DbcultAccessing Vault...
Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
Is Lady of Lions even worth digging up today? Probably not for everyone. If you’re really into silent-era drama, or just curious about how stories were told back then, then _maybe_ this one has a few moments. But if you’re looking for anything resembling modern pacing or subtle performances, you'll likely find it a real chore. It's more of an artifact, honestly, than entertainment for most folks. 🦁
The film centers on Joan McCoy's character, who we see early on has this almost _unnatural_ bond with big cats. Like, she’s just chilling with a full-grown lion, and it doesn't feel totally staged. That's kinda neat, in a weird way. It sets up this whole "wild spirit" thing for her, which the movie keeps coming back to.
You’ve got your classic love triangle brewing. Sumner Getchell plays the earnest, maybe a little stiff, suitor. And then Ann Christy is the other woman, or perhaps the rival, depending on how you read those intense glances. Their interactions are often _so_ dramatic, with lots of hand-wringing. It really makes you think about how acting has changed, or hasn’t, in some ways.
One scene, early on, sticks with me. Joan McCoy’s character is in this rather opulent drawing-room, but her eyes keep drifting to the window. You can almost feel her _longing_ to be somewhere else. It’s a tiny moment, but it speaks volumes about her inner world, much more than some of the title cards do. The scene goes on about 10 seconds longer than it probably needed to, and the silence starts to feel awkward rather than just wistful. 😶
The lion scenes, though, are a mixed bag. When they actually show McCoy interacting with the animals, it's pretty impressive for the time. You can see the handlers _just_ out of frame sometimes, if you look close. But then there are these moments where the edits are so choppy, it's clear they’re just trying to make it look like the lion is doing more than it actually was. It’s a little endearing, really, how obvious it is.
Sumner Getchell's character is supposed to be this strong, protective type. But honestly, he just mostly looks confused. There's this one shot where he's supposed to be rushing to her aid, and he stumbles. They kept it in! It's a small detail, but it makes him feel a bit more human, less like a cardboard hero. I appreciate those little slips.
The pacing is… well, it’s a silent film from that era. Things can drag. There's a sequence where Joan McCoy's character is just walking, walking, walking across a field. It feels like an eternity. You could probably shave off a solid five minutes from that alone. But then, it does give you time to really _think_ about her journey, I guess. Or just wonder what's for dinner.
The very nature of silent films means a lot of big gestures, right? Everyone’s always doing something _dramatic_ with their hands or their eyes. Sometimes, it’s really effective, like when Joan McCoy’s face shows genuine fear or wonder. Other times, it just feels like everyone’s trying to communicate with charades across a very large room. You can almost feel the movie _trying_ to convince you this moment matters, even when the actors are giving it their all.
There are some really beautiful shots of the landscape, though. Just sweeping views that really capture a sense of untamed wilderness. They use these wide, static frames that feel almost like paintings. It makes you wish the story always matched the ambition of the cinematography. Sometimes it does, sometimes it really doesn't. 🏞️
And the music, of course, is a big part of it if you’re watching with a good score. Without it, these films just don’t hit the same. The version I saw had a pretty generic piano track, which didn't help much in the more intense scenes. It made the emotional beats feel a bit flat. Like a really important speech delivered in a monotone.
Ann Christy, as the other woman, gets some really juicy close-ups. Her expressions are often _very_ over-the-top, but you can feel the jealousy radiating off the screen. She chews scenery like it’s her last meal, and honestly, it's kind of fun to watch. She understands the assignment, even if the assignment was "act like your face will break if you don't make big expressions."
And the supporting cast? A bit of a blur, to be honest. There are a few stern-faced older gentlemen in hats, and some flustered maids. They serve their purpose, moving the plot along or reacting with wide eyes to whatever melodrama is unfolding. No one really stands out, but that’s okay. They’re part of the tapestry, I guess.
The ending feels a little rushed, considering how much time was spent on some of the earlier, less critical scenes. It resolves things a bit too neatly after all that build-up. You're left feeling like, "Oh, that's it?" It doesn't quite earn its big emotional payoff. Like the movie gets noticeably better once it stops taking itself _too_ seriously, but then it tries to get serious again at the end, and it just doesn't quite land.
If you're a student of film history, or just fascinated by early cinema, then _Lady of Lions_ offers some interesting tidbits. It’s not Under Two Flags in terms of spectacle, and it’s certainly not going to be a new favorite for most casual viewers. But it has its charms, its quirks, and a few moments that genuinely surprise you. Don't expect a masterpiece, but do expect a window into a different time of filmmaking. 🕰️
IMDb 5.6
1926
Community
Log in to comment.
