Speak Easily (1932)

In Speak Easily, we meet Buster Keaton as a precise, bland, and lonely professor, who, tragically, wears a ridiculously ugly pair of spectacles ... and seems to need to walk with his head tipped up to keep them on.  Despite these limitations, when he learns he's inherited a large sum of money, our Prof has enough sense to run off and indulge in all that life has to offer. And, happily, that involves a train. Although the first 10 minutes of this film do drag, and it is hard to figure out where we're going or whether you should stick with it, if you do (stick with it) long enough, you are rewarded with Keaton on a train, Keaton with a baby, Keaton in an apt with a hot chick and, eventually, Keaton in a stage show.

And yes, it is probably worth it.

Although there are times where Buster's subtle style gets overwhelmed by the loud antics of co-star Jimmy Durante, the movie is probably one of their better collaborations. I found myself enjoying Durante's singing and jokes, and the light easy tone of the stage production that forms the central plot.

So, on to that "plot" thing, though I'm not sure it matters so much how we get there, we ultimately end up with a show of dancers in a New York stage production with the Professor as their backer. There is a sweet and lovely dancer called Pansy that Buster meets and follows, as well as a sexpot named Eleanor -- a gold digger who throws herself at the Prof when everyone learns he's loaded (with cash, that is; though, honestly, given that this is 1932, I imagine Keaton is probably loaded with alcohol as well.) And speaking of that kind of loaded, that is what the Professor and Eleanor do next at her apartment. Right here, see, the film starts to get more interesting.

There is some excellent stuff in the apartment, including great falls and a hilarious manhandling of the floppy drunk woman, all of which Keaton does so convincingly, you wonder if he had some life experience to draw upon. . . hmmm, but I digress.

Back to the plot. Unfortunately, it turns out the Prof doesn't really have an inheritance, and all seems lost, with him unable to back the show. But when an officer shows up on opening night ready to collect cash that is owed, the crew finagles a way and the show goes on.  The real fun comes when the Prof inadvertently turns the show into a comedy -- by crashing around the stage and cracking everyone up with his earnest attempts to smooth out production issues.  With Durante's help, they turn the performance into an uproarious hit and all ends well with the show getting sold for $100,000 and Pansy and the Prof coming to a right understanding.

All in all this film is very typical of the MGM era work in most respects. It is reasonably good, very amusing at times, though not tight, exciting, or especially creative.  And Speak Easily is that much the better for the industry's having finally figured out this 'sound' thing fairly well. In fact, I never noticed anything about the quality or condition of the sound itself during this film. And that is a blessing. The flow of the film was pretty nice and the chemistry all around was good. So, why didn't I rate it higher? To me it is just a solid "6.0"  I don't know. The whole thing just felt rather dull. I never became invested in what happened to anyone. I watched it, even enjoyed it, but never felt engaged with it, as had been the case with Parlor Bedroom and Bath when I re-watched it a week ago and gave it a 6.5, despite its flaws, for that reason.

In any case, I am mainly thrilled to report that this entry represents my final review of Keaton's MGM-era work and I'm DONE with having to think about this somewhat melancholy time for a while. ... And, I think that also means its time to turn back the clock and look at some of his "real" work. I can't wait, because I'm seriously ready to look at some 10s!

Parlor Bedroom and Bath (1931)

In the spirit of knitting up loose ends, I watched Parlor Bedroom and Bath again. I became aware, upon posting my wrap-up of the MGM work, that I’d forgotten to review this one. I’m really glad that I looked at it again, because, though I’d forgotten it, it turns out it is fairly memorable. Wink. Well... it at least has a number of very memorable elements.

Once of those elements has to be the filming location at Buster’s Beverly Hills mansion, The Italian Villa. The film is made in 1931 and is his third MGM talkie. Clearly Keaton’s career is not heading in the right direction and the savvy fan knows that it will not be long before he really hits the skids both personally and professionally, but at the moment of this film, it is impossible to feel too sorry him -- for anyone who lives in the house on display in this film. It is amazing. Not just because it’s a 10,000 square foot mansion, but because it has such a … oh, where are some good architectural words when you need them?… balanced, charming, open character. It is a lovely place.  Here is an article from Period Homes about the history of the Italian Villa and here some pictures from a recent Hollywood benefit event taking place at the newly restored Villa. This film is worth watching for any Keaton fan just for the opportunity to view this slice of his once opulent lifestyle.

Watching the film, the viewer gets not only to be a bit of a voyeur into Buster's once lofty Hollywood status, but also to marvel at another great Keaton talent: his ability to craft amazing things. I understand that he designed and planned out every detail of this home. Had fate not smiled on him with the performance genes, Keaton could easily have been an engineer or an architect.

But the film's worth goes beyond the cool mansion. It is actually quite an entertaining romp in some ways. It is, however, also distractingly flawed, and I've decided that its biggest problem is a split personality. But more on that in a moment. First, the basics.

There is an amusing though rather odd plot, where a younger sister’s fiancé is desperate to get the older sister (Angelica) married, so that the younger will be willing to marry him. He (Jeffrey, played nicely by Reginald Denny) accidentally hits a man who is working by the road (Reggie) and brings him up to the house to have him nursed back to health. Of course Reggie, the regular guy, is played by Keaton. When Angelica wishes to nurse Reggie, Jeffrey comes up with a great idea of upselling him as a great lover -- to further spark her interest. The ploy works to an extent. Angelica is interested when she believes him to be a cad and a high-society home-wrecker, but loses interest when she begins to realize he's just an innocent nobody. So Jeffrey goes to greater lengths to deceive her and works up a fake seduction plan with a friend (Polly, played brilliantly by Charlotte Greenwood) to serve as as bait with the intent that Angelica will discover the pair and fall head over heels for Reggie. Of course, complications ensure, and Buster ends up pretend-seducing not just Polly, but 3 other women in the hotel room. Fun indeed.

This is all rather amusing. Though, given the time period, the film suffers from the feel of actors still not quite cut out for the requirements of sound film. In particular, I found the over-enunciation and gesticulating coming from Angelica, her sister, and their friend Nita, to be irritating. Keaton himself and Reginald Denny are much more fluid with the sound medium. But perhaps the best character and the best acting of all, comes from Charlotte Greenwood who is incredible fun here. She presents such a relaxed easy presence and great charisma that make it hard to look away from her.  The hotel room scene between Buster and Charlotte is certainly another highlight of the film, but, as good as it is, it is’t enough to really save the movie from itself.

The biggest problem is that Greenwood and Keaton, and maybe the bellhop too, are trying to be in one movie and everyone else is acting in another. The Keaton vision includes a fair amount of slapstick gags, some sweet falls and of course the very physical seduction scene in the hotel, but they just don’t quite get the chance to work here. The overall feel of the film is polished farce, and it doesn't sit side by side with Keaton's downplayed, ironic slapstick style very well. The film ends up feeling schizophrenic. As with almost all of these MGM films, the main complaint I end up having is that they lack a solid overarching purpose.

An example of why this matters can be seen in the train scene that reprises the one in Buster's early film, "One Week." If you haven't seen this bit, you've got to check out that film and watch . . . I mean, the whole thing; and you'll see one of the best gag's ever shot and an exceptional cinematic moment. But first STOP READING NOW, because I don't want to ruin it for you. Go on . . . here's a link to it on youtube.


OK . . . now in Keaton's One Week, we first fall in love with Buster and Sybil Seely (his new bride) as we watch them struggle to build and inhabit a crazy, build-from-a-kit starter home.  They win our hearts and sympathy with their charming relationship and earnestly hilarious antics. The film culminates with them learning they've built their ridiculous house in the wrong place and they set out to move it. But as they are doing so, the house gets stuck on the railroad tracks ... and a train is coming! The couple tries valiantly to push it off, but they finally give up and get themselves clear just as the train comes rushing through. There is a huge relief as we realize that the train went by on the parallel tracks next to the house and missed hitting it altogether. We have just a heartbeat or two to rejoice with our couple when WHAM a train coming from the other direction plows into the frame out of nowhere and destroys the house. The bit isn't just clever as hell, it is incredibly funny, and gives us a shocking, hilarious and emotional response because we have bought into this story heart and soul.

This gag would have been clever no matter where or how it was executed because it's just a darn good idea. But to be fantastic, it needs a story and a purpose. In Parlor Bedroom and Bath, when Buster and Nita - a woman with whom he is fleeing out of mistaken purpose, yet whom the audience has no interest in, get a car caught on the train tracks and the same thing happens, its fun to watch. But its not profound.  The bit is good; but it doesn't feel like remarkable cinema. Just a tag on for kicks.

This scene really illustrates why doing things with purpose leads to fantastic cinema while doing things without, can lead to mediocre.  Keaton, when making his own films, knew naturally how to get an audience hooked, how to build a level of tension and interest with the underlying story and how to layer his gags onto an idea that felt like it mattered.  Parlor Bedroom and Bath does not.

End-Notes on The MGM Era Work

This will come as a big surprise to hear (from a serious fan) -- and is certainly not a concession I thought I'd be making -- but after watching all of them now, I've come to realize that the MGM-era Keaton work is just, truly, not that bad.

Now, before anyone gets worked up and ticked off and tells me I'm an idiot, let me make a few things clear, up front:
• I am perfectly aware that this work is not in the same league as his "own" films. You simply cannot compare "What no Beer?" with "Cops" or "Spite Marriage" with "The General."
• Unlike the beautiful, zen-like, poetic character Buster created for himself at his own studio, his hang-dog, doofus-y Elmer character is NOT the embodiment of what we love about Buster.
• And it is really a no-brainer that Buster Keaton should not have been teamed with Jimmy Durante. It was an insipid choice that didn't work to Buster's credit at all, nor, probably, Durante's.
• What makes most of these films problematic is the lack of creative oversight that they might have had with Keaton at the directorial helm. They mostly lack creative purpose, and are neither tight nor clever. They just feel squandered.

But. . .

With all that said, I have a few summary points to make to try and put their achievement in context.

• First, I think this work seems worse than it is because it came after the highlights of Keaton's career. If you honestly compare this MGM work to Keaton's earliest films, you would have to admit that some is actually better than what he was doing with Fatty Arbuckle (and even some of his weaker efforts for his own studio).
• These films were all made at a very strained and difficult time for American cinema, generally speaking. They are by no means the worst films getting made during the era of transition from silent to sound. In fact, while some truly excellent films were made in Hollywood during the period from 1929 - 1933, the overall feel of the era is one of awkwardness, as Hollywood attempts to grapple with the changing infrastructure and style that sound has brought. Far too many movies got caught in the gap, not quite finding themselves.  These Keaton MGM entries feel more like 'par for the course', than outright bad.
• Most of these films at least have the benefit of MGM's money and therefore high-level production values. They are "well made" in that reasonable amounts of time, money and energy were poured in: e.g. good camera work, nice costumes and sets, and high quality on screen talent.
• I also want to make it clear that when I speak of the MGM think tank work, I am not including "The Cameraman" in that mix. That film is still an unmistakably Keaton effort and is by far the best of his MGM work (and indeed one of his very best films).
• OK, here is another benefit of Keaton's association with MGM that I didn't consider until this moment, as I went to place a nice photo for this post: MGM's publicity machinery did some incredibly sweet, sexy, gorgeous, and yes, campy still photos of Keaton that we all get to enjoy. (Like this amazing one). Many of the best photos of Keaton come from the time he was doing this work.

The films I am including under the "MGM think tank" label are the following eight:
Spite Marriage (1929)
Free and Easy (1930)
Doughboys (1930)
Parlor Bedroom and Bath (1931)
Sidewalks of New York (1931)
The Passionate Plumber (1932)
Speak Easily (1932)
What, No Beer (1933)

I realize upon writing this post, that I managed to miss reviewing "Parlor, Bedroom and Bath" and "Speak Easily." (Oops. I'll add that to the to do list.)  I saw both long enough ago that I now remember little about them. I think that speaks to the main problem with all these films. They are basically forgettable. When I say, "they are not that bad," I don't mean I love them; I mean there are some viewable and interesting parts to them and that they have something to offer the viewer. Overall, they would be rated in the "6" range for me (on a scale from 1 - 10). For the most part, I was not dying to switch them off. I found them basically "watchable" or better.

Of these, I am going to go out on a limb and claim that "Spite Marriage" is actually quite good (I gave it a rating of 7); while, "Doughboys," "The Passionate Plumber," and "Parlor Bedroom and Bath" are all fairly good (earning a rating of 6.5 from me). Truly funny in parts, generally well made, and, if nothing else, at least attractive and polished, although not strong films, these four are not in anyway embarrassing either.

"Speak Easily," "Sidewalks of New York" and "What, No Beer" are in the fair range. I gave them each a "6" -- though they are probably all just barely worthy of that. They include some really nice things and also some horrifying things. Keaton's alcoholism was painful to watch in "What, No Beer," but even that didn't render the whole film unwatchable. "Speak Easily" has a bizarre plot that makes little sense and a Keaton who has to play second fiddle to Jimmy Durante, but despite these setbacks, the film has some first rate Keaton stage performance hijinks I loved. And "Sidewalks of New York" was strained of plot and unpleasant of tone, yet has some excellent chemistry among the performers in certain scenes.  You can check out my full reviews of those to see what else I thought was good enough to establish their value.

The remaining film, "Free and Easy," is one I did find exceptionally hard to watch. It was unpleasant to see Buster reduced to such a role, but even here, he had a few excellent moments of performance and the film itself benefitted from material of interest to early film fans. I also wonder if some of my horror with this film stems from it having been my 'first' of the MGM films I saw. Maybe, the sudden change in Keaton's screen persona took me too much by surprise to easily get past. Once I was more used to it, I might have had an easier time adjusting and maybe gave more lenient ratings.  Regardless, this one cannot get better than a 5.5 from me.

When I looked at all these ratings, I was astonished to see (as I mentioned above) that I'd rated most of them in the same basic range that I'd given Buster's films with Fatty Arbuckle.

The Fatty-era films and the MGM-era are simply flawed in different ways. The big difference is, with the Fatty films, Buster's career was on its way up. What made those films good was the clear fun everyone was having, the incredible acrobatics with Keaton and Al St. John flying across the screen and the engaging silliness. But we should be honest, they weren't excellent. What made them imperfect was their wandering plots, their lack of cohesion or any overarching vision or purpose. When Buster took over his own studio, he retained all of those great elements, but filled in those missing ones.

MGM-think-tank films have a similar problem to the Fatty films in that they are usually flawed in plot and possessing a poor overarching vision or purpose. But they have another, different, problem too. That, while delivering a more polished visual experience and direction, they are overproduced and squander Buster's now considerable talent.  That is particularly painful to the fan because we've seen the best Buster can do, so the MGM films seem so much worse coming after his best.

The thing is, they can't deny that talent altogether. In fact, even at this nadir, Buster is still such a great performer that no matter which of these turkeys he appeared in, he managed to craft some brilliant moments.

The Cameraman (1928)

I've been thinking a lot about The Cameraman. Yes, well, why would I not? The first time I saw it, several months ago, I was not sure I loved it. The second time I saw it, I began to believe it was his very best work ever. And, now, after watching a third time, I realize exactly what makes it such a hard movie to assess.

The Cameraman combines Keaton at the height of his physical and creative skill, with the polish of MGM studios, into a film that feels almost perfect. MGM reputedly used this film as required training in how to make a comedy and I can see why that would be. It really does seem to have everything. But what it also has are problems. Just underneath the polish you can detect some strain in the process. The feel of too many hands trying to introduce too many types of funny into this fairly short picture.

For instance, there are the the title cards. The attempt at verbal laughs is strained and unnecessary and at times pulls away from the basic simplicity of a wonderful visual story that is definitely strong enough to carry its own weight. Some of the "dialog" simply feels wrong for Buster. Unworthy of him.

I didn't notice this the first couple of times, but I see now (after having watched all the rest of his MGM work) that Buster's screen image is already beginning to erode and to take on the form of what will soon be "Elmer." In The Cameraman, Buster is ever so slightly, just beginning to play the fool, with a touch of the hang-dog stance and pleading demeanor that will soon become the hallmark of his MGM persona, instead of the simple guy with the zen-like control that characterized his independent films.

And The Cameraman may be just a bit heavy on plot, detracting from the natural simplicity that Buster so excelled at. It's a bit too polished, produced, over the top in some small ways and worst of all, sentimentality is beginning to creep in. The film seems to invite us to feel sorry for Buster. It succeeds at that with a heartbreaking scene at the beach when Buster believes he's lost all chance at winning the heart of his beloved. The scene showcases Buster's incredible emotive skill, but denies his minimalist unaffected direction.

Still, the film has aspects that are almost too incredible to put into words - such as Buster at Yankee Stadium doing a profoundly watchable couple of minutes solo-pantomime of a baseball game. And, the scene when Buster and another man are crammed into a tiny changing room getting their swim clothes on must be one of the funniest things he ever did in any movie; or maybe one of the funniest things filmed. Period.

Also Buster's incredible athleticism as he runs up and down flights of steps every time the apartment's phone rings while waiting for a phone call -- followed by scenes of the man simply running through the streets of New York -- raising the thought that no one else has ever made the simple act of running so mesmerizing as Buster Keaton.

And finally, one of my most treasured elements of this film: the relationship between Buster and the amazing little simian actor who sits on his shoulder, hugs his face, clings to his back and shadows his every move.  There are other highlights, but these few alone must surely place it among the very best films of the silent era, flaws and all.

Sidewalks of New York (1931)

I'm getting tired of saying this, but after watching "Sidewalks of New York" last night I have to conclude: "it's really not that bad." Also getting tired of sharing that there is a kernel of a good story idea in the film that clearly got overproduced away. There is an unmistakable feel of too many hands on deck and no one's vision coming through.

The story involves Buster as a slumlord (did I just type that? seriously) who goes to visit his tenement and gets involved with a beautiful girl, Margie, played by Anita Page, and her ruffian brother. By far the best thing about this flick is that Buster is NOT playing Elmer. Yes, his character is seen as the butt of some jokes, but Buster does not use the "Elmer affect" in his performance (you know: that hangdog look, the dimwitted earnestness, the strange stilted speech that makes it look like just getting words out is hard). Although his character in SNY is described in various internet film sources as "dim witted," he really isn't. He comes across as quite normal. In fact, this is as close as I've ever been to hearing Buster in what is probably his normal voice, and I really loved that!

In fact, his voice is beautiful when he's not doing the Elmer. If there is anyone out there that wants to watch a talkie of Buster's just to hear what he sounded like, this is definitely the one I'd recommend.

The major shortcoming is the ridiculous plot, which is somewhat heavier than normal Keaton films - with thugs, criminal activity, juvenile delinquency, and great poverty. It walks a line somewhere between crime melodrama and comedy - and does neither well. The way the gangs of kids were portrayed was so irritating and so grating that I longed for merciful silence. Their shouts and jibes were so jarring. Characters do not behave in reasonable ways in this film -- either irrationally hating Buster's character, Harmon, or changing too quickly from hate to approval, or, as Buster always seems to do, falling in love for no apparent reason.

But, in the plus column are: an incredibly whimsical and romantic kiss in the gym between Harmon and Margie and several moments of vintage Keaton skill including some hilarious boxing, an amazing scene with a feast of duck, and a very charming scene when Harmon and his sidekick, played by Cliff Edwards, improvise a marriage proposal for Harmon using popular sheet music titles. The movie is not entirely rescued from itself by these features but, it does make the film "not that bad" to watch. In fact, I actually enjoyed it a good deal.

I read on TCM's film notes that before he made this film, Buster was sent away by MGM to dry out from his alcoholism and he came back fit, excited and ready to work. That clearly shows in this film. He looks fantastic here; there is a sharpness about him I hadn't realized I'd missed so much. Physically he is in fine form doing plenty of falls and flips that look great. Apparently Keaton was devastated to be given this "dog" to work on when he came back. However, it seems to me he nevertheless tried to give it his all. That attitude and coherence in him really comes through in the film, even though the project is not a great one. Leading me to once again pine for the lost creativity that hampered Buster at this time.

What, No Beer? (1933)

For a while I avoided this movie. I understood it to be nearly "unwatchable" due to how far Keaton had sunk. No one needs to argue that point with me. I don't like to see Keaton in these slow-witted dofus roles either, nor do I wish to have evidence paraded before my eyes of his inability to work due to growing alcoholism. By his own admission this film represented a low point in his career, so I wasn't looking forward to it. But, ultimately, I figured if you're gonna write about the guy, you've got to watch the films. So I watched.

And what I found is that this film was not horrible at all. I personally found it harder to watch him in Free and Easy than this one. The thing is, if you are going to watch Keaton in any post-Cameraman work, you have to get over the shock and horror of seeing him playing inept, flat characters in a world where his incredible talents are squandered. If you can accept that at all, which I admit is not an easy thing to do, then you are likely to find things to enjoy in these films.

I even found a bit of chemistry between Keaton and Jimmy Durante here and was actually glad for the latter's presence. Keaton has clearly given up the fight and turned to alcohol. In this movie he is sloshed; you can tell. Because of this, the movie falls to Durante and with the full force of his personality he shoves it through. I really ended up liking Durante in spite of his irritating loud voice and pushy demeanor and was grateful Keaton had him for support, because he could not have carried the weight of this picture by himself.  I'm not sure he could have stood by himself. . . .  I don't mean to overstate this point. The drunkenness really is not glaring. You could easily watch and not notice Keaton is blotto, but, once you tune into it, you see evidence everywhere. In some scenes he's literally leaning into the other actors, eyes half closed and speech slurred. He's a skilled enough performer and they must have done enough editing that you aren't hit over the head with the incapacity, but after seeing this film I'm not at all surprised that MGM felt they couldn't work with him anymore.

The backstory about this being Keaton's last major studio feature film, about how his life was falling apart, about how his drinking was taking over and how his subsequent firing made that drinking even worse does make watching the film a sad experience. But in truth, it is the backstory that is sad. The film itself is funny and NOT terrible.

In fact, after watching it, I'm surprised the Keatonites, er, Keatophiles? Busteraphiles?, don't pay more attention to it for the great sexy scene in which very beautiful Phyllis Barry flirts with and teases Elmer about taking off her dress, then (while wrapped in a man's coat and her underclothes), purrs her demand for a foot rub -- which he accommodates and begins to slide his hand up her leg. Yes. You are reading this right. Given that Buster's films don't tend to include a lot of seductive material, this has to be some of the best. There should be more folks checking out the film for that scene alone. Speaking of Barry, although not a particularly great actress, she is enjoyable here. She projects a great persona. And, not only that, but she wears some truly wonderful gowns!

It's a curious film with its theme of over the top beer-lust. Although released in the year prohibition was lifted, it was many months before the ratification made drinking legal. It is funny to think that while prohibition was still in force during the time of the film's release, censorship was not. So what could be depicted on screen about beer in 1933 was liberal, flowing, lustful, and over-the-top; though, meanwhile, the actual drinking of beer was still constrained. Prohibition traded places with censorship the next year, and I'm guessing that had the film been made then, though beer would have been legal, the Hays code would probably have prevented numerous scenes in this exuberant film from being included.

Funny, how you can think of "prohibition" as providing almost end-caps to Keaton's core Hollywood years. His film career began in NY in 1917 then swiftly took off in Hollywood right after he came back from service in WWI -- right near the start of prohibition. It ended with his firing from MGM which took place in the year prohibition lifted. I suppose when I have more time to think on it, I will find lots of value in analogies for this framing, for now, I see simple irony.  I have seen so many films throughout the silent-era/prohibition-era where characters drink or talk about drinking. Hollywood streets were flowing with alcohol, and the very period of prohibition was the one in which Keaton acquired his drinking problem.

But, I digress. Back to the film itself and what it has to offer. No, it is not classic cinema. But it has a basically interesting and simple clean-cut plot (which is more than you can say for a lot of these films). The whole thing revolves around prohibition ending and a couple of guys seeking to capitalize on that. Gangster squabbles are involved as is a mixed up love interest, confusion over whether the beer actually has alcohol in it, etc. In fact, in some ways, this is one of the better plots of the Keaton MGM years. Had Keaton been in fine form and in any sort of artistic control (which, to be fair, there's no way he could have handled at this point anyway), this movie actually could have been pretty great.

There are two flashback moments (intended or not?) -- one when Elmer goes to the jobs window (reminding me of the waiting in line at the bread window in The Goat and one when the beer barrels start rolling off the truck and chase him down the hill (a la Seven Chances) -- serving as swan songs to a career that Buster was too blotto to see.

Doughboys (1930)

I liked this film. There. I said it. As a matter of fact, one of my next posts is going to be about how these MGM-era Keaton features are not as bad as they are often made out to be. The first principle toward finding enjoyment in them is to adjust your mind to the great change that has come about in Keaton's career. No, it is not an easy adjustment. But if you can temporarily let go of Cops and The General, accept that this is a totally different situation for Keaton, and that you aren't going to see his best work or his most competent skills on display, you may be in for a surprise. Just because they aren't his best doesn't mean they aren't good at all.

Doughboys is very watchable and at parts even enjoyable. It reminds me of any other boot camp show with its bossy sergeant and its mishmashed troops (think Stripes, Private Benjamin, Gomer Pyle USMC). Further, I understand that I'm in good company liking this film, as Keaton himself thought it was his best MGM talkie.

Buster is here again playing Elmer; but this time it's not Elmer Butts -- and oddly, that seems to make a difference. His character is a snooty rich boy who accidentally joins the army, thinking he is hiring a new chauffeur. Reminding me ever so slightly of his character in The Saphead, Battling Butler, or The Navigator, its great to see him with a bit more power in this role. If nothing else, he uses some of the same facial expressions that hark back to those earlier films, making me sense that a bit of his personal spark is smoldering under this character.

There's a fair amount of exterior filming which is really refreshing. I'm not sure how they swung that given that this is a sound film made in 1930, when sound cameras were generally so difficult to work with outdoors people generally didn't bother. I am very glad they made the effort though because outdoor locations gave it an expansive feel, more like the silent films that Buster so excelled at.

The time setting, WWI, is also an excellent choice for a Keaton feature given that Keaton, like his character here, was deployed to France during that war. In the war, Keaton described himself as a sort of self appointed morale officer, performing for his mates; and here, its great to see him as part of the stage set, dancing in drag and doing some great stunts.

The plot is a bit disjointed and strange, but Keaton is enjoyable to watch. If you are a fan, don't be scared away by this one. And if you aren't, well, this one probably isn't for you.

Passionate Plumber (1932)

I hate this film title. It leads me to believe that Buster's character, doofus Elmer, is going to be made fun of for his prowess or desire, but this is not the case at all.  In fact, Elmer, here, gets to show glimmers of intelligence we have not seen much of from Buster Keaton since his joining MGM.

The plot goes something like this: Elmer is an American plumber living in France; Jimmy Durante plays McKracken, a chauffeur, who brings Elmer to his employer's (Patricia's) house when she needs a plumber. While there, Elmer's clothes get wet and, appearing in a towel, he is mistaken for Patricia's lover, by her caddish boyfriend Tony.

Although Patricia loves Tony she wants to leave him because he won't divorce his wife. Meanwhile, we learn that Elmer has invented a sighting-handgun that shines a light where you are trying to shoot. (By the way, this actually sounds like a great invention; I don't know much about guns, but, of course we have such things now with lasers; I wonder when those got invented. . . ).  Because he's always trying to show the general his invention by pulling out the gun, people keep thinking he's trying to assassinate the guy. Although the gun plot never really goes anywhere, it does cause Elmer's path to collide again with wealthy, ditzy Patricia. Ultimately she hires Elmer to pretend to be her lover and to keep herself away from Tony.  He takes on the job with aplomb, showing plenty of spunk and stubbornness that I really like.

I don't know why this film gets such a bad rap, relative to Keaton's other films of this era. Of course its not great, but none of them are. As I've noted elsewhere, MGM has clearly missed the point of Keaton's talent and featured him in films that are far below his skills. They have put him in fluffy, overproduced farces -- places where Keaton assuredly does not belong. But, the upside is, even in fluffy overproduced farces, Keaton is still entertaining.  And here, in the Passionate Plumber, there's something more: his character is actually in control of the picture; he is the one driving the action and acting (somewhat) forcefully. He exhibits brain power and, through clever thinking, manages a final scene that brings about the ending that makes him happy. He also executes a fair amount of nice physical comedy gags, such as the serving breakfast in bed scene and the whole interlude in the casino.

Another thing this film has going for it is some good supporting actors. Gilbert Roland as Tony is wonderful. I don't know what counts as an "A-list" actor exactly, but he has to be one of the few recognizable names to appear in these Keaton talkies (other than Jimmy Durante who co starred of course).  In addition to Roland, there is Mona Maris as Nina the Spanish lover. She is a whirlwind of beauty and energy. I love her intensely stereotypic performance. Polly Moran is very good as the maid, Albine. I also enjoy Irene Purcell in the lead female role, but I admit she can't actually act. Or rather, she overacts. But she is likeable enough and her scenes with Buster are warm and genuine. She plays someone who (though torn and presumedly in love with the other guy and exasperated with Elmer) at least seems to value Elmer and act kindly to him throughout most of the movie.

Spite Marriage (1929)

After you watch all of Buster's "own" work -- that amazing hunk of film over which he had artistic control and which rightfully establishes him as a silent genius -- and there's nothing left in the well, you will be understandably sad. But, take heart, you're in luck. There are a dozen short comedy collaborations he made with Fatty Arbuckle that you can drown your sorrows with. Though not anywhere as clever as Buster's own work, these films are still uniformly solid, fun and  enjoyable. Unfortunately once you've exhausted those -- and you still need more Keaton -- there's nothing else to do but to plunge forward into the MGM-era work.

And that, friends, is just what I've been doing.

The MGM films start off auspiciously enough with The Cameraman,  still bearing his unmistakable artistic stamp. In fact, many Keaton fans consider it his finest work; it enjoys a lovely polished feel that blends superbly with his signature physical comedy to create a masterwork. But unfortunately, just after making that film, Buster's ability to control the details of his movies fell off sharply and the films that followed are serious disappointments for his modern fans. They are just not in the same league as his earlier work. Watching them causes a certain internal struggle as the desire for more Keaton clashes hotly with the trauma of lost potential.

Spite Marriage, which followed The Cameraman, was Buster's last silent film of the era and was released in April of 1929 when the movies were undergoing a massive upheaval. It is important to note that backdrop because it frames one's expectations for movies of this timeframe. The advent of sound created crazed changes for the industry that are hard to understand without immersing yourself in the time period. As anyone reading this is probably already aware, around 1927, especially with the release of The Jazz Singer, the technological advances necessary to adding a synchronized audio to films had begun to change the industry. Although the public was ravenous to "hear" the movies they were seeing, adding sound to films was not as simple as flipping on the sound switch. Everything about how films were being produced needed to change to accommodate sound filming -- cameras were no longer as mobile as they had been, microphone placement became important, acting styles shifted to take into account speech as a way to emote, ambient background sounds started to matter, and most of all, comedy was changing too.

Because the public was heady for new things, the style of comedy associated with silent films -- physical, visual comedy -- began to give way to dialog comedy. I do believe that it is that change -- the change in comedy style -- not the fact of sound per se, and not even the change from his own studio to that of MGM, that caused Keaton's career to suffer the most. The loss of public interest in the style of comedy Keaton was a genius at was a huge barrier to his success in this "transition era." The changes in Hollywood were huge, and so were the changes in the world at large. Keep in mind that the transition from silent to sound was happening on the threshold of the stock market crash and great depression. In larger social context, the era is one of many upheavals.

I say all this by way of noting how massively Spite Marriage has already shifted from Keaton's brilliant Steamboat Bill Jr. (from the prior year) or even from The Cameraman, made just a few months before. Spite Marriage is and feels like a "transition era" film. Unpleasant in the same awkward teenage way other films being produced at this time were, this is not entirely a silent film -- there are synchronized sound effects and a music track.  However, the sound effects are grating. We don't need comic sounds to underscore that Buster is doing something funny. Whoops, whizzes, zips, and tweets are just stupid when the comedy speaks for itself.

The fact that Keaton was now making movies in a group-think format at the MGM factory is on full display here. The plot is no longer a simple, understated Keaton affair; it is convoluted, over-produced, and overstated. In fact, though I watched this film just a few weeks ago, I cannot honestly remember much of the plot at all. But, I also recognize that in this era, people just weren't making great films. They were too preoccupied with sound -- whether to include it or not, whether to have a music number, or some sound effects -- rather than the business of crafting an exceptional story.  This film actually has several good kernels of story ideas, but squanders them. (There are parts that reminded me of All About Eve with its backstage spectator fantasy theme. But nothing ever really comes of that. Or, rather, that theme gets blurred together with some others in an unfinished way.)

So, no, this film does not have an exceptional story, but it is still exceptional in that it has a great deal of Buster in it. Some of his scenes are laugh-aloud funny (such as where he puts on the stage whiskers, or, of course, the famous putting the drunk wife to bed scene). There is also a short scene where Buster is being chased by cops, that is not only excellent, but bittersweet. Fans of his earlier work will remember what he can do when allowed to let loose and feel twinges of regret that we will not see it again. These same vignettes of memory may strike you during his scenes on the boat. It is exhilarating to see Keaton in his element on his beloved boats. . . but sad to know that the physically powerful Keaton -- the in control, zen-like Keaton -- has left us for good.

This film inspires another set of musings for me, this time with the idea of Buster's image. Here, he looks so much more like a man than he does in his own films. He is in his mid-30s, and for the first time actually appears to be a grown up.  It makes me wonder how Buster might have milked his own changing look for more and different laughs had he been able to stay in control of his image. Unfortunately, he gets held in a child-like limbo, ratcheted down to a dumber version of his younger self, hijacked by the Elmer persona (his character here, played for the first time and blessedly without dialog.). Slowly, over the next half-dozen MGM films, Keaton's persona, image and style morph into something almost unrecognizable from the peaceful intelligent matter-of-fact likeableness of his earlier style.

MGM films have missed the point of Buster's genius.  The smart viewer knows, as Keaton knew, that it's pathetic to laugh at a fool who doesn't have a clue. Buster was never funny, amazing and interesting because he was a bumbling fool. He was wonderful because he sat on that ironic edge -- between someone who appeared to be a loser, but who was actually in supreme control of his world.

Free and Easy (1930)

A painful struggle goes on when a Buster Keaton fan attempts to view one of his post-Cameraman works.

On the one hand, there is Buster, still looking cute as hell and still capable of doing wonderful things, though sometimes beneath ridiculous pants or stupid clown makeup. . . . On the other, it is impossible not to notice how badly MGM missed the point of this man and you wonder how they could have gotten it so wrong.

So, when people speak of movies like Free and Easy as "only for the Keaton die-hards," I think they've got it all wrong. In the case of these MGM travesties, it is Keaton fans that have the most to suffer when we see his talent being thrown away. Others need not feel that particular pain.

This film is actually best suited to those fans of early cinema who are not attached to Keaton. Those folks won't have to suffer like we do when we see him in something so far beneath his talent, trying gamely to go along. However, they will get to see what provides a surprisingly interesting behind-the-scenes glimpse into movie-making inside the MGM studios circa 1930 -- right at the dawn of the talkies and the powerful studio system. I mean, talk about a rare opportunity.

To backtrack a bit then, the movie's simple plot has Keaton playing Elmer Butts, a doofus of a talent agent from Kansas who's been assigned to escort Miss Kansas-something or other to LA for meetings and screen-test opportunities. He has to deal with her mother (played very much like Wilma Flintstone's) and their clash forms a big chunk of the plot tension. On the train out west, the ingenue and her mom meet a cool movie star, and the girl, obviously very sweet and beautiful, engages his attentions. Ultimately she ends up with him.... the movie star I mean, much to Elmer's dismay. (This may be one of the first Keaton films where he doesn't "get the girl" -- even counting Fatty Arbuckle's movies in which he was still often the romantic hero.)

And speaking of the sufferings of the Keaton fan..., a profoundly sad example comes on this very train ride when Buster's Elmer is being told off by the conductor who says he can't go through the train to where the girl and her mom are waiting. Just two years prior, Buster would certainly have climbed atop it and run to the proper car, probably jumping through a window without pause to get to where he wanted to be..., while here sits Elmer chatting with the conductor on the back end of the train while the girl's mom soundly abuses his stupidity. Heartbreaking.

But I digress. The additional layers of plot in Free and Easy aren't really worth describing. It seems to me that someone involved with the film had a core of a good idea, but that teams of people with an eye toward making this a "talkie" got involved to improve it with witty dialog as well as sparkling song and dance numbers. (Is the sarcasm coming through?)

There are plenty of kernels of ideas that just don't get handled well, and it is therefore not very watchable for the most part. At two different times I nearly turned it off -- but was glad I didn't, because there were other parts that were very cool.

I actually liked Buster's interaction with his rival at the apartment when they both discover they're from Kansas and find a connection -- getting excited about husking corn. There is some chemistry and interest, and there is Buster with his naturally engaging comic presence. And, later, when Buster is singing and dancing, he just can't help but exude talent. The musical number "King and Queen" was fascinating. As was Buster's performance in "Free and Easy." But neither these moments, nor the corn husking scene, really helped the underlying plot in any way. Its not that they couldn't have in the hands of a better production, but they were just odd little snippets that made little sense. And sadly, the odd snippets were worth more than the underlying story.

All that said, the best part of the movie is the inside glimpse into MGM studios. You can see the stage sets, the cameras, the directors, the entry gate and other behind the scenes workers - security guards, etc. - doing their thing. More amazing are the numerous cameos done by actual MGM directors and actors in this film, playing themselves in order to be part of the authentic backdrop of our characters' experiences on set. (These include: Cecil B. DeMille, Jackie Coogan, Fred Niblo, William Haines, William Collier Jr., David Burton, Arthur Lange, Billy May, and probably others.) There is a movie premiere event within the film, which was actually filmed at Graumann's Chinese Theater, complete with red carpet moment, that allows you feel the era in an astonishing way. These things are done as a basic, accurate, backdrop and are probably oozing with authenticity. They represent a very "real" moment in cinematic history that are worth seeing. And it is probably worth putting up with a fairly so-so movie in order to see them.