This is a very good film and it's well worth seeing. However, be aware that if you haven't seen a Mary Pickford film before, this is far from her best work and I'd place it among the middle of her efforts of the 1920s.
One thing you need to understand is that back in the 1910s and 20s, Mary often played children and teenagers. While she's clearly NOT a child and was actually closer to middle-age, this is a bizarre convention in her films that people of the day just accepted. To heighten this effect, a lot of trick cinematography was used as well as very tall actors and large sets to make Mary appear younger--perhaps about 11 or so. However, this was an even taller order than in films such as "Daddy Long Legs" or "Sparrows", as Mary plays a boy---as well as his own mother!!! Yep, using split screen camera-work, they are able to have several scenes where Mary (as the mother) interacts with Mary (as the son!).
As for the story, it's a lot like the later incarnations of "Little Lord Fauntleroy". A single-mother and her plucky child are suddenly taken from their normal lives and transported to England, as the child is the next living heir to a huge estate. However, the child's mother is an undesirable--a reminder that one of the family members had a dalliance with a commoner. So, the agreement is that the mother live nearby and only have limited contact with the child and no contact with the grandfather. However, because the child is so gosh-darn sweet (and plucky), eventually the old grouch's heart is melted and the mother and grandfather are united for the good of the sweet and plucky child (did I mention that he's plucky?!).
Overall, it's well made and interesting--plus the dual roles are an interesting experiment. My only gripes about the film are that the old man becoming nice at the end seemed to happen out of no where and could have used a few transitional scenes. In addition, I just couldn't buy Mary in this big a stretch--it just seemed a bit too much to expect the audience to accept. A noble experiment that's worth seeing but that's about it.
One thing you need to understand is that back in the 1910s and 20s, Mary often played children and teenagers. While she's clearly NOT a child and was actually closer to middle-age, this is a bizarre convention in her films that people of the day just accepted. To heighten this effect, a lot of trick cinematography was used as well as very tall actors and large sets to make Mary appear younger--perhaps about 11 or so. However, this was an even taller order than in films such as "Daddy Long Legs" or "Sparrows", as Mary plays a boy---as well as his own mother!!! Yep, using split screen camera-work, they are able to have several scenes where Mary (as the mother) interacts with Mary (as the son!).
As for the story, it's a lot like the later incarnations of "Little Lord Fauntleroy". A single-mother and her plucky child are suddenly taken from their normal lives and transported to England, as the child is the next living heir to a huge estate. However, the child's mother is an undesirable--a reminder that one of the family members had a dalliance with a commoner. So, the agreement is that the mother live nearby and only have limited contact with the child and no contact with the grandfather. However, because the child is so gosh-darn sweet (and plucky), eventually the old grouch's heart is melted and the mother and grandfather are united for the good of the sweet and plucky child (did I mention that he's plucky?!).
Overall, it's well made and interesting--plus the dual roles are an interesting experiment. My only gripes about the film are that the old man becoming nice at the end seemed to happen out of no where and could have used a few transitional scenes. In addition, I just couldn't buy Mary in this big a stretch--it just seemed a bit too much to expect the audience to accept. A noble experiment that's worth seeing but that's about it.