User reviews

D. W. Griffith was still finding his feet as a film director when he made this early short for Biograph in 1909, but it's clear that he was already emerging as a leader among the pioneering directors in New York.

This is quite a macabre parable in which an unscrupulous tycoon suffers an ironic fate after cornering the world market in wheat and boosting his bank balance by $4,000,000 in the process. Many aspects of the film are still quite primitive by today's standards - particularly the fraught scene in the trading pit during which nearly everybody overacts outrageously so that the viewer doesn't know where to look.

The cross-cutting for which Griffith would become justly famous is in evidence here, but it's interesting that, instead of using it to heighten moments of tension or suspense, he uses successive shots to emphasise the contrasting lifestyles of the ruthless speculator who drunkenly toasts his good fortune at a banquet with his friends while the poor working masses suffer the economic fallout of his manipulation of the market.

For the cinematic limitations of its time, there are some good techniques in this short drama. The story, which is about a ruthless man trying to control the wheat market, is interesting though often heavy-handed - but it's the way it is filmed that makes it of interest. The actual story is preceded by a look at farmers growing wheat, and it includes a nicely planned shot of the sowers going back and forth, in a way that cleverly gets around the fixed camera limitations of the time. The main story shows good technique as well, using well-conceived cross-cutting to emphasize the differences between the world of those who rely on the wheat and the world of those who profit from it. It has an effective closing shot, too. It's pretty good drama and an interesting example of how these very old films were made.

Directors use the technique of freeze frames in movies to emphasize a crucial point where the picture pauses in midstream, somewhat like a photograph. The first film to use this effective cinematic tool was December 1909's "A Corner of Wheat." D.W. Griffith showed the despair of the poor effected by greed in his--and film's--historic freeze frame.

"A Corner of Wheat" marked Griffith's year-and-a-half of directing films. His innovations in cinematic techniques began to really pile up from this point. The movie highlights his now familiarity with cross-cutting and parallel editing, unfolding a story with two perspectives--here the ravenous rich contrasting against the despairing poor. The depth of field in the beginning and ending shots of the farmers walking towards the camera planting wheat reflect an understanding of using the entire frame to capture the essence of the atmosphere of the narrative.

This is the first time Griffith addressed social disparity and holding those responsible for such unfairness. Based on a 1902 Frank Norris book, "The Pit," Griffith was able to effectively slim down the novel into several concise scenes within a one-reel movie.

A Corner in Wheat is a little meditation on capitalism, derived from Frank Norris, weaving together narrative fragments linked by their relation to wheat. The film begins with farmers sowing grain and taking their meager harvest to market. Capitalist speculators engineer the "corner in wheat" of the title, establishing full control over the world's supply. We see, intercut with this coup and the main capitalist's ensuing celebrations, the effects on others: another speculator is ruined, the farmers return home empty-handed, the urban poor go hungry and begin to riot when bread becomes unaffordable. The riot is squelched, but the "Wheat King" meets with his just desserts, inadvertently buried under an avalanche of grain, while the farmers continue to toil.

7* (10* Rating System)

Early film of "social relevance" directed by D.W. Griffith. It's a little difficult to follow - apparently, Mr. Griffith is showing the contrast between the wealthy "Wheat King" (played by Frank Powell) and the poor "Farmer" (played by James Kirkwood). The farmer does the manual work, laboring in the fields. The wealth businessman reaps the profits, in luxury. In the film, Mr. Powell's character becomes more and more greedy, making the price of goods so high the poor farmers can't afford the goods they helped create. Of the supporting players, Henry B. Walthall is most impressive as Kirkwood's associate. Griffith mixes location and set nicely. Watch the wicked "Wheat King" meet a pitiful, ironic end.

****** A Corner in Wheat (12/13/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Frank Powell, James Kirkwood, Henry B. Walthall

D.W.Griffith's condensed interpretation (14 minutes) of social conscious novelist Frank Norris's The Pit is an early and beautifully crafted example of what incredible influence film could exert in conveying its message to the masses.

A Corner in the Wheat is a clear and concise portrayal of Capitalistic greed as Griffith masterly employs the early tools of the trade to convey and condemn the repercussions of such action. It is early juxtaposition at its best as cross cuts between the have and have nots with well paced editing and striking compositions (the wheat field scenes are right out of Vincent Millette)that graphically illustrates the imperfection of the system.

There is a powerhouse finish rich in irony in this subversive work by the aristocratic Griffith that clearly must have inspired and influenced the work of the great Russian Socialist directors and by doing so adds final irony to this early work of pure cinema.

A greedy tycoon decides, on a whim, to corner the world market in wheat. This doubles the price of bread, forcing the grain's producers into charity lines and further into poverty.

D. W. Griffith was, of course, a master of the early cinema and dominated the silent film. He may be best known for "Intolerance" and "Birth of a Nation", but this is a notable film in its own right, showing the struggle between agriculture and investors. What political message was being said (if any)? Strangely, the film is said to be based on the novel "The Pit". How exactly an entire novel can be adapted to a 10-minute film is not known. If anything, it would simply share the same theme. Maybe I ought to track down "The Pit"...

A Corner in Wheat is one of the five or six really outstanding Biograph shorts. Here, DW Griffith draws together all the techniques he had been perfecting over his last year in the motion picture business – moving actors in depth for maximum effect, restrained, realistic performances, a consistent tempo, succinct, unobtrusive intertitles, atmosphere conveyed through setting, and the varied possibilities of the editing process.

What is most obvious here is the development that Griffith is probably best known for, which is his cross-cutting. He had already explored cross-cutting for excitement or suspense, and even to compare events going on in completely separate locations, but here he is cutting between seemingly separate narratives which, when put together tell one coherent story. He is perhaps the first filmmaker to show social cause and effect on such a grand scale.

There are plenty of other nice touches along the way. Particularly memorable are the shots of the farm family, with the wind pulling at their clothing, and the stark trees and barren landscape mirroring their situation. But what is perhaps the greatest sign of competence here is the way these images give a sense of unity to the whole, with the desolate farm scenes book-ending the short. It's this development of structure that was perhaps Griffith's most important contribution.

A Corner in Wheat is not quite perfect though. In particular, the acting performances are not amazing, and one crowd shot is simply a chaotic mess. Griffith's handling of a cast would improve in the years to come, not to mention the fact that he would later work with some of the brightest stars of the era.

A Corner In Wheat (1909) : Brief Review :

D W Griffith's parallels with social commentary on two opposite and inevitable corners of the society. The unavoidable fact of the society was, is and will be that, 'The Rich gets richer and The Poor gets even worse' and unfortunately the world doesn't seems to be bothered by the idea of changing this equation. D W Griffith, who has always showm sympathetic approach to the poor people in his film with one constant condition that the character has to have good and kind Nature, have used the same formula but it was far before he used it in his most popular films made years later. A Corner In Wheat is about an Alan unscrupulous and greedy capitalist speculator decides to corner the wheat market for his own profit, establishing complete control over the markets and destroys the lives of poor people. The film showcases two opposite and different corners of the society, the rich and the poor, dealing with different consequences of the same issue and at the same time. This idea of parallel narrative was loved by audience after 50s but who knew that Griffith did it almost 4 decades ago. Watch out for the scenes when he shows the rich people partying and wasting foods and drinks and on the side we see poor and hungry people in que for food and not getting it. Such a heartbreaking scene it was. And the last frame when the poor man is crying and seeding at the time, what a wonderful thing it was. Hats off to D W Griffith and his imaginative brain which was running far ahead of its time and unfortunately we didn't born in his era to experience his brilliance. Whoever is fan of the cinematic genius called Griffith just can't miss this Short flick. Don't take the rating too seriously as it is purely systematic because films made 10 decades ago just cannot be measured with modern strips. A Must See!

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest

This was just an okay short by D. W. Griffith from 1909. While the scene of the man in the mill towards the end is really exciting to watch, the film, in general, just seems awfully preachy and overly melodramatic. That's mostly because it is a not very subtle film about the evils of greed and crop speculation. The film, unnecessarily starts by focusing on the farmers who grow the wheat. Then it switches to a Board of Trade-type location as a tycoon is trying to corner the market on wheat. He's thrilled with all the money and is oblivious to the harm this causes to the poor (another not too relevant scene about po' folks not being able to buy bread was included). However, despite this antiquated film style and its heavy-handed lesson on Civics, the movie does end well--with a very, very unique scene that makes it worth watching all 14 minutes. Come on, it's only 14 minutes--it's probably worth your time to try it. At worst, you're only out 14 minutes out of your life!!!

By the way, later in his career, Griffith was a staunch anti-Communist. I wonder if he STILL would have made such a Populist-centered type of film at that time? A CORNER OF WHEAT could be seen as a possible plea for Socialism or even Communism!

Corner in Wheat, A (1909)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

One of D.W. Griffith's best shorts. This one deals with an evil tycoon who makes the price of wheat go up for his own profit but by doing this is causes the poor to suffer. Here's another film where Griffith takes out his anger of being poor and he hits all the right notes making this a high energy and downright dirty tale. The way Griffith shows the poor is wonderfully done and the ending is great as well. Of historical importance, this was the first film to get reviewed in a NY newspaper, which also makes the historians believe that this was the first film reviewed anywhere in the world. Films were discussed in papers before this one but this was the first to actually get its own review.

Even if you miss the first minutes of this film, don't miss the very last. A Corner in Wheat comes off as a comical drama that seems to lead nowhere. That is until the very end when we see a powerful image end the film to give the audience a message to take with them. The final shot is a man plants wheat in his fields in hope of a better life. A simple shot, a simple movement, a giant message!

This was the most boring of the shorts on the D.W. Griffith DVD set "Years of Discovery." I am not sure why it got higher grades here than some of the other shorts, which were FAR more entertaining. Are people listening to "the critics" about this film, rather than using their own judgment?

The trouble with "A Corner In Wheat" is that the characters seem rather superficial and one-dimensional to us right off the bat. No time is given to character development, only to the plot. A film, even a short film, has to have both to maintain the audience's interest. The plot was also depressing and anti-capitalistic, which didn't help matters. America IS a capitalist country, and one of the reasons why we are a strong world leader. Seems Griffith was experimenting a bit with socialist views here. I bet this short was a dud when it was first released.

A Corner in Wheat (1909) Cast: Frank Powell, Grace Henderson, James Kirkwood, Linda Arvidson

Loosely based on Frank Norris' 1901 novel The Octopus, A Corner in Wheat is a short silent film directed by motion picture pioneer D. W. Griffith, telling the story about a greedy speculator who corners the wheat industry for his own profit, establishing a monopoly over the markets in the industry.

A rather good early effort from Griffith, who would later be known, even today, for his motion pictures, including The Birth of a Nation (which is controversial, even to this day) and Intolerance, it was nice to see the early roots of cinema as a whole. Admittedly, this did feel like watching a stage play at times though.

The "king of wheat" is grinding the monopoly on wheat. On one side they face inflated prices while on the other side the farmers do not have the money for bread. The "king of the wheat" reaches his fortune obtaining the monopoly and dies soon after, falling into a pit. Afterwards, a worker resumes work.The relationship between the worker of the earth and the land dates back to ancestral times. Unfortunately, the exploitation of workers that sometimes happens is also ancestral. Workers are bound by coherence to the land to obtain their products. Despite this, the film highlights that workers often suffer inconsistent speculation about them. There is the parallel editing that shows the related situations.

Allegedly, Griffith was reluctant to make social and/or political commentary with his movies, until he made this one (with significant success in public). After that, he decided to go down that route, giving us movies like Intolerance and The Birth of a Nation.

While narrative per se is pretty generic (evil capitalist doing evil stuff), what is biggest characteristic of this movie is that mentioned narrative was not communicated to the viewer through the shots mainly, but through the effective editing and montage. This is something that was trademark of Soviet cinema of the beginning of 20th century, but it seems that it was pioneered by most famous US director of the same era.

Some of the scenes are being freezed toward their colsure, transforming them into paintings, communicating to the audience iconic truths of the social order which is being narrated. Also - influence of Realistic art movement on Griffith is obvious in this piece.

While DW Griffith is not one of my favourite directors of all time, he is wholly deserving of his reputation as a pioneer of the silent film. And he also pioneered some film techniques, such as the cross cutting and parrallel editing, which are always so fascinating to watch and hold up tremendously well in his work today. While not being a fan of all his work, when he was on form his work was very good to outstanding (which was actually quite a lot of it).

'A Corner in Wheat' is not among my favourite works of his, but it is one of his best and most interesting (in its ahead of the time and brave subject matter that was very relevant and seldom if ever addressed on film back then) early short films. And it also compares favourably when it comes to his short films overall. It isn't perfect in its handling of the subject perhaps, but it is at least a visual and technical triumph as was typical with Griffith.

Griffith may still have been finding his feet in regard to his storytelling and his handling of themes, though certainly not on the visual front.

Do agree too that the messaging is delivered too heavy-handedly, was not expecting subtlety as such but it was a little bit much in particularly the middle. Did appreciate though its good intentions and that it even dared approach this subject.

On the other hand, 'A Corner in Wheat' still looks great, in fact calling it that is an understatement. Would go as far as to call it a visual and technical triumph, with the pioneering film techniques Griffith specialised in being so skillfully done and so accomplished for so early on. The visual storytelling is also hugely effective. Griffith's direction is also a stroke of genius, he didn't seem ill at ease or like he was trying to do too much. They are all so good that they make up half my high rating.

The story may not be perfectly executed, but it is well intentioned and has a good deal of tension and has a lot interesting to say. It also was enough to make me learn more about the subject and understand it more. The climax and ending are exciting and emotionally stirring, it did stay with me for a while. Although the characters are not meaty as such, they carry the story very nicely. The acting doesn't come over as too static or theatrical.

Concluding, very well done. 8/10.

While it should be amazing to me that this was filmed in 1909, I think it reflects a reality that was reflected before this and would be after - I think that the reckoning for the rich as well as the poor would come most of all 20 years after this - and it's a vicious cycle of a struggle.

I think what amazed me the most is to see such a leap from the filmmaking that was happening at the time to what occurs here, where Griffith gets a handle on his parallel editing and yet he knows how to hold on to a shot for long enough to get us invested into the struggle of the working man as well as to see the frivolity of the rich; the opening two shots which show two men getting ready for work (with two women of varying ages standing by, stoic like), and then walking slowly back and forth, as if in a daze, doing the work in the wheat fields that drain away their lives.

The story for what it is is not very complicated: Griffith cuts from the perspective of the wealthy, making their big deals and in the stock market (there's one scene with a bunch of traders in a room acting like the climax of Trading Places), and poor working class having to wait in a long line for prices for their wheat that have gone up from 5 to 10 cents(!) There's a point of poetic irony that comes up where one particular man who is told in writing that he is now the head of the WORLD and has 4 million to his fortunes falls into a wheat pit and, well, dies. It could be silly, but it works because of the cross-cutting, how we see all this wheat falling on this man in this pit, and ultimately his fate at the end will be the same as the man on the field going back and forth in complete sorrow: death comes to us all, no matter what you do.

I think the direction here and the pioneering sense of editing triumphs over all, and while it has a story it's actually strongest at evoking this sense of complete class disparity: the rich are getting richer, and the poor are staying the same (if they're lucky, which it doesn't seem to be), and if nothing else comes to pass for change then perhaps revolution will have to come... this feels radical for 1909, or it may be just what people wanted to see. I'd be curious to see the reactions of the audience from a century ago, before Russia went into its Bolshevik revolution and of course before worker unions took hold.

(Note: This is the first of three short films by D.W. Griffith that I care to highlight by commenting on them. The others are "The Girl and Her Trust" and "The Battle at Elderbush Gulch".)

D.W. Griffith usually made only three types of films: melodramas, social commentary and suspense (usually either battle scenes or the last-minute rescue, or both). His features often contain all three genres. His films were often set during the Victorian age or the Civil War era, or some other turning point in American history. His films of modern setting drip of Victorian sentiments. Mostly, his films were theatrical (the stories, interior shots and acting, most consistently). Griffith's films are categorical because he, apparently, rarely used scripts and was the rare filmmaker that interacted with the scenarists, and thus invented the role of director.

"A Corner in Wheat" is simple: it is social commentary. Based on a Frank Norris story, the anti-monopoly narrative fits with a recurrent theme of Griffith's films--sympathy for the poor. (It's rather hypocritical, however, considering that Griffith worked for a member of the Motion Picture Patents Company.) The story, albeit better than its contemporaries, is not of much interest, or, rather, is not why I highlighted this short film.

In 1903, Edwin S. Porter crosscut scenes out of temporal order in "The Great Train Robbery". Parallel-action crosscutting as dissection of a scene with spatially separate actions appeared as early as 1907 in Pathé and Vitagraph films. The crosscutting in "A Corner in Wheat" is exceptional because it functions as contrast between the wheat magnate's dinner party and the wheat farmers not being able to afford bread at a market. I'm not sure who helped Griffith with the editing, but it was probably James Smith, as usual. The parallel editing is appropriately slow paced, so again in the comeuppance dénouement. As well, the final shot was a good attempt at poignancy. The rest of the photoplay, especially the camera positioning, is primitive.