Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Enough of these MGM talkies!  It's time to dip deeper into the past and into the heart of Keaton's greatest work.

To kick that off, I'll share with you my very first impressions of the first movie Buster Keaton film I ever saw.  Two years ago I  knew nothing about Keaton other than that he was a comedian of the silent era. We watched Sherlock Jr. because in my family we were sampling classic films of all eras in order to embark on a journey through cinematic history.  I had researched and included all of the best films, actors and directors that we could get our hands on and luckily I knew just enough to think we should include a Keaton work in our project. This title came up again and again while researching and it looked like it would hold the interest of my pre-teens and amuse us all. Boy was I right!

For me, this film began a love affair with Keaton that will endure. I remember that even after writing this, the film continued to simmer in my mind for a long time; I had to learn more . . . about him, about the special effects, about the locations.  And then I had to watch it again.  Though I notice that with all really amazing cinema, the full effect is not really felt right after watching; rather, the work stays with you -- you think of them the next day and the next, they sink in and work their magic for days or weeks. . . . In my case, Keaton started taking over my brain cells and I couldn't wait to watch more, which I did, ravenously, until I'd exhausted his catalog of independent work. Soon watching wasn't enough, I had to write too. I may know a great deal more now, then I did when I wrote this post, but I cherish this "first time" :) and that awesome promise of amazing and still uncharted viewing that awaited.

From 2012
Last night's entry: Buster Keaton in "Sherlock Jr." from 1924. I do get tired trying to come up with new ways to say "this was shockingly great entertainment," because it's the sentiment I keep needing to express. "Sherlock Jr." is seriously, just really, really good. I can't wait to watch it again. The plot is sweet and clever and the artistic vision expressed is tight. A phenomenally well-made film for any era.
Although we didn't find it side-splittingly hilarious, like Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last!", this one was probably the better film for having an extremely well-developed idea which travelled with the film from start to finish, as well as enduring themes that are both charming and true. And it was funny. A delightfully complete film.

The story begins with our hapless hero, who works as a projectionist at the theater,

but daydreams of being a great detective. He shows his mettle early on, when he finds a dollar in the pile of trash he's sweeping up. He gives the dollar to the lovely woman who comes looking for it (after asking her to "describe it"); then, gives his own dollar to another woman who has lost one; and finally, digs energetically through the pile after a third man who comes looking finds a whole wallet in the trash.

At his girlfriend's house later, to which he has gone with chocolates and a proposal, he is framed for the theft of her dad's watch and kicked out of the house. In utter dejection, he returns to his job, dozes off at the projection booth, and then dreams himself into the movie!

There he assumes the character of Sherlock Jr., the amazing detective brought in to solve a very similar crime -- of the stolen pearls. The scenes where his ghostlike sleepwalking self gets up and walks into the movie are phenomenal. Even by modern standards, they are evocative and clever; the camera tricks that allowed this, and the subsequent scenes where the background keeps changing on him, are fun to speculate about. These scenes are integral to showing us he doesn't really belong in that movie; he's an outsider living a fantasy. This movie within a movie allows us to explore themes of fantasy and the role of cinema magic that was taking such an important hold of people at this time and which clearly persist to this day.

With Keaton playing the regular downtrodden guy in one vignette and the fabulously crafty detective in the other, he really gets an opportunity to show his charm and strengths as a performer. While Sherlock Jr. plows through the hills and streets in and around LA (on the handlebars of a driverless motorbike for a while), and while he plays pool, skillfully avoiding the ball that has been rigged with explosives, the film moves a bit like James Bond. He has all the tricks and skills and saves the lady and finds the thieves. Though a lot funnier and more bumbling than Bond, Keaton here is truly as attractive and appealing a hero. And the scenery is amazing. I wish I knew where this was filmed. (I smell an internet research project coming on).

The movie's spark comes from the very intelligent themes underlying it. We all loved the ending scenes where "the Boy" is taking his romantic cues on what to do next by watching our leading man on screen; he has a priceless look of confusion when the screen characters sit holding twins." I couldn't possibly recommend this film more highly. Even to those, like me!, who do not consider themselves silent film fans, it is very watchable and entertaining. And moves as such a crisp perfect pace (at only 3/4 of an hour long) that it is hard to think of a reason not to.

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.

Le Roi des Champs-Elysees (1934)

Le Roi des Champs-Elysees is so palpably better in every way than anything else Buster Keaton was making at the time, it is a shame it is not better known. This is certainly his best film since Spite Marriage, and maybe better, because while Spite Marriage may have more of the Keaton physical skill and stunts, this one has more of the Keaton heart and soul. It is a sweeter and smarter movie that feels worthy of him for the first time in a while.

Unfortunately it is all but unknown to those outside the die-hard fandom, because its a French film that saw limited contemporary release (it was not released in the USA) and, to my knowledge, has not been subtitled in English or yet released on dvd. That really is too bad, because its quite a good film. The production is solid, the acting consistently fine, and the story funny and well-suited to Keaton's skill.

I watched on Youtube and am very grateful that it was available at all, so I'm not complaining, but the version I saw was in French (with Buster's part dubbed by a not-very-convincing French actor). There were thankfully, subtitles. But these were in Spanish! haha. Which I sadly don't speak -- though I don't speak it less poorly than I don't speak French, so I paid attention to the Spanish subtitles and kept Google translate open at the bottom of the screen to translate Spanish to English as much as I needed/could stand to do. This turned out to be a tedious, but ultimately very cool, adventure!

Now that I basically know what's going on, I'll have to watch it again without the constant pausing. I bet it will even better. Watching in this way, there are certain plot points that I never really got -- but with or without full understanding of the plot intricacies, one can enjoy it on other levels. It presents one of Buster's most remarkable performances as an actor that I can think of. He is fabulous in a dual performance, playing a down-on-his luck actor and an escaped convict. In the first role, Buster mistakenly distributes large amounts of cash to the public in a publicity ploy gone wrong. One of the accidental recipients is a lovely young woman with whom he becomes friendly.  In the second role, Buster plays a mean, tough-guy criminal boss. He plays them both so well, I forget that they are both Buster. It is so refreshing to see him with that harder tough edge after all these Elmers! It is clear exactly which character he is playing at any time (even though both are dressed alike and look, duh, identical), he emotes so differently when he's the classically bad dude. Its wonderful to see him like that.

The part of the film that everyone talks about comes at the end when Buster (in the good guy role) and his flirty new friend share a kiss that brings out Buster's beautiful smile. I've seen a still photo of that moment and have been anxious to see the scene from which it came. The whole embrace is a wonderful moment, far beyond just the smile, with a warm emotive feel that is unusual in a Keaton film. The still shots don't do the scene justice. It is charmant!

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.