A Romance of Happy Valley

Out of all the autobiographys written on Griffith and all of his movies, none come close to tuly identifying the man who was known as the Father of Filmmaking. A Romance of Happy Valley is not only Griffith's vision of what Kentucky was in his eyes, but himself. From Griffith's upbrining as a poor, farmer, his ideal as a businessman and most importanly, his relationship with women are all on display in this movie. Robert Harron portray John Logan, who is without a doubt a young D. W. Griffith. Throughout their careers, Harron anf Griffith were close. The speculation of them being gay has been debated for the last 100 years. Looking into their relationsip as Actor and Director, and what happened to both men off screen has been the subject to much speculation. It is hard to ignore how Griffith showcases Lillian Gish in his portrayal of first love and how a woman is suppose to be treated alongside business and success. A Romance of Happy Vallet is more of a bio-pic of Griffith than a love story.

Back in the early 20th century, D.W. Griffith was an innovative filmmaker. He managed to tell wonderful stories and was wildly popular through the 1910s. However, as the years passed, Griffith went from being an innovator to being very old fashioned and stodgy. It wasn't that his films had changed so much as times had changed and he hadn't kept up with them. This is strongly evident with his "A Romance of Happy Valley"—a film which worked in 1919 when it debuted but which would just seem hokey into the 1920s. This is because the film is extremely moralistic and the subtitles often come off as preachy homilies than anything else.

The story is one close to Griffith's heart. After all, like the characters in the story, he grew up in rural Kentucky and he idealized its simple way of life. Oddly, however, the film decries the evils of moving to the big city—something Griffith himself did when he packed up and moved to Los Angeles. While the city was hardly a metropolis at the time, compared to his native Kentucky, it was practically sin city! The story is about a country boy named Johnny. After hearing a New Yorker talk about how wonderful the big city is, Johnny is determined to go there and make his fortune. The problems are that Jennie (Lillian Gish) is in love with him and his parents have worked hard on the farm in order to pass it down to him. Regardless, he eventually does go to New York and soon learns about the drudgeries of city life. And, while he promised to return in one year, one year soon stretches to eight! What's to become of Jennie and Johnny's farm? If you could re-write the heavy-handed intertitle cards (which sound more like the teachings of Norman Vincent Peale than those of a filmmaker), didn't use white folks painted black* as well as NOT made all the references to Judas Iscariot for one of the characters, the film would have worked a lot better. After all, the ending is very creative and the cinematography was lovely. Worth seeing but is extremely old fashioned and is not among Griffith's better work. And, if you've seen other films like Griffith's "Home, Sweet Home" you'll see that the themes in "A Romance of Happy Valley" are often repeated in his work.

*After watching this film and other Griffith films (especially "Birth of a Nation"), I can only conclude that Griffith must have really hated black people. Again and again, instead of hiring black actors, he usually just had white guys paint themselves with burnt cork to play black parts. An enlightened guy he wasn't—and may help explain why such an important early filmmaker is all but forgotten today.

Romance of Happy Valley, A (1918)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

D.W. Griffith film was one of four he rushed at First National. A poor boy (Robert Harron) from Kentucky goes to NYC to make a fortune while his love (Lillian Gish) waits back at home. In a lot of ways this was a semi-bio pick about Griffith's own life as he too was a poor boy from Kentucky who went to the big city to make it rich. Like the character in the movie, Griffith at the time was breaking up with Gish in favor of Carol Dempster who has a small part in this film playing a NYC girl who tries to steal the Kentucky boy. On the whole, this film is rushed together and it really doesn't work in the end even though there's a lot to admire here. The performances by Harron and Gish are very good and the cinematography by G.W. Bitzer is also good. The story drags at even 70-minutes with a far fetched ending that borrows from Griffith's earlier film The Son's Return.

Some modern viewers understandably have a hard time sitting with silent films, and among other reasons, some instances especially epitomize the notion of "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." Intertitles may directly address the audience, or speak very exactly to what is happening in or represented by a scene, at the same time that the storytelling in some cases is as lighthearted as drama can be without being labeled as "comedy." Plot or character development may be very direct and uncomplicated. That's to say nothing of depiction of old-fashioned or downright antiquated values, and of culture and lifestyles far removed from our own. I think it's safe to say that all these facets are present in 'A romance of Happy Valley' in varying proportions, right down to the core of the narrative; I love the silent era, and still there are parts of this that I watch while barely suppressing derisive laughter of disbelief. Much as fantasy or science fiction may take us to an entirely different world, old titles like this might require the most robust suspension of disbelief to engage with.

Some silent movies are among the very best movies that have ever been made; others are well done and entertaining, but decidedly quaint. Given all the elements I've described, this feature is among the latter - but even at that, more than not it's a pleasure to watch, and all the more so for devotees of early cinema who recognize how such early pictures were made. The sets, costume design, and hair and makeup work are terrific, certainly helping to ease viewers into the experience. Films in the 1910s and 20s weren't necessarily known for particular nuance in the acting, but I think everyone here rather successfully imbues welcome heart and personality into their roles, letting the tableau feel meaningfully real even as other aspects might threaten our suspension of disbelief. To that point, too, while filmmaker D. W. Griffith has an asterisk or two on his legacy, there's no disputing that he was a leading icon of the industry in its earliest days, and he again proves why here with excellent, mindful direction orchestrating every shot and scene. Moreover, between Griffith's direction and the screenplay he penned with Mary Castelman, there some nicely subtle, clever inclusions that in and of themselves add much to the feature.

Mind you, for whatever value this can claim, and neverminding its idiosyncrasies, there are specific faults I would cite that weigh against it. The emphatic religious language seems very heavy-handed even for the narrative the feature has to impart. One would be remiss not to note the tawdry, tiresome use of blackface (to which Griffith was no stranger). More substantively: Among other subjective faults I would not count the tonal shift between the approximate first and second halves; on the other hand, all those factors I initially described above don't entirely hold true as the tone shifts, and that includes how intertitles are used. There comes a point when the storytelling becomes a tad muddled, and the production struggles to elucidate the precise course of events or who characters are. That goes for too much of the second half, which has fewer intertitles, choppier sequencing, and examples of emphatically weak lighting. None of this is helped by having two actors who look alike being dressed up in ways that make them even more indistinguishable from each other. While the broad story beats are clear enough, I don't believe the movie is entirely effective in communicating the movement from A to B to C, and the result feels like Movie Magic - or worse, perhaps the undeveloped storytelling of a young child ("This happened. And then this happened. The end."). If the writing of the backend were tightened, providing a more lucid narrative, the whole would have been drastically improved.

Considered overall I believe 'A romance of Happy Valley' is roughly on par with the bulk of its contemporaries - not super remarkable, but suitably well done despite glaring issues (the blackface), ham-handedness and outmoded norms, and other matters. The uneven dispensation of its storytelling is where I have the biggest problem, but then, maybe I'm being too cynical. In any event, the fact remains that when all is said and done this is surely a piece mostly likely to appeal only to those who are already enamored with the silent era, and other audience members can probably just move on. Even then there are many other titles that indisputably earn a higher priority, but if you happen to come across this one and are willing and able to parse with distinct imperfections, then it's not a bad way to spend 76 minutes.

Watching silent films has been of great fascination for quite some time now and there are some truly fine ones, some revolutionary technically or in terms of subject. Not all are great and a few controversial, but there are many great or iconic ones. Among the best of them is the best of DW Griffith, and the more that has been seen of Griffith's work (short and feature films) the more interesting he has come to me. We also have Griffith regular Lillian Gish, among the greatest silent film actresses, in the lead role.

'A Romance of Happy Valley' is not one of Griffith's best, it is not quite 'Intolerance', 'True Heart Susie', 'Orphans of the Storm', 'Way Down East' and 'Broken Blossoms' level, all very good to brilliant. Much prefer it though over 'Birth of a Nation', appreciate its importance but the second half spoilt it significantly for me, and especially 'Abraham Lincoln' (with him being one of not many silent film directors to clearly not transition well into sound). 'A Romance of Happy Valley' is somewhere in the middle as far as his work goes and is a very good representation of Gish.

There is actually not a huge amount wrong with 'A Romance of Happy Valley' in my view. The story is very slight, making for some ploddy moments in the less eventful stretches, and quite old-fashioned.

Do agree too that the ending came over as far-fetched and quite weird even, actually found it rather out of place and shoehorned in and it is a rare case of me saying that an abrupt and pat ending (usually dislike this kind of ending) would have been preferable.

Gish however is wonderful as ever, she is incredibly endearing, radiates charm and has amusing comic timing. She also has the right amount of pathos, something that she conveyed better than any other actress at that time. Robert Harron gives another sensitive and nuanced performance, succeeding in making his on paper slightly bland character interesting. George Fawcett chills the bone and it is scary at how much his character gets away with. Griffith's direction has been more creative in his other films, but it is understated and shows someone that clearly knew what he was doing.

Have no qualms with the production values, the scenery is quaint and the photography has beauty and intimacy, even if this aspect is more distinct in other Griffith films. The story is not perfect, but it has a very big heart, is rich in charm and there is poignant emotion. The characters are not meaty but they're worth engaging with.

In conclusion, good if not great. 7/10