Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life (1925)

Put it on a postcard

Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack

Produced by Paramount Pictures 

Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life is a great movie. 
 
I feel like I need to get that out of the way up front.  See, it's a silent documentary.  It's hard enough to get people interested in documentaries.  Add the word "silent" and you may as well be spraying mace in their face while dropping a safe on their foot.  But there is a great argument against that line of thinking.  And that argument is: Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life. 
 
The film is about Bakhtiari tribe in then-Persia (northern Iran today) as they make one of their twice-a-year migrations over a harsh wilderness to find grazing fields for the livestock. They migration includes over fifty thousand people and a half a million animals.
 
Within the last century, during a time when my grandparents were alive, during a time when people were driving cars and going to the movies, there was a tribe in the Middle East that would spend a month and a half migrating to greener pastures.  They would cross a raging river either by swimming or by floating on make-shift rafts made buoyant by inflated goat skins.  They would ascend vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high.  They would cross a snow covered mountain in bare feet.  They did all of this while carrying and dragging goats and cows.  And then they would reach their pasture land.  Not all would survive.  And a few short months later they would travel back by the same route all over again.

As a viewer, you sit there in amazement at what these people go through.  Perhaps most shocking of all is how matter-of-fact the whole affair is treated.  This is their life.  There is no moaning or groaning about how hard they have it.  They simply set out to accomplish the tasks that need to be accomplished.  The men dig trenches in the snow.  The women carry babies in baskets on their backs.  It's the way things are.

During the migration, the documentary filmmakers stay back and use title cards to either set the stage or point out details viewers might otherwise miss.  They will tell helpfully tell you to look for the woman carrying a calf on her back as she scales a mountain in the center of the frame.  The title cards substitute for voiceover or special effects that would focus your attention in the frame.

The filmmakers have a knack for knowing exactly where to point the camera.  The imagery throughout the documentary is picturesque and they take full advantage of the sprawling landscape their subjects provide them. They manage to convey both sheer scale of the endeavor and the individual travails of members of the tribe. 

The small black dots? Animals being swept down river.

There are moments that stick with me.  Calves and goats being swept down river by crushing currents.  The tribe placing a calf on a raft in the hopes that the mother will swim across after it.  The men of the tribe shedding what little footwear they have to dig a path through the snow for the rest of the barefoot tribe.   

The migration itself is the latter half of the film and by far the better part.  The first half deals with the documentary crew's travel from Angora (modern day Ankara) to the tribe.  They encounter everything from sandstorms to the local police force.  There are aspects that were interesting but you feel the filmmakers' presence more in this half. 
 
Some of the moments in the early going feel staged.  There are kids shown standing in a market who run off-camera.  Then the scene cuts to (presumably) those same children running across the path of our documentary crew.  It feels like someone is yelling "action!". 
 
We are introduced to a local constabulary and witness a "policeman's ball" that takes place at night.  We know it's night because of a blue tint on the film, but doesn't that mean it was filmed during the day and tinted?  I don't know enough about camera technologies for filming at night in the middle of the desert in the 1920s, but it seems unlikely the events transpired exactly as advertised. 
 
Even then, we get moments that tell us something we didn't know before.  For me, it's a shot of a baby on a cradle with no sides who is tied to the base of the bed.  I had never consider where a baby might sleep in a desert tribal setting. Or the scene of a hunter clutching a kite-like device with eye holes cut through it.  The mechanism is colored to camouflage him against the rocks.  How would a hunter sneak up on prey in this environment?  Again, not something you think about.
 
Grass is not a good documentary for its time; it's a good documentary for any era.  As I casually commute to work in my Honda tomorrow, the harsh life of people half a world away will be first and foremost in my mind. And that's thanks to the visuals and storytelling of Cooper and Schoedsack.
 
**** out of *****
 
NOTE: In a bizarre coincidence, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, the directors and stars of Grass, would direct King Kong eight years later.  Kong of course features animation by Willis O'Brien who played a major role in The Lost World, the previous 1925 film we reviewed.

Read More

Comparing The Lost World (1925) and King Kong (1933)

The Lost World is Willis O'Brien's first venture into feature length stop-motion animation.  He will of course create one of the most iconic "performances" on film in King Kong eight years later.  But I couldn't help but notice some eerie similarities between the films.  Did you notice:

1. Dinosaur Animation.  It's obvious, but both films feature Willis' stop-motion animation of dinosaurs.  The battles here are more abbreviated, but already the animator is imbuing his creations with personality.  See the brontosaurus' snarl as the allosaurus prepares to attack.

2. A driven self-promoter whose hubris becomes his undoing.  In The Lost World, Professor Challenger is obsessed with finding the dinosaurs to prove his value to the scientific community and then, when the opportunity presents itself, he brings one back home to London.  In King Kong, filmmaker Carl Denham is obsessed with showing the world this uncharted island, then decides to bring the ape back to New York.

3. Bringing large, untamed animals to populated areas is a bad idea.  Challenger's brontosaurus and Denham's Kong both run amuck in densely populated areas.  At least it ends better for the brontosaurus.

4. Monkeys love women.  One of the side stories in The Lost World is a monkey's devotion to our heroine Paula.  In King Kong, same thing but with a larger primate.

5. Walking across logs doesn't is not advisable.  When the fellowship in The Lost World crosses a log to enter the land of dinosaurs, one of the creatures knocks the log over, stranding the group.  In King Kong, our title ape removes a log bridging a chasm to attack the human invaders to his land.

6. Remote areas are ideal breeding grounds for monsters.  Skull Island and The Lost World's plateau both use natural elements to shield their unusual denizens from easy discovery by the outside world.

Did I miss anything?

Read More

The Lost World (1925)

Directed by Harry O. Hoyt

Starring Wallace Beery, Lewis Stone, and Bessie Love  Willis O'Brien's dinosaurs

Produced by First National Pictures

Professor Challenger has a problem.  He has traveled to the Amazon and is convinced that dinosaurs exist in the middle of uncharted territories.  No one believes him and the scientific community has made him a laughing stock.  Undeterred, he sets out to put together a new expedition to prove his findings.

Ed Malone also has a problem though his is both smaller and larger than Challenger's (after all, what's bigger than love?).  He doesn't have the eyes of the scientific community on him, but he does have Gladys.  He wants to marry her, but she puts him off.  She wants a man who has faced death and danger, and Malone's boring life as a journalist doesn't do it for her.

Malone hears of Challenger's expedition and offers to go.  He needs to prove his bravery to Gladys and maybe get the mother of all stories.  Challenger hates journalists, but agrees once Malone gets his newspaper to finance the trip.

Along for the adventure are Sir John Roxton (the famous game hunter), Professor Summerlee (one of Challenger's biggest skeptics) and Paula White.  We soon learn that the trip isn't just to reclaim Challenger's status, but also to rescue Paula's father who has been stranded on the plateau where the fierce creatures supposedly live.

Off we go on the adventure!  The group travels to the Amazon and soon comes to the plateau where Challenger's alleged dinosaurs reside.  They climb onto the plateau, but are immediately stranded there.  Will they find the fabled beasts and clear Challenger's name?  Or will they be foiled by a random, missing-link-looking guy (don't ask)?  Will Paula find her father?  And will Malone end up falling in love with the young Miss White over the course of their travels?

The Lost World has problems, serious problems, and believe me I will get there.  But first, we have to talk about what works.  

The dinosaurs.

The dinosaur portions as realized by animator Willis O'Brien are epic and gorgeous.  There is some choppy moments of animation, but the dinosaurs all have character in their movements and facial expressions that exceed even the humans (more on that later).  We have an allosaurus that attacks anything that moves.  A triceratops that protects its young.  A pterodactyl that... well, doesn't do much of anything.  And a brontosaurus that is docile unless threatened.

There are set pieces here that thrill.  The allosaurus' fight with the triceratops is fantastic.  The allosaurus' attack on the human's camp is thrilling if a bit too brief.  The dinosaurs' frantic escape from an erupting volcano near the end is exciting, but a bit disjointed.

Nothing however beats the climax.  Challenger and his crew bring a live brontosaurus back to London where things naturally go horribly wrong.  The brontosaurus rampages through the streets of the city knocking over buildings and ultimately collapsing the Tower bridge.  The animation is perfect as is the combination of the creature with the humans.

So what doesn't work?  Almost everything else.

The acting is pretty ham-fisted with the exception of Wallace Beery as Challenger.  He has one note to play, one cantankerous, arrogant note, but he nails it throughout.  The rest of the cast is bland.  When Lloyd Hughes as Malone calls Challenger to inform him the creature has escaped, he is almost emotionless.  No panic. No urgency.  He may have been going over a grocery list.

The romance between Malone and Paula almost came as a complete surprise.  They were the only main actors who seemed like they were under the age of forty, so naturally, they need to come together.  But when Malone professes his love, it's not based on anything we've seen.  Paula wisely points out that Malone has a girlfriend back home, while Malone retorts that as long as they are lost together, they can have each other.  This makes sense to Paula for some reason, but when they do escape from the plateau, they go their separate ways.  Malone back to Gladys and Paula to Roxton. 

How do Malone and Paula get together?  Turns out Gladys married while Malone was gone.  So Malone walks over to Paula and Roxton, the older man gives an "oh well" shrug and off the lovebirds go.  Silly.

The impetus for the adventure is to find Paula's father.  So naturally they find him... dead.  No real discussion about it.  Just a pile of bones and a picture of his daughter.  Again, it's unsatisfying.

There is a subplot involving a Neanderthal/missing link creature who keeps trying throw a monkeywrench into the travelers' plans.  The missing link himself is more Larry Talbot than Encino Man.  And it's not clear why he cares what is going on.  Or why he has a chimpanzee for a sidekick.

But really all this plot stuff is just a device to get us to the spectacle.  When The Lost World is dull, it is painful, but when it soars, it's epic.  

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

NOTES: Yes, that really is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle introducing the film in the beginning.

I watched the Image cut of this which runs over 90 minutes.  Apparently, there are 30 minute and 60 minute versions out there.  

I'm pretty sure this is the origin story for the Loch Ness Monster.

Read More

1925: Sit Back, Relax and Enjoy the First In-Flight Movie... About Dinosaurs Attacking Humans

Pic is actually from 1925 (with a horrible cut and paste by me)

Goodbye 1924, hello 1925!

Let's set the stage.  Calvin Coolidge takes the oath of office and becomes the first President to transmit his inauguration speech live over the radio.  3M invents scotch tape (it's designed for automobile paint jobs, but soon becomes the gift wrapping staple we know and love).  Adolf Hitler publishes Mein Kampf.  Fortunately, no one will ever listen to this guy, right?  And in monument news, Mount Rushmore is dedicated (and Alfred Hitchcock gets an idea, yay!) and the Sphinx in Egypt is opened (and gave Michael Bay an idea, boo!).

In Hollywood, the film industry is settling into a groove.  The year 1925 sees the formation of the Central Casting Corporation to supply extras for film productions.  I'm assuming that's where we get the saying "he's right out of central casting"?  Willis O'Brien provides the animation for The Lost World, a film where humans head to the Amazon to prove that dinosaurs still exist.  That same year, The Lost World is also the first in-flight movie ever shown on a London-to-Paris flight. Sci-fi disaster flick as in-flight entertainment?  Where do I sign up?

As far as movies I'll be watching, my mouth is absolutely watering at this line up.  We have the aforementioned The Lost World.  Chaplin's Gold Rush (yeah, I mistakenly said it was a 1924 film in my previous write-up).  Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera (Universal monster alert!).  Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (really cannot wait to dig into it).  Grass, a documentary about a nomadic migration (I know you are on the edge of your seat with that description, but I love documentaries).  Buster Keaton's Seven Chances.  Rudolph Valentino's The Eagle.  And that's just the stuff on Netflix Watch Instantly!  Beyond these, I'll be trying to see the original, non-chuck Heston Ben-Hur, The Black Cyclone (which, and I am not making this up, is a Western focused on a horse love triangle) and Little Annie Rooney (a Mary Pickford tale so I'm guessing I know what I'm in for already).

On paper, this is the strongest line-up of any year yet.  Can't wait to dig in!

Read More

The Saga of Gösta Berling (1924)

Directed by Mauritz Stiller
Starring Lars Hanson, Gerda Lundequist and Greta Garbo
Produced by Svensk Filmindustri

Gösta Berling, a priest in a small town, is hitting the bottle.  Hard.  A bishop hears of his antics and is dispatched to investigate.  Gösta delivers an impassioned and fiery sermon to the congregation, but follows it up with an outburst against the believers.  He is defrocked and cast out.

Alone, Gösta wanders the land until he is taken in by a countess at an estate called Borg.  The former priest begins tutoring the countess' step-daughter Ebba and the two begin to fall in love... which of course was all part of the countess' plan.  If Ebba marries a commoner, she forfeits her inheritance and the Borg estate will go to the countess' son Henrik and his new wife Elisabeth.

The countess' plot comes to light at a banquet hosted at a neighboring estate known as Ekeby.  The owners of Ekeby, a major and his wife, throw lavish affairs where their "knights" serve as entertainment.  The knights are in fact more like court jesters and entertainers.  Ebba is shocked by her step-mother's plan and a heartbroken Gösta leaves Borg to join the knights at Ekeby.

Can Gösta find love?  And what other secrets will be revealed over the course of this tale?

The Saga of Gösta Berling, like many silent dramas, is a melodrama.  The danger in melodrama is it either works or it doesn't, there is never a middle ground.  Either the actors and story draw you in enough to buy the flourishes, or it's all too over the top and calculated to ever be satisfying.

Gösta Berling works.  Better than that, it shines.

The Saga of Gösta Berling is first and foremost a tale of flawed and fallen humans, all seeking redemption.  And their penance can only come through connecting with another soul.  If Gösta can find love, he will no longer be the defrocked man of God.  Elisabeth is married, but isolated as she comes to realize her husband is someone she doesn't recognize.  For some it is too late: the major's wife gave up her love for a poor man to marry into wealth and her existence is a private hell she hides from in banquets and plays.

There is a lot to love here, but I have to start with the virtuoso directing of Mauritz Stiller.  He uses the frozen landscape of Sweden as the backdrop and it fits his story perfectly.    The film's camerawork complements its themes and does so in a series of beautiful moments.

Stiller also nails the pacing.  The film has a cadence that just pulled me through the trials and tribulations of these characters.  Just when things are slowing down, we see the next secret revealed and were right back in the middle of the action.  And when all of the character twists and turns threaten to overwhelm, we get a couple of action set pieces in the final third.

The movie opens with a scene from the middle of the tale.  The knights are enjoying their usual merriment in their barracks when Gösta calls for the 13th knight to appear.  Suddenly, a creature emerges from the fireplace and explains he can't stay long; he's here to pick up the soul of a knight.  The men look around nervously, before Gösta reveals it's a prank by removing the co-conspirator's mask.

The scene is the perfect set up for the rest of the movie.  Beyond showing us that the knights are a jovial lot, the scene sets the stakes immediately: Gösta's soul is at stake.  He's broken and needs to be reassembled or  he will find himself in hell. It's a theme repeated again and again throughout the movie.

The actors here are all good, but not great.  Lars Hanson plays Berling with a Sweeney Todd haircut and wide eyes.  All of the actors engage in some grand gestures and over-the-top moments, but there's a lot of subtlety to the players' work here as well.  Greta Garbo was discovered by Hollywood thanks to this film and its easy to see why.  She's tremendous.

That's not to say the whole movie works.  At one point, Ekeby is burnt to the ground.  There's a lot of tension as the fire is set and the knights begin trying to escape.  Then it keeps going on.  And on.  Gösta escapes by a different route then everyone else, but the movie never provides a great sense of location.  I have no idea where he is in the house or what he is doing.

The film also reaches a moment of character overload.  The Sinclairs are shown as minor characters who run in the same social circles as the residents of Borg and Ekeby.  Halfway through the film, they take on a larger role, then shrink right back into the background very quickly.  They all have very superficial motivation, made all the more obvious by the detailed back stories and arcs the rest of the main cast get.

In the scope of a three hour epic, these are minor quibbles.  One of the joys of exploring each year of film in a haphazard and random way is you make discoveries.  The Saga of Gösta Berling was not on my radar before.  Now, I'll never forget it.

**** out of *****

Memorable line:  "You won't escape by turning yourself into a beautiful corpse.  Don't you know that most people are dead already?"

NOTE: The film is based on the novel of the same name by Selma Langerlöf.  The book was loved in Sweden (it's considered the Swedish Gone with the Wind) and critical reception of the movie there at the time was not great.  People thought the book was better.  I guess some things never change.

Read More

The Navigator (1924)

Directed by Buster Keaton and Donald Crisp
Starring Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, Frederick Vroom
Produced by Buster Keaton Productions

Rollo is rich and bored with his life.  Looking for something to do, he decides to get married.  Today.  He makes all of the arrangements, including purchasing tickets on an ocean liner for the honeymoon.  Then, it's a (really) short trip to ask his intended.

Her response: "Certainly not!"

Dejected, Rollo enjoys a "long" walk home and decides to take the trip anyway.  Coincidentally, Rollo's girlfriend is the daughter of a ship owner.  Spies have been sent to prevent the ship, The Navigator, from being sold to their enemies. 

Both Rollo and his girlfriend accidentally end up on The Navigator when the spies cut the ship adrift without a crew.  At first, the two are unaware of their circumstances or that anyone else is on board.  Then, two people who have never set foot in a kitchen have to figure out how to brew coffee and boil eggs.  They fail miserably. 

Can these two get their act together and possibly find love?  And can they survive (gulp) cannibals?

The Navigator is another Buster Keaton joint and compared to his other release from this year (Sherlock Jr.), it pales in comparison.  The thread holding the film together is thinner than a female lead on the CW and exists more as an excuse for some very episodic comedy.

Some of it works.  Rollo gets in his chauffeured car in the beginning to propose, the car does a U-turn and stops so Rollo can enter the home directly across the street.  After the rejection he decides a long walk will do him good, so he walks back across the street as his driver makes another U-turn to return to the house.

I did enjoy the series of ropes and pulleys the stranded couple finally employ to cook their breakfast was clever and funny.  When Buster dons a diving suit to make an underwater repair, he uses a lobster to clip some wires, grabs a swordfish to duel another swordfish and washes and dries his hands.  All of which elicited a smile.

There are small moments that make me smile.  A mysterious gust of wind keeps knocking off Rollo's hat, but he always has another at the ready.  When he is donning the diving suit, he is smoking a cigarette.  The girl secures the helmet and poor Rollo can't breathe as the suit fills with smoke.  His reaction is priceless.

There are other moments that feel like they should work, but never quite come together.  When the couple are first on the ship, they hear but don't see each other and begin chasing each other around, just missing seeing each other.  It's the same thing over and over and it only becomes visually interesting toward the end of the sequence.

When they first attempt to make a meal and fail, the jokes are pretty obvious.  The girl doesn't know that coffee beans need to be ground.  Buster uses seawater instead of real water.  He attempts to open a can with a cleaver.  It all feels like something is missing to get the laugh under the ideas.

The cannibal sequence feels like a complete waste.  When the natives attempt to board The Navigator on one of the ladders, Buster grabs an axe and cuts the ladder off.  And when they attempt to climb another... he grabs an axe and cuts it off.  It's not thrilling or funny.  It's just repetitive.  The resolution is the definition of deus ex machina.

The Navigator feels like the production crew found a boat first, then started trying to write the jokes around it.  As a movie, it doesn't quite work.  As a series of gags?  Some land, some don't.  However, in the end, it's Buster Keaton.  And you can always do worse than give him an hour of your time.

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

Read More

Waxworks (1924)

Directed by Leo Birinsky, Paul Leni 

Starring Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss 

Produced by Neptune-Film AG

An unnamed writer wanders through a carnival looking for a booth 10 and a job.  The owner of the wax figure exhibit there wants someone to write a compelling backstory for three of his mannequins: Harun al Raschid, Ivan the Terrible and Jack the Ripper.  The writer sits and begins crafting the tale of Harun al Raschid, a caliph in Baghdad.

The caliph lives in a majestic castle.  At the base of one of the walls, a baker and his wife live in squalor.  One day, the caliph, already frustrated at losing a chess match to his vizier, takes out his anger upon the baker because of the smoke entering the castle from the poor man's oven.  The vizier is dispatched to take the baker's head, but is distracted by the beauty of the man's wife.  The advisor reports back to his king that there is a beautiful woman leaving outside the castle.  Curious, the caliph dons a disguise to investigate that night.  Meanwhile, the baker feeling jealous and guilty that he cannot provide more, breaks into the castle to steal the ornate wishing ring on the caliph's right hand.  How?  By chopping the arm off (which matches the wax figure who is missing an arm).  Will the baker succeed in making off with the jewel?  And can he keep his wife despite the attention of the caliph?

In the second tale, Ivan the Terrible loves torturing his victims.  In particular, he enjoys watching his poisoned prisoners die as the grains of sand move through an hourglass that counts down the last seconds of their life.  Ivan admires the skill of his poison mixer, but fears that the man may inscribe Ivan's own name on one of his hourglasses.  He dispatches his guards to imprison the poison maker, but not before the man writes on an hourglass.  Meanwhile, a noble reminds Ivan of a promise to attend his daughter's wedding.  The paranoid czar first objects to leaving the palace and opening himself to attack, but then agrees if he can switch places with the noble.  They trade clothes and soon the czar's fears are realized when archers kill the disguised nobleman.

The czar arrives at the wedding with the corpse and seems surprised that the guests are not thrilled that the bride's father is dead.  First, he demands that the guests drink and dance.  Then, he decides to take the bride for himself and sends the groom to be tortured.  Upon arriving back at the palace, Ivan discovers an hourglass with his name written on it.  As the sand slips through it, Ivan trembles in fear, then realizes he can live if he just turns the hourglass over.  Was the leader poisoned?  And will the prospect drive him mad before he dies?

The writer sits to right the third tale, but starts dozing off.  He looks up and sees that the Jack the Ripper figure has disappeared.  Suddenly, the writer and the museum owner's daughter are being chased through the surreal carnival by the living embodiment of a killer.  The couple find themselves cornered by the infamous murderer.  Will they survive the attack?  Or was it all just a dream?

Regular readers of the site know that I love my genre flicks.  And in Waxworks we have not one, but three genre stories touching on everything from comedy to horror and from fantasy to suspense, mixed with a healthy dash of Caligari-style German expressionism.

With all that going for it, I liked the film a lot, but didn't love it.

Let's start with the good.  The middle episode revolving around Ivan the Terrible had a great deal of suspense, but also some dark humor.  The tale itself is a Tolstoy-Edgar Allen Poe mashup.  The czar's paranoia is sold by Conrad Veidt's wide, darting eyes.   And the saying "just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you" proves true as assassins attack the czar immediately upon exiting the palace.  

The humor for me came into play with the czar's clueless approach to the wedding.  He does not understand how the death of some random noble could put a damper on the proceedings.  The czar survived!  And he graced you all with his presence at the wedding!  More drinking!  Get the band playing!  More dancing!  Who care that the bride's father's corpse is literally left on the steps outside the hall?

When Veidt goes full on crazy at the end, it works.  His belief that continually turning the hourglass will keep him alive isn't so much a descent into madness as much as the last step in what has been a long journey.

The first tale is twice as long, but feels like it contains half the story.  It's lighter and more comedic than the other tales, but it is also full of long takes of characters looking at each other.  It definitely could have been edited down.  That said, (SPOILERS) the reveal at the end that the figure in the bed was a wax figure was both surprising and fit the framing device of the armless wax mannequin.  As I was expecting the caliph to lose his arm, this was a nice misdirection that played into the comedic tone of the story.  I also loved the stunt near the end that sees the baker leap from the palace tower onto a tree.  It was a creative and thrilling escape.

This tale is also a bit risqué in the context of the era (though not to a modern audience).  One of the first scenes between the baker and his wife sees him pounding a dough and her watching from the window.  They repeatedly cut back and forth between the two of them.  I think the look on their faces qualifies not as subtext but as supertext.  Later, the two embrace, her with a dress hanging off the shoulder and him wrapping his arms around her body.  It's sensuous in a way that contrasts starkly with the polite kisses we usually see in movies of the era.

The last tale ends up being the best and worst of the anthology.  It has the best set-up and throws a curveball at us based on what's come before.  After setting up the convention of the writer telling a tale, it's a pleasant surprise for the wax figure to come to life.  That said, I did not care for the execution.  The characters are all filmed in a way that makes them transparent.  I do not know if that was a conscious choice or simply the result of superimposing several images, but the effect is to make the characters appear ghost-like.  I never for a moment thought I was viewing reality so when the episode is revealed to be a dream, it is less a surprise than a forgone conclusion.  Beyond that, the episode is barely five minutes in a film with an 84 minute running time.  It is well done and suspenseful, but I would have spent more time with Jack the Ripper and less with the caliph.

The framing device is an effective way of telling the tale, but the ending makes no sense.  The writer (I wouldn't call him "our hero" as he hasn't done anything except write some stories) ends up embracing and kissing the daughter of the exhibit owner.  The two actors play the couple in each of the three tales, but that cannot explain how they fell in love over their storytelling.  The movie does not provide any sense that much time has passed.  They have no on-screen relationship.  The kiss just does not feel earned.

The acting here is top notch, particularly amongst the central figures.  Emil Jannings, Veidt and Werner Krauss are a dream team of German actors and it shows on the screen.  Jannings is funny, Veidt is manic and Krauss is menacing.  All perfectly inhabit the larger than life characters they portray.  

The other star here is the production design.  The first two stories have elaborate sets that were designed by Paul Leni.  There are visual cues that hit perfectly.  The palace walls that seem ready to crash upon the baker's abode.  The M.C. Escher stairs as the baker flees the palace guard.  The angled windows of the czar's torture chamber.  It all owes a great deal to the design from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but it all works here.

As I say above, Waxworks is a very good, but not great outing.  There were some slow moments, but plenty of thrills, laughs and suspense.  It could have been amazing with some tighter editing in the caliph's tale and some further expansion of the suspenseful Jack the Ripper tale.  Still, it's worth a look.

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

NOTE: The original script had a fourth wax figure representing Rinaldo Rinaldini.  Rinaldini would have been played by William Dieterle who plays the writer in the movie.  Though it was cut, you can still see the figure of Rinaldini with the tall hat in the opening.  Rinaldini was a nobleman bandit in Corsica in the 1700s (thanks Google!).

Photo from Film Sufi

Read More

Beau Brummel (1924)

Directed by Harry Beaumont
Starring John Barrymore, Mary Astor, Willard Louis
Produced by Warner Bros. Pictures

George Brummel is frustrated and angry.  The woman he loves is marrying into aristocracy and he, a lowly commoner in the army, is left on the outside looking in.  He is angry at his station in life and angry with society.  He wants vengeance...

So he establishes himself as one of the great fashion and culture trendsetters of the late 1700s.  See, because then he can make people wear silly hairstyles and...

Okay, I'm a little fuzzy on what the actual plot for vengeance is.  It honestly appears that all Beau Brummel really wants is to put himself into position to sit next to the prince and backhandedly compliment him constantly.  As retribution goes, it seems lacking, but whatever works, right?

Ultimately, Beau tries to seduce a lady of the court and the prince who has been his sponsor sends him off to France.  He loses his fortune and  ends up in a prison hospital stark raving mad.  Can he still end up with the woman he loves?

Beau Brummel is boring.  Its plot is nonsensical and almost funny, which is decidedly not the tone the film is going for.

John Barrymore is terrific in the lead role.  He has a sense of arrogance and humor that is infectious to watch.  Unfortunately, it is all in service to a story that is poorly developed.

The main failing of the film is the way the plot skips over the most interesting aspects of the story.  We start with Brummel imploring his girl not to get married.  Why is this aristocrat and commoner together?  Don't know.  Then we cut to a scene where Brummel and the prince are BFFs.  Again, how did Brummel link up with the prince.  Sorry, the film is not interested in that.  Next, Brummel is the toast of England, setting every fashion trend.  How did he become so influential?  That must be in a different movie.

The problem with this approach is the audience is told a lot of information it is never shown.

There is one small moment in the film that I thought was well realized.  Brummel has just let go his long time servant, partly because the beau has no money and partly because the man attempted to speak with the prince on his behalf.  Brummel is forced to serve himself a meal for the first time and is flummoxed. He can't even cut his own food.  It's a great character moment that shows just how pathetic the once mighty lead has become.

Ultimately, Beau Brummel wastes some lavish sets and a standout lead performance on a silly and plodding plot.  Unless your entertainment alternative is watching water boil or paint dry, skip this one.

*1/2 out of *****

Read More

Shameless Self-Promotion: The LAMMYs

A reminder for fellow LAMMYs to vote in this year's LAMMYs!  If you are a LAMB and like what you are reading here, I'd ask you to consider voting for the site.  For what you ask?  How about for:

- Best Classic Film Blog
- Best New Blog



Of course, whether you vote for me or not, the important thing is to vote!  And you can do that by going to the LAMB's LAMMY page!  Voting is open until May 9, 2011.

Read More

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Directed by Buster Keaton

Starring Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, Joe Keaton

Produced by Buster Keaton Productions 

A lonely projectionist sits reading while wearing a ridiculously over-sized moustache.  Why?  Because the boy has big dreams of being a detective, the book is a how-to guide for his dream profession and the moustache allows him to try out one of his disguises.



His manager is not amused and tells him to clean up the movie theater.  Fortunately, our hero finds four dollars amongst the trash in the theater as he is sweeping.  This will allow him to buy the box of chocolates he has had his eye on for his girl.  Unfortunately, theater patrons keep showing up to collect the money they lost earlier.  In the end, the projectionist is left with one dollar, enough to buy only the smallest box of chocolates.  Undeterred, he makes the purchase and heads to his girl's house.



Another suitor has his eyes on the projectionist's love interest.  The villain (we know he's a villain because of the non-fake, thin moustache) steals a watch from the girl's father, pawns it and buys that deluxe box of candy in an attempt to woo her.  The father returns to find the watch missing.  Our projectionist begins searching people for clues (he is a burgeoning detective after all), but unfortunately the villain has slipped the pawn shop receipt into the projectionist's pocket, framing him for the crime.



The would-be gumshoe attempts to shadow the the bad guy, but, after a series of misadventures, ends up trapped on top of a moving train car.  He escapes and heads back to run the projector at the theater.  While manning the booth, he falls asleep and dreams he enters the movie he is showing as the world famous detective Sherlock Jr.  Within the fake movie world, a woman's pearl necklace has been stolen.  Sherlock Jr. must evade exploding pool balls, falling medieval axes and an unmanned motorbike in order to solve the case.  Will Sherlock Jr. solve the case of his dreams?  And what will he learn that can help in find love in the real world?



Sherlock Jr. is a marvel.  It's a marvel of comedic timing, acrobatic stunt work and virtuoso camera work.  More remarkable than all of that is its structure.  It's tightly written and unspools in a near perfect manner.  



Truth be told, the first half of the film is a very basic Keaton comedy.  The gag involving the money found in the pile of trash is funny, but reminiscent of other things we have seen the star do.  Same with his shy demeanor around the woman he loves and his losing out to the larger, stronger rival.  It's classic Keaton mixed with his signature pratfalls and stunts.  



Then Keaton falls asleep.  And that ghostly version of the actor walks down the center aisle of the theater and  right into the movie screen.  He's able to work through all of his failings and insecurities in a storyline that parallels his own real-life situation, but only now he's a step ahead and not a mile behind.  He knows the right thing to say.  He is confident.  He is the great detective and hero of his dreams.



The comedic pieces in the last half of the film range from subtle tricks to full-blown comedic action.  Keaton's trick billiards shooting that constantly avoids an explosive number 13 ball is tense and funny.   The final chase sequence that finds Keaton perched on the handlebars of a motorcycle with no driver is thrilling.  

However, there are two just jaw-dropping effects used here.  In one, Keaton dives out a window and through a screen he had set up earlier.  He lands disguised as an old woman.  How did he do it?  No idea, and I'm not going to google it and ruin the surprise.  In the second, his partner is standing against a wall with an open suitcase.  Keaton dives into the case and disappears.  Again, I don't want to know how he did.  I just love the genius of the move.



I love the epilogue.  Despite Keaton believing himself to be the detective, it is his girl who pounds the pavement to uncover the real criminal.  The end finds the projectionist and his girl in the projection booth.  Keaton knows he is not Sherlock Jr., but he still wants to be more than the shy suitor we followed in the first half of the film.  His solution?  He looks to the movie screen and takes his cues on wooing the woman he loves by replicating the moves of the lead actor.  It's a great moment both recognizing the power that wish fulfillment plays in our love of movies and the way that movies can  inform the way we act.



I only have one issue with the movie and it's when he first steps into the film within a film.  There is an extended sequence where the background he is acting in changes to comic effect.  For example, he goes to jump into the water of the ocean and the scene changes to a snow bank as he jumps.  It's amusing and has a "how did he do that?" quality.  The issue is, it makes no sense in the context of the story.  Why would there be a series of random backgrounds inserted into the movie?  It's Keaton showing off with the camera for the sake of showing off.  The moment is so well executed, it can almost be forgiven.



Sometimes this blog is about charting the regression of stars (See the recent review of D.W. Griffith's America).  With Keaton, the films just get better and better.  Sherlock Jr. is a near perfect combination of acting, story, technical skill and comedy that justifies its place in cinema as a classic.  At 44 minutes long, there is no excuse to miss this one.



***** out of *****



NOTE: In the sequence where Keaton jumps off the back of the moving train and onto the water tower, he actually fractured his neck, though he wouldn't realize that until years later.

Read More

America (1924)

Directed by D.W. Griffith

Starring Neil Hamilton, Carol Dempster, Lionel Barrymore

Produced by D.W. Griffith Productions 

Nathan Holden, a farmer and courier, is enamored of two things: his involvement with the revolutionaries in the nascent Sons of Liberty movement opposing Great Britain in the 1700s, and his infatuation with Nancy Montague, a rich woman he encountered on one of his mail runs to Virginia.  Unfortunately for Nathan, the Montagues are loyalists through and through, and the patriarch of the Montagues hates rebels.

Holden delivers a dispatch to the Virginia legislature and sees Nancy again.  They share a moment before Justice Montague enflames the crowd in the legislature with his Tory views.  Nancy leaves with her father and Holden returns to Lexington.  

The Montagues travel to Lexington at the same time the British are preparing to attack.  Holden has a flirtatious and comical interlude with Nancy at her balcony that is interrupted by her father.  We get a lot of historical reenactments next Paul Revere's ride, the Battles of Concord and Lexington and the Battle of Bunker Hill.  During this, Holden accidentally shoots Justice Montague and Nancy's brother Charles sides with the rebels and is killed at Bunker Hill.

Lurking in the background of these events is Captain Walter Butler, a captain in the British army who works with the Indians to brutally torture and murder the revolutionaries.  Butler has designs on crushing the rebellion and installing himself as the new emperor of America.  He also wants Nancy to become his queen.  Will Holden and the revolutionaries succeed in repelling Butler and his men?  

In watching films, there are a lot of variables affecting me in different ways, but I basically have two levels of evaluation: is it entertaining and does it make me think?  A movie can be massively entertaining so I overlook its flaws.  Or a film can be so well-constructed, I find myself lost in the structure, ignoring how dull the actual plot may be.

This movie did not entertain me and it did not make me think.

The obvious point of comparison for America is Griffith's earlier work The Birth of a Nation.  Here, Griffith is using the exact same film techniques and structural elements that served him well in his repugnant masterpiece, but that's exactly the problem.  It's been nine years and there's no more tools in his tool box.  

Beyond that, this is a far sloppier film.  The first half is charitably a mess.  Holden is embroiled in the events of the American Revolution, but almost as though he is Forrest Gump being inserted at the periphery of the frame.  He walks into a room and there's Sam Adams and John Hancock.  Why?  Because we get to name-drop some people you may have heard of.  There are other scenes like Paul Revere's ride that are thrilling, but entirely disconnected from the main plot.  And then there are moments where we cut to historic moments for their own sake.  We see the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Again, why?  Because we've all heard of that.  It has nothing to do with the characters and none of them even react to it anyway.

The second half plays more to Griffith's strengths and becomes a tale of a man trying to save the woman he loves and prove himself to her father.  Of course, Justice Montague will see the error of his ways (kind of hard not to when Captain Butler kills your brother for no good reason).  Of course Nathan and Nancy will get together (despite some of the Romeo and Juliet cues).  Griffith does some fine work in battle and chase sequences here, but none of it seems as inspired or passionate as essentially identical scenes in The Birth of a Nation.
The actors here are just okay with the exception of Lionel Barrymore.  His Captain Butler is over-the-top evil, which would normally bother me.  In the context of America though it works because he is the only character of any interest on the screen.  He has some dimension and always has more going on behind his eyes, which is an under-appreciated aspect of acting in the silent era.

There are moments that work.  Paul Revere's ride is a great short film that had no business being in the movie.  The moment where Nancy presents her dead brother to his father, but hides his rebel sympathies is moving.  And the final chase and rescue all work.

Unfortunately, Griffith appears to have lost his mojo here in America.  He goes back to a well he's visited several times to find it bone dry.  I am still interested in what else he has up his sleeve, but a lot of other directors are starting to lap him.  

** out of *****

Note: During Paul Revere's ride, Revere rides his horse up a small set of stairs.  The horse then turns to leave and falls, actor and all.  Guess the budget only called for one take?

Note 2: Neil Hamilton who plays Nathan is probably (definitely?) better known to modern audiences as Commissioner Gordon in the campy Batman television series.

Read More