Directed by D.W. Griffith
Position on the list (at time of viewing): 848
Just a month after Broken Blossoms, Griffith returned with another small, intimate film about very human themes and motivations. As I said before, I like this new, more narrowly-focused Griffith, and I think this film benefits from that smaller scale. The story is very slight. True Heart Susie (Lillian Gish again) loves William Jenkins, a very stupid man (Robert Harron) who has no idea how good he has it and races into the arms of another woman (Clarine Seymour). Will Susie’s basic decency and kindness win out over the wiles of the other lady, or is her love doomed? And that’s pretty much the entire movie. There are a number of interesting plot developments that keep the audience engaged in the core story, and Lillian Gish is amazing as Susie. Even with a much simpler character than in Broken Blossoms, she infuses every scene with life and vitality.
The narrative is definitely a very conservative one (which probably shouldn’t be a surprise coming from Griffith), with traditional feminine virtues espoused very clearly. There’s an entire scene about how this new floozy of a lady can’t cook nearly as well as good ol’ Susie, and other things of that general tone. That being said, the movie does not come off as misogynistic as that last sentence might imply, and the movie is more about good Christian virtue and decency winning out in the end over more immediately appealing attributes. It definitely seems very old-fashioned to the modern viewer, but it doesn’t seem as offensive as many of Griffith’s other works. There’s definitely still content with which to find fault, but it doesn’t seem as egregious here. It’s more like the quaint story of how your grandparents got together and less like your grandpa going on a racist screed at Thanksgiving.
Personally, this ranks up there with the best of Griffith for me, and is certainly on a level with his other effort for this year, despite the very significant difference in their placement on the list. I think it might be down to this being less respected because Broken Blossoms has the distinction of being tragic, which always seems to be better respected than the apparently lighter fare of comedy or romance (this movie falls into the latter category). I think the story is at least as well told here, though, and the movie is roughly on the same technical level as the other work. The movie actually has really interesting themes about the conflicting and contradictory desires of men. Jenkins is portrayed as hypocritically religiously conservative (a major plot point revolves around him going to theological school and then lecturing others on their moral obligations). This actually makes the film a bit more nuanced than it may at first appear. Griffith often liked to distinguish between actual virtue and apparent virtue (the theme comes up over and over again in his movies), and I think this is another example of the theme. The college-educated theologian isn’t the model character, but instead it’s the simple person who always tries to do the right thing, no matter the cost. This theme seems very quaint in the modern world, but I found it refreshing. It was also nice to watch something happy after the relentless doom and gloom of the other Griffith offerings.
There are still all of the other difficulties common to films of the era, which cumulatively render this still more of a movie for film buffs than the casual viewer, but in general this is a quality experience. Probably the biggest criticism that could accurately be leveled at the film is a kind of maudlin or saccharine tone that suffuses the whole project and might grate for the hardened cynic that most modern viewers are likely to be. Susie’s earnestness can be frustrating too, as she endlessly pines for a man who very clearly does not deserve her attentions. The plot is a fairly bog-standard romance with the usual complications. There is certainly nothing there that will really surprise or shock, but taken for what it is it’s a great example of the form. I actually think it’s a pretty nice starting film for people who would like to get in to Griffith’s work, but can’t bear the thought of spending three hours watching a silent epic.
Overall: 
