The Third Marathon Stars blogathon: Anna May Wong

One of Anna May Wong’s favorite portraits of herself. Image source: Wikipedia

This post is for the Third Marathon Stars blogathon, hosted by The Wonderful World of Cinema, In the Good Old Days of Classic Hollywood, and Musings of a Classic Film Addict.

Anna May Wong was one of the first Asian-American movie stars. Born Liu Tsong Wong in 1905 to a San Francisco family of second-generation Chinese immigrants, she was an avid film fan as a child. Dreaming of stardom, she secured her first job as an extra in the 1919 Alla Nazimova film The Red Lantern. By the early 1920s, her name was known to film fans due to her distinctive screen presence and youthful beauty, but due to the racist attitudes of the time, Wong’s stardom was often stunted. Due to concerns about miscegenation, she could only kiss her leading man if he was the same race as she. Major roles she was perfect for often went to white actresses by default, even if the character in question was Asian. And often times the roles she did land were either small or stereotypical.

Wong has experienced something of a re-evaluation recently– she’s become the first Asian-American on US currency and several books, both fiction and non-fiction, have been published about her in the last few years– but she still isn’t universally known, even among classic film fans. When two fellow classic film fans I know in real life saw me reading a biography about her, they told me they’d never even heard her name. Some critics continue to disparage her as a “dragon lady” who took demeaning roles for a paycheck. Others see her as a trailblazer who fought as hard as she could for better onscreen representation of Chinese and Chinese-descended characters at a time when Hollywood felt no compulsion to offer such.

I’d been aware of Wong for years, though I never knew much about her life or work outside of a few key silent films. She often appears in movie magazines of the 1920s, presented as a madcap flapper in the latest fashions. For this marathon, I read biographical material on Wong while I went through my selected five films to give extra context to her work.

Image source: Wikipedia

Okay, I do have a confession to make. The maximum number of films you’re allowed to have seen with your selected star is three. When I signed up, I could only come up with three films I knew I had seen with Wong: The Toll of the Sea, The Thief of Bagdad, and Shanghai Express. I felt this blogathon would be a great opportunity to see some Wong pictures that had been on my watchlist for a while now, like Piccadilly and Daughter of Shanghai. It wasn’t until I combed through Wong’s IMDB page weeks later– after watching three of the five prescribed films and reading an entire biography– that I realized she was also in the 1924 Peter Pan, Mr. Wu, and Old San Francisco, three movies I vaguely recall watching as a college undergrad. And by vaguely recall, I mean I only know I saw two out of three of them because they’re logged on my IMDB account. As for Peter Pan, apparently she was Tiger Lily in that (I don’t recall a thing about her performance there), but all I remember from that film was that Ernest Torrance was Captain Hook and that the Darlings’ dog Nana looked like a Cthulu-esque abomination.

They say it eats children’s souls. Image source: Letterboxd

Ahem. Anyway, even if I don’t meet the hard letter of the “3 films max” rule, I still say I fit the spirit. I can recall exactly three performances of Anna May Wong’s, no more than that. I may as well have had those other films erased from my memory, except for…

OH GOD, MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT GO AWAY. Image source: IMDB

With that out of the way, here are the films I actually remembering seeing with Wong before the blogathon, as well as a brief overview of her life and career threaded throughout:

Image source: Wikipedia

The Toll of the Sea was not Wong’s big break as a movie star (that would belong to the anthology film Bits of Life, where she played opposite Lon Chaney), but it is the film that cemented her fame. The second Technicolor feature film, the movie’s story is nothing special, just a retelling of the Madame Butterfly story set in China instead of Japan. If anything elevates it above being a mere historical curiosity, it’s Wong’s tender performance as a seduced and abandoned young woman.

Wong was still in her teens when she made this film, so her performance is not as polished as her later work. However, she is still sensitive and touching, emphasizing the tragedy of Lotus Blossom’s situation as a woman shunned by her own culture for pursuing a relationship with a white man and similarly rejected by the white Americans for her ethnicity. Wong’s girlishly humorous moments in the first half of the movie only throw the constant grief and pain of the latter part into harsher relief. (At the time, Wong’s crying scenes were considered noteworthy both among critics and in Hollywood. As it turned out, Wong was one of a select number of actors who could cry on cue.) In the end, Wong walks away with the film, an impressive feat considering how young she was.

Unfortunately, a leading role in one hit film did not mean Wong was suddenly going to be headlining tons of movies. Throughout the 1920s, her Hollywood career largely saw her in supporting parts, many of them steeped in orientalist stereotyping. The Thief of Bagdad is considered among her more memorable roles in this period, even if it’s a relatively minor one in the context of such a grand fantasy epic and is still stereotypical in nature. Wong plays a beautiful Mongolian slave girl in the Bagdad palace. While she is supposed to serve the princess, she conspires with the ambitious Mongolian prince (Sojin) to overthrow the Bagdad royals. It’s not much of a part and a lesser actress would have been overtaken by the character’s crazy costume and hairpieces, but Wong lends a playful sensual dimension to the role, particularly in a sequence where Fairbanks’ thief has a knife at her back. Wong’s response oscillates between fear and flirtation, using erotic charm to get herself out of the situation, not realizing Fairbanks has already left the room.

Throughout the mid-1920s, Wong continued to act, though the roles weren’t getting any better. In the late 1920s, Wong grew weary of the situation and leapt across the Atlantic to seek better opportunities in Europe. Black Americans like Josephine Baker and Paul Robeson had done the same, finding less racial barriers abroad. Like Robeson, Wong mostly worked in England after a brief stint in Germany. When the talkie revolution swept through the movie industry, Wong worked on her vocal delivery and was able to make the transition with little trouble. In the early 1930s, more famous than ever due to her European journey, Wong decided to give Hollywood another go. She landed a contract with Paramount.

Image source: BFI

One of the better roles she got during this period was the prostitute Hui-Fei in Josef von Sternberg’s 1932 potboiler Shanghai Express. Having rewatched the film recently, I have two conclusions: 1) this movie is absolutely style over substance and 2) Wong walks away with the entire thing. The actual main storyline about Marlene Dietrich’s Shanghai Lily and her devotion to the stuffy nitwit doctor played by Clive Brook is melodramatic boilerplate only elevated to classic status by Dietrich’s charisma and the smoky, glamorous atmosphere of Von Sternberg’s direction.

Of all the characters, Wong’s is the only one who measures up to Dietrich in any way. The two women play off one another well due to a shared sense of cynicism towards a world that looks down on them as “fallen women.” However, just as Lily’s self-sacrificial love for Dr. Harvey reveals nobility beneath her “bad girl” persona, Hui-Fei displays similar hidden depths. She has her own sense of honor and obligation, viewing the Eurasian rebel leader Henry Chang played by Warner Oland as a menace to her country (“The government has offered a price of 20,000 for his capture – alive or dead. It will be a great day for China when that price is paid.”) and ultimately killing him after he rapes her. When Lily thanks her– Chang was going to force Lily to become his mistress in exchange for her beloved’s life– Hui-Fei makes it clear she didn’t kill Chang for Lily’s sake, but for her own.

Unfortunately, Hollywood continued to be stingy with good roles for Wong. The greatest heartbreak of her career was being rejected for the role of O-lan in MGM’s The Good Earth, an adaptation of the Pearl Buck novel of the same name. The tale of the hard lives of Chinese farmers, this was a film that largely treated the Chinese with sympathy, yet the major roles were claimed by white actors. Wong was refused the part because her leading man would be Paul Muni (a Jewish actor who initially quipped “I’m about as Chinese as Herbert Hoover” when offered the role) and the Production Code forbade actors of different races from kissing on-screen. Luise Rainer got the role instead.

Wong largely worked in B-pictures as the decade wore on. In the late 1930s, she visited China, a longtime dream of hers. However, she was shocked when her reception in China was rather cool, sometimes even hostile. Chinese critics felt Wong was a disgrace, taking on stereotypical and sexualized roles that made Chinese womanhood appear loose and wicked. Wong understood the criticism– she shared it herself– but it still stung, especially since she often fought for better representation of Chinese and Chinese-American characters in Hollywood projects.

Anna May Wong planting trees. Image source: Wikipedia

During World War II, Wong appeared in propaganda films showing the Chinese in a heroic light and did all she could to support the war effort, but her stardom was on the wane. When her Paramount contract lapsed, it was not renewed and she was stuck making films for poverty row studios. Still, Wong worked hard and donated her salary to organizations like United China Relief.

Wong in the mid-1950s. Image source: Wikipedia

In the immediate postwar period, Wong stopped working in the movies for a few years. She converted her home into a series of apartments for rent. She returned to film in 1949, appearing in a small role in the movie Impact. Throughout the 1950s, she worked in television. This work was initially promising: Wong got the lead in her own series, The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong, the first TV program to feature an Asian-American protagonist. A mystery show, it lasted only ten episodes before cancellation. Like much early television, the program is now lost. For the rest of the decade, she had to settle for supporting parts.

Wong was unfortunately an alcoholic in her later life and this contributed to her early death of a heart attack at age 56. What makes her ultimate end so tragic is that she may have been on the verge of a comeback. She was offered the role of Madame Liang in the film version of Flower Drum Song, but had to decline due to her poor health.

My general impression of Wong from the above three films and my reading about her life is that she was a beautiful actress with great presence too often under-served by the material she was given. For my five films, I tried to select films from a variety of genres, as well as from different phases of her career in order to get a fuller picture of her talents and screen image.

Daughter of Shanghai (dir. Robert Florey, 1937)

Image source: Wikipedia

When antiques dealer Mr. Lang (John Patterson) refuses to aid a human smuggling ring, he and his daughter Lan Ying Lin (Wong) end up kidnapped by the villains. They shoot Lang dead, but Lan Ying Lin manages to escape. Swearing justice for her father’s death, she goes undercover to track down the smugglers’ leader, disguising herself as a dancer to infiltrate a dive on a Central American island. She crosses paths with Kim Lee (Philip Ahn), a G-man also on the trail of the criminal gang. The two become reluctant allies, all the while never suspecting the ringleader– and the one who most wants to see them dead– might be someone they know and trust…

By the late 1930s, Wong was mostly relegated to B-movies. While lacking the clout of A-pictures, some of my favorite movies from the classic period are B-productions as they often had more freedom to experiment or portray things you wouldn’t see in a more expensive movie that needed to be “safe” in order to return the hefty investment. Daughter of Shanghai is one of the most enjoyable B-movies you’re likely to find, not just for its delightfully pulpy narrative but also for its progressive depiction of Asian-Americans as heroes.

Wong plays a true badass in this movie. She’s smart, she’s independent, and she doesn’t take anyone’s crap. Wong herself was reportedly delighted with the role, happy to play a Chinese-American who wasn’t treacherous or shady, but openly noble and brave. She makes a great team with Philip Ahn’s G-man, and it’s also great to see her allowed to have a romantic relationship with another character that doesn’t end in misery and/or death.

The film itself is a delightful ride with all the pulp trimmings: near-death situations, last-minute escapes, dangerous traveling conditions, fistfights. The story is almost paced like a condensed movie serial and it’s never dull. Robert Florey was in the director’s chair, so there’s style to burn. Interestingly, though this film was made while the Production Code was in full force, it often has the feel of a pre-code melodrama due to its emphasis on seduction and potent danger.

There’s no denying this film is a low budget affair. Shot in a month, it’s hardly a Von Sternberg arthouse object. I don’t care. This movie is a hell of a lot of fun and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a great evening watch when they want to be entertained but don’t have two hours to burn. There are lengthy, expensive Netflix series which don’t have the entertainment value this thing does.

Daughter of the Dragon (dir. Lloyd Corrigan, 1931)

Image source: TCM

Exotic dancer Princess Ling Moy (Wong) discovers her long-lost father is none other than the notorious Fu Manchu (Warner Oland). Before they have time to do any normal father-daughter bonding activities, he is mortally wounded while killing his nemesis, Sir John Petrie, who he wrongly believes was responsible for the death of his family during the Boxer Rebellion. As he lies dying, Fu Manchu makes Ling Moy promise to kill the rest of the Petrie clan as revenge for their own slaughtered loved ones. Ling Moy swears to fulfill her father’s last request, but her quest for revenge will be complicated by her burgeoning romantic feelings for Petrie’s son Ronald (Bramwell Fletcher) and the efforts of Chinese detective Ah Kee (Sessue Hayakawa).

Daughter of the Dragon was Wong’s first movie under her Paramount contract. In terms of Asian representation, Daughter of the Dragon is the polar opposite of Daughter of Shanghai. This earlier film is far more negative, depicting Ling Moy as a seductress out to snap up clueless white men and murder/mutilate any love rivals without mercy. I cannot imagine Wong was too happy with this film, considering her dismay at the continued Hollywood-approved stereotyping of Chinese people as wicked deceivers.

Admittedly, the film does have camp value, not unlike the similarly orientalist The Mask of Fu Manchu with Boris Karloff. The production is dripping with over the top Chinese-inspired design and Ling Moy’s costumes are eye-catching. It’s clear the film’s main purpose is not exploration of character or theme, but providing the audience with vicarious thrills and chills as our “heroes” (I cannot put enough quotes around that word, since the so-called good guys are universally boring and mostly passive– also I do not get why Ling Moy is so into Ronald, he’s about as sexy as soggy fish and chips) evade gruesome yet creative death traps. This is certainly a case where the bad guys steal the show, simply because they have so much more drive and seem to be having so much more fun.

The best I can say about Daughter of the Dragon is that it never drags and Wong never phones it in, though the material is undeniably beneath her. Wong is able to give her character fleeting glimmers of melancholy. You get the sense Ling Moy’s wanted a father figure all her life and once she’s given one, she dedicates herself to pleasing him to fill that void– even if pleasing him means committing multiple murders. This makes Ling Moy a bit more human than she likely was on paper, but it’s not enough to really combat the nonsense in the script or to magically make the movie good. I can’t say I recommend it, but it has its moments in a so bad it’s funny kind of way.

Lady from Chungking (dir. William Nigh, 1942)

Image source: TCM

Kwan Mei (Wong) is the leader of a band of Chinese freedom fighters. Surrounded by the occupying Japanese on all sides, they bide their time in a peasant village. One day, a pair of American pilots are shot down near the village and captured by the Japanese. Seeing potential allies, Kwan Mei plans to rescue them as well as gather information about the plans of the invaders. Learning the Japanese leader General Kaimura (Hans Huber) has a taste for refined women, Kwan Mei poses as an aristocrat sympathetic to the occupiers in order to seduce any big plans out of him. Will she succeed?

During World War II, Wong was ardent about supporting the war effort, particularly through sending aid to the Chinese through organizations like United China Relief, participating in USO entertainments, and of course appearing in Allied propaganda. However, these films were for Producers Releasing Corporation, a poverty row studio. This effectively marked the beginning of the end of her movie career. The silver lining is that Wong got to play heroic figures.

While it’s no Casablanca, Lady from Chungking is a solid programmer, though nothing especially memorable. The comic relief is unbearably corny, such as when one of the American pilots narrates a baseball game in his sleep, much to Kwan Mei’s confusion. Characters are mostly underdeveloped and the story moves swiftly, which works for the movie’s adventure/thriller elements but less so for the interesting tensions that are left unexplored. General Kamimura is a fervent classist, sneering at the Chinese peasants and only taking an interested in aristocratic women as his bedmates. He loses all interest in Mae Clarke’s Russian opportunist when she reveals she is not a noblewoman in exile, but all but jumps onto Kwan Mei when she passes herself as a Chinese aristocrat. Playing on the general’s fantasies and sense of cultural superiority, Kwan Mei is able to charm information out of him, but this sexual entanglement also puts her at odds with her own people, who begin to wonder if Kwan Mei’s loyalty can be cancelled out by the luxury of being a Japanese officer’s mistress.

None of this goes anywhere interesting, but at only an hour, the film never overstays its welcome and Wong commands the screen easily. She cuts a noble figure and even gets an inspirational speech at the end. Her character is not a damsel needing to be rescued by the brave Americans, but an active heroine in her own right, as are the other Chinese characters. Plus, it’s always great to see Mae Clarke, another actress who deserved a better career than what she ultimately received.

When Were You Born (dir. William McGann, 1938)

Astrology expert Mei Lee Ling (Wong) finds herself flocked to during an ocean liner trip to San Francisco. Passengers react to her character readings and predictions with amazement and skepticism, but no one expects her most sensational prediction to come true: that one of the passengers will be dead within two days. When the very man turns up dead in that time frame, Mei is approached by the police. They suspect her, but instead she offers her aid in sniffing out the real culprit by using her knowledge of astrological signs.

When Were You Born was intended to be the start of a mystery film series starring Anna May Wong as a Zodiac expert who solves crimes by analyzing suspects based on their astrological sign. This would not come to be as the film didn’t make much of an impact. As much as I have come to love Wong during this marathon, I can see why the series never panned out, because this movie milks its gimmick dry before the slim runtime even ticks down. Much of the film is just Wong explaining everyone’s Zodiac sign and then telling the cops why this or that person did or didn’t do this or that crime because of that sign. The only things that held my interest was Wong’s lovely wardrobe and poised manner.

I don’t really have too much to say about this film. The camerawork is rote, the characters are one-dimensional, and it doesn’t help that I’m not that fond of mysteries as a genre. However, perusing reviews, I noticed that people who are into astrology tend to think this is a cute trifle, so your mileage will definitely vary.

Piccadilly (dir. E.A. Dupont, 1929)

London nightclub owner Valentine Wilmot (Jameson Thomas) has a bit of a dilemma. His biggest draw is the dance team Mabel and Vic. The problem is that Vic has been harassing Mabel (Gilda Gray) to extend their partnership into the romantic realm, despite her constant rebuffs and entanglement with Wilmot. Called out for his unprofessional conduct, Vic quits before he can be fired. Mabel tries to go solo but Vic was the more popular of the two, meaning Wilmot needs a new act to reel customers back in. Enter Shosho (Wong), a young scullery maid with dreams of dancing. Her eastern-inspired act is a hit, cementing Mabel’s fall from grace. When it looks as though Shosho has a grip on Wilmot’s affections as well, Mabel becomes desperate. However, she finds Shosho is unwilling to give up her hard-earned fame and romance.

Modern consensus is that Piccadilly features Anna May Wong’s finest performance. Her final silent film, it is a great showcase for how technically dazzling late-period silents were. Though the top-billed star is Gilda Gray, the film is Wong’s show all the way.

On paper, the plot of Piccadilly is basic backstage melodrama: an older woman (and by “older,” I mean just past the impossibly ancient age of 25– Gilda Gray was in her late twenties when filming this, though she was made to look a bit older) with a waning showbiz career contends with a hot young thing looking to take her place in the limelight. However, the characters are given more depth than you’d expect and there are no clear-cut heroes or villains. Mabel’s career is threatened by ageist attitudes and the fickle tastes of her public while Shosho is up against rampant racism. Both women are sympathetic, and both are capable of pettiness and cruelty.

Shosho’s situation is handled with great delicacy. A less inspired movie would have made her a simple femme fatale, but Piccadilly emphasizes that Shosho is not a cold-hearted villainess but a young woman from a lower class background who craves luxury and excitement. Her introduction is one of the most brilliant quick-sketches of a character I’ve ever seen. Shosho dances slowly and sensually atop a table, mesmerizing her fellow scullery workers. When the camera lingers on her legs, we see her tattered stockings. This shot is not merely erotic, but also a keen insight into how dance is a brief escape from Shosho’s dreary everyday life. For a moment, she can transcend being a dishwasher. When she finally makes it big as a dancer and rapturously reads the positive reviews in the newspaper, Wong makes Shosho’s girlish delight so palpable that it’s impossible not to empathize with her.

Of course, Shosho is not a saint. As evidenced by her interactions with Mabel, she can be catty. She also strings along her boyfriend Jim (King Hou Chang), expecting him to be content with taking a backseat while she pursues a relationship with another man. Though she does seem genuinely fond of him, she certainly takes his loyalty for granted and is not above emasculating him, such as when she demands he model her skimpy dancer’s costume for Wilmont.

Shosho’s youthful beauty and appeal to the white British audience’s taste for the “exotic” is able to propel her to fame, but her ethnicity still provides roadblocks. Shosho and Wilmot share a mutual attraction, but dare not make their romance public. The two see a racially mixed couple shamed at a bar, a foretaste of what could happen to them should they take a chance on their relationship. Shosho’s dismayed reaction to the fiasco shows her interest in Wilmont is not merely that of a gold-digger.

Overall, Piccadilly is a fantastic film, almost a proto-noir with its shadowy aesthetic and complicated morality. The ironic ending is particularly a punch to the gut. If you’ve never seen a silent film before or if you’ve only seen silent comedy and want to dip your toes into silent drama, this is a great gateway title. But even more so, it’s a great gateway to Wong’s dramatic skills.

Conclusion:

Image source: Wikipedia

After this marathon, I came away with greater respect for Wong, both as an actress and as a person. Hollywood truly did this woman dirty. She could handle drama and comedy with ease. She had a lovely speaking voice. She had great command of her body and an expressive face. Top all that with her undeniable beauty and it’s a crime she was not offered the same opportunities as white actresses of similar caliber.

Of the five movies I marathoned, my favorite was probably Daughter of Shanghai due to Wong playing a badass who doesn’t have to die tragically and just the overall pulpy vibe of the film. Piccadilly is a close second with its noirish intrigue and complicated characters. Lady from Chungking is pretty good for what it is, while When Were You Born is forgettable and Daughter of the Dragon is a tough sell unless you’re looking for something to give the MST3K treatment.

Despite the limits the film industry imposed upon her, Wong took nothing lying down. I admire her for her steadfastness in fighting for better, less demeaning roles, even if she did not win every battle. She was often the high point of many a film and deserves her rediscovery.

Sources:

Anna May Wong: From Laundryman’s Daughter to Hollywood Legend by Graham Russell Gao Hodges

Backwards and in Heels: The past, present, and future of women working in film by Alicia Malone

Piccadilly audio commentary by Farran Smith Nehme

The 10th annual Buster Keaton blogathon: Spite Marriage, the last hurrah or beginning of the end?

This post is for the 10th Annual Buster Keaton Blogathon hosted by Silentology. Go over to her blog for more Buster goodness.

Generally, no one has ever called Buster Keaton’s time at MGM the high point of his career. Depending on your opinion of his Columbia shorts, you may or may not rank it the worst, with the exception of a few films that range from pretty great (The Cameraman) to lowkey charming (The Passionate Plumber and Speak Easily). But then there’s also Free and Easy and What? No Beer!, two movies I consider absolutely painful to sit through.

Spite Marriage is hardly the worst of the MGM Keaton films, but its reputation has often been contested. His final silent feature, it represented a turning point for the star and not just in it being a farewell to the medium that cemented his fame. His creative control, maintained in The Cameraman due to the on-location shooting in New York City giving him some distance from the studio bigwigs, began to waver in earnest once the filming was situated closer to home. You can see that loss in quite a few places: the encroaching dimwittedness of the “Elmer” character as opposed to the awkward but resourceful underdogs Keaton tended to play, the cringe-inducing verbal humor (here limited to intertitles since this is a silent film after all), and a complicated plot encumbered by too many cooks hovering over the soup pot. And yet, the film also features some of the most iconic Keaton sequences of all time. It also has one of his most memorable leading ladies. It’s hard to overlook that.

Image source: Wikipedia

Spite Marriage‘s plot lacks the more natural, elegant construction of Keaton’s independent features. It is essentially a film of two tenuously connected halves. The first half is romantic farce, rooted in misunderstandings and petty behavior. Elmer (Buster Keaton), a lowly pants-presser, pines after stage star Trilby Drew (Dorothy Sebastian). Essentially a benign stalker, he “borrows” fine clothes from his well-to-do customers to follow Trilby at all her social outings, watching her from afar. He regularly attends her current hit play, a Civil War melodrama titled Carolina. The play is a mawkish thing in which a southern belle is forced to offer her virtue to a sleazy Union officer in exchange for the life of her Confederate sweetheart. However, Elmer treats it like the highest art, applauding every moment (at least, every one of Trilby’s moments– he sits out when the audience applauds the show’s hero) and memorizing all the dialogue.

Onstage, Trilby is noble and tenderhearted, a demure angel in white crinoline. In real life, she’s cold, calculating, and spiteful. Her leading man and offstage lover Lionel Benmore (Edward Earle) ditches her for a society woman, leaving Trilby in a rage. Having taken note of the smitten Elmer for some time now and believing he’s a millionaire, she proposes marriage to him to get back at her former beau. Elmer naturally accepts without hesitation. When Trilby eventually realizes she’s married a “nobody” with no money and no prospects (a realization that occurs offscreen for some reason), her agent arranges a quick divorce, leaving Elmer stunned and disillusioned.

While not typical of a Keaton film, the basics of this part of the story are pretty solid. Had you not told me this was a silent Buster Keaton vehicle, I’d think this could be a 1930s screwball comedy. The seeds are certainly there: the conflict between the haves and have-nots, belligerent sexual tension, farcical tropes. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t much milk the dynamic between Elmer and Trilby as much as it could have. You’d think Elmer would have to make more effort to hide the fact that he isn’t rolling in money, but this never happens. There’s no suspense, a quality not out of place in Keaton’s other classics, where tension heightens the comedy.

That’s not to say there’s nothing of value in the first half– far from it. The scene where Keaton stands in for a minor actor in Carolina is a hoot, with Elmer consistently undermining the drama of the onstage action. And then there’s the glorious “drunk bride” sequence, an iconic piece of Keatonian comedy if ever there was one. Trilby gets hammered when she sees her ex at a club, and then collapses when she and Elmer return to their hotel room after the disastrous event. Ever the gentleman, Elmer tries to maneuver Trilby into the bed so she can sleep the booze off, but physics conspire against him.

This scene is so classic that Keaton reused it in live shows with his third wife Eleanor in the 1940s and 1950s, and William Wyler would do his own variation of it with Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday. This makes it all the more shocking that MGM wanted the scene cut, finding it in poor taste. Given the situation, it’s easy to imagine a less innocent version of this sequence, particularly the moment when Elmer tries getting Trilby out of her clothes but can’t quite manage it. However, there is nothing perverse in that act, as it’s clear Elmer just wants his bride to nestle into a cozy slumber. The moment he’s satisfied with her position, he chastely kisses her forehead and leaves for his separate sleeping quarters. It’s a total inversion of the scene Elmer was asked to enact onstage, where he played a villainous figure that plants a lecherous kiss on Trilby’s character as she lies unconscious in his arms.

On a related note, Dorothy Sebastian deserves to be commended, not just for the physical ability she shows in this scene alongside Buster, but for her delightfully nasty performance in general. I know some people don’t like this character at all. Personally, I love the bitchiness. It’s refreshing. Keaton’s leading women have a bit more variety to them than critics claim, with some colder than others, but none have as explosive a personality as Trilby. Her goals reach beyond waiting for Elmer to prove himself and as with the best Keaton leading ladies, she is allowed to be a comic partner and not just a romantic goal to be won. The two have stellar chemistry as well, likely a by-product of the offscreen affair between the two actors.

After the highlight of the entire film comes the second half, what I like to call The Navigator Remix, as it also involves Buster and his leading lady stranded alone at sea. After Trilby leaves Elmer, he gets kidnapped by rum-runners in a rather contrived sequence of events. Briefly shanghaied by the criminals, Elmer falls off the ship when a yacht happens to be passing by. Elmer is rescued and gratefully accepts a post on the yacht, only to discover Trilby and Lionel are among the passengers. A fire breaks out in the boiler room and in the mad scuffle, everyone but Elmer and Trilby abandons ship. Elmer valiantly puts out the fire, unaware of the evacuation, and Trilby is passed out.

When the two reunite, Elmer is embittered and treats Trilby coldly, at one point even removing himself from her embrace out of heartbroken resentment. Dramatically, this is a fascinating moment because it’s rare to see Buster this hurt and vulnerable onscreen, let alone angry. The savage fight in Battling Butler is his fiercest moment in a film, but here, the anger is simmering and sour. As with the despairing sink to the sand in The Cameraman, this scene shows how good a dramatic actor Keaton was when given the opportunity.

The two are not left alone for long, as the rum-runners return and board the ship. Elmer tries to hide Trilby, but she is soon discovered by the captain and his interest in this unexpected guest is less than savory. Ultimately, it’s up to Elmer to rescue Trilby from the bad guys. Once again, what marvels about this climax is how angry Elmer gets. And here, the comparisons to Battling Butler are even more apt, as Elmer gets savage as he engages in fisticuffs with the villain. These dramatic flourishes are striking in what is otherwise a very silly farce. Keaton’s heroics here are also a great contrast to how shrimpy MGM chose to portray him in subsequent films. Much like The Cameraman, Spite Marriage offers up an alternate vision for the kinds of scenarios MGM could have put Keaton in, instead of the stagey farces and leaden Jimmy Durante team-ups they ultimately offered up.

Spite Marriage would prove a hit, with exhibitors reporting mirthful audiences and MGM satisfied with the box office intake. Today, Spite Marriage is easy to criticize and I’ve always felt it was a case of a movie with its parts being better than the whole. The narrative feels very disjointed and the overly broad pre-recorded soundtrack accompanying the film is annoying as hell in spots. However, the movie has a lot to recommend it. Sebastian is a unique leading lady for Buster and a lot of the humor still works in the classic Keaton mode.

Also, Buster is super sexy in that captain’s hat.

Like DAMN. Instantly the greatest movie of all time. Citizen Kane what? Jeanne Dielmann who?

Sources:

Buster Keaton: A Filmmaker’s Life by James Curtis

Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy by Imogen Sara Smith

The greatest hits of 1924

Image source: IMDB

When I started doing these “greatest hits of X year” posts in 2021, I expected to only make one a year going forward. However, these are so much fun. I just love looking at what movies drew audiences in the past and looking into how they hold up over time. By this year’s end, I might have several of these on the blog. I can’t hold myself back.

This time, we’re looking at 1924, the year in which Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer came into being. Often considered the most glamorous of the Golden Age studios, in 1924 it was still a ramshackle operation and its days of dominance would not kick into high gear until the start of the talkie era. Regardless, they scored two major hits in 1924, one of which cemented the stardom of Lon Chaney Sr. and the other which launched the stardom of matinee idol John Gilbert.

Some familiar faces will be present on this list. Cecil B. DeMille continues to dazzle Jazz Age audiences with his tales of bad behavior and moral redemption among the young and beautiful. Harold Lloyd continues to be the most lucrative screen comedian, landing two hit features. Douglas Fairbanks’ landmark fantasy epic The Thief of Bagdad is also a big hit, though numbers don’t quite match up to his previous effort, Robin Hood.

New faces appear as well. John Gilbert’s steady rise to legendary sex symbol begins in earnest here. Young Mary Astor appears opposite John Barrymore at the start of her own stardom. Norma Shearer appears in He Who Gets Slapped, the first MGM film put into release– an oddly fitting detail since for much of the 1930s, she would be dubbed the Queen of the MGM lot.

Let’s waste no more time. Onto the post!

My usual note: It is difficult to get 100% accurate box office information from the silent era and this list is based on the top ten films offered up by Wikipedia as the big hits of 1924. Box office numbers can vary depending on the source (and here, I just stuck to the Wikipedia numbers for consistency’s sake), so just keep that in mind as we forge ahead.

#10 – HIS HOUR

Image source: IMDB

Release date: September 29, 1924

Box office (est.): $197,000

Summary: Prim British noblewoman Tamara Loraine (Aileen Pringle) is drawn to wild Prince Gritzko (John Gilbert), a dashing Russian with a long list of conquests. However, she has enough self-control to hold off his advances. Circumstances propel Tamara to Gritzko’s lodge, where he aggressively tries to get her to submit. Can these crazy kids find love despite Gritzko’s caveman ways?

Elinor Glyn is a key figure in early 20th century pop culture. A novelist who specialized in torrid, exotic romance, her books were equally controversial and popular for their sexual content. Her most famous novel was Three Weeks, the passionate tale of a love affair between a British youth and a mysterious temptress who turns out to be royalty. The masses saw the Glyn universe as one of glamorous, racy escapism. Allegedly more discerning readers sniffed at Glyn’s work as trash.

Actor John Gilbert was among the critics, but he was roped into making a film version of Glyn’s novel When the Hour Came by fledgling studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Producer Irving Thalberg concurred with Gilbert that the material was trash– but the public had a taste for trash and were willing to pay good money for it. Gilbert’s reluctance to take the lead was not allayed when he met Glyn in person. A powerful force in Hollywood (several of her books were turned into films and she was given a lot of sway over casting decisions), Glyn was a celebrity in her own right, her bright red hair wrapped in elaborate turbans and her demeanor the height of Jazz Age camp. When she was introduced to Gilbert, she is said to have called him “the black stallion,” much to his embarrassment.

At the time, Gilbert was not the superstar he would become by the mid-1920s and his name was overshadowed by Aileen Pringle. Pringle had just come off her lead part in an adaptation of the more famous Three Weeks, which catapulted her to stardom and made her a natural casting choice for His Hour. Pringle is only remembered in silent film buff circles today, but she appears to have led a fascinating life. While a bit snobby and aloof with her co-stars, her wit and intelligence made her popular with intellectuals like HL Mencken, and would later marry crime novelist James M. Cain of The Postman Always Rings Twice fame, though the union lasted only two years.

Whatever its stars thought, His Hour was a hit and King Vidor’s lush direction singled out for praise. However, the eroticism was apparently too hot to handle for many moral watchdogs, particularly a scene in which Gilbert caresses, kisses, and bites Pringle’s hand while she feigns sleep. Regardless of the pearl clutchers, the film was Gilbert’s first for MGM and helped cement his reputation as one of the great silent screen lovers.

His Hour exists in a print with Czech intertitles but is currently unavailable to view anywhere. Gilbert biographer Eve Golden claims it’s unimpressive, hampered by Gilbert and Pringle’s lack of chemistry, and Gilbert’s Russian prince being “little more than a stalker and rapist.” Ouch.

Sources:

Dark Star: The Untold Story of the Meteoric Rise and Fall of Legendary Silent Screen Star John Gilbert by Leatrice Gilbert Fountain

John Gilbert: The Last of the Silent Film Stars by Eve Golden

#9 – BEAU BRUMMEL

Image source: TCM

Release date: March 30, 1924

Box office (est.): $453,000

Summary: George “Beau” Brummel (John Barrymore) and tradesman’s daughter Margery (Mary Astor) are madly in love, but her parents oppose the union due to Beau’s lack of money or title. Margery is compelled to marry a lord, embittering her former love. Beau intends to have his vengeance upon high society by becoming one of the most popular members of the smart set, befriending the dissolute Prince of Wales (Willard Louis) and seducing many a married lady. However, through it all, Beau is haunted by his love for Margery and his simmering anger at the elites eventually compromises his good standing with the prince. Will he and Margery ever find a way to be together, or are they destined to forever be apart?

While John Gilbert was just getting in his footing as a contender for top Hollywood matinee idol, John Barrymore was still enjoying plenty of success as a swoon-worthy thespian. During the 1900s and 1910s, Barrymore fangirls packed the theaters to hear his lovely voice and see his handsome face. While the medium of silent film could not capture Barrymore’s voice, his acting chops and good looks still came through.

The 1924 Beau Brummel was among Barrymore’s greatest hits of the 1920s. Based loosely on the life of the infamous 19th century dandy of the same name, Beau Brummel is a tragic romance. George “Beau” Brummel is unable to be with the noblewoman he loves due to class interests, so he plunges himself into a life of hedonistic dissolution, seducing married women, spending hours on perfecting his appearance, and partying it up with the equally amoral Prince of Wales. Much of the movie covers Beau’s society balancing act, charming the elite while covertly treating them with contempt. However, his enduring love for Margery gives his character considerable sympathy.

Margery was the first major role of Mary Astor, who is absolutely, hauntingly beautiful throughout the film. She looks like a fairy tale princess come to life. Her relationship with Barrymore was as intense offscreen as it was on. The two had a sexual relationship during filming, even though Barrymore was over 40 and Mary Astor was only 17. Though she viewed Barrymore through rose-tinted lens during this time, Astor later said learned a lot about acting from observing Barrymore’s methods onset:

“I was impressed by the keenness of his analysis and interpretation of character. He was the first actor I ever heard speak of a character in the third person. Instead of saying ‘I will do this’ or ‘I will make my entrance when a certain event occurs,’ Jack would say, ‘I don’t think the guy would do that. I think he’s so mad he wouldn’t even bow to the king.’ He was thinking of the character as a real being, with an intrinsic character that would cause him to react in ways quite different from the way he, as John Barrymore, would react.”

The part of Lady Margery isn’t terribly complicated, but Astor’s expressive face elevates what is otherwise a standard ingenue role. Her real life feelings for her co-star shine through all their scenes, intense and all-consuming.

I have to say the most interesting dynamic in the film is between Beau and the Prince. The jovial energy between Barrymore and Willard Louis is palpable. According to Astor, the two told dirty jokes in their scenes together, believing that since they were making a silent film, no one in the audience would be the wiser. Alas, deaf patrons and others adept at lip-reading caught every nasty line and sent in their complaints to Warner Bros.

As far as Barrymore goes, the film is as much a showcase for his versatility as the more famous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We get to see Beau progress from besotted soldier to witty rake to disgraced old man living in madness and poverty. The gradual transformation is heartbreaking, making the film’s famous final scene all the more touching. I won’t spoil that ending in case you haven’t seen the film, but it does allow the film to conclude on a sentimental but powerful note.

Sources:

My Story: An Autobiography by Mary Astor

This Mad Masquerade: Stardom and Masculinity in the Jazz Age by Gaylyn Studlar

#8 – HE WHO GETS SLAPPED

Image source: TCM

Release date: November 9, 1924

Box office (est.): $493,000

Summary: Scientist Paul Beaumont (Lon Chaney) sees his life fall apart when his wealthy patron, the Baron Regnard (Marc McDermott), plagiarizes his work and steals away his wife Marie (Ruth King). Humiliated before a panel of academics and spurned by Marie, Paul begins to see the world as cruel and absurd. He leaves his former identity behind when he joins a circus as a clown named HE. Gaining fame for his masochistic comedy act, HE finds love anew for the circus’ gentle bareback rider Consuelo (Norma Shearer), even though her heart belongs to her handsome co-performer Benzano (John Gilbert). But when Consuelo’s impoverished father Count Mancini (Tully Marshall) seeks to use her beauty to curry finances and favor with Baron Regnard, HE plots a dastardly revenge to defend the woman he loves.

I’ve always found it hilarious that He Who Gets Slapped—a grim drama about a masochistic clown bent on revenge against the lecherous aristocrat who cuckolded him—was the first work wholly produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the one classic era studio you’d think most likely to shy away from such material. This is one perverse film in which humanity is marked out as collectively predatory and cruel. There are some glimmers of hope, true, but they are oh so faint.

He Who Gets Slapped is based on a 1915 Russian play still much revered in its country of origin. The film takes only the most basic ingredients from its source—the bitter clown, the impoverished Count Mancini’s desire to wed Consuelo to the Baron, the downbeat view of the human condition—but otherwise changes it from a talky, philosophical piece to something like a Jacobean revenge tragedy. The blend of the tragic and the ridiculous reminds me a bit of something like Oldboy, to be honest.

The sinister tone, circus setting, and presence of Lon Chaney might lead one to assume this is a Tod Browning project, but the director was Victor Sjostrom (billed Seastrom in the film itself), a Swedish filmmaker and actor enticed to Hollywood by Louis B. Mayer. He Who Gets Slapped was his second American project and he would go on to direct several great silent classics, like The Scarlet Letter and The Wind. After the talkie revolution, Sjostrom returned to his native Sweden and stuck to acting exclusively, becoming a mentor to a young Ingmar Bergman and starring in one of Bergman’s greatest pictures, Wild Strawberries. During the 1920s, Sjostrom relished his time with Chaney (the two would make two films together), calling him the greatest actor working on screen or stage.

Chaney was certainly on the up and up in 1924. He’d become a bonafide star after the success of The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1923 and his celebrity would remain undimmed until his untimely death in 1930. Chaney’s performance as HE is among his finest work. The way he channels his pain and rage into his bitter clown act is downright chilling. And yet, flickers of compassion pulse through the performance, allowing one to hope that perhaps something of HE’s faith in humanity can be renewed.

At its heart, He Who Gets Slapped is about how unfeeling people can be when it comes to the pain of others. HE’s act is a recreation of the worst day of his life in which he was humiliated before a scientific committee by the Baron: he announces basic facts only to be slapped repeatedly by his fellow performers. The skit culminates in HE having a felt heart ripped from his chest by another clown, who proceeds to stomp it into the ground before giving HE an irreverent clown funeral. I doubt anyone who’s ever watched this film has ever found this “comic” act funny, yet the onscreen audience howls with sadistic mirth. They look positively obnoxious in those crowd shots, and one wonders what HE gets out of his act. Is it his way of exercising control over a situation in which he was so powerless? Is it an undetected gesture of contempt towards all humanity?

Even the kindhearted Consuelo, played by a luminous Norma Shearer, is guilty of a certain level of thoughtlessness. When HE confesses his love to her, Consuelo reacts with disgust then laughs, the very thought of this middle-aged clown being enamored with her too absurd a concept to be true. She even slaps him for good measure—a gesture that’s intended to be playful, but only devastates HE. On one hand, it’s hard to blame Consuelo’s reaction—I don’t know how I would react if a co-worker I viewed as a casual friend randomly and passionately swore their love for me—but because we understand HE’s alienation and pain so keenly, it’s hard not to empathize with his rejection.

The dynamic between HE and Consuelo is more fascinating than the usual Chaney/Unrequited Love Interest deal because HE isn’t just in love with Consuelo. He arguably sees her as a double, for both of them have been objectified by the wealthy. Consuelo’s father treats her as a commodity that can be used to buy his way back into aristocratic society. When we first see her, she’s being appraised by the ringmaster as though she were a thoroughbred horse. She turns in a circle, eyes downcast, utterly dehumanized. But one of the most chilling scenes in the film occurs when Count Mancini is trying to convince the Baron to marry Consuelo. Disgusted by Consuelo’s show business profession, the Baron initially refuses. However, Mancini begins to spin his sales pitch, asking the Baron to “Imagine what a bride she will make.” We don’t get any more intertitles specifying what else the Count is saying, but his leering manner and the Count’s suggestive fondling of a set of pearls tell us everything. When HE moves in to save Consuelo from being used as a sexualized bargaining chip, it isn’t because he thinks he’ll win her heart. At that point, she’s already rejected him. Instead, it becomes a means of making sure history does not repeat itself and the Baron will no longer be able to use other humans as his playthings.

For all its nastiness, He Who Gets Slapped is not so much a nihilistic horror show as a cathartic call to compassion. The ending scenes are among the most moving in all film. I always find my heart aching when the drama ends, no matter how many times I’ve seen it and it remains one of my all-time favorites of the entire silent era.

#7 – TRIUMPH

Image source: Pinterest

Release date: April 27, 1924

Box office (est.): $678,526

Summary: King Garnet (Rod La Roque) is a no-good wastrel, ignoring the canning factory he inherited and shirking every responsibility he can. Anna Land (Leatrice Joy) works in the factory to support her struggling family, but dreams of a singing career. Both characters face trials a-plenty, particularly King when he learns that due to a secret will, he has to take direct control of the factory or else he’ll lose his ample inheritance to his illegitimate brother William Silver (Victor Varconi), who happens to be the factory manager. Also, there’s a Romeo and Juliet flashback somewhere in there because this is a silent DeMille film after all and we need our period costumes, damn it!

Cecil B. DeMille followed up his mammoth production of The Ten Commandments with more modest (at least, by DeMille epic standards) Jazz Age potboilers, but they seem to have pleased 1920s audiences. The first film in a three-picture contract DeMille signed for Famous Players-Lasky, Triumph brought back DeMille favorites Leatrice Joy and Rod La Roque for the lead roles. Zasu Pitts, fresh off Von Stroheim’s Greed, is in a supporting comic relief part. Like the modern story of The Ten Commandments, Triumph was designed as a Jazz Age morality play about the idle rich and the importance of hard work, putting its flawed leading man through the ringer so he could earn his happiness.

I don’t have much to say about this one. Prints of Triumph survive, but like His Hour, it remains unavailable for viewing. Contemporary reviewers seemed to universally concur it was good enough if a bit too long for what it was and certainly nothing that would make you forget The Ten Commandments anytime soon. On the flip side, DeMille biographer Scott Eyman has seen the film and his impression isn’t so favorable: “The setting is outlandish, the plot defies synopsis let alone rational analysis, and DeMille’s filmmaking carries authority but no energy until the end, when he puts together a rousing fire sequence that looks dangerous and probably was.”

Sources:

Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood by Robert S. Birchard

Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille by Scott Eyman

The Films of Cecil B. DeMille by Gene Ringgold

#6 – FEET OF CLAY

Image source: IMDB

Release date: September 28, 1924

Box office (est.): $904,383

Summary: Kerry Harlan (Rod La Roque) is a poor boy. Amy Loring (Vera Reynolds) is a rich girl. After he saves her from drowning, the two marry, but complications ensue. Firstly, Kerry has to stay off his feet due to a shark bite that occurred while he was rescuing Amy. Secondly, his married sister-in-law Bertha (Julia Faye) wants him as her boy toy and aggressively pursues him. When Bertha dies due to an accidental fall from a balcony, scandal haunts the young couple, who decide to form a suicide pact. However, their subsequent trip to the afterlife is cut short when they’re brought back to life and then…uh… yeah, the plot synopsis kind of confuses me.

Feet of Clay was DeMille’s second picture for Famous Players-Lasky, though it was a project for which he had little enthusiasm. Jesse Lasky insisted DeMille make a film from Margaretta Tuttle’s novel (originally a magazine serial) of the same name, but DeMille wanted to make an adaptation of the Sutton Vane play Outward Bound. Outward Bound is about a group of passengers on a ship who slowly realize they are all dead and en route to the afterlife. The spiritual angle suited DeMille’s interests, but Lasky was insistent on Feet of Clay and so DeMille decided to make the best of it by combining Tuttle’s story with elements from a 1914 play called Across the Border, which involves out-of-body experiences.

DeMille tried subtly inserting elements from Outward Bound into Feet of Clay‘s script, but Vane sniffed them out and sued Famous Players-Lasky. The studio ended up settling with Vane out of court and the whole affair soured their view of DeMille, though Adolph Zukor was already felt somewhat threatened by DeMille, whose loyal staff viewed themselves as more beholden to the director than to the studio. Lasky and Zukor flaunted an upcoming contract with DW Griffith as a means of putting DeMille in his place– he wouldn’t be the only prestige director on their payroll now. Ultimately, DeMille finished out his contract with The Golden Bed in 1925, then left to start up his own studio.

Regardless of the behind the scenes misery involved, Feet of Clay was a profitable film, grossing three times its budget. Reviews were favorable too. Writing for The Motion Picture News, Frank Elliott claimed, “The plot packs a good moral and swings the observer along through moments of the wildest jazz, the strongest drama, real heart appeal, and passionate lovemaking.” Alas, Feet of Clay is a lost film, so I cannot offer any opinions of my own.

Sources:

Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood by Robert S. Birchard

Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille by Scott Eyman

The Films of Cecil B. DeMille by Gene Ringgold

#5 – HOT WATER

Image source: IMDB

Release date: October 26, 1924

Box office (est.): $1,350,000

Summary: This movie takes place during a brief period in the life of Hubby (Harold Lloyd) and Wifey (Jobyna Ralston), joyful newlyweds living in a cute little home. That home is about to be invaded by Wifey’s relations: the domineering pro-Prohibition moralist mother Winnifred (Josephine Crowell), and her two sons, the grown-up deadbeat Charley (Charles Stevenson) and the underage brat Bobby (Mickey McBan). As much as Hubby tries to make the best of things, the trio are an unholy pain and the sooner Hubby can get rid of them, the better.

Harold Lloyd’s features come in two flavors: “character pictures” with more developed emotional throughlines and “gag pictures” with loose plots and a laugh a minute. Nineteen-twenty-four saw Lloyd offer up one of each: Girl Shy would be the character picture and Hot Water the gag picture. In fact, Hot Water was designed as a response to critics of Girl Shy (which we’ll discuss later in this post), a “character film” deemed overlong. So, Hot Water only runs for an hour and consists of three episodic vignettes following a young newlywed’s day from hell when his insufferable in-laws come to visit.

The first vignette concerns his trip to the grocery store, where he wins a prize turkey in a raffle drawing and has to try to carry it home without causing a riot on the public transport. The second introduces the annoying in-laws. They come by for a visit, usurping Hubby’s house and his attempt at a romantic drive in his new car with Wifey. Their family outing goes about as well as any attempt at a peaceful drive in a silent comedy. The final vignette involves Hubby trying to shut Winnifred up through a discreet use of chloroform, only for him to believe he’s killed her. When her “ghost” starts stalking through the house and the police appear outside the door, hijinks ensue.

Critics and fans often find Hot Water lacking compared to Lloyd’s other features. It’s not uncommon to see it deemed “a weaker effort.” I beg to differ: Hot Water is damn funny and one of my go-to silent comedies when I want to laugh out loud. I love the dysfunctional family element, maybe because it’s just more relatable the older I get.

The visual storytelling is also brilliant. My favorite example is when Hubby slowly realizes his in-laws are in the house. He gets hit by a spitball—a sign that Bobby is there. He sees cigarette smoke rising above the back of an armchair—a sign that Charley is there. And then he sees his own pipe in a trash can—a sign that Winnifred is on the prowl for vices to cure.

Lloyd’s expressions throughout are what kills me most. Anytime he realizes he has to deal with his irritating relations, the light dies in his eyes and his jaw becomes firm, an excellent and accurate manifestation of everyday misery. Though a master of mugging when a scene called for it, these subtle reactions are hilarious and show how wonderfully expressive Lloyd was as an actor.

If I have a complaint about Hot Water, it’s that these characters are all so good that I wish they were in a more developed film story. Like, imagine irritated Harold Lloyd having to lug his wife and her awful family to some vacation spot—Harold Lloyd goes to Wally World! Man, I would have LOVED to see that. Such a shame silent comedians didn’t really go for sequels. These characters just begged for it.

Sources:

The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia by Annette M. D’Agostino

#4 – THE THIEF OF BAGDAD

Image source: Letterboxd

Release date: March 18, 1924

Box office (est.): $1,490,419

Summary: Set in a mythical Bagdad, the story follows Ahmed (Douglas Fairbanks), a cocky young thief with no compunctions about taking what he wants, be it a piece of bread or a beautiful princess (Julanne Johnston). Disguising himself as a prince, Ahmed plans to kidnap the Princess, but instead falls mutually in love with her. His charade discovered by the Princess’ enraged father, Ahmed must win his lady love’s hand by finding a priceless treasure. In time, he will also have to save both princess and Bagdad itself from a conniving Mongolian prince (Sojin Kamiyama).

Douglas Fairbanks was riding high after the smash success of his Robin Hood, which was the number one box office attraction of 1922. A grand epic colored by romantic chivalry and good-humored action, what could possibly top it? During the pre-production phase, Fairbanks jumped from project to project with his usual creative abandon. Maybe he’d make a pirate movie? Or an epic set in Ancient Rome? Or an adaptation of Monsieur Beaucaire?

Ultimately, Fairbanks set his heart on an epic mash-up of the stories of The Arabian Nights, intending to outdo himself with an array of action, romance, and immersive fantasy. As a result, The Thief of Bagdad is undoubtedly the artiest film of Fairbanks’ career. The Three Musketeers and Robin Hood were elaborate spectacles, but their visuals still had some grounded qualities. The Thief continually leaves any sense of realism behind in just about every facet of its creation, conjuring an uncompromised storybook world in which rippling fabric stands in for a raging ocean and the William Cameron Menzies sets are an Art Deco dream of the dangerous yet wondrous world of The Arabian Nights.

Boldest of all is arguably Fairbanks’ performance. He was always ebullient and energetic, but here, his acting takes on balletic dimensions. Influenced by Vaslav Nijinskiy and the Ballets Russes, Fairbanks all but dances through this part, throwing both arms up when surprised, hopping from place to place like a Mario Brother, or rubbing his belly in large circles when intoxicated by the aroma of fresh bread. Non silent film afficionados will assume this is just silent movie overacting with no artistic thought put into it (“hur, hur, people couldn’t act before Brando hur hur”). Fairbanks biographer Tracey Goessel is more on the mark when she says, “[Fairbanks] was trying to make a film as universal, as primarily symbolic, as dance.”

The Thief was a box office success and most of the critical notices were positive, but this triumph would be mixed. For one thing, the movie was so expensive that its profits were not as substantial as previous Fairbanks spectaculars. The Thief also wasn’t as popularly received as Robin Hood. While it played well in the cities, small town exhibitors claimed their patrons were less keen on this artier Fairbanks. In a few years, the critics would concur, calling the film a pretentious misfire. It’s clear Fairbanks had succumbed to the desire to make ART! How dare he!

Years ago, I was with these critics, finding the film beautiful but ponderous, but my most recent viewing of The Thief changed my mind. As opposed to watching Fairbanks’ opus on a tiny laptop in crappy YouTube quality, I had on the latest bluray release, splashed across my sizeable flat screen with Carl Davis’ gorgeous Rimsy-Korsakov-inspired score blaring. Presented in good quality (while my phone was in another room), The Thief became an engrossing experience, a competitor with Fritz Lang’s two-part Die Niebelungen as the greatest fantasy film of the 1920s.

Sources:

The First King of Hollywood: The Life of Douglas Fairbanks by Tracey Goessel

#3 – SECRETS

Image source: IMDB

Release date: March 24, 1924

Box office (est.): $1,500,000

Summary: Sitting patiently by the sickbed of her husband John (Eugene O’Brien), elderly Mary Carlton (Norma Talmadge) looks back on their life together. In her teens, Mary abandoned a life of ease and wealth to elope with penniless John. They made a life in the American West, facing physical danger and heartbreak together. In middle age, John’s infidelity threatens the union, but the relationship survives due to Mary’s patience. However, can it survive John’s illness?

Secrets presents superstar Norma Talmadge at the height of her illustrious career. Her part is an actor’s dream come true: a single character we see over different phases of a long life. In this movie’s case, four phases. And I have to say, Talmadge’s work in differentiating the different versions of the same character is masterful. I would not be shy calling this her best performance– at least, among the scant Talmadge oeuvre readily available for viewing.

A frame story in which the elderly Mary Carlton (Talmadge) sits beside her ill husband’s bedside as she remembers their long marriage bookends three flashbacks showing the evolution of their relationship. What’s most striking is how convincing the old age makeup on Talmadge is in these scenes. Even now, it’s difficult to age up younger actors without making them look abominable…

I swear to God, whoever did the makeup on Hermione wasn’t even trying. Image source: Hollywood Reporter

…Ahem. But the make-up here is fantastic, as it remains throughout the film as we go through this woman’s long life and marriage. The old age make-up alone is great.

Each section feels like its own mini-movie, each with a different genre and tone. The first of the flashbacks takes place in 1865 when Mary was a young, lovestruck girl. John is a penniless employee of her father’s, making him an unsuitable option for Mary’s hand. Her parents desire a more socially advantageous match for their daughter, but Mary’s unmarried aunt– who was forced to give up the man she loved due to his low standing– urges the girl to follow her heart. This first section is slow but charming, playing almost like farce towards the end when Mary has to hide John in her room. While the visual metaphor of elaborate undergarments representing the limited social standing of Victorian women is a cliche by now, it works well here, with Mary almost laughing at the ridiculous amounts of layers she asked to put on for her first ball.

The second section sees the movie morph into a western. Mary is now a frontier wife with an infant son. She and John live in a humble house, but are happy. However, John runs afoul of a murderous gang and they ambush his house. We get a big shoot-out scene, in which the couple defend their home and Mary tries to console their ill baby. The sequence is both exciting and sentimental, once again emphasizing Mary’s devotion to the relationship and her iron will.

The third section is the weakest. Mary is now a comely matron and John a successful politician. They’ve two grown children and a beautiful home. Even Mary’s parents are no longer estranged from their daughter, coming by to visit her. However, Mary’s contentment is destroyed when she learns John is having an affair with Estelle, a gorgeous widow intent on breaking up the marriage. What makes this section suffer is John’s weak motivation. He tells Mary the affair was only born of short-lived lust and he has no plans on divorce. And right away, crisis averted, as Mary takes the repentant lug back, even though he also admits they’re penniless again. The adultery is treated like a minor inconvenience.

Is this poor writing or the result of missing footage? Indeed, it’s hard to properly evaluate Secrets, as it exists in incomplete condition. As it stands, the film’s success largely relies on Talmadge’s virtuoso performance. If I have a major issue, it’s that the husband character is underdrawn and colorless, making you wonder what makes him worth so much devotion and sacrifice. For me, this prevents the movie from having the emotional impact it should have, but regardless, it’s still an entertaining melodrama, one I wish was in better, more complete condition.

Sources:

Silent Stars by Jeanine Basinger

#2 – GIRL SHY

Image source: The Feedback Society

Release date: April 20, 1924

Box office (est.): $1,550,000

Summary: Tailor’s apprentice Harold Meadows (Harold Lloyd) is hardly a ladies’ man. He stutters around women and has never had a girlfriend. This does not prevent him from writing a how-to book about wooing all the different sorts of women out there, from flappers to vamps. During his quest for publication, he meets Mary Buckingham (Jobyna Ralston), a Los Angeles heiress. The two fall mutually in love, though Harold only wants to ask for her hand if he can make a good living from his book. When the book is rejected as too absurd, Harold breaks off the relationship… that is, until he learns the nefarious secret of Mary’s other suitor, the greedy and callous Ronald DeVore (Carlton Griffin), and becomes determined to save Mary from him.

It’s difficult for me to pinpoint the “best” Harold Lloyd film. Safety Last! is the most iconic, sure, and The Freshman is truly masterful, but Girl Shy is an astonishing piece of work. Of all the silent Lloyd features, I find it the most satisfying. It’s very funny. It has satire. It has sweet romance. It has one of the most action-packed climactic chases in all silent comedy. All around, it might be Lloyd’s best career-best effort.

Lloyd’s first independent production, Girl Shy is a landmark in other ways as well. Some consider it a key title in the development of the cinematic romantic comedy. The last third involving Harold’s chase to stop his beloved’s wedding to another man, inspired two other major films. The first was the 1925 Ben-Hur. Director Fred Niblo was inspired by the shot in which the camera appears to be run over by the horses Harold utilizes to rush to the rescue. Niblo used a similar device during the chariot race in Ben-Hur. The second film is Mike Nichols’ The Graduate. There’s a direct link between Harold rescuing Mary from her unwanted nupitals and Dustin Hoffman crashing Katharine Ross’ would-be wedding, as Nichols was inspired by the earlier film.

All this aside, what sticks out most to me about Girl Shy is how it walks the fine line between genuine sentiment and broad comedy, but without devolving into sappy goo or mood whiplash. The romance between Harold and Mary is very touching. They’re both in situations in which they are not fully appreciated by the other people in their life: Harold is mocked as a joke and Mary is valued only for her money. With any movie, it is vital that the audience intensely care for the characters and desire their happiness. I am not a big fan of romantic comedy, but Girl Shy is so special to me because Lloyd and Ralston are both so likable and so sweet together. It would be a kind of death if their characters did not end up together.

The satire of Jazz Age lovemaking also plays well still. The excerpts from Harold’s book show him assuming the roles of masculine indifference or total dominance when dealing with a “vampire” and a “flapper.” These scenes lampoon conventions of romantic drama so prevalent in popular culture at the time, particularly the idea of the “cave man” who takes what he wants and won’t be ordered about. Even if the stereotypes of “vampire” and “flapper” are dated to the 1920s, terrible romantic advice based on goofy perceptions of women sure isn’t and these scenes remain highly amusing.

Girl Shy is just such a pure lark of a film. It moves quickly, it makes you feel for the characters, it leaves you feel so, so good. It’s easy to see why audiences so readily took to both it and Lloyd himself.

Sources:

The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia by Annette M. D’Agostino

#1 – THE SEA HAWK

Image source: IMDB

Release date: June 14, 1924

Box office (est.): $2,000,000

Summary: English baronet Oliver Tressilian (Milton Sills) is a decent man with a bit of a temper. Knowing it bothers his intended Rosamund Godolphin (Enid Bennett), he promises to cool it down, even if her brother Peter (Wallace MacDonald) is an antagonistic moron who wants to pick a fight with the Tressilian family any chance he can. Unfortunately, self-control comes far less easily to Oliver’s half-brother Lionel (Lloyd Hughes), who kills Peter during a duel. Afraid of being executed for murder, Lionel pins the blame on Oliver and has him kidnapped by the wily Captain Jasper Leigh (Wallace Beery), who takes the baronet to sea. When Jasper’s ship is captured by the Spanish, Oliver is forced to become a galley slave, but he escapes with the aid of the Moors. Converting to Islam and taking on a new name, Sakr-el-Bahr, he swears vengeance on those who wronged him, making his swift way back to English shores…

Though a massive hit in its day, The Sea Hawk is among the most underrated silent films, often overshadowed by its talkie remake with Errol Flynn. (Though “remake” is a bit inaccurate in relation to the talkie version since other than the title and Elizabethan setting, the two stories have nothing in common.) Adapted from a 1915 novel of the same name by Rafael Sabitani (also responsible for Captain Blood and Scaramouche), this is the kind of rip-roaring adventure story Hollywood doesn’t make anymore. Family betrayal! Romance! Kidnapping! Daring escapes! Naval battles! Pirates! Faraway lands! With the exception of some orientalist stereotyping, the film has held up very well.

The spectacle on display is still breathtaking now, maybe even more so in an age saturated with green screens and CG. You see, director Frank Lloyd didn’t want to use miniatures to stage the naval battles since 1920s audiences were sophisticated enough to sniff out silver screen fakery. He insisted on full-scale ships, which he got with the aid of Fred Gabourie, a technical director who helped construct props and sets for Buster Keaton’s films. The effort more than pays off and the battle footage was considered so impressive that it was repurposed for other movies even into the 1930s and 1940s. Combined with rich historical atmosphere, this is one good-looking film.

The Sea Hawk also benefits from a great leading actor. Milton Sills is one of those movie stars whose name only rings a bell with silent movie geeks, largely because he died at the dawn of the talkie era, yet he is a revelation in this. I heard Rudolph Valentino was considered for this role. Given the antagonistic romance between Oliver and Rosamund for much of the film, I can imagine him in the part (particularly when Oliver kidnaps Rosamund and carries her away to his ship bridal style). Being older and less smoldering, 42-year-old Sills brings a wholly different quality than the 29-year-old Valentino would have. There’s a different sense of drama to a mature man having his world turned upside down compared to a much younger man’s. With Valentino, Oliver’s reversal of fortune might have come off like a coming-of-age adventure in the vein of Moran of the Lady Letty. With Sills, it comes off like a settled man having to reinvent himself amidst adversity and a new culture.

(This isn’t to say Sills lacks erotic appeal. There’s a scene where he strips down before a judge to prove he couldn’t have killed Peter Godolphin since he hasn’t any injury, and what we see is pretty impressive, if I’m going to be objectifying about it.)

By and large, this is an adventure yarn with all the trimmings and a wonderful supporting cast. Enid Bennett just came off a big hit with Douglas Fairbanks’ 1922 Robin Hood, where she played Maid Marian. She gets more to chew on with Rosamund, who struggles to despise Oliver after she believes he killed her brother. For his part, Beery comes close to stealing the show from everyone. He is hilarious as Jasper Leigh, willing to promise anything to save his own skin and promoting himself in a rather Falstaffian fashion. Altogether, this is a great, great movie. If you haven’t seen it, then you’re in for a real treat.

Sources:

“The Sea Hawk” by Bret Wood, https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/16041/the-sea-hawk#articles-reviews?articleId=33788

Classic film related reads in January 2024

Image source: Pinterest

I haven’t written any book reviews lately. I have a hard time picking just one or two, hence here are some notable classic film related reads I perused last month. There are a few biographies in here, but I’ve also included material that was adapted for film during the classic era.

Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice by James M. Cain

The last time I read James M. Cain’s two most iconic novels, I was taking an independent study course about hardboiled crime literature as a graduate student. There’s a lot of overlap between the two books: they’re both about conniving adulterous couples trying to knock off an inconvenient husband. The tones are different though. Postman is tragic and desperate, infused with Depression-era resentment. Double Indemnity is less emotional, with characters motivated by greed and an intellectual yearning to cheat the system.

I enjoyed both a great deal, though I think The Postman Always Rings Twice is the better of the two, mainly because it really sticks the landing. It has a grimy sense of tragedy that makes it so compelling, and the ending is much stronger than Double Indemnity‘s. Postman ends on an ironic note and every twist and turn in the plot feels perfectly calibrated to that bitter end. Double Indemnity‘s ending always felt a bit… odd to me. I don’t know how else to say it without spoiling it, but if you’ve read it, you probably know what I’m talking about.

Ironically, Double Indemnity got the better film adaptation. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen the 1946 Postman with Lana Turner, but I remember thinking it was rather bland compared to the overheated, anxious source material. I also watched the steamier 1981 version with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange yesterday, and while that one is truer to the book’s downtrodden Depression-era atmosphere, it lacks the necessary nasty noirish irony, especially in the way it bungles the ending.

Perhaps Double Indemnity lucked out movie-wise because the protagonist Walter is motivated by the thrill of cheating the system rather than any sexual pleasure, making adaptation in the Code-bound 1940s an easier feat. The film also benefits immeasurably from the contributions of Billy Wilder, Raymond Chandler, and of course its stars, Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, and Edward G. Robinson. Rewatching the film after rereading the book, I came away feeling Wilder’s movie is the stronger work, with richer characters, snappier dialogue, and a much improved finish.

Paul Robeson: Years of Promise and Achievement by Sheila Tully Boyle and Andrew Bunie

This biography was my favorite read of the month. I knew basically nothing about Paul Robeson as a person before reading it and came away fascinated. The son of an escaped slave turned minister, Robeson was a man of many accomplishments: singer, actor, athlete, and civil rights activist. Many still remember him for his beautiful rendition of “Ol’ Man River” from Show Boat. However, behind the lovely voice was a courageous man who desired to use his art to do real good in the world.

Alas, this is not a full biography. It only covers Robeson’s life from his birth to 1940, when he would have been 42 years old. However, the book is excellent at painting a psychological portrait of its subject, warts and all. Its point is to show how Robeson’s convictions about justice and equality evolved over time, and how he became more outspoken against the racism he encountered in both his native United States and in Europe. Though he was an admired superstar in the UK, he still encountered patronizing attitudes and racial barriers. The prejudice he faced also made him more sympathetic to the Soviet Union, where his race was never treated as an issue during his visits. As you can imagine, that sympathy as well as Robeson’s outspoken call for peace between the US and Soviet Russia, did not make him popular with certain groups come the postwar period.

I like how this book doesn’t make quick and easy judgments about Robeson. He was a complicated person to be sure, particularly within his marriage to the equally fascinating Eslanda Goode. However, by the end of the book, I came away impressed by the man’s courage and passionate convictions. I absolutely want to learn more about him in the future.

Captain of Her Soul: The Life of Marion Davies by Lara Gabrielle

Few things warm my cold, dead heart as much as the rejuvenation of Marion Davies’ reputation. Just as plenty of people know “Play it again, Sam” is not actually a line from Casablanca, so too do more people know that Marion Davies and Citizen Kane‘s Susan Alexander have little in common, especially in regards to talent and compassion. Silent film fans well know that Davies was a fine comedienne and mimic. If anyone’s screen presence could be described as “sunny,” it would certainly be Marion Davies.

I’m already familiar with the best of Davies’ silent films, so I mainly went into this wanting to learn more about the woman herself. As with the Robeson book, I came away with great respect for its subject. Davies was a generous person, freely lavishing gifts upon loved ones and spending large amounts of money on children’s charities. She had her demons of course: she struggled with alcoholism for decades and her marriage to sea captain Horace Brown was a disaster she could never disentangle herself from. A level of bitterness entered her life in its last years: she proclaimed making movies had been a waste of time. The one thing she truly wanted– to be Mrs. Hearst– never happened.

And yet, Davies’ life seemed anything but a failure to me. She made millions happy with her comic talents. She helped many underprivileged children have access to medical care through her charitable work and donations. Whatever she did, she certainly never wasted time.

Movie of the month: Body and Soul (dir. Oscar Micheaux, 1925)

Pioneering Black filmmaker Oscar Micheaux was never one to shy away from controversial subject matter nor was he one to pretty up ugly truths. His most famous film is Within Our Gates, a passionate response to the vile racism of DW Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, but his 1925 drama Body and Soul is also very fascinating, no less due to the presence of the legendary Paul Robeson in a dual role.

The movie’s heart is the mother and daughter relationship of Martha Jane (Mercedes Gilbert) and Isabelle (Julia Theresa Russell), currently strained by Martha Jane’s desire for Isabelle to marry the much-loved pastor Isaiah T. Jenkins (Paul Robeson). However, Isabelle refuses to consent. For one thing, she’s in love with Sylvester (also Robeson), a gentle-hearted but penniless scientist. Also, she’s scared of Jenkins, cringing whenever he is near, though Martha Jane does not know why this is the case. The audience and Isabelle both know something Martha Jane doesn’t: Isaiah is not the saintly man he pretends to be. He’s not even a pastor. He’s a hard-drinking con-man out to fleece his flock rather than save them, and his interest in Isabelle is anything but noble.

I’ll admit it’s a bit weird seeing Robeson in a silent film since he’s so associated with his beautiful voice, but his great presence remains potent even without it. Robeson is wonderful as both Jenkins and Sylvester, creating distinct figures. His charisma allows him to almost run away with the film whole, save for the performance of Gilbert as Martha Jane. While her character is initially judgmental and easily taken in by Isaiah’s charm, her overwhelming love for Isabelle is movingly presented, making her more than a caricature of religious naivete. It’s thrilling when she and Robeson have their climactic confrontation at the end of the film.

By the mid-1920s, Robeson was coming into his own as a singer and actor, enjoying great success playing the lead in Eugene O’Neil’s The Emperor Jones and performing African-American spirituals in a concert setting. And then of course, there’s his appearance in the landmark musical Show Boat, where his rendition of “Ol’ Man River” stole the show night after night. His appearance in Body and Soul received much less attention than his other work from this period since “race films” (the name for all-Black film productions) were only exhibited at Black-only theaters. Given the low budget and lack of technical polish of the film, Robeson was reluctant to mention it when discussing his background in the years to come.

He needn’t have been. Body and Soul is rough but powerful and gutsy, particularly in its criticism of unquestioned religious authority. Jenkins’ abuse of poor Isabelle is chilling– not just the violence itself, but his subsequent manipulation of her. He tells her no one will believe her if she tries to expose him, a common tactic of predators. After all, he’s seen as a man of God. He isolates Isabelle psychologically, and forces her out of her own home and away from the people who love her, all the while robbing her mother of her hard-earned savings and pinning the blame on Isabelle. For all the melodramatic flourishes within the script, Jenkins himself feels all too real.

Unfortunately, the film’s presentation of religious hypocrisy got it into trouble with the censors, who deemed Body and Soul “sacreligious.” The very notion that a man of the cloth might use his power to disguise unsavory behavior was too much for 1920s moral watchdogs (if you’ve ever wondered why so many versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame neglect to make Frollo a priest as he is in the original novel, that’s why), even if Jenkins was ultimately just posing as a pastor instead of being the genuine article. Micheaux had to whittle down the film from nine to five reels. As a result, the complete version no longer exists.

I can only imagine how frustrating this was for Micheaux. You have to remember, he had no distribution network to send out prints for him. He struck a few prints at his own expense and then drove them to theaters around the country himself, cutting them to satisfy the particular hang-ups of the local censors. Regardless, he kept on making films until it became financially impossible to do so. However, the end of his movie career was a long time off. He would continue to direct into the sound era, releasing his final picture in 1948.

Sources:

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/468-paul-robeson-a-modern-man

Paul Robeson: The years of promise and achievement by Sheila Tully Boyle and Andrew Bunie

The surviving reels of Confessions of a Queen (dir. Victor Sjostrom, 1925)

Image source: IMDB

With so many silent movies lost to time, I am grateful for every existent scrap of footage that can be uncovered. That being said, an incomplete film can be so frustrating, especially when the film in question appears to have been entertaining.

Today’s subject: Confessions of a Queen, a 1925 romantic melodrama starring Alice Terry (in one of her few projects not helmed by husband Rex Ingram), Lewis Stone, and John Bowers. Adapted from a French novel and directed by Swedish filmmaker Victor Sjostrom during his stint in Hollywood, it received favorable notices. Alas, only four reels survive to the present and while they do not suggest the completed work was any great work of art, I was wholly entertained by what little I saw. I can’t help it– I’m a sucker for melodrama.

A Photoplay article encouraging readers to use Confessions of a Queen as interior design inspiration. Image source: https://archive.org/details/sim_photoplay_1925-07_28_2/page/72/mode/2up

I’m always intrigued by how much Jazz Age Hollywood mined the Russian Revolution for dramatic material, either directly (as in The Last Command and The Volga Boatman) or indirectly. Confessions takes the indirect route, setting its action in a fictional European kingdom called Illyria tottering on the edge of revolution. The film is firmly pro-monarchy, framing the revolution as little more than the disgruntled reaction of a populace sick of paying taxes for their horny king’s lavish partying. So if you’re hoping this film makes compelling points about government, the morality or lack thereof of hereditary monarchy, the perilous trajectory of revolutions, or anything like that– um, abandon all hope ye who enter here.

The last sentence of this Photoplay review hints at the more salacious material in the film. Image source: https://archive.org/details/sim_photoplay_1925-06_28_1/page/50/mode/2up

Lewis Stone is King Christian II, an affable playboy more interested in debauched banquets with mistress Sephora (Helena D’Algy) than affairs of state. Their introductory scene could have come out of a Von Stroheim picture: drunk and standing on a table, Sephora begs Christian to brand her bare leg with his insignia so “all” will know she belongs to him. The king happily obliges, doing anything to forget he’ll soon have to wed a foreign princess for political convenience.

Said princess is Fredericka (Alice Terry), blonde, refined, and zealous in her commitment to duty. She is greeted by the king and his younger, more moral brother Prince Alexei at the docks. Both brothers are smitten on sight, but only Alexei seems to appreciate Fredericka’s responsible nature. Christian just wants to get down to making royal babies. But Fredericka only believes in sex after further acquaintance and so shuns Christian on their wedding night. The king shrugs it off and cavorts with Sephora in a secret passageway.

Things get really patchy from there. Fredericka befriends Alexei but begrudgingly submits to Christian’s advances due to the need for an heir. Her son (played by Frankie Darro, who would later voice the ill-fated Lampwick in Disney’s Pinocchio) is a brat, taking more after dad than mom. The commoners revolt. The royals flee to Paris, but are pursued by revolutionary assassins. And… yeah, that’s all that exists.

Reviewers on IMDB accuse the film of being silly and judging by what’s available, it absolutely is, going for broke with the melodramatic hysteria. Alexei tries having Fredericka as his own so they can rule Illyria together, a suggestion which has her flinging herself indignantly out of his arms. When Christian almost abdicates at the behest of a revolutionary mob, Fredericka scoops up her child and threatens to throw herself off a balcony, making sure their royal bloodline will “end bravely!” Sephora gets so jealous of Fredericka’s claim on Christian that she actually joins the revolutionaries in their assassination attempt against the king. If Gary Carey’s book Lost Films is to be believed, the story ends with Christian abdicating in favor of his son and settling down to a respectable, happy life with Fredericka in France.

Goofy, yes, and (apparently) lacking in the perverse psychology and striking visuals that make Sjostrom’s best American films such classics– but like fried Oreos, I can’t get enough of it. Confessions of a Queen is like the cinematic equivalent of a beach read and sometimes, that’s what you’re in the mood for. Such a shame more of it doesn’t exist.

If you’re interested in seeing the fragment of the film, it’s on YouTube:

Favorite posts of 2023

I’m a little disappointed with myself this year. After making my first audio commentary in 2022, I was hoping to have delved into video essays by now. Alas, a LOT happened this year: a new job, my longtime laptop crapping out, a death in the family, and my sister’s engagement. Regardless, I’m still pretty proud of what I was able to accomplish on here in 2023. Here are my four favorite posts from this year:

Kathryn McGuire tribute: Few takes irritate me more than “Buster Keaton’s leading ladies were breathing props with no personality.” Keaton’s best leading ladies were distinctive in their own ways and Kathryn McGuire is among the most distinguished. Almost as stone-faced as Buster, she was called to do more than look pretty in Sherlock Jr and The Navigator. I was glad to have the chance to go into her career and performance style. In a world where Sybil Seely and Marion Mack are more likely to merit attention, McGuire deserves more love.

Lolita analysis: Trapped between Code era restrictions and the gradual permissiveness of the 1960s, Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita is neither the lurid soap opera audiences wanted or the frank work its director intended. It’s certainly not an accurate adaptation of Nabokov’s postmodern masterpiece, but it is both a fascinating curio and a bizarre satire that plays like a screwed up 1950s sitcom. Lolita is not a comfortable film by any means, but I’ll never turn down an excuse to do a deep dive into a Kubrick film.

Dial M for Mediocre or Misunderstood?: Dial M for Murder grew on me after several revisits. While it’s often viewed as little more than a rote studio assignment for the Master of Suspense, the artistry and character depth is much more subtle than one might expect. There are few activities I love more than going through a great movie with a fine-toothed comb and I emerged from this project loving this film more than I could have ever imagined.

Babylon review: I don’t see the critical shitstorm around Damien Chazelle’s Jazz Age epic Babylon fading anytime soon. Is it a messy masterpiece or disrespectful nonsense? Me being me, my response was somewhere in the middle (I appreciate the cinematic ambition, but wow, the juvenile humor and spotty character development keep it from being as impactful as it could have been). In this article, I analyze the film and probe into the precarious balance between artistic license and historical accuracy.

See you all in 2024!

The greatest hits of 1923

Time for my yearly Silent Movie Day tradition of talking about the movies that made the big, big money a century ago!

Nineteen-twenty-three seems to have largely been the year of the historical epics. Only a few years ago, Hollywood was skeptical about the “costume play,” but the success of historical adventures like Douglas Fairbanks’ The Three Musketeers and Robin Hood, not to mention the stunning artistry of German epics, seem to have changed the industry’s attitude. That’s not to suggest non-epics are underrepresented here. Harold Lloyd cranked out another smash hit after the one-two triumph of Grandma’s Boy and Dr. Jack the previous year. Romantic comedy, social satire, wilderness melodrama, and romantic comedy also made big bank.

Let’s see how well the hits of 1923 hold up today.

#8 – TIGER ROSE

Image source: Wikipedia

Release date: December 9, 1923

Box office est.: $436,000

After the death of her father, spirited waif “Tiger” Rose Bocion (Leonore Ulrich) lives at a trading post in the northwestern Canadian wilderness. She is loved by two men: the mountie officer Michael Devlin (Forrest Stanley) and an engineer named Bruce Norton (Theodore von Eltz). She prefers the latter, but their romance is threatened when Bruce guns down a man he claims seduced and abandoned his sister. A man of the law, Devlin aims to track Bruce down, but Rose is determined to save her beloved at all costs, even if she has to get violent.

Melodramas set in the Canadian wilderness were common during the silent era. For a fine example, there’s Back to God’s Country with Nell Shipman. For a hilariously bad example, there’s Nomads of the North with Lon Chaney and a talking bear cub. Tiger Rose is a pretty good example of the genre. The movie exists in an incomplete state, with about twenty minutes missing from the runtime, but what remains is an enjoyable single-setting melodrama, well-directed by stage-to-screen specialist Sidney Franklin and starring one of the more colorful personalities of the Jazz Age, Leonore Ulric.

Ulrich was a theatrical star during the interwar period. Known for her dark beauty and tempestuous presence onstage, her forays into film were few. She made sporadic onscreen appearances throughout the 1910s and 1920s, and only a handful of appearances in the talkies. Classic film fans will likely most remember her as Olympe in the 1936 Camille. (I also learned recently that she makes a brief cameo in Hitchcock’s Notorious.)

Ulric originated the Rose character in the popular Broadway production. She’s a feisty young thing wholly motivated by passion. Her other defining trait is that she has a comically over-the-top French-Canadian accent, resulting in some… strange intertitles.

Strange dialect cards aside, Ulric gives her character a spunky charm that makes her antics enjoyable rather than irritating. She’s well-supported by the other actors, who all give solid performances.

Coming off successful stage to screen adaptations like Norma Talmadge’s Smilin’ Through, director Sidney Franklin’s approach to Tiger Rose is unflashy but tight. He particularly shines during the suspenseful middle act, when Bruce has to hide in the cellar while Devlin is staying the night. It’s a deliciously Hitchcockian set-up and the sequence is the best in the entire film. It’s all the more amazing how well the movie hangs together when you realize that what we have is an incomplete print with twenty minutes lopped off.

Sources:

Notes on the film by William K. Everson, https://wke.hosting.nyu.edu/wke/notes/newschool/imagefiles/ns_811023.1.jpg

#7 – THE GOLD DIGGERS

Image source: IMDB

Release date: September 22, 1923

Box office est.: $501,000

Wally and Violet (Johnny Harron and Ann Cornwall) are young and in love. Too bad Wally’s Uncle Stephen (Wyndham Standing) has something to say about it. You see, Wally is rolling in money and Violet is a showgirl, so Stephen figures the would-be bride’s motives are less than pure. Violet is distraught, but her friend Jerry (Hope Hampton) comes to the rescue. A fellow showgirl, Jerry assumes the persona of an aggressive gold digger, hoping to make Violet look better by comparison. But what happens when Jerry and Stephen actually fall in love?

Like Tiger Rose, The Gold Diggers was based on a popular play. This story must have struck a chord with the interwar zeitgeist, because it inspired six movies over the course of the 20s and 30s. (There was an attempt to dust the story off in the nostalgic 1952 musical Painting the Clouds the Clouds with Sunshine, but that did not reignite the interwar “gold fever.”) Most of these were cranked out in the 1930s, the most famous being The Gold Diggers of 1933, a true classic with its Busby Berkley numbers and hard-nosed Depression era atmosphere. Unfortunately for movie geeks, the earlier, bonafide Jazz Age entries in this loose franchise only exist in partial form.

This movie was believed lost until 2021, when an incomplete 35mm Belgian print surfaced in England. This copy includes much of reels 1, 4, 5, and 6. It was uploaded to YouTube, where you can still watch it in rather rough condition. Since it exists in such a dramatically incomplete form, it’s hard to properly evaluate The Gold Diggers. It seems to have been a cute trifle above all else, lacking the social commentary and more cutting satire of its 1933 sequel. I doubt even in its complete version that it would be a favorite of mine, but that’s just a matter of taste. It would be amazing if we could someday get a complete copy, but I’m grateful for what we have regardless. Any bit of film from this distant period is precious.

Sources:

The YouTube posting of the film has information about the discovery of the partial print in the video description

#6 – MAIN STREET

Image source: Wikipedia

Release date: April 25, 1923

Box office: $510,000

Young, idealistic newlywed Carol Kennicott (Florence Vidor) wants to make a difference in small town Gopher Prarie. However, her efforts are in vain. The townspeople are provincial, prejudiced, and petty, and her feelings of frustration jeopardize her marriage as well.

Main Street is the one completely lost film on this list. It was based on a bestselling novel of the same name by Sinclair Lewis. Lewis tends to only be a household name for literature enthusiasts and history buffs these days, but in the 1920s and 1930s, he was one of the hottest writers on the market, satirizing American culture and politics in his work. His most famous novel for 21st century audiences is undoubtedly It Can’t Happen Here, an anti-fascist dystopian satire that jumped onto bestsellers lists again in 2016, but in the 1920s, he grew wealthy off his sharp examinations of small-town American life, like Babbit and Main Street.

Photoplay‘s reviewer was unimpressed by the film version of Main Street: they felt the film compromised Lewis’ message by having Carol repudiate her idealism by claiming Gopher Prairie was “such a fine place to raise children.” However, they praised Florence Vidor in the title role, finding her likable despite the script.

Though Main Street the movie was profitable, Warner Bros. saw no need to preserve it once the talkie revolution swept silent film aside. In 1947, the already decomposing original negative was junked along with many other silent titles in the Warner Bros. library. While not at the top of my most wanted lost films list, it would still be cool if a print could be found. Just as with the lost 1926 version of The Great Gatsby, it would be awesome to see a classic literary satire of the Jazz Age brought to life by actual Jazz Age Hollywood.

Sources:

https://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Lewis-Sinclair.html

#5 – SCARAMOUCHE

Release date: September 30, 1923

Box office: $1 million

The French Revolution is beginning to stir, but the nobility are still using their privileges to exploit and oppress the commoners. Law student Andre-Louis Moreau (Ramon Novarro) can no longer stand the injustice when a friend is killed by the Marquis de la Tour (Lewis Stone) for speaking truth to power. What’s worse, the marquis is after Andre’s sweetheart, the aristocratic Aline (Alice Terry). On the run from the royalist authorities, Andre hides among traveling actors and becomes a theatrical sensation under an assumed name. Despite the wealth and acclaim, he remains committed to the revolutionary cause and the hope of attaining sweet vengeance against La Tour.

Of all the movies from this year, Scaramouche is my personal favorite. I watch this thing once a year. It’s thrilling, funny, and romantic, the full package of what I want when I watch a blockbuster, so forgive me if this turns out to be the longest section in the post.

Scaramouche was based on a bestselling novel by Rafael “Captain Blood” Sabitani. This film version is fairly close to the original text, certainly more so than the more celebrated (but in my unpopular opinion much inferior) 1952 remake. But it takes more than fidelity to source material to make a classic film. Credit must be given to Sabitani for his epic but swiftly paced narrative of vengeance and revolution, but director Rex Ingram and his team did a fantastic job bringing eighteenth-century France to life. The sets, costumes, and visuals are astonishing, bowling one over with more than sheer excess.

In Scaramouche, Ingram makes great use of the long shot, lingering upon lavish interiors and teeming crowds depending upon the needs of the scene. No doubt some viewers will decry Ingram’s use of long shots as stagey or perhaps as a cynical way of showing off the budget, but if you pay attention to the composition and lighting of those shots, he’s evoking 18th century artwork, much as Stanley Kubrick would do in Barry Lyndon fifty-plus years later. Ingram’s influences went beyond other filmmakers: he was just as inspired by sculpture and painting, and you could argue that was never clearer than in Scaramouche.

Ingram wasn’t the only one at the top of his game. Ramon Novarro kills it as Andre, the story’s dashing hero, an outward cynic and secret romantic battling for honor, love, and liberty. While the character is motivated by rage, he channels that anger into a grim sense of purpose and numbs his disappointment towards the world with liberal doses of snarky humor. He’s able to withstand bullets and swords, but he isn’t invulnerable, making his victories all the more impressive. While his turn as Ben-Hur is more famous, Andre Moreau is truly Novarro’s best role, allowing him to embody a complex hero.

Novarro isn’t the whole show though. The cast is made up of Ingram regulars, such as Alice Terry and Lewis Stone. Terry plays Aline, Andre’s love interest who keeps him at arms’ length, while Stone is the Marquis de la Tour, a ruthless aristocratic villain. Both of these characters could have been simple types, but the writing gives them more dimension: Aline is no simpering ingenue, but an ambitious coquette willing to marry a man she doesn’t love in exchange for a title, while the marquis has hidden reserves of affection and even regret for his past misdeeds. The film is undoubtedly a melodrama, but it’s a melodrama populated by likable characters who are able to keep you guessing as to what they might do because of those more complicated motivations.

These characters are thrown into the thick of the French Revolution. Expect the usual teeming crowds of angry revolutionaries and dramatic shout-downs among the National Assembly. Danton makes a cameo, as does freaking Napoleon Bonaparte, albeit for a few seconds. (Am I the only one who finds that random scene funny? Young Napoleon’s just chilling, watching the peasants run wild. His presence honestly served no real purpose and reminded me of a similar moment in this year’s Oppenheimer, where we get a similar throwaway reference to JFK, like the movie was setting up some Marvel-style cinematic universe.) This is pre-Reign of Terror though, so if you want guillotine suspense, then Orphans of the Storm will serve you better.

While Scaramouche is never listed as one of the great silent films, it should be. It’s got brains and heart, historical sweep, gorgeous visuals, and a memorable and complex cast of characters. While we silent film geeks tend to offer up the classic slapstick comedies as gateways to the period, Scaramouche is a fine dramatic option.

Sources:

Rex Ingram: Visionary Director of the Silent Screen by Ruth Barton

#4 – SAFETY LAST!

Image source: Alternate Ending

Release date: April 1, 1923

Box office: $1.5 million

Small-town everyman Harold (Harold Lloyd) is leaving for the big city. He promises his girlfriend Mildred (Mildred Davis) to send for her once he makes good. Striking it rich is harder than it looks, so Harold has to settle for a stressful department store job, all the while sending Mildred expensive gifts and little white lies about making big money. He hopes to somehow make the lies a reality, but Mildred pops in for a surprise while he’s trying to do so and the lies begin to pile one on top the other. At his wits’ end, Harold gets the chance to score $1,000 from his boss if he can come up with the perfect promotion scheme for the store. Just happening to be friends with a daredevil building climber, Harold suggests such a stunt could be a success. But when the day comes for the climb, his friend is preoccupied with an irate cop and terrified Harold finds himself volunteering for the climb in the hopes that he’ll only have to scale one or two floors. If only he was that lucky…

Harold Lloyd hanging from the hands of a giant clock stories above the ground. It’s an iconic image, even to people who don’t get into online debates about projection speeds, but why is that? Maybe it has to do with the romance of stunts and practical effects in a pre-CG age. In the context of Harold Lloyd’s career, it best encapsulates his go-getting, all-American screen persona. He’ll nab the American Dream even if it kills him.

The clock scene is so famous that it comes close to swallowing up the rest of Safety Last!, which is a shame because it’s all-around one of the best comedies ever made, even before Lloyd starts his legendary climb. Like the best silent comedy, the set-up is simple: Harold wants to impress his girlfriend with the illusion of success. He doesn’t plan on this being a permanent charade, of course. He’s going to fake it till he makes it, surely snagging a lucrative position before Mildred ever set foot in the city. His smarts manage to just get him through exhausting periods of customer service, as well as evade the impatient landlady out to evict him if he doesn’t pay the rent.

It’s a testament to Lloyd’s charisma and the writing that Harold is likable. Lying is not an act which tends to be rewarded in this sort of movie. Harold lies to Mildred, he pushes his coworkers around when Mildred unexpectedly drops in and he needs to play manager, he bribes a guy with money then withdraws it when the schmuck isn’t looking– generally not nice things. The first time I saw it, I fully expected a “Liar Revealed” scene and all its insufferable bathos, but Safety Last! never goes there. Maybe Harold remains so likable because of all the crap he has to deal with (customer service is pure torment and this movie shows that vividly), so an audience can tolerate Harold being a little sneaky to get ahead… or make it look like he’s getting ahead.

Devoid of context, the climb is a masterpiece of what I can only call Hitchcockian comedy. Excerpted on YouTube, it always collects impressed comments comparing Lloyd to Tom Cruise or igniting tired fights about which silent comedian most deserves a cookie. And yet in the film itself, the climb is the ultimate test of character, in some ways a retribution for his elaborate deceit. Harold originally intended on having a friend make the store-promoting climb, but the friend is being chased by a cop. No problem, says the friend, just climb one floor, I’ll meet you there, we’ll switch clothes, then I’ll finish the climb, the suckers watching won’t know the difference. And so, Harold announces himself as the climber and shakily goes up one floor. But then the chase with the cop doesn’t stop and Harold realizes this isn’t a matter of just one or two more floors. HE has to make the climb.

Like I said before: this is faking it until you make it at its finest. Harold’s lies are never revealed (though I assume Mildred can’t be that dense, but that’s a problem for post-movie Harold), but he does have to prove himself worthy of the success he so craves.

Sources:

Audio commentary by Leonard Maltin and Richard Correll for the Criterion Collection release

#3 – THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME

Image source: Wikipedia

Release date: September 6, 1923

Box office: $1.5-3.5 million (the stats are SO inconsistent)

Romani dancer La Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) is about to find out fifteenth-century Paris is a pretty rotten place to live. The streets are dirty, the poor are mistreated by the rich, and there’s a pervy judge named Jehan (Brnadon Hurst) lusting after her so hard that he sends his hunchback servant Quasimodo (Lon Chaney) out to kidnap her in the middle of the night. Captain Phoebus (Norman Kerry) swoops in to save the day, but Jehan is determined to either have Esmeralda in his bed or kill her. Little does he expect Quasimodo, touched by Esmeralda’s compassion for him, to take a stand against his villainy.

This 1923 production of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is among the most culturally significant silent films. It made Lon Chaney into a superstar overnight. It was a mammoth production, requiring acres of sets, advanced lighting techniques, and magnificent organization of massive crowds of extras. It was a major influence on the Hunchback films to follow, from the beloved Charles Laughton version to the surprisingly dark Disney musical (Jason Alexander as an armpit-farting gargoyle aside).

But how does it hold up as a film? When I first saw Hunchback, I was disappointed. Compared to Chaney’s equally iconic The Phantom of the Opera, this movie is less exciting and Chaney is not the central character, but a major supporting role in an ensemble. I also saw it in a blurry print on YouTube, which impacted my appreciation of the celebrated visuals. Rewatching Hunchback on a new bluray edition, I was mesmerized. Maybe it’s because the image quality was superior, maybe my expectations were tempered by experience, but now I think Hunchback is a fine spectacle with far more to offer than just a great Chaney performance.

As historical fiction, this film is rich in alien atmosphere, taking to heart that the past is a foreign country. This depiction of a merciless middle ages reminds me a lot of Fairbanks’ Robin Hood from the previous year. There is nothing glamorous or pretty in this film: the peasants look grimy, the Court of Miracles looks like a place where the unwary could get shanked, and the lawkeepers are every bit as corrupt as the criminals. While I don’t agree with the common assertion that the 1923 Hunchback is a horror movie, the tone is just desperate enough that I can at least see where the claims originate.

Chaney’s Quasimodo is no horror movie maniac either, but a lonely misfit who responds to the world’s cruelty with spiteful rage. Out of the few movie Hunchbacks I’ve seen, Chaney’s feels the most like the character from the Hugo novel: certainly not a cuddly woobie, but a frustrated misfit who responds to the world’s jeering by spitting at his detractors and mocking revolted onlookers from his isolated position in the cathedral. Only the kindly priest Dom Claude and Esmeralda draw out his hidden reserves of tenderness.

For all its depiction of abuse, poverty, and legally sanctioned torture, the 1923 Hunchback still avoids the unrelenting bleakness of its source material. Don’t expect the novel’s haunting ending, in which everyone dies (except Phoebus, who we are told is condemned to a fate worse than death: marriage). The movie turns the Esmeralda-Phoebus relationship into a true love affair rather than a case of a heartless aristocrat taking advantage of a naive girl. Criticisms of the Catholic Church were also cut from the script.

Regardless, this Hunchback still focuses on how the powerful abuse their authority to exploit their social inferiors. Esmeralda is the victim of both xenophobia and classicism. Ernest Torrence’s indignant Clopin is a French revolutionary born three centuries too early. Quasimodo is the ultimate symbol of the oppressed, isolated by his outward deformity and deafness in a world where those who are different are scorned as devils. It’s a movie I love more on repeat viewings and I would urge anyone who had a lukewarm reaction before to give it another go.

Sources:

The Cinema of Adventure, Romance, and Terror, edited by George Turner

A Thousand Faces: Lon Chaney’s Unique Artistry in Motion Pictures by Michael F. Blake

#2 – THE COVERED WAGON

Image source: Wikipedia

Release date: March 16, 1923

Box office (est.): $4 million

In 1848, two wagon caravans meet in Kansas and then set out together for Oregon. The trail is treacherous, with the pioneers encountering every sort of external obstacle on their journey. Conflict comes from within the group as well, particularly in the form of a love triangle between pretty young Molly (Lois Wilson) and two scouts named Sam (Alan Hale) and Will (J. Warren Kerrigan). Molly favors Will, but a crime allegedly committed in his past makes him a no-go for Mary’s father. Who will win Mary’s hand– and will the lot even survive long enough to settle in Oregon?

The Covered Wagon is a landmark film in the western genre. While the western had been a movie staple since The Great Train Robbery, it was often relegated to potboiler status. With its massive scope, The Covered Wagon was nothing less than an epic. Filmed in various real life locations and sporting a veritable army of extras, the film astonished audiences with its realism and size. It was like seeing history come to life in a manner more visceral than any textbook, but without the stuffy pretensions that turned off so many to historical movies.

The scope of the production IS impressive, but the story and characters are nothing special. The love triangle at the center of the story feels tacked on, there to give this massive story a centerpoint– it’s just not that much of a centerpoint and it doesn’t help that J. Warren Kerrigan isn’t that compelling a lead character. He’s rather bland, lacking grit or charm. Lois Wilson is sweet but called upon to do little. Supporting cast members Ernest Torrence and Tully Marshall walk away with the film with their eccentric characterizations. Truth be told, this more conventional plot might have been less of an issue in 1923. After all, this movie was paving the way for others to follow and expand upon.

Far more appealing than the characters are the docudrama aspects showing how lethal pioneer journeys out west were. The terrain was often unforgiving and relations with local Native American tribes often strained, to say the least. Fun fact: most of the wagons used in the movie were the genuine article, preserved as family heirlooms. The filmmakers rented them out during the duration of the shoot. That dedication to accuracy of detail is truly impressive.

Sources:

Classics of the Silent Screen by Joe Franklin

Notes on the film by William K. Everson, https://wke.hosting.nyu.edu/wke/notes/huff/huff_530708.htm

#1 – THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Image source: IMDB

Release date: December 4, 1923

Box office (est.): $4.2 million

The first part tells the story of the liberation of the Hebrew people from Egyptian slavery and the bestowing of the Ten Commandments to the Hebrew prophet Moses. The second part is set in the modern world, in which brothers John (Richard Dix) and Dan (Rod La Rocque) become rivals for the love of a woman named Mary (Leatrice Joy) and take opposite approaches to observing the Ten Commandments. Dan becomes amoral and greedy, while John strives to live uprightly though not fanatically like his fundamentalist mother (Edythe Chapman).

Cecil B. DeMille adapted the Book of Exodus at both ends of his film career. The more famous talkie with Charlton Heston and Yul Bryner was his cinematic swan song, and it remains among his signature films with its grandiose melodrama (and Brynner’s sexy shirtlessness). The earlier version is not as well-known and most coming to it after seeing the talkie will likely be confounded. Most of the 2 hours and 10 minutes of the silent Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Moses, but with modern day people learning that maybe Moses was right about not stealing, murdering, and committing adultery.

The Ten Commandments was conceived from a contest in which DeMille asked the public to come up with an idea for his next movie. The winner would collect $1,000. Oil manufacturer FC Nelson got the check for his submission: “You cannot break the Ten Commandments– they will break you.” Here was a statement that would look cool on a title card and as a prompt, it was fruitful, serving as the connective tissue between the film’s two segments. Each represents DeMille’s two signature styles: the historical spectacular and the modern marital melodrama about pretty young things in fancy bathtubs.

The first 45 minutes adapt the liberation of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea. Most of the movie’s visual splendor belongs to this prologue, with its massive sets and breathtaking costumes. Not wanting to limit his options for camera angles, DeMille refused to use optical effects to depict his Egyptian city, instead building a great city gate at 109-feet high and 75-feet wide on either side. The actors and extras would enact their scenes in a recreated town built for 2,500 people, according to DeMille biographer Scott Eyman. The film’s depiction of the parting of the Red Sea was a landmark in special effects, inspiring applause at the film’s opening. DeMille kept his lips sealed about how the effect was achieved for the rest of his life.

While the critics were crazy about the biblical prologue, they were more reserved about the modern story about a religious old lady and her two sons. John is a righteous salt-of-the-earth type. Dan is a snarky atheist out to break all the commandments the way Ash Ketchum wants to catch all the Pokemon (“Gotta break ’em all! Gotta break ’em all!”). Perky waif Mary comes between the two brothers, picking the dissolute Cain and joining his crusade to break all the commandments to spite the old lady after she loses her cool at the two DARING to dance to a jazz record on a Sunday. Heaven forbid! And this is before Nita Naldi shows up as a leprosy-ridden Eurasian seductress intent on helping Dan break commandment number seven.

With the exception of a particularly inventive shot (an elevator ascending to the top of a construction site filmed from Joy’s first-person perspective), most reviewers dismissed the latter half as pure hokum. And indeed it is, but it’s entertaining hokum if you let yourself get caught up in it. The main quartet have a little more dimension than you might expect too: the “good” and “bad” brother share a mutual sibling affection that complicates their rivalry, and even the fundamentalist mother possesses a tenderness that contradicts her killjoy piety, making her impossible to totally dislike.

What’s most interesting is the film’s criticism of the mother’s fire-and-brimstone theology. While the movie does indulge in the common stereotyping of irreligious people as inherently immoral, at the very least it does not pretend that over-religiosity is without its major issues. Mrs. Mactavish later regrets presenting God as an unyielding lawgiver to be feared and not a father figure to be loved.

In many ways, it’s fitting that The Ten Commandments was the number one movie of 1923. It’s not the greatest of the bunch, but it is the one that best encapsulates the brand of 1920s epic spectaculars that were taking off just as the former Hollywood epic master DW Griffith was going into popular decline.

Sources:

Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille by Scott Eyman

“‘A Mental and Emotional Red Sea’: The Ten Commandments (1923)” by Kyle Westphal, https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2012/04/07/a-mental-and-emotional-red-sea-the-ten-commandments-1923/

The 100 Years of Disney Blogathon: My top 10 Silly Symphonies

This post is part of the 100 Years of Disney Blogathon at the Silver Scenes Blog.

The Silly Symphonies were born from the excitement of the early sound period. Unlike many in the film industry, Walt Disney did not suffer microphone dread. He was enthused about the new technologies and it would not be an exaggeration to say the talkies gave the Disney Studio a much needed shot-in-the-arm after the drama of losing Oswald the Lucky Rabbit . Steamboat Willie was not the first “talkie” cartoon by a mile, but it smoked its contemporaries. Just compare the stilted My Old Kentucky Home from 1926– the actual first sound cartoon– with the superior synchronization and energy of the 1928 Disney effort.

A discussion between Disney and his first music director Carl W. Stalling about whether the animation or the music should be created first during a cartoon project prompted the creation of the Silly Symphonies. Before working for Disney, Stalling was an organist for the Isis Theatre in Kansas City. Stalling knew how to combine pre-existing music with his own improvisations, a talent which impressed Disney when the two first met in the early 1920s. Stalling suggested the idea for a musical novelty series in which he would provide a score cribbed from classical music, popular songs, and Stallings’ improv, and the animators would sync the images to the music. The first of these cartoons was The Skeleton Dance, released in 1929 to great enthusiasm, marking the start of an astonishing decade-long run for the Silly Symphonies.

The major gimmick of the early Symphonies is synchronization of sound and image. It’s easy to poke fun at this period of the series, when the plots seem to be little more than smiling flowers/animals/dwarfs/inanimate objects dancing in a line. In our modern cinematic landscape, it’s easy to forget that sound was once a novelty and often enough to delight an audience for its own sake. But as with all novelties, this one died off and so the Silly Symphonies had to justify themselves by continuing to push the boundaries of animation with experiments in color, character design, special effects, and even narrative development. They are the stepping stones from which the likes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Fantasia would emerge as masterpieces of world cinema, but they remain enjoyable in their own right and so I present to you my top ten favorite shorts from the series.

Note: I’ve tried my best to find uploaded versions of the shorts below, but they are not always available.

10: Springtime

Springtime is typical of the earliest Silly Symphonies: a bunch of identical characters do eccentric line dances amidst cartoony sight gags. It has some truly bizarre laughs in there, like when a group of stone-faced baby birds slap their behinds in time to the music. It’s also lowkey horrifying. For all the smiles and dancing, the everyday violence of the natural world is frankly depicted in the ways the animals all casually eat each other.

Springtime was my first ever exposure to the Silly Symphonies, not because I watched it directly, but because excerpts were featured in One Hundred and One Dalmatians! I remember loving the sound effects.

You can see the excerpts around the midpoint of this clip.

9: The Ugly Duckling (1939)

Disney made two versions of The Ugly Duckling in this series. The first was a black-and-white effort from 1931 and the second was a color version from 1939. The latter is closer to the original fairy tale and it also happens to be the swan song of the Silly Symphony series (pun absolutely intended). Not gonna lie: this short makes me cry every time I watch it. It gets to the heart of what it’s like to be a misfit.

8: Babes in the Woods

Disney had always rummaged through fairy tales for inspiration. The studio’s first cartoon was a 1923 short based on Red Riding Hood. According to film historians Russell Merritt and JB Kaufman, Babes in the Woods was the first time Disney adapted a fairy tale in earnest. The story is more or less “Hansel and Gretel,” only with more dwarfs and less cannibalism. While the peril in Springtime is mostly played for comedy, that’s not the case in Babes. The witch isn’t trying to eat the kids like in the original tale, but her plan to transform them into rats and spiders isn’t that great a fate either, and the ick factor is played up via the creepy interiors of the witch’s cottage and the tortured reactions of her former victims.

This cartoon is a direct ancestor of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in many ways. The serious attempt to create a Germanic fairy tale atmosphere is plain, and the dwarfs’ ride to the rescue has echoes in the 1937 feature. There’s also a moment where the two children, lost in the woods, encounter frightening imagery in the trees there, not unlike the nightmarish flight scene in Snow White that had 1930s theater owners reupholstering their seats after children soiled them in terror.

7: The Three Little Pigs

Arguably the most popular Silly Symphony, The Three Little Pigs was a Depression era sensation with its likable characters and catchy music. Plenty has been said about this iconic short, but what I like most about it beyond the music are some of the background gags, like the framed photos of the pigs’ parents. The image of their dad is pretty hilarious and screwed up.

6: The Cookie Carnival

This cartoon played on TV all the time when I was a kid, so it’s probably the Silly Symphony I’ve seen the most. The plot is simple: a cookie lady is sad she’s too plain to compete for queen of the Cookie Carnival, a cookie guy dresses her up in icing and other goodies, she wins the crown, and then a bunch of other dessert guys try to compete to be her king. It’s a low-stakes story, but it’s good-natured and filled to the brim with sweet related puns that’ll make any appreciator of dad jokes jubilant. The phrase “wholesome entertainment” usually makes some cringe, but this is a cartoon that fits that bill without being cloying.

5: Hell’s Bells

A perfect cartoon for the Halloween season, Hell’s Bells is a delightfully weird precode cartoon. Devils party it up in hell, which is apparently populated by demon cows with udders that spout flames rather than milk. The king demon tries bullying the others, but gets his comeuppance. To be honest, I cannot see Disney making a cartoon like this today. They’d get a hell of a lot of flack… pun also absolutely intended.

4: The Old Mill

The Old Mill is the favorite Disney cartoon of animation legend Hayao Miyazaki and it’s not hard to see why. Among the most atmospheric of the Silly Symphonies, its use of the multi-plane camera is nothing less than Disney showing off what technically accomplished animation looked like circa 1937. The world of the short is compelling: the mill seems to have been long abandoned by human beings, but a series of animals have made the rundown structure their home. A storm imperils the small community before calm is restored. While the short was released the same year as Snow White, you can detect a lot of the DNA for Bambi in there, largely in its depiction of a more or less realistic natural world and its final message of life going on despite the slings and arrows of existence.

3: The Goddess of Spring

Image source: Internet Animation Database

Within official Disney history, The Goddess of Spring is usually written off as a failure. An experiment in realistically proportioned characters and more dramatic storytelling, the awkward gait and noodle arms of the titular goddess are often mocked. I mean, yeah, she looks like she’s thrown back a few beers during her first little skip through the fields, but the rest of this short is quite lovely, with a lively operetta style and a fiendishly likable Pluto (the god of the underworld, not Mickey’s dog) who looks more like Mephistopheles than a Greek deity for some reason. I dare you to listen to “Hi-Dee Hades” without having it stuck in your head all day long!

2: Music Land

Another Silly Symphony I remember seeing often as a kid. In a world populated by sentient musical instruments, the Isle of Jazz and Land of Symphony are perpetually at odds. Despite this, the jazz prince and symphonic princess (an anthropomorphic saxophone and violin, respectively) fight to be together. However, the enmity between their kingdoms comes with the threat of war.

What impresses me most about Music Land is its sheer creativity. The characters “speak” through notes played on the instrument in question and yet the “dialogue” is perfectly understandable. There are plenty of subtle gags that reward those familiar with the pop culture of the period. When imprisoned in the Land of Symphony, the saxophone prince sends his father a letter informing him of his whereabouts– the letter is literally the sheet music for “The Prisoner’s Song.” The king of the Isle of Jazz also happens to be a caricature of Paul Whiteland, a popular bandleader.

1: The Skeleton Dance

The first of the Silly Symphonies is easily my favorite of the entire series. Not a single Halloween season passes without me watching it– usually more than once! The music is ear wormy to the extreme and the skeletons make life after death seem like a rollicking good time. At least until the sun comes up.

While the original 1929 audience would have been floored by the synchronization of sound and image, The Skeleton Dance‘s charms go beyond mere technological gimmick. It’s a macabre treat, mixing horror and humor throughout its five minute runtime. Time hasn’t been able to diminish its impact in that regard either. My sister shows this cartoon to her first grade classes and they tend to have some genuine chills during the early moments, like when the first skeleton lunges at the camera in a jarring close-up or one of the last gags, where the skeletons run into each other and then their bones recombine into a four-headed monstrosity even Cthulu might fear. However, the high spirits of the short always come through and the kids tend to be delighted.

The Skeleton Dance encapsulates what I love best about classic Disney. The accomplished animation. The wonderful music. The creative gags. The strong atmosphere. The ability to make an audience both delight in and shudder at the material.

Sources:

Walt Disney’s Silly Symphonies: A companion to the classic cartoon series by Russell Merritt and JB Kaufman

Lost films: Wanderer of the Wasteland (dir. Irvin Willat, 1924)

Image source: IMDB

Ninety-nine years ago, the 1924 western Wanderer of the Wasteland was released. An adaptation of a novel of the same name by the popular western wordsmith Zane Grey, Wanderer of the Wasteland was the second feature film to be shot in two-strip Technicolor. Existing images look stunning. I myself am fond of the two-strip look, with its otherworldly, almost watercolor aesthetic.

Image source: Taste of Cinema

The film was directed by Irvin Willat, perhaps most famous to silent film geeks as the man responsible for the gruesome WWI thriller Behind the Door. Wanderer seems to have had its own share of brutality, with contemporary reviewers complaining that the color photography was being used to emphasize blood. Studio head Jesse Lasky recalled Willat’s marriage of color film and storytelling opportunities with admiration: “I particularly remember the dramatic use we made of color in one scene where the hero, tracking down the wounded villain who has concealed himself in a gold-mine stamp mill, notices a trickle of muddy water flowing from the mill sluiceway slowly turning red– and it thus led to the hideout of his quarry.”

The film was sentimental for Willat, as it starred his wife of the time, the beautiful Billie Dove (she would appear in another landmark color film two years later, The Black Pirate). The marriage ended in 1929 and according to Willat’s daughter, he never totally got over the termination of the relationship, making his personal copy of Wanderer of the Wasteland all the more precious. Unfortunately, Willat’s copy seems to have been the final surviving print and when he opened the can decades later, the print was totally decomposed. Willat wept for hours after the dreadful discovery.

This story adds such a personal dimension to the usual narrative about lost media. It’s easy to see how these missing movies are a loss for history and culture, but imagine how hard the loss was taken by the people who created these films? Sure, there were some silent era filmmakers who viewed their work with embarrassment, but this was not the case for everyone.

Sources:

Glorious Technicolor: the movies’ magic rainbow by Fred E. Basten