This story is about two things--the suffrage movement and nasty boss politics in a big city. As a retired history teacher, this sort of silent film is right up my alley. After all, it stars a bunch of suffragettes and talks about their plight in trying to earn the right to vote. However, this aspect is muddled with a plot involving crooked politics and really misses the mark. For those who are NOT into history, the film will no doubt be a real chore to watch, as the film isn't very good--even for 1913. The problems are many but include some horrible over-acting (such as the guy peeping in the keyhole), intertitle cards that don't really fit the emotions being over-emoted on the screen and a print that is often washed out and in need of restoration. Overall, a chore to watch for most and its message about women's rights is a bit muddled as well. Rather limp.
5 Reviews
Worthy of History, But Not as a Film
Cineanalyst14 October 2009
This is a very old film that in particular calls to attention the difference in such relics having historical value and in whether they have value as art and entertainment--whether it's worthy as a film. In addition to being an early feature-length motion picture, "What Eighty Million Women Want" also features rare footage of leading women's suffragists Harriot Stanton Blatch and Emmeline Pankhurst and staged scenes that give a good visual indication of some of the organization behind the movement for women's right to vote in the US, which can be valuable to historians and documentary filmmakers. Otherwise, as a film, this one is not worthy.
Its message of universal suffrage is wrapped into a thin, yet convoluted, narrative involving a suffragist and her boyfriend lawyer, who is initially at odds with the movement and becomes involved with the corrupt, politically powerful boss, who is completely antagonistic to women's voting rights. The suffragist even does some amateur detective work in the later part of the film, which seems incongruous with the rest of the narrative; by suddenly shifting to this other formulaic genre, I suppose they also wanted to show that women are clever and capable. A similar subplot worked better in another 1913 long film, "Traffic in Souls". Furthermore, the filming here was rather inept, with many title cards, broad gestures by the performers, and fixed camera positions. In short, this film isn't worth seeking unless you're interested in the history.
On a historical note, although women didn't receive voting rights equal to men until the decade after this film in either the US or the UK, the motion picture industry was often quite the promoter of gender equality. Alice Guy was head of production at Gaumont in France for years, from as early as 1896; a few years after this film, Lois Weber would be one of the highest paid and most interesting directors in America; and, especially, many of the top screenwriters and editors during the silent era were women. That's not even to mention the power female stars had in the business, which included some of them founding their own companies.
(Note: The print and transfer I viewed was in very poor shape, including a generally faded picture quality (some title cards/letters were illegible or nearly so as a result) and frequent jittering of the frame. There was even a credits title at the beginning that was from another film. After a bit of searching on IMDb, I found that it was for the 1926 film "The Fire Brigade". I've no idea how it got there.)
Its message of universal suffrage is wrapped into a thin, yet convoluted, narrative involving a suffragist and her boyfriend lawyer, who is initially at odds with the movement and becomes involved with the corrupt, politically powerful boss, who is completely antagonistic to women's voting rights. The suffragist even does some amateur detective work in the later part of the film, which seems incongruous with the rest of the narrative; by suddenly shifting to this other formulaic genre, I suppose they also wanted to show that women are clever and capable. A similar subplot worked better in another 1913 long film, "Traffic in Souls". Furthermore, the filming here was rather inept, with many title cards, broad gestures by the performers, and fixed camera positions. In short, this film isn't worth seeking unless you're interested in the history.
On a historical note, although women didn't receive voting rights equal to men until the decade after this film in either the US or the UK, the motion picture industry was often quite the promoter of gender equality. Alice Guy was head of production at Gaumont in France for years, from as early as 1896; a few years after this film, Lois Weber would be one of the highest paid and most interesting directors in America; and, especially, many of the top screenwriters and editors during the silent era were women. That's not even to mention the power female stars had in the business, which included some of them founding their own companies.
(Note: The print and transfer I viewed was in very poor shape, including a generally faded picture quality (some title cards/letters were illegible or nearly so as a result) and frequent jittering of the frame. There was even a credits title at the beginning that was from another film. After a bit of searching on IMDb, I found that it was for the 1926 film "The Fire Brigade". I've no idea how it got there.)
Take Heart for Mrs. Pankhurst Has Been Clapped in Irons Again!
boblipton16 June 2006
That line, from a song in MARY POPPINS is probably all most people know about Mrs. Pankhurst, a leading suffragette in this period. This early early feature shows her and Harriet Stanton Blatch, also a leader in the movement. But other than that it it is a thinly told story fronting for a plea for women's vote: give them the vote and corrupt union bosses like this movie's Boss John Kelly will be out on their ears.
Well, I'm sure it pleased the faithful, but I doubt it converted anyone to the Cause. The movie suffers from a number of defects. We are never shown the Boss doing anything in the least despicable and the movie turns into largely a series of illustrated title cards with some decent, if overplayed acting.
Director Will Louis, if he is remembered at all, is remembered for directing a young Oliver Hardy in a series of repertory comedies for Vim in Florida. His directorial abilities remained rudimentary through the end of his career, three years later. This movie is interesting solely for a chance to look at movies of Mrs. Pankhurst.
Well, I'm sure it pleased the faithful, but I doubt it converted anyone to the Cause. The movie suffers from a number of defects. We are never shown the Boss doing anything in the least despicable and the movie turns into largely a series of illustrated title cards with some decent, if overplayed acting.
Director Will Louis, if he is remembered at all, is remembered for directing a young Oliver Hardy in a series of repertory comedies for Vim in Florida. His directorial abilities remained rudimentary through the end of his career, three years later. This movie is interesting solely for a chance to look at movies of Mrs. Pankhurst.
What makes a film important?
kekseksa10 January 2018
For a start this film is not "a relic". It is quite simply a film made in 1913 and not the "even for 1913" 1913 of people's imagination but the same 1913 that saw the appearance of such excellent films as Louis Feuillade's Fantômas, Albert Capellani's Germinal, Léonce Perret's Les Dents de fer, Georges Méliès' À la conquête du Pôle, Joseph Delmot's Das Recht aufs Dasein, Stellan Rye's Der Student von Prag, Max Mack's Der Andere, Carl Froehlich's Richard Wagner, August Blom' Atlantis, Enrico Guazzoni's Quo Vadis?, Mario Caserini's The Last Days of Pompeii, Marcel Fabre's Le Avventure Straordinarissime Di Saturnino Farandola, Yevgeny Bauer's Twilight of a Woman's Soul, Victor Sjöström's Ingeborg Holm. It was certainly a rather thin year for US films, Lois Weber's Suspense and D. W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia being perhaps the best of head bunch. One regrets very much, however, that Thomas Ince's The Battle Gettysburg is still a lost film. If you've watched them and don't like any of them, fair enough but sad for you. BUT If you haven't seen these films or very few of them, never mind. No one can watch everything. But please, please stop saying "even for 1913" as though you knew what you were talking about!!!!!
In any year, there are good films and bad films and films that are somewhere in between. It is true in 2013 and it will b just as true in 2023 if the world survives till then. This film, made by a small company for a specific political purpose, is quite evidently not a very good film.
Historically it is, however, of some importance. Although it is true, as onother reviewer points out, that there were many women active in a variety of roles in the world of cinema, they were rarely accorded the same status or recognition as the men who ruled the roost. The great majority of films that treated the subject of feminism were mocking or antagonistic.
1913 was an extremely significant year in the history both of feminism and of the suffrage movement in particular. It was marked, especially in Britain, by parades and protests, increasingly violent, and hunger-strikes and was of course the year in which Emily Davison threw herself under the King's horse at the Epsom Derby. Hence the importance of the appearance in the film of the British suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst, then on tour in the US, whose name may only recall Mary Poppins for people in the US but who is perfectly well remembered in Britain (and I would have thought anywhere in the world where there is a decent education system).
It was also a year notable for the attacks on feminism (Ernest Bax's The Fraud of Feminism) and in the US, the New York anti-suffrage movement was at the apogee of its power and influence. So the appearance of a film explicit;y in favour of women's suffrage is not an insignificant matter.
Although the linkage here with Tammany Hall politics many seem to confuse issues, the two issues were linked in people's minds since the reformists favoured by the progressives and the feminists were increasingly finding themselves blocked or even excluded by the hostile city "bosses". This was after all the reign of Charles Francis "Silent Charlie" Murphy ("Boss Murphy") in New York on whom the equivalent character in the film is presumably based.
In terms of film history, this film is also part of a minor but interesting genre of such politicised docufictions. The anti-white slavery films of the same year (Universal's Traffic in Souls and Frank Beal's The Inside of the White Slave Traffic(, neither of them particularly "good" films, belong in some ways to the same genre and again the subjects are linked. Even prominent male campaigners against prostitution rackets like George B. Roe or socialist Reginald Wright Kauffman were also strong proponents of women's suffrage, Roe for instance believing that it was the only way to bring about necessary changes in the law. Many feminists (then as now) believed the prostitution issue to be a crucial one and these films (particularly the more politically conscious Beal film) received considerable support from reformists and feminists.
Another hero of the progressives, Judge Ben Lindsey, reformist Denver jurist and pioneer of the juvenile court system, found himself starring in similar docufictions - Saved by the Juvenile Court (1913) and The Soul of Youth (1920) and again the support for Lindsey and for reform was linked with the battle against city bosses. An extract from Saved by the Juvenile Court, another fairly tacky film produced by a very small company (Columbine) was even released as The Kid's Judge in support of Lindsey's contested campaign for re-election.
In the appreciation of films of this or any other era, it is important not to patronise the past and recognise the obvious fact that both good and bad films were made but it is also important to realise that the history of cinema is an integral part of the history of its time and that the importance of films, both to that history and to the specific history of cinema itself, is more than a simple aesthetic judgment of their quality "as films" (whatever that may mean).
In any year, there are good films and bad films and films that are somewhere in between. It is true in 2013 and it will b just as true in 2023 if the world survives till then. This film, made by a small company for a specific political purpose, is quite evidently not a very good film.
Historically it is, however, of some importance. Although it is true, as onother reviewer points out, that there were many women active in a variety of roles in the world of cinema, they were rarely accorded the same status or recognition as the men who ruled the roost. The great majority of films that treated the subject of feminism were mocking or antagonistic.
1913 was an extremely significant year in the history both of feminism and of the suffrage movement in particular. It was marked, especially in Britain, by parades and protests, increasingly violent, and hunger-strikes and was of course the year in which Emily Davison threw herself under the King's horse at the Epsom Derby. Hence the importance of the appearance in the film of the British suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst, then on tour in the US, whose name may only recall Mary Poppins for people in the US but who is perfectly well remembered in Britain (and I would have thought anywhere in the world where there is a decent education system).
It was also a year notable for the attacks on feminism (Ernest Bax's The Fraud of Feminism) and in the US, the New York anti-suffrage movement was at the apogee of its power and influence. So the appearance of a film explicit;y in favour of women's suffrage is not an insignificant matter.
Although the linkage here with Tammany Hall politics many seem to confuse issues, the two issues were linked in people's minds since the reformists favoured by the progressives and the feminists were increasingly finding themselves blocked or even excluded by the hostile city "bosses". This was after all the reign of Charles Francis "Silent Charlie" Murphy ("Boss Murphy") in New York on whom the equivalent character in the film is presumably based.
In terms of film history, this film is also part of a minor but interesting genre of such politicised docufictions. The anti-white slavery films of the same year (Universal's Traffic in Souls and Frank Beal's The Inside of the White Slave Traffic(, neither of them particularly "good" films, belong in some ways to the same genre and again the subjects are linked. Even prominent male campaigners against prostitution rackets like George B. Roe or socialist Reginald Wright Kauffman were also strong proponents of women's suffrage, Roe for instance believing that it was the only way to bring about necessary changes in the law. Many feminists (then as now) believed the prostitution issue to be a crucial one and these films (particularly the more politically conscious Beal film) received considerable support from reformists and feminists.
Another hero of the progressives, Judge Ben Lindsey, reformist Denver jurist and pioneer of the juvenile court system, found himself starring in similar docufictions - Saved by the Juvenile Court (1913) and The Soul of Youth (1920) and again the support for Lindsey and for reform was linked with the battle against city bosses. An extract from Saved by the Juvenile Court, another fairly tacky film produced by a very small company (Columbine) was even released as The Kid's Judge in support of Lindsey's contested campaign for re-election.
In the appreciation of films of this or any other era, it is important not to patronise the past and recognise the obvious fact that both good and bad films were made but it is also important to realise that the history of cinema is an integral part of the history of its time and that the importance of films, both to that history and to the specific history of cinema itself, is more than a simple aesthetic judgment of their quality "as films" (whatever that may mean).
Fascinating account of women's suffrage
substancemedia4 November 2005
This is not a sensational, "window smashing, bomb throwing" picture, but a real political drama, showing the suffrage cause in its true light and as the leaders wished it presented to the public. It features Emmeline Pankhurst, great militant suffragist and leader of the English Forces. Harriet Stanton Blatch, President of the Women's Union, New York City, and her co- workers for the "cause" have all taken an active part in the presentation of their work to gain political equality.
A campaign film for the "Votes of Women" movement which surveys everything which is wrong with society and which guarantees the elimination of all social evils if women are granted the right to vote.
The political boss, his control over the courts, and the necessity for a young lawyer to follow his dictates are clearly shown. You see the way that elections are won by fraud, the packing of the ballot boxes, and the registering of "repeaters."
A rather slight story background shows a young lawyer who does not see the justice of the campaign and tells of his sweetheart who works with Emmeline Pankhurst and other leaders of the cause.
An intriguing story of love, intrigue and clever detective work, in which the power of a modern political boss is challenged by the "fair suffragette," and after a hard fight, in which her lover is involved, she succeeds in defeating the political gang. This is a picture with punch that although filmed in 1913 still leaves a big impression.
A campaign film for the "Votes of Women" movement which surveys everything which is wrong with society and which guarantees the elimination of all social evils if women are granted the right to vote.
The political boss, his control over the courts, and the necessity for a young lawyer to follow his dictates are clearly shown. You see the way that elections are won by fraud, the packing of the ballot boxes, and the registering of "repeaters."
A rather slight story background shows a young lawyer who does not see the justice of the campaign and tells of his sweetheart who works with Emmeline Pankhurst and other leaders of the cause.
An intriguing story of love, intrigue and clever detective work, in which the power of a modern political boss is challenged by the "fair suffragette," and after a hard fight, in which her lover is involved, she succeeds in defeating the political gang. This is a picture with punch that although filmed in 1913 still leaves a big impression.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
