What Shall We Do with Our Old? (1911) Online

The opening title card of this short drama informs us that it was "founded upon an actual occurrence in New York City." This information has an impact similar to what it might have today, when a movie or TV show is introduced with an announcement that it's based on a true story: all that follows is granted additional weight by our knowledge that what we're seeing, or something close to it, really happened. In the case of this film we feel as if we're watching a police report come to life, one that relates the sort of pathetic, wretched tale one reads about in the news, or hears from friends; a story of inhumane behavior with tragic results, and no happy ending. Where this film is concerned, director D. W. Griffith does the material and the viewer a service by telling the story as plainly and simply as possible. Even if the title cards were removed the story could be followed, but as it stands the text underscores the injustice of the situation with eloquent, understated fury.

Elderly character actor W. Chrystie Miller (a man born in 1843!) plays the central character, a carpenter who is the only provider for his ailing wife. A doctor informs the couple that country life and fresh air is the only cure for her, but they are obviously poor and unable to pick up stakes and travel. It's chilling to read the next title, "At the Shop the New Foreman Weeds Out the Old Hands," and then to watch while a cold-hearted gent with a bushy black mustache does precisely that: he struts about the carpentry shop, singles out each elderly employee, fires him, and puts a younger man in his place. Our protagonist is among those singled out, of course, and he finds that pleading for his job is useless. On the brink of starvation he turns to theft to feed his desperately ill wife, but, like Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean, he is caught and the authorities are unsympathetic to his plight. In this case, however, a sympathetic judge investigates, determines that the old man is telling the truth, and attempts to help him -- but too late, leaving the old man alone, grieving and bitterly angry.

Many of Griffith's early works at Biograph champion the cause of the working poor, but seldom with the white hot indignation he and his crew display here. The fact that What Shall We Do with Our Old? was based on a true story undoubtedly boosted everyone's efforts, and it's all the more impressive that the approach is so restrained, given the period. Miller is excellent in the lead role, and most of the other performances are low-key and restrained. As for the writing, Miller's moving performance in the finale is complemented by the memorable wording of the final title card: "Nothing for the Useful Citizen Wounded in the Battle of Life."

This short drama makes its point rather well despite working under the cinematic limitations of the time. While it may seem a little melodramatic, it would likely have been completely believable in 1911, and the general concerns of the elderly probably have not changed all that much despite the existence of more government programs than they had in Griffith's time. There is also a title card stating that the story was based on actual occurrences.

The lead character is an aging carpenter who is suddenly faced with some serious problems, and the actor portraying him does a good job. It also has a pretty effective final shot that you might remember for a while.

In What Shall We Do with Our Old? we can see Griffith grasping towards a perfect expression of poignancy in his short features. Here, his approach is all about subtlety and simplicity.

The fact that the story can be conveyed through just a handful of intertitles allows for more realistic and emotional acting. In many early silent pictures (Griffith's included) half the performance was about revealing plot or character through ridiculous pantomime. Here, there is no need for that, and the acting is much more purely about conveying mood and tone, with the slow, sombre movements of the elderly couple. Later on, the bustle of the courtroom and the prison cell give a more frantic feel. By now a brilliant master of pace, Griffith slows things down again for the final scene.

Griffith's shot composition was also becoming increasingly refined. He arranges extras in lines that draw the audience's attention to particular points of action. It's also great how the even the set design matches the pace of each scene – the home is bare and Spartan, the workshop, courtroom and prison cell are full and layered.

Being a kind of social protest piece, What Shall We Do with Our Old is in a similar vein to 1909's A Corner in Wheat. However, while Griffith has clearly moved on in his direction and arrangement of actors, it lacks the dynamism of the earlier film. It's a shame, because having more fully rounded characters (as opposed to A Corner in Wheat's faceless crowds) it should have a greater impact. Having said that, with several scenes apparently lost it is difficult to judge what we are left with.

At home, old carpenter W. Chrystie Miller's wife Claire McDowell is in failing health. At work, Mr. Miller finds himself pushed aside for younger, more agile, hands. Fired, the aged Miller finds it impossible to find a new job. When his money runs out, Miller is unable to support his ill, starving wife; desperate, he turns to crime.

Director D.W. Griffith uses film to ask the legitimate social question, "What Shall We Do with Our Old?" Miller is fine as the man whose crime was getting old. McDowell was not old, but suggests it with some success. The always great Biograph team is highlighted by Donald Crisp, performing very well in court; he is the expressive bailiff in the foreground, to the left of your screen. Mr. Crisp is clear; the conclusion is not so much.

**** What Shall We Do with Our Old? (2/13/11) D.W. Griffith ~ W. Chrystie Miller, Claire McDowell, Donald Crisp

It would be well if all those state legislatures which are struggling with the question of old age pensions could see this picture. It tells the story of the neglect and cold-hearted indifference with which the aged worker is treated more graphically than could be put in words. The old carpenter's lot is not exaggerated, nor, indeed, is it a single instance. Quite the contrary. It is the common experience of those unfortunate enough to arrive at old age without sufficient savings to carry them through to the end. A realization of what is here illustrated has caused England to pass an old age pension law which distributes $30,000,000 annually to the aged men and women who have borne the heat and burden of the day and now require assistance. This picture should be shown from one end of the land to the other. Its graphic story should be told to the million that they may understand what actually occurs over and over again. This film needs no criticism. It is too near the truth for that. It tells its own story and it brings to mind numerous similar instances within the limited range of every individual. - The Moving Picture World, February 25, 1911

Considering that this was not among D.W. Griffith's earliest works, the style of storytelling is surprisingly old fashioned--even for 1911. So while the idea is very good, the execution leaves a bit to be desired.

The film is about an older couple. The man is fired from his job simply because he is old--which was, unfortunately, quite legal at the time. With no other prospects, he and his wife starve until the man is forced by circumstances to steal food. In the end, however, it ends in tragedy.

Griffith made quite a few films about social reform and this was an important message that probably worked pretty well at the time. However, instead of letting the actors demonstrate what is happening, too many intertitle cards are used--describing the action before you even see it--thus making the performances somewhat unnecessary--and blunting the overall effect. Still, purely from a historical and social point of view, a film worth seeing.

D.W. Griffith's first film, 'Those Awful Hats (1909),' was designed as a comical public service announcement of sorts. A few years later, the director continued to perform public services, but the complexity of his work had evolved exponentially. Much like 'A Corner in Wheat (1909),' he is here using cinema to make a profound social statement, this particular issue highlighted in the film's title: 'What Shall We Do With Our Old? (1911).' After an aging carpenter (W. Chrystie Miller) is fired from his job to make room for young workers, he is unable to find another job, leaving him, penniless, to care for his ailing wife (Claire McDowell). In order to survive, the carpenter reluctantly turns to crime, but is arrested and brought before a kindly, sympathetic judge (George Nichols). Despite the judge's understanding, it is too late for this elderly couple to be rescued from abject poverty: the wife succumbs to her illness, and the carpenter is left grieve his losses and ponder his lonely predicament.

'A Corner in Wheat' ends with an image of hope. 'What Shall We Do With Our Old?' concludes with an image of despair, a pertinent social problem without any known solution. Griffith doesn't even attempt to propose any sort of resolution, which does admittedly come off as rather hypocritical – it is, after all, one thing to merely acknowledge a problem, and another to try and fix it. But the film is given emotional depth through an opening title that informs us that the story was "founded upon an actual occurrence in New York City," assuring Griffith's undeniable social relevance. Miller is very good in the main role, showing strong emotions in response to his character's hardship. Nichols, as the judge, also does well, playing the sort of sympathetic authority-figure role that Frank Capra might later have set aside for Harry Carey or Harry Davenport. McDowell, as the carpenter's sick wife, is adequate, but quite obviously far younger – 34 years old – than she was supposed to appear.