TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

milosprole9 I waited in a long time to see Greed (1924) and I finally got it. I watched one version with 4 hours. It originally shot with 9 and half hours and took two years to shoot, but most footages were lost. They have some footages and used the pictures from it. It was pretty understandable! I thought it was gonna to be cute film, but I'm wasn't right. It's very dark drama with so many shocking and disturbing parts and a few pictures that gave me goosebumps. Very good performances, realistic story and stunning cinematography! It's like Gone with the Wind of the decade.That's one of the greatest silent drama films, 10/10! Highly recommend, you won't regret it even when it's a long film.

MartinHafer "Greed" is a legendary film among old film buffs--the holy grail of silents. This is because the incredibly obsessive director, Erich von Stroheim, made a film of ridiculously large proportions. Reportedly, the original print ran 42 reels!! It would have taken the best part of your day to watch the film and von Stroheim envisioned it being shown on successive nights. Well, the studio wanted nothing to do with this an insisted he cut it. After some cuts (but not enough for the studio), executives took the project away from him and had it cut down to the version we have today. There are lots of stories (probably apocryphal) of the prints sitting in some vault somewhere--waiting to be discovered. And, reports (probably also apocryphal) are that the original film is some sort of work of genius that MUST be seen. Regardless, all we have now is about two and a half hours worth of film--and it's a film that also comes with a lot of hooplah. Folks claim that although its inferior due to the cutting, it's still a work of genius. Let me say that unlike the other reviewers, I was NOT that taken by this shortened version. I think the imagery is ridiculously unsubtle though the film still is worth seeing.The film begins with McTeague (Gibson Gowland) leaving home to learn dentistry from an itinerant dentist. Years pass and now he has a dental practice of his own in San Francisco and he seems like a pretty decent sort of fellow. He meets a very shy lady, Trina (Zasu Pitts) and they soon marry. However, into their seemingly normal lives comes a problem. Trina wins the lottery and the prize is $5000. While this may not seem like much today, back then it was HUGE. But, soon Trina's heart is soured. She refuses to spend any of this money and slowly becomes a nasty miser. As for McTeague, he slowly begins to sour on his wife. She clearly has emasculated him and when he loses his job, she refuses to spend any of her fortune. They live on the edge--with barely enough to scrape by. And, full of bitterness, McTeague begins to drink and eventually lashes out at his tight-fisted wife. Then, he deserts her. Time passes and he returns--returns to claim what is his...ALL of the money. At the same time, there is a subplot involving one of McTeague's friends, Marcus. Marcus, inflamed by jealousy, demands the money that is by no right his--and when he is refused, he sets out to destroy McTeague--though McTeague himself does an awfully good job of this himself. All this leads to a dandy confrontation scene--one of the best of the silent era.As far as the plot goes, it's exceptional--full of great twists, irony and excitement. My problem is NOT with the story. My problem is with von Stroheim's manner of storytelling. He REPEATEDLY uses sledgehammer symbolism--symbolism that is not one bit subtle and he beats the audience with it again and again and again! To further beat this into the viewer, he even had portions of the film colorized golden in order to accentuate the greed aspects of the film. I have seen at least a thousand (probably MANY more) silents and this is among the least subtle I've ever seen. And, among the many films I have seen which have hand-colored elements, "Greed" is the sloppiest--with broad swaths of color instead of having it done in a more thorough fashion. Heck, the Pathe Brothers were doing FAR better jobs mass producing colorizing cels a decade of more before "Greed". So what we have is a great story but poor storytelling. I know folks are sold on von Stroheim--just like von Stroheim was sold on von Stroheim! But, I think he really could have used someone to say "Erich, even by our standards today, this film lacks subtlety and you need to back off and let the story speak for itself". The bottom line is that I still give it a 7 but think the stories about the genius associated with the film are highly exaggerated. Even old school directors like D.W. Griffith wouldn't have pushed the imagery this far and this unsubtlely.

cstotlar-1 I don't know many times I've seen this. Along with everyone else, I agree that the full version must have been powerful beyond words, but what we have here is probably the best possible product of the nearly impossible task of reduction. For that, I'm profoundly thankful. There were several parallel stories in the original script, some rather interesting, a few of not much interest at all. The major story of McTeague and his wife is the strongest and we can only guess (through the version we have now) what was going on around the central characters. In this respect, the truncated version is acceptable, given the time frame. This film was presented on television with stills and narrative inter-titles from the original and it wasn't really very successful. The rhythm was askew, of course, and things didn't "gel" at all. My big gripe is that this should be available on DVD. Why the foot-dragging?Curtis Stotlar

timmy_501 Frank Norris's 1899 novel McTeague is one of the key works in American literary naturalism, featuring several hallmarks of the literary movement, which flourished around the turn of the century. Erich Von Stroheim's adaptation, retitled Greed, strictly adhered to the novel and the original nine hour cut must have been a scene for scene translation. This closeness of the film to the source material means that Greed carries over some of naturalism's key themes. Specifically, the film is about John McTeague, a miner's son who attempts to better himself by becoming an apprentice in a trade—dentistry—but ultimately finds himself doomed to failure as mining is what he was meant to do. This combination of determinism and social Darwinism is typical of naturalism's focus on the lack of autonomy of individual humans. Another characteristic of naturalism evident in Greed is a sort of primitivization of human beings as both John McTeague and his father are constantly dirty and covered in masses of unkempt hair. Similarly, in one of Von Stroheim's most inspired scenes, some clever editing compares McTeague's rival Marcus to a cat preparing to prey on a couple of helpless caged canaries. Another key theme of Greed is…greed, which wrecks the lives of the three principal characters. McTeague's love interest Trina is a hard working, thrifty girl who remains relatively happy until she wins a substantial sum in a lottery, after which she becomes a miserable miser as she strives to increase her small fortune. This infuriates the formerly happy-go-lucky Marcus, who gracefully bowed out of a semi-engagement with Trina to make his friend McTeague happy. His opportunism is amplified into psychosis as he realizes he's missed his chance to share a part of Trina's fortune. The money even ruins McTeague himself, who finds it impossible to work for menial wages when his household possesses enough wealth to allow him a relatively leisurely life if only he could convince his wife to use it. The other important characters in Greed are two diametrically opposed couples: there is the greedy couple Zerkow and Maria, who dream of fabulous wealth and the elderly couple Grannis and Miss Baker, who are too busy working to notice each other. Zerkow suspects Maria is hiding money from him and it drives him mad while Grannis sells his business (for the same amount Trina won in the lottery) and settles down to retirement with Miss Baker. The never subtle Norris uses these subplots to posit two possible future future paths for McTeague and Trina. Contrary to my focus on themes common to the novel and film, Greed is not merely an extension of Norris's novel. Von Stroheim makes the film his own as he sets the proper tone with colored filters, carefully controlled zooms, and some reasonably well put together editing. In fact, his filmmaking is considerably more adept than Norris's workmanlike prose. The climactic scenes in Death Valley, which Von Stroheim shoots through a yellow filter, are particularly impressive and are easily among the best of the silent era. In spite of the carefully realized themes of McTeague, I did not enjoy the novel when I read it a few years ago. Like many works of naturalism, some of the character behavior seems stilted—probably to reinforce the idea that humans lack autonomy. Further, Norris's lack of style and his heavy-handedness in slathering on miserable situations make for a rather unpleasant reading experience, which to be fair is not atypical of my experiences with literary naturalism. The most problematic aspect of McTeague, though, is one I've already mentioned: the social Darwinism. It's always difficult to establish intent, even with a writer as heavy- handed as Norris, but it's tempting to see the novel as a snobby dismissal of an irredeemable lower class represented by the buffoonish and reprehensible McTeague. Yet, in spite of my dislike for McTeague, which caused me to stay away from this film for years, I found Greed quite impressive even with its often languid runtime, which is padded out with uncinematic production stills and expository title cards. Von Stroheim has a better sense of characterization and he manages to build some sympathy even for the mostly unlikeable characters here and he infuses the goings on with an epic quality mostly absent from the book. Somehow, Von Stroheim stayed true to a book I didn't like and made a film I found above average nonetheless.