MovieChat Forums > Greed (1925) Discussion > Do I get my official movie buff card now...

Do I get my official movie buff card now?


*Warning: Spoilers

I just stayed up until 2:45 in the morning to watch the second longest movie ever made, and it was a silent film. I only drifted off to sleep once. The last thing I remember, Marcus had just thrown a knife at McTeague. I awoke an unknown number of minutes later to see them fighting, and Marcus biting off McTeague's earlobe. I can't have missed much, the plot moved slower than molasses in winter.
To begin, I should say something positive. I really enjoyed the score. Compared to the last 10 minutes of the preceding 1927 Alfred Hitchcock silent film, The Lodger, which had an overbearing piano score, the Israel score, utilizing a full orchestra, was marvelous.
Now for the criticism. My God, where to begin? First, I think the guide description, "A family is torn apart by the pursuit of wealth.", is horribly inaccurate. Based on the description, and that someone took the time to restore this film to a semi-directors cut, more about that later, I was expecting something more like Giant, with the plot following a large family involved in some ongoing business, in which there was destructive greed.
The greed in this film seems to be centered around the $5,000 Trina won in the illegal lottery. I'm not sure her wanting to protect her wealth is considered greedy, nor her husband wanting to spend it. That's just frugality versus spendthrift. McTeague killing her for the money, and Marcus riding into Death Valley to retrieve it, would qualify, but did we have to sit through 3 hours of what amounted to just a long argument over marital finances, to get to the action?
I was absolutely stunned when back-story revealed the original directors cut to have been NINE HOURS LONG. That's right, the director, Von Stroheim had requested that Metro-Goldwyn release this movie, having gone wildly over budget, as two, 4 and 1/2 hour parts, to be shown on consecutive nights. What an idiot! Is it any wonder this movie was his swan song as an A-list director in America.
Frankly, there wasn't enough story there for the four hours I watched tonight. Forcing him to cut it down to 2 hours was certainly correct, as this is basically a three-person plot. Boy meets girl, girl meets another boy. Girl comes into money and marries other boy. Boys fight over girl and then boys fight over the money. Husband kills wife for money. Boys fight over money again causing both their deaths. This movie could have easily been 90 to 120 minutes long. What extra value Von Stroheim thought 7 additional hours could have added to the story is beyond me.
If I knew where Von Stroheim was buried I would drive there tonight, dig up his corpse, and slap his skull around while screaming, "What the hell were you thinking?" Then I would force his skeleton to watch all four hours of this film, twice!
I did think the plot had problems at the very end. McTeague has just taken the gun away from Marcus after warning him not to try and reload it. He then bludgeons Marcus to death with the pistol, only to find himself handcuffed to the body. He sits there in despair as the film ends. McTeague is probably dead anyway because he has no water, but why not reload the gun from Marcus's gun belt, and shoot himself free of the handcuffs? Or a more morbid, but realistic ending, could show McTeague about to commit suicide with the gun to save himself the anguish of dying from the heat.
The film was set in 1908 California, and the lottery was illegal back then, interestly. Also, notice that this 1925 film showed McTeague as an unlicensed dentist, coping a feel off Trina as she lay unconscious in his dentistry chair? Did this get by the censors because he later marries her?

reply

"I just stayed up until 2:45 in the morning to watch the second longest movie ever made"

No, Greed is not the 2nd longest movie ever made...

reply

Don't be such a douchebag, if your going to say that, why not tell what the longest and second longest movies ever made were?

reply

There are movies like Shoah (9h) Les Vampris (7h) The Count of Monte Cristo (7h) Napoleon (6h) and Dr. Mabuse (4 1/2 h)

black and white movies were better

reply

I thought Les vampires was a serial?

reply

[deleted]

"Did this get by the censors because he later marries her?"
I think the reason it got by the censors is because back then, there weren't any! At least, there wasn't an official code to follow. (This issue came up around when "talkies" started to be made. The Hays Code was written then, and became the standard for movies 1929-1969, or, until the ratings system came in.) Studios released films based on their own discretion, and besides that, filmmakers knew about morality standards back then. (which is why something like that would have been released, but not a completely vulgar film)

The movie itself, I believe, takes place over 1908-1922, or something like that. (I'm just looking at the dates in there. It begins with "c.1908", then when McTeague becomes a dentist, "several years later" (or something like that), and then the notice when McTeague is fired, 1922 (though I'm sure that's a mistake; I really don't believe the movie took place over the course of 12 years))

Actually, I think he dies right after he attempts to revive the bird.

I wouldn't know if you get your official movie buff card, just because you watched a 4-hour-long silent film. For me, I think the stuff cut out of the film (the scenes which are "restored" in the form of stills) are vital to the development of the plot and characters. (and so what if it has a formula plot?)

A computer is like an air conditioner: Once you open windows, it stops working.

reply


Hey Moviebuff35, Von Stroheim premiered this film in its nine hour entirety and sat ramrod straight in his chair the whole time watching it to set an example.

Actually his last A-list movie was Queen Kelly, which went so over budget that Gloria Swanson, who was paying, stopped production in the middle of it.

Trina became greedy not because she wanted to keep the $5000, but because it obsessed her and she started adding Mcteague's salary to it instead of spending the salary on living expenses. The scenes where she locks the door, then pulls out her money and starts counting it obsessively on the bed with those wild eyes darting around always slay me. She takes all of McTeague's money so that he can't even go buy a beer at the pub with the boys.
This movie warrants a closer watch to get all the subtleties in it, but if you found it boring I wouldn't recommend doing it again. This movie is not for everyone, although it's probably my favorite. I watched it for the 1st time late one night alone and it astounded me. I found it very dreamlike and surreal.

reply

Of course he did, it was his piece of garbage. Ok, its not that bad, but come on, 9 hours.

I will admit her eyes made it obvious that she was obsessed with the money she was hording, but I had a different take. Maybe I missed the true meaning, but it seemed to me that she started hording the money only after McTeague began to spend too much on beer.

Ever see Angela's Ashes? I thought of that movie where the wife and children can't trust the drunken father with the family money because he always drinks it up.

It was dreamlike and surreal, which is how I am sure he wanted it, it being his epic dream-come-true. However I don't think I could sit through it again. I've done my time, I want my card.

reply

let's rip some pages out of war and peace as well. and dig up that proust fellow to yell a thing or two to his skeleton! :P

i've never watched the longer version because i can't find it... but i totally love the greedy trina who lies naked in bed with her gold. i can totally see some people doing that.

from the short version, it seems that first she goes from thrifty, to obsessed to deranged. maybe the longer version tells more about the changes, but it seems likely to me that someone who suddenly gets a lot of easy money has two ways to go: spend it all in a shopaholic daze or leave it as it is in fear that it will be of greater use some day.

reply

Hey, you watched the same exact version I did, except here in New York it started at 1:45 instead.

I'm also 15, and that is movie dedication for someone so young. . .

reply

Yes that is dedication for one so young. You may have my official movie buff card, although some on this board don't think I deserve it.

reply

I watched it when I was 13 and loved it.
The 4 hour version.

reply

same here

black and white movies were better

reply

Wow, great site, never knew it existed. I looked Von Stroheim up and it had him, but hes buried in France, so I can't make his body pay. :-(

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

After having Greed near the top of my "must see" list for a couple of months, I finally got around to seeing it last week only to be rather disappointed. Sure, for silent-era film standards this is a rather good film; the actors all put in laudable performances and the film is backed up by a solid soundtrack. It does, however, seem to lag too much for my liking (and that was only the 2 hour version). Taking that into account, I'm pretty curious as to what the nine hour version would've been like. Though I'd probably find the long cut to be even more sleep-inducing, its still a damned shame the studio had to mutilate it.

That said, I'd rank this film higher than Battleship Potemkin; not that its saying much as I could hardly wait for the "greatest film of all time" to end. =D

reply

As for films that are longer than this one, it only takes a casual dip into Andy Warhols filmography to dig up a pair.

reply

It is a shame we don't have the very long version available. They didn't have tv then and obviously didn't envision the mini series concept that movies would be shown over several nights in the future such as Roots was.
They might have gotten away with showing a part one once and then a part two next and last a part three to have shown the three parts but that was probably frowned upon then.

reply

wtl471629 wrote (in part):
"They didn't have tv then and obviously didn't envision the mini series concept that movies would be shown over several nights in the future such as Roots was. "

Well, they did - sort of. Wagner's Ring Cycle was a quartet that could (assuming the singers are up to it) run for four straight nights. IIRC, UFA released a film of the Ring in 1924.

I guess EVS considered Greed to be the Ring Cycle of film, and an opportunity for people to find a new way to engage the new medium. In the end, I suppose it took George Lucas and Peter Jackson to make the idea of a feature-length serial (as opposed to a series of stand-alone sequels) work commercially.

reply

[deleted]

This whole board makes me very sad. "fell asleep", why would you fall asleep?

Do you just watch movies so you cn say you've seen them, or do you like them?

I assume you are referring to the 4 hour version of Greed which uses stills to reconstruct the film. If so this isn't really a film is it, it can't really be considered one.

Greed is lost, as Stroheim said all that is left is the "mutilated remains". I am very fond of the remains regardless of Stroheims thoughts.

If you don't enjoy watching films, if its a chore for you. Don't do it.

reply

This whole board makes me very sad. "fell asleep", why would you fall asleep? Do you just watch movies so you cn say you've seen them, or do you like them?

I watch movies because I love them but I have, on occasion, fallen asleep watching one. Usually it's simply because I'm tired and the conditions are right but at times it's because the movie is boring and long. Still, there have been times I've fallen asleep during movies that were really good.

It's one of the reason I prefer to be home when I watch a movie. I record them to DVR and watch them at my leisure. If I do fall asleep, I can start it again at a later time. If I didn't do that I would have missed a lot of really good movies; especially silent ones. The music, lack of dialogue, and reading tend to lull me right to sleep.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

total_immrtal says > This whole board makes me very sad. "fell asleep", why would you fall asleep? Do you just watch movies so you cn say you've seen them, or do you like them?
I watch movies because I love them but I have, on occasion, fallen asleep watching one. Usually it's simply because I'm tired and the conditions are right but at times it's because the movie is boring and long. Still, there have been times I've fallen asleep during movies that were really good.

It's one of the reasons I prefer to be home when I watch a movie. I record them to DVR and watch them at my leisure. If I do fall asleep, I can start it again at a later time. If not for that, I would have missed a lot of really good movies; especially silent ones. The music, lack of dialogue, and reading tend to lull me right to sleep. Fortunately I didn't see the four hour version. I wouldn't have lasted through the whole thing either.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply