Everything I see of Chase in his prime convinces me he was one of the greatest of the lot. He plays opposite his brother here in a really strong, and really outlandish, old-fashioned farce. It reminds me of nothing so much as an episode of Frasier at its most farcical. There's that ski lodge episode actually- maybe I'm just seeing the connection there. There isn't really a weak link in here- this is good ensemble playing. Parrott (J) plays a limping oriental lodge caretaker- when various farcical complications arise at the lodge between various couples, detectives and cons, everyone takes their turn trying on the limping oriental disguise. Tremendously silly, yeah of course, but adorably done.
Adorabe too is Grant as Chase's wife- she has some lovely bits early on when the two of them have some business with an old dilapidated car. The plot is one of those plots where you can't quite pin it all together afterwards, but it works just fine while it's going on. As good as 'Mighty Like a Moose'? No, nowhere near. But this bunch of players is fun to watch, and they seem to be enjoying themselves, especially with the disguise stuff.
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
The Rough House (Arbuckle 1917)
Been away for a wee while, otherwise occupied with a house move- now I need to ease myself back in with my Main Guys. Though in truth this wasn't a great choice- fundamentally it's a solo vehicle for Arbuckle: Buster's role is on a par with Al St John's and neither of them get up to anything too remarkable (there is just a sense though that they seem to be battling it out to perform the most outlandish jump or fall- it would be interesting to know if there was genuine rivalry between the two of them at this stage to be Fatty's number one back-up guy, or if that's just revisionist thinking).
This is a pretty poor film, but with one saving grace (perhaps more than one, but one especially notable saving grace). Is there anything better anywhere than Arbuckle lazily, nonchalantly trying to put out a bedroom fire with a cup of water? This scene is irresistible, and I can watch it again and again. His expressions, his utterly carefree walk to and from the bedroom- it's beautiful stuff. Notable too I think is the soup-serving scene- his interactions with implements and diners are fascinating. Not particularly funny perhaps, but there's something about the scene, some indefinable sense of magic, that makes you want to pause it, slow it down, savour it frame by frame. He is operating on a higher plane, playing to a higher audience than his other cast members here, and just as with some of Chaplin's early Keystones, it is as if the little portion of the moving image that he is occupying hs taken on a powerful, almost spiritual, resonance of its own.
There's no great plot here- Arbuckle is a tenant in a guest house? Maybe even a henpecked husband? It aint clear. St John is a cook. Fatty ends up as a waiter. Buster is a delivery boy. They all kiss the maid. Yeah, it's all very confused- throw in a couple of thieves and some crazy Kops, and you really are, for the most part, just dealing with a raucous frenetic Keystone affair. Just watch out for the little bits of magic.
This is a pretty poor film, but with one saving grace (perhaps more than one, but one especially notable saving grace). Is there anything better anywhere than Arbuckle lazily, nonchalantly trying to put out a bedroom fire with a cup of water? This scene is irresistible, and I can watch it again and again. His expressions, his utterly carefree walk to and from the bedroom- it's beautiful stuff. Notable too I think is the soup-serving scene- his interactions with implements and diners are fascinating. Not particularly funny perhaps, but there's something about the scene, some indefinable sense of magic, that makes you want to pause it, slow it down, savour it frame by frame. He is operating on a higher plane, playing to a higher audience than his other cast members here, and just as with some of Chaplin's early Keystones, it is as if the little portion of the moving image that he is occupying hs taken on a powerful, almost spiritual, resonance of its own.
There's no great plot here- Arbuckle is a tenant in a guest house? Maybe even a henpecked husband? It aint clear. St John is a cook. Fatty ends up as a waiter. Buster is a delivery boy. They all kiss the maid. Yeah, it's all very confused- throw in a couple of thieves and some crazy Kops, and you really are, for the most part, just dealing with a raucous frenetic Keystone affair. Just watch out for the little bits of magic.
Monday, 16 April 2012
Never Weaken (Lloyd 1921)
My new favourite Harold Lloyd film. Three reels and perhaps the most impressive thing about it is that for a long stretch Lloyd is carrying it on his own. Well, him and a stuntman I guess. But it's his charisma that carries the film through.
Believing he's lost his girl to another man (though the Other Man is her brother, and a vicar to boot), Harold sets about trying to do away with himself. And as is the nature of things, learns how precious life is as a result (though it is never expressed in such a corny fashion on the sreen).
The big scene is Harold clambering atop a partly built skyscraper, a set-piece that presumably isnpired Laurel and Hardy's 'Liberty!', though they added some twists there of their own. I certainly don't see that as being derivative after watching this. What is remarkable though is how genuinely exciting this stuff is- if you've got any sympathy with the character or with the film at all then it's real heart-in-the-mouth stuff. I think the stuntwork in Harold Lloyd films can be taken for granted: that's what he does isn't he? He's the silent comedian with the Big Stunts. But the ten minutes or so of dizzying action here is hugely impressive.
Lloyd is the All-American go-getter, the optimist, the believer in the dream, and that is the character we get early on here as he does everything in his power to keep his girl in a job. And even after he mistakes her intentions and sets his mind on suicide, his heart isn't really in it. His is a character built for Life, and at his best there's no-one like him. Particularly great bits in a film top-heavy with them: the street acrobat scam, the slippery street, the poisoning attempt. Not going to into details- no spoilers needed for stuff I'm sure to watch again.
Believing he's lost his girl to another man (though the Other Man is her brother, and a vicar to boot), Harold sets about trying to do away with himself. And as is the nature of things, learns how precious life is as a result (though it is never expressed in such a corny fashion on the sreen).
The big scene is Harold clambering atop a partly built skyscraper, a set-piece that presumably isnpired Laurel and Hardy's 'Liberty!', though they added some twists there of their own. I certainly don't see that as being derivative after watching this. What is remarkable though is how genuinely exciting this stuff is- if you've got any sympathy with the character or with the film at all then it's real heart-in-the-mouth stuff. I think the stuntwork in Harold Lloyd films can be taken for granted: that's what he does isn't he? He's the silent comedian with the Big Stunts. But the ten minutes or so of dizzying action here is hugely impressive.
Lloyd is the All-American go-getter, the optimist, the believer in the dream, and that is the character we get early on here as he does everything in his power to keep his girl in a job. And even after he mistakes her intentions and sets his mind on suicide, his heart isn't really in it. His is a character built for Life, and at his best there's no-one like him. Particularly great bits in a film top-heavy with them: the street acrobat scam, the slippery street, the poisoning attempt. Not going to into details- no spoilers needed for stuff I'm sure to watch again.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
The Sawmill (Semon 1922)
Absolutely manic Larry Semon short. What I know about Larry Semon: he made a notoriously indulgent and bloated 'Wizard of Oz'. What I can surmise about Larry Semon fom this: for a while at least he must have been massively popular. It's not wholly apparent why that would be from watching 'The Sawmill'. An exceedingly ugly and charmless man (well that's how he seems here- I'm just saying what I see...) he seems to be a cross between Pee-Wee Herman and Harry Langdon, an excitable fool who wins through. And gets the girl.
A sawmill worker in this, he has long and wild encounters with the foreman and then with the mill owner, all the while getting off with the mill owner's daughter. Who has no taste whatsoever. It's dizzying stuff, and never even pauses for breath, but there are some very good visual gags in there, and some visual gags that must have taken a while to set up too. They tend to be gags you nod your head just slightly in appreciation of though, rather than actually laugh at. Damnit everyone's trying so hard. There are stunts and explosions everywhere you look, and everyone working at this mill seems to have a license to kill.
Hardy is the mill foreman, but gets up to nothing remarkable here. The dog's quite good.
As ever I'll just note that as I watch more Larry Semon films and gain more of an appreciation of the character he plays I may have to come back and watch this again. Unlikely though.
A sawmill worker in this, he has long and wild encounters with the foreman and then with the mill owner, all the while getting off with the mill owner's daughter. Who has no taste whatsoever. It's dizzying stuff, and never even pauses for breath, but there are some very good visual gags in there, and some visual gags that must have taken a while to set up too. They tend to be gags you nod your head just slightly in appreciation of though, rather than actually laugh at. Damnit everyone's trying so hard. There are stunts and explosions everywhere you look, and everyone working at this mill seems to have a license to kill.
Hardy is the mill foreman, but gets up to nothing remarkable here. The dog's quite good.
As ever I'll just note that as I watch more Larry Semon films and gain more of an appreciation of the character he plays I may have to come back and watch this again. Unlikely though.
Tango Tangles (Chaplin / Sterling 1914)
Sterling again, though without the goatee, and the gulf betwen him and Chaplin and Arbuckle is certainly... notable. Fatty has by far the lesser role of the three of them here, but it's still nice having him around. The three comedians are rivals for a hat-check girl's affections at the local dance hall. Fatty and Sterling are musicians, Charlie is a suave drunk. There's no nore to it than that, but it's different enough to be very watchable.
Chaplin is the very model of subtlety, understatement and poise- he is without his moustache here, and he just looks like he did in all those old newsreel films: young, fresh, innocent and English, with a hell of a head of hair and wildly excited eyes. He has a couple of fight scenes with Sterling and here at least the great gesticulator is... good. Sterling takes a good fall, a spinning eye-catching collapse and back up again. The fight scenes momentarily becomes dances themselves. But wherever he is and whatever he is doing, you can't help watching Chaplin. We are watching him with hindsight of course because of what he became, but even if you're judging him on what he is, you're watching someone who shouldn't have been allowed to fill the same screen as Ford Sterling. He is so clearly putting the older comedian to shame with every movement he makes.
Chaplin is the very model of subtlety, understatement and poise- he is without his moustache here, and he just looks like he did in all those old newsreel films: young, fresh, innocent and English, with a hell of a head of hair and wildly excited eyes. He has a couple of fight scenes with Sterling and here at least the great gesticulator is... good. Sterling takes a good fall, a spinning eye-catching collapse and back up again. The fight scenes momentarily becomes dances themselves. But wherever he is and whatever he is doing, you can't help watching Chaplin. We are watching him with hindsight of course because of what he became, but even if you're judging him on what he is, you're watching someone who shouldn't have been allowed to fill the same screen as Ford Sterling. He is so clearly putting the older comedian to shame with every movement he makes.
Laughing Gravy (Laurel & Hardy 1931)
Well now just the oddest Stan and Ollie film I've seen so far, no doubt about that. There seem to be different versions about, but the one I've just enjoyed every second of was the three-reel colorised version, and the color / colour is just lovely- it looks so fresh and warm. No idea how these colorisations are regarded in the Laurel and Hardy community, though I think generally they are not thought of as a Good Thing, but here at least it adds to the charm immeasurably.
Laughing Gravy is a dog, Stan's dog- the boys are living in a rented room and keeping him secret from landlord Charlie Hall. And for thirty minutes that's pretty much your cast- Stan, Ollie, Laughing Gracy and Charlie Hall. The first two reels are the boys' attempts to keep their secret from Charlie, the final reel is what happens after they've been thrown out and are packing their belongings. And it's this final ten minutes that is so beautiful and extraordinary. Stan receives a letter explaining that a relative had died, leaving him a fortune- on the condition that he breaks off all ties with Ollie. It's rare to find such a prolonged, gentle examination of their relationship as this: I really can't think of anything else like it. Funny, tender and dark, this final reel dips a toe into the river of poetry, and I think it's lovely, I really do.
And then: just as we are recovering from this unexpected detour, the landlord kills himself. There is some odd territory being explored here, and though I can't honestly argue for this as one of the funniest Laurel and Hardy films, I would suggest that it's one of their films that anyone with a passing interest in their art needs to see.
Laughing Gravy is a dog, Stan's dog- the boys are living in a rented room and keeping him secret from landlord Charlie Hall. And for thirty minutes that's pretty much your cast- Stan, Ollie, Laughing Gracy and Charlie Hall. The first two reels are the boys' attempts to keep their secret from Charlie, the final reel is what happens after they've been thrown out and are packing their belongings. And it's this final ten minutes that is so beautiful and extraordinary. Stan receives a letter explaining that a relative had died, leaving him a fortune- on the condition that he breaks off all ties with Ollie. It's rare to find such a prolonged, gentle examination of their relationship as this: I really can't think of anything else like it. Funny, tender and dark, this final reel dips a toe into the river of poetry, and I think it's lovely, I really do.
And then: just as we are recovering from this unexpected detour, the landlord kills himself. There is some odd territory being explored here, and though I can't honestly argue for this as one of the funniest Laurel and Hardy films, I would suggest that it's one of their films that anyone with a passing interest in their art needs to see.
Friday, 13 April 2012
A Muddy Romance (Normand 1913)
There's so much talking in some of these Keystone shorts- do lip-readers ever have a go at transcribing the dialogue? Whatever your thoughts about Mabel, this is pretty shoddy stuff. It has a certain reputation (in as much as any pre-1920 non-Chaplin film has any reputation at all these days) due to the spontaneous manner in which it was filmed and the advantageous use it made of the draining of a lake, but to be frank the lake scenes aren't any funnier than anything else in it.
And I don't like Sterling much. He over-acts and seems to be known for it, but I hate all the playing to the camera, the exaggerated protestations. He's a pantomime character, and this sort of schtick is almost unwatchable now- the look he had is a distinctive one but he's one of the most irritating silent comedians I've come across so far. Maybe he'll grow on me; it's not impossible.
Two rivals for Mabel's affections then, engaging in a tit-for-tat throwing contest, which somehow ends in an elopement to the lake with the Kops in attendance. There aren't really any saving graces to this one.
And I don't like Sterling much. He over-acts and seems to be known for it, but I hate all the playing to the camera, the exaggerated protestations. He's a pantomime character, and this sort of schtick is almost unwatchable now- the look he had is a distinctive one but he's one of the most irritating silent comedians I've come across so far. Maybe he'll grow on me; it's not impossible.
Two rivals for Mabel's affections then, engaging in a tit-for-tat throwing contest, which somehow ends in an elopement to the lake with the Kops in attendance. There aren't really any saving graces to this one.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
The Garage (Arbuckle / Keaton 1920)
I could have watched this all day. You know, I think some consideration should be given to Fatty and Buster as the greatest comedy team of all time. I don't care if they only made- what was it?- 14 short films: they were fantastic together. This has got just about everything- perhaps a marginally more appealing leading lady and it would have been perfect.
The boys work as garage attendants-cum-firemen. You know, I'm not convinced that these duties were ever routinely combined, but there you go. After a busy morning cleaning Fords and fleecing customers, they are off out battling fires in the afternon, while the boss's daughter enjoys a complicated love life around them. Admittedly there do seem to be rather a lot of disparate elements thrown together here, and, no, it doesn't particularly hang together very well, but for goodness sake, you're not going to get a better sign of quality than the names of Arbuckle and Keaton in the credits, and 'The Garage's is just great.
The funniest little episode is probably the bit with the rotating car drying device (if it has an accepted name, I have no idea what it is)- it's fascinating here to compare and contrast the differing physical styles of the comedians, and how well they use their bodies. Arbuckle was every bit as much a physical comedian as Buster, but their whole approach to their gags was very different. Lovely moment too with Buster's tribute to Harry Lauder- really beautiful, and had me looking Sir Harry up on Wikipedia. Had no idea how famous he was at the time.
Just a quick note on the music on the Masters of Cinema DVD of this- well, actually not the music itself, that's tolerable, but the constant irritating sound effects: whistles and musical 'comments' on what's happening on screen. You will want to turn the sound off.
The boys work as garage attendants-cum-firemen. You know, I'm not convinced that these duties were ever routinely combined, but there you go. After a busy morning cleaning Fords and fleecing customers, they are off out battling fires in the afternon, while the boss's daughter enjoys a complicated love life around them. Admittedly there do seem to be rather a lot of disparate elements thrown together here, and, no, it doesn't particularly hang together very well, but for goodness sake, you're not going to get a better sign of quality than the names of Arbuckle and Keaton in the credits, and 'The Garage's is just great.
The funniest little episode is probably the bit with the rotating car drying device (if it has an accepted name, I have no idea what it is)- it's fascinating here to compare and contrast the differing physical styles of the comedians, and how well they use their bodies. Arbuckle was every bit as much a physical comedian as Buster, but their whole approach to their gags was very different. Lovely moment too with Buster's tribute to Harry Lauder- really beautiful, and had me looking Sir Harry up on Wikipedia. Had no idea how famous he was at the time.
Just a quick note on the music on the Masters of Cinema DVD of this- well, actually not the music itself, that's tolerable, but the constant irritating sound effects: whistles and musical 'comments' on what's happening on screen. You will want to turn the sound off.
Monday, 9 April 2012
Any Old Port! (Laurel & Hardy 1932)
Laurel and Hardy can seem so delightfully artless after an orgy of Chaplin. It's all appearance of course- Stan was every bit the craftsman too, but he crafted humour rather than art. And it goes without saying that while Laurel and Hardy films may never have aspired to the status of art, art, at their best, they most certainly are.
'Any Old Port!' isn't really one of the best of them though, that said, but it'sstill huge fun and features a gloriously vile turn from Walter Long. Two sailors home on shore leave help a hotel waif escape from the clutches of her bullying boss. Job done, and short of funds, Ollie enters Stan into a boxing fight- his opponent, the bullying boss. Really, Walter Long is hypnotically unpleasant here- his immoral, sociopathic sneer is haunting. I'm not sure the film would have been half as good without him.
The boxing match is good- but they always are aren't they? You have to really go some to fail with a comic boxing match. The best bits though are before the match even starts, with Ollie in Stan's corner, guiding him, working the crowd. Stan wins his fight, knocking Long out with his own loaded glove- but Ollie put all their money on the bully to win, so they've learn nothing, they've gained nothing. But they've saved a lady's honour. Laurel and Hardy were heroes every step of the way, whether they get recognized for it, rewarded for it, or not.
'Any Old Port!' isn't really one of the best of them though, that said, but it'sstill huge fun and features a gloriously vile turn from Walter Long. Two sailors home on shore leave help a hotel waif escape from the clutches of her bullying boss. Job done, and short of funds, Ollie enters Stan into a boxing fight- his opponent, the bullying boss. Really, Walter Long is hypnotically unpleasant here- his immoral, sociopathic sneer is haunting. I'm not sure the film would have been half as good without him.
The boxing match is good- but they always are aren't they? You have to really go some to fail with a comic boxing match. The best bits though are before the match even starts, with Ollie in Stan's corner, guiding him, working the crowd. Stan wins his fight, knocking Long out with his own loaded glove- but Ollie put all their money on the bully to win, so they've learn nothing, they've gained nothing. But they've saved a lady's honour. Laurel and Hardy were heroes every step of the way, whether they get recognized for it, rewarded for it, or not.
Easy Street (Chaplin 1917)
One more chance then.
And I'm glad I watched 'Easy Street', because this is great. I think the first thing to say is that it's got a structure, a satisfying structure- beginning, middle, end. And the humour has a resonance because of that.
Charlie, the tramp, is inspired by religion (and Edna)- he becomes a cop on the unruly Easy Street, lorded over by bully Eric Campbell. Taming the bully, he transforms Easy Street and brings hope (and religion) (and Edna) to the community. Yeah, so stripped bare like that it sounds a bit corny, but it works just fine. The heart of the film is the encounter with Campbell, and this is so well done. The initial scene between them is one long take- the cop patrolling his new beat, becoming aware of this huge bruiser of a man prowling around, and then the cop's attempts to act nonchalant as his movements are aggressively mirrored- it isn't hilarious, but it's so beautifully done, really precise and powerful. Each situation in the film develops from the last- structure again. The final scene is a ludicrously rose-tinted glasses view of the world of course, but that's okay- it's charming, and by this point in the film you're ready to embrace it.
There's something genuine too in the transformation of Charlie's character here- on the simplest level he gets his redemption when he returns the collection box to the church, but there is genuine development in his worldview too. At the onset, he is is his own universe- his hunger and his poverty: there is nothing beyond that. He grows from exisiting for himself to his moment of misguided 'charity' with the bully's wife, and from here to his attainment of 'power', a power he uses over the community as a unifying force. That's what the love of a good woman can do. I think the film's implying that that's what religion can do as well, but I'm not sold on the sincerity of this implication.
And I'm glad I watched 'Easy Street', because this is great. I think the first thing to say is that it's got a structure, a satisfying structure- beginning, middle, end. And the humour has a resonance because of that.
Charlie, the tramp, is inspired by religion (and Edna)- he becomes a cop on the unruly Easy Street, lorded over by bully Eric Campbell. Taming the bully, he transforms Easy Street and brings hope (and religion) (and Edna) to the community. Yeah, so stripped bare like that it sounds a bit corny, but it works just fine. The heart of the film is the encounter with Campbell, and this is so well done. The initial scene between them is one long take- the cop patrolling his new beat, becoming aware of this huge bruiser of a man prowling around, and then the cop's attempts to act nonchalant as his movements are aggressively mirrored- it isn't hilarious, but it's so beautifully done, really precise and powerful. Each situation in the film develops from the last- structure again. The final scene is a ludicrously rose-tinted glasses view of the world of course, but that's okay- it's charming, and by this point in the film you're ready to embrace it.
There's something genuine too in the transformation of Charlie's character here- on the simplest level he gets his redemption when he returns the collection box to the church, but there is genuine development in his worldview too. At the onset, he is is his own universe- his hunger and his poverty: there is nothing beyond that. He grows from exisiting for himself to his moment of misguided 'charity' with the bully's wife, and from here to his attainment of 'power', a power he uses over the community as a unifying force. That's what the love of a good woman can do. I think the film's implying that that's what religion can do as well, but I'm not sold on the sincerity of this implication.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
The Rink (Chaplin 1916)
Well that's enough Chaplin for a while.
I don't have a prejudice against Chaplin, and if anything I've gone into these Mutual films expecting perhaps a little too much, but just like 'The Immigrant', I found 'The Rink' pretty tiresome. Brilliant, yeah of course- but tiresome. Someone explain to me why, because as with 'The Immigrant' I can't really explain it. I'm not enjoying the character at all- the character circa 1916 anyway, with the tendency to kick people in the pants and throw punches all over the place, but with the tendency towards tendeness and sentimentality thrown into the mix as well. Give me one or the other. And so I can appreciate what Chaplin is doing here, but I'm not enjoying it at all.
With a day job as an incompetent waiter in a swanky restaurant, feuding with his bosses and his colleagues, Charlie spends his free time at the skating rink next door, causing mayhem, getting into fights, flirting with the girls. There's no particular plot beyond that- he makes out with Edna, he tangles with Eric Campbell. The little bits of business, the hat and cane stuff, can be appreciated by anyone- here Chaplin is irresistible. Tellingly this stuff is detatched from the character and the film- it is just business, it's pantomime. You could watch it over and over again and love it just as much. Some of the skating rink stuff is lively and fun. And beyond that I'm struggling. So I'm going to pass. I'll revisit ths stuff one day.
I don't have a prejudice against Chaplin, and if anything I've gone into these Mutual films expecting perhaps a little too much, but just like 'The Immigrant', I found 'The Rink' pretty tiresome. Brilliant, yeah of course- but tiresome. Someone explain to me why, because as with 'The Immigrant' I can't really explain it. I'm not enjoying the character at all- the character circa 1916 anyway, with the tendency to kick people in the pants and throw punches all over the place, but with the tendency towards tendeness and sentimentality thrown into the mix as well. Give me one or the other. And so I can appreciate what Chaplin is doing here, but I'm not enjoying it at all.
With a day job as an incompetent waiter in a swanky restaurant, feuding with his bosses and his colleagues, Charlie spends his free time at the skating rink next door, causing mayhem, getting into fights, flirting with the girls. There's no particular plot beyond that- he makes out with Edna, he tangles with Eric Campbell. The little bits of business, the hat and cane stuff, can be appreciated by anyone- here Chaplin is irresistible. Tellingly this stuff is detatched from the character and the film- it is just business, it's pantomime. You could watch it over and over again and love it just as much. Some of the skating rink stuff is lively and fun. And beyond that I'm struggling. So I'm going to pass. I'll revisit ths stuff one day.
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Mabel's Strange Predicament (Normand / Chaplin 1914)
This was a tiny joy and I really wasn't expecting it to be. Perhaps that's the thing- it's all about expectations. The Chaplin Mutuals were going to be masterpieces, the Chaplin Keystones were going to be simple-minded, barbaric slugfests. And it was silly of me to be thinking like that, even subconsciously. A lot of the other Kesytones I've seen I've really enjoyed. And I really enjoyed this one. Smile on my face all the way through. Lousy DVD print though- French intertitles, inappropriate music, and I'm not even sure the whole thing was there. But the film itself? I loved it.
And such a great, simple farce idea- Mabel is locked out of her hotel room in her pyjamas. After an encounter with an amorous drunk (Chaplin really doesn't seem to be playing a tramp here, it's just the same costume isn't it?) she ends up under Chester Conklin's bed while his wife is out of the room. So simple, and so pregnant with possibilities for the aspiring slapstick hound.
Charlie is actually rather more than a bit player here- whether it's a question of the presentation of the surviving material or not I couldn't say, but his amount of screentime seems pretty much equal with Mabel's: he has whole scenes to himself and he makes the most of them. He is hypnotic for all manner of reasons. Mabel herself is extraordinarily cute, but I've seen her better than this- she is outshone in the scene she shares with Chaplin in the hotel corridor. I'm not buying her the way I'm buying Chaplin. Her movements belong to another age, Chaplin's belong to every age. And I like Mabel Normand, don't get me wrong.
And such a great, simple farce idea- Mabel is locked out of her hotel room in her pyjamas. After an encounter with an amorous drunk (Chaplin really doesn't seem to be playing a tramp here, it's just the same costume isn't it?) she ends up under Chester Conklin's bed while his wife is out of the room. So simple, and so pregnant with possibilities for the aspiring slapstick hound.
Charlie is actually rather more than a bit player here- whether it's a question of the presentation of the surviving material or not I couldn't say, but his amount of screentime seems pretty much equal with Mabel's: he has whole scenes to himself and he makes the most of them. He is hypnotic for all manner of reasons. Mabel herself is extraordinarily cute, but I've seen her better than this- she is outshone in the scene she shares with Chaplin in the hotel corridor. I'm not buying her the way I'm buying Chaplin. Her movements belong to another age, Chaplin's belong to every age. And I like Mabel Normand, don't get me wrong.
The Immigrant (Chaplin 1917)
Edna Purviance was so much more appealing here, back in 1917, than she was in 'The Kid'. Even if I hadn't heard the stories of alcoholism there's a freshness to her here that's a treat to see- fundamentally she's still in there for drama rather than comedy, but there's a twinkle in her eye here and she makes the performance memorable.
This is a much lauded Chaplin Mutual, and it's very well done, and I didn't care for it as much as I wanted to, which is why I'm wasting words on Edna Purviance while I try and figure out why it didn't hit home for me.
One or two of the ideas seemed a little milked. A little stretched. Breaking point beckons. Maybe even three of the ideas. The lurching of the boat from side to side. The card game. Charlie's problems with the bill in the restaurant in the promised land. These were all great ideas, and maybe it's just me- really, maybe it's just me- but I was watching them thinking: enough already. Move on. Perhaps this is the great drawback of watching these things on DVD- they were crafted for large audiences, of course they were, and what can be expertly paced for a huge room of hysterical punters isn't going to work so well in a more intimate one-on-one encounter.
I watched this and 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' over the course of the same day, and 'The Immigrant' isn't the film I'd be watching on DVD again out of choice. Not given those two options it isn't. This is a far more 'brilliant' film in every way, but I found myself struggling to care about it.
The little touches though- ah, they make it worthwhile. Charlie catching a fish in the opening scene, his shuffling in the card game, some of the pantomime stuff in the restaurant (especially with his hat)- these are beautiful, beautiful moments. I'd just rather snip them out of the film and watch them in isolation if that's okay with you. That okay? We'll do that and say no more about it. And if some great auditorium somewhere decides to showcase the Chaplin Mutuals, maybe I'll give it another chance then.
This is a much lauded Chaplin Mutual, and it's very well done, and I didn't care for it as much as I wanted to, which is why I'm wasting words on Edna Purviance while I try and figure out why it didn't hit home for me.
One or two of the ideas seemed a little milked. A little stretched. Breaking point beckons. Maybe even three of the ideas. The lurching of the boat from side to side. The card game. Charlie's problems with the bill in the restaurant in the promised land. These were all great ideas, and maybe it's just me- really, maybe it's just me- but I was watching them thinking: enough already. Move on. Perhaps this is the great drawback of watching these things on DVD- they were crafted for large audiences, of course they were, and what can be expertly paced for a huge room of hysterical punters isn't going to work so well in a more intimate one-on-one encounter.
I watched this and 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' over the course of the same day, and 'The Immigrant' isn't the film I'd be watching on DVD again out of choice. Not given those two options it isn't. This is a far more 'brilliant' film in every way, but I found myself struggling to care about it.
The little touches though- ah, they make it worthwhile. Charlie catching a fish in the opening scene, his shuffling in the card game, some of the pantomime stuff in the restaurant (especially with his hat)- these are beautiful, beautiful moments. I'd just rather snip them out of the film and watch them in isolation if that's okay with you. That okay? We'll do that and say no more about it. And if some great auditorium somewhere decides to showcase the Chaplin Mutuals, maybe I'll give it another chance then.
Friday, 6 April 2012
The Play House (Keaton 1921)
Now here again Keaton is playing against convention and against expectation, but the gulf between this and 'The Frozen North' is immense. I would happily have sat down and started this again the minute it ended if only I had someone to watch it with. The 7 year old isn't seeing the appeal of Keaton. She preferred drawing comic strips on the living room floor and looking up every few minutes to ask me questions about what was happening. 'Is that the same man again?' Fair play to her, but she missed a treat. I'll sneak this back into her pre-bed programme a month or two down the line.
So- was the opening five minutes of utter magnificence (Buster playing all the parts- the actors in a play, the audience, the backstage staff, the orchestra members) a swipe at Chaplin's cravings towards omnipotence (or at least the frequent repettion of his name on film credits)? Probably not, but when the programme notes flashed up on the screen, Keaton's name repeated on every line, that was my initial impression.
It's beautifully done this opening section- extraordinarily clever but also very well observed, and a good showreel for Keaton as a character player. Just as much as Chaplin (and I guess the vast majority of the superior silent comedians) Keaton was very much associated with one character, and he seems to be revelling in this opportunity to show off. The temptation with 'The Play House' I think is to knock what comes after this initial extended dream sequence, and I think that's unfair. The film as a whole is perhaps a little disjointed, but I think if you view it as a miracle rather than a two reel comedy you're not likely to be disappointed. Those are the terms you need to be appreciating this on. Okay, overstating it a tad perhaps, but really this is a remarkable film.
After his dream of theatrical domination Keaton wakes up on the stage a mere theatre hand, a mere prop mover, in love with one of a pair of twin sisters (though he's never sure which one) and harrassed by the theatre owner. This could have been a feature you know- there are certainly enough brilliant ideas in 'The Play House' to fill out the careers of a dozen lesser comedians.
So- was the opening five minutes of utter magnificence (Buster playing all the parts- the actors in a play, the audience, the backstage staff, the orchestra members) a swipe at Chaplin's cravings towards omnipotence (or at least the frequent repettion of his name on film credits)? Probably not, but when the programme notes flashed up on the screen, Keaton's name repeated on every line, that was my initial impression.
It's beautifully done this opening section- extraordinarily clever but also very well observed, and a good showreel for Keaton as a character player. Just as much as Chaplin (and I guess the vast majority of the superior silent comedians) Keaton was very much associated with one character, and he seems to be revelling in this opportunity to show off. The temptation with 'The Play House' I think is to knock what comes after this initial extended dream sequence, and I think that's unfair. The film as a whole is perhaps a little disjointed, but I think if you view it as a miracle rather than a two reel comedy you're not likely to be disappointed. Those are the terms you need to be appreciating this on. Okay, overstating it a tad perhaps, but really this is a remarkable film.
After his dream of theatrical domination Keaton wakes up on the stage a mere theatre hand, a mere prop mover, in love with one of a pair of twin sisters (though he's never sure which one) and harrassed by the theatre owner. This could have been a feature you know- there are certainly enough brilliant ideas in 'The Play House' to fill out the careers of a dozen lesser comedians.
The Frozen North (Keaton 1922)
I knew nothing about this one before watching it, and I'm not sure how much more I really know about it now. I don't think I particularly liked it, but it threw me- I was expecting 'just another' Keaton short, with all that implies, and 'The Frozen North' manifestly isn't that.
Buster is a kind of arctic evil genius, with Joe Roberts as his loyal henchman- it's a melodrama pastiche with everyone playing against type but frankly it's more... interesting than it is enjoyable. We are thrown straight into the middle of an ongoing scenario (though given the film's length I'm guessing there may be a scene or two missing somewhere along the way) with Buster attempting to hold up a saloon single-handedly and then shooting a couple of lovers dead after mistaking the girl for his wife and her house for his own house. And of course by this point you're well aware that you're not getting a typical Buster Keaton product, but you're still not entirely sure what it is you are getting. Buster's a cheater, a lothario, a villain through and through, and yes of course it's all revealed to be a dream, and of course we know he's sending stuff up, but it's still a shock to the system. A shock that would perhaps be easier to take if it were just a tad funnier.
And this is where my ignorance of the source material for his pastiche is probably doing Buster a disservice- all I can do is imagine the wild overacting and the outlandish scenarios in the films he is taking down a peg or two: I can guess what they were like and I can guess why this film was probably funnier in 1922 than it is now.
There's an overplayed and predictable ice-fishing scene though that I'm damned sure was just as tiresome ninety years ago as it seems today.
Buster is a kind of arctic evil genius, with Joe Roberts as his loyal henchman- it's a melodrama pastiche with everyone playing against type but frankly it's more... interesting than it is enjoyable. We are thrown straight into the middle of an ongoing scenario (though given the film's length I'm guessing there may be a scene or two missing somewhere along the way) with Buster attempting to hold up a saloon single-handedly and then shooting a couple of lovers dead after mistaking the girl for his wife and her house for his own house. And of course by this point you're well aware that you're not getting a typical Buster Keaton product, but you're still not entirely sure what it is you are getting. Buster's a cheater, a lothario, a villain through and through, and yes of course it's all revealed to be a dream, and of course we know he's sending stuff up, but it's still a shock to the system. A shock that would perhaps be easier to take if it were just a tad funnier.
And this is where my ignorance of the source material for his pastiche is probably doing Buster a disservice- all I can do is imagine the wild overacting and the outlandish scenarios in the films he is taking down a peg or two: I can guess what they were like and I can guess why this film was probably funnier in 1922 than it is now.
There's an overplayed and predictable ice-fishing scene though that I'm damned sure was just as tiresome ninety years ago as it seems today.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
The Kid (Chaplin 1921)
No question that Chaplin was blessed by the presence of Jackie Coogan here- 'The Kid' is unthinkable without him, and that much-abused word 'chemistry' is evident in every scene they share together. 'The Kid' is a blend of slapstick and sentiment as we all know, but it's important to note I think just how affecting the sentiment can be. My wee seven year old companion was snuffling beside me. The two lead perforamnces seem so modern as well- so fresh and full of vigour. And I think that rather shows up Edna Purviance I'm afraid, who is Dramatic Silent Actress here and no more. Granted, that's all Chaplin really asked of her, but watching the film 90 years on there's no question who's been left behind.
It's a long, long time since I've watched a Chaplin film and I don't recall 'The Kid' being a particular favourite back in the day, but I enjoyed it, and the scenes that worked the best- the fantastic streetfight scene in particular- are absolute showstopers. The dream scene towards the end though? You can keep that. There's self-indulgence writ large for you. Charles Reisner plays Chaplin's striking fight opponent.
It's a long, long time since I've watched a Chaplin film and I don't recall 'The Kid' being a particular favourite back in the day, but I enjoyed it, and the scenes that worked the best- the fantastic streetfight scene in particular- are absolute showstopers. The dream scene towards the end though? You can keep that. There's self-indulgence writ large for you. Charles Reisner plays Chaplin's striking fight opponent.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Willful Ambrose (Swain 1915)
I've come to the conclusion that I've never seen anyone in my life quite like Mack Swain. His face was just a weird one- permanently contorted into a kind of teenager's gormless disgusted sneer, like he's just been told by his parents that he's got to be in by one o'clock- no later. But it's that sneer on the body of a big lumbering oaf of a man that is so odd. He's a bully and a slob and I can't think of another comic so firmly rooted in the mid 1910s as Swain. And for that reason he's interesting. And, as I've said before, in small occasional doses I can find him quite watchable.
Ambrose and wife have a falling out after he shoots up her beer stein. He takes his child-woman daughter out with him to get a replacement- they run into trouble with another couple in the park intent on acquiring a beer stein of their own. I think you can tell that I don't really know what a beer stein is.
So, help me out, I'm struggling: the sexy dark-haired girl in the park- is that Mae Busch? Or is that Minta Durfee? I'm sure I'm going to look back at myself in a few months time and shake my head in despair at my ignorance- I liked her, I thought she was attractive and very modern looking, but I only know Mae Busch from her Laurel and Hardy stuff a decade and a half later, and all I know about Minta Durfee is that she was Mrs Arbuckle. IMDB tells me the girl in the park is one of them, but such is my horrendous ignorance, I don't know which one. Can you imagine the difficulty of this situation for me? Especially when some of my comments about Mae Busch before have been less than flattering.
No-one will find 'Willful Ambrose' particularly funny of course, but I think a pleasant feeling of bafflement and bemusement is not unwelcome on occasions, and you certainly get that with the Swain Keystones. And damn it I enjoyed this. I found some of the stuff with the backwards daughter just... weird, but hey, weird's good too.
Ambrose and wife have a falling out after he shoots up her beer stein. He takes his child-woman daughter out with him to get a replacement- they run into trouble with another couple in the park intent on acquiring a beer stein of their own. I think you can tell that I don't really know what a beer stein is.
So, help me out, I'm struggling: the sexy dark-haired girl in the park- is that Mae Busch? Or is that Minta Durfee? I'm sure I'm going to look back at myself in a few months time and shake my head in despair at my ignorance- I liked her, I thought she was attractive and very modern looking, but I only know Mae Busch from her Laurel and Hardy stuff a decade and a half later, and all I know about Minta Durfee is that she was Mrs Arbuckle. IMDB tells me the girl in the park is one of them, but such is my horrendous ignorance, I don't know which one. Can you imagine the difficulty of this situation for me? Especially when some of my comments about Mae Busch before have been less than flattering.
No-one will find 'Willful Ambrose' particularly funny of course, but I think a pleasant feeling of bafflement and bemusement is not unwelcome on occasions, and you certainly get that with the Swain Keystones. And damn it I enjoyed this. I found some of the stuff with the backwards daughter just... weird, but hey, weird's good too.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Neighbors (Keaton 1920)
The washing lines again! What about that. I'm going to start seeing variations on the washing line gags everywhere I look now.
This is brilliantly made and executed, and some of Buster's stuntwork is superb, but... there's something missing. Two feuding families, the boy and girl in love... Ah, it's Shakespeare! Buster and Virginia Fox (a pretty doll-faced creature here, very demure) carry out their romance over the width of the yard between their two apartment buildings, families- especially her father, big mean old Joe Roberts (who seems absolutely colossal here, and quite terrifying)- interfering at every opportunity. I love the location actually- it feels like they're performing on a big open air stage between the houses, and there's so much scope for running gags and visual tricks with the fence slicing the yard in two. There's a hell of a lot to admire here- and the acrobatic human totem pole carrying Buster and Virginia across the yard, from one high window to the other- is one of the most brilliant Buster things I've seen, but perversely it all feels a little over-choreographed and over-planned. Sometimes hesitancy and chance are our friends.
The 'I bought a Ford' gag- what's that about? Way over my head. Is it something obvious that I'm missing, or a topcal reference the effect of which has been diluted by time?
This is brilliantly made and executed, and some of Buster's stuntwork is superb, but... there's something missing. Two feuding families, the boy and girl in love... Ah, it's Shakespeare! Buster and Virginia Fox (a pretty doll-faced creature here, very demure) carry out their romance over the width of the yard between their two apartment buildings, families- especially her father, big mean old Joe Roberts (who seems absolutely colossal here, and quite terrifying)- interfering at every opportunity. I love the location actually- it feels like they're performing on a big open air stage between the houses, and there's so much scope for running gags and visual tricks with the fence slicing the yard in two. There's a hell of a lot to admire here- and the acrobatic human totem pole carrying Buster and Virginia across the yard, from one high window to the other- is one of the most brilliant Buster things I've seen, but perversely it all feels a little over-choreographed and over-planned. Sometimes hesitancy and chance are our friends.
The 'I bought a Ford' gag- what's that about? Way over my head. Is it something obvious that I'm missing, or a topcal reference the effect of which has been diluted by time?
Soldier Man (Langdon 1926)
A few brilliant moments aside- the King's parade notably, Harry as the mock-King failing to understand his subjects' reverence- this is pretty tiresome. The initial scenario- the soldier still fighting the war because no-one has told him it is over- would be famously re-used by Langdon for Stan and Ollie's 'Blockheads', and to much better effect than here. Langdon carries off the mainly solo stuff of the first few minutes very well- his expressions and gestures are beautiful- but the material itself is a bit laboured. And from fighting a solo war the Langdon character somehow ends up as an impostor king, and that takes up the rest of your picture. Right up until the 'it was all a dream' conclusion. Always a sign that no-one involved could think up a better ending.
I didn't dislike this, but it didn't make my heart sing. You get to briefly see Langdon in a dual role though- he plays the alcoholic monarch before the king gets abducted by rebels- and so there's a certain amount on novelty value in there if nothing else.
I didn't dislike this, but it didn't make my heart sing. You get to briefly see Langdon in a dual role though- he plays the alcoholic monarch before the king gets abducted by rebels- and so there's a certain amount on novelty value in there if nothing else.
The Bum's Rush (Pollard 1927)
A new one for me- I'd never seen a Snub Pollard film, I couldn't even have picked him out of a police line-up. 1927 is apparently quite a step into his career, so I couldn't say how representative this is of him and his style of comedy- but I enjoyed it. Another big moustache- a huge moustache actually- and, well what are those? Mock oriental eyebrows? Is this how he looked all the way through his career, or has his appearance been refined somewhat? He seems to have quite an amiable persona- there's certainly something there. I do feel sometimes before watching these, shall we say, second tier comedians, that they are going to be a little bland, a little soulless, but I liked what I saw of him here and- you know what? I think I may even be able to pick him out of a police line-up now. He works particularly well with the little kidnapped kid- the hugs and affection seemed spontaneous rather than forced and that hints at depths to the character that may or may not be justified when I get to see further films of his. This is from the 'Weiss-o-rama' DVD set and I know there's a couple more Snubs on there, so I'm looking forward to those.
He plays a- no surprise- bum here, who becomes entangled with a convict and his iron ball thingy. In a surprising twist the convict is actually rather grateful to Snub for his inadvertent assistance in helping him escape, and becomes a pal to him, helping him out when he needs it. The two of them come across a kidnapped kid, and the story writes itself from there. There's some high-wire action with one of those washing line contraptions that apparently used to run between apartment buildings (do they still have those? were these a uniquely American affair?) that drags on a little too long, but mostly this is quick-moving and very likeable.
He plays a- no surprise- bum here, who becomes entangled with a convict and his iron ball thingy. In a surprising twist the convict is actually rather grateful to Snub for his inadvertent assistance in helping him escape, and becomes a pal to him, helping him out when he needs it. The two of them come across a kidnapped kid, and the story writes itself from there. There's some high-wire action with one of those washing line contraptions that apparently used to run between apartment buildings (do they still have those? were these a uniquely American affair?) that drags on a little too long, but mostly this is quick-moving and very likeable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)