"America"*** (out of ****)
D.W. Griffith shows us the birth of a nation in "America" (1924).
I find the career of filmmaker D.W. Griffith to be rather sad. He was never able to redeem himself for the "sin" of making "The Birth of A Nation" (1915). It is widely accepted Griffith spent the rest of his career trying to respond to his critics that he was not a racist with film after film.
Normally I hate to bring up the controversial nature of "The Birth of A Nation" and usually shy away from calling films of this era racist however it is really difficult not to see "America" as anything but a reaction to Griffith's notorious prior film.
"America", based on the Robert W. Chambers novel "The Reckoning", is a romanticized version of the story of America and the Revolutionary War. Rather suspiciously "America" isn't discussed as often as other Griffith films are like "The Birth of A Nation", "Intolerance" (1916) or "Broken Blossoms" (1919). It is suspicious because "America" isn't a bad movie. That it lacks recognition is surprising. However I would not refer to it as one of Griffith's masterpieces.
As the story goes Griffith had high hopes for "America" as he was in need of a box-office success to turn a large profit. While Griffith was popular in his day and some of his movies did have commercial appeal the extraordinary budgets of his movies prevented them from turning much of a profit. It is clear "America" was meant to be a sprawling epic and a real "feel good" patriotic movie. It is also true "America" and "The Birth of A Nation" have much in common in terms of historical scope, grand cinematic ambition and well staged battle scenes. The characters are similar in that we follow characters on opposite sides of the war. Griffith most likely thought "America" had a "safe" story that would avoid controversy but give him the opportunity to make another large scale epic and repeat elements which made "The Birth of A Nation" such a box-office success.
In the end however "America" doesn't give you a strong patriotic feel. It suffers from weak acting and weak character development and an unnecessary running time (two hours and 19 minutes). Technically, it is worth watching. The work of D.W. Griffith should not be avoided. Emotionally however it is not involving and never quite hits its ambitious target.
Griffith reduces the Revolutionary War to a romance between two characters; Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton, undoubtedly best known as TV's Commissioner Gordon in "Batman") and Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster). With a difference in social status, that becomes the least of their problems, Nancy's family are also Tories, Americans that sympathize with the British and believe America should remain under British rule. Nathan however is a rebel fighting for an independent America. Can their love endure while they are on opposing sides during the war? Would Nancy's father ever allow the two to marry? This is supposed to be the stuff of great drama. If "America" were about 40 minutes shorter and actually followed these two characters a bit more, it may have made the movie more engaging.
The love story rarely, if ever, earns our sympathy or creates dramatic tension. Griffith never fleshes out these two characters to make us believe in their romance. The movie seems too busy trying to show us recreations of historical moments to focus on the romance. We see the midnight ride of Paul Revere, the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Presidential Inauguration of George Washington. By the time Griffith does show us the romance and wants to "milk" scenes for dramatic effect and pull on our heartstrings, the movie hasn't done enough to make us care about these characters.
If you admire "America" it will be because of its filmmaking techniques and not because it is an emotionally rewarding film with a thoroughly compelling story-line. Young film students and movie buffs would be doing themselves a great favor watching this movie and studying Griffith's techniques. Rightly or wrongly Griffith is often credited by film historians as the father of American cinema and is credited with creating a cinematic language. Griffith's camera is fluid and although this movie was made in 1924 its techniques will feel modern. You may complain the acting is wooden or overly dramatic (pay attention to death scenes) but you will see close-ups, cross-cutting and flashbacks. Nearly all of Griffith's silent feature films are worth studying.
That might make "America" sound like an academic experience and not entertainment. "America" has entertainment value but its running time will be off-putting to those new to silent cinema, especially if you are used to watching one or two reeler comedies. Even those that love silent cinema may admit the movie could have been trimmed.
To be fair to Griffith and "America" however we are given a wonderful villain character, Captain Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), an American British loyalist who has great ambition and secretly wants to betray the King and become a ruler himself. Not only is this the best character in the movie (there was a real Capt. Butler) but Barrymore gives the movie's best performance.
"America" focuses a lot on the activities of Capt. Butler and in particular the Cherry Valley Massacre, where Butler orders the death of women and children. What is interesting about this decision is Griffith makes Butler the main antagonist in the story and does not present the British as the villains.
While Barrymore gives the movie's best performance unfortunately the worst belongs to Carol Dempster. Dempster became Griffith's mistress for a period of time and as a result starred in a number of his movies "replacing" Lillian Gish as his leading lady. It is hard to say how well Gish may have been able to play this particular character but Gish was an actress with a much more expressive face and a greater emotional range than Dempster.
Unfortunately it seems what most modern viewers like to discuss when reviewing the work of Griffith is race and tones of racism found in "The Birth of A Nation". I have read some criticize "America" on racial grounds as well. The movie admittedly is not kind in its depiction of Native Americans, presenting them as savages and often having white actors play the characters, although some of that is explained in the plot of the movie.
When I say "unfortunate" I mean to imply viewers can never watch a D.W. Griffith movie and debate it on its artistic merits. The name D.W. Griffith has become cinematic poison. Griffith's critics will say that was Griffith's own doing because of what he depicted in his movies. And so the conversation tends to veer into a racial discussion and not a film analysis.
D.W. Griffith is an important figure in the history of cinema and as such movie lovers should watch his movies. I understand Griffith's work may be offensive to some but it also seems to me many criticize the man's work without ever actually seeing one of his movies. "America" is not great D.W. Griffith but it is not bad either. Watch it and debate it and debate Griffith's position in movie history but remember, first you have to watch the movies.
Posts
