What Drink Did

Here we are at the dawn of the movie era where directors and actors begin to understand and reveal the techniques best suited to the silent screen.

We should not forget that this is 1909 and the requirement to survive in the new and novelty 'industry' at that time was mass production, they were knocking out more than 50 'movies' a year with limited equipment and a small group of regular performers. There was no time to waste, no time to be reflective and do multiple takes and experiments and then choose the best one. A decision was made then the action filmed - another dozen movies were lined up behind what was being done in the moment.

Griffith was the product of his time - his father a Southern military officer during the Civil War and DW of strict moralistic upbringing.

Griffith often visited moralistic themes in his movies and this was the prevalent thinking and attitudes of the time. In his own time nobody would have thought this over moralistic and, we shouldn't forget that 'Prohibition' was the end result of societies concerns over alcohol. This was the era in which lynchings of African Americans still spontaneously occurred, Chinese were called Chinks and it was illegal to cross marry.

Griffith had high visions for film as revealed in 1914 interviews were he saw them as a 'push button' teaching aid in libraries replacing books and encyclopedias. No doubt they could be used for 'moral' purposes as well.

This little film should not be seen just as Griffith going over-board on alcohol but a pointer to community values and concerns of the time.

I believe the subject matter and purpose lent itself to melodramatic acting - it was intended rather than a flaw. The violence and harshness coming from alcohol abuse was deliberate and would have touched a chord with many.

The movie is not as bad as we would like to think in modern times - it should be judged in the context it was produced and the effect it was meant to achieve.

What Drink Did announces itself as "a thoughtful moral lesson". The trouble is, for all his skill with film form (which is undeveloped here in any case) DW Griffith was a pretty mediocre moralist, especially this early in his career. This daft little anti-alcohol parable is one of many oddities he created in 1909.

Let's look first though at Griffith's fledgling technique. The story begins with a series of long takes, as was the custom with these early Biograph shorts, introducing the various characters and locations. But Griffith was also just beginning to experiment with crosscutting, and halfway through the film he begins switching back and forth between two settings. It's a very early example of parallel editing, and to be honest rather basic, but it serves its purpose in the narrative.

The above is however the only redeeming feature. Griffith and his collaborators were apparently still under the delusion that acting was about grimacing and waving your arms all over the place. And of course there is that illogical narrative. This film might have had some impact had it highlighted some more realistic perils of drinking – showing David Miles sprawling in a gutter while his family go hungry, for instance. Instead, the message appears to be "Drink too much, and through a series of highly unlikely twists you could end up shooting your daughter in the head". At the end, Miles clutches his head and gesticulates wildly, just in case you hadn't yet grasped he was a bit upset.

Griffith may be starting to probe a little in new directions, but What Drink Did is in itself simply dire.

This was the second of two morality tales about alcoholism that D. W. Griffith produced in 1909; "A Drunkard's Reformation" is the other. Between the two, there's really no comparison. "What Drink Did" is a far more powerful story for how it presents a strong if extreme reason for why one shouldn't drink. Whereas "A Drunkard's Reformation" is about the path of the drunkard on his way to quitting drinking, "What Drink Did" provides a reason why to do so. It may seem like an extreme example, but it is effective enough at making its point so that the film becomes a powerful morality story.

"What Drink Did" centers around a father who succumbs to peer pressure and decides to drink alcohol with his friends in the workplace. After failing to come home one day, his daughter is sent out to find him and under the influence of alcohol, the father becomes abusive towards her efforts to bring him home. What ensues is quite effective, and outside of the plot hole of sending a little girl out alone to look for her dad in a bar, the film is a fairly decent attempt at a morality play. It also includes early attempts at cross-cutting, as another reviewer has pointed out, showing Griffith slowly building his craft that would later result in masterful films like "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance". A rather interesting little feature.

I've seen quite a few films which are virtually identical to "What Drink Did". This is because back in the early days of films, filmmakers would often copy each other's movies....and some of the copies were so close it's tough to tell which is the original. That is why some studios, like Biograph, put a watermark-type symbol 'AB' on their prints...so folks would know it was theirs and not some knockoff. However, despite the mark, the story itself surely was made before 1909 by some other studio. This is because in the days leading up to Prohibition, this exact story was told innumerable times on film and in plays....and in each case, the evils of alcohol are overstated...almost as badly as the evils of pot in "Reefer Madness"!

When the story begins, a man has a lovely family....a wife and two girls who look like twins. However, one day at work when he's on his lunch break, someone brings in pails of beer (this was the way beer was distributed back in the day...much like today's growlers in microbreweries). He at first refuses to drink any of the evil intoxicant but eventually relents....and soon becomes a totally changed man. Instead of going home from work, he stays out in bars drinking with friends. And, when one of the daughters goes to find him, a fight breaks out and the girl is shot dead!!! Thank goodness the family has a spare kid! Regardless, the man has learned his lesson and now eschews demon liquor....and he's left a broken shell of a man.

Such films and plays were spurred on by the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a group that advocated for a complete ban on booze in the USA. And, as history tells us, this didn't exactly work out especially well!

Overall, reasonably well done for 1909 but clearly overly melodramatic when seen today. This sort of thing was a pet topic for D. W. Griffith, as he was a big temperance proponent....even though he did grow up in the same state that makes bourbon whiskey. Worth seeing for the curious, but he made many better films than this....ones with more subtlety and style....and which were more original.

A moral lesson is taught in this excellent Biograph film which might have its influence. The dramatic qualities of a temperance story are generally very powerful, and the Biograph actors seem specially fitted to emphasize the dramatic possibilities without weakening whatever of moral strength there may be in a piece. In this instance they have made the most of their opportunity and the picture is very strong. The climax, when the father realizes that his little daughter is dead, is a strong piece of acting, and a sigh of relief involuntarily escapes the audience when the scene changes. The photography is clear and good, like all the Biograph work. The film could be used to advantage by religious and temperance organizations. - The Moving Picture World, June 5, 1909