One Exciting Night

The only thing exciting in "One Exciting Night," D.W. Griffith's slow go at the old dark house formula, is the climactic hurricane sequence. Everything else tends to be extremely dull, drawn out, convoluted, overly explained, exposition-heavy, repetitive and racist. Not only unexciting--it's excruciating, really--it doesn't take place in one night, either, although it should have... it so much should have. In fact, the narrative takes place within nearly two decades. In the complete version of the film, at least, it's over an hour in before it gets to the night in question (I viewed the Critic's Choice VHS from the '90s, which runs 124 minutes). Everything before that should've been cut; it's just unnecessary subplot and filler. I know this was early in the subgenre of old dark house horror comedies, but still, Griffith demonstrated no appreciation that these things are supposed to be light and fast paced. Instead, he indulged in his worst tendencies of excess as a filmmaker: plentiful and verbose title cards, leading the spectator ad nauseam through every plot point, including frequently replaying scenes, too many characters and melodramatic subplots, bland and simplistic appeals to grande themes (greed, love, life, death), African-American stereotypes portrayed by white actors in blackface and minstrel show antics.

There are five title cards before we even see an image with scenery or characters in the film. Furthermore, Griffith contradicts himself in them by calling this a "little effort" before going on, "In this absolute departure from all OLD METHODS of story telling we leave much to YOUR IMAGINATION besides the detection of who is the villain. Therefore it is well to watch closely the early scenes as they become important later on." None of that is true. This was a bloated effort, it is very much in the vein of old methods of storytelling, with Griffith's usual Victorian melodrama and the old dark house stuff being ripped off the popular stage play of the time, "The Bat" (later adapted to screen in 1926 and 1930 by Roland West), and Griffith's storytelling leaves very little to the imagination, including the obviousness of the villain's identity long before it's exposed, and Griffith repeats things over and over again, so there's no need to pay particularly close attention. The film is so bad, though, the best way to enjoy it may be to barely pay attention and use your imagination instead. Just make sure to tune back in near the end for the hurricane, where the repetition in the editorial form of temporal replays are acceptable--I'm OK with seeing Henry Hull hit by the same flying tree branch twice.

The story begins in Africa where a mother dies, leaving a fortune to her infant child, but the next-in-line heir schemes to have a woman pretend the child is hers, thus concealing the baby's identity so that he may inherit the fortune. Upon his death, however, he admits the fraud. And, for the next two or so hours, this plot will be ignored. Jump to the states years later, and Carol Dempster agrees to a blackmail scheme to marry an older man so that he doesn't rat out her thieving and abusive mother. Now, forget that plot, too, because it doesn't really matter, and it's only mentioned a couple times later, including with one of the many flashbacks, lest we forget. Dempster meets a younger man, the hero played by Hull, who had also played the similar part in the stage version of another old dark house horror comedy, "The Cat and the Canary" (adapted to the screen in 1927 and a few times after that). Hull has a spooky house, so, of course, he sets about throwing a party and hiring some African-American servants. That a bootlegger is murdered in the house and that he's a prime suspect doesn't deter him in these activities in the least. Only after another man is murdered, and he's once again a prime suspect, and after he discovers that the bootlegger hid half a million dollars in his home does the situation become tense. This is also when the old dark house formula finally kicks in.

And most of the subgenre's tropes are here in spades--at least the ones that also appear in "The Bat": secret passages and mysterious panels, hidden cash, nighttime shadows, hands reaching out from hidden corners to grab people, flickering lights, a storm, people running around scaring themselves silly, comic relief, a whodunit murder mystery and a masked villain. Unfortunately, most of the comic relief is debasing slapstick of an African-American stereotype named Romeo played by a white actor in blackface, portrayed as a dishonest (Griffith's title cards inform us that he found the war medal he passes off as having earned), running around scared and wide-eyed at the sight of almost everything. Meanwhile, another blackfaced character is referred to by two different racial slurs and as "primitive," and that's not even counting Griffith's title card informing us that, "It is well known that Black Sam is the dark terror of the bootleggers' band." In the end, all of the blackfaced caricatures, as well as the extras that include some actual African Americans, are portrayed as either servile, stupid or lazy.

Another title card, "Pictures -- white man's magic to be treasured," seems to sum up well what Griffith thought of his own filmmaking prowess. Yet, while he was one of the more innovative of pioneering directors at Biograph and into his features of the 1910s; in the 1920s, with one or two exceptions, his work is among the most detestable, as the quality of his pictures suffered from the financial changes in Hollywood and as he failed to keep abreast of advances in content, tone or technical matters, with his dated racial and Victorian ideals becoming ever more burdensome within inferior goods.

...but I hated the editing, continuity and aspecially the inserts. I know it's made 100 years ago but most films made don't have those issues.

The story was nice and the actors were okay.

THE BAT by Avery Hopwood opened in August of 1920 and was a smash that ran for more than two years and 867 performances. After wrapping on ORPHANS OF THE STORM, Griffith worked on his next project, which was -- ahem -- inspired by the Broadway hit. It would be a modern dress affair, with contemporary characters and thrills, and humor and all that good stuff. There would be a missing heir, a treasure of half a million dollars to be found, a fiendish, masked murderer running around, reaching from hidden panels in the wall to strangle random house guests, a romance of young people and comic lower-class servants.

There are some issues.

First, there's the technical issue of its length. The IMDb lists it as running 128 minutes. The copy I saw on YouTube, derived from the Killiam Collection, timed at 146 minutes, and crawled. I adjusted the speed so it ran a touch over a hundred minutes. Now it was brisk. Unfortunately, for the first three-quarters of its length, it's a snooze.

The opening certainly took its time, with a long prologue that ran backwards sixteen years from the main events, setting up the ending with little surprise. The prologue was about 45 minutes on the Killiam print, 30 in real life. I would have cut it entirely, and dropped a little of the background into the rest of the picture, for a nice 70-minute feature.

Griffith might have wished to make a small picture, but he could not. He was the Great Director, and his public demanded major pieces from him. He could no more direct a five-reel movie than Fannie Hurst could turn out limericks. Like Cecil Demille in his last decade, every movie had to be an epic with a finale that would top his last epic.

Next there's the matter of casting. I won't even go into the actors in blackface playing comic servants. It might have still played in 1922, barely, but looking at them now, it's just insulting. Worse, Griffith had lost the Gish sisters and Richard Barthelmess, and he was stuck with Carol Dempster. Miss Dempster is fine in the closing sequence of the movie, when she nerves herself up to go out after the villain. She was fine at playing the modern -- for 1922 -- woman. Unfortunately, earlier in the movie, she plays the stereotypical Griffith heroine: sixteen years old, virginal, browbeaten by her mother and hiding in her blankets. She's worse than poor. She's ridiculous in the role.

So we have a slow, sodden beginning played by the wrong actors, leading up to the epic Griffith finish, and that ending is fine. People run around. A hurricane starts up. It rips trees and houses apart, it knocks down the players, it threatens them with death, and it's truly exciting.

Unfortunately, by then, I didn't care. The long prologue told me how it would come out. The dictates of drama told me that boy would get girl. I had the leisure to figure out who the villain was, and why that threatening man who invades the girls' bedroom was no threat. There was no dramatic tension, just the socko finish, like the Little Colonel leading the charge, or Lilian Gish leaping from ice floe to ice floe. Too bad. Too little, too late.

Nice goings-on in an old mansion. But several flaws as well. The plot is a bit over-written, and there are numerous warnings on title cards to be very attentive, to be very afraid and so on. One step away from a brainwash really. From the first moments it's difficult to understand who's who - especially if you have a washed out bootleg copy, such as mine. You just don't distinguish the many faces. Plus there are several black-face performances, which is really stupid, as the men who are supposed to be black servants, have especially distinctive paleface features. Needless to say, they also provide the comic relief, and needless to say, it's all about rolling the eyes, waxing stiff, falling down, and running around in terror, yelling "lawdy, lawdy!" or something similar. In other words, not funny. I did like the leading lady and I can't blame Griffith for falling madly in love with her. Fortunately she's not only pretty, but also quite convincing as a 16-year old precious little rich girl, hungry for her mother's love. I immediately went browsing the net and found two more films where she is in, so I'll know a bit more when these arrive. Strangely enough her career totally ended a few years after this film, and I would like to know the reason, why. The leading man was a new face to me as well, even though looking at the list of his films, I realized I have seen several, but from the later period. He looks like he could be 16 himself, whereas in reality he was 32. Very handsome and moving as a young man tortured by love, he left a very good impression on me. There are nice interiors and some very good 1922 fashions displayed. I only wish there were a good, sharp, legitimate copy released. Despite some obvious flaws in the story, the complexity of the plot and the irritating comic subplot, a thoroughly enjoyable dark old house flick.

This was long for a silent film, over two hours, but probably the best silent film I have seen to date.

The story starts in Africa where a man is traveling with his sister-in-law, who is ill and just delivered a baby girl. They receive news that his brother, her husband was gravely ill himself. Subsequently both parents die...thinking that if he gets rid of the baby there is nothing to stop him from inheriting the estate, title and fortune...the uncle first thinks of killing the baby girl, but instead gives her to the nurse to take to America and raise in anonymity.

Sixteen years later, the girl named Agnes has been raised by this cold nurse who she believes to be her mother...but not really understanding warm motherly affection. The nurse having run out of money compromises herself and gets observed stealing by a wealthy older man. This man takes advantage of the situation by promising not to turn her in if she will marry young Agnes to him. After explaining the situation to Agnes she agrees to sacrifice herself to the old creepy man in marriage, which is how they become engaged.

Subsequently, a young wealthy land owner returns from his travels and meets Agnes...the two fall in love. He invites Agnes and her "mother" to stay at his estate.

The estate which has been unoccupied for years has, unbeknownst to the young man, been being used by bootleggers to store their stock bootleg. Learning the house is being opened up again, they rush to get their supplies out the back.

In the evening there is a big dinner party, but we discover that before the dinner party one bootlegger turned on the other and tried to steal a half a million dollars in cash. He is cornered and killed by his partner but not before he managed to stash the cash. While the staff are opening the house up, the young man's butler discovers the bag containing the cash...but he only sees the important documents that were placed by the bootlegger on top. Thinking the papers were important he takes them downstairs and locks them in the safe which is behind a hidden panel in the wall.

Staff members discover the murdered bootlegger upstairs and the police detectives are called. Meanwhile a dinner party happens and many guests and staff are behaving suspiciously as people sneak off...we assume one of them is the murderer and looking for the money.

And so this becomes a murder mystery...with lots of shady characters!

It was great...although I am not sure it needed a hurricane like storm, but it has one!

"Don't reveal the villain and pay attention to the early scenes..."

I am going to honor their wishes and not share who the villain is, only to say that I was able to guess but it did not dim my delight with the film at all.

A bit of a surprise that I enjoyed tremendously!

I loved one of the end scenes tremendously...a hand kiss followed by a kiss on the cheek (do you know which one).

I highly recommend this to silent movie fans and just cinema fans in general!

"Mystery of love, the sweetest of mysteries without which there would be no light...no music..."

"That moment when a man asks a woman to go with him on the path of Love. The path that goes through life and on through eternity."