Some silent films are more adept than others at churning out a pace and plot progression that are smooth and natural despite the use of intertitles. In less successful instances, a picture may come across as little more than a tale of the written word in which some scenes are produced visually to add flourish. To some degree I think 'Love's prisoner' struggles to find balance for much of the length, or the fluidity that would make it more engaging and endear the feature to more viewers. Still, despite that difficulty, and the simplicity of the tale at hand, overall I think the title is an alright watch, suitably compelling.
Perhaps more so than in other pictures of the era, I feel like the cast is somewhat constrained by the structure of the film that cuts frequently between shots and scenes, or to intertitles. One can only inject so much personality into captured footage that lasts for seconds at a time, and it's thusly hard to assess performances on the same basis. For what it's worth, I think the assembled actors illustrate as much skill as they can in the space they are allotted, with displays characterized by practiced physicality, and nuanced range and personality. That most notably goes for Olive Thomas, starring in the lead role as Nancy. If her portrayal (or others') seems less expansive and impressive, I think that's owed to the limitations of the movie more than anything else, but all do their part to bring the story to life.
Of greater interest to me, in most any film, is the writing; the most finely produced barn-burner means little if the story doesn't hold up. In 'Love's prisoner' at large, I think scenes are written and executed well, capably assembling the tableau piece by piece. Characters, meanwhile, seem like little more than set pieces, and it's to the credit of the cast that they infuse some liveliness into their parts. The narrative writing is more tricky, as I think it's interesting enough and well considered in the broad strokes, but is less solid in the details from moment to moment. I appreciate that one key plot point is withheld as a secret to be revealed late in the length, when it would have the most impact - but indelicate editing and sequencing means that it feels shoehorned in. Yet this is small and forgivable compared to the shortcuts that seem to be taken in the storytelling as it presents to us, abbreviations heightened by the arguable overuse of intertitles. Most dire of all - after a series of scenes relating the indicated reveal, the film ends very abruptly and unsatisfactorily with a block of text imparting a wealth of plot, at least five story beats by my accounting, before "The end" immediately graces our vision. Did cuts by censors chop up the narrative so badly that such an approach was necessary? Did screenwriter E. Magnus Ingleton just have a bit of writer's block, unable to conjure suitable connective threads to tie the picture together?
Whatever the case may be, it's unfortunate that some material seems omitted in completing the saga, and other bits inelegantly skipped over. All the more regrettable because there is also some unexpectedly progressive (for the early 20th century) commentary and themes about the unjust pipeline linking poverty and criminality. If briefly, 'Love's prisoner' further broaches the lack of means by which an impoverished individual may uplift themselves and change their circumstances, and the stigma and presumption of guilt for those who have a sordid past. There were some grand ideas in the screenplay, and the story shows promise, but the rendition is simply too heavy-handed in its making to come off as more than a partial success.
For all that, despite the shortcomings, I think the film is one worth watching. It marks a time early in cinematic history, helping to delineate the progression of the medium from its earliest days. And, critically, it's one of the few surviving pictures of lead Olive Thomas, who among her co-stars does the most to capture our imagination here. There is value in 'Love's prisoner' - but you don't need to go out of your way to find it, and I think one must mind the humble origins in watching.
Not altogether bad - just leaves a tad too much to be wanting.
