The Cricket on the Hearth (1909) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
"The cricket hushed"
Steffi_P10 March 2011
Pioneer director DW Griffith always cited Charles Dickens as one of his greatest influences. This may seem odd for a filmmaker, but one must remember that most of Griffith's predecessors in his own field came into the medium as technicians, not as storytellers. Besides, books and movies are not so different. Both have the power to shift our focus in time and space from one paragraph, or one cut, to the next. Books, like movies, can immerse us in a wealth of detail or pare an experience down to its bare essentials. It is these effects that Griffith admired in his literary forebears.

The Cricket on the Hearth was Griffith's only stab at a Dickens work. The original novella is not very well-known today, although it was a massive hit when published, outselling even A Christmas Carol. It was probably still remembered as a key Dickens text in 1909. Griffith makes some alterations to the structure of the story, giving us a prelude in which we see the sailor Edward before he goes to sea, and witness him adopting the old man disguise upon his return. In the novel the disguised Edward is already in place, and the reader does not know his identity. However it is more like Griffith to focus on the story's romance and to book end it appropriately.

But it is in formal style, not content the Griffith borrows from the author. Just as Dickens will use evocative language to give detailed descriptions of place and character, selecting words that have the right feel to them as well as literal meaning, so Griffith fills his images with visual patterns to conjure up certain impressions. Many of the early scenes emphasise the squalor from which the characters originate with simple but effective use of space. In the opening shot a sloping ceiling cuts off almost half the frame. In the second shot a fence does the same. Later scenes such as the wedding take place in the serene outdoors.

Looking at the whole thing however you can see why Griffith didn't bother to adapt too many Dickens novels. Despite a handful of title cards making explanations and bridging gaps in the narrative, this short is a little confused and incoherent, and really seems to assume the viewer has a knowledge of the original text. Griffith has tried to make it more cinematic by playing down the significance of the titular cricket and making the love story the central arc, but the end result is far from smooth. Griffith was a lot stronger when coming up with his own stories, entirely conceived and constructed for the screen.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Missed opportunity
MissSimonetta10 December 2021
You would think DW Griffith and Charles Dickens would make for a great movie. Griffith was essentially the Dickens of the screen with his usual blend of social commentary and melodrama. Unfortunately his sole Dickens adaptation is underwhelming and often incoherent. The actors are all fine, but no one stands out.

God, I wish Griffith had adapted Dickens more thoroughly later in his career. Oh well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Griffith meets Dickens
TheLittleSongbird24 November 2021
There were quite a number of reasons for seeing 'The Cricket on the Hearth'. Charles Dickens' source material is great, if not one of my favourite works of his, that doesn't get enough attention today. While not one of my favourite directors, DW Griffith deserves his reputation as a pioneer of silent film. Have had high appreciation for silent film for a while now, there are some not so great ones out there but the best ones are masterpieces and film milestones.

Griffith did do so much better than 'The Cricket on the Hearth', which is a lesser effort of his and a contender for his weakest Biograph film. Not only does 'The Cricket on the Hearth' not feel like Dickens, with a lot left out and re-ordered and with a short length, it also doesn't feel like Griffith other than the filming techniques. He did many fine films and short films, but when he was not on form like here and the Abraham Lincoln biopic he was really off.

It's not a complete disaster by all means. It looks absolutely great visually, with some inspired filming techniques that still hold up tremendously well. The contrast of the squalor filled early scenes and the more idyllic imagery such as the wedding is striking. The opening sequence sets the film up very neatly and with great promise.

Did think that the performances were quite decent considering what was given to them.

However, Griffith directing-wise is rather uninspired dramatically and at times lazy, two words not usually used by me in regard to him. Also felt that he was not at ease with the material or knew what to do with it, and dramatically there's a finding his feet feel. The title words are rather rambling and over-explain somewhat.

What undoes 'The Cricket on the Hearth' are the story and pace. This was a story that needed a much longer length of at least 25 minutes, 11 minutes is far too short for this story and it shows in how the story is executed. Structurally, it jumps about a lot and has an incomplete and rushed feel to the extent that even those familiar with the source material will be confused by what goes on. Goodness knows what it will be like for those not, they'll be like how was the source material a hit if thinking the film is faithful to it (it's not). There is too much focus on the love story, which has moments of charm but is generally bland, and the titular character is given too short shrift.

Overall, disappointing. 3/10.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2 by Griffith
Michael_Elliott29 February 2008
Cricket on the Hearth, The (1909)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

After three years out at sea, a man returns home to find his love has been forced into marriage with another man. Even at 11-minutes this sucker here is pretty boring, without any life what's so ever. The direction from Griffith is quite lazy but considering he made over one hundred films this year alone...I'll cut him some slack.

Resurrection (1909)

** (out of 4)

A Russian nobleman seduced and abandoned a young girl several years ago. Years later he finds himself on a jury where the girl is on trial and soon he finds himself feeling guilty. Bashing the rich, sympathy towards the poor and relgion are all on display in this Griffith short but nothing much comes out of it. The staging it a bit poor, the direction is off but the two leads deliver nice performances.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Incomprehensible.
planktonrules16 February 2014
If you read the IMDb summary of this film AFTER you see "The Cricket on the Hearth", you might just think 'wow...that sounds like a great movie and I wish I'd seen it!'. This is because the movie by D.W. Griffith is completely incomprehensible. It could have used a lot of intertitle cards as well as a slower place. As it is, it's like a series of clips from a much larger story that only make sense if you read the story first! Griffith really rushes so fast that I found myself completely baffled. I am curious what audiences at the time felt. Had they ALL read this story? Did they feel so confused? Could they tell the characters apart? And, why if the man went off to sea for three years does it appear that he never actually left--but just left to go to the pub?! It's a giant mess of a film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The most critical audiences will be pleased with it
deickemeyer27 September 2014
It has come to be well understood among patrons of motion picture theaters that when the Biograph Company undertakes the reproduction of some well-known story it will be excellently done. "The Cricket on the Hearth," adapted from the favorite story of Dickens, is no exception. In this reproduction the characters seem to live again the story before one's eyes and all the hopes and wishes, the disappointments and the heartaches are made so plain that one lives them with the characters and appreciates more than ever before the wondrous beauties of Dickens' tale. It is unnecessary to enter into a detailed description of the play. It is too well known to require that. Nor can any one actor be singled out as doing his part better than any other. The company is too well balanced for that. The love of Edward and May engages the bulk of the attention of the audience, and when Tackleton gives them his blessing the audience applauds. John's acting when he is deciding whether he will enter the room and shoot the old man or not is exceptionally good, and a sigh of relief goes up when he tosses the pistol away. Technically the film is almost beyond criticism. The Biograph pictures are all plain and clear black and white. There is no attempt in this to introduce delicate tones, but the picture is clear and the movement of the characters is so smooth and even that there is no blurring. The picture is good and deserves a long run. The most critical audiences will be pleased with it. - The Moving Picture World, June 5, 1909
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Foreshadowing His Future Epic
Single-Black-Male25 February 2004
This 10 minute short film has a disproportionate reflection of the nation at that time. The 34 year old D.W. Griffith distorts his offering of American life through his blurry characters. His frame of reference is quite narrow, and you can tell that he is still feeling his way through this medium that is cinema. He was fortunate to have the privilege of being paid whilst learning by trial and error. The story doesn't have a human interest appeal and only caters for hard core fans. His worldview is somewhat tainted by his value system which is fully realised in his future epic, 'The Birth of a Nation'.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Antitheses
Single-Black-Male1 March 2004
In this interpretation of Charles Dickens' work, the 34 year old D.W. Griffith excludes the poor and working classes by presenting a sense of separateness in the film. He airbrushes the past to make room for a new community: an American community, and exploits the fact that Charles Dickens travelled to America and influenced a lot of American writers like Edgar Allan Poe. In a sense, he is saying that diversity is unclean and should not be touched. I would regard this film as low-brow as opposed to middle brown.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed