Steffi_P His Trust is not particularly remarkable as Griffith Civil War shorts go, except for one aspect. Along with its sequel His Trust Fulfilled, it features the only heroic black character in all his films. That's not to let Griffith off the hook for the appalling racism of Birth of a Nation – this is still a rather patronising portrayal, not to mention the ridiculous use of white actors in blackface. However it is further proof that Griffith was not an out-and-out racist, and it even hints tentatively at miscegenation.Throughout Griffith's dozen or so Civil War shorts he made while at Biograph you can see the battle scenes evolving. In the one here, the emphasis is more upon chaos than heroism. It's an important development, although Griffith never quite mastered the depiction of war as tragedy – he could never get away from trying to make action sequences exciting. Still, there is some good staging here, with Griffith foregrounding individual soldiers being shot against the backdrop of gun smoke, making the casualties stand out and appear real.The battle sequence is brief however, and you can see what Griffith is really trying to develop here is the emotional angle. Unfortunately, while the family scenes are given prominence, they are not done especially well. The scene of the soldiers going off to war is actually a step backwards from the very similar one in his previous civil war film In the Border States. The shot composition is rather messy, and you barely notice Claire McDowell slipping indoors, distraught. Another weakness is that Griffith fails to visually introduce Wilfred Lucas' character. The significance of the "old Negro servant" is mentioned in the opening title, but in his first scene he is shoved to the side of the frame, and the all important moment where the trust is given takes place half on and half off screen.The standout moment in His Trust is towards the end, where the mother and daughter watch their home burn to the ground. It's said that Griffith invented the face in cinema. Well, he probably also invented the back. As in The Unchanging Sea, this is a good example of how he faces actors away from the camera to convey sadness with the subtlety of their body language. There's also a great bit of emotional punctuation as the house finally comes crashing down. However, this well-staged moment is not enough to save what is overall a rather dull picture.

ccthemovieman-1 In this story, Negro servant "George" is asked to look after his master's wife and child when he ("Colonel Frazier") goes off to war. Soon, the master is killed in the Civil War. It's bad enough the man died, but then the heartless Yankees came and looted the house and burned it down. George goes into the fire and retrieves the small child and the Frazier's sword - a sentimental piece offered to his wife after her husband's death. George, the woman and child - all homeless - then find a shack and poor George has to sleep outside. End of story.Wilfred Lucas played "George;" Dell Henderson, "Col. Frazier" and Claire McDonald played Frazier's wife. She had a very square face that reminded me a bit of Demi Moore. For a film made in 1911, I thought the battle scenes were pretty good and were probably considered "big production" at that time.I know the obvious flaw of having all white actors play the black people will turn off a lot of viewers but that's the way it was for the first three decades or so in film-making, and you just accept it as a "product of its time." Otherwise, this was a decent little drama for when it was made and that ending, with George curling up on the front steps to sleep, was very powerful, I thought.

wes-connors Subtitled "The faithful devotion and self-sacrifice of an old Negro servant", this early film portends the director D.W. Griffith's future "Birth of a Nation". When the Civil War breaks out, Confederate Del Henderson goes into battle, leaving his wife (Claire McDowell) and daughter in the hands of their beloved slaves. Patriarch of the household slaves is George (Wilfred Lucas); among other things, he plays "horsey" with the child by letting her ride on his back. When Yankees try to burn down the Master's house, George must spring into action. However intentioned, "His Trust" is a racist film. The loyal slaves are played by white actors in "black-face" makeup, and they look ridiculous. Didn't Griffith know any real "People of Color"; or, he didn't think they could act? Weren't there any darker skinned people in the USA who could play these roles? ** His Trust (1/16/11) D.W. Griffith ~ Wilfred Lucas, Claire McDowell, Dell Henderson

MartinHafer This short film combined with his epic BIRTH OF A NATION is definitive proof that D. W. Griffith had both contempt for Black people and believed strongly in the myth that the "Old South" was paradise for the slaves! The film begins with the Master going off to war and all the slaves crying and wishing him luck (in real life, they probably would have cheered--hoping he'd get his head blown off!). But, as luck would have it, the man soon is pushing up the daisies (that's DEAD to all you who don't understand American slang). His sword is the only thing that returns home. A bit later, the house with the sword catches fire and a devoted slave not only saves the little White girl, but returns to rescue the sword! Then, at then end, he houses the girl and her mom in his shack (a mansion compared to most real slave quarters) and sleeps outside like some sort of devoted dog. Oh, and did I mention that all the Black actors were really White folks in dark makeup?! While I must admit that Griffith made some great films and was very, very important to the early film industry, there must be a lot of people who would love to know he's burning in Hell for his depiction of Black Americans!! This film is important historically and probably should be seen by teens to know just how far we have come.