
On the macro level, Tourneur’s THE WHIP seems to survive (on YouTube, anyway) in a slightly mangled and ineffective form. On the micro level, within individual scenes, it certainly has effective stuff.
A Bunuelian moment (avant la letter): Baron Sartoris shaves, looking out the window at the object of his mercenary intentions and her beau. An iris effect singles out his POV — this seems like an intelligent use of vignetting, which is often merely decorative. Using it to tell the audience when we’re watching through a human eye (which is round) as opposed to through a camera (boxy) makes sense, even if movies could ultimately dispense with this shorthand. And having the watcher wield a razor as he spies adds a sinister feeling.



Since the action revolves around a stables, Tourneur throws in a fox hunt. The intertitle saves us any unnecessarily visceral imagery —

And this seems to still relate somehow to the malevolent scheming of Baron Sartoris.
I’ve previously observed that the film seems to be missing explanatory titles. Here comes evidence that it’s missing whole scenes, as Sartoris apologises to hero Brancaster for a loss of temper which we haven’t ever seen.


I begin to wonder if this film isn’t going to cut off dead in mid-climax and leave me panting. Hopefully not.
Sartoris has jiggered Brancaster’s flivver — some business with the brakes — and Tourneur gives us the 1917 version of an action climax. This consists of wide shots of the car on the road intercut with subliminal-quick shots of feet on brakes, hand on hand-brake. But without any close shots of the people in the car it’s not very emotional. One can see why those shots would be hard to achieve in 1917, though I can imagine ways to make them possible without too much engineering. But this kind of sequence is a new challenge for the filmmaker, distinct from the Griffithian chase, and it’s understandable that the required grammar hasn’t been grasped yet. Of course it’s also possible that Tourneur shots a bunch of anxious reaction shots and they’ve gone astray sometime in the last 107 years, along with Sartoris’ rudeness and his introductory title.
The crash at the end is really interesting — the car stops on a dime and rolls over sideways, indefiance of the laws of physics. The movement is both herky and jerky, resulting either from extreme undercranking or stop motion animation. If the former, it’s impressive that they’ve managed to flip the flivver over without visible wirework; if the latter, it’s impressive full stop.
Watching it frame-by-frame, I’m still uncertain but I think the occupants may be dolls. If they’re real humanoids I find it hard to see how Tourneur could avoid mangling them, but then I’m not certain old Maurice wouldn’t regard the mangling of humanoids to be all in a day’s enjoyable work.
A jump cut sets the wreck on fire and suddenly it’s night-for-night. During the drive, it looked like day-for-night for precisely one shot, where Tourneur wisely framed out the sky and turned the headlamps on. The rest of the time he’s depended on blue tinting, I suspect, which hasn’t been passed down to us. But he knows he’ll get a better night effect by shooting the blaze after sundown.


The next morning, Sartoris and his accomplice (who is she?) listen for news of the calamity, and I’ll end on a lovely bit of classic Tourneur shadowplay — we see the eavesdroppers, skulking, and a main rushing with the report of the tragedy, but in that shot we also get the Baron’s profile cast in outline against the wall. Really nice. Tourneur’s mind is far more focussed than any of his contemporaries on the expressive possibilities of the image.
TO BE CONTINUED…








