Flesh and Blood is one of Lon Chaney's lesser pictures despite the fact that he gives a very good performance in it. Flesh and Blood is all about the acting and nothing else. It's acting is superb and not just from Lon Chaney as Daniel Webster but we also get a truly exceptional performance from Edith Roberts as his daughter Marjorie.
Chaney is a rarity among actors, as he could take a mediocre or down right bad script and salvage the film and make it the least bit watchable with a great performance. Flesh and Blood doesn't offer anything shocking or truly moving but it does allow Chaney to create an interesting character under circumstances we hadn't seen him in before. Daniel Webster is something that Chaney hardly ever got to play, a regular decent working man. You didn't get to see Chaney play this type of character often, he largely played oddities or people who lived in extraordinary worlds with bizarre plots. Dan Webster is all too human and he is forced to combat the strange in his quest for revenge. Is it really revenge though? That is the question the movie seems to be asking. Webster is wrongfully convicted of a crime he didn't commit, unfortunately we never find out what the crime was or the severity of it. Not knowing this crime really weakens the plot significantly. We assume it's something horrible as Webster's name is now regarded with infamy in the neighborhoods and the actual criminal Fletcher Burton has risen to great power and prestige. Surely he is entitled to his revenge but when he goes to get it, he doesn't want personal gratification. Webster's reasoning for revenge actually are credible, it is to let his family and his name be cleared. I all most expected Webster to walk in with a knife ready to kill Burton but no, he wants him to sign a confession detailing the crime. Maybe Webster didn't go crazy enough and for the sake of Chaney's performance, it's the way I like it. In the long run the narrative severely suffers from having the character conclude his grand revenge scheme in this way but I liked seeing Chaney portray this type of character. He evokes sympathy and shows that without his make-up he was truly exceptional. The fake cripple piece isn't really needed but it does offer a religious quality when Webster goes to see Marjorie at her community building.
The flaws with Flesh and Blood lie in it's direction, it's unimaginative scope and it's script. I actually liked the inter titles as they were cleverly spliced with images dealing with the themes of the story but then we are brought back to a very bland world. The sets for Chinatown are impressive but they don't do anything with them. It is as if Irving Cummings left it to the actors and the actors alone to establish mood. When you compare his work in Flesh and Blood to that of a Tod Browning/Lon Chaney collaboration you see that Lon was complimented by his director, Irving leaves Lon hanging. Chaney needed direction and luckily he knew this character well because I really think that if this pair was used in another film, Lon would have overacted and chewed the scenery.
Chaney is a rarity among actors, as he could take a mediocre or down right bad script and salvage the film and make it the least bit watchable with a great performance. Flesh and Blood doesn't offer anything shocking or truly moving but it does allow Chaney to create an interesting character under circumstances we hadn't seen him in before. Daniel Webster is something that Chaney hardly ever got to play, a regular decent working man. You didn't get to see Chaney play this type of character often, he largely played oddities or people who lived in extraordinary worlds with bizarre plots. Dan Webster is all too human and he is forced to combat the strange in his quest for revenge. Is it really revenge though? That is the question the movie seems to be asking. Webster is wrongfully convicted of a crime he didn't commit, unfortunately we never find out what the crime was or the severity of it. Not knowing this crime really weakens the plot significantly. We assume it's something horrible as Webster's name is now regarded with infamy in the neighborhoods and the actual criminal Fletcher Burton has risen to great power and prestige. Surely he is entitled to his revenge but when he goes to get it, he doesn't want personal gratification. Webster's reasoning for revenge actually are credible, it is to let his family and his name be cleared. I all most expected Webster to walk in with a knife ready to kill Burton but no, he wants him to sign a confession detailing the crime. Maybe Webster didn't go crazy enough and for the sake of Chaney's performance, it's the way I like it. In the long run the narrative severely suffers from having the character conclude his grand revenge scheme in this way but I liked seeing Chaney portray this type of character. He evokes sympathy and shows that without his make-up he was truly exceptional. The fake cripple piece isn't really needed but it does offer a religious quality when Webster goes to see Marjorie at her community building.
The flaws with Flesh and Blood lie in it's direction, it's unimaginative scope and it's script. I actually liked the inter titles as they were cleverly spliced with images dealing with the themes of the story but then we are brought back to a very bland world. The sets for Chinatown are impressive but they don't do anything with them. It is as if Irving Cummings left it to the actors and the actors alone to establish mood. When you compare his work in Flesh and Blood to that of a Tod Browning/Lon Chaney collaboration you see that Lon was complimented by his director, Irving leaves Lon hanging. Chaney needed direction and luckily he knew this character well because I really think that if this pair was used in another film, Lon would have overacted and chewed the scenery.