The Salvation Hunters (1925) User Reviews

THE SALVATION HUNTERS (Josef von Sternberg, 1925) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 5 March 2011]

One of Hollywood's most famously uncompromising directorial debuts, this immediately put Sternberg on the map; while his pictorial sense was thus evident from the start, here he had the luxury of real locations whereas he would subsequently meet the challenge of recreating a comparable atmosphere artificially i.e. within the confines of a studio-set.

The copy I acquired came with a brief 'prologue' explaining the film's history and continued relevance: how it was championed by the likes of Charles Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks as a major artistic achievement but lambasted by others much for the same reason, that is to say, the pretentiousness of its approach to an essentially simple – indeed universal – theme (the pursuit of happiness). Still, the latter is punctuated throughout by unsavory but 'realistic' episodes illustrating child beating, incitement to prostitution and the suggestion of partner-swapping! Sternberg's admirably poetic scenario (he also personally operated the camera during the shoot), however, betrays this constant striving for meaning at the get-go – by stating that the principal intention behind the film was not to present a typical situation but rather to "photograph a thought"! The overall effect, then, is one of keen observation relentlessly undermined by a naïve outlook (while also dramatically thin at just 60 minutes, it does incorporate a skittish fantasy depicting the protagonists enjoying the full extent of their craved-for prosperity).

The narrative takes our three protagonists (remaining nameless throughout, they symbolize Hope for all the malaises of Modern Society) from the muddy river banks, with its industrious but merciless machinery, to the no-less despairing harshness – governed by poverty and unemployment – in a boarding-house when the make-shift family moves to town and, finally, a stretch of open country (about to be obliterated by real estate wheeler-dealers) whose intrinsically idyllic nature does not however preclude a sudden eruption into violence. This scenery progression charts the key players' gradual transformation from so-called "Children Of The Mud" to those of The Sun (complete with Chaplinesque into-the-twilight fadeout!). Incidentally, the heroine of this one – Georgia Hale – would go on to star alongside "The Little Tramp" in THE GOLD RUSH (1925). She gives a strong, yet very naturalistic, performance here; leading man George K. Arthur is pretty bland in comparison – nonetheless, he set up the picture with his own money and, returning to his native country of Britain years later, would produce such classic and award-winning shorts as THE STRANGER LEFT NO CARD (1952) and THE BESPOKE OVERCOAT (1956)! As for Sternberg, he would himself be asked to direct a film for Chaplin (as a vehicle for his fading leading lady Edna Purviance): the result was A WOMAN OF THE SEA but, apparently unsatisfied, the producer pulled it from release after just one screening in 1926 and eventually had it destroyed (to either recover the losses or avoid paying taxes on the negative – depending on the sources)!

Promising First Attempt

[cstotlar-1 · 7/10 · 18 September 2014]

I caught this on YouTube of all places and the copy was quite decent, with an appropriate musical score on a theater organ to accompany it. The inter-titles in the beginning set the tone - incorrectly - of a pretentious talk-a-thon but soon the images took over and Sternberg was able to show the world just how wonderfully talented he was with his camera. The enormous dredge seen throughout the beginning made a powerful statement. Its very size dwarfed the players and its angles provided an abstract geometry not seen in many films of the day. The purpose of this huge machine, as we are shown, was to scrape out mud which would subsequently fall back into the depths where it was found - further implying the uselessness of life for the protagonists. This initial feeling and their eventual "escape" to another world was essentially the plot. I enjoyed seeing this very much. It was one of the last films of the director I hadn't seen and I wasn't disappointed.

Sternberg's First Feature Film

[springfieldrental · 7/10 · 21 January 2022]

Josef von Sternberg, in his first effort producing and directing a feature film, made a sort of resume movie demonstrating his cinematic skills. He financed half of the relatively cheap $5,000 production costs, the other half bankrolled by the movie's main actor, George Arthur. The two premiered the film, "The Salvation Hunters," in New York City in February 1925 amid scathing criticism. A subsequent nationwide showing also fell flat.

But as writer Henry Adams noted, it's not the amount of people who see an artist's work; the importance lies with those who have influence to appreciate it. Charlie Chaplin heard of the young Sternberg film and arranged for a private showing to his United Artists Corporation partners, including Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. They loved it, especially Chaplin. It launched the career of one of the most highly regarded directors in cinema, largely known for his composition and lighting techniques in film.

Born in Austria and educated in New York City before dropping out of high school, Jonas Sternberg, who changed his name to Josef at 17 and adding von to give him a little image panache, entered the film world in 1911. As a projectionist handling and cleaning up film stock for movie studios in Fort Lee, New Jersey, he rose up the ranks at the World Film Company as a chief assistant, editor and composer of inter titles. During the Great War he made training films in Washington, D. C.

After the war, he soaked up the European cinematic style in his trips overseas. He worked as an assistant under director Emile Chautard. Sternberg credits Chautard in lending him invaluable lessons on film composition, leaving a huge imprint on his life's work. He continued assisting and editing other American and European productions before he and actor Arthur jumped in to make his debut feature, "The Salvation Hunters."

"I had in mind a visual poem," Sternberg recalled. "Instead of flat lighting, shadows. In the place of pasty masks, faces in relief, plastic and deep-eyed." His lingering shots on his characters reveal a "psychological conflict rather than physical action." The film, lending an "unglamorous realism" onto the screen, is set in a dingy waterfront harbor and the rundown district of the seaside city. A Boy (Arthur) sees a Brute (Olaf Hytten) beat up a little orphaned Child (Bruce Guerin), but is afraid to intercede until a Girl (Georgia Hale) shames him on his inaction. Boy scoops up the Child along with the Girl to walk to the city, where the Boy is confronted with an aggressive Man (Otto Matieson). The Girl sees if the latest confrontation could motivate the Boy to kick some butt.

Chaplin was so captivated by actress Georgia Hale he slotted her into his next feature, 1925's 'The Gold Rush.' The comedian also incorporated the finale of "The Salvation Hunters" by using its 'walk into the sunset' conclusion into a few of his future films.

For the 30-year-old Sternberg, "The Salvation Hunters" was successful for its original purpose. United Artists bought the movie for $20,000, more than recouping the costs for the director and Arthur. More importantly, it opened the door to Sternberg for an eight-film contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer later in the year.

A masterpiece; one of the greatest and most underrated silent films

[lambchopnixon · 10/10 · 22 April 2011]

A brilliant film, which should be ranked alongside the likes of Greed, The Big Parade, The Docks of New York, The Crowd, Sunrise, The General and The Strong Man as amongst the greatest silent films made in America. It won't be though as it is far too uncompromising in approach.

The Salvation Hunters is usually put down with the claim that it is pretentious. No wonder the likes of Charlie Chaplin were amazed by it however. The film is so advanced in conception. There are nonsensical claims that there is no development in the plot. This is one of The Salvation Hunter's great strengths. There is also the claim that the film is naive. But then how much more naive was every other film?

The boy/man, girl and child leave one place of no hope to another where the hope is a trick. There is much waiting around on screen, and the effect is perfect, that of those stuck without hope or belief.

In the town, it is obvious that their 'host' is playing a waiting game. He will wait until their desperation leads them to offer the girl up as a prostitute. The man has to do no more than be in the vicinity as hunger takes its toll. And the waiting that the three endure as there is no hope for them - no job, so they just sit - is put across brilliantly. There is no more elucidation necessary. It is simply that it is not put over in an obvious way. She finally brings a man back even to where the boy/man and boy are as that's all she has, and the boy/man is so weak and cowardly that he can simply be disregarded.

The film is unswerving in its method that he is the dreamer but more than his dreams simply being unrealistic as in The Crowd, he is pathetic. She, on the other hand, sees the world as disgusting and is never proved wrong.

The intertitles complement the (lack of) action perfectly, going deeper than being there to move the plot along. They were dashed off beautifully by von Sternberg though his far more cautious, not to say, prickly, later self would - of course - be embarrassed by them.

This is a wonderfully sophisticated film in it's lack of any need for 'development' or 'resolution'. There is no happy ending, only a possibility of hope, easily missed by anyone needing less in the way of subtlety.

It is unbelievable that psychological truths can be banned by some from films that show ugly circumstances without the frills, in comparison to the likes of Sunrise, in which it is allowed due to looking lovely and employing sophisticated camera-work. And seen as flawed because it's done by a director without money, and must then be bad rather than even more impressive than it already is.

It ends with an extended fight scene. There is nothing glamorous about it. It is simply to show that they can fight back after all. It needs to be brutal and out of control to not be enjoyed as shallow, lowest common denominator entertainment. It is necessarily 'nasty' and powerful because of it.

To the Sun

[drednm · 16 August 2010]

Just watched this film and I'm not sure what to think. There was a sliver of biography preceding the film that talked about George K. Arthur approaching Josef von Sternberg with $6,000 to make a film. They assembled a cast of "unknowns" that included Georgia Hale, Otto Matieson, Bruce Guerin, Nellie Bly Baker.

Von Sternberg fashioned a story about life with the harbor dredge acting as a symbol of life's futility as it gouges up harbor mud even as the shore crumbles back into the sea.

The Boy, The Girl and The Child leave the harbor and go to the city where they are immediately set upon by The Man who tries to press The Girl into prostitution. He already has The Woman in another room, seemingly a prisoner.

After a failed tryst, The Man thinks that maybe a trip to the country will make The Girl more pliable but he has to take everyone along. They stop at a development site that boasts something like DREAMS ARE MADE HERE. When The Child gets in the way of The Man's advances, he starts beating the kid so that The Boy comes to his rescue, finds his own manhood, and trounces the cad. The three walk away into the sunset and "to the sun."

So the whole films acts as a metaphor of man coming out of the primordial ooze with the ultimate goal of going "to the sun."

Not very arty for a von Sternberg film, especially the grimy San Pedro harbor scenes, and despite a few nice close-ups of Georgia Hale, this almost has the look and feel of a documentary but with pretensions.

The bio tells us that Chaplin saw this (Nellie Bly Baker had been his secretary and had appeared in a few of his films) and was impressed. He brought it to Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford who loved it and distributed the film through UA, thus making von Sternberg's career in America.

The question remains: exactly what did these 3 giants see in this film?

No salvation

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 5/10 · 3 December 2009]

"The Salvation Hunters" has some good acting. It has some nicely-composed images. But it has at least two major problems: with the intertitles and with the basic scenario.

It's not that a good film couldn't necessarily have been made on this slender material (three waterside drifters go to town in search of a better life, find it full of poverty and exploitation, exit still skint but having undergone a personal epiphany which will turn their lives around in the future). It's just that the material with which we are presented does not, for me, come anywhere near justifying the claims made for it in the intertitles.

It is all very well to say that the characters' lives have been transformed, but I don't see any development happening on screen; I resent being suddenly told at the end that all is well (with repeated exclamation marks! on every title card!) when all I have seen is a rather nasty beating-up scene. Is this assault -- on a man of whose nefarious intentions the Boy is in fact, so far as I can tell, still more or less ignorant -- really the great transformative factor claimed by the captions?

The irony is that, in spite of the very lengthy shots and wordy intertitles, the precise details of what is happening are not actually particularly clear. One can assume that their host's plans are, in fact, underhand, because we have been shown a shot of him labelling him as a predator; but other than the fact that he is up to no good, it is not very plain exactly what he is up to. Presumably this is not supposed to be important. He wants the Girl, and exactly how his operations are supposed to obtain this is not deemed worthy of elucidation.

(I am not very clear how the Girl expects to be able to prostitute herself successfully by bringing back a client to a room already inhabited by two other people, either -- but as she appears to have changed her mind at the last moment, presumably this was not part of her original plan. And wasn't that client the same man who was plotting something or other with their host? How does he fit in?)

The Girl is perhaps the most interesting character, a convincingly hard-bitten and embittered loner who regards the Boy as a soft fool -- a verdict with which it is hard to disagree: could any dockside labourer really be so naive and moralistic? -- but who demonstrates a tentatively growing bond of companionship towards him and the Child throughout the course of the film... these actual signs of development being what make her into the most interesting character, of course. The other intriguing character, for me, is the woman in the next door room (or has she been evicted in their favour?), 'fallen as low as her stockings', who obviously has a back-story of some kind...

Sternberg apparently produced the intertitles himself: he writes "In my haste, and in the throes of exhaustion, I wrote some things which make me shudder to this day", but the specific title to which he objects -- "Good girls do not smoke" -- although it falls like a dead brick, is not the worst of them by any means. Worse are the tendentious and lengthy announcements backed up by very little plot. (The multiple exclamation marks I found for some reason especially hard to forgive.)

My real objection to the film, however, lay in what I found to be the lack of satisfactory development and resolution for the characters and the scenario itself. There are plot holes (how are these strays with no visible means of support supposed to have been clothing and feeding themselves in their previous life, since they start to starve as soon as the film begins?) but up until the end, I was thinking 'well, this is a bit clumsy, but it has atmosphere and it's not badly acted'. When the film suddenly declared itself at a happy end without having -- apparently -- solved any of the characters' problems, however, my overall estimation of it abruptly fell. The end scene is very close to that of Chaplin's later "Modern Times"; but while for Chaplin the walk into an unknown future and the sunset works, here it really doesn't.

Films like "Sunrise" or "The Crowd" can get away with attempting to represent great philosophical truths, because they are beautiful, heartbreaking, joyous and superbly acted. This film attempts to do it on the cheap through heavy stylisation and hectoring declarations, and in consequence the attempt feels intolerably pretentious. I see no salvation here.

(The period harbour scenes in the background are quite interesting, if you're that way inclined -- I am...)

Pretentious silent drama

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 6 June 2002]

The UCLA archives have a restored print of this film; they seem to have put more effort into it than the original director did.

Josef von Sternberg was an extremely pretentious man (the "von" was an affectation, and in his autobiography he lied about his reasons for using it), but he was also an exceedingly talented director. "The Salvation Hunters" was his directorial debut, filmed on a tiny budget as a showcase for his pictorial talents. Shortly after the formation of United Artists, three of its shareholders - Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford - attended a screening of "The Salvation Hunters" and were impressed enough to bankroll this film for general release. This was during the period when Gilbert Seldes and other highbrow critics were trumpeting Chaplin as an intellectual, so (purely on Chaplin's endorsement) "The Salvation Hunters" got a lot of highbrow attention which it didn't deserve. After the film flopped, Chaplin claimed that he had deliberately praised a bad movie just to fool all the critics. Sure, Charlie.

"The Salvation Hunters" is a SLOW film, very depressing, about a bunch of people who live in shanties in the California mud flats and have almost nothing to eat. There are many, many, MANY shots of a steam-dredger, scooping up gollops of mud, and moving them from one place to another. This is meant to be deeply symbolic of life's utter hopelessness, boo-hoo. In the movie's intertitles, all the characters in this melodrama are given allegorical names: The Boy, The Girl, The Child, The Brute. This practice was fairly common in silent days, but in "The Salvation Hunters" it's worse than usual. Eventually the Boy has to stand up to the Brute. Guess who wins.

George K. Arthur gives a fairish performance as the Boy. The Scottish-born Arthur later attained a measure of stardom in the late silent-film era, notably as one half of a comedy team opposite Karl Dane. When talkies arrived, George K. Arthur's Aberdonian accent limited his range of roles, and he moved into subsidiary parts and production work.

The depiction of poverty in "The Salvation Hunters" is so inept as to be laughable. In one scene, three people attempt to make a dinner out of one stick of chewing-gum! This is the sort of thing that Chaplin lampooned so well in "The Gold Rush". Both of these films have the same leading lady: Georgia Hale. She gives an inert performance in "The Salvation Hunters", but her good looks probably inspired Chaplin to cast her in "The Gold Rush", in which she gave a much better performance. It doesn't help "The Salvation Hunters" that all of the actors look too well-fed to be playing people on the brink of starvation. Otto Matieson acts like a walking statue: maybe he thought he was performing in a "Golem" movie.

Some of the frame compositions in "The Salvation Hunters" are excellent, and the film has some interest as early evidence of von Sternberg's great talent. But this movie is slow, slow, SLOW. I could chop 25 minutes out of this film without losing any of the story. I'll rate 2 points out of 10 for "The Salvation Hunters", mostly for Arthur's performance which shows some evidence of his acting ability.

scrap the intertitling and this is a charming film

[kekseksa · 29 January 2017]

There are many, many silent films where one wishes one had a fuller and/or better copy by which to judge the film. There are however a handful where one wishes one had a less "perfect" copy.

The Informer (1929 version) was for instance made both as a silent film and as part talkie and for a long time the part-talkie version was thought to the lost. Now it has been rediscovered and the silent version seems to have disappeared. It is interesting (historically) to have the part-talkie, but the dubbing of the voices is so atrocious that it completely spoils the films. What one really wants to watch is the silent version.

The same is true for rather different reasons of Sternberg's The Salvation Hunters. If only one had this without the pretentious foreword or any of the intertitles, this would be a very charming little film if not really a masterpiece. But the intertitles (not a single word of which is necessary) are just awful, needlessly underlining the symbolism (and making it therefore seem more irritating than interesting) and written in a style that is absolutely nauseating. So here it would be much better to have an imperfect version which simply retained the images.

In this case one could, with a it of an effort, re-edit oneself but alas it is not possible with The Informer just to turn off the sound because one needs the intertitles that were present in the silent version.

If silent films survived to be re-released during the "sound" era, they were often sadly marred by the addition of sound, colour and unnecessary titling (on the theory presumably that audiences used to sound would lack the necessary concentration required for visual understanding). Some of the worst examples of this are the films of haplin, who seemed incapable of leaving well alone and would add his own overly-sentimental musical compositions and unnecessary (and unfunny) titles (he had absolutely no talent in this regard. It is again a case where the last thing one wants is the director's "final cut".

Sternberg was in many ways a pretentious man (certainly a highly conceited one) but he was not normally pretentious in this manner. He is in fact on record as saying that the use of language was the worst means of communicating and in his best films was an adept of the "unspoken" (Morocco is for me the finest example in that particular respect).

The verbosity in this film is therefore very uncharacteristic and reminds far more of Chaplin (the Chaplin for instance of Limelight). I would not be at all surprised if some day it is discovered that it was Chaplin who advised Sternberg to include so much tiresome verbiage, advice that Sternberg would have had at the time compelling reasons to accept.