Formative Experience: First Movie Scare

How does someone become a movie freak?  These are the formative experiences and moments of one cinephile.

The six-year-old me just went into the fetal position

This being Halloween, it seemed a good place to start with this feature was my first movie scare.  I was young (probably 5 or 6 years old) and we were driving back from a family party.  Being a child, I fell asleep in the back seat which meant I was on the receiving end of one of those cherished childhood memories: your father carrying you from the car to your bed.  There was always something very comforting and safe about those moments.

We walked into our house in Philadelphia.  My mom had gone ahead and turned on the lights and television so my half-asleep brain looked over at the screen.

There was a ethereal, demonic spirit with a booming voice surrounded by fire and smoke. The apparition was threatening a group of people gathered in front of it.  It was the most terrifying image my still young mind had ever seen.

Yes, I had just woke up in the middle of The Wizard of Oz (1939).  Dorothy and her fellowship were meeting the wizard for the first time in his throne room.

Of course, I did not know that at the time.  I lost it. I started screaming and crying.  My dad quickly brought me up to my room and I settled down.  My brain remains convinced the episode lasted ten minutes when I am sure in effect it was more like thirty seconds.

For years after that, I avoided The Wizard of Oz like the plague.  No one could convince me this movie was not about demons born in the fires of hell.  When I finally did see it, I was convinced it was not the same movie that I saw as a younger child.  How could it be?  The movie I saw featured the spawn of Satan surrounded by the flames of the underworld.  Now, I was seeing a floating head in a glass orb surrounded by colored lights and fog machines.

Memory is a funny thing.  Walking into that living room and seeing the all-powerful Oz for the first time remains the most terrifying moment any movie has ever given me.  Over time, my neurons fired to make the experience even scarier.  When I finally saw the entire movie, I could not connect the image in my brain to what was on my screen.  And the Wicked Witch of the West was much more frightening than Oz could ever hope to be.

What was your first memory of being scared by a movie?

Read More

1919: Artists of Hollywood... Unite!

The founders of United Artists

We are reaching the end of decade number one for the site and it's another year of changes for film.  The biggest film stars in the world, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith and Douglas Fairbanks (note to self: still need to watch some Douglas Fairbanks' films), form their own studio to exercise more creative control (and receive more profits).  The name of the studio is United Artists, a title still with us today as a subsidiary of MGM.

Animation also starts to become a more serious effort.  Two unknown animators named Ub Iweks and Walt Disney formed Disney-Iwerks Commercial Artists.  Max Fleischer premiered Koko the Clown as part of the Out of the Inkwell series.  And the Felix the Cat cartoons debuted.

Comedian Harold Lloyd introduced one of the more regrettable practices in Hollywood: the test screening.  Love how every film panders to the broadest possible audience?  Thanks Harold Lloyd!

As far as our film viewing, 1918 proved to be an invigorating year.  The Blue Bird, The Bell Boy, Shoulder Arms, The Sinking of the Lusitania... all of them were great.  I spent more viewing hours than normal in that year, but it was time well spent.

What are we watching in 1919?  Broken Blossoms, another D.W. Griffith film (that I mistakenly thought was released in 1918) will definitely be on the list.  The one I am crazy excited for is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a very influential German expressionist film.  Both are available through Netflix Watch Instantly.  I will also be watching Daddy Long Legs, Mary Pickford's first production credit.

Read More

Stella Maris (1918)

Stella and her cousin... in love....

Directed by Marshall Neilan
Starring Mary Pickford, Conway Tearle, Marcia Manon
Produced by Pickford Film

Young Stella Maris is a paralyzed girl, living an idyllic life.  She is doted on by her aunt and uncle, blushes as her handsome cousin John visits her kingdom and is attended by children dancing around a maypole and presenting tributes of flowers.  Her family has shielded her from every misery the world offers and she lives in ignorant bliss.

Of course, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  And the world is trying to balance the scales with Unity Blake.  Unity is an orphan living a hard life.  She thinks her luck is about to change when she is adopted by a young woman.  Of course, the adoptive mother is an alcoholic tyrant and, after Unity is robbed, the woman beats her ward to within an inch of her life.

The woman goes to prison and the woman's husband turns out to be John, the very man who is in love with Stella Maris.  John takes Unity as his own to make amends for his wife's deeds.  Stella is given an operation that allows her to walk and she is soon witnessing every horror life has to offer.  Stella and Unity's lives are on a collision course that will change them both forever.  But who can win the hand of John?

Let's start with the good great.  Mary Pickford plays both Stella and Unity.  Stella is basically the same Mary Pickford character we see in all of her films. The blond curls.  The seemingly perpetual smile.  Classic Pickford.

For Unity, she transforms into Stella's opposite.  She has black, flat hair.  She walks with an awkward gait and her face is unremarkable.  Through special effects, Pickford portrays both characters simultaneously and her Unity is almost a foot shorter than Stella.  She is so good, I would have never guessed it was the same actress.  An absolutely amazing job.

Neilan does a fantastic job directing.  He seems amongst the best at understanding the film grammar created by D.W. Griffith and knows how to cut and edit scenes and when to move in for a close-up.  The ending shot is a dramatic pull away that is obviously on a vehicle (there's some bouncing), but it is still the right way to end the movie dramatically.  Neilan is very good at walking the viewer through the story.

Unfortunately, the story is my big problem with this.  It's all soap opera and melodrama.  I never really cared about the plight of any of these characters.  Every person is one-dimensional and makes broad pronouncements that are not even questioned.  At one point, after his wife is improsoned John wants to leave London. Stella's family says he cannot go because it would break Stella's heart.  John stares and sadly nods his head.  There is a lot of John doing the classic soap opera stare off camera in this film.

And John's wife? Evil for sake of being evil. If she had a moustache, she would be twirling it.  She wants to destroy Unity.  And John.  And Stella.  Why?  Because she's evil.  Period.

The movie is a series of soap opera cliches.  A man who is married to an evil shrew, but in love with the beautiful young maiden.  The put-upon orphan who cannot catch a break.  The magical appearance of a doctor with a miracle cure.  John keeping his marriage a secret so as not to hurt Stella (gee, do you think she finds out anyway?).

The one last large problem for me watching this was the relationship between John and Stella.  He looks like he's in his 40s and she looks 17.  John's evil wife looks like she's in her 30s.  Pickford looks and plays roles that make her look young so to see this seemingly much older man with this really young girl feels creepy.  And then when you remember that they are actually cousins?  Ugh.

It's a shame too because Neilan and Pickford have clearly brought their A game to the film.  Pickford's Unity is a marvel to behold when compared against her Stella. Ultimately, having her talent in service of this story is like asking Frank Owen Gehry build a Jenga tower: it may look nice, but it's a waste of a consummate professional's time.

** out of *****

Watched on DVD through Netflix
Photo from Observations on Film Art

Read More

Time Traveler Cannot Resist Chaplin Premiere?

Our mission statement here at 100 Years is bringing a modern eye to the last century of cinema, so this definitely fits with that theme.  I cannot speak to the veracity of this, but found it completely arresting.  The video below purports to show that a woman at the 1920 premiere of Charlie Chaplin's The Circus is talking on a cell phone-like device.  The actual footage starts at about the 2:30 mark.  Fake footage? Woman scratching her head while talking to herself?  Or is she in communication with the mothership?  You decide...

Read More

Another Look at... The Blue Bird (1918)

The Blue Bird (1918) is the first of the 100 Years movies I watched with my children.  My eight-year old watched the entire film, while my six-year old only watched the last half hour.

The movie is basically a children's story so I thought this would be a good initial film to introduce them to the silent era.  And it did not disappoint.  My older child watched with rapt attention throughout.  It took longer for the younger one, but she started asking about the title cards and soon she was enveloped by the story.

The only touchy moment was the scene where the two leads meet their dead brothers and sisters.  It took a moment, but my son spoke up.

"Wait, they're dead?"

"Yes."

"Oh.  The baby too?"

"Yes, but they are all happy together."

"Okay."

When they got to the Kingdom of the Future, he asked why they weren't more kids.  His theory was if that were all of the children yet to be born, there should be a LOT more.  Can't argue with that. 

They understood the film and the ultimate message (Fairly obvious, but I won't spoil it here.)

For fun, here are my tweets during the film (found at 100yearsofmovie):

• Watching 1918's The Blue Bird with my 8-year-old. Should be interesting. 8:26 PM Oct 22nd via web
• From the 8-year-old pre-credits: "I like movies a lot better when they actually talk" 8:27 PM Oct 22nd via web 
• Four minutes in: "These don't look like very fun times." 8:30 PM Oct 22nd via web 
• Laughter when Tyltyl says that bread might have a soul. The character is mocking his mom. 8:35 PM Oct 22nd via web
• 8-year-old: "Man, that's a big thing of sugar." 8:36 PM Oct 22nd via web 
• The dog saves Tyltyl. Eight-year-old yells: "Karate dog!" 9:05 PM Oct 22nd via web  
• A scene where the kids meet children yet to be born. My son is questioning the mechanics of this. 9:30 PM Oct 22nd via web  
• Final verdict: both the eight and six year-old liked it. The 2-1/2 year-old? Snoring. 10:04 PM Oct 22nd via web  

Read More

The Blue Bird (1918)

Directed by Maurice Tourneur
Starring Tula Belle, Robin Macdougall, Lillian Cook, Edwin E. Reed
Produced by Famous Players-Lasky Corporation

Tyltyl and Mytyl do not have an easy life.  There's not enough bread to go around.  Their mother and father are constantly working.  Still, they are bright-eyed and smiling as they play with their dog and cat.  And the small blue bird in their cage brings them some joy.

A poor neighbor asks to borrow the bird to bring to her sick daughter, but Mytyl cannot bear to part with her pet.  Later, that night they receive a visit from the neighbor.  Except now, the neighbor claims to be the fairy Berylune.  The visitor wants the children to seek the legendary Bluebird of Happiness.

As on any quest, the kids receive some help.  Instead of ruby slippers or the One Ring, Berylune gives Tyltyl a magic hat.  A turn of the diamond on the brim and the kids can see the souls of things.  Soon, the children are surrounded by the spirits of fire, water, bread, even their dog and cat.  Off the group goes to seek the bluebird, traveling to the Palace of Night and the Kingdom of the Future.  Can they find the fabled bird?  Or will their own cat be successful in destroying their plans?

This is a gorgeous film that sneaks up on you.  The opening fifteen minutes focus on the relatively mundane lives of the children.  It's engaging and well-filmed with all of the techniques we have seen over the decade (the editing pioneered by D.W. Griffith, close-ups).  The scenes are of a family dealing with routines we would all recognize: preparing dinner, playing with the dog, cleaning up the scarf left on the floor.

Then, the fairy arrives.

The fantastic world that comes to life relies on a lot of stage techniques.  But Tourneur has a cinematic eye and it never feels like a play.  The fire spirit is a dancer in an inventive costume.  The bread comes sliding from the oven and stretches its arms and legs.  A stream of water unfolds to reveal a woman.  All through elaborate costumes one might find on the stage, but the editing makes it a film.

Other touches are achieved through more traditional cinematic effects.  Clothes leap onto a child through reversed film stock.  A loaf of sugar turns into a man through a simple dissolve.  Tricks of light reveal mood and hidden lands.  All set against surreal backgrounds that help complete the effect.

There are elements that will hit the modern audience in a strange way.  The children visit their deceased grandparents.  Then they ask about their brothers and sisters.  Seven (yes, seven) children including a baby descend the stairs.  There is a really high mortality rate in their village.

There are also some beautiful ideas in the story.  The Palace of Happiness is filled with joys and luxuries, but the highest of all is maternal joy.  When they meet the spirit of motherhood, the kids are overcome and reminded not to forget this feeling when they see their mother in rags.

The Kingdom of the Future is the playground of a of the children yet to be born.  The children meet a future sibling.  They also see two children who are inseparable; they are soulmates.  When one is taken to be born, they resolve to find each other as they live their lives.  What a great concept for married couples.

This is a beautiful film. Of course it is dated, but it features incredible imagery and wonderful performances by the children.  My only surprise is there has not been an update in the last few years.  I can easily imagine an adventure film or an animated tale centered on this story.

**** out of *****

Update: I posted a brief write-up on watching this with my children.

Watched on DVD through Netflix
Photos from The Obscure Hollow

Read More

Are Crooks Dishonest? (1918)

Directed by Gilbert Pratt
Starring Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Snub Pollard
Produced by Rolin Films

A couple running a fake seance business decide to take a break in the park after one particularly "fruitful" day.  There, they meet up with a couple of con artists who are running a scam involving a lost ring.  While most people have seen it all before, the woman running the seances has seen it all before and easily turns the tables on the pair.  But when they end up taking refuge at her business, will they manage to con the con artist?

Here's a Harold Lloyd short and it's another very straight-forward tale.  While Lloyd get the top billing it really is Lloyd, Bebe Daniels and Snub Pollard all playing equal roles.  Also, unlike a lot of comedies we have reviewed here, Are Crooks Dishonest? relies more on situational humor and sight gags than the physical comedy of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton.

But was it funny?  Not really.  It's amusing in parts, particularly when the crooks hide out at Daniels business, but it's never laugh-out-loud funny.  A lot of screen time is taken up by Lloyd running his scam repeatedly on people in the park and, even if you though it clever the first time, by the sixth time you're waiting for the plot to move along. 

The con itself will be familiar to modern audiences.  Pollard loses a valuable ring and enlists the victim's help to find it.  Lloyd comes along and finds the ring.  The victim, thing the ring is worth something, offers to buy it.  Lloyd gets paid off and the victim of the hoax is left with a ring from "Phoney Jewelry Company."

If one wants to take the film as a commentary on the times, it's an argument that everyone is a crook.  The crooks attempt the scam on a half dozen or more people, always with the same result.  Those being scammed only fall victim because they are trying to steal the ring themselves.  And not one person fails to fall victim until Daniels' character comes along.  And she doesn't fall victim only so she can con the crooks out of the money they just stole.  Are crooks dishonest?  Is everyone dishonest?  Is everyone a crook?

At the end of the day, Are Crooks Dishonest? is average. It's a nice diversion that may make you smile in parts and its brevity is a virtue.  I prefer Chaplin and Keaton's work to this.

** out of *****

Watched on YouTube
NOTE: Photo upload is not working.  Hopefully it is fixed for my next post.

Read More

Another View of... 1918

A look at other sites' takes on the "current" year.

Shoulder Arms by Silent Volume
Chris Edwards get the context of these movies in a way a newbie like me never could.  His review of Shoulder Arms is great, balancing his views of the film as a work of art unto itself and a reflection of the time in which it was made.  I love Edwards' writing and this is a great example.[My review]

1918 by Sequential Viewing Unit
SVU (get it?) looks at Shoulder Arms, Tarzan of the Apes, and The Bellboy in its 1918 review.  They approach the movies with a healthy does of humor.  They liked Chaplin and Arbuckle, but relegated Tarzan to the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.

Tarzan of the Apes by The Long Saturday of the Soul
Long Saturday's review compares the film to his recollection of Edgar Rice Burrough's novels.  The comparison is not favorable. [My review]

The Sinking of the Lusitania by Spectacular Attractions
Writer Dan North does a great job of placing the Lusitania, Winsor McCay and the film all in historical context.  A great read even if you have no interest in the short. [My review]

Stella Maris by Cosmic Film Trigger
Have not gotten to this film yet, but Cosmic Film Trigger's write up has me excited to get to this one.

Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley by Films of Yesterday
Jennifer does not seem to have enjoyed this one as much as me, but we both ended up at ***1/2 stars as the rating. [My review]

Read More

The Dream (1911)

Dream or no dream?  It's not Inception

Directed by Thomas H. Ince, George Loane Tucker
Starring Mary Pickford, Owen Moore, William Robert Daly
Produced by Independent Moving Pictures Company of America

The Dream is a simple short film about a carousing husband who comes home and verbally abuses his wife while throwing the carefully prepared dinner about.  He falls asleep on the couch and wakes to find his wife has become a lot like... well, him.  She rips curtains, tears into him and heads out for a night on the town.  The husband, despondent at this turn of events, ultimately shoots himself in the belly and collapses.  But did it all actually happen?  Or was it simply... you read the title of this movie, right?

Another very simple tale starring Mary Pickford.  She's very good in the dual role as the put-upon wife and the vampish dream girl.  On the other hand, Owen Moore chews the scenery like it was dipped in hot fudge.  It's a bizarre dichotomy between the two.

This is a 1911 film, which means we are back to the time of camera set up in front of a set with no movement or editing.  The film looks like someone set up the camera at a play and walked away.  This, of course, makes sense for the time, but won't be engaging for modern audiences.

The only interesting aspect of the film is how it mirrored real life.  Pickford and Moore were secretly married this year and their relationship was much like that shown in the first act of the film.  The movie was reportedly written by Pickford.  Is it autobiographical?  Seems odd that Moore would participate in such an exercise.  If it is, the end may be a bit of Pickford's hope for the future.  A hope that didn't come to fruition as they divorced nine years later.

** of *****

Watched on DVD through NetFlix
Photo from Silent Volume

Note: Yes, I know this one is way out of order.  It was featured as an extra on Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley.  I've gotten into Pickford's work and could not resist.

Read More

Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley (1918)

Upper crust meets hard-working Irish

Directedby Marshall Neilan
Starring Mary Pickford, William Scott, Kate Price, Ida Waterman
Produced by Mary Pickford Company

Amarilly of Clothes-Line Alley follows the adventures of our title character (Pickford) as she is torn between two worlds.  Amarilly is a poor girl working to clean up a theater to help support her mother and four brothers.  When she is unjustly blamed for a fire at the theater and fired, her bartender boyfriend gets her a job selling cigarettes at his club.  A wealthy socialite visits the establishment and, after flirting with Amarilly, he gets involved in a brawl.  Amarilly takes care of the injured, rich man and begins working for him.  But the socialite's mother sees an experiment in the young woman.  And Clothes-Line Alley is abuzz that Amarilly has a new love.  Can Amarilly become a refined young debutante?  Does she even want to?

This is a classic fish-out-of-water story that plays out (for the most part) in a predictable way.  However, a couple of things elevate this one above your typical movie of this era.  First, Neilan's direction is great throughout.  He intercuts long shots and close-ups with the medium shots that were the staple of the silent era.  More than that, the way the edits happen within scenes, from one actor to another, from medium shot to close-up serve the story perfectly.

The direction never draws attention to itself, but Neilan knows how to frame his shots and knows how to use lighting.  I particularly love the shot of Amarilly in the alley after being fired.  She is seen in silhouhette and the image perfectly captures the mood of the film.

The only special effect in the movie is Pickford.  She is predictably brilliant in her role and Neilan is smart enough to showcase her. He often goes to close-ups of her expressive face and you always can see what's going through her head.  I loved her reaction shots to the brawl in the bar and her sadness as she deals with the climactic collision of her rough and tumble family and her socialite employer.

The other notable performance for me was Kate Price as Amarilly's mom.  She's right from central casting as a tough-as-nails Irish woman and is fantastic in the role.  There's a scene where she admonishes one of her sons for not standing up to a bully, then cheers him on as he fights the other boy.  Perfect.

The biggest issue with the movie is the story itself.  As I said, you've seen this before and basically know where it is going.  The movie is a set up to admonish the attitudes of the rich and praise the virtue of the poor and it carries its mission out according to the Pygmalion playbook.  You know the ending within ten minutes.

That said, there are two moments that bug me in particular.  First, it is clear that the socialite and Amarilly become involved at some point, but you never see it.  At first, their "relationship" is a misunderstanding that stems from the ramblings of the neighborhood gossip.  Then, the film jumps ahead in time and they seem together, although that is never 100 percent clear.  A scene or even a couple of lines there would have helped.

SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE MOVIE!  Second, the end sequence is about the most random scene possible.  Amarilly has reconciled with the bartender.  He picks up flowers and is walking to her apartment where she is preparing dinner.  The neighborhood gossip finds a gun on the ground and as he examines it, the weapon goes off and shoots the bartender in the back.  He then stumbles down the street, up two flights of stairs and collapses on Amarilly's dining room table.  She comes to his aid, gets a doctor and then he's fine.

What was the point of this scene?  Did they have to fill out more time on the reel?  Was Neilan contractually obligated to deliver a movie that was over an hour?  Did they want to showcase William Scott's terrible acting as the bartender?  I mean, he either was shot in the back or has an itch he can't reach.  You'd never know it based on his face.  He survives the wound and he and Amarilly end up together.  But they were going to end up together anyway, right?  Just bizarre.

It's an unfortunate end to an otherwise solid movie.  On the whole, I recommend it.

***1/2 out of *****

Watched on DVD through NetFlix
Photo from Silent Era

Read More

I'm now a LAMB... Let's spread some love!

100 Years of Movies is now listed on the Large Association of Movie Blogs (LAMB).  For those not familiar, LAMB is an on-line community of writers who specialize in my favorite topic.  As you'd expect, there are quite a few of them, but the way the blog organizes content helps keep you up-to-date.  Some features worth noting:

Classic Chops - Obviously of interest to me as it focuses on movies made before 1965.  Classic Chops is a weekly roundup of LAMB member posts on classic films.  At the rate I am going, I'll be following Classic Chops for the next two-and-a half years.

LAMBcast - I'm an addict when it comes to television and film podcasts and have found a place for this one in my rotation.  They typically focus on one or two reviews of new releases, provide an in-depth critique of one of the LAMB's member blogs, and play a game amongst the hosts at the end.

Bloody Chops - I find myself for the most part surrounded by people who hate the horror genre. Me?  I love well done horror movies (though I hate that the Saw and Hostel approaches to horror are now financially trumping awesome movies like Drag Me to Hell).  This weekly feature highlights posts from member blogs and helps satiate my bloodlust.

I'm excited to be part of the larger community there.  Over time, I'm sure I plan to use the site to provide additional content to followers here (i.e., I will mercilessly rip off other people's work to generate more posts).

Read More

Just Rambling Along (1918)

The police prefer child thieves over adult ones

Directed by Hal Roach
Starring Stan Laurel, Clarine Seymour, Noah Young
Produced by Rolin Films

Have you ever listened to a band on the radio and thought "They sound like my favorite band, but they're missing some of the soul."?  No matter how hard they try to sound like the Rolling Stones, U2, [your name here], they just miss that bit of originality that makes the great bands great.

That's how I felt watching this.

Stan Laurel is the star, but he seems focused on doing a Charlie Chaplin impression.  He has the baggy pants.  He has the facial expressions.  He has the fidgeting with his hat.

But somehow, it just never all comes together.

The story (as in many comedy shorts) is inconsequential.  Laurel and a boy notice an abandoned wallet full of money.  The man attempts to take the wallet, but thinks better of it when the boy's policeman father intervenes.  Laurel then follows a woman into a restaurant with a dozen other potential suitors,but is quickly evicted when he cannot produce any money.  Soon, he is back to tricking the boy out of a little change so he can woo his dream girl.

The story is designed to get Laurel from gag to gag, but he never inhabits the space in between. He just moves from one set-up to another, never engaging with the tale or the other actors.  There's a moment where a waiter is insistent on taking his hat that made me smile, but other than that, there's not a laugh to be found.

Worse, Laurel is completely unsympathetic.  He impersonates a robber to steal money from a young boy at faux gunpoint.  He steals food from the restaurant when the chef's back is turned and asks to sample meals he has no intention of buying.  Contrast this with the numerous films that find Chaplin considering stealing from the collection plate, but never following through.  For someone determined to imitate Chaplin, he seems to have completely missed the character's appeal.

Laurel here has not found his own voice.  He's aping a better comedian and not doing a great job of it. The film is mercifully short (less than 10 minutes), but even at that length I can't recommend to any but a Laurel and Hardy completist.

Watched on YouTube

Read More

The Bell Boy (1918)

Directed by Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle
Starring Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, Buster Keaton, Al St. John
Produced by Comique Film Company

The Bell Boy is another collaboration between Arbuckle's acknowledge comedic powerhouse and Keaton's quickly rising star.  Unlike The Butcher Boy, Keaton here plays a role of almost equal stature to Arbuckle.  The movie follows the daily grind at the Elk's Head Hotel, featuring "third-rate service at first-class prices."  Arbuckle and Keaton play bell boys at the establishment and have a difficult time keeping out of trouble with the boss and the guests.  The hotel features a large, stuffed elk's head and an elevator powered by a stubborn horse. Does hilarity ensue?  I think you know it does.

Arbuckle and Keaton are great together throughout, though modern audiences will see some of the punchlines coming a mile away.  There's a small moment with Keaton cleaning a glass window.  The camera lingered on the scene long enough that you'll figure out where it's going before it gets there.

There are two very funny and inventive scenes during the movie.  First, Arbuckle, who also serves as the hotel barber, receives a customer in the form of a large, frightening man.  He proceeds to give him a trim that turns him into Ulysses Grant, Abraham Lincoln and Kaiser Wilhelm.  The way the scene plays is a lot of fun though I do wish they would have changed camera positions to enhance the struggles Arbuckle's victim was going through.

The climax of the movie involves Arbuckle's plan to impress a woman by stopping a fake bank robbery committed by Keaton.  The plans go awry when real bank robbers appear on the scene.  The entire sequence is clever and really highlights the agility and timing of Arbuckle, St. John and especially Keaton.  The way Buster vaults over and through the bank walls is jaw-dropping in its simplicity and skill.

On the whole, this is a slight comedy, but still very well done. Sure, there are moments that feel dated (Keaton bouncing up and down on a wooden plank, I am looking at you), but the small moments made me lagh more than the big set pieces.  It's not as great as Chaplin's work to this date, but I'm anxious to see Keaton's later stuff once he breaks from Arbuckle.

Watched on IMDB
Photo from Dr. Macro

Read More

Shoulder Arms (1918)

Chaplin prepares to go over the top

Another year, another Chaplin film.  This time it is Shoulder Arms, which puts Chaplin in the U.S. Army fighting during World War I.  After a brief intro of Charlie as an inept private during boot camp, we leap to his arrival at the trenches of Europe.  We follow our hero through a series of vignettes as he dons a gas mask and attacks the enemy with limberger cheese, single-handedly surrounds a dozen enemy soldiers and ultimately captures the kaiser.  Along the way he demonstrates loyalty, ingenuity and sheer audacity in his approach to war.  But how could this inept private mold himself into a model soldier?

Shoulder Arms manages one of the trickiest thematic juggling acts I have ever seen on screen.  Chaplin simultaneously gives us a propaganda film, a look into the monotony of a soldier's life on the battlefield and a great comedy.  The German soldiers are completely inept throughout and Charlie always has the upper hand.  He manages to find the comedy in the U.S. trenches without ever making fun of the soldiers.  The only critique I have is that the movie seems to build to the middle section while the final resolution of the tale is not particularly thrilling or funny in comparison.

That is a minor quibble. This has one of the funniest, most effective visual gags I have seen with Chaplin disguising himself as a tree to infiltrate enemy lines.  There are moments when you absolutely cannot spot the disguised hero and the camouflage is completely effective.  At one point, they show you where he hides, cut away for a moment and he is almost impossible to spot when the camera returns.


Beyond this, there is the aforementioned Limburger cheese gag as well as a sequence in which the trench floods and Chaplin must sleep in a bed that is a foot underwater.  He manages to show the travails of the soldier without ever minimizing the hardships the men endured.  Brilliant.

Another great aspect of the movie: my 8-year-old watched over half of it with me and there was a lot of laughter.  He loved the tree disguise.  There's an extended cat-and-mouse game in a bombed out home that he also laughed throughout.  It's fun to introduce these movies to the younger set.

The recurring theme for my Chaplin experience thus far?  This movie is better than his previous ones.  It's great fun to continue to watch him grow and improve as an artist.  Definitely recommend.

Watched on IMDB
Photo from Clown Ministry

Read More

Tarzan of the Apes (1918)

Ladies and gents, I give you... Tarzan?

Directed by Scott Sidney
Starring Elmo Lincoln, Enid Markey, True Boardman, Kathleen Kirkham
Produced by National Film Corporation of America

Memory is a funny thing.

I spent many Saturdays during my childhood watching old Tarzan movies.  I watched Johnny Weissmuller the most, but I know I saw others as well.  I loved the adventures of Tarzan, Jane and Cheeta.

The thing is, I never started watching at the beginning.  I turned on the 13-inch TV in the kitchen and there would be the familiar scenes, but I never knew which movie I was watching and usually I was just seeing a few scenes and turning it off before the end.  The result?  I have a strangely stitched together narrative of who Tarzan is.  I've never taken the time to revisit, but I'm hoping to finally straighten my brain out through this marathon.

All that as introduction to Tarzan of the Apes, a film I am 99 percent sure I have never seen one second of.

The tale is familiar to anyone with a passing knowledge of the stories.  Lord and Lady Greystoke are sailing to Africa when mutineers on their ship strand them on the shores of a jungle.  Lady Greystoke gives birth to a young boy, but dies shortly after.  Lord Greystoke is then killed by Kerchak the ape and his mate Kala, having just lost a child, adopts the human baby as her own.  Tarzan is raised as an apeman, and becomes a feared hunter in his tribe of primates. Eventually, an expedition from his home country arrives to search for Tarzan and our hero becomes smitten with the young Jane Porter.

The first half of this movie is great.  The young Tarzan (portrayed by Gordon Griffith) has adventures with the other apes, discovers his parents' cabin and a knife (his signature weapon) and fights off a gorilla.  Griffith's face is filled with curiosity and enthusiasm. You completely buy him as the young feral child.

The apes here are good as well.  They are obviously people in suits, but the costumes are detailed and the age of the film helps sell the effect.

And then the older Tarzan (Elmo Lincoln) enters the picture.  And the film goes off the rails.

I can suspend disbelief as well as the next guy.  But Lincoln does not look like a Tarzan.  He looks like an extra from National Lampoon's Animal House.  When he gives his big, bug-eyed look at something, he looks like John Belushi.  If it were just a matter of him not having the slim build modern audiences associate with the legend, I could get past it.  But his acting is so over the top and so incongruent with Griffith's performance, it just does not make sense.  This may have worked for audiences at the time, but it just took me out of the film.

Which is a shame because there is a lot to like here.  My jumbled memories of the later Tarzan movies alaways strike me as clearly being filmed on a set.  Here, the locations in Louisiana they chose to shoot this provide an very believable and lush backdrop for the story.  And they populated that jungle with images of lions, apes, snakes and crocodiles which must have been fantastic to the audiences of the time.

And then this overacting frat brother lumbers into the frame and destroys the illusion.  By the time he and Jane fall in love, Lincoln, with his eyes popping out of his head and a strange head band, looks completely deranged.  I can't believe Jane would be doing anything but racing in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

Even excusing the casting, some of the action set pieces are nonsensical.  At one point, Tarzan is chasing a native through the jungle who just killed his adoptive mother.  The native is limping with an injured leg and the hero is leaping through the trees.Yet Tarzan cannot catch up.  He only finds the native because he stopped to set up a poorly conceived trap.  Tarzan can't catch a hobbled native?  Really?  Then, upon seeing the native lying in wait, Lincoln does this overacting pantomime to the camera to show that he sees him.  Tarzan is a wild beast.  His mom was just killed.  But Lincoln thinks he would take a moment to milk the hilarity of the situation as opposed to charging in and ripping the killer's head off?  Again, really?

Ultimately, this is half of a great movie.  And half of a laughable one.  It's disappointing.  I was looking forward to this one.  

Watched on YouTube
Photo from Hollywoodland

Random fact:  There is a fight scene with a lion that happens too fast to really be worthy of note except to point out that the crew apparently filmed an old, drugged lion and then killed him off-screen so they could show Tarzan delivering the death blows to the animal.  You know that line in the credits that says no animals were harmed during filming?  You won't find that here.

Read More