Greed

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

Erich von Stroheim made his film version of Frank Norris' novel ‘McTeague', and, as is well-known, it lasted over eight hours. The version which has survived is obviously nothing near that length, and cuts out many of the subplots from the book which had been planned and filmed.

What has survived is a broken masterpiece, starring Gibson Gowland, ZaSu Pitts, and Jean Hersholt, which is full of memorable images (not just the final sequences in the desert, but the trip out where McTeague and Trina fall awkwardly in love, and the scene where Trina rolls literally in the golden coins strewn on her bed) and makes you long for more of this film to turn up from the vaults.

There is a marvellous book available which reconstructs much of the lost material through stills, and much of this was amalgamated with the existing footage to ‘restore' the film during the late 1990s. Even in its butchered state, Greed is well worth a look.

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

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.

You don't have to watch "Greed" for very long to become impressed with the masterful technique of von Stroheim and his cast. Sometimes it relies on fancy methods such as the occasional use of gold tinting (which must have demanded some painstaking work), and at other times it relies on flawless direction, carefully chosen details, and a keen understanding of what is happening in the characters' lives. The tense finale is especially memorable, a sequence you won't forget for a while.

The only real questions about "Greed" have to do with its length. Hardly anyone disputes the folly of the studio decision to chop the original down to a couple of hours. The restored version uses stills and title cards to fill in the most important scenes that were left out in the studio release, and from this you can also piece together what was actually included in the shorter version. Several significant secondary characters were almost completely eliminated, which took away some of the relationships that were supposed to serve as important comparisons with the central relationship between McTeague and his wife. Even if they had been right to cut the film to a quarter of its length, the choices they made left much to be desired.

Would it really have been better with several more hours of material? Although there is plenty of plot, there isn't anything in the story thematically that would require anything longer then the restored version. It's a gripping study of human flaws, especially greed, but goes no farther. It is admirable to see a director try to hold so closely to a novel, but the Frank Norris novel, while detailed, convincing, and well-conceived as far as it goes, doesn't have the depth or the multi-dimensional characters of the greatest novels. There is no doubt that the lost footage would have provided many more examples of fine film-making, but most of it would not have added very much to the story itself.

What would probably have been perfect is something close to the length of the restored version, with the actual (but now lost) footage instead of the patchwork reconstruction. Since that is impossible, we are very fortunate to have the restored version that includes all of the most important parts of the story and that gives new life to one of the fine classics of silent cinema.