What Drink Did

A moral lesson is taught in this excellent Biograph film which might have its influence. The dramatic qualities of a temperance story are generally very powerful, and the Biograph actors seem specially fitted to emphasize the dramatic possibilities without weakening whatever of moral strength there may be in a piece. In this instance they have made the most of their opportunity and the picture is very strong. The climax, when the father realizes that his little daughter is dead, is a strong piece of acting, and a sigh of relief involuntarily escapes the audience when the scene changes. The photography is clear and good, like all the Biograph work. The film could be used to advantage by religious and temperance organizations. - The Moving Picture World, June 5, 1909

Ancient silent short from D.W. Griffith, years before that mattered, about the dangers of alcohol. It's the story of a man who seems like a loving and attentive husband and father, but after a few drinks he becomes an abusive monster. A story sadly still relevant and all-too-familiar to many today. For a film made before my great-grandmother was born, it's not bad. I don't mind the 'temperance movement' of it all. I like to hear different views and, from a historical perspective, it's kind of fascinating seeing something like this knowing that prohibition was just a decade away. The acting and technical elements are all about what you would expect from a movie made in filmmaking's infancy, before the polish and shine that later Hollywood studios would bring. Griffith did a few films like this, including his final one, a feature-length talkie titled The Struggle.

Here we are at the dawn of the movie era where directors and actors begin to understand and reveal the techniques best suited to the silent screen.

We should not forget that this is 1909 and the requirement to survive in the new and novelty 'industry' at that time was mass production, they were knocking out more than 50 'movies' a year with limited equipment and a small group of regular performers. There was no time to waste, no time to be reflective and do multiple takes and experiments and then choose the best one. A decision was made then the action filmed - another dozen movies were lined up behind what was being done in the moment.

Griffith was the product of his time - his father a Southern military officer during the Civil War and DW of strict moralistic upbringing.

Griffith often visited moralistic themes in his movies and this was the prevalent thinking and attitudes of the time. In his own time nobody would have thought this over moralistic and, we shouldn't forget that 'Prohibition' was the end result of societies concerns over alcohol. This was the era in which lynchings of African Americans still spontaneously occurred, Chinese were called Chinks and it was illegal to cross marry.

Griffith had high visions for film as revealed in 1914 interviews were he saw them as a 'push button' teaching aid in libraries replacing books and encyclopedias. No doubt they could be used for 'moral' purposes as well.

This little film should not be seen just as Griffith going over-board on alcohol but a pointer to community values and concerns of the time.

I believe the subject matter and purpose lent itself to melodramatic acting - it was intended rather than a flaw. The violence and harshness coming from alcohol abuse was deliberate and would have touched a chord with many.

The movie is not as bad as we would like to think in modern times - it should be judged in the context it was produced and the effect it was meant to achieve.

This Griffith one-reeler is the first part of a prequel to Kubrick's The Shining.

What Drink Did narrates how Delbert Grady, the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, kills one of his two daughters under the effects of booze. Griffith did not have the time to complete his prequel project so we do not know how the second daughter died and when the two bodies got the ill treatment seen in The Shining.

Overall, a worthy effort from a master filmmaker of those early days of movies. What I liked the most is the delicate and subtle way the moral message is conveyed, which by no means is spoon-fed to the audience. The extreme plausibility of the plot and the supremely realistic acting are key elements to the brilliancy of this tale.

What Drink Did announces itself as "a thoughtful moral lesson". The trouble is, for all his skill with film form (which is undeveloped here in any case) DW Griffith was a pretty mediocre moralist, especially this early in his career. This daft little anti-alcohol parable is one of many oddities he created in 1909.

Let's look first though at Griffith's fledgling technique. The story begins with a series of long takes, as was the custom with these early Biograph shorts, introducing the various characters and locations. But Griffith was also just beginning to experiment with crosscutting, and halfway through the film he begins switching back and forth between two settings. It's a very early example of parallel editing, and to be honest rather basic, but it serves its purpose in the narrative.

The above is however the only redeeming feature. Griffith and his collaborators were apparently still under the delusion that acting was about grimacing and waving your arms all over the place. And of course there is that illogical narrative. This film might have had some impact had it highlighted some more realistic perils of drinking – showing David Miles sprawling in a gutter while his family go hungry, for instance. Instead, the message appears to be "Drink too much, and through a series of highly unlikely twists you could end up shooting your daughter in the head". At the end, Miles clutches his head and gesticulates wildly, just in case you hadn't yet grasped he was a bit upset.

Griffith may be starting to probe a little in new directions, but What Drink Did is in itself simply dire.