Greed

Although I am not a big fan of classics, I know a good movie when I see one. However the legendary butchering of the film is more interesting than the movie itself. The original film was over nine hours long and was trimmed down to just over two and a half hours. Director Erich von Stroheim condemned the newly formed Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) for slashing his film. Continuity and subplots were torn from the masterpiece. Turner later tried to restore the film with publicity stills and new dialogue cards. This helped the film regain continuity and bring to light some of the subplots in the film. Turners new version is four hours and is splendidly done.

The film is about a miner named John McTeague who becomes a dentist through an apprenticeship. He soon opens his own business and meets a woman already involved with his friend Marcus. Marcus agrees to step aside since McTeague is obviously in love with the woman. After the woman named Trina wins $5000 in a lottery the story really takes off in what can only be described as a serious case of "Greed." I can tell no more without spoiling the film, but if you can stomach silent films this is one of the best.

The one great myth about this movie is that it would have been better if it had been four time longer. It's extremely good, at it is highly unlikely that the "unmutilated" version would have been better. In all likelihood, it would simply have been boring. It's a matter of faith among the conventional cinema intellegentia that the studio bosses routinely butchered great films. Judging from the self-indulgent dreck pumped out by unleashed geniuses once the studio system broke down, this is untenable. Stroheim was doubly lucky that the studio cut this film; the cutting made it good and further gave rise to the legend that an even better movie lived in the director's cut.

There was a time, and it was only a few years ago, when I found it difficult to sit through a silent film. The exaggerated movements and facial expressions and the over-bearing music, I believe, turned me off.

However, that changed drastically when I watched von Stroheim's Greed for the first time. The film, simply put, is immaculate. The portrayal of McTeague and Trina is fantastic. Pitts and Gowland, without using their voices mind you, create depth and allow the audience to sympathize with the characters. Silence often acted as a barrier between myself and the characters; here, that distance is bridged by the two actors and, I must assume, von Stroheim's masterful direction.

Yes, the direction is masterful. I believe describing it as such is entirely accurate. Innovative may go too far, but masterful just about covers it. The realism (which shooting on locations benefited) is something to behold. This is a story that Hollywood would balk at depicting in 2004; imagine the row that was had in 1924. Von Stroheim never backs away from his unrelentingly grim vision, reinforcing his theme (money is evil) throughout. And then there is the Death Valley sequence - one of the most marvelous series of scenes committed to celluloid.

All in all, this is truly a fantastic film - one that has aged, due to its ability to treat grim subject matter as it should, much better than many of its contemporaries. Also, it should be noted, that this represents a fine adaptation of Norris' novel McTeague. I was a fan of the novel before I saw the film and the film does not disappoint.

Von Stroheim ensured that the spirit, if not the word, of the novel was maintained.

10/10

A film almost as powerful as it is famous, Greed is pretty straight-forward about its theme: Greed. And what it does to people.

This would not be a silent film known for its subtlety, but a large part of that is the fact that it's really only a tenth of the film it was supposed to be. Entire reels have been cut down to single cue-cards, entire years jump by that were obviously supposed to be shown. In terms of the general "rules" of narrative, it works out well enough that it's still a quite clear story that follows a reasonable pace, but the lack of a lot of the character development and the like is pretty apparent.

Still, the music used on the film and the general story itself is powerful enough, it's definitely worth your time.

A man and a woman marry. The man is a simpleton, the woman is a hoarder. When she wins a $5000 lottery, she vows never to spend a cent of it... something that sets her husband and their common friend at odds as they all want the cash... but not necessarily to spend it. Entire relationships and lives are ripped asunder as they all grapple for their rights to "their" property: their greed.

This movie has been praised for its realism, but that couldn't be further from the truth. This movie is romanticized to the level of absurdity, the characters are so full-blown they are often hard to relate to. This comes from the fact that 80% of their development has been lost in the final cut. I don't want this to seem like a bad thing: because of their incredible antics, the movie takes you to places almost entirely unheard of and definitely unexpected.

It's one deep thrill after the other, backed up by some very beautiful imagery and intense music. It's just unfortunately not what the director intended. Even back in the day, people just didn't have a big enough attention span, and I find that very tragic. I want to see the ten-hour version.

--PolarisDiB

It's pretty tiresome to watch four hours of a black and white silent movie, which was cut to two hours seventy years ago and then, in our time, restored to original length by using photos from shooting to replace lost material... But it is definitely worth your patience. In the beginning, it may seem too stretched and even boring, but as you watch for some time it starts to pull you in and all shortcomings slowly fade from sight until you are left with a strong impression.

7/10