Once Upon a Time in Harlem: William Greaves and son preserve a Harlem Renaissance reunion with a marvel of cinéma vérité

• Reviewed from the 2026 Camden International Film Festival

William Greaves, the documentarian, performer and avant-garde Black American filmmaker, spent his life offering a distinctive look at America in direct opposition to the prevalent white gaze of Hollywood and the independent film scene. Once Upon a Time in Harlem, a film quite literally 50 years in the making, is being released more than a decade after his death. The documentary is a towering achievement  of cinéma vérité, capturing a period that influenced Greaves and many others – the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s.  

While in Duke Ellington‘s townhouse in 1972, Greaves gathered the living luminaries of that era of vital Black American greatness in literature, music, theatre and politics. His aim was to put their experiences of that time on record. What he ended up with is a raucous and contentious party that captured the spirit of the Harlem Renaissance and the surviving people who lived through it. His son David Greaves, who was one of four cinematographers shooting the arguments, discussions and salutes from many angles, directed this final version film. David completes the work of Louise Greaves, William’s widow and lifelong collaborator who didn’t get to finish the film before she too passed. 

It seems William Greaves, by then in his mid-40s, was a fantastic host. He had a good plan, the right guest list and a big airy location with an historical connection to the party’s theme. Throughout the documentary, he keeps the conversation alive by interjecting when necessary to re-direct, introduce different topics or ask some of his shyer guests to speak up. A few interviews were shot separately, but are seamlessly interwoven into the narrative to provide context, and to showcase the protagonists’ oratory and writing. David Greaves, aided by Anne de Mare and Lynn Rue’s crisp editing, manages to keep the audience engaged by focusing on faces that add meaning and, in some cases, conflict, to whatever story is being told.   

Among those gathered are the sculptor and queer pioneer Robert Nugent, who delivers a mantra we should all aspire to: “I don’t work hard, but I work sincerely.” Also present were librarian Regina Andrews (who threw parties not unlike this one and supported many of the writers and poets), composer of the Broadway musical ‘Shuffle Along’ Eubie Blake and vaudevillian Lee Whipper (still with a strong, snappy wit 96 years old) and most memorable of all Ida Mae Cullen, a witness of the Renaissance and the widow of poet Countee Cullen. Throughout the evening, she proves determined to passionately advocate for her late husband’s contribution and legacy.   

Shot in luminous and grungy 16mm, Once Upon a Time in Harlem feels like a form of time travel, an invite to a party anyone would want to attend. The guests are by turns gracious and inquisitive, guarded and gushing, but above all, they seem to be having a good time. There are obvious allegiances and hints of a few grievances – guests are warm with one another but also needle each other. When those disagreements raise the tempo, you can feel their experience of the Harlem Renaissance come sharply into life. They hash it out over Marcus Garvey and whether he furthered the cause or not, and discuss the talents of actress Florence Mills and the sculptor Augusta Savage. They argue about whether it was poetry, music, literature or politics that had the most impact. Nobody created a cultural revolution by being docile. What Greaves and his son have created here is a blueprint of what living a good, creative life can be.  

The metaphorical passing of the torch from the elder Greaves, who worked on the footage throughout his life, to his son David, is reflected in the film’s larger purpose. Once Upon a Time in Harlem preserves this history of Black excellence, revolution and cultural achievement.  

The film cannot offer the full story of the Harlem Renaissance, nor does it attempt to. But with this lens, in this house, using only a few fleeting hours of footage, the filmmakers bring it to life. Toward the end of the film, William Greaves reflects that, after all these years working on the film, he finally understands why he gathered these people together. By then, the audience understands too; the value is not simply in archiving the past, but in allowing us to appreciate the people who made it. That may ultimately be both the Greaves’ legacy and the legacy of the Harlem Renaissance itself, a history that continues to enrich and inspire.