Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

chaos-rampant DW Griffith's ideal was that dreams can come true or should be shown to, and that cinema should work to that effect. He carried all the other Victorian values with him, the edifying fable, usually a big sappy story, grandiose love, austere morals, the struggle against forces of darkness. These are old and mouldy relics now, and must have even seemed so at the time to young more radical cineastes abroad.But he was our first master of technique and many learned from him, Abel Gance in France, Sjostrom in Sweden, of course Chaplin, Kuleshov and his film workshop. Here he perfects the business with layers he was still struggling with in Intolerance.Intolerance always cut back and forth to very concrete moments in time, every intertitle announcing so in advance, as a result we got forced, simple metaphysics. Simple physics in fact, exhaustively so. You did not have to do any work, merely be swept as part of one or the other mob. It was clean linear history, movement in one direction.I want to direct your attention to two instances here. One is where we have just followed another segment of the misadventures of the naive country girl betrayed by the rich playboy, the film suddenly cuts away to the handsome country boy - her true love interest we presume - being jostled awake in bed as though from a bad dream and himself the dreamer of our story. This has saturated so ubiquitously in film culture, it is now considered in bad taste to signify a dream scene in this way.The other is the awesomely mounted ice-breaker finale, impressive for just the selection of cascading imagery but now parting to reveal soul, the whole fabric of the world being torn beneath the feet of our heroine to reveal a liquid universe below, stories written in waters and swept away and forgotten. In all the years of film since then we have only managed to invent a third layer on top of Griffith's two, adding in the equation the veracity of the author supplying the fabric and imagery, and have mostly spent that time transferring the whole more directly to the eye and perfecting links and arrangements.More erudite filmmakers would envision complex worlds with more clarity, but as far as nuts and bolts film mechanics are concerned a lot of it is patented here.

Steffi_P You can't keep a good story down. DW Griffith's film of Way Down East was an adaptation of a popular play of the late 19th century, but that play was itself a rather flagrant rip-off of the Robert Hardy novel Tess of the D'Urbervilles. True, the ending was substantially altered, and Way Down East's conclusions were fustily moralist compared with Hardy's bold progressiveness, but this in a way just goes to show how almost identical situations and characters can be adapted to suit a variety of means. Griffith keeps the moral sentiments of the play, but for this "elaboration" (the word used in the picture's publicity material at the time) he craftily sheers it of its staginess to produce a work of pure cinema.Technically Griffith may by now have been overtaken by his peers, but he has lost none of his ability to show character and intention through meaningful staging and encouragement of naturalistic acting. For example, when Lillian Gish turns up at her rich relatives' home, no title card reveals her sense of being out of her depth, but Griffith often keeps her in long shot, emphasising the isolating vastness of the house, and this has an impact on how we view the scene. We then realise Mrs Tremont's embarrassment at having this poor cousin walk into her life by the distance the woman keeps from Gish and her awkward attempts to avoid eye contact. One of the most nicely done scenes is the one of Gish's wedding to Lowell Sherman. Unconventionally, he keeps the camera behind the pastor, obscuring the couple, and keeping a cold empty space in the foreground. This really gives us the impression that something is not right here, even though we haven't been explicitly told so yet.What really impresses about Way Down East is its beauty, which suffuses almost every frame – exquisite countryside vistas, painterly shot compositions, not to mention many radiant close-ups of Ms Gish. Griffith always liked to make his pictures pleasing to the eye, but there is method in all this gorgeousness. Griffith uses natural beauty to emphasise the idyll of the Bartlett farm, and it's no coincidence that this is at its most striking in the shots when Gish first arrives there. And Griffith continually flatters Gish with the camera, framing her tenderly and often in soft focus, creating a visual metaphor for her delicacy and purity.Gish's acting is of top standard, far better than the hysterical hamming she displayed in the previous year's Broken Blossoms. It's also nice to see her in a proper adult role rather than the disturbingly odd little girl figure she was in that earlier picture. Richard Barthelmess is also excellent, and like Gish he is capable of expressing a lot by doing very little. Together Gish and Barthelmess give what are probably the best lead performances of any of Griffith's features. No-one else in this cast makes an exceptional impact, but none of them is outstandingly bad either.A fair few of those supporting players appear mainly for comic relief, and there are by Griffith's standards an unusually large number of comedic interludes in Way Down East. This unfortunately was one of Griffith's biggest weak spots. Some of these gags look like they might be fairly funny in themselves, but they don't look it because Griffith keeps hammering them home with close-ups, making them seem forced and predictable. He should have taken a leaf from his pal Chaplin's book, and shown a series of jokes in a continuous shot, giving them a more natural flow and getting more laughs as a result.Watching Way Down East also makes me wish Griffith the writer had more confidence in Griffith the director, as well as in his cast and his audience. This picture has far more intertitles than it really needs. There are several which reveal Lennox to be a bounder, but these are superfluous because there are enough clues in the way he scenes are staged and the way Lowell Sherman plays him. It would be far more satisfying for the audience if they were allowed to figure out for themselves that he is up to no good. Still, this is a comparatively small blight on what is one of DW Griffith's most visually lovely, deeply engaging and marvellously acted pictures.

MartinHafer The reason I say that WAY DOWN EAST is a very good film for 1920 is that even by the mid-1920s, the style film this is would probably have seemed a bit old fashioned. So, compared to late silents it's not a great movie by any stretch but it is a decent movie nonetheless and better than most films of the day. So why is it old fashioned? Well, like the characters in many of the earlier D.W. Griffith films, the peopleof in the movie often seem very one-dimensional--like a 19th century morality play. For example, Lillian Gish plays a wonderful virginal sort, there is the town tattletale, the judgmental man, the cad and the professor--all stereotypes instead of real people. But despite all this, it still is a very good film.WAY DOWN EAST begins with a poor cousin (Lillian Gish) going to the big city to spend time with her rich relatives. At this home, she is spotted by a total cad (Lowell Sherman) and he eventually asks her to marry him. However, the marriage is fake--and Gish has no idea it's not legal. After getting her pregnant, Sherman runs away--leaving her to have the baby on her own. Soon the baby dies and Gish is forced to go look for work in another town. There she gets work as a maid and becomes a beloved member of the family--that is, until word gets to the townsfolk that Gish is "that kind of woman"! This leads to an amazingly climactic scene on the ice (reminscent of the video game "Frogger") that you just have to see to believe and it's one of the best scenes Griffith ever filmed---very tense and amazing even when seen almost 90 years later.What's to like about the film? Well, the biggest star of the movie are the special effects and camera work. As mentioned above, the ice scene is simply amazing, though the snow storm is also very realistic and well done. Also, there were some very lovely camera shots--such as the scene by the lake. All these made this a first-class project.Overall, this is an important film but one that I would recommend mostly to people who already love silents. They will enjoy it considerably. However, for people not accustomed to and appreciative of the silents, it's probably one to hold off on--as you may be too quick to dismiss it because of the preachy plot and one-dimensional characters. For 1920, it was quite the accomplishment.

wes-connors Lillian Gish (as Anna Moore) lives with her poor mother in Greenville, a remote New England village. A sore need for money demands Ms. Gish leave for Boston, to appeal to some wealthy relatives, the Tremonts. Richard Barthelmess (as David Bartlett) lives elsewhere; "though of plain stock, he has been tutored by poets and visions wide as the world." In the city, Gish meets Lowell Sherman (as Lennox Sanderson). Mr. Sherman's hobby is "ladies, Ladies, LADIES!"; specifically, he is interested in the sexual conquest of virginal young women. Gish's delicate beauty is "a whip to Sherman's jaded appetite"; and, she innocently enters his clutches. Sherman tricks Gish into a mock marriage, and leaves her pregnant… Deceptively subtitled "A Simple Story of Plain People"; possibly, director D.W. Griffith was seeking to enhance his film's dramatic twists and turns; since, while Gish's "Anna" could be considered of "plain" stock, what happens her could not be called "simple". This film reunites Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess, after the successful "Broken Blossoms" (1919); their "Way Down East" performances are also stunning, though Barthelmess has less to do this time around. The spectacular ending is still riveting after all these years; but, it works best after you've seen the preceding story of degradation and love.The flaw in "Way Down East" may be Griffith's overindulgence in ludicrous "slapstick"-type humor; this is most explicit in Edgar Nelson's "Hi Holler" character, which really lays an egg. The silliness also rears its ugly head on Creighton Hale's occasionally cow-licked crown. Neither "True Heart Susie" (1919) nor "The Greatest Question" (1919) veered so wildly into this form of lunacy. But, in the end, these indulgences cannot diminish the great performances, and spectacular ending of "Way Down East". The "great ice-break" is absolutely indispensable. ********** Way Down East (9/3/20) D.W. Griffith ~ Lillian Gish, Richard Barthelmess, Lowell Sherman, Creighton Hale