Greed (1924)

Zasu Pitts is an absolute marvel, absolutely marvelous in the role of avaricious wife. Watch her face: She is not only unexpectedly very pretty, she is incredibly expressive.Cast usually as the scatter-brained and/or neurotic foil, she showed in "Greed" she could have remained a serious actress.Unfortunately, whatever it was that motivated her character is told, very unsatisfactorily and very uncinematically, in one intertitle, sometimes called a title card.Perhaps the fault is that the original version, as created by director Erich von Stroheim -- and running 6 to 8 hours! -- spelled it out better, and perhaps even explained her more-than-neurotic reaction to her new husband, and apparently to the impending sexual activities expected of brides, but no motivation is given us audience in the badly cut-down version.On a recent (14 June 2015) airing on TCM, "Greed" ran about 2 hours and 15 minutes, and it could have been cut further. The sexual neurosis, so unexplained, could and should have been cut out, since there was never any resolution, and some other scenes, especially some badly edited scenes or shots, could have been eliminated or re-cut.Still another option, as suggested on a discussion board, is to show the original 42 reels as a TV mini-series. I like that idea, very much. It could give us the complete von Stroheim feeling and probably explain all that is now missing.Other than the acting, and every performer is great, and occasional clever camera angles, and some spectacular scenery, I can't really recommend "Greed," except to film fanatics (like myself) and lovers of film history.

"Greed" is a legendary film among old film buffs--the holy grail of silents. This is because the incredibly obsessive director, Erich von Stroheim, made a film of ridiculously large proportions. Reportedly, the original print ran 42 reels!! It would have taken the best part of your day to watch the film and von Stroheim envisioned it being shown on successive nights. Well, the studio wanted nothing to do with this an insisted he cut it. After some cuts (but not enough for the studio), executives took the project away from him and had it cut down to the version we have today. There are lots of stories (probably apocryphal) of the prints sitting in some vault somewhere--waiting to be discovered. And, reports (probably also apocryphal) are that the original film is some sort of work of genius that MUST be seen. Regardless, all we have now is about two and a half hours worth of film--and it's a film that also comes with a lot of hooplah. Folks claim that although its inferior due to the cutting, it's still a work of genius. Let me say that unlike the other reviewers, I was NOT that taken by this shortened version. I think the imagery is ridiculously unsubtle though the film still is worth seeing.The film begins with McTeague (Gibson Gowland) leaving home to learn dentistry from an itinerant dentist. Years pass and now he has a dental practice of his own in San Francisco and he seems like a pretty decent sort of fellow. He meets a very shy lady, Trina (Zasu Pitts) and they soon marry. However, into their seemingly normal lives comes a problem. Trina wins the lottery and the prize is $5000. While this may not seem like much today, back then it was HUGE. But, soon Trina's heart is soured. She refuses to spend any of this money and slowly becomes a nasty miser. As for McTeague, he slowly begins to sour on his wife. She clearly has emasculated him and when he loses his job, she refuses to spend any of her fortune. They live on the edge--with barely enough to scrape by. And, full of bitterness, McTeague begins to drink and eventually lashes out at his tight-fisted wife. Then, he deserts her. Time passes and he returns--returns to claim what is his...ALL of the money. At the same time, there is a subplot involving one of McTeague's friends, Marcus. Marcus, inflamed by jealousy, demands the money that is by no right his--and when he is refused, he sets out to destroy McTeague--though McTeague himself does an awfully good job of this himself. All this leads to a dandy confrontation scene--one of the best of the silent era.As far as the plot goes, it's exceptional--full of great twists, irony and excitement. My problem is NOT with the story. My problem is with von Stroheim's manner of storytelling. He REPEATEDLY uses sledgehammer symbolism--symbolism that is not one bit subtle and he beats the audience with it again and again and again! To further beat this into the viewer, he even had portions of the film colorized golden in order to accentuate the greed aspects of the film. I have seen at least a thousand (probably MANY more) silents and this is among the least subtle I've ever seen. And, among the many films I have seen which have hand-colored elements, "Greed" is the sloppiest--with broad swaths of color instead of having it done in a more thorough fashion. Heck, the Pathe Brothers were doing FAR better jobs mass producing colorizing cels a decade of more before "Greed". So what we have is a great story but poor storytelling. I know folks are sold on von Stroheim--just like von Stroheim was sold on von Stroheim! But, I think he really could have used someone to say "Erich, even by our standards today, this film lacks subtlety and you need to back off and let the story speak for itself". The bottom line is that I still give it a 7 but think the stories about the genius associated with the film are highly exaggerated. Even old school directors like D.W. Griffith wouldn't have pushed the imagery this far and this unsubtlely.

I don't know many times I've seen this. Along with everyone else, I agree that the full version must have been powerful beyond words, but what we have here is probably the best possible product of the nearly impossible task of reduction. For that, I'm profoundly thankful. There were several parallel stories in the original script, some rather interesting, a few of not much interest at all. The major story of McTeague and his wife is the strongest and we can only guess (through the version we have now) what was going on around the central characters. In this respect, the truncated version is acceptable, given the time frame. This film was presented on television with stills and narrative inter-titles from the original and it wasn't really very successful. The rhythm was askew, of course, and things didn't "gel" at all. My big gripe is that this should be available on DVD. Why the foot-dragging?Curtis Stotlar

GREED is the adaptation of Norris' novel 'McTeague', published some 25 yrs before the movie's release and rejected by the literary intelligentsia since, as greater writers arrived; Stroheim was obviously quite fond of the book, he wrote the script.Stroheim's take is daring, his formula is some raw, gritty realism with the usual jargon of the naturalists—instinct, heredity; Gibson Gowland and Hersholt make for an awesome pair of degenerates, two _patibular beings, ugliness abounds, and where ugliness abounds, vice also does.What remains of the movie's cast? Zasu Pitts is fairly known still, Stroheim himself does a cameo; but