*** (out of ****)
It was the end of June last year that comedy legend Carl Reiner died. Reiner was a comedy hero of mine and I still haven't gotten over his death. I continue to think about him and his movies. Rewatching and studying them.
Reiner was never universally recognized as a brilliant filmmaker in the same manner some of his contemporaries were like Mel Brooks or Woody Allen. None of his movies were ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and Reiner himself was never nominated for his directing. None of his movies became embedded in pop culture. Reiner never directed his equivalent of "Blazing Saddles" (1974) or "Annie Hall" (1977). Because of this his movies didn't seem to warrant a critical analysis. You'll never hear a college film professor interpret deeper meaning into one of Reiner's comedies.
Were Carl Reiner's movies actually about something? Can we apply the "auteur theory" to his catalog of movies? I dare say we can. There was a constant theme ever present in Reiner's work. It wasn't deep or philosophical but it reflected Reiner's own passion and interests. He didn't make movies about the relationships between men and women. His movies weren't existential either, commenting on the meaning of life and the existence of God. Reiner made movies about show business. You may thumb your nose at that and deem it "unimportant" but the desire to become a performer was something that struck Reiner at an early age. He often credited his older brother as the reason he stopped working as a machinist and entered a drama workshop when he was a teenager. He even thanked President Franklin Roosevelt for the WPA (click here).
After his initial brushes with fame, thanks to working with another legendary comedian (Sid Caesar) on two of his television shows in the 1950s and his partnership with Mel Brooks (who wrote for Caesar) on the comedy album "The 2000 Year Old Man", one of the first things Reiner did was write a semi-autobiography called "Enter Laughing". It was the story of a young machinist who wants to break into acting (!). The novel was turned into a play and eventually a movie in 1967. Reiner would direct the movie adaptation, making his directorial debut. We would see this desire to become famous in subsequent movies like "The One and Only" (1978), "Bert Rigby, You're A Fool" (1989) and "The Comic" (1969).
"The Comic" was the second movie Reiner directed and starred Dick van Dyke, whom like Caesar and Brooks was a name closely associated with Reiner. The movie came three years after "The Dick van Dyke Show" ended its TV run (which was created by Reiner and based on his experiences writing for Sid Caesar and originally intended to star Reiner) and would be the only feature film Reiner and van Dyke would collaborate on.
Van Dyke played Billy Bright, a vaudeville comedian hoping to become a silent comedy movie star. Bright never reached the level of fame he believed he should have and as the years went by he became a forgotten name in the history of cinema. The tragedy of the situation is he lived long enough to see his star fade. Looking back on his life all he can do is blame others for his misfortune like his co-star and wife Mary Gibson (Michele Lee, practically a Mary Tyler Moore lookalike), best friend (?) and comic foil "Cockeye" (Mickey Rooney) or his agent Al (Reiner).
I have watched "The Comic" three times. The first two times I saw it, I didn't like it. I reviewed it previously back in 2018 and wrote I didn't like the musical score (especially the jarring theme played over the credits). I didn't find it to be a biting Hollywood satire or a loving tribute to the silent era. I still believe all of that to be true and yet I changed my mind on the movie. Whether you agree with my reviews or not let it never be said I don't try to understand a movie!
My problem the first two times I watched "The Comic" was I focused too much of my attention on the fact the character was a silent movie comedian. I expected it to be a Hollywood satire. I also kept thinking what real life figures could have inspired the Billy Bright character. I was disappointed the movie didn't get the feeling of the times correct. It seemed like they didn't even try. There was no emphasis on the hard work making movies is or the joy to be found in making them.
After watching "The Comic" a third time I now come away feeling none of those complaints matter and miss the larger point. "The Comic" is the story of a man that wanted to achieve greatness. He saw himself as destine for fame and fortune but became bitter when it wasn't achieved. Rather than face the grim reality he made bad choices and live with those consequences he chose to blame others. The fact Billy Bright was a silent screen comedian is relevant. The fact the story is supposed to take place in the 1920s is immaterial. It is meant to give the movie "color" but is not a defining aspect of the movie.
"The Comic" was really a melodramatic movie and not a flat out comedy. Billy Bright was the dark side of fame and not a lovable comic. The movie's poster states "A Funny New Motion Picture That Tells Hollywood Like It Was!" That was either deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant of what "The Comic" really was. The darker aspects of the story are what leaped out at me the third time watching it. Reiner has twisted his innocent view of the desire for fame from "Enter Laughing" with its protagonist David Kolowitz. Both Billy and David are indeed variations of the same character and perhaps Reiner himself - young men eager to take the world by storm. One has an outward confidence and the other is a bit intimidated. They both have passion and similar motives. Billy may have started out like David - underconfident and uncomfortable on stage and David may grow into Billy - overconfident and egocentric. It would have been interesting to see a young Billy struggling on the vaudeville circuit honing his craft as his confidence (and ego) grows and grows.
As a character study "The Comic" is not dissimilar to Billy Crystal's "Mr. Saturday Night" (1992) focusing on two men that believed they were the funniest one in the room and never got the breaks they deserved. They each had foils to blame their misfortune on and became bitter. Both were a collection of real-life figures.
For their own sources of inspiration, Reiner and van Dyke had said they turned to silent era comedians like Buster Keaton and Stan Laurel (both of whom van Dyke met) and throw in references to other comedians like Harry Langdon (Billy's wardrobe) and Ben Turpin (the character "cockeyed"). They even "borrow" gags like when Billy tries to pick up a grape with a spoon. It is awfully similar to a gag Stan Laurel did in "The Second 100 Years" (1927). Or a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" spoof that recalls a Stan Laurel solo comedy, "Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde" (1925). They even have fun with Hollywood lore like when Billy, in a drunken rage, breaks into his ex-wife's home causing damage only to be told he is in the wrong house. This is a reference to a story producer Hal Roach told regarding production on a Laurel & Hardy comedy, "Big Business" (1929). Allegedly owners of a home were paid for the use of their house but the crew accidentally shot in the wrong house destroying it! The way Billy causally selects his character's wardrobe while on a movie set is a reference to the way Chaplin described his selection of the Tramp's costume in his autobiography.
Reiner and van Dyke also seem to have a lot of fun creating their own silent comedies showing Billy's output. These sequences are shot in black & white and provide van Dyke the opportunity to show off his physical comedy skills. Some of the sequences are funny and could have been in actual silent comedies. Mickey Rooney shines in these silent comedy reenactments too.
By and large acting wise "The Comic" was Dick van Dyke's movie. His performance is the most effective and the character Billy the most developed. Unfortunately, I never felt there was much chemistry between van Dyke and Michele Lee. Much of that is due to the movie having little to nothing for the Mary character to do. It would have been nice if Mary was incorporated in the silent comedy skits creating a Mabel Normand-ish character. It was probably what Carl Reiner had intended as the first time we see Mary she is a kind of "bathing beauty" character seen in Mack Sennett comedies. The Mary character starts off promising and then peters off.
Posts
