A broadway actress uses her sex appeal to ruin a marriage only to dump her lover for a richer prospect.A broadway actress uses her sex appeal to ruin a marriage only to dump her lover for a richer prospect.A broadway actress uses her sex appeal to ruin a marriage only to dump her lover for a richer prospect.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn a print ad for this film, it was being billed as "SEX CRUSHED TO EARTH" (Pittsburgh ((Penna.)) Press, 29 August 1920)
- Quotes
Adrienne Renault: You only live once, kid. Grab everything you can get and never feel sorry for anyone but yourself.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Alice Guy - L'inconnue du 7e art (2021)
Featured review
Strong writing, acting, & visuals vs. more common facets
Even by some of the high standards of the silent era, this movie benefited from some outstanding labor behind the scenes. The sets are gorgeous, the costume design is marvelous (especially women's sartorial arrangements), and the hair and makeup work is splendid. Even the intertitles are graced with lovely, detailed illustrations to add flair. Meanwhile, though the narrative covers some familiar silent territory of a free-spirited woman who plays fast and loose with men's hearts, screenwriter C. Gardner Sullivan fills his screenplay with scenes that frankly exceed what one commonly supposes of early cinema and the rigid censorial standards thereof. We get instances of highly flirtatious interactions between the genders (downright scandalous for the time) well beyond what other pictures dared to get away with, or were allowed to, to say nothing of scenes of otherwise raucous behavior befitting what would become known as "the Roaring Twenties" (the thirty-minute "opening scene" of Damien Chazelle's 'Babylon' comes to mind, though far less extreme). It's to the immense credit of Sullivan, filmmaker Fred Niblo, and his cast and crew that everyone was on board with pushing the envelope of what was commonly deemed acceptable in features at the time - and moreover, that 1920's 'Sex' is such an engaging, entertaining film on its own merits.
Yes, the more provocative elements of the title (including its very name) absolutely help it to stand out among its kin, not least when the essence of the plot boils down to a thrust we've seen time and again. Even setting these aside, however, I think 'Sex' is characterized by terrific work across the board that really leaves its mark. Dialogue as conveyed by intertitles is sharp and biting, with some piercing cleverness. The scene writing at large, even less the most willfully defiant cases, is rich and flavorful - concretely building the tableau piece by piece, but also plainly feeling sufficiently open and undefined to allow the actors and director to explore each moment and make it their own. To be sure, Niblo orchestrates shots and scenes with obvious keen intelligence, sagely capturing some excellent fragments in time - including wonderful, carefully considered close-ups - and to that point, cinematographer Charles J. Stumar is surely to be commended as well. Still, maybe I'm just speculating, but maybe even Niblo's direction is pointedly free and welcoming just like the scene writing; I get a sense that the cast, given an opportunity to let go and truly let the characters and situations take over, revel in the freedom that the production grants.
Thus is Louise Glaum able to embody Adrienne with nuanced foundations of conniving and manipulation, but also stark, outward sex appeal and frivolity, belying more complex emotions to come out in time. Peggy Pearce, in the supporting part of Daisy, is just as delightful in portraying the innocent who Adrienne rather takes under her wing, with predictable results; Pearce is arguably even given an equal chance to shine, given Daisy's dramatic character arc. This is hardly to count out supporting players like William Conklin or Irving Cummings, and given relatively little time on-screen, Myrtle Stedman makes a big impression as beleaguered Mrs. Overman. Not to discount Niblo's expert, delicate guiding hand, but the cast really lean into their roles in the storytelling, and from one to the next all contribute superbly to the weaving of a tale of love, lust, and betrayal. I'd even go so far as to say that the acting is typified by more subtlety and natural comportment than what was often true of the silent era, where exaggerated facial expressions and body language tended to reign supreme (especially in the earliest years).
Despite its most uninhibited dalliances, 'Sex' isn't entirely free of the issues of its contemporaries. The eventual turnabout is absorbing, and a major part of the joy of the narrative as a viewer, but the picture also employs a trope that's as empty and tiresome as they come. Just as fiction generally is obsessed with the idea that a man and a woman appearing in scenes together must necessarily become romantically entangled (sigh), older movies loved to aggravatingly emphasize that love and marriage change a woman (gag me with a spoon), and alter their mindset and priorities (you're kidding me, right?). As much as Sullivan, Niblo, and the ensemble rejoice in resisting cultural strictures in telling their story, in some small measure they nonetheless voluntarily abide by them in a rather sexist way. Unless: might this have been a concession to let the rest of the tale be told as they saw fit? I also think this is imperfect more broadly; the last stretch of the runtime feels slightly overlong, with weaker writing that kind of limply tapers off. For as strong as 'Sex' is for most of its length, it's strikingly meager in its last few minutes - with a finish that's possibly appropriate for the saga, but weirdly heavy-handed, and less than fully convincing as it's sapped of the robust drama that would let it have all due impact.
Yet though the end result may be a tad flawed, such inelegance is quite outweighed by the considerable value the flick has to offer. Some facets are familiar, but any ordinariness and the more deficient aspects of the storytelling are outshone by those ways in which 'Sex' readily grabs one's attention. With vibrant visuals, vivid acting, and vivacious dialogue and scenes front and center more than not, this rises above its less impeccable traits and stands out from similar fare that may possess the same faults, without the same advantages. With all this said, the film still doesn't achieve such heights as to utterly demand viewership; unless you're an avid cinephile and already a devotee of the silent era, you don't need to go out of your way to see this. If you do happen to come across it, however, then I feel it's a cut above many of its brethren, and well worth checking out even with its weaker bits. 'Sex' may not be a revelation, but it's noteworthy, and a fine slice of early cinema.
Yes, the more provocative elements of the title (including its very name) absolutely help it to stand out among its kin, not least when the essence of the plot boils down to a thrust we've seen time and again. Even setting these aside, however, I think 'Sex' is characterized by terrific work across the board that really leaves its mark. Dialogue as conveyed by intertitles is sharp and biting, with some piercing cleverness. The scene writing at large, even less the most willfully defiant cases, is rich and flavorful - concretely building the tableau piece by piece, but also plainly feeling sufficiently open and undefined to allow the actors and director to explore each moment and make it their own. To be sure, Niblo orchestrates shots and scenes with obvious keen intelligence, sagely capturing some excellent fragments in time - including wonderful, carefully considered close-ups - and to that point, cinematographer Charles J. Stumar is surely to be commended as well. Still, maybe I'm just speculating, but maybe even Niblo's direction is pointedly free and welcoming just like the scene writing; I get a sense that the cast, given an opportunity to let go and truly let the characters and situations take over, revel in the freedom that the production grants.
Thus is Louise Glaum able to embody Adrienne with nuanced foundations of conniving and manipulation, but also stark, outward sex appeal and frivolity, belying more complex emotions to come out in time. Peggy Pearce, in the supporting part of Daisy, is just as delightful in portraying the innocent who Adrienne rather takes under her wing, with predictable results; Pearce is arguably even given an equal chance to shine, given Daisy's dramatic character arc. This is hardly to count out supporting players like William Conklin or Irving Cummings, and given relatively little time on-screen, Myrtle Stedman makes a big impression as beleaguered Mrs. Overman. Not to discount Niblo's expert, delicate guiding hand, but the cast really lean into their roles in the storytelling, and from one to the next all contribute superbly to the weaving of a tale of love, lust, and betrayal. I'd even go so far as to say that the acting is typified by more subtlety and natural comportment than what was often true of the silent era, where exaggerated facial expressions and body language tended to reign supreme (especially in the earliest years).
Despite its most uninhibited dalliances, 'Sex' isn't entirely free of the issues of its contemporaries. The eventual turnabout is absorbing, and a major part of the joy of the narrative as a viewer, but the picture also employs a trope that's as empty and tiresome as they come. Just as fiction generally is obsessed with the idea that a man and a woman appearing in scenes together must necessarily become romantically entangled (sigh), older movies loved to aggravatingly emphasize that love and marriage change a woman (gag me with a spoon), and alter their mindset and priorities (you're kidding me, right?). As much as Sullivan, Niblo, and the ensemble rejoice in resisting cultural strictures in telling their story, in some small measure they nonetheless voluntarily abide by them in a rather sexist way. Unless: might this have been a concession to let the rest of the tale be told as they saw fit? I also think this is imperfect more broadly; the last stretch of the runtime feels slightly overlong, with weaker writing that kind of limply tapers off. For as strong as 'Sex' is for most of its length, it's strikingly meager in its last few minutes - with a finish that's possibly appropriate for the saga, but weirdly heavy-handed, and less than fully convincing as it's sapped of the robust drama that would let it have all due impact.
Yet though the end result may be a tad flawed, such inelegance is quite outweighed by the considerable value the flick has to offer. Some facets are familiar, but any ordinariness and the more deficient aspects of the storytelling are outshone by those ways in which 'Sex' readily grabs one's attention. With vibrant visuals, vivid acting, and vivacious dialogue and scenes front and center more than not, this rises above its less impeccable traits and stands out from similar fare that may possess the same faults, without the same advantages. With all this said, the film still doesn't achieve such heights as to utterly demand viewership; unless you're an avid cinephile and already a devotee of the silent era, you don't need to go out of your way to see this. If you do happen to come across it, however, then I feel it's a cut above many of its brethren, and well worth checking out even with its weaker bits. 'Sex' may not be a revelation, but it's noteworthy, and a fine slice of early cinema.
helpful•10
- I_Ailurophile
- Apr 4, 2023
Details
- Runtime1 hour 27 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content