Comment section retarded as always.

Griffith's characters are playthings of their external circumstances, virtually devoid of reason. Action and reaction instead of trying to reach pseudo-psychological insights. Griffith is trying to lay things as bare as possible in a condensed way. This is what is perceived as surreal or brechtian by some, primitive filmmaking by others.

The first shot shows above all class relations: a decorated salon, an upscale society, tailcoats, dresses, a servant (oriental stereotype) and a man who…

Watched part of a video essay about this where the guy mentions how the images at the beginning feature a lot of mirrors and reflective surfaces. He reads this as the film wanting to introduce the ideas of "people leading double lives and there always being more to a person than you're ever gonna see".

This is meaningless. It's how 4th graders interact with literature in school when they have to recognize patterns so the teacher is happy. It doesn't…

This comment section here is missing a lot of what's going on. Punq is calling it an "early chase movie". The other top review by ReCreation is calling it less innovative then Griffith's previous films. And the comment under that review is calling it "a step back" from A Calamitous Elopement.

There is this viewing habit going on – people watching these early Biographs just to focus on how every couple of films or so a new formal technique is…