Ouro e Maldição

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.

Heavily edited MGM release version of Stroheim's 8 hour epic satisfies at 2 and a half hours -- you have to wonder if any extra length would have made it a little better or a little worse. To be sure, Stroheim probably ran the thing pretty slow when he projected it. Authentic detail in locations adds another level of interest, as we get to see parts of San Francisco, Oakland, and Placer County in the early 20s. The story is dark and involved, detailing the love of two people destroyed by their compulsive greed and neuroses. There is no moment in its story where the viewpoint is not pessimistic, except the image of dual humanity presented in McTeague's birds. Exceptional.

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

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

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.