Film Reviews: The Great Train Robbery & The "Teddy" Bears

 "The Great Train Robbery"

*** (out of ****)

The train employee is taking inventory when suddenly, in that overly dramatic acting style so common in silent movies, he expresses he hears something. He locks a safe and throws away the key. Before we know it, bandits are breaking into the room to steal what is inside of the safe.

This scene happens early in "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) and by me describing it, there may not seem to be anything special about it. Why am I highlighting this moment? Two things are important here and speak to why film historians have given this film a place in history. One, it suggests a world beyond the frame. Silent movies were silent because the technology wasn't available to record sound. But the stories told were meant to take place in the real world where sound did exist. People and things made noise. I can't tell you how many times I have watched a silent movie, and I don't mean these early 1900 movies, I mean 1920s comedies and dramas, and sound doesn't seem to exist in the world the characters are inhabiting. Characters speak and run around and no one hears them in the next room. It creates an amazing disconnect. You couldn't get away with this  after the movies learned to talk. But here in 1903 we get validation that in the real world sound does exist. The character in the movie hears someone approaching the room,  fears it might be trouble, and takes action. The second reason this moment in "The Great Train Robbery" is important is because another way we can read the scene is  that this is an example of cross-cutting - the editing technique meant to imply two seemingly separate events are occurring simultaneously. The bandits have already boarded the train and while that is happening the employee is reacting in real time. The events are not occurring in a straight linear line.

The film was directed by Edwin S. Porter, an important pioneer in the history of cinema. Unfortunately, his name is all but forgotten and so is his work, with the possible exception of  "The Great Train Robbery", which may still be shown to college film students that take a Film History 101 course. I personally first saw this movie in such a class in college.

While D.W. Griffith is often referred to as the father of  American cinema and his "The Birth of A Nation" (1915) as the first  American masterpiece because of the way it incorporated film techniques we take for granted today, it was Porter that is credited by historians as being the first to use the technique of cross-cutting as seen in his movies  "Life of an American Fireman" (1903) and "The Great Train Robbery"- making these movies standout as significant achievements. It is why I wanted to discuss the work of Porter during this year's blog theme, Life is Short, my year long look at short films.

The movie's plot is pretty much given away by its title. The movie is about a train robbery and the eventual attempt to capture the bandits by a local posse. As the movie starts two bandits break into an office at the train station and force the employee to stop the train. The bandits beat the man and tie him up. Then they overpower the train operators, steal the valuables from the train and make their get-a-way.

And then the movie does something that was remarkable for the time period. After the bandits' story is told, we go back to the employee at the train station that was tied up. This again can be read in one of two ways. Is it an initial flashback leading to an example of cross-cutting or just cross-cutting? The employee is untied when his daughter conveniently arrives for no apparent reason. In a mad dash the employee informs a group of people - its not made clear if this is law enforcement - that the train has been robbed. The posse then goes on a hunt for the robbers, escalating to an eventual shoot-out. 

Besides the cross-cutting technique, Porter and his movie make another contribution to cinema when the camera makes a pan and even a tilt. The bandits run across a stream as the camera follows them. It also goes back to my original comment where there is more inferred than what is in the frame. The bandits are actually going towards their horses, which were out of frame until the camera pans. Here is an example of a filmmaker using the camera to supply and delay information. The camera feels active as oppose to the way practically all movies were shot prior - static extreme long shots. This is exciting stuff if you have an interest in film history.  

"The Great Train Robbery" is a wonderful example of how real life events influence art and how the movies  can shape the mythology of those events. Many people believe one of Porter's inspirations for this movie was the noted bank and train robber Butch Cassidy. One of Cassidy's and his Wild Bunch gang's most notorious robberies for the time was the Overland Limited in Wyoming back in 1899.

The movie has been surrounded by its own mythology, for example this was not the first Western. That honor belonged to the British film "Kidnapping by Indians" (1899) with a two-minute running time. Others claim the movie was so popular that its success caused a surge of Westerns to be made. Sources however don't back that up. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. That's a famous bit of dialogue from John Ford's Western, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962) and a nice commentary on the origins of mythology.

What we can say about  "The Great Train Robbery", which runs for approximately 11 minutes, is its a simple story told with much dramatic impact. For its time period, it is one of the most violent films I have seen. In one scene a bandit beats one of the train operators senseless by hitting him repeatedly on the head with a rock and then throwing him off of the train. In another scene as the bandits force all of the passengers off of the train, a bandit shoots someone in the back that was trying to run away. This is intense storytelling.

This is not to say there aren't  flaws  with the movie. "The Great Train Robbery" could have used intertitles since some of the plot elements and the characters aren't made clear. Because of the camera placement (everything is in long shot and there are no close-ups) I did sometimes find it difficult to differentiate the characters - namely the bandits from the good guys.

If any modern viewers were to question the ability of Porter as a filmmaker, keep in mind the final image of "The Great Train Robbery", one of the bandits aiming his gun directly at the camera as he shoots at it. It has remained one of cinema's most indelible images in a class with George Melies having the rocket flying into the Man in the Moon's eye in "A Trip to the Moon" (1902). How remarkable is it that images from movies that may be considered silly today have stood the test of time and influenced future generations? Filmmaker Martin Scorsese famously copied the image for his film "GoodFellas" (1990)  with the Joe Pesci character.

Besides being Porter's most popular film "The Great Train Robbery" is an important movie in cinema's history. A gritty, fast moving story that in some small way set the formula for all heist movies that followed.

"The "Teddy" Bears"

*** (out of ****)

Mythology, pop culture and politics fuse together in Porter's "The "Teddy" Bears" (1907).

Have you ever wondered why we call stuffed toy bears "teddy bears"? The story goes, back in 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt went on a hunting trip in Mississippi looking for bears. Roosevelt was a well known big game hunter but during his hunting trip hadn't come across a single bear. Worried about Roosevelt's public image, his assistants tied a bear to a tree so the President could shoot  it. Roosevelt didn't find this to be sportsmanlike and refused, sparing the bear his life. The newspaper The Washington Post ran a political cartoon to satirize the event. To capitalize on this news story, stuffed toy bears  were made given the name Teddy.

There's a lot to unpack in this story regarding mass media and politics. This however was the influence for Porter's story which combined Roosevelt's hunting trip with the fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This is a satirical movie meant to offer its own interpretation on the origin of the term "teddy bear". It is a clever idea on paper. Having watched the movie a few times over the years, I often like to single it out as an example pre-dating D.W. Griffith's  "The Birth of A Nation"  for its ability to combine elements of pop culture and revisionist history. Many claim "Nation" as the first to have done this. After I mention this movie, they begin to back peddle: well, "Nation" did it on a larger scale and had more influence. I concede those points but it wasn't the first. Why does it matter? Beyond being factually wrong, you take away from the influence of other movies, and it prevents us from examining other directors. The background story of  "The "Teddy" Bears" and the movie itself would make for a very interesting classroom discussion, at the very least. 

"The "Teddy" Bears" begins with some dull attempts at humor as Baby Bear is shown outside playing in a snowy forest, outside of his house. Mama Bear wants him to come inside but the rambunctious Baby Bear refuses. He even starts throwing snowballs at his mother. Finally the Papa Bear and Mama Bear force Baby Bear to go inside. In a matter of seconds they all come out again only this time they are dressed as they go for a stroll. A young Goldilocks snoops around the house and enters. She tries the Bear's porridge, eating all of Baby Bear's. This makes her sleepy and ends up taking a nap in Baby Bear's bed. The family of Bears return home to find Goldilocks still sleeping. A chase begins to capture her. Goldilocks finds a Hunter (meant to look a lot like President Roosevelt) to help her escape the Bears. The movie ends with a situation somewhat similar to the real life event that inspired it.  

What manages to distinguish "The "Teddy" Bears" from other movies of this time period is a wonderful stop-motion animated sequence. The sequence revolves around a group of teddy bears performing acrobatic tricks. This makes "The Teddy" Bears" one of the oldest surviving films to use stop-motion animation (the oldest known surviving movie is "Humorous Phases of Funny Faces" (1906). The first movie to use this technology is considered lost).

 

"The "Teddy" Bears" doesn't have the kind of playful tone you might expect from a fairytale story. It's also not exactly funny for a satire nor is it political. If you watched this movie and didn't know the background story of the history of teddy bears, this could be a real headscratcher. You'd probably think this was an awful adaptation of  Goldilocks mixed in with elements from Little Red Ridding Hood and consider it a grim and unnecessarily violent movie.

Watching the movie nearly one hundred and twenty years after its release however we can view it simply as a curiosity piece and perhaps appreciate the stop-motion sequence. Like other movies from this period, it could have benefitted from the use of intertitles. I've also never seen the movie accompanied by a decent and fitting musical score. Some copies I've watched had no music at all. 

What I enjoy most about "The "Teddy" Bears" is what it represents, the combination of pop culture and media. It is fascinating to think on how much movies influence our interpretation of things. This wasn't the first movie Porter directed that took aim at President Roosevelt and his interest in hunting. There was "Terrible Teddy the Grizzly King" (1901), believed by some historians to be the first political satire. It's story is so minor and confusing, I can't even properly assess it. But did these movies in any way perpetuate an image of Roosevelt in the public conscious? 

Edwin S. Porter was an important figure in cinema's early history. His methods of storytelling came to be considered old-fashion in contemporaneous time with figures like D.W. Griffith overshadowing him. Porter's contributions to cinema however shouldn't be forgotten. I hope at the very least his name is mentioned in college film courses. "The Great Train Robbery" and "The "Teddy" Bears" demonstrate how Porter tried to capitalize on current events in his films as well as his desire to move the medium forward with cross-cutting, camera movement and new technology (stop-motion).  

Film Reviews: The Tramp & The Champion - 110th Anniversary

 "The Tramp"

*** (out ****)

If I were to be pressed to give an answer for who my favorite silent film comedian is, I'd have to say Charlie Chaplin. I like Chaplin for all the reasons his detractors don't. Chaplin wanted you to love him in his pictures, they say. His combination of comedy and pathos was mawkish, according to them. Then there was the ego. They interpret Chaplin's work as him just saying, put the camera on me and whatever I do is brilliant. Where they come up with this stuff I don't know. If I'm being honest, I  don't care either.

Chaplin's comedies had a humanity lacking in the work of other silent comedies. He had more to say on the human condition and the relationship between men and women than others. I am more emotionally involved in his feature films than that of other great silent comedians. Lastly, there is the simple fact that I laugh. Yes, dear readers I find Charlie Chaplin funny! Not mawkish. Not overly sentimental. Not an egomaniac. Just hilarious!

During the many years of this blog, I have reviewed practically all of Chaplin's feature-length films from his first,  "The Kid" (1920) to his final film, "A Countess in Hong Kong" (1967) and all in-between including "The Gold Rush" (1925), "City Lights" (1931) and "The Great Dictator" (1940). But I never paid much attention to the two-reelers he made. They seldom played on television when I was a kid but the feature films are the ones I would read movie critics review and those played on TV more often. And because of the nature of this blog, I only review feature-length films. So when I decided this year's blog theme would be Life is Short - a year long look at short films with an emphasis on comedy - I was eager to dive into Chaplin's work. I hadn't seen some of the two-reelers in decades!

What to review however. Initially I wanted to watch the comedies Chaplin made for the Mutual Film Corporation from 1916 - 1917. When Chaplin signed on to make 12 comedies for them over the course of one year (eventually it took 18 months to fulfill the contract) he was given a salary of $670,000. This made him the highest paid actor in the world! The Mutual films are often cited by historians to be Chaplin's best works since he was given full artistic control. He could make whatever film he wanted and still have final say. This was an area of contention for Chaplin when he worked for Essanay. As I watched all 12 of the Mutual comedies, a strange thing happened. I wasn't outright enjoying them. This was shocking. I had all but written the reviews in my head, prepared to write how Chaplin's great talent was on display in these early films. I could still write that review. I personally wouldn't believe a word of it but I could still write it. Those comedies had none of the emotional qualities that I had come to expect from watching Chaplin's feature-length films. These  Mutual comedies seemed to have been made in the same style as comedy producer Mack Sennett, who gave Chaplin his first break in America. These were what I call "kick in the ass" comedies. These are comedies where you see someone get kicked in the ass and we, the audience, are supposed to find it hysterical. When you think of quintessential silent film comedy in your head, which may involve people running around hitting each other, you are probably unknowingly thinking of Mack  Sennett comedies. Chaplin, on the other hand, I thought had a more refined view of comedy.

Disappointed with the Mutual comedies I turned to the comedy shorts Chaplin made for Essanay and for First National (he signed a million dollar contract to make eight films). To my surprise, I ended up enjoying the Essanay comedies most, which were made between 1915 - 1916 and consisted of 15 comedies. The two comedies I have chosen to review - which are also celebrating their 110th anniversaries - were made during this period. Neither of them match the quality of Chaplin's feature-length films but I "recognized" the Chaplin seen here more so than in the Mutual comedies.

"The Tramp" (1915) feels like a first draft of the kind of human comedy Chaplin would make later in his career. He is still tinkering with who his creation, the Tramp, is. In a lot of the Essanay and Mutual comedies, the Tramp is mischievous and deceitful. He isn't always the kind soul we expect him to be from "City Lights" or "The Circus" (1928). 

As the comedy begins the Tramp is a loner walking down a road. It was a common situation the character would find himself in and what I meant when I said I "recognized" the character in the Essanay comedies. As he walks down the road however cars drive past him. They are traveling at such a fast speed they actually knock him down. The Tramp gets up and begins to dust himself off. He eventually pulls out a brush to make sure he hasn't missed a spot. Besides being funny, this filled my heart with joy. Chaplin has already figured out while The Tramp may not have much in life, he still has a sense of dignity. The Tramp was always a gentleman. His clothes are torn, he has no home or job and yet he realizes he has fallen from grace. It is almost similar to what made the Oliver Hardy character funny in Laurel & Hardy comedies. These men understand what it means to be accepted and respected in society and when they fail in other of others, they feel embarrassed. These men know enough to realize their dignity has fallen.

For as good an insight into his character as this is, Chaplin then oddly misjudges the the character. The Tramp ends up in a field where he meets a Woman (Edna Purviance) who foolishly walks around flashing her money. Another tramp, credited as First Thief (Leo White) spots her and tries to steal her money. The Tramp notices this and fights off the thief. What the Tramp didn't seem to realize was she had money. When The Tramp notices this, the temptation to take it is too strong and directly in front of her swipes it. The Woman starts crying and quickly The Tramp regrets what he has done and gives her back the money. What a critical error on Chaplin's part. I don't mind if he wanted The Tramp to steal the money but he should have done it without the Woman noticing it. Then when the Woman realizes she doesn't have the money and begins to cry, The Tramp could find a way to sneakily put the money in her pocket. We would still get the same message - good people can be driven to bad acts in their desperation - but it would help make The Tramp seem less unlikable and a flat out crook. 

Perhaps sensing The Tramp is a good person, some type of friendship forms between the Woman and The Tramp and she invites him to her home, where she lives with her Father (Ernest Van Pelt) a farmer. For a reason not made clear to me, the Father puts The Tramp to work and has him tend to the farm with his Farmhand (Paddy McGuire). Here Chaplin leans into the mischievous nature of The Tramp as he purposely repeatedly hits the Farmhand with a pitchfork in his behind. Whatever sense of a narrative had been created is abandoned at this point so Chaplin could engage in physical comedy routines. Most of which involve The Tramp using the pitchfork to keep hitting the Farmhand in the ass. 

Chaplin must have felt "The Tramp" needed more conflict and an opportunity to turn The Tramp into a hero, so he brings the Thief back into the plot along with two sidekick thieves (one of whom is played by Bud Jamison, who is best known for appearing in Three Stooges comedies). This time they discover the Father counting money and want to steal it. They ask The Tramp, who the thieves see already has access to the house, to help them and will agree to split the money four ways. The Tramp agrees to their plan only to double-cross them.

Where "The Tramp" comes closest to succeeding is when Chaplin attempts to add elements of pathos to his story. By the time Chaplin gets to that point in the plot, it is too late in the short - which is practically three reels - to properly develop the situation and the emotional, dramatic potential it carries. Again, making this feel like a first draft of what Chaplin would later accomplish.

At 26 minutes "The Tramp" feels a little long in the tooth. There isn't much of a narrative and after a while I found the comedy gags repetitive. How many times can I see someone get stuck with a pitchfork in their ass? Is the ass a funny part of our anatomy and I'm just not fully appreciating it? What am I missing?

I also must admit to not fully appreciating Edna Purviance. I have failed to see her contribution to most - if not all - of the shorts she appeared in with Chaplin. It isn't necessarily Edna's fault either. Chaplin gives her nothing to do. I understand they were romantically linked while they were making these shorts between 1915 - 1917 but what role did Chaplin see her filling? He writes no comedy routines for her. Many times she is merely seen in only one scene so Chaplin's character can look adoringly at her. She has her moments in the beginning of "The Tramp" and then her role diminishes. I guess this is why "A Woman of Paris" (1923) is often considered Chaplin's "gift" to Purviance, giving her an opportunity to really act.

Still I must acknowledge there are elements in "The Tramp" that remind us of Chaplin's great comedic gifts and his ability to touch our hearts. It might be interesting for some viewers to see how Chaplin was working through the character and created what would become The Tramp's lasting persona. Chaplin would come back to similar themes in one of his Mutual comedies called "The Vagabond" (1916), which also feels like a draft of what was to come.

"The Champion"

*** (out of ****)

"The Champion" (1915) begins with an intertitle that states "Completely broke. Meditating on the ingratitude of humanity." This is the kind of philosophical messaging we would come to expect from Chaplin in his later films like "Modern Times" (1936), which also began with an intertitle message, "humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness." It demonstrates Chaplin felt early on that he could use The Tramp character as a symbol to make social commentary.

The first image we see in the film matches what is shown on the poster - which has nothing to do with the film's title and the eventual plot - The Tramp sitting next to his dog. The Tramp pulls out a bun and a hot dog from his pockets. As he is about to bite into it, he realizes the dog is looking at  him and then decides to offer the dog the hot dog, keeping the bun for himself. Of course this is meant to immediately establish The Tramp is a kind soul. He'd even offer a dog food while he is hungry. So far so good I thought. Again, I recognize this Chaplin. Here he is addressing one of the most consistent themes in his work - hunger. And in his usual fashion, is able to find the humor through the pain.

Chaplin uses this character establishment as a prologue for the film. While walking his dog, The Tramp comes across the training quarters of boxer Spike Dugan (Ernest Van Pelt), who is looking for sparring partners "who can take a punch". Although the wording on the sign may sound intimidating, The Tramp believes lady luck might be on his side after he trips over a horseshoe in front of the camp. Hungry and desperate, The Tramp convinces himself to try out. There are other men waiting there as well, all of whom look more physically imposing than The Tramp. Spike however appears to loom over all of them. One by one each man is knocked out by Spike with a single punch. The Tramp wasn't looking for a beating. What should he do? He decides to "load" his boxing glove with the horseshoe. When he spars with Spike, The Tramp knocks him out.

To me, this is another example of a misstep on Chaplin's part. I'm not against the idea of The Tramp knocking the boxer out with a loaded glove. That's funny. But it would have been funnier if The Tramp didn't know prior to putting the glove on that it was loaded. Again, this version of Chaplin's Tramp is very mischievous and sometimes down right rotten. By purposely loading the glove it takes away from the innocence of The Tramp and what makes him lovable. It reminded me of the Laurel & Hardy comedy short, "Any Old Port" (1932) where Stan gets mixed up in a boxing match. His opponent, Butch Long, is out to hurt Stan due to a prior incident. He asks his manager to load his glove. During the course of their fight, Stan ends up getting his hands the loaded glove, not knowing what is inside of it. He's not above using it however. See the difference in both scenarios? 

By knocking out Spike, everyone at the camp believes The Tramp must be one powerful man. Spike leaves the camp completely embarrassed and his trainer decides to train The Tramp instead to fight the world champion, Bob Uppercut (Bud Jamison). Without protest (another misstep) The Tramp seemingly goes along with the plan.

The idea of the diminutive comedian engaging in any sport, let alone boxing, which requires physical strength, is a way for "The Champion" to approach the most significant theme in comedies from this era, masculinity. Many comedians made boxing comedies since it lends itself so easily to this theme and has the potential for many comedic moments as the cowardly comedian fights off the stronger brute. There was Buster Keaton in "Battling Butler" (1926), Harold Lloyd in "The Milky Way" (1936), the Three Stooges in "Punch Drunks" (1934), "Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man" (1951) and although it's not a boxing comedy, the Martin & Lewis movie "Sailor Beware" (1952) has a boxing scene with Jerry Lewis.

The boxing match in "The Champion" is really the centerpiece of the comedy short and some of the antics during this sequence kind of feel burrowed from a "Fatty"  Arbuckle comedy made for Mack Sennett called "The Knockout" (1914). Chaplin had a small role in that short as the referee for the big fight. Chaplin practically steals the scene as he takes more punches than the boxers. In "The Champion" the referee gets knocked down a lot too but Chaplin knows to keep the comedy antics strictly limited to himself. I wonder however if Chaplin had "The Knockout" in mind when shooting "The Champion" and thought to himself, how could I improve the boxing sequence?

The only other sequence that takes up as much screen time involves a Gambler (Leo White) who is trying to bribe The Tramp to take a dive. Intertitles would have been useful here explaining who Leo White is playing and his exact intentions. Regardless the sequence goes on way too long. At one point Chaplin has The Tramp take the Gambler's money after he knocks him out. It is clear to the audience The Tramp has no interest in taking a dive. He's much too prideful. Shenanigans between these two characters go on for six minutes. About five minutes too long. The purpose of the sequence is to show us White could take a bump and demonstrate some moments of good comedic timing on Chaplin's part.

"The Champion" feels like two later Chaplin efforts combined - "A Dog's Life" (1918) and the boxing sequence from "City Lights", which is far superior to what is done here. With 20/20 hindsight everything from this time in Chaplin's career feels like a draft for what was to come later. Chaplin had ideas in his head that he wanted to explore but hadn't perfected them yet. But we must also take into consideration "The Tramp" and "The Champion" are 110 years old. It is remarkable and a true testament to Chaplin's talent that these comedies are watchable to the degree that they are. I'm too accustom to comedies from this era  perhaps to properly notice but neither of these comedies feel terribly dated. Think of the world Chaplin presents in these comedies. It is one where people are hungry and will do anything for money. It is a world where people fall in love and face rejection. Where men perform heroic acts to impress women. Sounds like 2025 to me. Human behavior hasn't changed all that much in the past 110 years.

That speaks to Chaplin's legacy and his impact not just on comedy but film in general. I've always been of the mind set comedy from the past tells us more about our society than drama. Comedy taste has changed over the years. That's not really the case with drama. What was a sad and dramatic story in 1915 or 1920 would most likely be a sad and dramatic story in 2025. Comedy has gone through different styles though we can in some cases see a link and the influence the past has had on the present. Are the mischievous antics of Chaplin here really so different from what Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler or Chris Farley did in the 1990s? It may not have been as graceful and considered vulgar for its time but the foundation of what they were doing is no different. "The Tramp" and "The Champion" may not show Chaplin at his very best but they are able to speak to us and make us laugh. 

Film Review: Love and Death - 50th Anniversary

 "Love and Death"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Watching "Love and Death" (1975) - which is celebrating its 50th anniversary - I was immediately reminded of the joy of seeing Woody Allen perform on-screen. This year also marks the 60th anniversary of  Allen's screen debut in "What's New Pussycat?" (1965), which he also wrote. In fact, deciding on which  Allen movie to honor this year was a difficult endeavor. Several of Allen's films are celebrating anniversaries - 60th anniversary for "Pussycat", 50th for "Love and Death", 40th for "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985), 30th for "Mighty Aphrodite" (1995), 20th for "Match Point" (2005), and 10th for "Irrational Man" (2015). It made me consider forgetting a single review and just write about the 60 year screen legacy of Woody Allen and comment on his contributions and influence. I've decided to split the difference and review "Love and Death" and still find space to discuss  Allen's legacy.

By the time Allen wrote, starred in and directed "Love and Death" he had four directorial efforts under his belt, not to mention acting and writing in "Pussycat" and "writing" and doing voice-over work for "What's Up, Tiger Lilly" (1966) and adapting his Broadway play "Play It  Again, Sam" (1972) into a movie screenplay, for which he reprised his role but did not direct - Herbert Ross did. Needless to say the public had come to know and laugh at and with Woody Allen prior to this film's release. By transitioning his stand-up comic persona into his feature films, the audience felt they knew "Woody", a loveable loser who reflected on the social and emotional hang-ups of a generation. Allen was able to incorporate that persona in "Love and Death" and I believe, though it may not have been Allen's intention, create a bridge between his "early, funny" pictures and the shift to more thought-provoking efforts such as "Annie Hall" (1977) and "Manhattan" (1979). Rewatching "Love and Death" - the title I suppose is meant to invoke Tolstoy's War and Peace - I see we get a fuller commentary on the issues of love, relationships, and death that  Allen would further explore in his later works.

"Love and Death" is  Allen's comedic riff on Russian literature, philosophy, and existentialism. We didn't get much of that in his prior comedies  such as  "Take the Money and Run" (1969)  - my personal favorite - or  "Bananas" (1971). While it is easy to look at  "Love and Death" as nothing more than one of  Allen's early, silly excursions, it is actually a more mature effort. It is evident watching it, Allen had become a more confident director, willing to broaden his scope of comedy targets and use the camera more for visual jokes. Allen seemed to foreshadow and acknowledge as much back in 1972 when talking to author Eric Lax for his book Conversations with Woody Allen. At the time  Allen said "I have to think of myself as learning all the time. I can't think that I'm a guy who does surreal comedy and that's all I'm going to do. I feel that over the next couple of years I should experiment with various styles of comedy."

Allen pretty much fulfilled that promise. "Take the Money and Run" used the documentary format, "Sleeper" (1973) used science-fiction and silent slapstick comedy, and "Love and Death" took aim at the historical epic. Each comedy had a different aesthetic and sensibility. This also benefitted his on-screen persona the same way it did Laurel & Hardy or Jerry Lewis. The pleasure was seeing the "Woody" persona in new environments, facing new challenges. So why not make him a failed gangster, or send him to Latin America during a revolution, or into the future or 19th century Russia? Because the audience identified with the character so closely and anticipated his behavior, we laugh at the idea of placing him in these unusual situations. Allen and his comedies succeed due to character based humor more so than plot based.

And so in "Love and Death" Allen capitalized on this by giving his character familiar personality facets, thus his character Boris is the youngest of three brothers who is a coward that doesn't want to fight against Napoleon's army - "What good is war? We kill a few Frenchmen, they kill a few Russians. Next thing you know, its Easter." Instead he is a sensitive soul who dreams of becoming a poet and is secretly in love with his cousin Sonja (Diane Keaton) who doesn't share his feelings but is in love with one of Boris' more masculine brothers, Ivan (Henry Czarniak). 

Here Allen touches upon a reliable comedy theme - masculinity. Going back to the days of  Allen's heroes like Bob Hope, comedies have often featured comedians as timid men longing from afar for the affection of a beautiful woman, who doesn't notice them. Her affections are usually for a more muscular male. By the end of the comedy it will be up to the comedian to prove himself by confronting the brute. Allen understands this and in "Love and Death" creates the comedic contrast of having timid Boris not only begrudgingly enlist in the army but turns him into an inadvertent hero becoming a decorated solider. 

Boris is initially an absolute failure as a solider, proving himself to be incompetent while at basic training. He has problems completing the most simple tasks such as firing his rifle, cleaning it and being able to take his sword out of its holder. In an anachronistic scene Boris is being yelled at by the drill sergeant who is played by an African-American actor. The sergeant tries to make an example of Boris having him march in place yelling "one, two, one two". The wisecracking Boris, not afraid of authority, tells him three is next if he's having any trouble. In the battle scenes Allen gets in two good jokes. At one moment during battle Boris suddenly wears a turtleneck with the word Russia written on it. He is holding a megaphone standing next to two cheerleaders with pom-poms as they cheer on the troops. The other moment makes a commentary as Boris finds himself with the Generals looking down at the troops. From such a distance they look like a herd of sheep. Remember the Vietnam war ended the same year "Love and Death" was released. Meaning there had been a strong anti-war sentiment prevailing in the country for a while.

In keeping with the film's title, the other area in which Allen finds an opportunity to comment on masculinity involves love, or in the case of this comedy, sex. After the war, Boris returns home a hero and engages in a dalliance with the beautiful Countess Alexandrovna (Olga Georges-Picot), who is in a relationship with Anton (Harold Gould). The Countess, either honestly finding Boris attractive or turned on by the notion of his bravery, suggest Boris come visit her at midnight. After the two meet for a night of passion, the Countess declares Boris is the greatest lover she ever had. To which Boris thanks her for the compliment and proudly confesses he practices a lot when he's alone. Besides the wild absurdity of the situation - that line about practicing when alone is a gem - of course this hits at the concept that a real man would know how to please a woman. So not only is Boris a war hero but a great ladies man. What more could you ask for? And yet, Boris still desires Sonja.

It's not a spoiler to reveal eventually Boris and Sonja do get together and when that happens it causes a slight shift in the direction of the film which honestly needed it. There were simply only so many areas  Allen could have taken this story in without it becoming repetitive, which there are moments when I feel the film does come close to. Sonja suddenly becomes consumed with the idea she and Boris must assassinate Napoleon (James Tolkan). But this presents a Dostoevsky-esque moral dilemma for Boris. Can someone morally rationalize murder? And speaking of Dostoevsky there is a great moment of dialogue that consist of nothing more than the characters saying the title of Dostoevsky novels back and forth to each other. 

What I find most enjoyable about watching "Love and Death" is the film's spirit. It has a wild and zany attitude that really hadn't been seen all that often. Sure Mel Brooks gave us "Blazing Saddles" (1974) and "Young Frankenstein" (1974) the prior year but not since the comedy of the Marx Brothers, Olsen & Johnson or the Ritz Brothers had a comedian been so consistently and joyfully bizarre. Viewers may have forgotten the tone of  Allen's early comedies but there are moments in "Take the Money and Run" and "Love and Death" that I'd put up against anything in "Airplane" (1980) or "The Naked Gun" (1988) for its sheer delightful silliness.

To me  Allen's  "old fashion" approach to comedy is what made him so unique when he came onto the public scene. The stand-up and film comedy landscape was changing in the 1960s and 1970s. This era of comedy is best epitomized by comic Lenny Bruce and later on George Carlin - transforming himself from the hippie weatherman to an edgier commentator of pop culture - Richard Pryor and Mel Brooks. These were men willing to work "blue" but could tone it down when on TV. Meanwhile  Allen, who always had a "clean" comedy act, was instantly celebrated as a new dynamic voice when he debuted. It was "new" by being "old". While others were looking to either change the comedy landscape or  keep up with those changes,  Allen went back to basics and drew inspiration from Bob Hope and the Marx Brothers  - Groucho in particular. There is a scene in "Love and Death" where Boris and Sonja are being introduced to another character. It is a merry-go-round of introductions that recalls a scene from the Marx Brothers comedy "A Night at the Opera" (1935). In another scene Allen scraps most of the sound only allowing us to hear the sound effects of a bottle clunking Keaton's Sonja on the head repeatedly as  Allen's Boris engages in the kind of balletic movements associated with Charlie Chaplin.

But  Allen didn't  solely rely on the past. He was a contemporary figure that could comment on events of the day. During his stand-up act he once referred to the Warren Report as one of the greatest pieces of fiction he ever read. That's  what  sets the dialogue in "Love and Death" apart from other previous efforts by  Allen. The combination of the old-fashion sensibility mixed with modern day concerns. The film begins with a narration of Boris explaining he is about to be executed for a crime he didn't commit - a Kafkaesque scenario if there ever was one. But then muses isn't all of mankind ultimately in the same boat. It has been said - by  Allen no less - that there is wisdom in jokes. And here this sentiment gives us some food for thought. Is anyone truly innocent? Allen however then goes for the zinger - "the difference is all men go eventually, I go at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. It would have been 5 but I got a smart lawyer. Got leniency." This will be  Allen's method to finding humor in "Love and Death". A  little bit of seriousness brought down to size by a one-liner. The greatest example of this may be an exchange between Boris and Sonja discussing the meaning of morality, objectivity and subjectivity. It's exaggerated logic is a masterclass in comedy writing.

Another thing to point out is between "Sleeper" and "Love and Death", Allen gives the female character more to do. In "Take the Money and Run" the comedy rested solely on  Allen's shoulders. The female role is merely an after thought and / or plays straight man for Allen's character. Allen began to give a little more consideration to the famale role in "Bananas" with Louise Laser - who was a very good actress and  Allen's great love. It is in that movie Allen began his tradition of writing neurotic female characters. All of which were based on Laser. In both "Sleeper" and "Love and Death" Allen is working opposite Keaton and makes her characters much more activate participants in the comedy. Keaton is more than up to the task, being able to stand toe to toe with  Allen in the physical comedy and one-liners. Up until this point in his career, "Love and Death" may have the funniest role for a female character that  Allen had written.

"Love and Death" received some great reviews when it was released. In Vincent Canby's New York Times review he called it  Allen's "grandest work" and continued his praise writing it was "one of Woody's most consistently witty films". Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert felt  Allen had outdone himself with this comedy declaring "Love and Death" is his most ambitious experiment  with the comic possibilities of film." Ebert's television partner and Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel named "Love and Death" as one of the best films of 1975, placing it in the number three spot on his year end top ten list behind Robert  Altman's  "Nashville" (1975) and Michelangelo Antonioni's "The Passenger" (1975).

Unfortunately though "Love and Death" would be the last of  Allen's out and out silly comedies before making a shift and setting his  films in a new direction with "Annie Hall". In Stig Bjorkman's wonderful book Woody Allen on Woody Allen, a film by film discussion between the two, Allen says of  "Annie Hall" "it was a major turning point for me. I had the courage to abandon...just clowning around and the safety of complete broad comedy."

But 50 years later it is comedies like "Love and Death" that many of  Allen's  fans fondly remember and wish he had come back to in his career. These films presented  Allen as a wise-cracking, franticly hand gesturing coward. It was an image  Allen was never able to shed. The persona would admittedly grow in films like "Annie Hall"  and "Manhattan" but it would also take on a more intellectual, left-wing dimension. 

Allen and his films would go on to be a major influence on several comedians and films that followed. Without  "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" alone you wouldn't have had a range of romantic comedies from "When Harry Met Sally" (1989), "Modern Romance" (1980), "(500) Days of Summer" (2009), "Sidewalks of New York" (2001), "Down to You" (2000) or the wonderful films of Whit Stillman - "Metropolitan" (1990) and "Barcelona" (1994). Allen made an art out of Jewish middle-class insecurity and his influence could be seen on comedians like Billy Crystal, Garry Shandling, Richard Lewis, Albert Brooks, and Larry David.

Sadly there is a generation of younger movie fans that probably don't realize the cultural impact Woody  Allen had and fully appreciate his influence on comedy. This is due in part to his age and his decision not to appear in his films anymore. Allen turned 89 years old last year and made his last on-screen appearance in "To Rome With Love" (2012). Then there is the controversial nature of sexual molestation charges brought forth by Allen's step-daughter Dylan Farrow stemming back from 1992. Those charges made it back in the headlines thanks to Allen's biological son Ronan Farrow and Dylan during the height of the #MeToo movement. It resulted in a collective effort by Hollywood to erase the existence and legacy of Woody  Allen. Therefore you have a generation that only identifies  Allen to this story. In their world  Allen was some old comedian that turned out to be a pervert. "Movie critics" (sheep) don't even review his films anymore. The last  Allen film to be reviewed in the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun-Times was "Wonder Wheel" (2017). The "movie critics" took out their blades to discredit both the film and Woody  Allen the man. Since "Wonder Wheel" however there has been  "A Rainy Day in New York" (2019), "Rifkin's Festival" (2020, released in the U.S. 2022), and "Coup de Chance" (2024),  Allen first French language film. Each ran into issues finding  American distribution, had limited theatrical runs in a limited amount of theaters, no heavy press, and naturally ignored and shut out of any American award ceremonies. Rumors have grown that  "Coup de Chance" may have been  Allen's final film. What a discouraging end to  Allen's legacy.

In a digital world of streaming movies, it is very easy to make the public forget who Woody  Allen is. All they have to do is simply not stream the films on any platform. I don't have subscriptions to many of them but tell me, are Allen's films currently streaming on Netflix, Paramount Plus, Peacock or HBO Max? Luckily I own all of  Allen's films and can watch them whenever I please. It lends itself to a major issue in the streaming and digital world. It's not just about being able to watch a Woody  Allen film but the idea that others can control information. It doesn't take much to remove a news article from a website, a google search or bury it. I'll give you a quick example, the Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Republican candidate for Illinois governor, Bruce Rauner, when he first ran for office in 2014. That editorial is gone. The Sun-Times removed it from their website. There are articles that exist however from other publications that referenced it - it was a shocking move on the paper's part because it had previously expressed it would no longer make endorsements and when it did had normally endorsed Democratic candidates - but you cannot read the actual editorial anymore.

"Love and Death" is an extremely funny and enjoyable comedy that even 50 years later still holds up. Allen's worldview, a distrustful look at government, war and religion has remained relevant. Maybe  Allen is more subtle than I realize but  "Love and Death" does capture the public sentiment of the Vietnam War era. It's not something I came across in reviews for the film. No critic drew this connection. "Love and Death" may be my second favorite of  Allen's early comedies behind "Take the Money and Run". It has proven to be a comedy classic.

Film Reviews: One Week & The Goat

 "One Week"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

It's the age old question film buffs  will debate throughout eternity. Who was funnier, Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin? For my entire life I was a Chaplin man. Chaplin was not only my favorite silent film comedian but my favorite comedy filmmaker of all-time. Knowing that this year's blog theme would be Life is Short - a year long look at short films, with an emphasis on comedy, I was anticipating reviewing two-reelers with both Chaplin and Keaton. I decided to watch the Chaplin comedies first with a focus on the ones he made for the Mutual Film Corporation. I hadn't seen some of them in 30 years - I hate that I am at an age where I can say that and it's not an exaggeration. A  strange thing occurred as I watched them. I didn't sit and marvel at Chaplin's comedy gifts. I wasn't in awe. I found the comedies  to be lacking in humanity. They were what I call "kick in the ass" comedies. These are comedies were a character gets kicked in the ass and the audience is supposed to find it uproariously funny. Nearly all twelve of the Chaplin Mutual comedies featured someone getting kicked in the ass - repeatedly! The only reason one of them didn't was because it was a one man showcase for Chaplin. He's the only character in it! Otherwise these were low brow comedies. I was astonished. This wasn't the Chaplin of  "Modern Times" (1936), "City Lights" (1931), or  "The Kid" (1920). The world no longer made sense to me. Which of Chaplin's comedies would I review? In my confusion I turned to Buster Keaton. What a difference!

Where I found Chaplin crude in comedies such as  "The Fireman" (1916) and "The Pawnshop" (1916), Keaton was innovative and sophisticated. There was no kick in the ass comedy here, just beautifully constructed sight gags. Why hadn't I noticed this before? Suddenly I saw real intelligence in Keaton's comedies. True, there were a few years separating these comedies but the difference between "The Pawnshop" and Keaton's  "One Week" (1920) is night and day. Had comedy styles changed that much in the course of four years? If they had, I must admit, it may have been thanks to Keaton. 

There may be some truth to that. Buster Keaton got his start working alongside another silent comedy legend, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. Keaton's first screen appearance was in the Arbuckle's comedy "The Butcher Boy" (1917). That isn't really a "kick in the ass" comedy, despite having an opening scene where a character does do that. Arbuckle had a good sense of plot and gives Buster a moment to shine. But as soon as Keaton ventured out on his own, I hate to admit it, but he makes the two-reelers of Chaplin and Arbuckle seem "creaky", like outdated examples of film comedy. Don't get me wrong, "One Week" shows its age but you could sooner adapt it to the modern age than you could say Chaplin's "The Pawnshop". Keaton's two-reeler comedies have a different sensibility to them that in a way make them timeless.

Keaton's defenders often said his character, which would come to be known as The Great Stone Face, was always thinking. When we watched a Keaton comedy, we saw a mind at work. That sentiment hadn't meant much to me previously. It washed over me as empty words. But as I sat and watched "One Week" it hit me like, well, a kick in the ass. It becomes one of the main pleasures watching a piece like "One Week" as Buster tries to figure out how to overcome one obstacle after another. Naturally he doesn't do it with dialogue and he doesn't do it with exaggerated facial expressions. It's all body language and in his eyes. It truly is a fantastic comedy performance.

"One Week" was Buster's first two-reeler without  Arbuckle and was co-directed and written by Buster and Edward Cline. Buster plays one half of a newly married couple. The other half is Sybil Seely. On the day of their wedding Buster receives a letter from his uncle informing him he has bought him a house as a wedding gift. The thrill and excitement of such a generous gift is soon deflated when the couple discovers they must put the home together.

This simple premise - which Buster said was inspired by an educational short film on prefabricated housing - lends itself easily to great comedy serving as a commentary not only on domestic life but a relatable critique on DIY trends that exist even today - you can learn how to do anything watching YouTube videos. Sometimes it is best to leave things to the professionals though and take pride in quality craftsmanship.

Structurally "One Week" is an episodic comedy with a purposely plot-less narrative. You may also notice Buster and Cline tell their story with a limited amount of intertitles. There just isn't any need for them. The story is told completely visually. The only constant cutaway is to a calendar, signifying a new day, which based on the title, will take place over a week's time. These could be seen as  "chapters". Each brief day presents a new challenge Buster must overcome while his wife stands by and complains. 

The initial catalyst for Buster's building problems was caused by a jealous rival (who to this day remains uncredited) who was upset Sybil didn't accept his marriage proposal. Unknown to the couple he changes the numbers on two boxes which indicate the order in which they should be assembled. The final result makes their home look like something out of  "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920).

Comedies dealing with construction or simply having anything to do with using your hands, often provided good fodder for comedians. It easily allows for a commentary on masculinity. Real men are good at building things and using their hands. That's  what makes them construction workers and mechanics. Men take pride in what they build whether it is professionally or as a hobby. What greater defeat to a man's ego than not being able to assemble something? "One Week" doesn't lean into this message and hit us over the head with it but it is there nonetheless. In a strange way it is part of the appeal of watching it. It's often called the "superiority theory" of humor. We feel better about ourselves - and thus superior - when we see someone else fail. That's why you see comedy teams like the Three Stooges or Laurel & Hardy in these type of professions. Watching "One Week" reminded me of a Laurel & Hardy silent comedy called "The Finishing Touch" (1928) where they are also trying to build a house.

In some ways "One Week" is a kind of forerunner to one of Keaton's feature-length comedies, "Steamboat Bill, Jr." (1928). Both comedies feature a violent storm causing man to fight the elements. In "One Week" the storm causes their home to spin in a circle. In "Steamboat" of course there is the famous cyclone sequence which at one point causes the front structure of a building to fall forward as Buster stands precisely in the spot where a window would have been. That gag is done here but at a much smaller scale. It also doesn't build the same level of suspense as it does in "Steamboat". We can anticipate the gag coming from the camera set-up as it is positioned directly in front of Buster in an extreme long shot. In "One Week" it all happens rather quickly. However this clearly shows this was a gag Buster liked and was figuring out a way to perfect it. And boy did he ever!

If there is a criticism for "One Week" it is that it's heavily dependent upon plot based humor, meaning the film is a collection of comedy set-pieces but there is no real emotional involvement. We know nothing about Buster's character - not even his name! This is as opposed to character base humor, where we would have a sense of who this is and the humor derives from their personality traits. Think Laurel & Hardy, Jack Benny, or W.C. Fields. So when we watch "One Week" the purpose of it is to go from joke to joke, expecting nothing more.  

While Keaton deserves much of the credit for the success of "One Week", I would like to briefly mention the co-director and co-writer, Edward Cline. Cline was an old gag man that worked for Mack Sennett. He would go on to work for "Fatty" Arbuckle, W.C. Fields and the comedy teams of Wheeler and Woolsey and Olsen & Johnson. His association with Keaton did end here either. He and Keaton worked on several of Keaton's early post-Arbuckle shorts - "The Scarecrow" (1920) and "The Paleface" (1922) among them as well as Keaton's first feature-length film, "The Three Ages" (1923). Individuals like Cline, Clyde Bruckman, Felix  Adler, and Sam Taylor aren't names audiences may recognize but if you pay attention to the credits of Keaton, Harold Lloyd and Three Stooges comedies you will repeatedly see their names. They were all great gag men that worked with the giants.

"One Week" is a terribly fast moving comedy built around some terrific visual gags. Keaton wanted to prove he could be a big laugh getter in his first outing without Arbuckle and I'd say he succeeds. This is a classic two-reeler comedy featuring gags Keaton would come back to in later comedies such as "Steamboat Bill, Jr." and his talkie "Parlor, Bedroom and Bath" (1931).

"The Goat"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Comedies like "The Goat" (1921)  were once referred to as  "chase comedies". These type of comedies are best remembered today for starring Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. They were comedies built around spectacular chase sequences. "The Goat" may be the best of Keaton's two-reeler chase comedies with only "Cops" (1922) as another contender.

Co-directed and co-written by Keaton and Malcolm St. Clair - another comedy veteran - we notice a distinct difference between this and "One Week". We are getting a greater sense of the Keaton character in dress and mannerism. This is still a plot based comedy but character traits are being developed. And of course there are some smartly written set-pieces. There are a lot of plot holes here but  "The Goat" has always been one of my favorite Keaton two-reelers.

The title derives from the word scapegoat as Keaton is mistaken for an escaped criminal. You see Keaton was innocently walking past a prison when he saw Dead Shot Dan (St. Clair himself) getting his picture taken for the rogues gallery. Apparently Keaton is fascinated by this and continues to watch, looking through the bar window. When the photographer conveniently turns his head for a moment, Dan takes a picture of Keaton and then covers the camera lens. After the photographer thinks he has taken Dan's picture, Dan makes his move for his escape. Next thing you know it's Keaton's picture plastered on the front page of a newspaper with a reward for his capture! 

How could this have happened? It implies the police didn't know what Dead Shot Dan looked like despite being face-to-face with him. The photographer knows Dan wasn't behind bars when he took the photo. And how on earth did the photo get developed so fast and into the hands of a newspaper to be published on the front page all in the amount of time it took Keaton to ride a train from one town to the next! But why on earth allow logic to interfere with a good comedic premise? Some things just aren't done!

This would normally be enough plot for a two-reeler. It could possibly revolve around the police looking for the real Dan, who is hiding, and Keaton either just hiding himself or trying to find Dan, being able to put two and two together. But that's not what "The Goat" is about. Somehow or other it goes from this inventive situation to some kind of romance with Keaton interested in a woman that he defended from a rude man.

Keaton has said much in his  films were improvised. He and his gag writers had a beginning and an end. The middle would be made up as they went along. It shows in "The Goat". The love interest feels like an add on instead of something that was truly developed. I'd find it hard to believe if Keaton and St. Clair originally went into "The Goat" focusing on this sub-plot and not exclusively on the criminal escape portion. But without any attempt to find the real criminal, either on Keaton's part or the police, "The Goat" has nowhere to go and so we get this rushed, tacked on resolution.

And yet despite these flaws there is no denying "The Goat" is a very funny comedy. The film starts off with a great gag. Keaton is some kind of destitute man standing in a breadline. He tries to cut ahead of the line and is immediately sent back to the end. What Keaton doesn't realize is he has gotten behind two mannequins and becomes impatient when the line doesn't start moving. This is a wonderful premise perfectly executed by Keaton's timing and the camera. At first only Keaton and the mannequins are in the shot. Then it goes to an extreme long shot so we see how far away Keaton is from the real line. And back it goes to the tight shot of Keaton and the mannequins. This demonstrates how Keaton and St. Clair knew how to tell a joke with the camera. Compare this to "One Week". That short is basically comprised of nothing but extreme long shots. There is no real storytelling with the camera.

This sequence also showcases Keaton's timing. He makes the situation believable and makes us consider, well, I guess this mistake could happen to someone. We buy it because of the way Keaton sells it.

I don't want to reveal any more comedy sequences but "The Goat" also highlights the mind at work aspect of Keaton's comedies as he is quick on his feet thinking up ways to avoid the police which also demonstrates his great athletic ability and capable to do his own stunts. The stunts though aren't meant to be viewed as stunts but merely a continuation of his actions. Keaton doesn't want us to stop and consider what went into these stunts. Instead he finds the humor in his actions. Many times in "The Goat" and his other two-reelers, Keaton's actions lead to a vicious circle. When he outruns the police in "The Goat" he is never able to really escape them because somehow fate brings him back to where he started, face-to-face with the same cops he momentarily lost.

Another brief word about Keaton's collaborator here, Malcolm St. Clair ( I hate for these names to be completely ignored). Like Edward Cline, St. Clair also got his start as a gag man working for comedy producer Mack Sennett, which would allow him to work alongside Mabel Normand, Edgar Kennedy and Ben Turpin. In the "talkie" era he worked for 20th Century Fox as a director for some lesser Laurel & Hardy comedies such as "The Dancing Masters" (1943) and "The Big Noise" (1944). The one bright spot may have been "The Bullfighters" (1945). He and Keaton would also work on another two-reeler, "The Blacksmith" (1922).

Rewatching these comedy shorts has made my appreciation for Buster Keaton's comedies grow. In many ways his two-reelers were far ahead of what other comedians from the era were doing. "One Week" and "The  Goat" are two excellent examples of the kind of fast moving, smart comedies Keaton was making. His talent and ingenuity would only expand when he began making feature-length comedies.

Film Review: The Passenger - 50th Anniversary

 "The Passenger"

 **** (out of ****)

"The Passenger" (1975), Michelangelo Antonioni's masterful study on identity, alienation, isolation and desolation celebrates its 50th anniversary, remaining as relevant as ever.

When film critic Roger Ebert originally reviewed the Italian filmmaker's English language effort, he questioned the film's title. "Passenger" he thought referred to a nameless female character played by Maria Schneider. But if Schneider is the passenger does that make Jack Nicholson's David Locke character "the driver"? That can't be because a driver always has a destination in mind. David Locke does not. While this may sound like the ramblings of a Hungarian mad-man, it's actually a key insight into Antonioni's film. "The Passenger" is about many things. One of them is about people with no destination. Life is the driver and we are all merely passengers aimlessly traveling along on its journey.

Antonioni's work may be a challenge for some viewers. His style and pacing reflect a different era of moviemaking. The films of Antonioni are about tone and moods. They are as much about our experience watching them as they are about plot. In fact, Antonioni often made the audience confront their expectations of narrative film. His most famous example would be "L'Avventura" (1961), a film seemingly about the disappearance of a woman and the recovery search for her but it never comes to a resolution. "The Passenger" is also about a disappearance of sorts, that doesn't come to a resolution (some) movie goers may find satisfactory.

The film speaks to the disillusionment and uncertainty of its time period, coming after President Nixon's resignation and the U.S. ending its involvement in Vietnam. People lost trust in their government and its institutions. This correlates to one of the great contributions Antonioni had on cinema, as pointed out in Peter Bondanella's rewarding book Italian Cinema From Neorealism to the Present. Bondanella writes of Antonioni's "ability to portray modern neurotic, alienated, and guilt-ridden characters whose emotional lives are sterile - or at least poorly developed - and who seem to be out of place in their environments."

It is precisely because of the themes of alienation and detachment from one's environment, it would seem "The Passenger" would be able to resonate with modern viewers. Living in a world with an increasing and alarming reliance upon "social" "media", we are alienating and detaching ourselves from reality and human contact. We can "disappear" and become whomever we want to be on-line. I like what The New Yorker critic Richard Brody, who reviewed a DVD release of the film, wrote when discussing the theme of alienation in Antonioni's work stating "the particular kind of alienation he devoted his career to is the one that was most crucial to his times, the kind resulting from the rise of mass media."

It is no coincidence than that the protagonist in Antonioni's film is in the media business. David Locke is an English reporter sent to North Africa to make a documentary on a developing political situation in the country. He is attempting to interview the rebellious guerrillas. 

Through David's profession, "The Passenger" is able to make a larger commentary on the idea of truth and more specifically truth in the media. At various times in the film we are shown clips of the documentary being worked on. Each time we see the footage, it brings up the different ways media is used and how it can manipulate us. The first time we see the documentary, David is interviewing to the President, after which his wife (Jenny Runacre) confronts David about for not standing up to the President's lies. David calmly tells her it's all part of the game. And so our first lesson is the media is a tool for propaganda. The second time we see the documentary it is footage of a political execution, blurring a line between sensationalism and objective reporting. The third and final time is of another interview David was conducting but this time with a witch doctor. The doctor turns the tables on David and instead of providing direct answers to his questions, decides to film David instead. The shift in point-of-view is meant to signify our own inherent bias in our search for truth. David's preconceived notions about the doctor obstruct an objective desire for truth.

These sequences showing the documentary material may blend into another theme we see at the beginning of the film, communication. Being in a different country David is unable to communicate with the villagers he encounters. He is hoping someone can take him to the guerrillas, hiding out somewhere in the desert. David is never able to get the help he is looking for leading him to have three negative experiences in a row. One person flat out leaves him stranded at the first sign of trouble. It is followed by a scene of sheer desperation as David breaks down, yelling to the Gods and begins to sob. How can such a situation not leave a person to feel isolated? 

With the documentary seemingly not going as David had planned, he has hit a dead end. It may be what inspires his impulsive action to switch identities with a deceased man staying in the same hotel, in the room next to him. What may be most revealing about these actions is his utter lack of interest in how this will affect the lives of those that know him such as his wife and their adopted child who strangely is never shown on-screen and is only mentioned briefly in passing. 

If David was expecting the grass to be greener on the other side, that is not what happens. Changing identity does not give him a carefree life where he can shirk all responsibilities. David discovers the deceased man was a gun runner and decides to keep up with his appointments and drop offs. Does David think this will fill a void in his life and provide it with a deeper meaning? Probably not.

It is on this new journey in his life he encounters a younger woman (Schneider). She offers companionship and makes the rounds with David, after he confesses everything to her. She is the one that wants to read a deeper meaning into David's actions and encourages him to keep all of the appointments. It leads to a larger question however, what is she getting out of this? It is a question David repeatedly asks the woman, "what the f*ck are you doing with me?"

And so essentially we have the story of two drifters escaping the realities of their lives pretending they are different people. Will their new identities give them a new outlook on life and change their perspectives? Is the message of the film revealed within a story David tells the woman of a man who was blind and regained his sight after a surgery. He now could see how poor and dirty the world was. The world became an ugly and violent place. His fear of violence lead him to never leave his home where he eventually killed himself. 

Antonioni ends his film on a note that personally filled me with sadness. The last line of the film is the one that stung me. A character says she doesn't recognize someone, while another character confirms she does. For me it suggested what is the purpose of life? And what does our life amount to if no one is there to validate our existence? If it were possible, life seems a bit more shapeless by the end of the film. What happens to some of these characters? They just travel on, finding new roads, new paths, aimless passengers seeking a destination.

I suppose for some viewers the sight of Jack Nicholson in an Antonioni art house film may seem out of place. But bear in the mind this is the Jack Nicholson of the 1970s, the Nicholson of films such as "Five Easy Pieces" (1970), which thematically isn't that far removed from "The Passenger". On its surface though the marriage of these two artists coming together does appear to be a contrast. The late and great movie critic Michael Wilmington described it this way in his Chicago Tribune review of the film's 30th anniversary re-release, "There's something almost hypnotic about the way these two very different film artists, with their utterly dissimilar styles, meld together here - like a couple who seem all wrong for each other but still strike off incandescent sparks." 

While Nicholson may absorb the lion's share of attention, lets not forget Schneider's contribution to the film. She was a few years removed from her most iconic role in Bernardo Bertolucci's "Last Tango in Paris" (1972), another film about grief and trying to numb the pain from the realities of life. There is a similar vulnerability to her role here and in a way she serve's as the film's eyes. She is our witness of these events. In Roger Ebert's 30th anniversary review of the film in the Chicago Sun-Times he wrote of Schneider's performance calling it "a performance of breathtaking spontaneity. She is without calculation, manner or affect."

In the 50 years since the release of "The Passenger", it seems to have fallen into obscurity. Other films from the time period have achieved a "classic" status and stayed in the public's conscious such as Robert Altman's "Nashville" (1975), Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), and Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" (1975). But "The Passenger" feels the most like a 1970s film and yet as I initially explained it doesn't age the film in such a way that we cannot find it relatable in today's world.

One reason to explain the film's lack of popularity was due to Jack Nicholson owning the rights to the film and keeping it out of circulation. It wasn't until the 30th anniversary theatrical re-lease in 2005 and DVD release that followed that a majority of people saw this work for the first time.

This is not to suggest the film didn't have its defenders in 1975. Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel called it one of the best films of the year, placing it in the number two spot.  Andrew Sarris at the Village Voice also placed it in the number two spot of his year end list. In his New York Times review, critic Vincent Canby celebrated the film as a "poetic vision".

For the past 17 years of this movie blog, I've committed the cinematic sin of not reviewing enough of Antonioni's work. It's the same horrific realization I came to about  American filmmaker Sidney Lumet a few years ago, which I have rectified since. The last time I wrote a review for an Antonio film was in 2009 when I reviewed "Il Grido" (1957). This is most unfortunate as at one time I was deeply under  Antonioni's spell. I will vow to make a greater effort to discuss his work and hopefully introduce him to readers.

"The Passenger" is the kind of work some viewers will describe as slow moving but I would call it a meditative personal film with many layers that could be interpreted in multiple ways. Going back to Michael Wilmington's review, I like how he concluded it, highlighting the ways in which its charms reveal itself over time. He writes, "Decades later, its riddles seem less puzzling, more poetic - even endearing. It's a movie from the past that still points ahead to the future: a cinematic rite of passage that raptly recalls a time when the world may have been as uncertain as now, but the movies were often lovelier and more daring."

Film Reviews: You Nazty Spy! & A Plumbing We Will Go

 "You Nazty Spy!"

*** (out of ****)

After  Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1930s Germany, there was a genuine concern among some that Fascism could come to America, in large part as a reaction to the economic crisis brought on by the Great Depression. Famous Americans such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh made complimentary remarks about Hitler and the Nazis, and what was going on in  Europe. So-called "Liberal Hollywood"  and the entertainment  world seemed to be egging it on as  well. Several films were made in the early 1930s that had a sympathetic view of dictatorship. The best remembered example of this is "Gabriel Over The White House" (1933) with Walter Houston as a president who wakes up from a coma and suspends Congress so he can get things done. Democracy takes too long and the Depression needs solutions. A non-film example of this would be the George S. Kaufman Broadway musical comedy - with a score by George and Ira Gershwin - called Let 'Em Eat Cake from 1933 about a president who loses re-election and refuses to concede, going as far as to the Supreme Court. When that fails, he decides to go into the shirt business to stir the people up to overthrow the government. 

I mention this jumbled and admittedly simplistic outline of history to paint a picture of the times and America's reaction to Hitler and the ideals of Fascism and the possible need for a dictator in the U.S. Many Americans didn't think there would be a second World War and when that thinking proved to be wrong, many Americans didn't think the United States should get involved. With the exception of "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" (1939) Hollywood was rather silent on the issue. Enter, of all things, the Three Stooges (!) with their comedy, "You Nazty Spy!" (1940), recognized as the first Hollywood film to spoof Hitler. It gives this comedy short a historical significance that made me want to review it during this year's blog theme, Life is Short, my year long look at short films.

While there is no denying the anti-Fascist, anti-Hitler, anti-dictatorship intentions of "You Nazty Spy!", oddly enough there are moments when this comedy also seems to have a satirical look at capitalism and corporate greed. The short begins with three business men complaining about the profits at the munition factory which has amounted to five million buckaroos in the first quarter. This leads one of the businessmen to proclaim with a profit such as that, they are practically starving. This was not a reflection of the economic situation in Germany in the 1930s. Hyperinflation is believed to have lead to Hitler's rise. Due to that, I can only interpret these exaggerated remarks to be a commentary on corporate greed as well as a criticism of weapon manufacturers in their role to perpetuate war. Who knew the Three Stooges could be so astute! 

It is these three businessmen that agree on a plan to overthrow the current government. They must find a puppet who will bend to their business needs and start a war thus increasing their profits. This is most likely a reference to a definition of Fascism as being a merger between corporate interest and the government. It is a quote often credited to Mussolini. The business men select three wallpaper hangers for the job. Of course the three men are Moe Hailstone (Moe Howard) who will become the new dictator, Curly Gallstone (Curly Howard) is made a General, in a character based on Mussolini, and Larry Pebble (Larry Fine) is in charge of propaganda, a reference to Joseph Goebbels.

The film is peppered with puns and sight gags more so than I am accustom to in a Stooge comedy. For example the country in which this all takes place is called Moronika. In order to have a roundtable meeting, they cut the corners of their square table. The comedy even begins with a disclaimer stating "Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle." The story and script came from Clyde Bruckman and Felix Adler. These names may not mean anything to most movie fans but they were great gag writers. Between the two of them, they worked with Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott & Costello.

Still it is unfortunate that "You Nazty Spy!" should have the honor of being the first comedy to spoof Hitler instead of the much more ambitious "The Great Dictator" (1940) by Charlie Chaplin, his first complete sound film. At the end of the day "You Nazty Spy!" is a Stooge comedy and all that it implies. It takes some nice shots and insinuates certain things but it doesn't really make a strong social and political commentary. Chaplin was the man for that. Although Chaplin had said, had he known of the true horrors of the Nazi regime he never would have made "The Great Dictator".

Speaking of the horrors, there is a moment when Moe sends someone to what he calls a "concentrated camp". I wonder if Moe Howard, the other Stooges, and the American public knew what was going on at those camps if that line would have remained in the short. If the Stooges knew of the full extent of what was occurring, would they have also decline to make such a comedy as this? Even Mel Brooks once said he thought the film "Life Is Beautiful" (1998) crossed a line.

Nevertheless the Stooges would return to similar material, making a direct sequel called "I'll Never Heil Again" (1941) as well as "Higher Than A Kite" (1943). Again, the purpose of these comedies and "You Nazty Spy!" in particular is to make fun of the presence of Hitler and take pot shots to knock him down a peg. While I suppose that within itself is a political commentary, it doesn't go much deeper than that.

"A Plumbing We Will Go"

*** (out of ****)

"A Plumbing We Will Go" (1940) finds the Stooges in a much more familiar light. While released in the 1940s, its premise resembles a 1930s Depression comedy, with the Stooges unemployed and destitute, standing trial for chicken theft.

When we first see the Stooges they are in court on the witness stand. Curly and Larry are both sitting on Moe's lap as they are being questioned by an attorney. The position of the boys is meant to imitate a ventriloquist act with Curly and Larry as a couple of dummies. 

It is an interesting way to introduce the characters and establish their relationship. They are three individuals but should be thought of as one, hence why they are all questioned at the same time. If you had never seen a Stooge comedy before, you could immediately assess that Moe is the leader of the trio. He is the one actually sitting in the chair and plays the role of the "ventriloquist" to Curly and Larry's "puppets".

The judge in their case dismisses the charges although the audience suspects whatever crime the boys have been charged with, they are most likely guilty of. Naturally once they are free to leave Curly puts his hat on which causes feathers to fly around. Figuring the jig is up they make a dash for it. Luckily escaping the long arm of the law however doesn't deter the trio as they try to steal fish from an aquarium tank. The persistent cop (Bud Jamison) catches the boys in the act but once again they escape by jumping into a plumber's truck. As fate would have it, they stop driving in front of a house that called plumbers an hour ago. The boys pretend to be the plumbers after spotting the cop in he neighborhood.

As far as comedic premises go, this one is acceptable. Running away and hiding from the police proved to be a familiar situation for the Three Stooges and even Laurel and Hardy. The business with the court room and the chickens though was unnecessary.

The comedy begins to pick up now as the boys are able to put their incompetence on full display. They have no idea how to stop the leak the real plumber was called for. It lends itself to perhaps the best known bit in the short, Curly breaking a shower faucet and trying to stop the running water by connecting pipe after piper together.

Perhaps because I was never much of a Stooge fan, my favorite sequence in the short doesn't involve the Stooges. It centers on Dudley Dickerson as a cook, trying to prepare a meal when the kitchen appliances start to act up, as a result of the Stooges' plumbing work. At one point water starts coming out of the stove top burner. Dickerson's reaction to these going-ons had me laughing out loud. More so than anything the Stooges did.

"A Plumbing We Will Go", like so many other Stooge comedies is just about the jokes and doesn't try to make a social commentary. Some have tried to suggest the Stooges often addressed the topic of class division but with the exception of "Hoi Polloi" (1935) very few of their comedies touch upon this and really had nothing to say on the issue. It is because their comedy was seen to lack any importance they weren't critical darlings and placed in the same class as with Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields or even the Marx Brothers, who did a much better job on the topic of class division.

So many Stooge comedies were remade or had material reused from prior shorts, "A Plumbing We Will Go" is no exception. The comedy was remade with Shemp Howard as the third stooge in "Vagabond Loafers" (1949). In some ways it is a better short with more of a plot. The Dudley Dickerson material was reused from "A Plumbing We Will Go" with some new scenes added. Then the material from "Vagabond" was reused and called "Scheming Schemers" (1956). Stooge fans might consider "Plumbing" the best of the three if for no other reason than it has everyone's favorite line-up - Moe, Larry and Curly. It is a harmless diversion that encapsulates the Stooge brand of humor as well as any other comedy short.