A Romance of Happy Valley

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.

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.

Lillian Gish getting lovey dovey in her cute hats is the highlight in this creaky old film, but it's interesting that her budding romance is set within the context of country vs. City, a dynamic that's carried forward to the present day. Here New York is referred to as "Sodom and Gomorrah" by a preacher when the young man she has an eye on has aspirations of moving there. He's played by Robert Harron who's got good screen presence as well, but unfortunately this story fizzles because it veers away from being a romance for too long.

In the city there is no great temptation that he faces, just an innocent request to go out "stepping" (dancing), which he declines, so that he and the film can instead spend time rather anemically on him trying to get a toy mechanical frog working, which was a bit like watching paint dry. When he eventually does return home, a crime drama is cooked up with a stranger, which is compounded by a near fatal case of mistaken identity. I don't know if the film was aware of the irony of the crime and violence occurring in the town instead of the den of iniquity of the city, but regardless, it was completely uninteresting, and I longed for Gish to return to the screen.

Must all director D.W. Griffith's stories make a moral point? "A Romance of Happy Valley" offers one readily: "Harm not the stranger within your gates, lest you yourself be hurt." By the film's end, this is shown to be excellent advice. At a Kentucky back-country inn, poor country boy Robert Harron (as John L. Logan Jr.) dreams about making his fortune in the Big City (New York). Hard-working father George Fawcett (as Logan Sr.) and Bible-loving mother Kate Bruce (as Mrs. Logan) don't want to see their son gallivant off to the Wicked City; they want him to remain down on the farm. Girl-next-door Lillian Gish (as Jennie Timberlake) is also afraid she will lose Harron to big city ways…

Robert Harron and Lillian Gish. Corn rustling in the wind. Rustic fences. Of course, this an absolutely gorgeous picture. Griffith and photographer G.W. Bitzer create an extraordinary, classic landscape; and, "A Romance of Happy Valley" is one of their most perfect collaborations. Harron is especially poignant; portraying "Johnny Logan" as an innocent country boy who longs to better his lot in life. His is the film's struggle: the comfort and stability known in simple, rural life vs. the promise of wealth in the unknown, urban city. The story is about Temptation; and Harron must navigate it successfully, or die trying…

The film begins with lovely images: Harron working the fields; Gish in her fenced lawn. Then, they court; in a great scene, the two use their hands on a farm tool, to express their emotions. After Harron decides to leave for New York, Gish and Harron's parents endeavor to change his mind. Gish dons herself in the latest fashions, and his parents trust their Minister will change Harron's wayward ways. In Church, Gish looks woeful; and Harron looks desperately ill (showing his soul). The plan works; however, Harron's salvation is short-lived. Then, Harron leaves for Sin City; where he decides to make his fortune by inventing a toy frog that swims…

The symbolism is rich; and, when the toy frog swims, so does Harron. When he goes home, Harron finds his parents have grown desperately poor. Mother Bruce has faith that the Lord will provide. Father Fawcett is unable to avoid his own Temptation; so, to save the farm, he decides to assault the rich stranger in town, unaware the "city slicker" is his own son. Although he is matured by his experience in the city, Harron's character is untainted by Temptation; note the nonthreatening manner Harron displays at Gish's bedroom window, near the end. Harron startles, but does not frighten Gish; he is transformed into an ideal man, who retains his better country traits.

Robert Harron was the "Best Actor" performing in films during 1919, with the following remarkable, and highly recommended, features: A Romance of Happy Valley (1919), The Girl Who Stayed at Home (1919), The Greatest Question (1919), and True Heart Susie (1919). Frequent co-star Lillian Gish was filmdom's "Best Actress"; of these films, she is most remarkable in "True Heart Susie". Griffith's reliable supporting cast is wonderful, as always. Aside from the aforementioned supporting players, "Happy Valley" includes the reliably smarmy Bertram Grassby as "Judas", who is said to be descended from the original Iscariot. And, Carol Dempster has a nice turn as a wicked city woman. The ending is very exciting, and Griffith improves significantly upon his earlier "The Son's Return" (1909).

********* A Romance of Happy Valley (1/26/19) D.W. Griffith ~ Robert Harron, Lillian Gish, George Fawcett, Kate Bruce

For many years, this film was among a number of D. W. Griffith films from the 1918-1919 season which were considered irretrievably lost. In the 1970s it was discovered in the Gosmofilmfund in Russia, and through some complicated negotiations was acquired by the Museum of Modern Art in time for the Griffth centenary in 1975. Prints in English have the subtitles replaced, as the Russian print was subtitled in Ukrainian. The story is a simple one and personally close to Griffith's heart - a Kentucky lad, played by Robert Harron, is an inventor and hears of opportunity in New York. Although the townsfolk, his mother and father, and his sweetheart, played by Lillian Gish, all try to restrain him from leaving Happy Valley, he does so. In New York, the boy works tirelessly on his invention for eight years and resists a number of temptations. Little does he know that back home, his sweetheart is struggling with similar issues, and when the foreclosure notice comes on the family home, his father, whose opposition to the boy's departure to New York was particularly noisome, experiences a major crisis of temptation himself. The title card identifies this as a "Griffith Short Story" vehicle, and it plays like one of Griffith's Biograph shorts, only much longer. It is not one of his most technically accomplished films, and there are some uncomfortable racial characterizations, though nothing of the kind witnessed in "The Birth of a Nation." But it is a chamber movie, sort of a sketch for "True Heart Susie" and "Way Down East," rural stories told on a more ambitious scale. It contains much of Griffith's idealized vision of his childhood Kentucky, and the desperation of the father may have drawn to some extent on Griffth's own father's struggles late in life. Overall, it is a sweet, unpretentious little film which mean, and does, no harm to anyone. Not a major masterpiece, but an attractive film in a genre that was a Griffith specialty, local in orientation but universal in theme.