It does not give me any pleasure in rating 'Dream Street' low or leaving a negative review. Have a high appreciation of silent film, and recognise many silent films for their importance in the development of cinema. There are many master directors and their best films are revolutionary and examples to the genres they fit under. DW Griffith at his best was one of the masters, he was not consistent but he did make some great films (i.e. 'Intolerance'), feature and short.
'Dream Street' is absolutely not one of them. In my view of course. Of the Griffith films seen, it is second worst with only 'Abraham Lincoln' being worse. 'Dream Street' has its moments and sporadic good things, but those good moments and good things are far outweighed by the many (very) bad things. Really wanted to at least appreciate it, considering my appreciation for silents and Griffith, but there was just far too little wrong for me to remotely like it.
Will begin with what 'Dream Street' did reasonably well in, which was sadly not a lot. The best thing about it is the photography, which may not have been revolutionary but it did show a lot of skill, care and effort with a lot of atmosphere and style. Great enough for the film to warrant more than one star when it comes to the overall rating.
Overall the acting was not very good to put it lightly, but Ralph Graves at least tries without trying too hard and shows some professionalism. The beginning was ominous and there is occasional flashes of greatness in direction with creating an atmosphere.
Sadly, so much works against 'Dream Street'. The rest of the acting agreed is horrid. On one side we have Charles Emmett Mack, whose inexperience really shows in an expressionless and charismmatic as wood performance. On the other side we have Edward Peil Sr hamming it up horribly. Worst of all is Carol Dempster, whose performance is an erratic mix of both extremes with the more histrionic moments being embarrassing. Never felt anything for any of the characters, none being interesting or developed enough, and never was the romantic triangle investable (all a big so what and why bother).
It is filled with stilted and unintentionally camp writing and mostly Griffith's direction is lethargic and indifferent. The story suffers from a deadingly pedestrian pace and from being structurally paper thin, padded out by overlong scenes there only for padding reasons and distract from the plot. There isn't even enough content to fill a short film and how everything flows and is staged is so static. While the photography is without complaint, the lighting is dreary at times and the sets look as though they were made in a rush and with next to no money left.
Concluding, rather lacklustre. 4/10
'Dream Street' is absolutely not one of them. In my view of course. Of the Griffith films seen, it is second worst with only 'Abraham Lincoln' being worse. 'Dream Street' has its moments and sporadic good things, but those good moments and good things are far outweighed by the many (very) bad things. Really wanted to at least appreciate it, considering my appreciation for silents and Griffith, but there was just far too little wrong for me to remotely like it.
Will begin with what 'Dream Street' did reasonably well in, which was sadly not a lot. The best thing about it is the photography, which may not have been revolutionary but it did show a lot of skill, care and effort with a lot of atmosphere and style. Great enough for the film to warrant more than one star when it comes to the overall rating.
Overall the acting was not very good to put it lightly, but Ralph Graves at least tries without trying too hard and shows some professionalism. The beginning was ominous and there is occasional flashes of greatness in direction with creating an atmosphere.
Sadly, so much works against 'Dream Street'. The rest of the acting agreed is horrid. On one side we have Charles Emmett Mack, whose inexperience really shows in an expressionless and charismmatic as wood performance. On the other side we have Edward Peil Sr hamming it up horribly. Worst of all is Carol Dempster, whose performance is an erratic mix of both extremes with the more histrionic moments being embarrassing. Never felt anything for any of the characters, none being interesting or developed enough, and never was the romantic triangle investable (all a big so what and why bother).
It is filled with stilted and unintentionally camp writing and mostly Griffith's direction is lethargic and indifferent. The story suffers from a deadingly pedestrian pace and from being structurally paper thin, padded out by overlong scenes there only for padding reasons and distract from the plot. There isn't even enough content to fill a short film and how everything flows and is staged is so static. While the photography is without complaint, the lighting is dreary at times and the sets look as though they were made in a rush and with next to no money left.
Concluding, rather lacklustre. 4/10