A Corner in Wheat
| This article was copied (instead of imported) from the now-deleted Miraheze wikis. |
"The father of the American narrative film, D.W. Griffith pioneered film techniques that continue to influence filmmakers. Ably assisted by his long-time cameraman G.W. "Billy" Bitzer, Griffith produced this 14-minute film decrying greed and its consequences. Griffith was inspired by the work of Frank Norris, a novelist best known for "McTeague" (1899) — later adapted as "Greed" (1925), another Registry film. Griffith discovered a trilogy Norris was writing at the time of his death in 1902. Its theme was wheat: how it's grown, distributed and consumed. Griffith achieves a surprising sense of movement from a single stationary camera, and by building drama with the use of intercut images to illustrate comparisons and contrasts."
— The Library of Congress
A Corner in Wheat
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This film has been preserved in the National Film Registry in 1994.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Corner in Wheat is a 1909 American short silent film which tells of a greedy tycoon who tries to corner the world market on wheat, destroying the lives of the people who can no longer afford to buy bread. It was directed by D. W. Griffith and adapted by Griffith and Frank E. Woods from a novel and a short story by Frank Norris, titled The Pit and A Deal in Wheat.
Intercutting (cross-cutting) between still tableaux of the poor in the bread line and the lavish, active parties of the wealthy speculator somewhat anticipates the collision montage which became a hallmark of the politically charged Soviet cinema a decade or so later.
Why It Rocks
- The short film marked another milestone in the turn toward quality and respectability as films had only recently been covered as art instead of technology in the press.
- As per usual with D.W. Griffith's films, the director pioneered film techniques that continue to influence filmmakers. Griffith achieves a surprising sense of movement from a single stationary camera, and by building drama with the use of cross-cut intercut images to illustrate comparisons and contrasts between the wealthy and the poor.
- The short film condemns greed and its consequences as it attacks the rich. The upper class gets blamed for the injustice and taken down — in fact, this formula is still being used today. Griffith’s liberal leanings took some courage at the time. They also echoed the feelings of some significant artists at the turn of the twentieth century, with famed novelist Frank Norris being one of the most noteworthy.
- An intertitle explains that The Wheat King's “engineering the great corner,” but the audience just sees him ordering underlings around.
- Despite the two novels the film's based on having too much content to merge and condense into the film, and the writers being unable to explain the financial and psychological subtleties Norris built up over thousands of words, or even adequately explain who the characters were, the overall short still manages to get down to overall summary of what the author was trying to state. In a sense, the scenes function as illustrations from the novel.
- A ruined businessman is later shown confronting the Wheat King in his crowded office. It's easy to spot him in the group as he's the only one wearing a hat
- Frank Powell provides a memorable performance as the dashing and energetic businessman knows as The Wheat King.
- A decent cast that includes a lot of Biograph regulars that each provide skilled proformances. There's Griffth's wife Linda Arvidson, Henry B. Walthall, Mack Sennett, Blanche Sweet, Bobby Harron, and Owen Moore.
- The short's ending retains its power even today, with its stark image that was imitated in various future movies.
The Only Bad Quality
- Even if Griffth did address contemporary problems with the film, as social criticism it’s pretty weak, as it mainly offers viewers the hope that the millionaires who make fortunes from the poor will receive comeuppance or ironic deaths. But at the time, it was strong medicine, enough to help get filmmakers as a whole branded as radicals