"Sally of the Sawdust" *** (out of ****)The impact Charlie Chaplin has had not only on comedy but simply on cinema seems everlasting. His special blend of comedy and pathos entertained audiences when the comedy legend was at the height of his powers and entertains those brave enough to watch silent films today. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Chaplin was the greatest thing to happen to the movies since the invention of the camera. His legacy is greater than that of the director of "Sally of the Sawdust" (1925), D.W. Griffith.
Oh, I know Griffith's reputation as a pioneer of cinema. I know it is generally believed he invented the language of cinema with his epic masterpiece "Birth of A Nation" (1915), which I have reviewed already. But, the reason I feel Chaplin has a greater legacy is because, I feel more people have seen Chaplin's films than Griffith's. Chaplin's vision has reached more people and lives on longer. When you think silent cinema, most movie fans probably think of Chaplin first, unless of course you are a hardcore Griffith devotee.
I mention all of this because "Sally of the Sawdust" was Griffith's attempt at a Chaplin picture. During Chaplin's time there were many imitators, did you know Harold Lloyd started off as one? But here we see Griffith not necessarily trying to duplicate the Chaplin character, just the combination of comedy and pathos.
The story concerns a rich family which has disowned their daughter, after she follows the man she loves and joins the circus. Together they have a baby. By the time of the baby's birth the husband has died and the mother is not in good health. Her only friend is Prof. McGargle (W.C. Fields), whom I assume runs the circus. She wants him to notify her parents of her health and inform them of her daughter's existence.
McGargle writes the note to tell the parents their daughter has died but never reveals she had a baby. The baby grows up to be Sally (Carol Dempster). Who worships her "father". He never tells her where she comes from and as the years go on and young Sally grows up he begins to wonder if he should take Sally to her grandparents, where she can lead a better life.
When they arrive to the town of Sally's grandparents they learn the grandfather is Judge Foster (Erville Alderson) and he hates show people, since his daughter chose that life over him and his wife, (Effie Shannon). Now McGargle must decide whether or not to tell Sally the truth. Will she be happy with these people who look down upon the life she has been leading?
"Sally of the Sawdust" wants to be a sappy, sentimental story of the bond between McGargle and Sally. Would they be able to adjust to their new lives? Can Sally ever see anyone besides McGargle as her family? It throws in these moments with bits of humor. Griffith doesn't seem interested in telling one of his morality stories, some of which I have reviewed on here; "Broken Blossoms" (1919), "Intolerance" (1916) and "Way Down East" (1920). Though "Sally" does have elements similar to those, though they are not given the same dramatic weight.
It is hard to say what exactly the appeal of this film was upon first release. Carol Dempster wasn't a star. She had appeared in a few Griffith films uncredited. I read she was his girlfriend, but, I haven't found proof of that. The only major film she appeared in before this was "Sherlock Holmes" (1922) with John Barrymore (I'll review that in the future). She did appear in later Griffith films, the now lost "That Royale Girl" (1925), also with Fields and with a similar story. And "The Sorrows of Satan" (1926).
Fields wasn't exactly an unknown when the film was released. He was probably best known to those familiar with the New York stage. He was part of the Ziegfeld Follies. But if you didn't live in New York, chances are you probably didn't know his name. He wasn't a major comedy star at this point. He had appeared in the 1915 comedy short, "Pool Sharks" which surprisingly still exist. I saw it on a Criterion DVD set of Fields' comedy shorts.
So since we have two generally unknown actors I can only assume the appeal of the film rested on Griffith's name. People may have simply been interested to see his latest work. Today however, I think those that do watch this are probably doing so because they are W.C. Fields fans. They will be somewhat disappointed.
If you walk into this film expecting the child-hating, non family man, heavy drinker, smart alec, you won't find it here. Though to expect those things is a bit unfair. Try to keep in mind this was 1925. Fields hadn't made the comedy classics "It's A Gift" (1934), "The Bank Dick" (1940), which I have reviewed, "Never Give A Sucker An Even Break" (1941), his final film or "The Golf Specialist" (1930), his first sound short. So audiences of that time weren't expecting those now familiar traits.
Watching "Sally of the Sawdust" from that perspective, I have to say, I never would have guess Fields would become a comedy legend. I see no real seeds of greatness. He seemed to be doing standard comedy routines. He had the basic persona of most comedians. Good nature but a failure, a coward, quick with the one-liners, a loner, misunderstood. Nothing really stands out though about the character. I don't know if Griffith didn't realize what he had in Fields, or if he just didn't want to take the film in different directions. Fields though seems to have had some hand in his character. Some of his comedy bits were re-used in his sound films such as mistakenly putting his hat on the tip of his cane not realizing it is not on his head. He gets in some juggling. Fields started off as a juggler. And a bit with a cigarette when we first meet him. So Griffith did allow him to insert some of his comedy. But not enough.
Carol Dempster I'm afraid fares a little worst. First I'm not sure what Griffith wanted her to be. A leading lady or a comedienne. If it was the latter, she is not suited for it. She may look funny, but, I felt she was trying too hard to get laughs. Her approach is too forced. She doesn't allow the comedy to flow naturally. She almost looks like the kind of man-child character Harry Langdon or Stan Laurel played in their comedies. Though she reminds me most of Beatrice Lillie in "Exit Smiling" (1926).
The idea of an orphan softening a grumpy old man had been done before and many times since. And comedians had usually paired themselves with children. Griffith must have seen Chaplin's "The Kid" (1921) prior to this. Laurel & Hardy had a similar movie, "Pack Up Your Troubles" (1932) where an army buddy tells the boys to find his baby and inform his parents, who happen to be well to do. The grandfather's name is Mr. Smith. Imagine how many people they go to. Then there was the king of sentimental weepers, "The Champ" (1931). All of these films in one way or another influenced each other. Some with greater success than others. "Sally of the Sawdust" is middle of the road.
The film works best in the more sentimental moments. Comedy was not Dempster's strong suite, judging from this one film. And Fields doesn't engage in the comedy we expect him to. So all we are left with is the story. And it works most of the time, though it could have used some edits, the film runs nearly two hours. Fields remade this film under its original stage title, "Poppy" and told the story in under 80 minutes.
"Sally of the Sawdust" isn't Griffith's best work. If you want to watch his best films see "Birth of A Nation", "Broken Blossoms" and "Intolerance". Those are generally seen as his finest films. If you want to watch Fields at his best, watch the sound two-reelers he made, "The Dentist" (1932) among them or his feature films. And if you want to watch classic silent comedy stick with Chaplin, who in 1925 made "The Gold Rush", Harold Lloyd, who also in 1925 made "The Freshman" or Buster Keaton, who in 1924 did "Sherlock Jr.", arguably one of his best and one I have included in my "Masterpiece Film Series". Those men were more suited for silent cinema. Fields' humor was more verbal. His voice was funny. It would be the same thing if Groucho Marx appeared in silent movies. By taking away sound you diminish their talents.
But if you want to see a somewhat sweet, lightly entertaining film which mixes humor and sentiment "Sally of the Sawdust" is worth viewing. It is no masterpiece but holds up rather well after all these years. If Griffith wanted to make a masterpiece he had two options. Abandon the comedy and make one of his moral preaching films. Or add more humor and attempt to make a flat out slapstick comedy. Unless you're Chaplin, don't play with fire and mix the two.
Posts
