Big Business (1929)

Directed by James W. Horne, Leo McCarey
Starring Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy and James Finlayson
Produced by Hal Roach Studios

It's Christmas time and Oliver and Stan are looking to make a quick buck. They are riding the streets in town with a couple of shabby looking pine trees in the back, looking to sell them door-to-door.

The first woman refuses to buy, then takes offense to something Stan says. The second house displays a no soliciting sign. Hardy ignores it and gets hit in the head with a hammer for his trouble.

The third house proves the most troublesome. The man refuses the tree, but closes the door on one of the branches. They ring him again and free the tree, but this time Stan's coat gets caught. They bother the man one more time to free the jacket.

No sooner do they return to the car when Stan has a "big business" idea. He returns to the man and asks him to preorder a tree for next year. The potential customer reaches his boiling point and cuts Stan's tree into little pieces.

The boys retaliate and the man responds in kind. There is escalation. Landscaping and automobiles are not safe. The police become involved.

How far will the chaos extend? And will it end in laughter or tears?



Comedy is hard. Really hard. The Oscars annoy for a variety of reasons, but chief amongst them for me is their proclivity towards recognizing artists capable of creating manipulative tears over honest laughs. (*sound of soapbox sliding away*)

However, reviewing comedies may be as hard. Let's face it. Everyone is different. What makes me laugh may only create annoyance for you or vice versa.

Which is all prologue to say Big Business made me laugh. Out loud. More than once.

Which is in retrospect odd because the movie is really one really long joke. Or the same joke repeated over and over. But it's a hell of a joke.

An act of vandalism occurs. The victim escalates. Repeat.

It's funny because of the madcap glee of the participants by the end. It's funny because of how far they take the premise. It's funny because you think back to how it starts and how it ends.

Only afterward did I realize it never occurred to anyone involved to throw a punch. Or even to simply end the carnage.

Laurel and Hardy's Big Business is one of those classics that does not disappoint. It starts small, goes big and wrings every laugh from its premise.

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

Photo from MOMA

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger Ep. 4

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

Chapter 4: The Vengeance of La

When last we saw our heroes, Jane was being attacked by Taglat the ape, while an amnesia-suffering Tarzan was about to be killed in his sleep by his supposed friend Werper.

Jane's scream wakes Tarzan, but the apeman does not notice the knife in Werper's hand. Tarzan sets off after Jane and an epic battle in the trees ensues. Tarzan defeats Taglat, but he has no memory of Jane.

The evil high priestess La has followed Tarzan and her men capture the couple easily. La makes Tarzan choose between her and Jane. Our hero selects the jungle instead, outraging La.

Meanwhile, back at Greystoke Manor, Werper arrives to find the slaver Achmet Zek waiting to ambush Jane. She escaped him earlier, but he wants her recaptured.

Werper recounts his adventure to Zek, leaving out the part where he stole the jewels from Tarzan. Zek sets out to find Jane, but Werper begs off. Suspicious, Zek remains behind to keep tabs on his accomplice and sees him admiring the jewels. But Werper sees his partner spying on him and arms himself.

La has set up a double sacrifice with Tarzan to die first? Will our hero avoid the killing stroke? And who will win Werper and Zek's deadly game of cat-and-mouse?


This episode feels like we are crossing off the checklist. Of course Tarzan doesnt recognize Jane (yet), although there is a glimmer of recognition. Of course he must choose between his wife and La. Why else give him the memory loss if not to create issues with his wife?

I liked Taglat's appearance in the prior episode, but here it is painfully clear we are watching a man in a suit.

A lot of this chapter feels like the wheels are spinning with little movement. We do leave Tarzan at a moment of real peril though. Let's see how he escapes... next time.

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger, Ep. 3

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

Chapter 3: The Altar of the Flaming God

In our last episode, Jane's decision between marriage or slavery is interrupted by a misoon, Tarzan was caught in a ceiling collapse and the high priestess La was preparing to sacrifice the evil Werper to her god.

Tarzan awakens but a blow to the head has erased his memory. He comes upon another treasure room with a chest full of jewels, but doesn't know what they are. Still, he pockets some of the "pretty pebbles."

He stumbles upon La and prevents her from killing Werper. He doesn't recognize La (who tried to kill Jane in the past) or Werper (who Tarzan "thought" was his friend). A fight ensues between Tarzan and La's followers, but our hero escapes into the jungle with Werper.

Meanwhile, the slaver's camp where Jane is held captive is being reassembled after the storm. Jane dreams about her date with the slaver's auction block (note: we never see her make her choice, but whatever...). She sees a rag on a table and gets to work on a more traditionally Jane-like outfit. When her sewing is complete, she lifts the edge of the tent and sneaks away.

Tarzan and Werper set up camp, but have attracted the attention of another of Tarzan's jungle foes, Taglat. The ape attacks Werper, but Tarzan intervenes and sends Taglat running.

The ape comes upon another means of harming Tarzan: Jane. And while Tarzan sleeps, Werper steals the apeman's jewels and raises his knife to kill the hero.

Will Jane escape Taglat's wrath? And can Tarzan save himself from the two-faced Werper?

An amnesia plot line? Really?

(* sigh *)

Okay, I guess we are going there. I'm assuming Tarzan's memory loss will be more of a factor in future episodes. While we are repeatedly told he doesn't recognize people, I can't think of how any outcome may have been different here if he didn't have amnesia.

Jane's escape was unbelievable. She quickly assembles her outfit and then simply lifts the side of the tent. Worst. Guards. Ever.

Still, we get her into the traditional Jane garb and that is both good and necessary. It feels a little repetitive that three chapters in and we are ending on an animal attack again.

This episode was better than the second. My curiosity is piqued for the next installment.

Read More

Queen Kelly (1929)

Directed by Erich von Stroheim
Starring Gloria Swanson, Walter Byron and Seena Owen
Produced by Gloria Swanson Pictures

Queen Regina V rules her small European kingdom with an iron hand. We are told she is mad, walking through the castle naked with only a lap cat to cover her.

Prince Wolfram is unofficially betrothed to the queen and he'd like to put off the wedding as long as possible. After Wolfram spends a night racing chariots with prostitutes, the queen commands the prince to spend the day in the field under the hot sun performing military maneuvers. She wants him ready for her "surprise" that night.

While traveling along the road with his men, Wolfram comes upon a group of nuns and their students. He is instantly attracted to Patricia Kelly, one of the girls studying at the convent. She is embarrassed when she loses a piece of clothing, but the prince ultimately helps her recover some of her dignity.

The prince arrives back at the castle and is informed of the queen's surprise during a feast. The couple will be married the next day. The frustrated prince decides to find Kelly for one last fling before the wedding.

Meanwhile, the nuns at the convent are punishing Kelly for her outburst with the prince. She forgoes dinner and must remain in the chapel for the evening praying.

The prince and his friend sneak into the convent to find Kelly. This quickly proves fruitless as the building has too many rooms. Instead, Wolfram light a fire and pulls the smoke alarm. The panicked nuns begin evacuating when the prince spies Kelly. She faints and Wolfram abducts her.

Now, back at the prince's suite in the castle, the two begin talking over dinner. What begins as a tryst blossoms into true love.

Unfortunately, the queen discovers them and chases Kelly from the castle, flogging her the entire way. A despairing Kelly throws herself into the river but is rescued by a passerby.

Will the prince go ahead with the wedding? And what will Kelly do when she receives a telegraph from her dying aunt asking her to come to an African brothel to marry a wealthy, but creepy plantation owner?


Huh?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, that really happens in this movie. To be fair, the original plan for this film was quite different. Von Stroheim envisioned a four-plus hour epic centered mainly around Kelly's life in Africa. Swanson became increasingly frustrated with the director and the script. And the studio was only too happy to stop production one-third of way through. After all, the producers knew that in a world where audiences were clamoring for sound, a four-hour silent would have trouble generating ticket sales.

So Von Stroheim was fired and production halted, leaving Swanson to try and salvage whatever she could.

And in salvaging what was, on paper, the prologue and drawing it out as a feature length movie, Queen Kelly slows to a molasses-in-winter crawl. Every piece of dialogue is followed by prolonged, meaningless glances. We get lengthy scenes explaining what the characters just did in the previous lengthy scene.

And when we downshift without a clutch into the aunt in Africa storyline, it's so jarring that the airbags deploy. There's never any set up that Kelly has other family, let alone an aunt that she would drop everything and globetrot for. It feels like another movie collided with the one I was watching.

It is right to chalk a lot of this up to the production issues. There are other problems here as well. I love seeing Gloria Swanson on screen. I think she's great. She is just terribly miscast here. She's a lot of things, but an innocent student at the convent is not one of them. She looks too old and there's a flirtatious quality to her acting which seems at odds with the character.

The prince seems like someone I am supposed to root for, but I don't know why. He's chasing around prostitutes and generally shirking his responsibilities instead of focusing on his betrothed and the kingdom he will be ruling.

The most ridiculous moment of the film comes when Wolfram sets a fire inside a convent essentially for a one night stand. On what planet is anything he does justified? If he were a teen, maybe you could forgive his attitude. But he's not. He's an immature man.

The only argument you can make that the prince is good is that he doesn't love the queen. And we are told she is bad. Told, not shown. In fact, before she whips Kelly, she doesn't do anything except expedite the wedding date. The whipping is in response to her future hubby cheating on her. The wedding date comes after she sees her prince carousing with hookers. Remind me again: who is the bad guy here? Other than her unintentionally hilarious habit of throwing her cat when angered, the queen hardly seemed evil.

On the positive side, the production design and camerawork are first rate. The palace is impeccably lavish, the convent sparse and dark. Von Stroheim is constantly framing his characters amongst candles and bed posts in ways that make you marvel at the composition.

I would love to review the film Von Stroheim may have made. Maybe he would have found a tighter story in editing. Then again, maybe 250 minutes of these characters would have killed me. Regardless, I can only review the Queen Kelly I've got. And that movie is sadly mediocre and slow.

*1/2 out of *****

Photo from The Studio Era

Read More

Un Chien Andalou (1929)

Directed by Luis Buñuel
Starring Pierre Batcheff and Simone Mareuil



A man stands before a mirror sharpening his razor blade. He walk to the balcony and looks at the moon. A woman is sitting on the balcony. He grabs her head. She does not resist. He raises the razor and slices open her eye.


Cut to eight years later, and the man is wearing a nun's habit and riding a bike down the street. The woman looks out of the window of her apartment to see him fall over. She...

All right, I give up. Recapping Un Chien Andalou is a pointless exercise. The film is a series of disjointed scenes and images. There is:

A severed hand laying on the ground being poked by a woman with a cane who is in turn surrounded by police.

A man pulling two ropes that are attached to two pianos holding dead animals, two priests and two tablets (presumably the Ten Commandments).

A couple of young lovers walking a beach who moments later find themselves dead and half-buried in sand.

A man confronting another version of himself.

A mysterious, locked box.

Is it well done? Sure. It has a gothic horror music video aesthetic. Think David Cronenberg by way of Michael Bay.

What does it mean? Nothing. Everything. I imagine it will speak to people based on their own experiences and desires. Some parts spoke to me; others passed into the ether.

The only cinematic analogy I can think of to describe Un Chien Andalou is the Dark Side Cave from The Empire Strikes Back. What will you find in the film? "Only what you take with you."

**** out of *****

NOTE: For the scene where the eye is cut open, they used a dead calf eye.

At only 18 minutes long, this is an easy recommend.

Photo from LBFI

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger Ep. 2

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

Episode 2: The Road to Opar

When we last left our hero, Tarzan was on his way to retrieve the gold of Opar from the depths of the jungle when he was ambushed by Numa the lion. Meanwhile, his wife Jane was seized by Achmet Zet, a slaver and Tarzan's sworn enemy.

Tarzan makes short work of Numa and issues the Tarzan yell (tm) to rally the jungle animals to his cause.

Back at Zet's camp, our villain bring forward Jane to show her the future in some mystical sands. In the vision, Tarzan takes a spear through the chest and falls from the treetops. Zet issues an ultimatum: marry me or be sold as a slave.

Tarzan arrives at the Temple of the Sun Worshippers and opens the secret passage to the treasure chamber. Unbeknownst to our hero, the duplicitous Werper is following him. Tarzan finds the gold ingots and begins preparing to take them home.

Jane is brought back before Zet to make her choice. Before she can speak, a misoon arrives, threatening to blow the camp apart.

Back in the temple, lions are entering to escape the weather, forcing Werper deeper into the building. He stumbles into a ceremony led by the High Priestess La and is captured to be offered as a sacrifice.

Tarzan has loaded up the gold and tries exit when part of the temple collapses on him. Will he survive? And what will Jane decide?

After a great first episode, this one dragged a bit. Jane's story went nowhere. She was captured in the last chapter and here she has to make a decision that is conveniently interrupted by the weather. Nothing happens here.

Tarzan's tale was characterized by a lot of things that were just too easy. He kills the lion in a second, stars in a montage where he comically screams "Yeah!" as animals react, then poof!...he's at the temple. And conveniently, he is the only one who knows where the secret treasure entrance is. Why not make him work for it a little? And why scream to a phalanx of elephants, tigers and chimps and not use them.

After a crackling initial episode, things have slowed and I'm heading into the third chapter with trepidation.

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger Ep. 1

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

Episode 1: Call of the Jungle

Tarzan and Jane are relaxing in their manor at Greystoke, regaling their friend Werper with tales of our hero's exploits in the jungle.

In particular, Tarzan recounts the time he rescued Jane from the high priestess La. The villain saw Jane as a rival for Tarzan's affections. Thanks to some help from his elephant friend Tantor, Tarzan makes the last minute save and escapes with his love.

Jane is worried about Tarzan's return to the jungle to seek a legendary treasure. As they are speaking, a knife falls from the wall where Tarzan keeps the old jungle outfit. This causes Jane to invoke the "Omen of the Falling Knife." This is apparently bad. Tarzan laughs off Jane's warning, reminding her they are almost broke, and packs for his trip.

Meanwhile, Werper arrives at a slave mart to the north. Turns out, he is working with Achmet Zek, a slaver against whom Tarzan has waged "relentless war." Zek plans on kidnapping Jane while Tarzan's away in order to sell her into slavery.

Tarzan heads out to seek his fortune and Zek wastes no time making his move and capturing Jane. Tarzan's got his own problems. His old rival Numa the lion is looking to take him out. Can Tarzan fend off the man eater? And what will become of Jane?

I have to admit: this one surprised me. I was expecting it to be hammier and cheesier than a deli, and it was. But damn, if it's not addictive as well.

The first episode sets up a lot in a few minutes. We get Tarzan's backstory. His enemies list. The plot against Jane. And a lion attack. It's brisk and exciting.

The Tarzan outfit of course still looks ridiculous, but on the whole, color me impressed. I would definitely tune in for the next installment.

Read More

Woman in the Moon (1929)

Directed by Fritz Lang
Starring Klaus Pohl, Willy Fritsch and Gustav von Wangenheim
Produced by Fritz Lang Film

Professor Manfeldt is a broken, paranoid man. He exists in a small apartment surrounded by old books, telescopes and broken furniture. He is obsessed with the moon and the object of his academic pursuit is evident everywhere. There are drawings littering his table, mad scribblings all over his walls and even a globe of the moon in his bed. He is haggard, unkempt and beaten.

It wasn't always like this. Manfeldt was once a titan of the academic community. His colleagues' respect vanished when he presented his theory that the mountains of the moon contain vast deposits of gold. His contemporaries laughed him off the stage.

Now, the professor is getting a second chance. Helius, an engineer and owner of a hangar, is building a spaceship to travel to the lunar surface and find the gold. Helius seems less interested in the financial reward than showing the world the professor is right.

Of course, forces are arrayed against Helius and his dream. A shadowy cabal (represented by Turner) that controls the gold reserves steals Helius' plans and the professor's research. They also threaten to blow up the spaceship unless they can get in on the mission.

Further complicating Helius' efforts is the recent engagement of his best friend and partner Windegger to Helius' one true love Friede. The engineer does not want his friend or his unrequited love on the lunar trip, yet both are signed up for the ride.

So our crew is assembled and the ship is moving toward the launch pad. Will the rocket successfully reach the moon? Will the atmosphere be breathable? And will the discovery of gold serve to justify one man's academic theories or simply cause the travelers to devolve to man's basest instincts?




When is a film about a trip to the moon not about a trip to the moon?

Honestly, for what is the centerpiece of this science fiction drama, the trip to the moon is unnecessary. The crew could have traveled to the Mojave desert and told basically the same tale.

What at first blush is about this pioneering space flight is really about a live triangle (Helius-Windegger-Friede) and a conspiracy to stop the mission.

And the conspiracy piece of the film really works, thanks in no small part to Fritz Rasp's Turner. He's slimy, but always one step ahead of everyone. He controls the average flower seller on the corner. He can disguise himself to look like anyone. You threaten him and as if from the ether, a gun appears in his hand. He's always cool, always smiling, always menacing.

When he threatens Helius and his space flight dreams, you believe he can carry out the threat. He says he'll blow up Helius' hangar, you believe it absolutely.

Less successful is the love triangle aspect of the film. Helius and Friede's relationship is all forlorn looks at one another without any sense of what their past was. Why did Friede pick Windegger over Helius? Why are still carrying a torch for one another? Sorry, this film is not saying.

After a suspenseful lead up to the actual launch, the film seems to deflate. Lang tries to wring some suspense out of the rocket exceeding the speed at which the passengers will survive, but modern movie audiences know they are going to reach the moon.

And once they are there? The atmosphere is breathable. And the professor finds gold conveniently strewn about the cave in large pieces.

Also, our love triangle storyline turns into an easy choice for Friede as the moon's effect on Windegger is to inexplicably turn him into a tool.

Not helping matters is Willy Fritsch as Helius. He over-acts, over-emotes, and generally overdoes every aspect of his performance.

Lang's direction particularly prior to the spaceship being unveiled is good, but not great. I love the mood and tone he creates, but there are too many shots that linger for no good reason. The movie slows when we need it to pick up steam.

Of course, the director of Metropolis absolutely delivers on the art direction side of Woman in the Moon. From the detail of Manfeldt's apartment to the model work as the rocket rolls toward the launch pad to the moon itself, the sets and effects are ahead of their time. I've seen 50s monster movies that were less proficient.

Of course, the dated nature of Woman in the Moon also produces some campy elements. The crew's launch seats are hammocks The weightlessness disappears as they approach the moon. The moon has an atmosphere. And there's gold in them there hills!

At the end, the viewer has to balance the positives (political intrigue, art direction) against the negative (the love triangle, the weak third act). And balance they do for a score of

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

Photo from DVD Beaver

Read More

Shameless Self-Promotion: Classic Chops

I am once again featured in Classic Chops this week over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs!  This time it's The Last Command review.

But there's more!  Clicking the link brings you access to a Top and Bottom 5 list, a list of 100 classic films to watch in 2012, and reviews of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Three Outlaw Samurai, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

Go check it out!

Read More

1929: Crash!

We've reached the end of our second decade. There is a lot going on in the world: Tintin and Popeye premiere, the Valentine's Day Massacre hits and the first car radio is installed (I'm pretty sure the first car radio theft occurred two hours later).

But the big news in the world is the big news in film as well. In September of 1929, we get the Stock Market Crash. That event kicks off the Great Depression leading right into World War II. The events of the following 20 years would inform our national character like no other. And when you go through that kind of national trauma, you get the invention of film noir (perhaps the only uniquely American film genre), the paranoia of Hitchcock films and the birth of Orson Welles unique vision of the world.

Of course, we are still years away from all of that, but the seeds are planted here. In more immediate film news, Hollywood holds the first Academy Award ceremony. Douglas Fairbanks hosted the 15 minute long ceremony. It was also the only time the Oscars were not broadcast on radio or television. Mary Pickford waged the first Oscar campaign, hosting the judges at her home.

In other firsts, 1929 sees the first Marx Brothers film, the first Hitchcock talkie and the first backstage musical. Silent stars attempt to make the leap to sound. Some, like Greta Garbo, are successful. Others, like John Gilbert? Not so much.

So what are we watching?  Fritz Lang has a film so that's automatic.  Hitchcock?  Definitely.  Salvador Dali's Un Chien Andalou?  Absolutely.  The first Broadway Melody, the Marx Brothers' Cocoanuts, and Man with the Movie Camera are all on tap as well.

Read More

We Faw Down (1928)

The Laurels and Hardys are enjoying a nice, quiet evening at home together. At least the wives are. The men are chomping at the bit to get out. It's poker night and their friends are waiting.

When Oliver gets a call from the poker game, he sees an opportunity. He pretends the boss is calling with a job at the Orpheum Theater. The guys leave their wives behind and head out.

On their way to the game, they pass two women, one of whom has lost her hat underneath a parked car. Ever the gentlemen, our heroes push the car out of the way to retrieve the hat. Unfortunately, they slip and fall into a puddle left by a passing street cleaner.

The women feel guilty and invite Laurel and Hardy back to their apartment to dry their clothes. Things are going well until the husband of one of the women arrives home. Our heroes quickly throw on their clothes and head out a window.

Meanwhile, the wives have received the newspaper announcing that the Orpheum Theater has burned to the ground. Realizing that their husbands have lied, they set out to find the men.

Laurel and Hardy are having problems of their own. In their hasty exit, they've accidentally put on the wrong pants. Their efforts to correct this situation attract the eye of a policeman. Soon the pair are being chased around the town and to the top of a construction site.

Can Laurel and Hardy escape from the situation they find themselves in? Will their wives believe a word they say? And how does a pincer-happy crab figure into the situation?



I couldn't leave 1928 without introducing myself to what's considered one of the great comedy teams of all time. I'm only passingly familiar with Laurel and Hardy, so this is definitely one of those blind spots in need of correction.

And having seen We Faw Down, it's easy to understand the duo's appeal. Their characters are perfect foils for one another. They are physically different, but with very complimentary personalities. It's a formula we've seen in Hollywood from its beginnings and it works brilliantly here.

That said, I probably see more promise for the future in We Faw Down than a classic film. It's smile inducing, but never hysterical. The punchlines can be seen a mile away in most cases. It's entertaining to be sure, but never as funny as it thinks it is...

...Until the last shot. The last shot is so shocking and funny, I won't spoil it here. It ties so well into a moment earlier in the film and provides a great source of irony for our beleaguered couples.

We Faw Down is a good solid entry from Laurel and Hardy and a fine introduction for a neophyte like me. Not a home run, but a nice single. Looking forward to tracking them in future years.

*** out of *****

Photo from Wikipedia

Read More

Simple Question, Difficult Answer: Best Director of the 1920s

As we come up on the end of the 1920s, it's time to start looking back.  I'll be putting up some polls and incorporating the results into my decade wrap-up.

First up, Best Director!

The choices are:

• Fritz Lang (Metropolis, Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler)
• F.W. Murnau (Nosferatu, The Last Laugh, Sunrise)
• Erich von Stroheim (Greed, Queen Kelly)
• Buster Keaton (The General, The Seven Chances)
• Fred Niblo (Ben-Hur, The Mark of Zorro)
• Alfred Hitchcock (The Ring, The Manxman)
• Alan Crosland (The Jazz Singer, The Beloved Rogue)
• D.W. Griffith (Way Down East, America)
• Charles Chaplin (The Kid, The Gold Rush)
• Raoul Walsh (The Thief of Baghdad, Sadie Thompson)
• Or a choice of your own

The poll can be found in the sidebar. As always, feel free to show your work below!

Poll closes on July 21, 2012.

Read More

Educational Films of 1928: When Nature Calls Edition

Today, we have three educational films from 1928. All three have an environmental theme. Let's get into it shall we?



The first deals with conservation and reforestation. It opens with some striking images of a lush green forest that is quickly juxtaposed against some clear cut forests. We soon learn that the images are part of a movie being shown to a classroom. The students decide they should reforest an area and the rest of the film is a field trip showing them digging and planting evergreens.

As someone with some environmental background, the most surprising moment comes near the end. The students finish eating their box lunch, dig a hole, place all the trash in the pit and light it on fire. Of course, this is before the age of plastics, but it is still surprising to see.



The second film deals with fish hatcheries. Most of the film is taken up by seeing a microscopic view of how fish mature from an egg. I'm sure there are modern versions of the same thing, but I found the film fascinating.It cannot be embedded so click here to view it.



The final is the most bizarre. It's a health and the environment piece that spends the first two-thirds showing pictures of daily life and asking "What is lacking here?" over and over again. At the end it starts telling us to get out and get fresh air. I'm sure this was intended to be used by teachers in an interactive lesson plan, but it's very oddly put together. It also has a moment of unintentional hilarity as a girl overacts the hell out of waking in her bed.

I like taking a few moments to watch these. They are little time capsules of what people were wearing, what life was like and what they were thinking about. On the last point, not a lot has changed.

Read More

Shameless Self-Promotion: Classic Chops

Hey there's a new Classic Chops posted over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs!

And it includes my review of In Old Arizona!

It also has: Casablanca! Gentlemen Prefer Blondes! Sherlock Jr.! Singin' in the Rain!

Why are you still here?!  Why am I yelling?!  Go check it out!

Read More

Look! It's a "That Guy"!: Ernest Torrence

Most people have heard of Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks, Buster Keaton and Mary Pickford. But what about the hundreds of other anonymous actors and actresses that pop up in film? You know, the ones that give you that faint glimmer of recognition and make you think "It's THAT guy!" Here we celebrate Hollywood's "that guy."

Whether it's a drama or a comedy, the fun or suspense of any movie depends on our hero having something to overcome.  There has to be conflict.  There has to be some big, immoveable object that makes us wonder how the star is going to get out of this one.

Enter Ernest Torrence.

You put him on screen and you had an instant conflict.  At 6'4", he towered over most of his costars.  He was an imposing figure.  And frankly, he was ugly.

He had only acted in a couple of films when he won the role of Luke Hatburn in Tol'able David.  Hatburn is one of a trio on the lam that take refuge in the quiet town that our hero David exists within.  They kill David's dog, cripple his older brother and cause his father to have a heart attack.  Ultimately, you know there is going to be a confrontation.


Torrence is perfect here.  He is so creepy and menacing in that, you believe David (played by Richard Barthelmess is in real danger.  There is a shot toward the end of him stalking David that is shocking and frightening.

The next role I saw him in was as Clopin in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  As the King of the Gypsys, he tries to keep his daughter Esmeralda from the captain of the guards Phoebus.  Theirs is the classic Romeo and Juliet set-up. The gypsys are despised by the king and Phoebus directly reports to the monarch.

Again, Torrence's stature and imposing figure serve him well.  We have to believe when he enters the ball to take Esmeralda away that he is a legitimate threat to the guards.  You take one look at him and you know the sentries will let him pass.

A few weeks ago I saw Torrance in a very different film as William Canfield, Sr. in Steamboat Bill, Jr.  As father to Buster Keaton's Jr., he still uses his large frame and frightening presence except now it's to get a laugh.  Frankly, all you have to do is introduce the idea that this hulk of a man could be father to a wisp of a son like Keaton to get the chuckles flowing.

Torrence makes the transition into talkies and would star usually as the villain in films before his untimely death in 1933.  I look forward to seeing more if his work, if only so I can point at the screen and say "Hey! It's THAT guy!"

Read More

The Last Command (1928)

Directed by Josef von Sternberg
Starring Emil Jannings, William Powell and Evelyn Brent
Produced by Paramount Pictures

In an anonymous Hollywood office in 1928, a director prepping his next production pours over head shots in order to cast extras in his next movie. He's making a Russian war epic and bemoaning the fact that the current crop of Tinseltown actors look so inauthentic.

Then his eyes fall onto a picture of an old man. There's a glimmer of anticipation and even familiarity. He tells his staff to cast the man as the general in the film.

The old man receives the call and heads to the studio and waits with hundreds of others outside the gates.   As the lot opens, the potential extras push and yell at each other, trying to ensure their acting spot. The "general" navigates through this with a grace and dignity that none of the others can match.

When he finally dons the uniform, the general reaches into his case and produces his own medal to complete the outfit. The actor next to him asks where the man got the medal and the response is from the czar himself.

We flash back to 1917 and see the man without the world-weariness as General Dolgorucki of his cousin's army. He is trying to win the war, but he also has to make political maneuvers. When the czar visits the encampment, he pulls a division from the front lines to parade in front of the ruler. Never mind the fact that the men are desperately needed at the front, he has a czar to appease.



The general also must deal with a couple of actors who are really spies for the enemy. One of the spies, Leo, is the director from the opening scenes.  Dolgorucki whips him and locks him away. As for Leo's partner Natalie?  Well, the General takes a liking to the beautiful yet fiery woman and keeps her around as his consort.

Natalie still harbors a hatred for the government, but her time with the general leads her to respect the man's love for Russia. When her chance comes to kill her former enemy, Natalie cannot bring herself to do it.   The seeds of a romance are sown.

Unfortunately, the relationship never gets time to bloom. The train carrying the general and his men is hijacked by rebels and Natalie gleefully joins her former allies. The army officers are executed on the spot, but the general is spared so he can be hanged publicly. They send their captive to shovel coal into the train's furnace.

However, Natalie's alliance with the revolutionaries was only a ruse. She frees the general and he jumps from the train.  He can only watch in horror as the locomotive careens off of a bridge, killing the woman he loved.

Which brings us back to the present and the general's nascent acting career.  Will Leo exact his revenge?  And can the general lead his army of actors to one last victory?


Casual movie fans have doubtless heard of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton before. More serious cinephiles will recognize Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Lon Chaney.

How on earth Emil Jannings does not merit similar consideration is beyond me.

I had never heard of him before this marathon and shame on me.  If there is an Emil Jannings Fan Club, sign me up. I will gladly pay those dues.

In The Last Command, Jannings is required to pay two roles: a proud and physically imposing general and a frail, put-upon, would-be actor. He is fantastic in both roles and almost unrecognizable when you compare the two. He's impressive throughout, but when the finale requires him to transform from the destitute old man to the fierce battlefield commander, he pulls it off without the benefit of a special effect.

The rest of the actors here are good. I'd note William Powell's performance as Leo in particular. He's fine, but there's is little that hints at the leading man status he'd achieve in the next decade.

Beyond the acting, the script here is the real strength. The film sets up the central mystery of what happened to this once proud man and pays it off in spectacular fashion. It's a captivating story that gives all of the players a lot to work with.

The Last Command is about as great a drama as you'll see in the silent era. Jannings took home the first Best Actor Oscar and it could not have been more well-deserved.

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

Photo from mubi.com

Read More

In Old Arizona (1928)

Directed by Irving Cummings
Starring Warner Baxter, Edmund Lowe and Dorothy Burgess
Produced by Fox Film Corporation

In an old western town, a mismatched group of people await passage on a stagecoach to take them across the desert. As the passengers board and set out, there are jokes and jibes. All of that frivolity is forgotten however when the stage is set upon by the notorious Cisco Kid.

The bandit disarms the drivers and demands they throw the strongbox down. The robber is not without honor and refuses to steal from the individual passengers. Even when a piece of jewelry worn by one of the travelers catches his eye, he doesn't just take it; he pays her in cash for the trinket.

We soon learn why he needs so much cash and jewelry. The Kid is in love with Tonia, a local girl who likes nothing more than to be treated like a queen. She oohs and aahs over everything her beau brings her. He thinks it's true love, and she is more than happy to let him think that. Of course, as soon as the Kid leaves, Tonia is entertaining a new gentleman caller.

In order to deal with the Cisco Kid once and for all, the army dispatches Sergeant Mickey Dunn to bring him in dead or alive. Dunn catches the eye of the lawman and, at first, protects her paramour. Of course, once she hears the Cisco Kid is worth $5000, her allegiance shifts quickly.

A scheme is hatched and a trap is set. Will Dunn and Tonia bring down the legendary outlaw? Or will the Cisco Kid turn the tables on his foes?




If I give my child a new toy car, he's going to be so excited, he won't know what to do. He'll race that car down a track. Across the floor. Up a wall. Around his brother's head. As a parent, you can correct him, but you also know the shine will wear off that car and your child will move on to the next thing.

I've reached the point with sound where I am waiting for Hollywood to lose interest.

In Old Arizona is rightfully recognized as an historic achievement. It's the first film to feature sound recorded outdoors. Actors are no longer limited to performing on soundstages indoors. Directors can capture their movements and their voices anywhere. When you consider that two years earlier, sound films were almost nonexistent, this a big step forward.

Of course, you hand that kind of new toy over to the wrong guy and...

This film is a full-on sonic onslaught.

The director is so fascinated with sound, he forgets how to be quiet. Every scene has some constant source of noise in the background. The guitars of a mariachi band. The singing of a barbershop quartet. The rhythmic tapping from a telegraph. If there are only two people in a room, turn on the phonograph. One person trying to sleep?  Queue the wailing infant.

What could be impressive with a modicum of restraint becomes mind-numbing. Once the sound hits during the overture, it almost never stops.

There are some more forgivable and unintentionally amusing aspects of this first foray into sound. A gunshot in a canyon produces a muffled thump. Wagons sound pretty much the same whether they are five feet or five hundred feet away. And horse hooves make the same clopping sound on hard scrabble ground and a stream.

Warner Baxter is fun as the Cisco Kid. He has a swagger and charm that immediately has the audience rooting for him, despite being an outlaw.

On the flip side, Edmund Lowe's portrayal of Dunn constantly brings the film to a screeching halt. Part of it is in Lowe's blustering performance, but a lot of the problem comes down to the script. We know Dunn is a gambler and a womanizer because we spend a lot of time watching him do those things in a boring, obvious way. We don't know why he'd be a danger to our hero. We are told by others that he's the Army's best shot, but we never see any evidence of it.

As for Dorothy Burgess' Tonia, I hated the performance. It was by turns over the top and wooden. One moment she's a flurry of activity and the next a statue with her emotion chiseled onto her face.

On the whole, In Old Arizona remains an important step in the development of filmmaking technology. That and an engaging lead performance from Baxter are all this has going for it.

** out of *****

Note: Baxter won the Best Actor Oscar for his performance. As much as I like his work here, I have no idea why he won an Oscar.

Photo from Alt Film Guide

Read More

1973: The Year I Made Contact

This post is part of The Year I Made Contact Blogathon.  Find a complete list of participants at The Movie Waffler.

It took about five seconds after I agreed to participate in this blogathon for me to have a realization: "Crap, I guess I'm putting my age out there for the world."  After toying with lying and putting forward a list topped by say Pulp Fiction or The Matrix, I figured I'd come clean and say...

Hello, my name is Patrick and I was born in 1973.

It wasn't until recently that it even occurred to me that my presence on-line is probably pulling the average film blogger age north.  I listen to the LambCast, Slashfilm and other podcasts, hear the reviewers describing seeing The Phantom Menace as a kid and realize "Man, I'm getting old."

That, however, is what it is.  Despite being a devoted cinephile, it never even occurred to me to look at the films released during my birth year.  So, what started as excitement with participating, then turned to horror at putting my age out there, finally rounded into intellectual curiosity best summed up as:

"How about that?  I was born the same year Battle for the Planet of the Apes was released."

Without further ado, my top five movies released during my birth year:



5. Robin Hood - A sentimental favorite for me growing up.  I've seen it recently and my brain can see its flaws, but my heart keeps rudely shouldering my cranium aside to fall completely in love with Disney's anthropomorphic treatment of the classic tale. 

4. American Graffiti - I think I first saw this in high school.  Beyond the realization that Han Solo was behind the wheel of one of the cars, it's that rare movie that both encapsulates a moment in time while remaining completely timeless.  Every kid goes through the struggles and confusion these teens go through.  And it allowed George Lucas to make Star Wars.

3. The Sting - It's been a while since I've seen this.  I remember just being blown away by the ending.  This for me is the ultimate con movie.  And if you saw Robert Shaw as Quint in Jaws yet still remain unsure as to his cinema god status... check him out here.  Must... watch...again...

2. The Exorcist - I first saw this on a television. As a kid. In the middle of the night.  Alone.  Not sure how old I was, but definitely not old enough.  The mood and Linda Blair creep rotating head were nightmare food for weeks.  Today, I really appreciate the craft of what director William Friedkin created.  That constant sense of dread and building suspense does not just happen.

1. Enter the Dragon - Again, my brain said The Exorcist was number one, but my heart just cannot let it by Enter the Dragon.  I spent most Saturdays watching syndicated, dubbed kung fu movies.  Couldn't get enough of them.  However, when I first saw Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, everything else fell a step.  It's one of those movies with one of those performances that simply cannot be unseen.  The early death of Lee remains one of cinema's great tragedies.  And the final battle in the House of Mirrors is one of film's most bad ass sequences.

I feel it's important to note that there is a fair amount I have not seen.  Badlands, Serpico or Walking Tall for example may sneak onto the list when I see them.  Battle for the Planet of the Apes will remain the sixth best movie of 1973 regardless.  Of course, at the rate I'm moving through films that will be six years from now before I even get to 1973.

Read More