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 Strong Man

1926 comedy

Rating: 13/20

Plot: A soldier more accurate with a slingshot than a machine gun starts working with a strong man--not really the titular strong man--after the war. Letters from a Mary Brown kept him going during his soldiering days, and he decides to look for her. After an adventure with a different Mary Brown who turns out not to be a Mary Brown at all, he finds the real Mary Brown.

This was Frank Capra's first film, and it's a total mess. It feels more like 3 1/2 short films strung together and called a complete movie. I could forgive that if it was entertaining or funny, but it's really neither. Langdon plays a more heroic character in this one, but it's difficult to sympathize with the character because, as I said in the last post, he's not very likable. The best bits are probably with the fake Mary Brown character played by Gertrude Astor. Langdon does move and react well, and he has a childlike innocence that makes the story work. Well, until the end when his character seems to almost be an entirely new person. There's nothing that will have anybody in the aisles, but this has a couple moments that somebody wouldn't be made fun of for calling them classic moments. One involves a walk up the steps with Gertrude Astor, and another is a toss from a car down a hill with a surprising result. The climactic scene is a mess, but I do like this little pose Langdon keeps repeating.

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.

Shane Reviews the Greatest Movies Ever Made: Sunrise (A Song of Two Humans)

1927 silent melodrama

Rating: 19/20

Plot: A horny farmer meets a whore from the city, and she convinces him to drown his wife and sell his farm so that they can be together. His penis tells him that it sounds like a terrific idea, but he's unable to commit the act and the married couple falls in love all over again in the big city. But then there's a storm! Oh, snap!

Again, in order to avoid ridicule from cinephiles, I feel the need to give these movies on the Sight and Sound list a 20/20. [Edit: I have since changed my mind! I welcome ridicule.] I'm not sure if this makes me a more credible movie blogger, but admitting that I do it probably takes away every tiny bit of credibility I had left. I want to start this off by saying that I really do love this little movie, however. Oh, and you should consider, when deciding in your head just how much credibility I do have since I know you're doing that right now, that I am posting this entry in the "Shane Watches the Greatest Movies Ever Made" series on the exact day I said I would which is worth something.

Enough about my credibility or lack of credibility though. There's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans to discuss. Everybody who knows me knows that I like silent movies. 1927 was a huge year for film, one that started with Metropolis and also saw the release of The Jazz Singer, a movie that ruined movies for several years. If my shoddy research is correct, this movie came out soon after that first successful "talkie," timing that unfortunately made it interesting to almost nobody. It did win a special Academy Award though, and it's now regarded as one of the best of the silent era. Deservedly so actually.

The story's in three chunks--a haunting first act where The Man (that's his name, just like it should be in a fairy tale) and city gal conspire to off The Wife, a much lighter and sweet and humorously cute second part where the love between the husband and wife is rekindled, and a third classically melodramatic final third that features some action, some surprises, and the exact ending that it should have. It's a silent film, and Murnau doesn't lean on title cards at all, forcing his mute characters to let us know all about themselves in other ways--the way they smoke their cigarettes, flash leg, or walk; the way they tuck their husbands into bed or frown at an abandoned kitchen table; and the way they clutch bundles of sticks, offer a plate of bread, or lumber about like their legs are too heavy. Those heavy legs, you should know, were allegedly because actor George O'Brien was forced to wear lead boots to help him walk in a more guilty way. Apparently, guilty men walk a little like Frankenstein's monster. O'Brien is good, even shedding some tears during one beautiful scene. His character's dopey though. Buying cheap flowers for your wife to make up for looking menacing during a boat ride? Janet Gaynor's also great, though often with that typical 1920's staginess. Margaret Livingston plays the woman in the city, and even though she's the third most important character in this, she's not in it all that much. She does look good in lingerie, however. That was appreciated. Oh, and there's a scene where she dances after she and lover daydream of life in the city, and that might be the worst thing I've ever seen. No, I'm not just talking about dancing. I'm talking about the worst thing I've ever seen. Of course, I always like the periphery characters, and there's a pair of guys in the city--a barber played by Ralph Sipperly and a randy photographer played by J. Farrell MacDonald--who play their parts like they really want to be noticed. And there's a dog that is not credited, but I was wondering if it was the same dog who played Homo in Murnau's The Man Who Laughed.

This isn't great because of the acting or rather simple story though. This is all about technical prowess. The visual experimentation makes this a stunning movie-watching experience. Watch that fuzzy moon and farmland melt into big city excitement, a scene witnessed through a moving trolley that transitions from a rural setting to an urban one, the lighting during a scene post-storm, a title screen that chillingly says "Couldn't she get drowned?" before even-more-chilllingly melting away, long tracking shots of characters walking through these sets including one spectacular sequence where the camera follows the guy as he meets his mistress. I can't remember seeing a silent movie where the camera moves this gracefully. It does it on the outdoors sets and again through the busy streets of the city. There are also some special effects, mostly superimposition, and it looks quaint but also like a labor of love. There's a craft to putting the model trains, dancing women, and musicians on the screen with dreaming lovers in a field of wheat. The goofiest effect is during a slow careless but loving walk that ends up humorously causing a traffic jam. It looks silly but still manages to add to the fairy tale-ness of the whole thing.

I also want to mention the music, something I almost never do because I don't really understand how music was done for movies in the 20s. It sounds to me that a lot of this music may have been used just for this movie although I did hear that Alfred Hitchcock television theme music in there during a scene with a broken statue. Generally, silent movie music is at best dull and forgettable or at its worst irritating. Here, it's really terrific, adding to the tension in the early and later scenes of the movie.

And speaking of the sound, this one is not technically a silent movie. It's one of those late-20's movies that use synchronized sounds. I really wish that era of movie-making would have been longer because it's delightfully goofy, especially here when the characters go to an amusement park and later with the wind and thunder during a violent storm. I can't understand why some things get sound and some don't. There's a scene where some incessant pig squealing is audible but a dropped bottle is not. It's weird.

I should have watched this with my wife, but I'm afraid she would get ideas and try to drown me afterward.

Next movie in the Shane Watches the Greatest Movies Ever Made series: Tokyo Story. I'll write about that one on the 26th of January unless I decide to shut this thing down before then.

Cowards Bend the Knee (or The Blue Hands)

2003 silent soap opera

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A hockey player knocks up his girlfriend and takes her for an abortion in the back room of a beauty salon. During the procedure, he falls for the daughter of the owner of the beauty salon and runs off with her. Unfortunately, she won't allow him to touch her until the death of her father is avenged. A hand transplant operation takes place, followed by murder and sex. And there are some hockey player wax figurines that come to life.

This ten-part short feature was originally intended to be shown in a museum, each six-minute chunk shown through a separate peephole. That would have been an annoying way to watch a movie. I'd predict that a lot of people would be annoyed by the style of this anyway. It's silent, but even those used to silent movies might find the strange techniques--off-putting camera angles, repetitious movements, rapid-fire movements, lengthy but hilarious title cards--a little too strange. And, of course, there's the subject matters covered in this thing, a wacky hodgepodge that could only come from the mind of Guy Maddin. Jen, who started watching this movie with me, was done when the dicks made their first appearance. In the dicks' defense, I think she was about to call it quits even before they showed up. I found it all hilarious, maybe the funniest Maddin movie I've seen. Lots to love here--hockey seizures in sperm samples, beauty salon bordellos, 5-minute breast grope attempts, a gorgeous slow procession to Beethoven's 7th, titular blue hands and warm pies, forced combing, a smoking and corset-wearing abortionist, blind grandmothers, shampoo murders, faked hand transplants, ghost whores, fisting, an ice breast, the feeding of wax hockey player figurines, a questionable check for a pulse, and an Orlacian shower butt poke. Yeah, mostly the typical ingredients for a soap opera.  And the typing of "Orlacian shower butt poke" reminds me why I watch movies in the first place. My favorite scene was one in which Maddin imagines what a late-20's sex scene's sound effects would have been like. Completely ridiculous, but it made me giggle like a fourteen-year-old with a monocle. Definitely find this if you're a Guy Maddin fan already, and it might not be the worst place to start if you want to dig into his work and have a high tolerance for weirdness.

The Artist

2011 silent movie

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 18/20)

Plot: A silent film stud named George Valentin isn't ready to embrace the newest cinematic fad--talkies. That which kills his career only makes the career of Peppy Miller, the gal whose career took off because of George, stronger until she's one of the most popular screen stars of all. George gets all mopey.

This pair were funny in this movie that I wrote about previously, one that had a lot more color and talking. I'm not the least embarrassed that I spent most of that write-up talking about how I'd probably enjoy having sexual relations with Berenice Bejo. Now it appears that her star is on the rise and the chances that we'll hook up are slimming. And forget about Jean Dujardin who won Best Actor because I'd have even less of a shot with him. Man, they're good in this. Dujardin doesn't surprise me. He was charismatic and hilarious in the spy spoof, and I was excited when I heard that he was the star of this thing. He did a lot with his face and movement in that movie anyway, and he's classically good looking and really fits as this Douglas Fairbanks type. And anybody who knows me knows that I like silent movies. What you might not know is that I only like silent movies because I like the look of the women. Bejo's got that look, leading with her eyes and pouting, completely impossible to ignore. Shane-movies favorites John Goodman, Malcolm McDowell, and James Cromwell are also in the mix though I didn't recognize McDowell until after the fact. It was interesting to watch this so soon after Singin' in the Rain since there are some plot parallels. This stays true to silent movies--the actors fill the screen, there's just the right amount of melodrama, the effects used seem straight from 1927. It's a respectful homage rather than a gimmick although this story wouldn't have gotten nearly this much attention if it was filmed more conventionally. Of course, nobody in America would have seen it because it would have been in French. Speaking of language, do you think Berenice Bejo would have a problem with me being able to say nothing more than "I am a windshield wiper" in French? This was a delightful little movie, the kind that can make a grumpy curmudgeon like me smile a little bit more.

The Docks of New York

1928 silent drama

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Career stoker Bill Roberts enjoys a night away from the bowels the boat, engaging in a bit of thuggery and floozy hunting and general nincompoopery. He's kind of like the 1920s white equivalent to our modern-day 50 Cent. I think his friends even call him Fitty. While strolling along the docks, he spots a beautiful gal attempting to end her life by jumping into the bay. He dives in and saves her.

I did not like Bill Roberts as a character nor George Bancroft's portrayal of a tough guy, silent acting that didn't go beyond standing over there and looking tough followed by a bit of standing over there and looking tough, lots of hands-on-hips muscle flexin'. He's a flat thug. I thought Betty Compson was great as Mae though, just the right amounts of vulnerability mixed in with this surprising control and charm. Cute as a goddamn button, too, that classical silent movie way where the beauty radiates from big gray-lit eyes and pours into my living room. You root for her not only because she's easy on the eyes but because she's fragile and you just know that Bill's going to screw everything up somehow because he's a big bastard. The narrative is typical silent drama, forcing a pair of misfits to fall hopelessly in love in less than fifteen minutes. Still, there's something kind of sweet about their romance, one that my cynical mind figured would end more tragically than it did. Their romance is a little brightness in a dreary world. Never before has the bleak blacks and greasy grays and wilted whites of 1920's cinema seemed more appropriate then it does in Bill and Mae's world. von Sternberg knows how to tell a story with a camera, too. Its movements are fluid and graceful even when the action on the screen is raucous and packed. And there are relatively very few title cards; they're used not to explain the action of the characters but to add some humor or nuance. You don't need them to explain the feelings of the characters when you've got scenes like the pocket-sewing one to delicately show what the characters' relationship is really about. The Docks of New York, despite being a traditional melodrama, has a look and feel of a movie from a later decade.

Cory recommended this. If there's a movie you'd like to see on this blog, just let me know!

Why Worry?

1923 silent comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: A guy probably named Harold travels to the tropics with his nurse and valet for convalescent purposes but ends up accidentally becoming part of a violent revolution. Viva la Harold Lloyd!

His character isn't really as likable here, but this swiftly-moving excursion is still fun. The protagonist (probably named Harold) is the type we laugh at because he's oblivious to what's going on around him, nearly for the entire movie. I liked the sight gags as he's exploring the town, mistaking men knocked unconscious for men taking their siestas. It's not until near the end that Harold (I'm guessing) undergoes a bit of an unbelievable undergoing and turns into Rambo. I easily could have done without the romantic subplot which seems like it was tacked on in a script rewrite or something. The best part of this movie isn't even Lloyd actually unless you've ever wanted to see what a Harold Lloyd movie would be like if Harold Lloyd was a little person. His costar, a giant named John Aasen, steals the show. IMDB lists his height as a bit over seven feet, but he dwarfs Lloyd and seems a lot taller than that. Guinness apparently had him at nearly nine feet. Somebody's tape measure was broken apparently. The absurd situations, including an attempt to pull out one of Colosso's hurt teeth, between the odd-looking duo are a lot of fun. "Colosso" was the first acting job in Aasen's versatile career. He also played a Giant Swordsman, Giant, The Giant, Circus Giant, Giant Man, Very Tall Golfer, Giant, Circus Giant, Giant, and Shorty. That's some diversity! Wait a second. Very Tall Golfer?

So, Cory...what did you think of this one? Worth seeing, but I reckon you don't like his character all that much. Amazingly, Maltin's got this rated higher than Safety Last! and Speedy.

Safety Last! (Again)

see original review here

1923 movie that is better than 2008's College Road Trip

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Students at an inner city school go on a field trip to the high school they'll be attending next year. When they get back to their school, they're treated to a movie. One group of students with an especially mean teacher doesn't like the movie that they're being shown (certified classic College Road Trip)and force-feeds them a silent comedy instead. The students whine and whine, and the teacher, probably because he's the devil, just sits back and laughs.

I even gave them a slip of paper to write some comments and rate the movie. When asked to describe the movie in one word, I got these answers:

boring
lame
boreing
old
funny
useless
silent
interesting
awful
old fashioned
wierd
retarted
quiet
relaxing
bum!
wordless
different
depressing

Their ratings: 15, 7, 14, 10, 8, 10, -20, 2, 15, 10, 1.5, 2, 8, 10, 17, 10, 1, 1, 3, 13, 2, 0, 9.5, 10, 3, -20, 1

But just like the last time I forced silent comedy on the youth of America, they watched for the duration (I read lots of noise from my two neighbors watching College Road Trip) and laughed at the appropriate times. They really got into the climactic building-climbing scene, oohing and aahing. Sure, Harold Lloyd got called "gay" a few times, and I know the music drove them absolutely nuts. Nevertheless, I think a lot of them liked the movie a lot more than their scores might indicate.

Other gripes (from their sheets):

"I didn't like having to read."
"The end was really good."
"It's not a movie. It's a big waste of time."
"It has no sound to make up for the silence."
"Black & white movies are boring and old."
"I don't like that the guy lied to the girl."
"It was funny. He was always doing something or getting into trouble, but he got by with it."
"I liked that he was trying to impress the girl but was an epic fail at life."
"I liked the music."
"It's too hard to understand."
"It was a horibile movie."
"People were moving too fast in some parts."
"It was mildly entertaining. Not bad--better than I expected." Same person: "I didn't like that the guy was lying through the whole thing."
"It had some funny stuff that made me laugh."
"No talking is boring!!!!!!!!!"

One more thing: Looking back at my old write-ups for Harold Lloyd movies, I always get annoyed with myself when I see how mean I was to the poor guy. I never called him "gay" or anything, but I was completely wrong in refusing to put him in the same class with Keaton and Chaplin. Dude's a comedy stud even though he moves too fast in some parts or stars in movies that are too hard to understand.

And here's a shot from the Harold Lloyd appearance on The Simpsons. Unless he's just yellow on my computer.

Girl Shy

1924 silent romantic comedy (with horses)

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Because of a speech impediment and a less-than-impressive status as a poor tailor's assistant, some character probably named Harold has trouble meeting women. He's girl shy. But that doesn't stop him from writing a piece of nonfiction with the ambiguous title How to Make Love to Women and attempting to find a publisher for the tome. He eventually does meet a girl on a train and engages in the lengthiest and most awkward sex scene in silent cinema history. A horse is involved.

Question: If a stutterer stutters in a silent movie, and there's no sound enabling you to hear it, does it make a sound? Another solid Harold Lloyd movie with his typically likable protagonist, some very sweet romantic moments, and an explosion of craziness at the end where the actor does something wildy funny (i.e. climbing up the side of a building [Safety Last] or clang-clang-clanging on a trolley through New York streets [Speedy]). In Girl Shy, he's racing against the clock, stealing cars and endangering the lives of everybody around him. I bought the sweetness of his character a little more than in some of his other movies, but I also enjoyed how he had no issues with misbehaving like a four-eyed gangster rapper. And I'm really impressed with the amount of vehicles they managed to throw into that wild chase scene at the end. I think it was a zeppelin away from breaking some sort of vehicular record. This also may have gotten a bonus point for a Harold Lloyd spanking scene. Hot! No way any warm-blooded male could watch that without becoming aroused. Which reminds me--a baseball coach at my school was telling me today that one of his players couldn't make it to practice because he injured himself by "diving onto his bed with a hard-on," hurting the member. It's doubtful, but I wondered if he was watching Girl Shy when that happened.

Another really gay movie poster, by the way. It might not deliver the gay that Feet First delivers, but it's still really gay.

Broken Blossoms or The Yellow Man and the Girl

1919 depressing movie

Rating: 18/20

Plot: The yellow man loves Buddha, and after watching some visiting sailors engage in fisticuffs on the streets, he becomes further convinced to travel east and share that fat dude's teachings. He arrives in London, has no luck getting the message out (probably because he's yellow), and ends up running a shop that sells things nobody would want. One day, boxer's daughter Lucy wanders past. She's got a hard life because her father's abusive. The yellow man falls for her and gets a chance to get close to her later in the movie.

What a beautiful little movie this is. Silent drama doesn't always connect with me. A lot of times, they're boring, brutally boring. And although this suffers a bit from the limitations and tendencies of typical films from this period, there's a lot here that seems years ahead of its time. Aside from all the technical stuff and the interracial romance, this is the earliest movie I've seen that's leaned so far over into tragedy and has an ending like this. The performances range from hammy and unnatural (see: Donald Crisp as Lucy's daddy) to controlled and touching and haunting (see: Gish). In between would be the yellow man played by Richard Barthelmess, a white man. The story Griffith is telling here is nothing new. It's simple, poetic and emotionally walloping but simple. There are way too many title cards used to push the story, a lot of them, even though have a literary quality, completely unnecessary. This works best when Griffith tells the story and creates the moods with images alone. This just jumped over one or two other movies to become my favorite film of the nineteen-teens.

The Cameraman

1928 comedy

This is already on the blog, and my opinion hasn't really changed. Everybody should see this movie. I think this one is an example of a movie that is actually great rather than being just a great Buster Keaton movie. Apparently, I'm a little biased some times. A couple things:

1) Very few title cards used in this. They did a good job showing the "dialogue" nonverbally.

2) Marceline Day might have been Buster's most attractive love interest, good looking enough that I'm planning on using some of the tips I learned from A Guide for the Married Man and attempting to hook up with her.

3) I'm still convinced that Josephine the Monkey's performance in this is one of the best performances by monkey or human in movie history. Josephine makes Christian Bale look like a hack!

Now, for your review, my ranking of Buster Keaton's silent films:

1) The General
2) Steamboat Bill, Jr.
3) The Cameraman
4) Sherlock Jr.
5) Our Hospitality
6) The Navigator
7) Go West
8) Seven Chances
9) Three Ages
10) Battling Butler
11) College

I haven't seen The Saphead yet. I'm not sure why.

The Man Who Laughs

1928 drama

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 2/20)

Plot: Based on a Victor Hugo writing, this is the story of the oddly-named Gwynplaine, the son of a lord who pissed off a king. Young Gwynplaine was punished for the sins of his father by having a permanent surgically carved to his face. He's abandoned by gypsies, and while wandering through the snow to look for help, he comes across a baby in the arms of her dead mother. He and the baby eventually arrive at the home of Ursus, a philosopher, and he raises them. Years later, Gwynplaine and blind Dea put on plays as part of a traveling circus. They're in love, but Gwynplaine has low self-esteem because he grins all the time and is apprehensive about marrying his beloved. Meanwhile, an evil jester named Barkilphedro (damn, was Hugo even trying on these names?) is thinking up a plot to get rid of Gwynplaine as part of a ploy to gain favor with the queen.

This movie really could have been cut by thirty minutes without losing anything at all. It's a Paul Leni joint, and there's some of the expressionist set design (especially in a scene where young Gwynplaine wanders past a series of gallows), and a lot of experimental shots and unusual perspectives (most memorably a shot from a Ferris wheel) that he's known for. The Man Who Laughs has also got editing that surprised, reminding me of Battleship Potemkin. I guess that makes sense since Potemkin came out three years before this one, but I was still surprised by the quick cuts, jarring in comparison to most silent movies. There's also a nice texture to Leni's 17th Century England. The old and ominous castle walls, some torture paraphernalia, and statues concealing secret passageways added a moodiness at the beginning of the movie. There are a lot of scenes that go on way too long, but this one has more than its share of great scenes, ones that connect emotionally in a way that doesn't seem typical of 1920's melodramas. I really liked one lingering scene where a clown removes his make-up while Gwynplaine, with his permanent preposterous and grotesque grin, watches. There are a lot of good performances here, especially for the silent era, but Conrad Veidt's performance as the laughing man himself is really impressive. Think about it. You have to portray hurt, despair, fear, happiness, and a variety of other emotions without the benefit of a variety of facial expressions. To look sad with a big goofy grin on your face? It's not easy. And I should know because I spent about two hours in front of my bathroom mirror trying to do just that. I thought it was a great performance.

Admission: I had to give this movie a bonus point because of Homo the wolf, played, according to the opening credits, by "Zimbo." He's blind Dea's dog. I just love that there were title cards that said nothing but "Be quiet, Homo!" or "Where are you taking me, Homo?" There are also some ridiculous "special-ed" effects used with Homo at the end of the movie where it looks like a guy's attacking himself with a really stiff stuffed animal. I often add my own dialogue to silent movies, so of course I spat out a "Get him, Homo!" at that point.

Buster Keaton Saturday: Arbuckle & Keaton Volume One

Comedy shorts from 1917-1919

Rating: n/r

Plot: Five Fatty/Buster shorts. They're bell boys, butchers, bartenders, and candlestick makers who fall down more than the average bell boys, butchers, bartenders, and candlestick makers.

Was Fatty Arbuckle the first Will Ferrell? With Ferrell, it seems like producers just think of a new job for him to do in every movie. "Let's make him a basketball player." "How about we make him a race car driver this time?" "Hey, he hasn't been a weatherman yet!" Seems to be the same with Fatty, an actor I hadn't seen much of until now. He's fine. He's likable enough for me not to be bothered by Buster only getting a supporting role. Arbuckle's mainly funny because he's a fat guy. It just seems too easy at times. I mean, aren't all fat guys funny? Sometimes I just sit on a park bench waiting for a fat guy to come along so that I can point and laugh. Does that mean I should tape him and have Kino release it? What if the fat guy in the park was in a dress like Fatty is in "The Butcher Boy"? These things aren't terribly funny, barely mildly humorous even. The comedy and what passed as a plot in silent nineteen-teen's shorts are both really typical. There are a lot of clever bits and the physical comedy with both of the players is good, but a very small percentage of this made me laugh or even crack a smile. A couple of these use parody with uneven results. "Out West" pokes fun at the Western, and the humor actually gets pretty black. "Moonshine" has the weirdest title cards I've ever seen, ones that break the fourth wall and continually remind the audience that they're watching a movie. John Coogan, father of Chaplin's The Kid's kid Jackie Coogan, plays a policeman in The Hayseed. There probably aren't a lot of people to whom I'd recommend these, but I do have a second volume I'll get around to watching some time.

The Gold Rush (again)

1925 movie

Rating: 19/20

Plot: Same as it was the last time I wrote about this movie.

Here's the deal. Friday was a wasteful party day at my school, and my team decided to show the students a movie. It was decided that the team would watch Old Dogs, the classic film featuring the comedic stylings of Robin Williams and John Travolta. I protested mightily, not because I didn't think my students would enjoy Old Dogs, but because I don't really care what my students like and didn't have any interest in watching Old Dogs. My teammates wouldn't listen to me, but I decided to bring in my own movie to show the students in my classroom. "But they'll like Old Dogs. You can't show a silent movie to them." "Yeah, they would like to eat chocolate frosting straight out the can for lunch every day--doesn't mean it's good for them." I gave the good news to my students. They groaned and whined. I told them that I was only doing it because I loved them. They reached for their weapons. I quickly started the movie. I had my students write down their ratings (figured I'd get more honest ones that way), and here's what they had to say. They'd probably better articulate their feelings about The Gold Rush if they had a better writing teacher.

Elizabeth: 17/20. It was good. Funny, interesting.
Harley: 13/20. It had a lot of comedy, but there was just too much. It had romance and little action.
Candice: 10/20. It was OK I guess. It had interesting parts.
Sean: 16/20. Narrated, would've been better if own voices
Kayla: 20/20. Unique
Jasmine: 10/20. It was okay the action wasn't that bad but we could tell it was fake.
Robin: 9/20. It was boring. Well at least to me it was. There were some funny parts here and there.
Morgan: 1/20. A waste of my time, boring. (Morgan later admitted that she rated and wrote that during the opening credits.)
Kris: 5/20. This was moderately humorous movie back in the "20's" but as times change, the hearts (?) of funny does too. It is also has no audio which means there is more showing the audience what happens rather than telling us. Overall it was an OK movie. It was better than it seemed.
James: 15/20. It was funny, and the narrator said different things than they were. (Note: Funny-looking kid.)
T. T. : 15/20. Boring, funny, good but depressing. (I can't even figure out who "T.T." is.)
DeArion: nr. DaArion snuck out of my classroom and didn't watch the movie. He apparently watched Old Dogs somewhere else.
Makaela: 5/20. It is at least a motion picture. It wasn't very interesting to me. (Note: I couldn't figure out what she meant with "It is at least a motion picture." I finally figured out that she was talking about how it was silent but at least the characters were moving.)
Brad: -20/20. (Note: This kid's a doofus. He whined loudest of all before the movie started, put his head down for a lot of the first fourth, and watched the last three-fourths with interest. I even caught him laughing.) Terrible.
Mireya: 18/20. Because you had to imagine what they were saying. It was funny because of the man. I like when the house was going to fall.
Jared: -20/20. It's retarded. It's black and white. (This kid's grade just plummeted.)
Kore: 15/20. It was funny and good. But it was boring.
Bria: 11/20. Boring.
Courtlyn: 2/20. To be honest, I hate black and white movies, and I would of liked the other movie.

I was disappointed. They watched with interest and laughed at the appropriate times. I really thought they were liking this more than they said they did. Oh, well. What should I show them next time? (Must be G or PG.)

Tillie's Punctured Romance

1914 silent comedy

Rating: 12/20

Plot: Swindling city chap Charlie elopes with farm girl Tillie in order to get at her daddy's money. They move to the city, and Charlie abandons Tillie when she gets into a little bit of trouble. Later, Tillie inherits a large chunk of money from her uncle, and Charlie has to knock her off her feet again.

This is only worth watching for historical reasons if it's worth watching at all. It's the first feature-length comedy and Chaplin's first film. Marie Dressler as Tillie, however, is really the most interesting aspect of the film. There's nothing special about what Chaplin does, the movie isn't funny at all, and it really doesn't even make much sense. Most of the comedy involves the characters kicking each other in the behind. I wish I would have counted the amount of times the characters kicked each other. I bet it was about as much as the average kung-fu movie though. Tillie's Punctured Romance failed to make me laugh; heck, it failed to make me even smile. The Birth of a Nation from 1915 might actually be funnier.

The Thief of Bagdad

1924 silent adventure movie

Rating: 15/20 (Abbey: 15/20)

Plot: Things are bad for the title thief. Poor guy can't even afford a shirt. This is the story of his quest to find a way to cover his nipples, a quest during which he must face monsters, evil princes, and a running time of almost two-and-a-half hours. Luckily, his nipples turn out to be magical, and when rubbed (only in a counterclockwise motion), magical things happen.

I'm sure I've seen other Douglas Fairbanks movies, but I don't remember him gesticulating this wildly. He really stands out in this movie, not just because he's much better looking than anybody else but because of his uncontrollable flailing and other completely unnatural movements. The most impressive thing about this version of The Thief of Bagdad is the grand set design complete with enormous doors, cavernous caverns, and ambitious palaces. The sheer size of all that is amazing. There are also some ingenious effects, especially for 1924. The monsters are fairly well done, and magic carpet/invisible cloak trickery looks good. I was most disappointed in the action sequences as I figured Fairbanks would be involved in a lot more stunts. I thought that was what he was known for. But the action sequences are few and far between, and there's such a lengthy set-up to a lot of them that it becomes frustrating. I really wish I could have just watched the highlights from The Thief of Bagdad. The camera also does very little in this movie with almost all of the action taking place from side to side which, at times, gives this about as much fluidity as a film strip. At times, I felt my eyes droop, and Abbey, although she was initially fascinated by Douglas Fairbanks' nipples, eventually lost interest. Still, future films had a lot to borrow from this early adventure movie.

Chang: A Drama in the Wilderness

1927 nature documentary

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 13/20)

Plot: A couple guys who would later go on to make a little movie called King Kong film jungle inhabitants (Kru and his family) in Siam. Their struggle for survival is threatened by leopards, tigers, and thousands of elephants. Luckily, mankind is smart and therefore always comes out on top in conflicts with nature.

Chang has a lot in common with Nanook. They're both adventure/survival documentaries taking place in lands the audiences would have no chance of visiting. They're both anthropological studies. They both contain some stunning footage of what man has to do in order to survive in the wild. However, there are some key differences. For one, Chang is made by actual filmmakers, so the shots, especially of the animals, are a lot better. There's really some excellent footage of jungle life in this, some which looks like it might have even been dangerous to capture. There are also more characters in Chang and, from the middle point on, more of a story. The way we see the animals is also completely different. In Nanook, the animals are nothing more than potential food. When the animals are on the screen, the focus is still on the human characters and what they're doing. In Chang, the animals are shown being animals, and it's amazing how some of them (monkeys mostly) even have some personality. I also think Chang is more entertaining than Nanook. Not a moment in this one drags and the scenes in which jungle folk tackle every day tasks don't get boring because not every single minute of those every day tasks are shown. I especially liked watching them construct booby traps. This probably can't be considered a true documentary because a large percentage of the scenes were obviously staged. It's almost like hours and hours of footage was shot and then reassembled as a story. But it's very well done and definitely worth seeing as both an early documentary and a prelude to King Kong.

Jen laughed uproariously several times while watching this and seemed especially entertained by a monkey. She also rooted for the elephants during the climactic elephant stampede scene. She didn't seem to like this very much but told me she had to bump it up a few points because it was really good for the 1950s. I'm not sure, but she might have been drunk again.

For Heaven's Sake

1926 comedy

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Uptown rich kid Harold falls in love with downtown preacher's daughter Hope. When he accidentally becomes a philanthroper, he wins her affection; however, his rich peers aren't happy to hear he's marrying the girl.

Some great stunts, not all of them provided by Lloyd himself, and some hilarious visual gags make this quick little comedy another winner from Harold Lloyd. This has a fun cast of quirky characters, all of them more interesting than the romance at the heart of the story. I loved the little reverse chase scene (for lack of a better description) in which Lloyd's character angers the town's riffraff so that they'll chase him into a church service, and like in Speedy, there's some very exciting and well-choreographed vehicular mayhem at the end. And just like in Speedy, I'm amazed at the special effects, the pacing, and just the ambition of the grand race-against-the-clock scenes. It really looks as if people could have been killed. There's also a funny fight scene, a great scene where he has to round up drunkards, and some other funny bits involving Harold's absentmindedness/aloofness. Lots to like in this one.

Buster Keaton Saturday: Battling Butler + extras

1926 romantic comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: Alfred Butler, a pampered rich boy, decides to toughen up by living out in the wild with his valet manservant. While there, he's smitten by a wilderness girl. Her brother and uncle (dad and grandfather? cousin and brother?) rightfully suspect that he's nothing more than an effeminate weakling and do not approve. That is until they mistakenly think he's Battling Butler, a champion boxer. Alfred does nothing to convince them otherwise and eventually finds himself in a situation where he meets the real Battling Butler face to face.

This has its moments. The finale is kind of neat and the first half of the film, where Butler and his valet (played by the hilarious Snitz Edwards) "brave the elements" is pretty funny. Once Buster becomes a boxer, however, it's just not as much fun, and it leads up to a climax that is really un-Busterlike. There's a lot stretched into a full-length feature film, and there's nothing resembling a classic Buster Keaton moment here. It does have an interesting story and for the most part is paced fairly well.

I also watched "The Boat" from 1921 (not to be confused with Das Boot) and "The Frozen North" from 1922. "The Boat" is a classic and has a lot of memorable scenes. My step-father laughed uproariously at a scene involving an anchor. It's a funny little movie. "The Frozen North" is not a complete film (at least my version wasn't), but it's an odd little surreal and slightly entertaining story. Keaton is apparently parodying contemporary films with this, and I think a lot of the humor is lost without the context. There are some interesting moments though, including the strangest dogsled you'll ever see. Keaton does play a mean character in this one. He robs and kills. My original plan was to force my parents to watch "The Boat" and The Navigator, but my children turned it into an all-request Buster Keaton Saturday and we ended up watching a bunch of shorts we've previously seen.