A Corner in Wheat
Dir: D.W. Griffith
1909
15 min.
Perhaps the first film where Whitey gets it.
This anti-capitalist fable is the work of silent film legend
David Wark Griffith, still years away from making his controversial masterpiece
“Birth of a Nation,” his directing career had begun a year earlier. Like
everyone in the new movie-making industry, Griffith was cranking out dozens of
short films a year to begin with; the quantum difference is his eye and his
superb sense of how to make film tell a compelling story. Griffith learned
quickly.
He’s thinking, much as a stage director would, of the
picture as perceived from the audience. Instead of just filming actors and action,
Griffith is thinking from the perspective of the camera. His compositions are
meticulous, designed to communicate the maximum amount of meaning in a given
frame. Before in film, actors stood in a stele-like row, or clumped together
naturally and awkwardly. Griffith is positioning his actors so that they relate
coherently not to each other, perhaps, but definitely from the perspective of
the viewer.
There are parallel stories here, and ideas at play. Three hungry
farmers cast their seed while a business tycoon corners the market in wheat.
(The trio uses a wooden harrow, outmoded even in 1909.
Emphasizing the archaic nature of the farmer’s toil serves to ennoble the
rustic types. Griffith frequently synonymized the urban life with sin and
corruption, as did most of the movie-going audience, still predominantly rural
at the time. Griffith’s camera placement, with the farrows angling into and
past the camera from deep right rear to left foreground, is ballsy for the time
– the actors end up walking right out of the shot!)
Prices rise, the poor begin to starve and riot, put down by
police. The rich man, visiting one of his granaries, exults over his good
fortune – and tumbles into a silo, suffocated by the sluicing grain. The farmer
at film’s beginning is shown again, minus his companions. He ambles weakly
along, casting his seed again.
The huge advance here is the cutting together of three
stories, the principals of which have no awareness of each other. Meaning is
created through juxtaposition, the montage technique later perfected by
Kuleshov and Eisenstein in the Soviet Union. Near the center of the film, the
poor’s breadline is presented as a static shot – not a frozen frame, but as a
kind of mural of misery.
It is easy to cast “A Corner in Wheat” as the first
Socialist film. It certainly stigmatizes the rich and the social control
systems in place at the time – but don’t forget, this is the same director who
glorified the Klan in “Birth of a Nation” six years later. The tycoon in
“Wheat” is more a God-punished sinner than the terminal sufferer of ironic
consequences. Griffith’s real ideology is sentiment, and through the
still-viable dramatic strategy of melodrama, he is a master at invoking it.
Griffith is using all the elements at his disposal to create
sympathy and emotion, and it’s here that film goes right and wrong at the same
time. All of a sudden, it seems that seeing a film can be a much deeper
experience – and it opens up the possibility that the same kind of pretensions
that plagued existing art forms could infect cinema as well. For better and for
worse, every film made from this point on has the potential to be, or not be, a
work of art.
The NFR
Project is an attempt to review all the films listed in the National Film
Register, in chronological order. Next time: ‘Lady Helen’s Escapade.’
No comments:
Post a Comment