America (1924) User Reviews

A ponderous history lesson

[mik-19 · 6/10 · 18 February 2004]

I sincerely believe you need to be American and/or extremely familiar with American revolutionary history and mythology to benefit at all from this movie. Being a European I desperately hung on to Griffith's very long, ponderous inter titles the contents and pedantic tone of which were driving me up the wall with boredom. This is an old-school history lesson with nice, well-lit pictures and it doesn't help a lot that Griffith tries to spice it up with a Romeo & Juliet inspired love affair between Neil Hamilton and Carol Dempster, stilted and artificial.

It never ceases to amaze me how the director who staged the riveting finale of 'Way Down East', the whole continuous glory of 'Hearts of the World', 'Orphans of the Storm', 'Broken Blossoms' and, oh yes, the inimitable, symphonic dynamics of the insurmountable 'Intolerance', how can it be that Griffith as late as 1924 is so uncertain as to what will play and what not?

He was fifty, so? He was going out of fashion fast, here you see why. What happened? Will somebody write the book and let me know?

6/10

The Fight for Freedom

[lugonian · 5/10 · 16 July 2009]

"America" (United Artists, 1924), subtitled "Love and Sacrifice," became director D.W. Griffith's second contribution to American history on the silent screen. Done in grand scale as his Civil War epic, "The Birth of a Nation" (Epoch, 1915), "America," as indicated in it's opening title, "The story of the sacrifice made for freedom in the American Revolution in that of a Civil War between two groups of English people, one group, the Americans, being merely Englishmen while settling on the American  continent ..." What "Birth of a Nation" and "America" have in common are its well staged battle scenes, cast of thousands, authentic costumes, fine scenery, and stories told in two parts (before and aftermath) with run times past the standard two hour mark. What "America" lacks is the controversy "Birth of a Nation" contains during its final hour. In retrospect, "America" didn't need controversy to achieve any box office appeal, only a simple love story highlighted by a re-enactment of events leading to America's freedom from British rule.

Set in the village of Lexington in Massachusetts prior to the Revolutionary War, Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton), a poor farmer and express rider, loves Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster), a Southern bells from Virginia living on the mountain estate on the James River. Her stern father (Erville Alderson) and dandy brother, Philip Edward (Charles Emmett Mack) each disapprove of her relationship with a commoner. Captain Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), a deputy for the king's superintendent, takes an interest in Nancy, much to the delight of her father, especially after believing Nathan to have shot and wounded him during their confrontation. Butler proves not to be her ideal choice for Nancy as he gets the Indians to side with the king against the Americans in the war along with plotting to betray the king in order to acquire the new world for himself.

Combining fictional characters with historical figures, quite commonly found in many motion pictures then and now, "America" consists those of John Hancock (played by John Dunton); Thomas Jefferson (Frank Wals); Patrick Henry (Frank McGlynn); John Parker, Captain of the Minute Men (Henry Van Boussen); and Samuel Adams (Lee Beggs). Benjamin Franklin, who was part of that era, is noticeably missing. One person not to miss is veteran character actress Lucille LaVerne appearing briefly as a refugee mother.

While "America" fails to compare with Griffith's finest works, the film itself is noteworthy as being one of the very few motion pictures depicting the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) compared to many about the Civil War (1861-1865). Highlights include Paul Revere's (Harry O'Neil) historic horseback ride warning the colonists, "To Arms, To Arms, the Regulars /British are coming"; the Battle of Bunker Hill; the signing of the Declaration of Independence; and George Washington (Arthur Dewey) leading and his troops at Valley Forge and he being sworn in as first president of the United States (1789-1797).

Had "America" been produced in the wake of "The Birth of a Nation," chances are principal actors would have been basically the same, with Lillian Gish or Mae Marsh, Robert Harron and Henry B. Walthall in the roles enacted by Dempster, Hamilton and Barrymore. Would the results have been better or not is uncertain. Hamilton and Dempster as its leading players fail to leave a lasting impression as the star quality performances of Lillian Gish or Richard Barthelmess. In fact, their roles are overshadowed by the major support of Lionel Barrymore as the villainous redcoat, and the late entrance of Louis Wolheim as "Captain Hare, a Tory - an American renegade who uses the excuse of war for his own personal passions of savagery."

With silent films commonly shown on public television during the 1960s and 70s, in such weekly series as "The Toy That Grew Up" or "The Silent Years," "America" made its rare TV broadcast in the New York City area on WNET, Channel 13, appropriately during 4th of July weekend in 1972. The print shown was the commonly circulated abridged 93 minute version from the Killiam Film Collection with music score and narration, the same print used on Republic Home Video in the 1990s. While this may have been the start of an annual Independence Day tradition, especially for the upcoming Bicentennial year (1976), after several broadcasts, (Premiere: July 1, with two shows a day July 2 through 4), "America" was never shown again. It wasn't until 1996 when a fully restored 140 minute/ color tinted version turned up on VHS and later DVD from Kino Video accompanied by newly composed score by the Mammaroneck Theater Orchestra.

Overlooking cliché plot and lackluster performances by Hamilton and Dempster, "America" is redeemed by its fine visuals, authentic background, and Griffith's attention to detail, including soldiers marching in bitter cold with shoes so worn out that their feet are seen touching the snow. "America" should have been among Griffith's greatest work, but it isn't. Granted, portions of the story are dull, others are not. In spite of its fine restoration, one of its main drawbacks is its occasional dull orchestration (except for the action scenes) that accompanies it. With all that said, "America" is something to consider, if not for American history, then for history by the American father of film himself, D.W. Griffith. Let Freedom Ring. (***)

Griffith's final epic

[MissSimonetta · 7/10 · 25 July 2013]

When watching America (1924) once cannot help but remember DW Griffith's earlier The Birth of a Nation (1915). Both films are epics concerning families caught up in a war, lustful and power-hungry villains, and star cross'd romance. There is one major difference between them: Birth, for all its vile content, was a game-changer that strongly influenced the American film industry. America, released nearly a decade after, feels stale and old-fashioned even for 1924.

The American Revolution is the setting of the movie, but the central story is the romance between minute man Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton) and the loyalist aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster). More conflict arrives in the form of Captain Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), who seeks to betray his king and take over the colonies, as well as possess the lovely, virginal Nancy. The plot is very by-the-book Griffith. The love story is dull: outside of physical attraction, they've no real reason to like each other. Nathan and Nancy are dreadfully bland, not helped by Carol Dempster's limited performance. You can tell Neil Hamilton is trying, but there's little he can do to give such a flat character life, though I will admit he was at his most impressive when agonizing over whether he should warn the people of Valley Forge of a British ambush or rescue his lover from being raped by Captain Butler. Speaking of the villain, Lionel Barrymore steals the whole show as the wicked captain, delightfully chewing the scenery.

Unfortunately, the movie is more interested in the bloodless love story than it is with the revolution. The battle scenes and conversations about loyalty are the most interesting parts of the film, though even that's not saying much. The action sequences are certainly well shot, but they cannot support the whole production on their own.

If you're interested in seeing Griffith's full body of work, then by all means, buy the DVD or check this out on YouTube. I myself do not plan on revisiting.

A Great Example of Griffith and Also an Example of his Quaint Traits

[IMDBcinephile · 22 November 2011]

This film I think deserves a 7. I don't even need to say that Griffith was the pioneer of cinema at one point. This film about the Monteagues during the American Revolutionary war proved this as well. It even had influence on the amazing Abel Gance's "Napoleon" including the board room scenes, which add an interesting counterpoint to that otherwise modern masterpiece. You see Griffith used doctrines of another time to express things in his contemporary periods, so when watching his films there's a grand sweep of history and layers and layers of his own inherent interest in history. It just so happens this can be a defect when he infuses it with the melodrama of his own time in Biograph. Considering the man's extraordinary acute vision of cinema - the way he coached actors and actresses for hours and hours, sometimes even showing them the way they have to sit, their body language and the way they have to interact in the scene - then on how he cut film, masked film, brought emphasis on certain things along side his masterful cinematographer Billy Bitzer, who ran his course shortly after "America or Love and Sacrifice" this also proves to be the epitome of a man stuck in his time and frame of mind during which films like "The Iron Horse", "Strike" and "Michael" were getting made amongst some other classics by others like Chaplin and Fairbanks. Though I can't help to have a soft spot for his work here.

It's not contrived as such and it's actually a pretty supreme experience especially when Griffith filmed the dipsomaniacal Paul Revere riding recklessly on the horse to declare "fists to fists" as a way of commencing an act of war against England. I happen to be from Britain and found the story was interesting for me to look at as it was done with Griffith's perspicacious perspective and albeit I'm not really very conversant with it either, I understood how England was disparate back then (in the sense that they had total control over America) and how America wasn't the way it's today. And then as the war would see it, America would augment in stature again. As if this was like a lesson in history just goes to show how Griffith substantiating that instead of books, films should be the new source of history, remained completely obstinate in his views. Not so much that one can agree with him, but one can agree with the notion that this film should be accessed in film classes. It's just as good an archetype as "Birth of a Nation" and even grander in my opinion. As a lot of the film centres on Walter Butler's derailment on America, an English man, it's interesting how he pulled the performance from Lionel Barrymore that proved suave and understated and despicable in expression. His ideas of Good and Bad become two main elements here; for example Butler leading of Tories and Indians against that jingoistic mentality was a pure example of this perception. And his romantic archetype in the war, while she spectates across (Carol Dempsey) is just an element of Griffith that could have been dispensed. In some ways, I wasn't quite clear about whether or not Butler was English or American, so I had to try and resolve that ignorance subsequently watching the film.

I agree with another reviewer on here, who said that the subplot was really unnecessary. I concede because with this the film drones on these characters in an ineffectual way and it then loses its touch of brilliance. Nathan is the main character, who's sent out to War. During this time he's deeply impassioned in love by Nancy Monteague, a very wealthy woman who goes away to Mowhawk Valley. There's a lot of unnecessary establishing scenes with her and Butler and it's also set during the time Washington was growing to prominence.

Even with its preachy didacticism at times and the way it portrayed Men as chauvinistic, scenes such as the entrance into war and when Butler gets closer to the Americans can be intriguing, especially in the way Griffith uses lighting to emphasise them as if they're figures and his impressionistic use of editing to make you feel as though the war was taking place in his mind, which is done adeptly, but in saying so one wishes the film wasn't this melodramatic in the end. It's as though he was trying to pay the debt of his masterpiece "Intolerance" and then transgressed down the line afterwards. This film is just as well crafted, baroque and immense as anything, but as one reviewer said back during its debut "A war film has dwindled to shear melodrama" it shows this was essentially the counterproductive reaction during the time Vidor brought out his war film "The Big Parade" which made enormous box office revenue during the 20's. It's weird how Vidor also suffered in the 50's when he made "War and Peace" which was reputedly gorgeous, but lacked the substantive content of Tolstoy's original idea.

So what I am saying is that when watching the film, one must put it into context. It's a cliché I know, but unless you're interested in history, the film will rank poor. Interesting to note that during the film there are scenes where Indians seem like they're getting treated the same way Black people were almost a decade before in Griffith's film and yet it's barely looked at. It seems to be a marginal linkage, but it showed how conservative Griffith was still. Well for some of its faults (mainly because Griffith was coming out of his infancy in film making), I can't help, but be enraptured by the heat of war and the way Griffith shows it in great detail. If you have the chance pick up the Image Entertainment DVD, which restored the film to perfection.

In many ways, exceptional,...but bogged down by a silly and meaningless romance

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 17 August 2006]

I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliché of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm).

Love Is Blind

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 19 April 2008]

Appropriately subtitled "Love and Sacrifice", director D.W. Griffith's fictionalized account of revolutionary "America" should have been more successful, given the obvious costly effort in evidence; it is weighted down by lack of imagination, and a significantly unsuitable performance from the leading actress. Still, it offers many worthwhile scenes; and, some legendary scenes are brought beautifully to life. Griffith gentlemanly reveals prejudices early, explaining, "The story of the sacrifice made for freedom in the American Revolution is that of a civil war between two groups of English people; one group, the Americans, being merely Englishmen who settled on the American Continent."

Moreover, Griffith asserts, "The government which Canada and Australia now enjoy was absolutely denied to America through the stubborn and false ideals of the autocratic powers guiding the hand of King George the Third." During the running time, Griffith uses Royalist Walter Butler to represent the evil on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Were it not for Mr. Butler, the Revolution might have been settled amicability! Not as despicable a thesis as presented Griffith's similarly plotted Civil War epic, but neither is "America" as excitingly presented as "The Birth of a Nation".

And, try as they might, Neil Hamilton (as Nathan Holden) and Carol Dempster (as Nancy Montague) are not Robert Harron and Lillian Gish in "Hearts of the World".

Griffith's epics are much more convincing with when characterizations and relationships are well presented. Mr. Hamilton, as the poor young New Englander, has no rapport with Ms. Dempster. And, as the Virginia belle, Dempster is wrongly directed. Compare Dempster/Hamilton with Gish/Harron in "Hearts of the World". Or, even better, with Gish/Harron in "A Romance of Happy Valley". The later film shows how well Ms. Gish and Mr. Harron played the "bedroom window" scene which Griffith re-visits in "America". Hamilton, a promising actor, had a great career highlight, later, as "Commissioner Gordon" of "Batman" in the 1960s; but, ribald Lionel Barrymore (as Butler) steals the acting honors. Griffith used his stars better in the forthcoming "Isn't Life Wonderful?"

****** America (2/21/24) D.W. Griffith ~ Neil Hamilton, Carol Dempster, Lionel Barrymore

A Slow, Stagy Spectacle

[CJBx7 · 5/10 · 14 February 2014]

America (1924) tells the story of the American Revolutionary War through the perspectives of Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton), a commoner who fights for the American cause, and the aristocratic Montague family, with whose daughter Nancy (Carol Dempster) Nathan has fallen in love. Their love is complicated not only by the class divide, but by conflicting political loyalties. Things are further complicated when Captain Butler (Lionel Barrymore) declares his love for Nancy as well. Supposedly, he is fighting for the British, but he has ambitions of his own that force the two sides to unite against a common enemy. Directed by DW Griffith.

SCRIPT: It seems obvious that Griffith is aiming to recapture the epic scale of BIRTH OF A NATION, and thankfully this film doesn't have as much racism as BOAN. The movie shows tightness in the battle scenes, and the reasons for the conflict are deftly sketched out. However, the movie takes a while to get going. The script has several issues: the clichéd story of "love at first sight" between Nathan and Nancy, told in groan-inducing purple prose; very shallow characterizations (especially Griffith's patronizing attitude toward daddy's girl Nancy, calling her a "little Tory" with "slight knowledge of politics"), and an overemphasis on Butler's villainy at the expense of the main conflict. I find Griffith's repeated tendency to place his heroine in the lustful hands of a brute annoying and distasteful, as well as his use of the word "savages" to describe Native Americans. The story told here just isn't very interesting, and some of the love scene title cards are really awful. SCORE: 4/10

ACTING: Hamilton and Dempster don't show much spark as a couple overall. Dempster in particular doesn't engage with her role as an aristocrat in the beginning; she just doesn't have the hauteur that you would expect and her character shows very little personality or depth. She does improve somewhat later on, providing some touching moments, but her performance suffers from Griffith's insistence on fashioning her after Lillian Gish. Neil Hamilton is too understated in the beginning but shows some feeling later, particularly in one scene where he has to make a very difficult choice. The romance between the two is never really convincing. Lionel Barrymore, though, steals the show in his scenes, playing the evil Captain Butler with sadistic glee and gusto. The other players are OK but not outstanding. SCORE: 5.5/10

CINEMATOGRAPHY/PRODUCTION: Many scenes in the first hour or so are presented in a stagy, tableaux-like fashion that may have been acceptable in 1914 but definitely not in 1924. The camera-work becomes more interesting once we get to Paul Revere's ride, but then goes rather static again. There were some overlong close-ups on Carol Dempster at times that appear to have been done after the main filming was complete, and she is directed to emote in a way that doesn't match the title cards or the context of the scene. SCORE: 5.5/10

SUMMARY: America stands as DW Griffith's last attempt at an epic-scale production. Although he tries to replicate the scale of BIRTH OF A NATION, the movie overall feels dull and uninspired. The script suffers from a corny, unconvincing central romance and shallow characterizations. The acting also suffers from a lack of charisma and inspiration, and the cinematography is unusually reserved and stiff, with just a few moments of visual interest. PLEASE NOTE: Griffith's antiquated insistence on using white actors for the black and Native American parts will not set well with many viewers, myself included, but thankfully this was the last time he would do so. SCORE: 5/10

Silent History Done Right

[boblipton · 8/10 · 24 August 2002]

Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.

Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.

Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.

A history lesson, D.W. Griffith style.

[reptilicus · 8/10 · 4 July 2006]

I waited until the 4th of July to write this because . . . well . . . because it just feels right to be doing it on this day.

In 1924 D.W. Griffith needed a hit, he had not had a big one since ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921). He'd been working steadily since then but his movies had been smaller in scope and had failed to hit the right chord with audiences. He was planning a film about Patrick Henry when he was contacted by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) who asked if he might expand his ideas to encompass more of the American Revolution. This movie is the result. By the time he had finished he had a 14 reel history lesson and there wasn't a trace of Patrick Henry anywhere.

We all know the story of the Revolutionary War but Griffith threw in a love story with Patriot farmer Nathan (Neil Hamilton) falling in love with Tory aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster, a leading lady for Griffith for many years). Complicating matters is the fact that Nancy's father hates Nathan . . . well not just Nathan, he hates all rebels. It does not help matters when, during a skirmish on the streets of Lexington someone jostles Nathan's arm causing him to discharge his gun and accidentally wound Nancy's dad!

Paralelling the love story is the (mostly true but partially embellished) story of Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) a renegade British officer who feels he owes allegiance to no one. With Thousands of Indians form the Six Nations on his side he hopes to crush the colonials and become monarch of his own empire.

Comparisons with BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) are inevitable. The Montague family might just as well be the Cameron's from the earlier film while Nathan could be a part of the Stoneman family. The sequence of the Battle of Bunker Hill is staged very similarly to a scene in BIRTH OF A NATION with the attacking army, in this case the Redcoats, storming a trench packed with Patriots. The only thing missing is Henry Walthall charging across No Man's Land to stuff a flag into the muzzle of a cannon. Amazingly enough the battle scenes in America seem to lack the energy of the battle scenes in BIRTH and fail to draw the audience in. Something is clearly missing. It isn't scope, G.W. "Billy" Bitzer's camera work is quite good. Maybe what is missing is . . . dare I say it . . . sincerity?

The brutality of Capt. Butler and his men is well underscored although much of it happens in long shot or offscreen. Don't expect any heads to be lopped off in closeup like we saw in INTOLERANCE (1916). In one scene Butler's second in command, Capt. Hare (Louis Wolhiem) gouges out the eyes of a captive colonist. We see only the beginning of the deed, for the remainder the camera focuses on Hare's face as he obviously has a good time doing this. Lionel had been working with Griffith on and off since 1912. A story goes that he approached Griffith for work and D.W., knowing the reputation of his famous family, said "I am not hiring stage actors." to which Lionel replied "And I am nothing of the kind, sir!" He makes a very good and quite believable villain. Louis Wolhiem appeared with Lionel's older brother John three times; in SHERLOCK HOLMES and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (both 1920) and later in THE TEMPEST (1927). As Capt. Hare his wild staring eyes and disheveled hair not only mark him as a villain but make you think he is quite mad also.

Neil Hamilton later remarked that America was his first time on horseback and "I was scared to death.". He hides his displeasure very well though and we can believe he was quite the equestrian by the time shooting was over. Mr. Griffith was very much in love with Carol Dempster and at one point asked her to marry him. She refused and soon left his stock company, after which her star status gradually waned.

Speaking of horses, one accidentally amusing moment which had to be unscripted came during the depiction of Paul Revere's ride. He rides his horse right up on the front porch of a family to announce "To arms! The Regulars are coming!" but as he tries to leave the horse cannot negotiate the steps backwards and stumbles spilling his rider on the ground! I am amazed Griffith did not do another take.

So is America a classic? YES! Don't wait for July 4th to see it, it is enjoyable anytime.

Classic Battle Scenes

[Michael_Elliott · 25 February 2008]

America (1924)

*** (out of 4)

This film is basically a remake of The Birth of a Nation but this time the story is set during the American Revolutionary War. We have George Washington (Arthur Dewey) trying to make our country free while Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) tries to get the Indians on his side to attack what one hopes to become the new America. In the mean time, two young lovers (Neil Hamilton, Carol Dempster) are split apart due to them fighting on opposite sides of the war. This film was a notorious flop when originally released and everything Griffith made after this was basically done so that he could clean up debts gathered by this film. Time has certainly been kinder to the film than movie crowds in 1924 because this is a pretty strong take on the war that features a nice story, great battle scenes and some fine performances. Barrymore steals the show with his crazed performance but he never goes over the top but even without words you can see the passion on his face as he fights for what he believes is right. Hamilton and Dempster are both fine in their roles, although I'm sure stronger actors would have been better. The majority of the film deals with the actual story of the war and not the battle scenes. Griffith handles all the quiet moments very well but there's no question that the battle scenes are where the energy is at. Hundreds of extras were used and again, like previous Griffith epics, the battle scenes look incredibly realistic as if Griffith were there filming while the real battles were taking place. The story of the families being split apart probably would have worked better had it not been so familiar as to the story in The Birth of a Nation but either way this was Griffith's last epic and while it's not the masterpiece of The Birth of a Nation or Intolerance, it's still impressive film-making.

A celebration in its centennial, as exciting as the bicentennial.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 22 March 2024]

Maybe it's the full orchestra score accompanying this film that makes it seem better to me, I appreciated the narrative of two stories going on, one in upstate New York concerning the love of rebel Neil Hamilton and Carol Dempster, daughter of Tory Erville Alderson, and the growing issues of revolution in Boston. It's like a trip back in time and a visit to the early American wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, with realistic rustic looking communities providing seemingly accurate looking sets.

What a joke though in casting the 49 year old Lionel Barrymore as real life rebel Captain Walter Butler who was only 29 when he died. I've come to accept odd details like that and many fictional elements in historical dramas, so I view each one as a possibility and not pure fact. The film itself is every inch a treat though for viewing as producer and director D. W. Griffith makes it visibly thrilling. Real historical characters like King George, Samuel Adams, John Hancock and of course George Washington pass through, resorting in a truly patriotic saga of honor and struggle to claim freedom.

Rare Big-Budgeted Revolutionary War Film From Griffith

[springfieldrental · 8/10 · 13 January 2022]

Neil Hamilton played the lead in Griffith's big-budgeted and sprawling February 1924 "America." In a rare Hollywood film about the Revolutionary War, "America," marking the near 150th anniversary of the conflict's beginning, offers a love story in the middle of the pivotal moment in the United States' founding. Nathan (Hamilton), who sympathizes with the rebels and is a minuteman, is in love with Nancy (Dempster), whose father is a Tory. The Romeo and Juliet romance bounces around as Griffith captures the opening rounds of the Revolutionary War with the battles of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, followed by scenes of Valley Forge. The director's trademark heart-pounding conclusion that he perfected in his 1915 'The Birth of a Nation,' is found in "America." Cross-cutting between a fort filled with settlers under siege from the British and its allied Indians with the horse-bound Morgan raider colonists rescuers normally would assure this Griffith movie was going to be a box office smash.

The director, after spending a considerable amount of his personal money into the project, saw just the opposite in the amount of empty seats in the theaters. The critics were split down the middle on its praise, but even Griffith loyalist Lillian Gish, in her autobiography, wrote, "Apart from a few scenes, the film was a heartbreaking disappointment." The receipts were so thin that Griffith, following the dismal reception in "Life Is Wonderful," was forced to sell his Mamaroneck, New York, movie studio as well leave United Artists. He found himself now as an independent director for hire, something that never crossed his mind before 1924.