La Nuit mystérieuse

...but I hated the editing, continuity and aspecially the inserts. I know it's made 100 years ago but most films made don't have those issues.

The story was nice and the actors were okay.

THE BAT by Avery Hopwood opened in August of 1920 and was a smash that ran for more than two years and 867 performances. After wrapping on ORPHANS OF THE STORM, Griffith worked on his next project, which was -- ahem -- inspired by the Broadway hit. It would be a modern dress affair, with contemporary characters and thrills, and humor and all that good stuff. There would be a missing heir, a treasure of half a million dollars to be found, a fiendish, masked murderer running around, reaching from hidden panels in the wall to strangle random house guests, a romance of young people and comic lower-class servants.

There are some issues.

First, there's the technical issue of its length. The IMDb lists it as running 128 minutes. The copy I saw on YouTube, derived from the Killiam Collection, timed at 146 minutes, and crawled. I adjusted the speed so it ran a touch over a hundred minutes. Now it was brisk. Unfortunately, for the first three-quarters of its length, it's a snooze.

The opening certainly took its time, with a long prologue that ran backwards sixteen years from the main events, setting up the ending with little surprise. The prologue was about 45 minutes on the Killiam print, 30 in real life. I would have cut it entirely, and dropped a little of the background into the rest of the picture, for a nice 70-minute feature.

Griffith might have wished to make a small picture, but he could not. He was the Great Director, and his public demanded major pieces from him. He could no more direct a five-reel movie than Fannie Hurst could turn out limericks. Like Cecil Demille in his last decade, every movie had to be an epic with a finale that would top his last epic.

Next there's the matter of casting. I won't even go into the actors in blackface playing comic servants. It might have still played in 1922, barely, but looking at them now, it's just insulting. Worse, Griffith had lost the Gish sisters and Richard Barthelmess, and he was stuck with Carol Dempster. Miss Dempster is fine in the closing sequence of the movie, when she nerves herself up to go out after the villain. She was fine at playing the modern -- for 1922 -- woman. Unfortunately, earlier in the movie, she plays the stereotypical Griffith heroine: sixteen years old, virginal, browbeaten by her mother and hiding in her blankets. She's worse than poor. She's ridiculous in the role.

So we have a slow, sodden beginning played by the wrong actors, leading up to the epic Griffith finish, and that ending is fine. People run around. A hurricane starts up. It rips trees and houses apart, it knocks down the players, it threatens them with death, and it's truly exciting.

Unfortunately, by then, I didn't care. The long prologue told me how it would come out. The dictates of drama told me that boy would get girl. I had the leisure to figure out who the villain was, and why that threatening man who invades the girls' bedroom was no threat. There was no dramatic tension, just the socko finish, like the Little Colonel leading the charge, or Lilian Gish leaping from ice floe to ice floe. Too bad. Too little, too late.

The only thing exciting in "One Exciting Night," D.W. Griffith's slow go at the old dark house formula, is the climactic hurricane sequence. Everything else tends to be extremely dull, drawn out, convoluted, overly explained, exposition-heavy, repetitive and racist. Not only unexciting--it's excruciating, really--it doesn't take place in one night, either, although it should have... it so much should have. In fact, the narrative takes place within nearly two decades. In the complete version of the film, at least, it's over an hour in before it gets to the night in question (I viewed the Critic's Choice VHS from the '90s, which runs 124 minutes). Everything before that should've been cut; it's just unnecessary subplot and filler. I know this was early in the subgenre of old dark house horror comedies, but still, Griffith demonstrated no appreciation that these things are supposed to be light and fast paced. Instead, he indulged in his worst tendencies of excess as a filmmaker: plentiful and verbose title cards, leading the spectator ad nauseam through every plot point, including frequently replaying scenes, too many characters and melodramatic subplots, bland and simplistic appeals to grande themes (greed, love, life, death), African-American stereotypes portrayed by white actors in blackface and minstrel show antics.

There are five title cards before we even see an image with scenery or characters in the film. Furthermore, Griffith contradicts himself in them by calling this a "little effort" before going on, "In this absolute departure from all OLD METHODS of story telling we leave much to YOUR IMAGINATION besides the detection of who is the villain. Therefore it is well to watch closely the early scenes as they become important later on." None of that is true. This was a bloated effort, it is very much in the vein of old methods of storytelling, with Griffith's usual Victorian melodrama and the old dark house stuff being ripped off the popular stage play of the time, "The Bat" (later adapted to screen in 1926 and 1930 by Roland West), and Griffith's storytelling leaves very little to the imagination, including the obviousness of the villain's identity long before it's exposed, and Griffith repeats things over and over again, so there's no need to pay particularly close attention. The film is so bad, though, the best way to enjoy it may be to barely pay attention and use your imagination instead. Just make sure to tune back in near the end for the hurricane, where the repetition in the editorial form of temporal replays are acceptable--I'm OK with seeing Henry Hull hit by the same flying tree branch twice.

The story begins in Africa where a mother dies, leaving a fortune to her infant child, but the next-in-line heir schemes to have a woman pretend the child is hers, thus concealing the baby's identity so that he may inherit the fortune. Upon his death, however, he admits the fraud. And, for the next two or so hours, this plot will be ignored. Jump to the states years later, and Carol Dempster agrees to a blackmail scheme to marry an older man so that he doesn't rat out her thieving and abusive mother. Now, forget that plot, too, because it doesn't really matter, and it's only mentioned a couple times later, including with one of the many flashbacks, lest we forget. Dempster meets a younger man, the hero played by Hull, who had also played the similar part in the stage version of another old dark house horror comedy, "The Cat and the Canary" (adapted to the screen in 1927 and a few times after that). Hull has a spooky house, so, of course, he sets about throwing a party and hiring some African-American servants. That a bootlegger is murdered in the house and that he's a prime suspect doesn't deter him in these activities in the least. Only after another man is murdered, and he's once again a prime suspect, and after he discovers that the bootlegger hid half a million dollars in his home does the situation become tense. This is also when the old dark house formula finally kicks in.

And most of the subgenre's tropes are here in spades--at least the ones that also appear in "The Bat": secret passages and mysterious panels, hidden cash, nighttime shadows, hands reaching out from hidden corners to grab people, flickering lights, a storm, people running around scaring themselves silly, comic relief, a whodunit murder mystery and a masked villain. Unfortunately, most of the comic relief is debasing slapstick of an African-American stereotype named Romeo played by a white actor in blackface, portrayed as a dishonest (Griffith's title cards inform us that he found the war medal he passes off as having earned), running around scared and wide-eyed at the sight of almost everything. Meanwhile, another blackfaced character is referred to by two different racial slurs and as "primitive," and that's not even counting Griffith's title card informing us that, "It is well known that Black Sam is the dark terror of the bootleggers' band." In the end, all of the blackfaced caricatures, as well as the extras that include some actual African Americans, are portrayed as either servile, stupid or lazy.

Another title card, "Pictures -- white man's magic to be treasured," seems to sum up well what Griffith thought of his own filmmaking prowess. Yet, while he was one of the more innovative of pioneering directors at Biograph and into his features of the 1910s; in the 1920s, with one or two exceptions, his work is among the most detestable, as the quality of his pictures suffered from the financial changes in Hollywood and as he failed to keep abreast of advances in content, tone or technical matters, with his dated racial and Victorian ideals becoming ever more burdensome within inferior goods.

ONE EXCITING NIGHT is an odd film directed by D.W. Griffith. It stars Carol Dempster and Henry Hull. The film is unusual for Griffith because it's a comic mystery. Although the film is too long, it's entertaining.

Dempster is an unknowing heiress who is always seeking the love of her mother. But the woman is not her mother. Dempster is being pawned off on an older suitor who is after her estate. At a party she meets and falls for Hull, but then odd happenings begin and there is a murder.

The intricate plot is probably defeated by the long running time, but this film is underrated possibly because it lacks major stars. Yet Henry Hull is an appealing leading man here, and Carol Dempster is a surprise.

A minor actress in the teens, Dempster was elevated to stardom in the 20s by Griffith after she became his mistress. Although Dempster has historically been regarded as a dud, she's quite good here as the awkward heroine, Agnes Harrington. She has an angular beauty that was slightly out of step with the era's ideals, but in the right role, Dempster was a good actress. In Griffith's THE SORROWS OF Satan and ISN'T LIFE WONDFERUL, Dempster turns in excellent performances. She retired from films before talkies came in and never looked back.

Also good are Margaret Dale as the "mother," Porter Strong as Romeo, Morgan Wallace as Rockmaine, and Charles Emmett Mack as the "guest."

Filming locations are quite good.

There are two reasons why you'd rent One Exciting Night, an old silent movie nearly 100 years old: Either you love D.W. Griffith's movies, or you love Henry Hull and this is the only silent movie of his you can get your hands on. I watched it for Henry, and it was worth it. He's so cute! With the advent of talkies, and his fame on Broadway for playing the old, crotchety Jeeter in Tobacco Road, he was almost always made up to be an old man and told to use a gruff, gravely voice. You'd never think, watching him in Jesse James or Great Expectations, that he looked like Matt Dillon when he was young! Seriously, folks, if you don't think it's possible that the grizzly old doctor from High Sierra was ever handsome, you've got to rent this silent movie.

This long romance-mystery takes place mostly in a beautiful mansion. Guests get together for a party, but there's a burglary underfoot. While dead bodies pop up and detectives try to figure things out, there's also a love story. The beautiful Carol Dempster feels pressured to marry the older, creepy Morgan Wallace because her mother wants his money, but as soon as she meets Henry Hull, her heart tells her to disobey.

This movie has a running time of 2 ½ hours, and it easily could have been edited down to a flat two hours if all the racism was eliminated. I'll admit it leaves a really bad taste in your mouth and ruins the rest of the movie. The prominent characters of color are white actors in blackface, and while it's not hard to believe black actors wouldn't want to take such insulting roles, it's more likely that the studio preferred to pay white actors.

If you do decide to watch it, with your fast-forward button handy, you'll be treated to another D.W. Griffith epic. This may start out as a simple house party, but you'll get to see where the studio put its money: a huge rainstorm that topples trees threatens to tear the young lovers apart. Henry not only wrestles with the rain, trees, and mud, but he also gets into fistfights with bad guys and gets to woo Carol with a big, sweeping kiss. This movie contains one of two onscreen kisses I've seen him enjoy, so that's pretty exciting. It's a whole different ball game to master silent acting versus talkies, and it's just delightful to see Henry Hull, famous for his gravelly voice, as the young romantic lead with delicate features. Plus, Carol is cute as a button and gets to parade around in some adorable dresses, too!