"Abraham Lincoln" ** (out of ****)Lets play a game. Lets pretend "Abraham Lincoln" (1930) was the first film a particular person saw by director D.W. Griffith. Then, lets further pretend this person knew nothing about Griffith and his importance to the early development of cinema. After watching this film if I told this person who D.W. Griffith was they'd never believe me.
"Abraham Lincoln" is a straight forward telling of the 16th president's life. Sadly however Griffith paints Lincoln's life with a very large brush. He passes over moments in the president's life and tells us nothing new or informative about him.
Lincoln is played by Walter Houston, the 4 time Oscar nominated actor probably best known for his performances in John Huston's "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948) and Michael Curtiz's "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942). He was nominated for both performances.
The film glides over Lincoln's childhood. All we see is his birth. The next time we see him he is a grown man. He talks about running for state legislator but those moments are passed over as well. We briefly hear about his senate run against Stephen A. Douglas (E. Alyn Warren) and see a quick montage of their debate but we are never told why Lincoln lost the election. After losing the election however representatives are sent from the east coast and inform Lincoln they want him to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Nothing else is ever mentioned about the campaign.
Now I've said before that people should not turn to the movies for historical truth. And I still stand by that. Movies do not have to be historically accurate to be entertaining pictures. But, if your movie is about a historical figure you should at least tell us something about the person. Why else are you making the movie?
Filmbufs will probably want to compare Griffith's story of Lincoln's life to the film "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939) directed by John Ford starring Henry Fonda. Most viewers would probably say Ford's film is superior and I won't argue with them.
What exactly could have went wrong here? Griffith is considered the father of American cinema. His "Birth of A Nation" (1915) has been called the beginning of American cinema as an art form, despite its controversial nature. He is credited with introducing such film techniques as the "iris" shot, cross-cutting and the flashback. His camera was mobile and fluid. He established the film language which we use to this day. But none of that is on display in "Abraham Lincoln".
Griffith strangely seems out of place. Could the advent of sound have thrown Griffith so far off his game? Griffith creates no tension. Compare the Lincoln assassination scene in "Birth of A Nation" to the one here. Notice how Griffith is delaying the moment creating drama and suspense in "Birth of A Nation". In "Abraham Lincoln" he takes all the dramatic possibilities out of the situation. Griffith is not interested in creating arresting and interesting visuals. Griffith just places the camera in front of the actors and never moves it. Griffith's earlier films such as "Intolerance" (1916) or "Broken Blossoms" (1919) actually seems more modern and fresh than this film!
Still "Abraham Lincoln" and "The Struggle" (1931) have their place in cinema. These are the last two films by the the great director. They are his first sound films. So they are important in the Griffith cannon. Film buffs will be curious to see these films.
Some viewers may suggest the problem with "Abraham Lincoln" was Griffith was not use to making films with sound. I don't think that is it. I'm sure working with sound offered some challenges. No question. But I can't believe it would have thrown Griffith off so much. It is as if he has forgotten the fundamental rules of cinema. "Abraham Lincoln" is a major step backwards for Griffith. This is not the work of an innovative filmmaker but a beginner.
Una Merkel receives second billing playing Ann Rutledge. Her screen time is very brief. I believe she is in a total of two scenes. She is suppose to be Lincoln's first love. Their love scenes together offer the usual amateurish dialogue we expect from early sound pictures. It comes off as unrealistic and insincere.
Amazingly the cinematography in this film was done by Karl Struss. He won an Academy Award for his work on F.W. Murnau's "Sunrise" (1927). The cinematography in that film is truly innovative. Even he seems to have forgotten everything while shooting this film. Everyone seems to be starting from scratch again. They had to re-learn everything they had accomplished during the silent era.
"Abraham Lincoln" is not a bad film. Compared to "The Struggle" it is a better film. The problem is it is average. There is nothing memorable about it. How unlike Griffith to make such a film.
"The Struggle" ** (out of ****)
Just about everything I said about "Abraham Lincoln" could be said about "The Struggle" as well.
"The Struggle" was Griffith's final film. It is suppose to be a look at alcoholism in America during Prohibition.
If Griffith's intention was to make a realistic portrait of the life of an alcoholic he doesn't succeed. The film is not able to demonstrate to us what drives people to drink and how they must cope with the problem. One of the best early Hollywood films to deal with this topic was Billy Wilder's Best Picture Oscar winner "The Lost Weekend" (1945) with Ray Milland. If anyone has ever seen both of these movies they'd have to agree "The Lost Weekend" does a much better job showing the life of an alcoholic.
Griffith's film tells the story of Jimmie Wilson (Hal Skelly). A married man with a daughter. At first he says he will stop drinking if Florrie (Zita Johann) will marry him. But even after they marry and have a daughter, Mary (Edna Hagan) Jimmie still falls off the wagon.
"The Struggle" doesn't show us the struggle an alcoholic goes through. Imagine if the film had shown as withdraw scenes. Or Jimmie struggling to fight his temptations. But "The Struggle" doesn't do that. It offers no explanation for what leads Jimmie to drink. The film merely suggest he does so because he is out. Sort of a well, there's nothing better to do, attitude. That is not why people drink. People drink for many different reasons but there is usually a personal reason which leads people to become drunks.
The film later settles on showing us a daughter's love for her father and their special bond. Griffith can't even get much emotion and sentimentality out of these scenes. If you want to see that done right watch Elia Kazan's "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" (1945). Though that film seems to romanticize the life of an alcoholic. But at least it makes us care about the characters and the situations.
"The Struggle" has a finale with the father and the daughter which could have come right out of a silent film. After watching it think how effective it could have been with more cross-cutting, close-ups and an iris shot here and there. Imagine how much drama Griffith could have milked this scene for especially with a good dramatic score.
But none of it was to be. It is sad to think these are Griffith's last films. A man who was so important to cinema and to have failed so miserably as he does with these films.
Posts
