Three's a Crowd

1927 comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A lonely man saves the life of a frozen pregnant woman and starts to dream that he has a family. Unfortunately, her husband could return at any time and shatter those dreams.

This is the first of that trio of movies that Langdon ruined his career with. I like how he pulls it off with very few title cards, and the film's got a good look to it. There are really just a pair of settings--his humble abode with comically-tall rickety steps leading up to it and the street--but there's a lot done with the settings. Langdon also includes a dream sequence with a boxing match, and although Keaton, Chaplin, and probably Lloyd (I can't remember) did boxing better (and funnier), there was something comical about seeing Langdon with a humorously gigantic boxing glove. The dream sequence starts with cool visuals--stormy winds, great lighting, the face of the husband peeking through the window. Unfortunately, comic loneliness is difficult to pull off, and this movie doesn't balance humor and pathos with anything close to the ability that Chaplin had. It's a movie that really can't decide if it's a comedy or a drama, and it's just kind of in limbo, no-man's land, something that isn't really all that funny or dramatic. When Langdon's character (named The Odd Fellow according to the credits) is alone and playing with a doll, things work ok. The movie grinds to a halt once the woman enters the picture and the character becomes domesticated, taking care of a baby and making pies. The pacing's bad, and the comedy feels awkward. There is one brilliant shot featuring a lamp and streetlights that I thought was very touching. Worth watching for silent comedy fans and better than the Capra movie, but this is nothing special.

The Chaser

1928 silent black comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Harry's wife, possibly persuaded by her mother, decides to divorce the good-for-nothing. The judge decides to teach him a lesson instead and orders the husband and wife to reverse roles. This doesn't work out well for Harry who decides to end his life, and when that doesn't work, he goes golfing. It's almost funny!

No, actually it's not very funny at all. This was the second of a trio of movies that Langdon directed after being a very successful silent film comedian. Unfortunately for Langdon, nobody liked them and his career was ruined. I can't recall seeing Langdon in anything else and decided to give him a go, suspecting--after a little research--that I would enjoy the movies he directed more than the stuff that's supposed to be halfway decent. That third film, Heart Trouble, is sadly a lost one, by the way. Harry Langdon doesn't have the personality of a Chaplin or a Buster or the likability of Harold Lloyd. In fact, I would almost say that he's unlikable. The bits in The Chaser are either poorly timed or just not funny at all. As an actor, he overcooks the comedy while trying desperately to be as stone-faced as Keaton. Check out a scene where he's jumping up and down on a porch, really for no reason at all other than to set up another visual gag with inexplicable cats that will have you scratching your head more than laughing. Or when he shakes his hat "comically" during an almost-funny scene featuring what he believes to be the undead. There's an earlier excruciatingly long scene in which he's trying to get an egg for his wife. You watch and think, "Man, for as long as he's setting this up, the payoff better be something great." And then you're disappointed because it's only almost great. So why did I end up liking this? I like how Langdon took risks, taking the humor to some pretty dark places. Divorce really shouldn't be funny, but marital issues had been used in early comedies before. But an extended series of failed suicide attempts forty years before Harold and Maude? One of those gags had an extended shot of Langdon lying on the floor under a sheet. I mean, for a really long time, you're just staring at a frozen screen. It's risky stuff, and it might have been funny if it had just been lengthier. I also liked this movie because of a sneaky subtext. Langdon is very obviously making a movie about impotence, another daring move for the late-20s. So while this isn't a great 1920's comedy that should hoist Langdon up there with the big three silent comedy stars, it is a fascinating little movie with some neat ideas.