I don't think many would dispute the assertion that D.W. Griffith was the first great American director, and his commercial and critical success during the 1910s was simply unsurpassed. But all geniuses have to start somewhere. Between 1908 and 1913, Griffith worked for the Biograph Company, producing short films at a rate of two or three per week, regularly experimenting with and pioneering simple new cinematic techniques that would eventually become commonplace. Even throughout a single year , it's been interesting to trace a gradual development in Griffith's skills as a director. 'Those Awful Hats (1909),' was a basic, one-take comic farce; this gave way to 'The Sealed Room (1909),' a melodramatic thriller that made good use of cross-cutting; and then 'The Red Man's View (1909),' which inspired pathos for the plight of the Native American tribes. 'A Corner in Wheat (1909)' is the best Griffith short I've seen to date, a genuinely-touching slice of Americana that establishes the director as a champion for the typical hard-working American {despite the fact that Griffith would later become exceedingly wealthy}.
It's impossible not to think about John Ford's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940)' while watching this film. That families of anonymous farmers are left to starve, with little hope for the future, as a greedy businessman accumulates millions of dollars that he'll never use, is an idea fundamentally Steinbeckian in its conception, and Ford would undoubtedly derive inspiration from Griffith's work as he developed his own career. The story concerns a cunning tycoon, the Wheat King (Frank Powell), who manages to capture a monopoly in the wheat market, restricting product supply and so pushing up the price. I don't think that it was Griffith's intention to vilify the Wheat King his business actions are certainly condemning thousands of poor families to starvation, but I don't think he realises this; he's so obsessed with money that he is blind to the plight of the ordinary American. Perhaps this was Griffith's purpose for producing the film, to inform such businessmen of the consequences of their selfish actions. This is a relatively simplistic moral by today's standards, but it works.
To highlight the old adage that "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer," Griffith utilises cross-cutting to perfect effect. His pioneering use of parallel editing cutting back and forth between two scenarios that contrast each other was a further step towards the realisation of editing's ability to affect emotion. As the Wheat King celebrates extravagantly with his colleagues, Griffith cuts to the lines of poor farmers and their families, who, unable to afford the inflated bread prices, are resigned to going hungry. Some might consider this a primitive editing technique, but even modern directors use it extensively for example, I recently noticed a sequence of uncannily-similar shots in Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster (2007).' Even though the selfish monopolist businessman ultimately meets his demise, ironically, via the tonnes of wheat he had been hoarding, his death does nothing to brighten the prospects of his faceless victims. Griffith's final shot is heartbreaking, as a lone farmer fruitlessly drops seeds in the dry, desolate dust of his property. There seems to be little hope for this man's future, but he keeps trying, and that's hope enough.
It's impossible not to think about John Ford's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940)' while watching this film. That families of anonymous farmers are left to starve, with little hope for the future, as a greedy businessman accumulates millions of dollars that he'll never use, is an idea fundamentally Steinbeckian in its conception, and Ford would undoubtedly derive inspiration from Griffith's work as he developed his own career. The story concerns a cunning tycoon, the Wheat King (Frank Powell), who manages to capture a monopoly in the wheat market, restricting product supply and so pushing up the price. I don't think that it was Griffith's intention to vilify the Wheat King his business actions are certainly condemning thousands of poor families to starvation, but I don't think he realises this; he's so obsessed with money that he is blind to the plight of the ordinary American. Perhaps this was Griffith's purpose for producing the film, to inform such businessmen of the consequences of their selfish actions. This is a relatively simplistic moral by today's standards, but it works.
To highlight the old adage that "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer," Griffith utilises cross-cutting to perfect effect. His pioneering use of parallel editing cutting back and forth between two scenarios that contrast each other was a further step towards the realisation of editing's ability to affect emotion. As the Wheat King celebrates extravagantly with his colleagues, Griffith cuts to the lines of poor farmers and their families, who, unable to afford the inflated bread prices, are resigned to going hungry. Some might consider this a primitive editing technique, but even modern directors use it extensively for example, I recently noticed a sequence of uncannily-similar shots in Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster (2007).' Even though the selfish monopolist businessman ultimately meets his demise, ironically, via the tonnes of wheat he had been hoarding, his death does nothing to brighten the prospects of his faceless victims. Griffith's final shot is heartbreaking, as a lone farmer fruitlessly drops seeds in the dry, desolate dust of his property. There seems to be little hope for this man's future, but he keeps trying, and that's hope enough.