NitrateVille.com

Speaking of Bad, Bad Silent film scores, is this going to be the same stuff that TCM ran last year during the Asian Images Festival? A newly commissioned score out of nowhere. Horrid in every sense. The new print was probably the best of BROKEN BLOSSOMS that I have seen anyplace. But that music score, apparently done by some Alloy Orchestra/Maria Newman emulators, literally paralyzed the movie! I assume it will be the same version tonight? UGH!!!!

It is indeed - I have it on right now and it is truly awful. Interesting that this is showing now, as I was just talking to a friend yesterday about our preferred score for BB, between the one on the Griffith set and an earlier one. What I'm hearing now definitely trumps the less-favored of those two.

I'm aghast at this one. I'm sure I heard a banjo at the beginning (huh?), and there's far too much guitar. The music often stops completely for intertitles. Which in a way is a blessing...

I echo your UGH!!

Nancy Lorraine,

Hi, the Image DVD release of BROKEN BLOSSOMS has a rendition of the original 1919 orchestral score. The Kino one does not, and I didn't like that score at all either. TCM used to run the Image version before this new one popped up last year out of thin air

The best version by far is the Thames Silents one owned by Photoplay Productions. It was released on laser-disc many yarns ago. Carl Davis arrangement is still of the original 1919 score, but it sounds much better than the Image DVD recording does. Have you heard the Davis score at all? Excuse me have to grab a towel quickly my ears are bleeding!

What are the timings/lengths on the Image and Kino DVD's? Are they the same? Perhaps I can record a score for BB for download on http://www.altscore.com.

Ben

Well, I gave BROKEN BLOSSOMS another look last evening and I agree with those of you who feel the score didn't help it. But now it's time for me to stir the pot a bit...
Why is this film considered significant? I realize it hits many of the topics currently fashionable in academia but is it really a worthwhile film? There is an old Chinese saying that goes something like this - "It's a wise child who loves correction." So, please, educate me as to what I'm missing in what appears to me to be a very average piece of work.

I'm not going to get all academic on you, just give you my opinon.
Taking most of Griffith's big classics as a whole (BOAN, Intolerance, Way Down East etc.) I think BB is his most effective feature manly because its' small. Griffith isn't out to top himself or "impress" you. It's about the characters. Yes Donald Crisp is way over top but, as a small film, I find it very heartfelt and it has stayed with me deeper than the biggies.

I see your point. Not being a fan of large and pompous productions I did appreciate the scale of the story but the technique, the trapped in the closet scene (and even the Gish acting) reminded me of Biograph. Nothing particularly wrong with that but a decade had passed and Griffith appeared to be using many of his old solutions.
Are the soft focus close-ups of "Chinky," intercut with the sharp two shots and clear focus singles on Gish meant to be symbolic of something?

Dana wrote: Nothing particularly wrong with that but a decade had passed and Griffith appeared to be using many of his old solutions.

Perhaps after the failure of INTOLERANCE, he was mindfull "going with what works."

As far as the soft/hard focus it could simply be because of the heavy makeup on Barthelmess

Dana wrote:educate me as to what I'm missing in what appears to me to be a very average piece of work.

This is probably going to sound awful in so many ways, but I'm still going to write it, because I can't help myself here.

I don't think this is a film you can learn to like, so "education" won't work. BROKEN BLOSSOMS is a beautiful film. Some of it is terribly beautiful and some of it is just plain beautiful. It is a film that speaks to the heart first and foremost and you need to open yourself up to allow it to do so. If you do, you are going to be richly rewarded.

Einar discussed the term "hokum" here recently and sure, this is prime hokum. But Griffith, probably more than anybody else, had a way of turning hokum (or kitsch, or schmaltz, or cornball...) into something truly moving. And working with actors like Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess really helped.

Dana wrote: Are the soft focus close-ups of "Chinky," intercut with the sharp two shots and clear focus singles on Gish meant to be symbolic of something?

Griffith was never that worried about matching shots. Even his later films (Battle of the Sexes, Lady of the Pavements) have sequences where you see people in long shot with one expression, then cut in a close-up to what they're really thinking that may have a completely different expression. It can be quite distracting when you're used to more standard film grammar. I suspect that's what you're noticing.

When we scored "Battle of the Sexes" we had to deal with a sequence where dancers can be seen dancing different dances in adjacent shots! Griffith was a dancer and would know the difference between a waltz, foxtrot, and tango. So it wasn't that he didn't know, it's that it didn't matter much to him.

The other thing that catches me off-guard in a Griffith film is having a fade-to-black, then a fade in to the same scene. Usually that's a clue that you're changing to a different location or time, but with Griffith that's not necessarily so.

I'm not saying Griffith didn't make competent films, but he didn't follow the same storytelling rules as other directors.

Dana, it's all a matter of personal aesthetics, but it all depends on what you like in terms of entertainment. Me, I agree with John Ford, going out to Monument Valley to shoot peoples' faces..... because when the faces lag, you can look at the landscape. In the same way, the big dramatic moments of spectacle are often a distraction from the human story for me. Griffith had plenty of spectacular moments in his movies and they are great moments of spectacle, but they don't move me unless I care about the people involved. And given Griffith's -- and the movies' -- penchant for melodrama, hokum, whatever you choose to call it, you need actors and actresses who can play those close-ups. Griffith trained 'em and they could do a lot, but Gish could play those roles better than anyone else.

I would not call BROKEN BLOSSOMS a tragedy. Tragedy is about scope and scale and the sweep of great events and gods overwhelming great men, and BB doesn't have any of that, just a couple of people who want something better without quite being able to figure out what it is, but they're such tiny little people: even Donald Crisp is huge compared to them.

Given my personal history -- I'm an American Jew who grew up in the post-war era, and all of us, whether we admit it or not, had the Holocaust hanging over us, something that we knew in our bones though not a word was spoken. And the Holocaust was six million small stories about small people and the terrible terrible -- no, not tragedy, it doesn't deserve the dignity of that word! -- stories that happened to them in the face of brutal stupidity are very real to me. I suppose that's why the suffering-in-mink style of tearjerker doesn't appeal to me. These are supposed to be problems?

However a story like BROKEN BLOSSOMS is one that affects me deeply. And Gish knows how to give that performance and Griffith knows how to direct it and Bitzer knows how to shoot it.

This doesn't mean, of course that you need to be able to appreciate BB on those terms -- or indeed, any terms. Come to think of it, you might be better off, happier anyway, not to get stories like this. If not, good luck. I hope this gives you at least a vague, intellectual understanding of the sort of mentality that thinks BROKEN BLOSSOMS is a great film.

Bob

Rodney wrote:
Griffith was never that worried about matching shots. Even his later films (Battle of the Sexes, Lady of the Pavements) have sequences where you see people in long shot with one expression, then cut in a close-up to what they're really thinking that may have a completely different expression.

...

The other thing that catches me off-guard in a Griffith film is having a fade-to-black, then a fade in to the same scene. Usually that's a clue that you're changing to a different location or time, but with Griffith that's not necessarily so.

I noticed this a lot in WAY DOWN EAST. It happens not only in Griffith but in many other movies made around 1920 (the cutting matches seem to generally get smoother as the 20s progress). Guy Maddin in his silent film hommages made a joke out of it by deliberately using non-matching close ups following long-shots.

Another angle: is really Griffith to blame for all of that? Or is it just a question of messed up prints?

I suppose that's why the suffering-in-mink style of tearjerker doesn't appeal to me. These are supposed to be problems?

That's why I have so much trouble with the idea that the superhero movie and the soap opera seem to have become the same genre. I really can't worry about the personal relationships and inner angst of people who can do a kung fu kick into the cab of an oncoming semi.

As far as Griffith goes, I think he didn't necessarily think that you were expecting that closeup to have happened in precise chronological succession with the shot preceding it. It could be five seconds later, or five minutes; but it's no more presumed to indicate a rigorously mathematical flow of time than two paragraphs in a novel are.

Mike Gebert wrote:As far as Griffith goes, I think he didn't necessarily think that you were expecting that closeup to have happened in precise chronological succession with the shot preceding it. It could be five seconds later, or five minutes; but it's no more presumed to indicate a rigorously mathematical flow of time than two paragraphs in a novel are.

Interesting point Mike. Now I'll have to meditate on that thought and watch those films again.

Interesting posts about the to-the-modern-eye sloppiness of Griffith's matching shots. Could this be another hangover from magic lantern grammar, where shots didn't even have to be consecutive unless marked? I remember having read an article about Bette Davis in which she developed the 'art' of smoking cigarettes onscreen, insisting that the cigarette length match from shot to shot.... whcih would indicate that before then, they weren't that fussy about matching those shots.

Bob

It's been my experience in watching many "lesser" films produced in the teens that some filmmakers - Frank Borzage for one - were very comfortable with techniques that would eventually evolve into the conventions of continuity editing. I'm not convinced by the paragraph/novel suggestion in this particular case though I see the appeal in it. 1909 yes, 1919 no.
But my confusion with why BROKEN BLOSSOMS is considered significant has more to do with the acting than the camera and cutting techniques. I agree that the shot making is occasionally quite nice but the performances hark back to an earlier time.
It appears I should watch it yet again.

Rodney wrote:

Dana wrote: Are the soft focus close-ups of "Chinky," intercut with the sharp two shots and clear focus singles on Gish meant to be symbolic of something?

Griffith was never that worried about matching shots. Even his later films (Battle of the Sexes, Lady of the Pavements) have sequences where you see people in long shot with one expression, then cut in a close-up to what they're really thinking that may have a completely different expression. It can be quite distracting when you're used to more standard film grammar. I suspect that's what you're noticing.

When we scored "Battle of the Sexes" we had to deal with a sequence where dancers can be seen dancing different dances in adjacent shots! Griffith was a dancer and would know the difference between a waltz, foxtrot, and tango. So it wasn't that he didn't know, it's that it didn't matter much to him.

The other thing that catches me off-guard in a Griffith film is having a fade-to-black, then a fade in to the same scene. Usually that's a clue that you're changing to a different location or time, but with Griffith that's not necessarily so.

I'm not saying Griffith didn't make competent films, but he didn't follow the same storytelling rules as other directors.

One of the most interesting aspects of watching films of the earliest years is seeing how the conventions changed so quickly. Griffith, while he is often credited for being a major force in developing the "classical" style, frequently used techniques that seemed to disappear by the 1920s.

I find "Broken Blossoms" to be one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. It may be Griffith's greatest achievement as a director of actors. His sense of production design also comes through very strong. Perhaps because the film focuses so intensely on its two main characters, I find it perhaps his most satisfying film overall, even though "Intolerance" is a more ambitious effort.

It's hard for me to assess what makes Broken Blossoms' "significant" because I hopelessly love it.
James Card in his book was very scathing about this film - Barthelmess ridiculous, Donald Crisp absurd, etc - and as with many Griffiths, I can see the things other people don't like - I just don't think they're important.

I agree with other folks that Griffith didn't care much about shot-matching & edited carelessly - it's not messed-up prints, it's a Griffith with other things on his mind. Which seems odd to us since he built a reputation as the Father of Editing (or the Uncle, anyway....)
The acting in his films presents a similar dilemma to us - I think his head was always in the turn-of-the-century stage. So in spite of his advances in movie acting & closeups ("you can see them thinking!" early audiences gasped when they saw a Biograph), I'm not sure if he ever really used a realistic notion of character, only Types. At least in this movie he gives the characters names! (Imagine how much harder it would be to get into if they were called The Gamine, The Yellow Man, etc....)

The story might be hokey melodrama, but I'm totally involved in it - I guess because I accept its metaphorical truth - the way some people react to, say, Seventh Heaven. Battling Burrows is real to me, perhaps in spite of his antics....and the feeling of people being trapped is universal. Personally, I respond well to movie misery....

I think part of its success is because it is a "small story" - not just in not being an epic with the big crowds & themes - but also because Griffith doesn't try to expand his story with needless melodramatics & extra plot twists. That's a tendency of his that sinks so many of his films of that period, where he has half a great film and then throws in a bunch of nonsense as if he's scared of losing people's attention. Here, he concentrates.
And what he does put in is Detail - part of what makes him distinctive from other American directors of the teens. The atmosphere of the setting is so strong, yet so economically done. And there's all kinds of little incidents - episodes like the missionary with his booklet about Hell, the poor woman who tells Gish to never marry, the policeman reading about "only 40,000 casualties" in the war - that just blossom in the mind.
And a lot of what impressed people at the time was the poetry. Of course Griffith had been poetic since 1909 - here I think it's something that goes beyond shot technique, it's a combination of the languorous, trance-like plot movement, the foggy streets, the Buddhist bells, the resignation of the characters to their grinding fates, the inevitable winding-down to total death. And all this out of the slight story, "The Chink & the Child"!
Also, Griffith had it shown originally with red & blue lights bathing the screen, which apparently blew people's minds in 1919.

Also, Griffith had it shown originally with red & blue lights bathing the screen, which apparently blew people's minds in 1919.

It also blew the contrast on the screen, too. Nevertheless, the patent for this most interesting invention is here.

It's been a full two decades now since the KINO DVD release of BROKEN BLOSSOMS. Given that so many (including myself) feel this is arguably Griffith's finest work (my other favorite is the still-underrated ISN'T LIFE WONDERFUL), it is surprising that it lacks a Blu-ray release in 2021. Anyone know of any plans and/or recent restorations?

Keatonesque wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 4:17 pm

It's been a full two decades now since the KINO DVD release of BROKEN BLOSSOMS. Given that so many (including myself) feel this is arguably Griffith's finest work (my other favorite is the still-underrated ISN'T LIFE WONDERFUL), it is surprising that it lacks a Blu-ray release in 2021. Anyone know of any plans and/or recent restorations?

Same here. I am still waiting, not a box set but, at least an individual release of Broken Blossoms, Isn't Life Wonderful and Orphans Of The Storm, to name just these three on Blu-ray. Guess, they will not will be released on my lifetime.
Now, Don't get me started on, The Scarlet Letter, The Student Prince, The Wedding March, The Crowd, And The Wind... And Greed. So this is Paris, with a recent broadcast on TCM, which I do not have, and hopefully, will be released sometime in the near future on Blu-Ray with Ben Model's wonderful score.