman with seemingly omnipotent capabilities. In Hypocrites are examples of religious hypocrisy big and small. You'll see tomfoolery in the church choir, high society's rejection and denial of "Truth" in her bare form, a fiancée's philandering, and a vicious, almost Christ-like mob execution by the hands of congregation members.

While Lois Weber held firm religious convictions, you as a viewer will not feel as if you are being indoctrinated with some religious message. Instead, you will see the film's metaphorical representations of hypocrisy and Truth's revelations of hypocrisy as elements of life that continue to exist today. Indeed, when the film presents reality through the lens of Truth the viewer sees how life really isn't what it appears to be. This conception of "reality" as not how we ordinarily see it has lived on in films following Weber's Hypocrites. Indeed, the sci-fi buff will be amazed when Truth exposes what is really going on behind a family tending to a sick child. Once Truth enters the room with the family and the sick child, Truth enlightens the audience on why the child is sick. Truth shows prior events where the child is reading books titled "SEX" and "INDULGENCE." The sci-fi buff might recall John Carpenter's They Live, where the protagonist Nada discovers sunglasses that expose the truth behind the human existence and the extra terrestrial control grid established on planet Earth. This scene in Hypocrites almost mimics the experience of Nada in They Live when he is flipping through a magazine only to see messages like "OBEY" and "CONSUME" with the glasses on or when Nada is glancing at a Caribbean vacation billboard only to see the message "MARRY AND REPRODUCE" through the glasses. This is just one example of a modern movie that parallels elements seen in Weber's Hypocrites. I highly suggest you view Hypocrites yourself to find more.

Good movie and idea, just drags on too much.

[manjavhern · 7/10 · 12 April 2010]

All in all as old as this movie is, it is quite a decent film. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of things that made this movie unlikable. For its time the movie was very deep and thoughtful. I myself found the theme and idea to be very appealing. The point of the movie is clear and in your face so, so, so, so, so much that it gets quite a bit boring. I felt the movie dragged on just trying to get every, little hypocrisy they could get in before they reached the time limit to where the audience members would just say "screw it I'm leaving!" When the character moved in from scene to scene they took their sweet time like they had no care in the world. We get it your righteous and can move really, really slow, but come on if the audience didn't get what you were trying to say then you shouldn't do it slower! They just aren't meant to get it if they didn't get it by now! The idea of the truth being naked and transparent was beautifully done! I really grasped the symbolism and embraced it well. It's a shame that kind of filming is lost in most of today's films. All in all it was a good film. I did not think films in this time period were so thoughtful and well done. I was very surprised for the nudity and deep thought put into this film and its creation. But if you are going to watch it prepare for a long, slow movie in which the same thing is repeated over and over and over and over and over again. No color, no words, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow movement, and a plot that does not end up going anywhere.

The greatest movie you've never heard of and one of the greatest movies period

[maha_r_prasad · 10/10 · 10 July 2000]

Lois Weber, the main director of this film, was among America's first female directors. Most of her films, like most pre-1920 films, are lost forever. However, Hypocrites (1915), helps us understand how one of the leading film magazines in 1916 named her the best film director in the world. DW Griffith came in second even though he had already made Birth of a Nation.

She is largely forgotten today because the introduction of the studio system largely purged most female directors. Since Weber was largely influenced by European film, Hypocrites tends to focus more on concept than plot, but in an excellent manner. The film utilizes the newest technical innovations of the times with beauty. I have seen several silent films and many of Chaplin's greatest movies. But I must say that this is one of the top 3 silent films I've ever seen, and among the top 15 films I've ever seen period. (I have seen The Godfather, Citizen Kane, etc.)

A man aims to show the Truth to society only to discover that society is corrupt.

[dapperfrenzy · 6/10 · 23 January 2011]

After watching Hypocrites, it is interesting to me that even in the early years of filmmaking, movies could be extremely complex and thought provoking. Hypocrites is definitely those two things. The writer and director of the film, Lois Weber, uses the characters of a preacher and Truth (portrayed as a naked woman) to reveal the hypocrisy of society. Though Weber's intentions were most likely to speak on morality, it is interesting that she chose to use a fully nude woman throughout the film to draw in an audience that would not have otherwise seen the film. It was also surprising to me that this film would have been viewed by religious audiences with such unapologetic nudity. However, I will say that whatever could be viewed as indecent may have been made up for by the moral of the film. As the preacher succumbs to a dream, he is taken to an earlier time when he first finds Truth. The preacher then goes around aiming to show Truth to people, only to get rejected every time. In each situation, Truth reveals the true character of people to be corrupt. I feel that the overall story of the film was very well written. However, I found it a little bit difficult to get into the film because of the melodramatic style of acting. Because there was no sound in film at the time, the acting seemed to be more expressive and a lot less realistic. If anything made this film difficult to watch, it would be that. Although, overall I enjoyed the film and felt that Weber was successful in presenting her case of morality. I would be interested in seeing what a modern cast and crew could do with the story. I would love to see someone else's spin on it.

"Leave the gold and come on"

[jacoblopez3 · 5/10 · 2 May 2010]

Hypocrites is a film that strays from the traditional "narrative" movie. It tells a story; however unlike most stories in film, there is no situational – or even geographical – continuity in the story of Hypocrites. Instead of containing a specific plot or an end goal in which the characters hope to attain, the story serves as a greater religious allegory that every character in and viewer of Hypocrites can relate to. Most fiction films of all periods tend to show viewers a real world through which the characters are moving. This world can be a genuine street corner or an imaginary planet, but is always presented as real experience and tangible geography, subject to the laws of physics. Hypocrites does not follow this schema. Weber's characters wander from one allegorical location to another with no unified geography or story line. Events do not have physical consequences; the action is based on spiritual expression. The allegories of this film are formed on the bases of American Protestant thinking that understanding a greater, divine truth is necessary. The film makes allusions to Weber's and comparable thinkers' interpretation of Christian values. One of the most striking examples of this is a scene in which the townspeople attempt to follow a priest towards the "Gates of Truth". One man, while carrying a bag filled with gold and treasures stumbles and cannot climb the hill. The priest looks back and tells him to leave the gold. This is an obvious allusion to the lesson in Matthew 19:23-24, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Weber further expands on this allusion with symbolism through colors. A girl wearing white (an archetype for purity and wholesomeness) can make it up the hill and follow the priest, while one in black (which symbolizes death and mourning) cannot. This is just one example of many of how the story of Hypocrites is more allegorical than plot driven.

Hypocrites is a religious allegory!!!

[Ziggy5446 · 10/10 · 30 April 2007]

Lois Weber's HYPOCRITES, was a bold indictment of political corruption, the church, and the business world. Much of the film has a pictorial quality. Many of the scenes are carefully composed, to make visually beautiful patterns. In a dual role, the lead actor plays a monk who sees the hypocrisy of the world and a minister who is stoned to death by his congregation for unveiling a statue of "The Naked Truth." As film historian Kevin Brownlow relates, "Audiences flocked to see the nudity and were then obliged to sit through the moral lesson." Critics were astonished. Variety proclaimed, "After seeing it, you can't forget the name of Lois Weber!"

Strong cinematic narration; POV not plot

[LarryR · 6/10 · 24 August 2000]

Lois Weber, ever the didact, presents heavy symbolism; an academic's dream movie. Plot is dispensed with in favor of moral commentary. Bracketed by a melodramatic schema showing a priest overwhelmed by his inattentive congregation's hypocrisies are a series of vignettes illustrating moral principles. Binding the schema and these vignettes is the concept of naked truth, able and willing to expose the variety of ways people stray from moral rectitude and lie to themselves doing so. Most of the vignettes are beautifully, if heavily, presented, but they never deal with the priest's own failing: self-righteousness. Most telling is the priest's heedlessness in helping his few devoted followers. Cinematic storytelling like this needs few titles.

Not worth your time

[coppercat8888 · 3/10 · 19 February 2011]

This movie started boring and slow. What better way to start a movie than in a dry church service with a watered down sermon. I understand the that the director is suppose to be conveying the fact that none of the audience is interested in what the priest has to say but that doesn't mean that I, as the viewer, should be bored out my mind along with the cast. The subtle attempts to create some kind of humor by the fact that no one is enjoying the service fail also.

The main character does nothing to attach me to him and make want to see his outcome. He is not a great actor. His facial expressions actually make me dislike him. He has this tendency to look off in a random direction with puppy dog eyes and I don't understand what it is for. Perhaps he is looking up to God but these moments seem to just chunk in awkward moments into what is already a very queer movie.

Throughout the movie their are all of these things that are symbolized and represented like the narrow path, wide path and the "naked truth". Their is a lot of focus on these elements with not much reward at all. You just sort of sit there and within the first 5 seconds say "ok I get it" and your waiting for it to be over and get on to something that is intriguing (sorry but that never happens).

All in all if your wanting to watch a good silent film then I strongly suggest that you look way further. I'm a big fan of black and white movies and even silent ones but I still couldn't bring myself to like this film at all. I even have a pretty long attention span for my generation and I constantly found myself wanting to just fall to sleep even though I had gotten a full nights rest. Just spend your well earned money on something else.

Progressive Moralizing

[jpahl · 27 August 2003]

Viewed in context, Lois Weber's Hypocrites is an illuminating period piece. It opens a window onto not only the author's moral concerns, but the larger context of "progressive" reform that influenced much of early twentieth-century America, resulting most notably in anti-trust and child labor legislation, Prohibition, and women's suffrage. Shockingly depicting "truth" incarnate via a diaphanously-filtered-but-fully-naked actress, Weber turns the filmic mirror on political graft, economic materialism, twisted gender dynamics, and, of course, demonic dancing and beach-and-party-going. She not only critiques "secular" decadence, however, but spares neither mainstream Protestants nor Roman Catholics from her judgments. Somewhat unclear is Weber's own remedy for hypocrisy. Both medieval and modern ascetics wind up dead in the film, which suggests that she held little hope for males to lead women to the promised land--wherever it might be. Perhaps, then, this first-wave feminist filmmaker hoped that her critique alone would motivate viewers (and especially women) to take political action on behalf of justice. If this appears to us a naive, and perhaps even sectarian, faith, in its context it had significant power. As an antecedent of Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry (for which he received the first Nobel Prize in Literature ever awarded an American), Weber's Hypocrites deserves attention as an important piece of evidence in the history of progressive moralizing, and more broadly in American cultural production

Hypocrites

[wadih_ws · 6/10 · 30 April 2011]

Lois Weber's Hypocrites was a film with a strong message behind it. Lois Weber normally makes films, which are over strong issues going on in the world today, and this film is no different from them. She started the film with the priest giving his usual Sunday Mass and you can notice not a lot of people are interested in it or even want to be there. After it, everyone goes and tells the priest on another great Mass, but they know in the back of their minds they didn't care, and felt like going to mass was a burden to them. The priest goes on to find the Naked Truth, and one woman goes with him not because of wanting to help him, but because she just wants to be with him. As people watch the priest go up a hill they have a decision whether to help or to keep on with their life, and that's what ends up occurring. Later on He reveals the statue of the Truth, which ended up being a naked woman, and he gets killed for it. He goes on with the Truth to go see into everyone and see what they believe or what they desire the most and it was disappointing what they want or believe. The priest then believes he it time for him to go. The film had a great song going on that fit the mood of the film as well as the film get's a bit confusing. This film is a kind of film that if you lose your attention for a bit, you will not understand what is going on in the film. But this film was one of the foundations to Lois Weber's industrious career. Because this film tackled issues that affected the world, it gave the film more purpose than just entertainment.

Led the way in terms of Cinema Advancements, but Boring...

[weatherl-josh · 6/10 · 30 January 2011]

This film marks a distinct change in the way narrative film making took place, with a plot that included flashbacks and interlaced story lines, this film is very interesting. While I personally did not enjoy it, it is hard to ignore how interesting this film is in terms of the history of modern film technique. The story, due to it's lack of sound, is quite difficult to follow, but instead presents itself as a series of allegorical quips meant to criticize the religious crowd of the time. The blatant presentation of truth as a naked woman (the naked truth) along with the way the wrath of God is simplified to the economies of a child (do something bad and you get hurt) will likely bother those inclined to religious belief or introspective thought.

Truth Revealed

[addison-abbott · 6/10 · 28 January 2010]

The ability for Lois Weber portrays the image of truth in this movie allows the viewers to see that being a translucent image that she is seen by all yet fragile in her existence. When people denounce her naked, easily seen through the veils, image they are hiding the hypocrisy of their lives and what they are hiding from the people around them. As the people in the times of the monks all come to see truth's true image they are expecting to see a creative interpretation instead of the naked woman. The reason that people are scared or uncomfortable with the naked image is that it was very taboo during the era in which this film was made. As the priest was heading up the steep hill and encouraging others to follow him he sees that most people are too burdened with their earthly distractions to take the time or put forth the effort to travel to find the truth within them. As some of his parishioners follow him they easily become fatigued and need help from the minister to carry on although if they would let down their outer guards and admit that they are hypocrites. Most of the people who are shown in the film run from and are horrified at the sight or idea that they would have to show the world who they are truly and allow themselves to be transparent to those who watch them and talk about them and who they should be. For those that admire the priest and the monk they are often found to end in disappointment and sadness. Overall the portrayal of truth as a naked, transparent woman show that we must not run from our differences but face them, admit to them, and show that we will do what we need to do to face the truth.

My opinions

[gengar843 · 7/10 · 6 July 2019]

It's interesting that those who say the church is full of hypocrites are simply looking for hypocrisy to justify their own desires which are contrary to the church. The question is, why? Simply, the flesh is stronger than the spirit. Those especially who say they don't believe in God indulge themselves in savaging "hypocrites" in churches, as if to say they would believe on God if only there were no hypocrites. That is an excuse to free themselves.

This film is interesting not so much for its technical proficiency or even story but because it inflames those who can't believe in anything pure. It is a relief to them that at the finale of the movie the headline of the newspaper trumpets in no uncertain terms that the priest is a hypocrite for having a newspaper in his hand. Sin of sins! As if the publisher of the SUNDAY newspaper is upset that the preacher held his product at the end. No sir! The newspaper is advertising how powerful it is over truth. Taken a bit deeper, the media tells us what the truth is. And isn't that what happens here? The audience of the film KNOWS the purity of this priest, but the people are quite relieved to know their priest was after all not so pure and therefore they can get on with their dalliances.

You too, the audience of the video in this modern day, know full well that the priest made the most concerted effort to be pure of heart but there are many who were relieved after watching that the priest could be dismissed and need not be taken seriously. Which is the point of Browning's quote at the start, that when told the truth, the world lies all the more. Just to make themselves feel better, you see.

As such, this film is powerful in the way it can turn heads. Not in as harsh a manner as, say, THE EXORCIST, not even close, but chasing the naked girl of truth has a certain titillation, does it not, which elevates (or denigrates, depending on your point of view) the poetic religious message of this film.

An interesting early silent

[sraweber369 · 8/10 · 26 May 2011]

Hypocrites by Lois Weber is a strong symbolic film. It is much different from other silent features of its day. The use of a nude must have really rattled folks of the day, but there is nothing sexual about it but rather symbolic that truth uncovers all. The film takes shots at religion, society, politics, and other institutions and shows them up against the nakedness of truth. Since most of these themes are timeless which the film shows by showing the hypocrisy of the medieval age the movie is still relevant today nearly a century after being made. The film itself has interesting effects such as double exposure and the camera isn't always stationary but instead moves around on a dolly. Overall one of the better silent films I have seen.

Grade B

my first silent film and response

[parkermenn · 7/10 · 29 January 2011]

This is the first silent film I have seen in its entirety. I really like the use of metaphors to tell the story. This seems to be a good way to make a point in a silent movie. The use of metaphors allows the film maker to convey a message in an understandable way that does not use too many intertitles or force the actors to use an inordinate amount of gesticulation.

Towards the beginning of the movie Weber shows two quotes by John Milton. The entire movie is basically a portrayal of these two quotes.

The naked truth's transparency effect is interesting. I wonder how they achieved it. I suppose they did it in the same way they did the fades between shots.

I am surprised to find that I really do like this film. I must admit it took about fifteen minutes for me to adjust to the slow pace, the piano soundtrack and the lack of color and spoken dialogue. It was if it just took a little bit for me to slow down myself and start thinking about what may be going on in the minds of each character. When you are not being spoon fed everything that is happening, it forces you to use your imagination which is quite a different experience from movies today. After the initial adjustment, I found the slower pace and piano soundtrack to be calming and even soothing.

I am watching this as part of a large lecture class at my school. I wonder if anyone else is enjoying the movie as much as I am. There is some technical problem with the equipment and we are being interrupted for a few minutes every fifteen minutes or so. Each time it happens the class lets out an increasingly frustrated and irritated sigh. I don't think they like the movie. I don't think they were ever able to slow down and adjust like I adjusted.

Review and Analysis

[eksrox-40-902286 · 5/10 · 28 April 2011]

Hypocrites is a silent film that deals with issues on a deeper level. Most silent films of this time were not complex and did not deal with controversial issues. Moral hypocrisy and religious materialism were two main themes explored in this film. It begins with a minister preaching to his congregation who are obviously not truly absorbing what he is saying. The monk creates a statue of a naked woman who represents truth. It is based on the story of Adam and Eve. For this day in age, it was extremely scandalous to display such a figure. Ironically, he is killed by the angry mob. The minister seems hopeless after his sermon, because he can see how the words of God have no meaning to his rather snobby church audience. The sequence after represents how the righteous path to heaven is very difficult and the path to hell is easy and full of sin. Some women try to follow him up the steep and narrow climb, but most cannot handle it and once again fall down into sin. Weber, the director, was very talented when creating this film. The exposures and complicated editing helped to not only create excellent films, but it also helped boost her career. She was ahead of her time with this film, due to the subject matter, editing skills, technology, and the fact that she was willing to use scandalous material to make a heavy point. The soundtrack in this film matched the circumstance well. Classical music was used, and it reflected the feelings well. Overall, this movie was successful in presenting its point and doing so in a professional, avant garde manner.

The Mote in the Eye

[Cineanalyst · 8/10 · 16 September 2004]

I didn't especially enjoy watching this film. Lois Weber wanted to deliver morals to the public--she preached. Film is an ideal medium for such delivery--she provided entertainment as a cloak to gain an audience for her sermons. She made message films, in other words. "Hypocrites" doesn't even have the pretext of entertainment (besides the appeal of nudity); rather, it's supposed to be art. The main purpose of this film, however, is to persuade us to accept its morality. It's a good beginning for evaluation of the film.

One may evaluate a message on whether they agree with it, find it enlightening, or they may evaluate the presentation of the message. The message is evangelical, the presentation a thin disguise of fictional narrative. There's something disingenuous and insulting about a message film. Such filmmakers believe dramatization, rather than reasoned argument, is more convincing--and they're, of course, correct that plenty are that stupid, especially with the filmgoers in training of 1915. For those who already accept the message, it may be reinforcement, which is just as irrational.

I didn't especially enjoy watching this film. I enjoyed thinking about it, or studying it. Not to say my enjoyment originated from my process--"Hypocrites" is an interesting film, which is why I rank it highly. It's one of three interesting feature-length films from 1915 that I've watched so far; "The Birth of a Nation" and "The Cheat" were entertaining, and part of the reason I pondered over "Hypocrites" for an extended time was that it's not.

Before discussing what's most interesting, Weber's competence in direction--style is a reason this film was somewhat enjoyable to watch, although not especially. The camera pans often, extensively in the fête day scene, which includes tilts and a dolly shot, as well. There's some appropriate picturesque photography and nice tinting. Racking focus serves as transitions in the tableau scenes of naked truth revealing hypocrisies to Gabriel--and us. (Is it hypocritical for naked truth to attempt covering her breasts and to walk in similar purpose?) Effects as simple as superimpositions, dissolves and fades are used saliently.

The narrative is layered. Beginning and ending at present, a series of religious allegory follows. In first leaving the present-day thread, Weber cuts to a different angle of Minister Gabriel, making it at first an ambiguous segue--when he shuts his eyes, and his superimposed self leaves his body. It's not a dream; he's dead, and his soul is leaving the vessel.

As William D. Routt wrote in "Lois Weber, or the exigency of writing" (which I recommend as accompaniment to this film - it's available on the web), the fatal decision for Gabriel was in "the mote in the eye" scene. He, an ascetic, recoils from the woman's (played by Myrtle Stedman) affection for him. Pure himself, yet neither able to lead his congregation to truth purely, or to fulfill his life otherwise, he is left to enter "The Gates of Truth"--heaven--alone.

In the first allegorical episode, Gabriel tries to lead his flock to truth. The members of the congregation are still in modern clothes. The next episode is further into the unreal, or supernatural, as the congregation change clothes for allegory set in some past. Gabriel now tries to bring them truth. This is where the film gets very interesting; Gabriel's medium to bring truth is allegorical art--a statue of the superimposed naked truth we've seen previously. Art within art--Gabriel is doing for his congregation what Lois Weber does for us. Routt mentioned another example of Gabriel being the representation, or surrogate, for Weber: In the opening scene, the way the congregation reacts to Gabriel's sermon is much how Weber expected we might react to her film. Additionally, Gabriel watches from afar his statue revealed; first, I thought it agreed with the subjectivity of the narrative, but it also alludes to the film viewer. Gabriel further doubles as us in the tableaux dénouement. "Hypocrites" is thus self-referential, or reflexive.

Courtenay Foote's posturing is annoying, but, as opposed to in most other films, it seems appropriate here. Anyhow, Routt pointed out to me that in "the mote in the eye" scene, the cameraman cranking the camera is visible in a direct shot of an eye revealed in a mirror. Unintentional and unavoidable as it may be, it's congruous with the rest of the film, and I consider the entire scene the apex of the picture; main constitutes of it--character revelations, religious allegory, self-reference and reflection--coalesce. Weber was one of the earliest female directors in film history. More importantly, however, she was one of the first intelligent filmmakers.

(Note: A few scenes contain some bleeding.)

Not the best silent film

[cking-37-372041 · 2/10 · 26 April 2011]

****Warning spoiler alert**** Lois Weber's, Hypocrites is a silent film that debuts a powerful message of corruption. I would not recommend this film to an audience that prefers action and suspense from the start of the film. I do like some silent films, but I believe that the audience must be a big fan of Lois Weber's work and the message of this film to enjoy the movie. I found that this movie's message is dragged out longer than needed, past the point of unbearable. Additionally, the acting in areas was over dramatic and did not help the plot in my opinion. For example, the priest attempting to emphasize the truth's importance in the church and with the sculpture set an excessive mood. I found the film was very difficult and could not grasp my full attention although it had many eye catching scenes. Especially, the scene displaying the sculpture; Instead of a quick gathering forming around the sculpture, there are minutes devoted to showing the people who gather to witness the unveiling. Most of these people are just standing around with questionable facial expressions. This scene does not just pan through the crowd of people once, but it pans through them at least twice showing the same movements, and suspense of the crowd. In addition, I felt the nudity in this moving was acceptable but perhaps not necessary. I thought that showing the female naked to symbolize the naked truth could almost be overlooked by the audience. After growing impatient with this films conclusion, I thought maybe the naked woman was an incentive for people to want to see this film. Although, I found more downfalls with this film I do feel this film did capture many new ways of directing and capturing motion picture. Overall, this movie is not one of my favorites and I would cringe, if forced to watch this film again.

Interesting Symbolism

[jt-hix2112 · 8/10 · 20 January 2010]

I enjoyed watching this film, it really makes you use your brain and think about what it is trying to tell you. It is nice to see a movie that expresses the need for values and morals in an immoral world. Through some very interesting symbolism, this film serves as a message to society that without Truth, we are quite lost and the path to Truth is steep and rocky. If you're not put off by this being a silent film, I recommend it.

(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

Hypocrites is about two parallel church congregations, one from medieval times and the other set in the early 20th century. Each character in one church has a counterpart from the other church, all played by the same actors. The story revolves around Gabriel, a monk in medieval times and a pastor in "modern" day. We see the modern Gabriel preaching in church about hypocrisy and it is clear most in the church do not approve of Gabriel's message. We see a well dressed man who obviously funds the church tell his fellow well dressed church goers to get rid of Gabriel. Gabriel is then shown as not having much hope for his congregation; he knows that they do not take his words seriously.

An interesting dream like sequence then follows, which is presented to the viewer with a green tint. We see the congregation walking down a wide path through the woods. Gabriel begins to lead them up a steep and rocky both up a hillside and only two women follow him. Everyone else either disregards this narrow road or believes it to be too challenging. Even the two women who follow Gabriel, one who seems to be very eager in following Gabriel and the other who seems to be a lost soul, give up or stray off the path. When Gabriel reaches the top of the hill, we see that he is chasing "Truth," represented by a ghostly image of a naked woman.

We are then introduced to the medieval congregation, with all the same characters. Gabriel, now in possession of Truth, is building a statue to show people Truth. When he unveils the statue, the congregation is horrified to find out that Truth is the figure of a nude woman and cannot accept the "nakedness of Truth." Some are angered by this image, some laugh, and only a few see the beauty of Truth (remember the two women who followed Gabriel in the dreamlike sequence?). Gabriel is then chased and murdered by the angry mob. When the mob returns to the statue, it begins to disappear and this frightens the congregation. We also see the two women dressed in black, mourning the death of Gabriel. This scene is clearly a symbol of Christ's crucifixion. Gabriel brings his people Truth, and they reject him and kill him.

We next see what is perhaps the ghost of Gabriel being taken by Truth to the different people of the modern day congregation. Some of these people appear to be doing good for their community, but Truth holds up a mirror and Gabriel is able to see their true, devious motives or how they suffer without Truth. Gabriel is saddened by what he sees in Truth's mirror. We then see that the contemporary Gabriel has passed away in his sleep, perhaps out of despair. He has tried to show people Truth, but they are either angered by him, ignore him, or think the path to Truth is too hard.