User Reviews

"What Drink Did" is a temperance melodrama loosely based on the play, "Ten Nights in a Bar-room" which was familiar to anyone who set foot into a theater in 1909. Griffith had probably played in it somewhere along the line; if you were an actor in American stock companies in the late nineteenth century, you could hardly avoid this property. Even at the time, the story was considered a little dated and ludicrous, and the play itself was over fifty years old in 1909. So Griffith attempts to find ways to bring it into the realm of the believable; "the fatal glass of beer" is drank, not the tavern, but at work, with Mr. Lucas' (David Miles) co-workers egging him on. A bullet stands in for what was an empty beer stein thrown in the original play. There is some elementary crosscutting between Lucas, raising h-e-double-toothpicks in the tavern, and his worried spouse (Florence Lawrence) and her children (Gladys Egan, Adele De Garde). It is the plucky, courageous De Garde who gives the most memorable performance in the film; her eyes project genuine sadness and disappointment, and she gamely places her arm over her face to simulate crying in a gesture familiar to audiences of that day. The grown ups, however, are handled as cardboard caricatures, and while the plan to transmit what was an hour-long affair on the stage into 13 minutes on film works, one senses a thinly veiled contempt for its source; even in 1909, Griffith handled actors with more sensitivity, and here just going through the motions.

By virtue of the crosscutting employed, Billy Bitzer's crisp, well composed photography and De Garde's performance, "What Drink Did" is still better than average for an American, dramatic 1909 one-reeler. But it is far from being in the class of the best Griffith Biographs of that year, as it is mainly a prosaic attempt by Griffith to knock his way through a familiar property, keep it to one reel, and to have it out on schedule. I saw it with a Pic-tur-music score that matched the film okay in the first half, but fit it hardly at all in the second. So that element didn't do it any favors.

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.

D. W. Griffith gets all preachy in this early Biograph short which tells the story of a loving family man who is swiftly ruined by his sudden liking for alcohol. David Miles plays Arthur Lucas, whose workmates like to pass around a pail of beer during their lunchtime - something that wasn't out of the ordinary in America back at the turn of the century. The problem is that poor old Alfred clearly has something of an addictive personality and quickly turns into the kind of beer monster it's wise to steer clear of.

Despite having foxy Florence Lawrence and two loving daughters waiting at home, Alf prefers playing cards in seedy bars with a couple of buddies from work. When Flo, clearly not upset enough to go looking for he husband herself, sends the cutest of her two daughters to scour the city's bars in search of him you know that tragedy is sure to follow.

What Drink Did is entertaining enough, but the overly melodramatic, preachy tone is a little difficult to stomach. Ironically, the film would have been much stronger if the consequences of alcohol abuse had been much less tragic.

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.

I've seen quite a few films which are virtually identical to "What Drink Did". This is because back in the early days of films, filmmakers would often copy each other's movies....and some of the copies were so close it's tough to tell which is the original. That is why some studios, like Biograph, put a watermark-type symbol 'AB' on their prints...so folks would know it was theirs and not some knockoff. However, despite the mark, the story itself surely was made before 1909 by some other studio. This is because in the days leading up to Prohibition, this exact story was told innumerable times on film and in plays....and in each case, the evils of alcohol are overstated...almost as badly as the evils of pot in "Reefer Madness"!

When the story begins, a man has a lovely family....a wife and two girls who look like twins. However, one day at work when he's on his lunch break, someone brings in pails of beer (this was the way beer was distributed back in the day...much like today's growlers in microbreweries). He at first refuses to drink any of the evil intoxicant but eventually relents....and soon becomes a totally changed man. Instead of going home from work, he stays out in bars drinking with friends. And, when one of the daughters goes to find him, a fight breaks out and the girl is shot dead!!! Thank goodness the family has a spare kid! Regardless, the man has learned his lesson and now eschews demon liquor....and he's left a broken shell of a man.

Such films and plays were spurred on by the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, a group that advocated for a complete ban on booze in the USA. And, as history tells us, this didn't exactly work out especially well!

Overall, reasonably well done for 1909 but clearly overly melodramatic when seen today. This sort of thing was a pet topic for D. W. Griffith, as he was a big temperance proponent....even though he did grow up in the same state that makes bourbon whiskey. Worth seeing for the curious, but he made many better films than this....ones with more subtlety and style....and which were more original.

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

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.

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.

What Drink Did (1909)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Another Griffith drama showing the abuse of alcohol. A man goes out drinking with his buddies while his family waits for him at home. When he finally goes home he's drunk and abusive but this doesn't stop him from going back to drink. This is a good film but my God did Griffith go way, way, way over the top in trying to get his message across. The over-dramatic situation at the end almost wants to make you laugh. Mary Pickford makes an early (and brief) appearance here.

Violin Maker of Cremona, The (1909)

** (out of 4)

Griffith short about a violin contest where the winner gets to marry a young girl (Mary Pickford). Here's another failed attempt at comedy from the director. I've seen around six or seven of these comedies and he just doesn't seem comfortable.

This short film is a reflection of the type of people that the 34 year old D.W. Griffith feels are credible to be around. He's creating a world for himself: the Griffithiana community of players, saying to his audience that these are the type of people that you should invite round for dinner, rather than the marginalized. He paints a picture contrasting the mainstream with the poor, allowing them to sink into oblivion to advance the agenda of the fashionable. There is no real structure to this film, and doesn't even follow the convention of a short story. It has little to redeem it, and causes more division than actual entertainment.

This was the second of two morality tales about alcoholism that D. W. Griffith produced in 1909; "A Drunkard's Reformation" is the other. Between the two, there's really no comparison. "What Drink Did" is a far more powerful story for how it presents a strong if extreme reason for why one shouldn't drink. Whereas "A Drunkard's Reformation" is about the path of the drunkard on his way to quitting drinking, "What Drink Did" provides a reason why to do so. It may seem like an extreme example, but it is effective enough at making its point so that the film becomes a powerful morality story.

"What Drink Did" centers around a father who succumbs to peer pressure and decides to drink alcohol with his friends in the workplace. After failing to come home one day, his daughter is sent out to find him and under the influence of alcohol, the father becomes abusive towards her efforts to bring him home. What ensues is quite effective, and outside of the plot hole of sending a little girl out alone to look for her dad in a bar, the film is a fairly decent attempt at a morality play. It also includes early attempts at cross-cutting, as another reviewer has pointed out, showing Griffith slowly building his craft that would later result in masterful films like "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance". A rather interesting little feature.