MovieChat Forums > Abraham Lincoln (1930) Discussion > Griffith didn't keep up his skills

Griffith didn't keep up his skills

posted 14 years ago by Keatonics
4 replies | jump to latest

By the time this film rolled around the career of the great D.W. Griffith was well in decline. While his camera work was robust, his ability to work with actors had not kept pace. Both in movement and dialog, as well as conveying emotion, the acting was very wooden. Actors lined up in rows, speaking as though reading from cue cards.

The art of acting had advanced tremendously in the 10 years since Griffith's hey day. Understanding that sound was still a new innovation and actors had to stay close to the microphone, there were already directors who had figured out how to get movement and good sound (Hitchcock for one).

His camera work was still top notch and actually quite stunning when there was no dialog, and his editing skills were still sharp. However, the moment the actors had to interact with one another the camera went dead, and so did the actors.

I suppose the only saving grace of the film was Walter Huston's ability to create a character, but even he did not give a good performance due to the directing.

[–] marvel88 14 years ago

It really was a poor film of the early talkie era. Griffith obviously did not know how to adapt out of the silent era and the acting of many people in this film showed it.

As you said, Walter Huston worked to create a good portrayal of Lincoln but the poor dialogue and Griffith's direction left little room. A poor look at Lincoln's life with too much skipping around and poor pacing.

"I know you're in there, Fagerstrom!"-Conan O'Brien

[–] IceboxMovies 13 years ago

I disagree. This movie's obviously not perfect, and it's clear that Griffith wasn't entirely comfortable making the transition from silent to talkies--but, for the most part, this is an accurate and entertaining film. Walter Huston is a fantastic Abe, and the characterizations of General Lee and General Grant are both surprisingly human. The actress playing Mary Todd has a lot of fun with her role, which is a relief, since that role would have been thankless in any other film.

Another thing I love about this movie is Griffith's decidedly altered worldview. Gone is the racism and jingoism of Birth of A Nation. Instead, Griffith adopts the concepts of antiracism, tolerance and all-around good-natured humanity that he used to such beautiful degress in Intolerance and Broken Blossoms.

Is the film as artistically satisfying as all of the above pictures were? Not exactly. But it's a fitting conclusion to Griffith's commercial filmmaking career, and it does not deserve any of the slander it's received by critics (including supposed Griffith devotees) in recent years.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

I agree--enjoyed this film immensely. Perhaps I had low expectations but Birth of a Nation has put me to sleep twice so far in the early minutes. Walter Huston was great--I've not seen him as a younger man in so long I can't remember. The quips were too cute. And match what I've read of Lincoln's personality.

[–] cedrus-libani 13 years ago

Even at the time of its release, critics panned it for its mawkish sentimentality and old-fashioned, monotonous schoolboy narrative. Most preferred the livelier Dramatic Life of Abraham Lincoln made five years earlier.