Metropolis Needs Your Help!

As many of you know, I am a member of the Large Association of Movie Blogs.  Every month, they have a discussion and blogathon about one film that is voted on for that month.  The movies are nominated by members and championed by them through a poll.  The winner is the official Movie of the Month (MOTM).  You can vote at the LAMB's website in the sidebar.

For September's MOTM, I am championing Metropolis.  If you need any reminding of this film's awesomeness, here is my review.

Why should Metropolis be MOTM?

• It's amongst the most ambitious film's ever.  The production design of Fritz Lang's world is staggering for its time.
• Brigitte Helm's gloriously unhinged performance as the Machine Man.  She plays two characters who look identical, but you never doubt which is which.
• Rotwang, the stereotypical mad scientist with the hint of tragedy lurking behind his actions.
• Introducing LAMBs to both one of the most important sci-fi films of all time and one of the best silents ever.

So I need you all to click on the LAMB website go to the upper right corner and give Metropolis your vote!

Read More

Wings (1927)

Directed by William A. Wellman and Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast (uncredited)
Starring Clara Bow, Charles 'Buddy' Rogers and Richard Arlen
Produced by 

Jack Powell is a day dreamer. He stares at the sky dreaming of what it would be like to soar through the clouds. Unable to fulfill his fantasy, Jack satisfies his urges by focusing on hurtling along the roadways in his custom-built race car. The car does more then scratch his thrill-seeking itch; it's also a vehicle for his attempts to impress Sylvia, the beautiful focus of his romantic gestures.

Unfortunately, Sylvia only has eyes for the local rich boy, David Armstrong. Sylvia indulges Jack a little, but it's clear that she sees him as a boy and doesn't want to break his heart. David feels secure enough with Sylvia to let it slide.

Still, Jack thinks he is in the hunt for Sylvia. He doesn't notice his awkward attempts to woo Sylvia are not working. The same way he does not notice his beautiful neighbor Mary Preston making eyes at him.

All of these romantic dreams are thrown aside when the reality of World War I intrudes. Jack and David head off to become pilots. At basic training, the competitive Jack pushes and prods David until a fistfight erupts. Jack wins but is impressed with David's spirit. The former rivals become fast friends.

Soon the duo are on the frontlines, flying patrols and sorties for the US of A. Will they survive the brutality of war? How will the conflict change them? And... Why is Mary in France?

Wings was the very first Oscar winner for Best Picture and in many ways it's a prototypical of the Academy Awards today. It's a sweeping wartime epic. It features some technical innovation with fantastic aerial combat scenes. And it features some strong performances, especially from the leads.

It also has some significant plot issues, including an unnecessary subplot and a sequence in its second act which is just annoyingly corny.

What's good here is really good. The aerial combat scenes feature real biplanes flying and it all has a weight and chaos that feels authentic. During the film's extended climactic battle, the camera takes you inside the cockpit to see both the determination and horror of what the pilots go through. The film goes the extra mile to make it all real and it works better than most modern films featuring aerial combat. There is no way to get this effect with CGI or even miniatures.

The two main leads are critical to making us buy the melodrama and both fit their parts beautifully. As Jack, Buddy Rogers comes out the gate perhaps too naively boyish, but once he befriends David, he is pitch perfect. We feel his arc from wide-eyed kid to grizzled veteran and it centers the picture.

The real star is Richard Arlen as David. He is understated throughout, but you can sense the burden he feels from his upper class parents. The army and his plane are an escape and his friendship with Jack is the type of relationship he could never have in his normal world. When Arlen is flying his commandeered German plane and Jack starts shooting at him, you feel the anguish and desperation of the moment through Arlen's acting.

The direction here is fine. A lot of the heavy lifting is done by the pilots with cameras strapped to their planes. The ground scenes are for the most part by the numbers, but there are the occasional flourishes, like early in the film when the camera is attached to the swing David and Sylvia are on. As the camera moves back and forth, we see Jack's arrival in staccato movements that create a slight tension in the scene that would be otherwise absent.

There are two romantic subplots in the film and neither of them really work. The main source of antagonism between Jack and David is their love of Sylvia. While much is made of the rivalry, it's clear that Sylvia loves David and Jack never had a shot. There's no real conflict because the end is never in doubt. To make matters worse, Sylvia herself barely registers as a character. She's an abstract concept, but we never know what the appeal is.

Worse yet is Clara Bow's role in the film. It's just not necessary. In the beginning, she's pining for Jack, but he is so engrossed by fast cars and Sylvia, he barely acknowledges Mary's existence. The boys go off to war and Mary is forgotten for a bit.

Then we get Mary's adventures in the army (she joined up and is driving a truck in France). She survives a bombing. She bumps into a ridiculously drunk Jack in Paris and saves him from going off with another woman. Finally, Jack returns to the States after the war and is ready to love her.

There are really two problems here. First, this is Jack and David's story. Mary is not involved in that at all. She barely interacts with Jack and certainly doesn't have anything to do with David. All of which means the filmmakers have to shoehorn her into the tale...

...which leads to the second issue: Jack and Mary's scenes together in Paris. They are by far the worst moments in the film. Jack is on leave with some other soldiers at a Paris club.  He starts literally seeing bubbles coming out of people in his drunken stupor. And he cannot stop talking about bubbles. It's supposed to be funny, but it's just dumb. We get a ridiculous series of coincidences: Mary seeing Jack in the first place, a woman offering Mary a dress to seduce Jack, the military police walking in at the wrong moment. The direction is clumsy and feels completely out of place with the rest of the movie.

Wings is melodrama, but it's damn good melodrama. You could edit out Clara Bow almost entirely and the film would lose nothing. Wings is about the brothers we find when the chips are stacked against us and the bonds forged by war. Oh, and there are dogfights. Lots and lots of glorious dogfights.

**** out of *****

NOTE: We previously saw Gary Cooper in a small role in It.  He's here again in a small role again as a veteran, but ill-fated pilot.  

Read More

The Unknown (1927)

Directed by Tod Browning
Starring Lon Chaney, Joan Crawford and Norman Kerry
Produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

The circus comes to town with all of the standard acts. Horses fly around the ring. The strong man impresses with feats of strength. And the ringmaster keeps the show moving along.

There is one very unique act. A rotating plank is brought to the center of the tent. At one end, the beautiful Nanon stands. At the other, Alonzo sits with a gun and knives. Alonzo takes aim with the gun and, after pulling the trigger twice, Nanon's gown falls to the floor. Then, the knives fly and bury themselves in the board around the scantily clad woman, narrowly missing her. The crowd goes wild.

Not impressed?

What if I told you Alonzo had no arms?

Yes, the circus sharpshooter is accomplishing all of these feats with his feet.

We learn Alonzo is in love with Nanon. For her part, the girl likes Alonzo, but she's settling for him. Nanon has spent her life being pawed by man after man due to her beauty and now is repulsed by the notion of being touched. A guy without arms is a convenient way around her bizarre phobia.

That doesn't stop Malabar, the circus strong man, from making passes at Nanon at every opportunity. Unfortunately, he doesn't know about Nanon's fear and is constantly grabbing her arms. She recoils in terror.

Alonzo has a secret of his own. When he undresses, we find two perfectly usable arms bound tightly to his body. He's a criminal on the run from police and has a disfigurement that is easily identifiable: two thumbs on his left hand. The armless circus performer gives him the perfect cover.

Alonzo's love for Nanon is complicating things. If she even hugs him, his secret may get out. Mix in a nosy circus owner and Alonzo seems to be living on borrowed time.

Just how far will Alonzo go to protect his secret? And what will he do if Nanon overcomes her phobia and falls for another man?

So here is my recipe for awesome soup:

• Start with a base of Tod Browning, director of Dracula and Freaks
• Stir in Lon Chaney and bring to a boil
• Top with a pinch of early Joan Crawford
• Serve

This film is pure fun with a ridiculous plot that seems plausible thanks in large part to a brilliant lead performance from Chaney as Alonzo. Part of the joy is seeing how the character uses his feet convincingly throughout. The character's feet become hands, holding cigarettes and forks and absentmindedly stroking his chin when he is thinking.

More than that however, Chaney's face gives us everything we need to know about what the character is thinking. The performance is so controlled in many ways, but any hint of restraint restraint is more like a wild tiger on a leash. Even when he casually smiles, you can see the utter disgust floating in his eyes. This is easily one of the best performances of the 1920s.

Joan Crawford shines in an early role as Nanon. She is saddled with a ridiculous phobia of men's hands, but her performance sells it.

Browning's approach with the camera is straightforward and static, but with Chaney in the lead, it's the right approach. Camera moves would distract from the constantly changing landscape of his lead actor's face.

The Unknown is short at less than an hour, but paced like a great episode of The Twilight Zone. To say anymore is to spoil the tale's fun twists. Sometimes you just need to scratch a genre itch. The Unknown is a perfect remedy.

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

NOTE: A word of warning: there are a lot of reviews that ruin the most fun parts of this one. Definitely recommend going in cold.

Read More

A Couple of Alice Comedies (1927)

Directed by Walt Disney

Once more, I step into the abyss that is the Alice comedies from Walt Disney.

In Alice's Circus Daze, we see a variety of scenes from the big top, including a rubber man and a lion decapitating his tamer then playing keep away with the head. The short culminates with a tightrope walker balancing Alice atop a dozen chairs.

In Alice the Whaler, our heroine commands a whaling vessel. The crew faces challenges from swabbing the deck to finding eggs on the open sea. The finale has a cry of "Thar she blows!" as the crew tries to take down the powerful whale.

First question: Why is Alice even in these anymore?

When the comedies started, they were an interesting mix of live action and animation. They were never as interesting or clever as the Out of the Inkwell series, but I saw the potential and stuck with it.

It's devolved into cartoons that barely even remember Alice is supposed to be in them.

Take Alice's Circus Daze for example. We get a scene of Alice preparing for her act. She's off in the corner of the screen while the zaniness happens around her. She's not involved at all. Then in the end, it's a wide shot with Alice as pixels at the top of the screen cut with extreme close ups of her face.

Alice the Whaler is worse. Her role in the short is only to react to what other characters are doing. There is almost no interaction between the live performer and her cartoon environment and cohorts. There's a monkey swabbing the deck; cut to a closeup of Alice reacting. Julius spots a whale; cut to Alice reacting.

All of this would be fine if the animation was interesting or funny. It's not. There are a couple of inventive moments like a janitor removing a giraffe's spots to polish them or the mouse on the boat nailing the goat to the deck, but none of it made me laugh. It didn't even make me smile. At best, there are moments that are interesting.

This is the end of the Alice shorts and I for one could not be happier to see them gone. Walt Disney moves on to Oswald and ultimately Mickey (and you can see echoes of the famous rodent in both Oswald and the mouse in the Alice comedies). As a step in the evolution of Disney animation, these Alice shorts serve a purpose. As entertainment? Not so much.

Alice's Circus Daze *1/2 out of *****
Alice the Whaler * out of *****

Read More

Sunrise (1927)

Directed by F.W. Murnau

Starring George O'Brien, Janet Gaynor and Margaret Livingston

Produced by Fox Film Corporation

In a small coastal farm community, summer comes and with it, an influx of vacationers. At the end of the season, the tourists all head back to the city. 

All, that is, except one woman.  She has spent her vacation fooling around with a married farmer. 

The man (no one here has a name) makes an effort at discretion, but the entire town knows, and his wife spends her evenings sobbing into a pillow in their child's room. 

The time comes for the mistress to head back to the city and she asks the man to sell the farm and come with her. The man asks what should happen to his wife. The woman suggests a drowning made to look like an accident. 

The husband is initially distraught by the idea, but some kisses get him on board. He returns home and suggests a romantic excursion across the water. The previously ignored wife is so thrilled with the attention she agrees immediately and off they go. 

The husband rows the boat vigorously into the water and seems crazed as the moment approaches. He drops the oars, stands and slowly approaches wife. He lunges for her as her face turns from joy to horror. She realizes what is about to happen. And then...

He can't do it. 

Whether it's love or simply knowing it's wrong, he stops himself. He grabs the oars and heads for the closest shoreline. 

No sooner does he beach the rowboat, then his shaken wife takes off with the husband in pursuit. They board a trolley and he implores her not to be afraid of him. 

They disembark in the city and he directs his shell-shocked wife through the busy street to a nearby restaurant. He offers her a sandwich and she hesitantly accepts, marking the beginning of a magical evening. 

Over the course of their hours in the city, they rediscover their love. He buys her flowers  They happen upon a wedding which reminds them of their vows. He gets a shave and feels pangs of jealousy as another man hits on his wife while he is confined to a barber's chair. They engage in common rites of dating: he trying to win a prize for her at the carnival, she pulling him onto the dance floor. 

In the end, he is recommitted to his wife, and she has forgiven him. They head back to their boat and row for  home. 

Unfortunately, storm clouds are on the horizon.  Literally.  A squall capsizes the boat and the husband finds himself alone on the shore. 

Did his wife survive?  And what will become of the woman from the city?

There is a saying critics throw around with regard to directors they like. They'll say "Fill-in-the-blank could direct the phone book."

It's an expression I hate, but after watching Murnau direct The Last Laugh and now Sunrise, I am convinced the man could turn the yellow pages into a suspenseful drama. 

There is almost no story here. Once the husband doesn't kill his wife, the trajectory of the story goes on autopilot. We know what happens to this couple. It's just a matter of how we get there. 

With Murnau directing, we take the most interesting route possible. His city is a fantasy world in every way. At every turn, the couple receives exactly what they need to mend their broken relationship. None of it feels real, but here that's a beautiful, whimsical thing. 

The film is also not so syrupy that it forgets who its characters are. The man was capable of violence against his wife and we see that dangerous side of him throughout the film. He threatens the man who hit on his wife with a knife. And he almost kills his former mistress in his rage near the end of the film. The fact that he gets a happy ending doesn't mean his fundamental nature has changed. 

As you'd expect with Murnau, there is a technical virtuosity here unmatched by most silent films. The camera swoops above crowds and follows the couple through bustling city streets, the cars just missing the lovers and the camera. And when the man is pondering the prospect of murder, his mistress appears as a ghostly apparition to caress and kiss him. 

As much as I love the film, it has problems. The middle act of the couple rediscovering their love could have been edited down. There's a scene of the husband chasing down a piglet and being treated as a hero when he catches it that seems too nonsensical. Because we know where these scenes are going, the pacing could have been a little more brisk. 

I also came to hate George O'Brien as the husband. His acting has the subtlety of a hammer to the head. How his wife stuck it out is a mystery. 

Sunrise has a reputation as one of the greatest silent films ever and its esteem is well-deserved.  As with The Last Laugh, it's a story told with minimal title cards, but you never feel lost. Everything you need is right there on the screen. I cannot recommend this one enough. 

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

Read More

Metropolis (1927)

Directed by Fritz Lang
Starring Brigitte Helm, Alfred Abel and Gustav Fröhlich
Produced by Universum Film (UFA)

In the distant future, a gleaming city pulses with life and energy.  Its denizens seem to enjoy a non-stop party.  It's seemingly utopia...

...Except that the city depends upon a working class that is sentenced to live underground operating the city's massive machinery.  The workers aren't happy, but they are far too busy to even think about a rebellion.

That is, until Maria enters the picture.  She is trying to educate both classes that there may be a better way.The path requires the two sides to understand one another, a seemingly impossible task.

Fortunately for her, Freder is enthralled by both Maria's message and her beauty.  He's the son of Joh Fredersen, the man who lords over the city, controlling every movement and pulse.  Freder switches places with a worker so he can help.

The whispers of revolution are reaching Joh's ears and he takes a desperate action. He throws his lot in with Rotwang, a mad scientist who has created a robot that can look and act human.  Joh wants to replace Maria with this Machine Man.

Rotwang agrees, but only because he sees the opportunity for vengeance.  Years earlier, the scientist fell in love with Hel, but she chose Joh.  He still carries the grudge and now is the perfect time to act by using faux-Maria to cause a riot?

Can the metropolis survive?  And will Freder realize his destiny of uniting the upper and working classes?

Metropolis is one of two movies that gave me the confidence to even start these reviews.  I have seen this and Nosferatu before starting the 100 Years of Movies, which made me think I knew what I was getting into.  Of course the last year and a half has blown every assumption I made out of the water (in the best possible ways).

That said, this was new to me because a) it's probably been over 15 years since I saw Metropolis and b) this is the brilliant extended version with newly discovered scenes so I had not really seen this before.

Most striking for any viewer is the production design which manages the feat of being timelessly futuristic.  It's our world years from now and it will seemingly always be our world years from now.  The buildings tower over everyone and everything and the subterranean machines are massive enough to swallow up humans whole (literally).  There are even small touches like the Gardens we find our hero in at the start of the film that are idyllic and alien.

While the on-screen action follows the romance and political intrigues of Freder and Maria, it's Joh Fredersen and Rotwang's personal struggle that embody everything the film is about. The two men pursued the same woman (Hel), with Joh ultimately winning out.  Some tragedy befell Hel after she gave birth to Freder.  Joh has never forgiven himself for her death and Rotwand has never forgiven his colleague for both stealing and losing the object of their mutual desire.

Hel's memory hangs over the entire film.  Joh controls the city, but is disconnected from it, lording over the city and its inhabitants from a large office that towers over the city.  He can barely look at the son who reminds him so much of his lost love.

Rotwang is clearly the villain of the piece, but I feel a touch of sympathy for the miscreant.  He maintains a twenty foot tall shrine to the woman he lost to Joh.  He devotes all of his days to creating a robot he can craft into Hel's image, even losing his hand for his efforts.  He's clearly mad, but in a delusionally romantic way.  Rotwang resents Joh, but he's not about to act on it. In fact, he's starts out bragging to Joh that he will bring Hel back and keep her for himself this time.

What really sets Rotwang over the edge is losing Hel again to Fredersen.  Joh decides that the best way to attack the nascent insurgency is by replacing Maria with Rotwang's Machine Man, the robot meant to become the scientist's personal Hel.  Rotwang begrudgingly goes along, but hatches his own plan to bring down the city, Joh and his son Freder.

Of course, we have not talked much about Freder who is our on screen hero. Frankly, I find him a bit of a bore.  We see him in the Pleasure Gardens at the start of the film, but once he sees the workers being oppressed, he immediately picks a side.  There's no conflict.  He's just...well, good.  And honestly, he's kind of dull.  The character hits every beat the story needs him too, I just wish it gave him more to do.

Freder's love of Maria is more like a platonic friendship.  He follows her around with puppy dog eyes, but she has a rebellion to foster. However, her approach is more Martin Luther King than Malcolm X.  Her protests are non-violent, imploring the rich in the city above to see the workers as their brothers.

Maria herself has a dull monotony to her.  That is, until she is replaced by the Machine Man version of Maria.  From that moment on, Brigitte Helm just devours every scene.  Her performance is off-kilter with even her eyes seeming to go all directions at once.  From the moment Maria's doppelganger is introduced, there is never confusion about which one you are looking at.

Lang's vision is ambitious and his direction is every bit up to the task. I love the editing and shot selection. The way he juxtaposes the glitz and glam of the surface against the grime and monotony of the underground city shows us the flaws of both worlds.

At its core, Metropolis is a potent piece of political subversion packed into a candy-coated sci fi action movie shell. The conclusion of the film is not that the workers and the rich should be equals; it's that they need to connect and understand one another. You don't leave Metropolis feeling like the workers will stop running the machinery, or that the rich will take a few shifts below ground. It's all about understanding the plight of your fellow man and making things better by degrees.

If the movie has any failing, it's in the way it bludgeons you with the whole brain-hand-heart message. It never feels genuine or like real things humans would say.

The other plot contrivance that bugs me is the way every worker leaves their children behind, and then later express genuine surprise when that is pointed out. It's silly and the acting goes over the top to sell us on it. I never buy it.

Still, these are minor concerns. Metropolis is more than a five star film. It makes you wish the scale went higher, or that you could lower every other film by a star. It's not a great silent, but a great and timeless film.

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

Read More

A Couple of Oswald Shorts from Disney (1927)

Produced by Walt Disney

In addition to the Alice comedies, Disney started producing cartoons featuring Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. In watching a couple, I'd note that they are even more saccharine than the Alice shorts (particularly as Oswald thus far avoids violence and racism).

As for plot, these don't really have them. Trolley Troubles follows Oswald as he attempts to deliver a trolley car full of cats to a destination we never learn. In All Wet, he runs a beachside hot dog stand and becomes a lifeguard to impress a female bunny.

Both are fine in a smile-inducing way, but there's not a genuine chuckle to be had. If I had to pick, I'd say All Wet is slightly better just for the way it handles the hot dogs.

All Wet ***
Trolley Troubles **1/2

Both are embedded below:

Read More

Educational Films: 1927 Edition

So, I am searching YouTube for 1927 films and I come upon the film below.  My two immediate reactions were: 1) this may be the greatest thing ever and 2) how did I not know about this before.  I plan on doing future editions in this series, but this will be hard to top.

My favorite moments include the implied ghost closing the garage door to asphyxiate the mechanic, the fact that you should call a doctor or the gas company to deal with someone who succumbs to carbon monoxide, and the acting of the gentleman who gets the electric shock.  But the true hilarity comes just before the nine minute mark.

Without further ado, Artificial Respiration:

Read More

The King of Kings (1927)

Directed by Cecil B. Demille
Starring H.B. Warner, Dorothy Cumming and Ernest Torrence
Produced by DeMille Pictures Corporation

It's about 2000 years ago and Mary Magdalene is throwing a party.  It's obviously an exotic affair with men throwing themselves at the beautiful hostess and leopards on display.

Mary however is nonplussed to discover her favorite boy-toy Judas is not in attendance.  When she finds out Judas would rather spend time with some carpenter from Nazareth, she goes crazy.  There is no way she can let this preacher compete with her.  She summons her zebra-pulled chariot and sets off to set things right.

What she discovers of course is Jesus as he is curing a blind little girl.  The carpenter then drives the seven deadly sins out of Magdalene and she becomes one of his followers.

What happens next will be familiar to most viewers.  There's demons to be driven out, tables to be overturned in the temple, and palms to be strewn.  Can Jesus survive the political intrigue of ancient Rome or is there a crucifix in his future?

I think you know where this story is going.  And that's the danger of any retelling of the New Testament.  How do you tell the most well-known story of the last two millennia and keep the audience engaged?

For most of its two-and-a-half hour runtime, Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings manages this feat admirably. The director strays from the Bible for moments, but it never feels out of character.  In fact, it serves to flesh out the tale in interesting ways.

Jesus' introduction is brilliant.  He and the apostles are holed up in a house surrounded by a throng of followers, each looking for their own miracle.  A previously lame, but now healed boy spies a blind girl and leads her to an open window to sneak into the dwelling. We don't see Jesus until He begins healing her.  As her eyes open and then focus, we see Christ from the girl's point-of-view.  It may be the best introduction for Jesus on film ever.

The other moment that sticks with me is the familiar tale of the children trying to see Jesus, but the apostles pushing them back.  Jesus of course allows the children to come, leading to a cute moment where a little girl asks Him to "heal" her broken doll's limb.  Jesus falls back on his carpentry skills and uses a small stick as a pin to make the doll whole.  Very cute.

The other character who gets a fantastic treatment is Judas. Most films don't know how to deal with his motivations, so we get a random, evil turn at the end of the story.  Here though we see why he betrays Jesus.  He thinks the carpenter is destined to overthrow Rome.  He doesn't understand why as Jesus' follower he cannot perform miracles himself.  He's prideful enough to think he can cast out demons and seething when he can't. 

Judas still believes though.  We see his anguish and despair after he turns on his Master.  His suicide coincides with Jesus' own death and both are well filmed and effective.

The movie finds humor in small moments as well.  My favorite is a bit where Jesus sends Peter to catch a fish under the watchful eye of a couple Roman soldiers.  When Peter pulls up his line, the fish is holding a gold coin in its mouth (which allows Christ to provide his "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" lesson).  However, at the end of scene, we cut back to the Roman soldiers who are unsuccessfully fishing for their own gold-laden catch.  Not hysterical, but a fun moment in a place you aren't expecting it.

It's DeMille, so of course there are special effects.  For most of the film, H.B. Warner's Jesus is surrounded by a halo effect, which is subtle but effective.  When Magdalene is tormented by the seven deadly sins, we see each brought to life and feel Mary's anguish.  And the earthquake that ravages the site of the Crucifixion is epic in a way we immediately associate with the director.

Still, The King of Kings has a lot of problems as a film.  Once the story reaches Jerusalem, it slows to a crawl and suffers from the problem inherent in any telling of this tale:  the audience knows where the story is going and the pacing needs to appreciate that.  This film doesn't. It drags the viewer through the Last Supper, the garden, Pontius Pilate's deliberations and the march to Calvary at a glacial pace.

As a Catholic, another very annoying flaw is the out of context Scripture verses.  At times, the title cards seem to pull Bible quotes at random so that Jesus is saying things that have nothing to do with what is happening on screen.  This may be less glaring to those without sixteen years of Catholic school education (ouch!), but it certainly struck me.

The other odd artistic touch was the use of color at a couple of moments during the film.  For obvious reasons, the Resurrection is in color, but the other sequence to get that treatment is Magdalene's opening party/orgy.  It's a striking way to begin the film, but I hate connecting the scenes in my brain.  

When you add it up, I liked moments of The King of Kings and admired the overall craft involved in bringing it to the screen; I just never loved it.  The scenes I like (Jesus curing the blind girl, absentmindedly working on a piece of wood before realizing its a cross, and fixing the doll) will now be a part of my own mental telling of the New Testament and that, in itself, is an accomplishment.

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

NOTE: As a D.W. Griffith fan, my favorite bit of trivia involves the legendary silent film director.  He was visiting DeMille on set, when DeMille spontaneously handed Griffith the megaphone and told him to direct the next scene. So there is a moment during the Crucifixion that is directed by Griffith.

Read More

The Beloved Rogue (1927)

Directed by Alan Crosland
Starring John Barrymore, Conrad Veidt and Marceline Day
Produced by Feature Productions

It's 15th century Paris and King Louis XI controls his country not from a majestic throne room, but from the shadowy depths of his castle.  He knows that the Duke of Burgundy poses a political threat and must consult his most trusted advisor: the royal astrologer.

Louis is superstitious and terrified, but he sees the the challenge Burgundy poses.  The king consults the stars through his astrologer and is told that a battle with Burgundy will end in defeat. The sniveling king reluctantly agrees to embrace his foe as a brother.  Of course, it's not entirely clear that the astrologer is basing his decision on the heavens or on payments from Burgundy.

Meanwhile, François Villon, son of a martyred patriot, rules the streets of Paris.  He's a renowned poet, but also engages in his share of petty thievery.  He is elected King of Fools by the common folk who worship him and a raucous celebration breaks out in the streets.

The mob scene is a major inconvenience for Burgundy and his approaching entourage.  The duke orders the crowd to disperse, which leads to a healthy dose of mockery from Villon.  For all his failings, the poet remains a patriot and understands the danger Burgundy poses to the king.

Of course, the superstitious king must side with Burgundy or he feels forces of fate and destiny will overthrow him.  He exiles Villon from Paris, but not before our hero gets his first view of Charlotte de Vauxcelle, the beautiful noblewoman and soon-to-be unwilling bride of Burgundy.

Outside his beloved city, Villon finds an opportunity for mischief.  He and his friends steal a wagon of the king's food, climb the city walls and use a catapult to deliver the food to the starving masses of Paris.  When the king's troops converge, he jumps into the catapult himself to escape.

Now the king wants him dead and he can't run forever?  Will Villon convince the king to face the real bad guy?  Or does he have a date with the guillotine?

The Beloved Rogue shouldn't work.  It's a silly film.  Barrymore's performance is bad.  His love interest is completely and utterly forgettable.  The plot turns 180 degrees on a dime.

But damn if I didn't have a good time.

At the start, the tone is completely inconsistent.  We start with the burning at the stake of Villon's father when François is still an infant.  His wife is screaming, trying to get to the fire.  The next morning she somberly walks to the pile of ashes that was her husband, grabs a handful and loads it into a locket.

Next scene? The infant François won't drink his milk unless it's loaded into a wine bottle.  Funny, right?

Then we fast forward to the bowels Louis' castle and we are in a horror movie.  The it's the adult Villon being silly on the rooftops of Paris.

The tone never completely rights itself, but the pendulum-like swings slow down.  We start to understand that François' playful, carefree attitude masks deeper passions.  He cavorts with women until he meets "the one."  He engages in petty crime until he figures a way into the king's court, then he's the crown's most trusted advisor, the only one capable of telling truth to power.

Key to the film's success are its inventive set pieces.  From catapulting fruit into the city to the chase that ensues, all of the film's movements are dictated by what would be fun, not what would be suspenseful or realistic.  When Villon drops into a barrel carried by four men, it's not a surprise that none of those hoisting the barrel notice the additional 150 pounds.  And it's not a surprise that the barrel is brought into a room with a bear.  It's nonsensical, but it also delights.  And in the world this film creates?  It's the natural order of things.

A key part of the film's appeal is some over-the-top performances.  Barrymore runs around a snow-covered Paris in Robin Hood tights, over-emoting and sporadically dancing every time a fit of happiness hits him.  It's bad, but it's so bad it's good.  The manic energy of the performance fits the material.  He seems to be having fun and you can't help but smile along.

Conrad Veidt makes a fantastically slimy Louis.  His humpback shuffling across every scene, his sideways glances at his astrologer to see what he should do at every turn, his palpable disgust for Burgundy even as he defends his honor... he's brilliant at every turn.  There is a central moment where Villon convinces Louis to spare his life and if you buy the exchange at all, it's only because of the good will Veidt has built up.

The climax features lots of buildup, but no real pay off.  Burgundy is preparing to execute Villon in front of Charlotte and a crowd of Parisians.  However, we start seeing that much of the assembly are Villon's men.  They start producing carefully concealed weapons, removing fake limbs, sometimes even assembling improvised hatchets.  Then the moment comes and... Louis reveals himself hidden in the crowd and orders Burgundy arrested.  No battle.  The scene doesn't so much end as peter out.

The Beloved Rogue is not a good film.  It's not a bad one either.  It's an entertaining diversion.  And sometimes that's enough.

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

Read More

College (1927)

It’s high school graduation and Ronald is late.  He hurries along to the ceremony through the rain with his adoring mother in tow.  His tardiness means he must take the only seat available, next to the radiator.  When the time comes for his speech, the steam from the heater has shrunk his rain-soaked suit to button-bursting proportions.

As for the speech, Ronald regales the audience with his views on the virtue of scholarship and the evils of athletic pursuits.  By the time he is done, his mother is the only one left sitting in the hall.

That’s not to say no one in the audience was paying attention.  Ronald’s crush Mary sets upon him immediately after he leaves the building.  She thinks a girl would be crazy to choose a bookworm over a football stud, and will have nothing more to do with him.  Off she goes with hunky Jeff, whose smug demeanor means we will hate him immediately.

Ronald resolves to follow Mary to Clayton College and prove his athletic prowess.  He arrives with a suitcase full of sports how-to books and equipment from a hodgepodge of different equipment, from football pads to baseball gear.  The dean is thrilled to have a scholar on campus to demonstrate the superiority of more intelligent pursuits, but Ronald has other ideas. 

He tries his hand at a number of sports, showing his level of incompetence along the way.  He tries out for baseball and demonstrates an inability to do anything.  He tries track and field and can barely throw the javelin five feet and almost kills half his team with the hammer throw.  By the time he is attempting to pole vault and the stick cracks in half, we know he is never going to get his act together.

Or is he?  The dean forces the rowing team to take him on as coxswain for their big race.  Meanwhile, the recently expelled Jeff has locked himself in Mary’s room, knowing if he is discovered with her, she will be expelled too (and hopefully marry him?).  Can Ronald lead his crew to victory?  And can he save Mary from Jeff’s bizarrely conceived marriage proposal?

College is barely a film.

It’s more a series of skits starring Keaton trying and failing at any number of things.  Some of the bits work.  I like the opening speech.  I like the track tryouts.  And the final dash to save Mary is madcap and brilliant.

I did not love any of the set pieces though.  There’s nothing here as good as a moment of The Seven Chances or even The General.

Perhaps the biggest in-joke of the movie is simply the idea that Keaton could be unathletic.  You buy him for a while as the weak, bookish guy, but eventually he has to put on that track uniform and you see his physique and you just know he can’t sell this anymore. 

Even as he fails at each event, he is never unathletic.  When he throws the javelin it arcs high out of the camera’s range before plopping pitifully a few feet away.  He takes every hurdle, touching each one just enough to knock it over while never breaking stride.  He has little trouble picking up the hammer toss; his mistake is simply that he whirls around and around, threatening anyone in range.  He’s not weak.  He’s just not great at sports.

There’s a subplot where Ronald needs to earn money for college and takes a couple of jobs as a soda jerk and in a restaurant.  Neither are funny, particularly the restaurant sequence where we see Keaton in black face.  Ugh.

The supporting cast is generic with one exception: Snitz Edwards.  Every time he walks on screen, I smile.  He has very little screen time here, but he mines every moment.

The final coda of the film is absurd in its humor.  Ronald has won the girl and in less than 15 seconds we see them married, then with children, then elderly, then… their gravestones.  It’s a great idea for an ending, but feels unearned here.  There’s a cynical humor to the series of shots that would land perfectly had anyone bothered to convey that we should care about Mary and Ronald’s relationship.  Unfortunately, Ronald’s pining comes across as merely an excuse for all of the comedy bits so the epilogue falls flat.

College is a mediocre Keaton film, which makes it better than most of what you will find in the silent era.  The hits are smile-inducing at best, but the misses are groan-worthy.

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

Read More

The Siren of the Tropics (1927)

Directed by Mario Nalpas and Henri Étiévant
Starring Josephine Baker, Pierre Batcheff and Régina Dalthy

Andre Berval is a man with a problem.

He's in love with a beautiful woman named Denise, but unbeknownst to him, his employer and her godfather has designs on the young woman.

The villainous boss dispatches Berval to the Antilles under the pretext of surveying some land.  In reality, it's part of a not-so-elaborate plot for another employee named Alvarez to remove Berval from the romantic equation.

Complicating matters is a young native girl in Antilles named Papitou.  How does she complicate things?  First, she falls for Berval and those feelings put her into a position to save him on more than one occasion.  Second, Papitou is played by Josephine Baker and the movie becomes really uninterested in the original love triangle as it recognizes this side character has star power.

Can the rest of the cast wrest control back from the talent that is Baker?  And will we even care who Berval chooses in the end?  (Spoiler: The answer to both questions is "no.")

I'm torn.

The Siren of the Tropics is a directionless mess.  On the one hand, it wants to be about a young couple in love whose blossoming romance is threatened in its cradle by the woman's godfather.  The villain is infatuated with her and will resort to anything to keep them apart.  But the film's eye is constantly wandering away from that central conflict, which could be frustrating.

However, the source of the film's distraction is Papitou, the character played by the extraordinary Josephine Baker.

Honestly, any director worth his salt would have made the same decision.  The other characters in the film are staid and boring.  Papitou is life and energy.  The other characters sit in chairs and contemplate their next scheme or love.  Papitou jumps onto the chair, the desk, random pieces of furniture.  If you were casually watching all of these folks wander through life, your eye would be drawn to her too.

Of course, once the film focuses its attention on her, it has no idea what to do with her.  One moment she is showing off her agility escaping from Alvarez.  Next we see her dancing.  Then she's pratfalling all over a ship bound for France.  More dancing.  Saving her unreciprocated lover.  It's dizzying.

The force of Baker's personality stands out, but it's not hard to differentiate yourself when you are surrounded by an assembly of milquetoast characters.  It's honestly pretty puzzling why Papitou would fall for Pierre Batcheff's Andre Berval; she spends half the movie saving him.  Berval and Denise are perfect for one another as neither one has any personality to get in the way of their relationship.

The Siren of the Tropics is notable for Baker's authoritative arrival on the silver screen.  Sadly it's in a dud of a movie.  Her turn as a supporting character takes over the film and almost saves it.  But only almost.

** out of *****

Read More

It (1927)

Cyrus trying to ignore the It-ness of Betty

Directed by Clarence G. Badger and Josef von Sternberg
Starring Clara Bow, Antonio Moreno and William Austin
Produced by Famous Players-Lasky Corporation and Paramount Pictures


Betty Lou Spence is one in a seemingly endless stream of employees at the local department store.  The women (and they all appear to be women) work under the supervision of the men (and the bosses are all men).  When Betty Lou and her coworkers aren't arguing about the store's return policy with their customers, they are ogling the owner of the store Cyrus Waltham.

Of course, Betty Lou isn't exactly like the other employees. You see, she has "It."

What is "It"?  It is basically a kind of natural magnetism that allows the owner to attract members of the other sex.  Cyrus has it.  And Betty Lou has it.

Or so we are told.  Cyrus doesn't seem to notice Betty, but his best friend Monty picks up on "It."  Betty is after Cyrus, but is willing to go out on a date with Monty as long as it gets her into the same restaurant as her real target.  Once Betty and Cyrus lock eyes in the restaurant, it's over. They fall for one another immediately.

Unfortunately, there is still an hour left to the movie so we need some obstacles to them ending up together.  Like Betty slapping Cyrus for kissing her on the first date.  Or Cyrus mistakenly believing Betty is a single mom (her roommate really is).  Or Cyrus being sort of, almost engaged to another woman.

Can they hurdle all of the obstacles or will "It" come between them?

Gorgeous and funny

It is the cotton candy of silent film, filled with sugar and air.  I know it's not good for me, but damn if I can't stop eating it.

The plot rotates around this contrivance that people have "It." Monty plays the role of "It" judge, rating each person according to their It-ness.  Every woman wants Cyrus, but once Monty pegs Betty as having It, there is only one way the plot can go.

I mention obstacles and most of them are pretty mindless.  After a fun date at an amusement park, Cyrus pecks Betty on the cheek and she slaps him and rushes off in a huff.  It seems way out of character, and sure enough, the moment she's back in her apartment, she's gleefully reenacting the kiss with a stuffed animal.

Then there is the whole mistaken baby thing.  Betty's roommate Molly has a newborn (who looks to be going on 2 years old), but the mother is also recovering from an illness.  One day, some women show up to take the child to a home because Molly is sick and doesn't have a job or a husband. Betty steps in and claims the child is hers (which is better because she has a job and is healthy).  Never mind that the job would mean she's not around to care for the baby.  Somehow that's an improvement.

Monty of course overhears Betty's claims that she's an unwed mother and informs Cyrus, who responds by... offering to take Betty on as his mistress?  Really?

Betty is so mad she hatches a revenge plot that includes seducing Cyrus into proposing to her so she can laugh in his face.  She carries out the plan and when the moment comes?  She actually laughs in his face.  She feels bad afterward, but still...

I know I'm focusing on the flaws, but the movie skips over them so quickly you hardly notice. The actors make you buy every moment. Clara Bow is incredible as Betty she has this independent streak that makes her stand out from the crowd.  Between her styling her own dress and taking the prim and proper Cyrus to an amusement park, Bow is now enshrined in my manic-pixie-dream-girl hall of fame.

William Austin = Comedy Gold

The other real cast standout is William Austin as Monty.  He makes you by the "It" in It. Monty is a heap of nervous tics and wide eyed stares and Austin is hysterical throughout.  Even when the serious moments threaten to weigh down the film, one fevered look from him and you know you are still firmly rooted in a comedy.  It's a ridiculous and over-the-top performance, but the movie needs him around.

As I said, I loved this movie.  Bow is another on my must watch list now, as is Austin.  It never goes for melodrama, preferring to keep things light and strike just the right tone.  If this were being made today it would probably be a sitcom, but I'm glad we have this caliber of cast supporting this material.

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

NOTES:

• Yes, that was THE Gary Cooper in an almost nothing role as a newspaper reporter.
• Ever heard the expression "It Girl"? Thank this movie for that.
• Finally, I just have to point out the amusement park in this.  One of the rides is a big turntable that you sit on until it speeds up enough to send you flying off of it.  Another was this bridge that bucked worse than a rodeo bull.  And finally, park attendees are getting thrown around inside this rotating barrel.  It looked more like an episode of Wipeout than an amusement park.

Read More

The Ring (1927)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Carl Brisson, Lillian Hall-Davis and Ian Hunter
Produced by British International Pictures

A crowd gathers around a sideshow tent at a a carnival.  While most patrons find themselves on the rides, the mass around the tent is in for some real action.  The tent is where "One Round" Jack takes on all comers in the ring.  Men enter the tent cocky and certain and leave it bloody and humiliated.

The girl selling tickets for the show strikes up a flirtatious conversation with Bob Corby.  Jack has a thing for the girl and challenges Bob to a fight.  Surprisingly, Bob lasts a round.  More than that, Bob is winning.  For once, Jack is the one taking the beating.

After Jack loses, Bob reveals that he is really a champion boxer and that the fight was an audition for Jack to be his sparring partner.  If Jack can win one more fight, Bob will hire him.  Of course, Jack wins the fight and begins doing ring work with the champ.  He also starts a pro boxing career of his own.

Jack marries his girl, but she has eyes for Bob.  The girl loves to be out on the town partying and Bob is more than happy to oblige.

Jack soon learns of the affair.  Will the two pugilists settle their grudge in the ring?  And can Jack win his girl back?


There's a lot I could talk about here, but there are two words we need to start with:

Alfred.  Hitchcock.

The Ring is one of the suspense master's first features.  Hitchcock was one of my first true classic film loves growing up.  I have seen most of his later catalog and some of his earlier work.  It's impossible for me to view his films without the association to what will come later.

And through that lens, there is plenty to note here.  Hitchcock was always a master of constructing scenes and moments and that is on display even at this early point.  We are introduced to the amusement park through a montage of images from the carnival.  The camera gives us information, but in a kinetic way.  The camera shoots up from the ground at people on a swing.  We see a ride that rocks back and forth and then we are tight on the face of a woman enjoying the ride.  And then we are on the ride with the camera serving as our eyes in dizzying motion.  It's stuff a modern viewer will have seen before, but it's fresh and new here both in shot selection and editing.

While the love triangle isn't the murder mystery or espionage thriller Hitchcock is often associated with, he still finds plenty of moments of tension.  Most of it comes from observation of the details, a closeup of the tickets being taken at the sideshow or Jack's barely controlled rage as he he tries to keep his composure while simultaneously talking with a friend and seeking out Bob.

The real virtuoso Hitchcock moment is the final match between Jack and Bob.  During the first round, the action is conveyed through long shots of the ring and the crowd reaction.  The bell sounds and the two men return to their corner.  When the match resumes, Jack stalks right toward the camera and begins throwing punches at us.  From that moment, we are in the ring with the two men.  And when Jack gets knocked down at one point, we see the world through his eyes.  Images double, the ring spins into a confusion of ropes and canvas until our eyes open and we are staring at the overhead lights.

If there is a weakness here, it's the story itself from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself.  It's a love triangle, with two men competing for one woman's hand, but the movie never gives a sense of why.  Hell, the credits only refer the the girl as "The Girl."  She's not a person here.  She just another trophy or title belt for the men.

And honestly, that would have been okay except the film also wants us to believe Jack truly loves her.  But we never see why.  When she makes her choice in the end, it doesn't really feel like it matters.

The actors are all more than up to the challenges of the script, but the real star here is Hitchcock.  He is already building images in a way that creates tension.  The Ring doesn't work as a whole, but so many of the moments do, it is worth a watch.  And the ending fight?  Classic.

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

Read More

The Jazz Singer (1927)

Directed by Alan Crosland

Starring Al Jolson, May McAvoy and Warner Oland

Produced by Warner Bros. 



Cantor Rabinowitz is the latest of five generations of cantors at his synagogue.  His dream is that his 13 year old son Jakie will follow in his footsteps, singing God's praises at the house of worship.  



Jakie wants to sing all right, but he's not interested in chanting Kol Nidre.  He prefers entertaining men at the local saloon by belting jazz standards.  Unfortunately for Jakie, a family friend named Moisha sees him and tells the boy's father.  The man retrieves his son and begins removing his belt to teach him a lesson.  Jakie announces that if his father beats him, he will run away from home.  The elder Rabinowitz drags the boy into a bedroom and, moments later, a teary-eyed boy emerges, kisses his mother goodbye and leaves.



Fast forward ten years, Jakie has changed his name to Jack Robin and earns a living as a singer.  In a club one night, he is called up on stage and performs a rousing edition of "Dirty Hands, Dirty Face."  Mary Dale, a dance in a theater company, hears his voice and offers to help advance his career.  



Jack begins traveling the country as a performer, earning a decent wage and writing home to his loving mother.  His father still won't acknowledge he even has a son.



Soon, Mary receives her big break: a featured role in a Broadway show.  Soon after Jack gets his own shot at stardom: a Broadway show of his own.  The show brings him home to his mother and close to Mary.



Jack visits his mom and performs for her, but his father arrives and forces his son out.  As Jack prepares for his dress rehearsal, his mother and Moisha arrive to tell him his father is gravely ill.  Jack proceeds with the dress rehearsal and is mother realizes that his place is at the theater, not the synagogue.



Still, Jack is troubled.  Should he go ahead with his opening night on Broadway, forsaking his heritage?  Or should he stand in his father's place as cantor, sacrificing his chance to fulfill hi won dreams?





It's impossible to review The Jazz Singer without talking about its major innovation: sound.  Specifically, the movie features Al Jolson singing and speaking and conversing with his mother in key sequences.  It also features the traditional silent film title cards, but when Jolson finishes singing "Dirty Hands, Dirty Face," he declares "Wait a minute, wait a minute, you ain't heard nothin' yet."  Not on a card, but with the actor's voice.



Having spent the fourteen months feasting on silent films, this is a kick in the teeth.  It feels anachronistic and exhilarating.  Even knowing it's coming, I couldn't anticipate the way it would sound when Jolson utters some of the most famous lines in history.



And, after another song, the movie reverts back to the silent film tradition for a time.  Silently moving lips, followed by words on the screen.  But as you watch it, the possibility remains that at any point, the characters may begin singing or speaking again.



It seems a silly thing, but the possibility of the leap forward still feels enticing.  I know how the history turns out and I'm still giddy with anticipation for the next recorded lines.



The story itself is relatively timeless, but with a confused ending.  A boy struggles to become his own man to tear free from what his heritage, only to discover that perhaps there is strength in his lineage.  Hell, Pixar as made millions off the idea (Cars and Finding Nemo).  



The ending is to me a misstep.  We are told Jack must choose: sing in the synagogue and never work in this town again, or have his opening night and deny all he is.  He chooses... both.  His opening night is canceled when he chooses to sing at the synagogue, but then, inexplicably, he still gets his own show afterward.  The choice he makes creates drama that is sucked from the room when he has his cake and eats it too.  The virtue in the ending is of course that Jack makes the right choice and we still get to hear him sing one last tune.



There is one other potential misstep that needs to be addressed: Jolson's Jack performing his later numbers in blackface.  In most films, it is a repugnant practice, a further degrading of a race.  Here, it seems informed by the themes of the movie.  Jakie changes his name to Jack and spends the entire movie sublimating his Jewish heritage.  The move to use blackface is a further attempt to deny who he really is.  The theme would have been more powerfully realized if Jolson performed at the conclusion sans makeup, but watching Jack apply the blackface makeup and don the wig plays into his character in a way that white actors playing black characters in films don't even contemplate.



Is The Jazz Singer dated?  Yup.  Does it have a simple, see-it-coming-a-mile-away story?  Affirmitive.  Still, it's more than just a film; it's an experience.  Jolson's voice and those words will reverberate in my head for a long time to come.



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

Read More

Berlin: Symphony of a Great City (1927)

Directed by Walter Ruttmann

A train roars across the countryside before coming into a station.  It's pre-dawn arrival in the city barely stirs the residents, but as the sun rises, the streets slowly come to life.  Machinery begins moving.  Automobiles and streetcars ferry passengers to and fro as pedestrians jump out of the way.  Children play.  Shopkeepers clean their front stoop.  A fight breaks out on a street corner.  A sad woman takes a suicidal leap into a river.



After the factories close, the residents begin their evening's entertainment.  There is hockey and car racing, gambling and shows.  The bright lights of the city shine as the fireworks erupt.  So what's this movie about?





Berlin: Symphony of a Great City is a documentary.  It is not like most modern documentaries where the story is real and the footage is real and the director finds the story within.  No, Berlin is about a thousand stories all taking place within one city on one day. It's meant to give you a sense of the rhythm and atmosphere of the place without ever telling its story.



You won't get any sense of Berlin's history watching this.  You won't even get a sense of its industries or people except on the most superficial level.  What you see and feel is the pulse of a city as it awakens and stretches in the morning, as it develops a frenetic pace in its daily activities, as it plays hard into the evening.  



A lot of that sense of momentum comes through the editing.  Director Walter Ruttmann never lingers on any shot person or location for more than few seconds.  His eye is constantly roaming, always searching for the next piece of the city, from the mundane to the extraordinary.



The movie succeeds so well at showing us this city in an hour that it underlines its greatest weakness.  Some of the moments captured are fascinating enough it leaves the audience to wonder at the backstory or to consider what happens next.  Why did the woman jump into the river?  Why were the two men fighting?  What was the guy on the street corner yelling that so commanded an audience?  



Of course, none of these people or stories matter.  The point, the only point, is the heartbeat of Berlin.  Ruttman captures it in exquisite detail from its architecture and industry to its rich and its beggars.  The film has no linear narrative, but it is an extraordinary portrait of a place and a time that left me riveted and wanting more.



**** out of *****



NOTE: I should add to this that while I believe it is on the whole a documentary, I cannot believe some of the scenes weren't staged.  Particularly given the camera technology of the time, it's a stretch to believe that Ruttman just happened upon the suicide or the street fight (filmed from multiple angles).  The staged nature of some of the shots takes nothing from the authenticity of the whole.

Read More

1927: Can You Hear Me Now?

Time to leave behind 1926 and look to 1927.  And wow, what a year it is.



There is a lot of focus on making connections.  Charles Lindbergh completes the first transatlantic flight in The Spirit of St. Louis, which also presumably featured the first instance of an airline losing someone's baggage.  The first transatlantic phone calls happen and the Holland Tunnel connects New York City to New Jersey.  In other transportation news, after 19 years of successful sales of the Model T, Ford unveils the Model A (which is most noted for being the antique car that ferried my wife and I from our wedding to our reception).



In movie news, it's a big year, but one development clearly supersedes the others: sound.  While there had been successes with the use of sound in cinema, The Jazz Singer is considered to be the watershed moment for the technology.  Few quotes in cinema history are as understated but critical as Al Jolson telling the audience "Wait a minute, wait a minute, you ain't heard nothin' yet."  I have heard it numerous times, most notably on The Great Movie Ride at Disney's Hollywood Studios.



What else happened in the film world?  Douglas Fairbanks founds the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which, two years later, will begin handing out the Academy Award.  Twenty-four frames per second becomes the standard for film.  Metropolis debuts (enough said).  The Hays Office issues guidelines as to what should be avoided in film (though they are still a few years from being able to enforce anything).  The iconic Grauman's Chinese Theater opens in Los Angeles.  And MGM's mascot Leo the Lion survives a plane crash while on a cross country tour.



So what are we watching? The Jazz Singer obviously (though no Neil diamond in sight).  Wings (the first Oscar winner) if I can find it.  Metropolis (which is on Watch Instantly).  Clara Bow in It (which is where the expression "It Girl" comes from).  Sunrise from F.W. Murnau (because Murnau is awesome).  Lon Chaney in The Unknown.  The Second Hundred Years (first appearance of Laurel and Hardy!).  The Lodger (Alfred Hitchcock!).  I'm sure there will be others, but that is a hell of a list to start with.

Read More