Is Member Of Parliament Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (1923)

The Narrative Arc & Core Premise

Member Of Parliament, a standout production of 1923, meticulously weaves its narrative threads through the Drama landscape, offering a cinematic experience that is as challenging as it is rewarding. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into John Shilcott, a member of the English Parliament, a nervous, sickly man, has long since lost all energy for work, and only at times the increasing doses of morphine, which he injects into himself, give him the illusion of an influx of vitality. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Drama are tested.

The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "John Shilcott, a member of the English Parliament, a nervous, sickly man, has long since lost all energy for work, and only at times the increasing doses of morphine, which he injects into himself, give him the illusion of an influx of vitality. In his family life, too, not all is not well: over the past three years, he has become estranged from his wife, there is no spiritual closeness between them, and Ava Shilkott begs her father to help her get a divorce..."

Artistic Execution & Performance Study

A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. Ivan Mosjoukine does an admirable job with the material provided, but one can't help but feel that a more daring directorial approach would have yielded a more impactful result. It is a competent but ultimately standard genre performance.

The direction by Yakov Protazanov is marked by a steady and professional hand. From a production standpoint, the film meets the high standards of modern industrial filmmaking. The sets are well-crafted, and the visual effects are integrated with a level of polish that ensures the viewer matches the director's intended level of immersion. While perhaps not groundbreaking, the execution is flawless. The pacing, over its 65 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.

Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch

Is Member Of Parliament truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Drama, then this is a worthwhile watch if you have a specific interest in the themes or the performers involved.

The film's ability to perfectly execute its genre requirements is why it has earned its 2/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.

Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision

At a deeper level, Member Of Parliament explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 1923 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and Yakov Protazanov respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.

The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.

Final Editorial Recommendation

Ultimately, Member Of Parliament is an interesting experiment that, while flawed, offers enough moments of creative spark to be worth a casual glance for the curious. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Ivan Mosjoukine or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Member Of Parliament is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.