User Reviews

While others see this in a political light, the first thing that came to my mind watching this silent film was the Biblical parable about the man - to paraphrase - who wanted all his barns full and to be rich above all else, but not realizing it wouldn't do him any good if died the next day, which he did.

Here, in this short story, we see a man who wants to corner the entire wheat market, and does so making him an incredibly wealthy man. However, moments after he hears the good news about how much money he's worth, he slips and falls into a grain elevator with that grain suffocating him.

In addition, we see the poor people suffering because they can't afford a loaf of bread, thanks to the greedy people like this guy (and others). We also see the same opening and closing scene, indicating to me that Griffith thought the best way to make a living is to work at it, and do things the right way even if it takes awhile.

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.

Across a barren landscape, a poor farmer tills and sows the soil. He gets little for his wheat crop. Meanwhile the Wheat King W. Hammond (Frank Powell) decides to corner the world market in wheat. In the frenzy of the wheat pit (stock market), Hammond successfully buys low and sells high. His actions restrict the supply of product and thus raise the price of wheat for the common folk. The bread store doubles its price of a loaf of bread from five to ten cents, telling customers that the increasing price of wheat is the cause ("Don't blame us."). Some folks cannot afford the increase and are unable to buy bread. In contrast the rich, like Hammond and his wife, continue to enjoy lavish affairs; they remain oblivious of the needs of the poor.

Hammond visits the grain elevators, where he receives a congratulatory message from his accountant that his fortune has increased to an additional $ four million. He has control of the world's wheat market. His jubilation is short-lived as he falls into the grain silo and smothers to his death. Nevertheless, his demise does not help the common man. The last scene reverts to the farmer sowing the soil, resigned to his hapless fate.

D.W. Griffith had begun directing film in 1908, less than two years before "A Corner in Wheat." He has already show signs of his directing skills, like juxtaposing of scenes. Also, he has a way of getting his message across: note the conspicuous placement of the "Don't blame us" sign. By contrast, the sign with the bread price is really hidden from the customers' general view. Early silent motion pictures were strictly of short length, which means there really was not much room for character development. But Griffith is quite economical here, and makes his point. In 1994, "A Corner in Wheat" was selected for permanent preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

105 years ago D.W. Griffith, one of the most prolific and successful black&white short film directors back in the day tells us about life in the agriculture industry, about those who work and those who reap the profits actually. The work on the fields is hard and physically exhausting, but the rich upper class who gets the money out of it lives pretty easy lives. You could certainly classify this as one of the earliest films really critical of society. None of the actors here are a name to many anymore 105 years after this film was made although they were all pretty prolific silent film actors. You'd probably have to be really interested in movies from that period to say: "Oh yes that's him. I know him." Can't say that applies to me.

Unfortunately, apart from the honorable message, I did not see much worth in this film. The detailed story is really hard to grasp without previously reading what it is all about and that really hurts the film a lot. However, the contrast between the rich and the poor was nicely done and I also liked the metaphor of how The Wheat King is killed(?) near the end through his greed and by the instruments that brought him his wealth.

DW Griffith's "A Corner of Wheat" is one of the multiple Hollywood films based on then-nationally known onerous Buffalo labor contractor Fingy Conners. Buffalo at the time was the grain milling capitol of the world. Conners employed 6,000 men under terrible, ever-diminishing working conditions and became a multi-millionaire by continually lowering wages.

Griffiths depiction of the main character incorporates his version of a number of ripped-from-the-headlines issues of the day, including a bread shortage instigated by the Grain Scoopers strike of 1899, and the physical bullying and the grandstanding personality of the main character. In the film the antagonist gets his deserved comeuppance, while the real-life inspiration for the bad guy character remained richly rewarded.

Visually the film is extraordinary with much attention given to details that may go unnoticed upon first viewing. A banquet scene, a brawl, scenes in the wheat field and inside the grain elevator are impressive considering the early date.

The sowers go forth to sow. They lay the foundation for the future harvest and a very picturesque picture they make. They are, in effect, an animated reproduction of Millet's famous painting, "The Sowers," and they reek not of the future. They are absorbed in getting the grain into the ground in the present. The scene shifts suddenly. The audience is introduced to the struggling mass of brokers at the Exchange where the wheat king is engineering a corner which will give him absolute control of the wheat supply. This picture should do much to assist in clarifying the atmosphere when the question of wheat gambling and whether it should be stopped or not comes up for discussion. At last he is triumphant. Through a mass of wrecked fortunes he has succeeded in reaching victory, strewing suffering and privation everywhere he went. The scene changes again. The king is showing some friends through his bins which hold so many thousands of bushels of the grain. He stumbles and falls and is buried beneath the golden grain, feeling indeed the vengeance of the wheat. A fitting title would have been "The Vengeance of the Wheat." Nothing more graphic could have been obtained. The title given it is explanatory, but there is something beyond the corner which is forcibly taught. The vengeance of a Power higher than man is invoked to crush the man or the combination which causes the price of a necessity of life to advance so sharply that the poor must go hungry. In time the vengeance will come. Perhaps not so suddenly as it did in this instance, but it will come and that surely. This picture teaches a lesson worth while. It should serve as a warning to those who undertake to corner and control the food supply and an encouragement to those who see the menace in such illegal and altogether inhuman operations. The picture is worked out with all the skill and attention to details which characterize the Biograph work and deserves a long run. The company is to be congratulated upon producing such a graphic and satisfactory film. - The Moving Picture World, December 25, 1909