1925 sports comedyRating: 16/20
Plot: A nerdy 30 year old who apparently sort of looks like me gets ready for his freshman year at Tate University. He desperately wants to be popular and does everything he can (using a goofy handshake that involves a jig, buying ice cream for everybody) to gain that popularity. He tries out for the football team but only makes it as a waterboy. Until the final game, that is, when everything that you thought was probably going to happen starts happening and Harold gets the chance to be a hero.
This is better than Keaton's similar film, College, and has some very funny moments. The climactic football game is funny enough, but it's outshined by an early series of gags involving attempts to keep an poorly manufactured suit together during a party. I also nearly laughed every time Lloyd began that silly dancing handshake thing. I don't usually praise title cards in silent movies, but this one has some clever ones, taking some jabs at education that still seem appropriate today. The typical 1920s comedy romance is a little hard to buy, and I thought it was a little hard to side with this underdog since his only motivation was achieving popularity. I really like some of the smaller moments that develop his character subtly and sweetly--Harold's adjustment of a newspaper clipping about him on the wall near a picture of his hero and the scene where he enjoys having buttons sewn on by his love interest. This is a conventional but charming silent comedy.
Did you just have this lying around so you could beat me to it?
ReplyDeleteI really liked the suit scene and the bit where he gave the introduction speech that ended with more and more people coming for ice cream. It's not flawless, but you rightly mentioned its charm. It is interesting that the three comedic giants of the 20's each seem to have their own niche. Keaton has the deadpan look and incredible stunts. Chaplin has more sentimentality. LLoyd is just extremely likeable and easy to relate to. He seems like a naive but very nice guy, and therefore he is always easy to root for. Also a 16.
And apparently, all three respected each other's work a lot although Chaplin was a bit too much of a prick to praise the others much.
ReplyDeleteLloyd, I think, succeeds in being more of an everyman. When his stuff (I've only seen four of his movies), works best, he's easy to relate to and since he doesn't have such an overwhelming personality (like Chaplin especially but Keaton, too), the acting and gags have to succeed on their own. He doesn't ham it up, and you've got to respect him for it. Keaton and Chaplin also made movies that seemed like sketches formed around an idea instead of narratives. The gags and stunts are more important than the stories most of the time. With Lloyd, the narrative seems to be at the center and the comedy fits around it.
I had a two-disc part of a Harold Lloyd collection from the library because I wanted to see 'Kid Brother'...I planned on watching this one, too, because I'd seen that it was considered a good 'un. I'm planning on watching lots of Harold Lloyd this summer.
Well put. LLoyd seems like the guy you would want to hang out with (although that is kind of how Bush got elected).
ReplyDeleteThe other two that I would like to watch in the near future are "Girl Shy" and "Why Worry".