16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a great film, August 17, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: America [VHS] (VHS Tape)
I can't imagine why I have never heard of this film before. It is very well made with tinted scenes, which a French director made famous with his tricolors (red, white, and blue) in "Napoleon Bonaparte." Griffith is concentrated and clear with his focus well honed. Lionel Barrymore is young but you can tell by his eyes who he is - and that is a star already in a silent film; unbelieveable. The film is long, historical, and entertaining. Everyone should see it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Colonial costume drama, February 8, 2008
Silent costume drama, whichever era and location it's set in, isn't the easiest silent genre to get into. There are usually a lot of different characters to keep track of, the plot tends to take awhile to really be set up, and there are a lot of long intertitles setting all of the characters and situations up. This film in particular, because of those aspects, did seem a bit slow-going to me at first, and took awhile before I really got interested in it. Before the story really got going in earnest, there seemed to be more telling than showing, thanks to all of those lengthy intertitles explaining who a character was or what a certain historical development was all about. A lot of these silents that have so many long intertitles, dialogue or just explanatory, seem like they would have worked better as sound films.
The story is set during the American Revolution, and features at the forefront a Loyalist family, the Montagues, whose lives are turned upside-down when all of this chaos and violence erupts. The Montague daughter, Nancy (Carol Dempster), also has the complication of being romantically pursued by Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton), who not only is fighting on the other side but who is also much, much below her in station and therefore is risking a lot by even speaking to such a high-class lady. Nancy's father already dislikes Nathan because he's fighting against the King and was caught at Nancy's window at night, but hates him even more when he is wounded by a shot from Nathan's rifle. Another man in the crowd was really the one who pulled the trigger, but Nancy and her father don't want to believe this at first, so now Nancy, who was warming up to Nathan's attentions, shuns him as well. The man of his choice for Nancy becomes the Loyalist Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), a total and complete villain who goes on one murderous rampage and debauch after another. Nathan, however, swore when he first saw Nancy that he would never forget her and would always love her, and continues to pursue her throughout the Revolution, hoping to convince her and her father that he was not the one who pulled the trigger and that he, and not Capt. Butler, is the right husband for Nancy.
Though there are a number of slow spots in the film (particularly the historical expository sections, when there isn't much action or camera movement), there are quite a few faster-moving sections, among them some great battle scenes. Lionel Barrymore also plays the villainous Capt. Butler to the hilt, making him the most interesting character by far. And the overall story is so interesting that I could kind of put aside my disbelief at the implausible subplot of the love story. I don't believe in love at first sight, and a romance, let alone marriage, between two different social classes just wasn't something that was even considered in that era, but at least this less than believable "love story" doesn't dominate the entire film. I didn't extraordinarily mind that the Native Americans were shown as villains fighting on Capt. Butler's side, since such a thing wouldn't have been unheard of in history, but I was very offended at how the intertitles kept referring to them as "savages" instead of at least using the older term "Indian" to identity them. There were also a bunch of the typical urban legends about the American Revolution shown as fact, such as Paul Revere's ride. In real life he was captured by those British Regulars during his ride and had to be replaced by another rider named Israel Bissel. The scene of Gen. Washington praying in the woods in the winter is also pure myth, and as serious students of American history should know, the Declaration of Independence was actually signed August second, and the final signature wasn't even affixed till 18 January 1777. The only noteworthy thing that happened on 4 July 1776 was the approval of the wording of the document. And as a historian, I didn't appreciate the black and white view of the Revolution and its causes. Real history is rarely so simplistic and clear-cut. The causes of the American rebellion were more complex than generations of students have been led to believe by myth-ridden textbooks, and the British, King George III among them, were not these evil unreasonable villains. Still, at least those bits, like the silly love story, didn't dominate the entire film.
This isn't an ideal first silent, but it isn't one of the worst choices either. It's also of obvious interest to those who like historical epics, even if not all of the facts are right and some urban legends are repeated as truth.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Late Masterpiece, June 12, 2009
At this point in his career, Griffith's shot composition and editorial technique are so honed to perfection that one almost forgets that one is watching a masterpiece. Virtually every composition is extraordinary, and every shot has its exact place in the montage. The dramatization is dull only if one fails to realize that what Griffith is playing off against each other are the aesthetics of the wax museum and the aesthetics of melodrama. This is the dialectic that propels the film, in which American history intentionally looks stuffed and boring against the dissociative fragmentation of Griffith's modernist visuals and the fullsome sentimentality of the romance. Perhaps not for all viewers, but significant work in the Griffith canon.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
