29. The Big Parade - 1925

This no available on DVD. Found me a VHS copy for almost $30. I passed. Someone find this for me.

I swear I'm gonna start doing this again soon. Within a few weeks at the most unless something huge comes up (m'dong). I have been busy workin' workin' day and night with work promotions. I guess I could technically just review the next four movies as I've seen them but it's been years.

28. The Gold Rush - 1925

Synopsis: Charlie Chaplin's Tramp is a prospector. He gets stuck in a cabin with another prospector named Big Jim (who has found gold) and they almost starve. They eventually leave the cabin for town after killing a bear.

Chaplin falls in love with Georgia while in town. Georgia never shows for their New Year's Eve party where Chaplin imagines dancing with some rolls. Big Jim shows up demanding that Chaplin take him to the cabin because Big Jim only remembers that his claim is near a cabin. They become millionaires.

At some point, Black Larsen finds Big Jim's claim but falls off a mountain.

Review: There are two versions of this film. The 1925 version is silent. The 1942 version has, among some other changes, a narrative track. Netflix, much to my disappointment, sent the 1942 version.

I unfortunately didn't know that there were two versions of this movie before sending the DVD back to Netflix. The opening credits stated being a "revival." I assumed the original was lost and that it had been reconstructed as closely as possible to the original for rerelease or something similar.

I kept thinking how unusual it was that a movie from 1925 had narration. I kept thinking how bad the narration was. I kept thinking I should turn off my speakers but it had to be here for a reason. Had I know before watching The Gold Rush that the narration was foolishly added 17 years later, I would have turned off the sound instead of suffering needlessly.

I guess I understand Chaplin's reasoning for updating his movie for the revival. I completely disagree with it though. The biggest problem I have with the narration is that it clearly doesn't need to exist. It didn't offer any insight into the characters or action. Chaplin was, for the most part, telling me exactly what I could see on screen or, even worse, reciting exactly what the characters were saying. It was a distraction that covered up a quality movie.

If you'd like an idea on how this doesn't work, take a look at the closest things we have to a silent film these days: Cast Away and WALL-E. Imagine a narrator saying, "Now Tom Hanks tooth hurts. He's going to remove it with an ice skate," or "WALL-E sees a fire extinguisher. He wants to determine its function."

It's a nuisance that really should be forgotten. As such, no more talk of it for now.

The Gold Rush is apparently Chaplin's favorite film of his own. I wouldn't put it quite that high but it is a solid movie. The gags work and that's really all I need from a silent comedy.

If you want to gauge how well this works, watch some Warner Brothers cartoons. Must of The Gold Rush looks like it came straight from a Warner Brothers cartoon. Strike that. Reverse it. The Gold Rush predates them and it was shocking to learn that. A lot of classic Looney Toons ideas come straight from here. How many times have you seen two starving characters each envisioning the other as a giant chicken before coming after them with murderous hunger? How many times was it done better than this:

That is priceless material right here. Had I seen that as a kid I never would have stopped laughing. It isn't all hallucinating about chickens. Every time a Warner Brother's cartoon has characters in a shack leaning precariously on a cliff, it comes back to this movie. A wimpy character thinking he knocked out a big guy when something fell on his head comes back to this movie.

Therein lies a big problem here. Chaplin was so influential--as was Buster Keaton--that I've seen the best moments here done numerous times. It's lost a lot of its value.

An interesting thing that Chaplin does here that hasn't been seen before is combining comedy and a love story. Buster Keaton films feature him going after the girl regularly but Chaplin actually goes after our emotions instead of playing it all for a laugh. You actually feel for Chaplin when Georgia doesn't show up on New Year's Eve. That might be Chaplin's best innovation for film.

Also, dancing rolls.

Score 6/10 (8/10 without the narration)

27. Bronenosets Potyomkin (The Battleship Potemkin) - 1925

Synopsis: The sailors of the Potemkin refuse to eat soup made with maggot filled meat. The admiral of the ship commands the officers shoot the sailors that refused to eat. Vakulinchuk, one of the sailors watching the massacre, starts a revolt. The officers are thrown overboard and Vakulinchuk dies in the riot. The Potemkin sails into the docks of Odessa where the citizens help restock the ship. After the sailors board the ships, the army kills the civilians on the Odessa steps. A small fleet is sent to sink the Potemkin but they join the revolution.

Review: How difficult was it for Soviet film makers not interested in propaganda at this time? Since I know Eisenstein--the only Russian director I know before Tarkovsky and Norstein--was forced somewhat into making propaganda, I can only assume the answer is nearly impossible. That's a roundabout way of saying that Battleship Potemkin is propaganda.

I don't have a problem with propaganda exactly. I realize there is a time and place for it despite people getting up in arms about it (typically only when disagreeing with the intent).

Our modern day society gets up in arms about propaganda--typically only when they disagree with the message--but it does have a time and place. Battleship Potemkin, about empowering the people of Russia, was certainly right for its time based on my rudimentary at best knowledge of Soviet history.

So, I don't have much to say about this movie honestly. Most of it I can only say in relation to Strike. The two are so similar that it's hard for me to separate them from one another. The specifics are different but the story is essentially the same. The style is the same. The mostly everything is the same.

If some Eisenstein fanatic ever reads this, that person will probably think my sweeping generalization makes me a moron. I am not big on Eisenstein because it's a lot of technical mastery without much to enjoy (I seem to remember thinking Ivan The Terrible I and II being pretty good when I saw them though).

In Strike, Eisenstein seemed as interested in making a film that explained how to use montage theory as he was in making a watchable film. In Battleship Potemkin, it appears that Eisenstein considered having the montage theory work for the film was kind of important instead of having it showcase his technical mastery. So, maybe the montage theory is subtler here or maybe it's better used and appears to be slightly less IN YOUR FACE (just slightly though). It's a big step forward for Eisenstein and montage theory. It shows it as a technique usable in film as opposed to some real world Ludovico technique. For that alone, Battleship Potemkin is the superior film.

Because this is a review of Battleship Potemkin, ODESSA STEPS!!!!!!!!!! There. I mentioned it and can be done with it.

Just kidding.

The Odessa Steps is a quality sequence. It is another example of how to film a scene like this and it's well done. It didn't move me though. Maybe it's because I'd heard about it so much. Maybe it's because I saw it coming. Maybe it's because I never really cared about anyone in the movie all that much. Maybe it's because the section following the Odessa Steps is more suspenseful and enjoyable. It does present us with the first ever Look Out For That Baby Carriage! scene which can not be underestimated.

Presented here because I can, because I've been occasionally mentioning the impact of older films on modern films and because I couldn't find the clip from Ghostbusters II with that baby carriage filled with soda cans, a relevant clip from a childhood favorite: Get A Life (start around 4:50 for pertinant segment).

One more note, since I essentially bashed the most famous segment of the movie, that I'd like to include. My favorite example of montage theory in Battleship Potemkin is simple and effective. It is a series of three lion statues that gain meaning only through their placement next to each other.

It's just perfect. It's small. It takes about ten seconds of the film and it had a larger impact on me than the baby carriage rolling down the steps.

A final note that warrants comment. Part X in my continuing series on hilarious facial hair in old movies:

Final Score: 8/10

26. The Phantom Of The Opera - 1925

Director: Some nobody which is why I'll probably stop doing this section from now on unless I think it's especially relevant. Look it up yourself if my review doesn't mention it.

Synopsis: A phantom of the Parisian opera house forces the opera house to use Christine as their star because he loves her. The phantom lures Christine to his lair and professes his love. She removes his mask revealing his ugly countenance. She says she will be his slave forever but goes back on her promise. The phantom kidnaps her and Christine's boyfriend follows. Everyone in Paris also follows because they all find out where the phantom's lair is the exact same day. They are not particularly kind to the phantom. Also, there is some color footage.

Review: The version I watched was the 1929 version I believe.

In the early days of cinema, multiple versions of movies were made for a few reasons. Movies would be made for theaters (un)able to play sound films, later censorship or for foreign release (I find the two versions of The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse to be the most interesting as sound was so expensive that filming a movie twice was cheaper than redubbing a film for foreign markets!).
The most common version--read: the only one I have had the chance to see--of The Phantom Of The Opera is the 1929 version. The film was re-edited, used some different takes, used less color footage and incorporated sound differently. So, I'm not sure where the problems with this film began.

It's not that this movie does anything wrong; it never does anything as well as it should have. The Phantom Of The Opera is a perfect example of a movie that is almost great. There are some interesting elements here that are never fully explored. The movie could have been a straight horror movie or about a tormented musical genius gone mad or about love/obsession or a mystery. It tries to be all four and doesn't do any of them all that well.

Had the movie focused on one or two elements, it could have been a much better movie. It could done everything with a much longer running time--we call that the Dr. Mabuse, der spieler ratio--but it didn't. As it stands, most of the elements feel truncated. Since the movie supposedly follows the source novel closely, it's possible that this problem originated here.

That's not to say there isn't some great stuff here. This was popular enough to essentially spawn Universal's classic horror movies of the 1930s. That alone makes this meritorious. It is a perfect template for those movies in that the plot basically follows this formula:

Monster loves woman. Woman is horrified by monster and engaged to another. Woman's fiancée is not having it. Townspeople are also not having it. Monster is killed by torch and pitchfork wielding mob.

The memorable differentiation between these monster movies is the monster itself. Like the rest of the monster movies since The Phantom Of The Opera, the monster is one of the only things worth the viewers' time. The rest of the movie is waiting for the monster.

The monster is something to behold and not only because he is the only character written to have more than one dimension. Lon Chaney's make up is amazing. Apparently, smelling salts were kept on hand in case people fainted during the reveal of his skull-like face as shown above (compare the 1929 and 1925 unmasking shots here; the original is better). It is more impressive than the skull mask he wears to the masked ball later seen below. While the skull mask is creepy, it doesn't allow for any emotional acting like Chaney's make up does.

As you may have noticed from above still, this is the first color film--in part--on the list. It is not the first color film in whole or in part as films with color existed through various processes since probably the late 1890s. For example, A Trip To The Moon from 1902 supposedly exists in a hand colored version. The Phantom Of The Opera used Technicolor Process 2 (read how it works better than I can explain it here).

A final note and only because it is the best scene in the movie and I love it:

The Phantom, surrounded by the local townspeople, reaches into his cloak. He removes his hand clutching something that causes the mob to recoil. He opens his hand to reveal...nothing. The mob descends on him (an alternative ending featured Christine giving the Phantom her ring before leaving with her fiancée causing the Phantom to die of a broken heart).

Final score: 6/10

25. Seven Chances - 1925

Director: Buster Keaton

Synopsis: To inherit seven million dollars, Buster Keaton must be married by 7:00pm on his 27th birthday which just so happens to be--gulp--TODAY!

Review: I must confess that I have actually seen The Bachelor starring Chris O'Donnell. I don't have a reason. It wasn't at the behest of a girlfriend. It wasn't the Ludovico technique. I sat down for no apparent reason and watched The Bachelor...probably on TBS.

"...because it was there" — Sir Edmund Hillary

Anyway, I was completely unaware until about a day before watching Seven Chances that The Bachelor was a remake of this movie (Seven Chances is itself an adaptation of a play). I don't remember how closely The Bachelor followed Seven Chances as the only memorable portion was Chris O'Donnell being chased by a mob of women in bridal gowns.

It is unfortunate that the only really memorable thing about Seven Chances is also the chase. The first half of this movie as Buster Keaton struggles to find a bride is acceptable but it's nothing particularly special after seeing some other Keaton work. It never took off as much as it probably could have. It seemed maybe too easy I suppose.

One bit that worked well was a reveal, after Buster makes his approach, that a woman has a child. After confirming the child is hers, Buster inquires whether or not she plans to take care of it. It was the biggest laugh for me until the chase scene.

The chase scene is the main reason to watch this. Buster Keaton gets to a church where his friend has assured him that a bride will be waiting and hundreds of women are ready to marry into seven million dollars. Not being keen on this idea, Buster runs through a series of increasingly dangerous and ridiculous gimmicks as Buster Keaton is known to do.

My personal favorite is this turtle holding onto his necktie:
Like much of the chase, there's very little reason or context for this. I like to imagine the writing process for movies like this because I wonder how something like this comes about. "Buster should jump in a river for three seconds just so he can come out with a turtle hanging from him."

So, old movies are pretty racist. (nice transition)

Buster becomes pretty desparate for a wife at a certain point in the film and asks almost every woman he comes across including drag queen Julian Eltinge. Buster doesn't bother asking a Jewish woman or a black woman as soon as he discovers their ethnicity. I guess that was probably funny in 1925. The only prominent black character is in black face as well.

Also of note is Christina Ricci's cameo:
I liked this movie overall but it never felt like it was as funny as a Buster Keaton film should be (Keaton didn't even want the only surviving copy restored. I enjoyed Neighbors included on the DVD more than Seven Chances.

7/10

24. Der Letzte Mann (The Last Laugh) - 1924

Director: F. W. Murnau

Synopsis: A hotel porter is demoted to washroom attendant because he is old. His job, and uniform, brought him respect in his poor neighborhood. He hides his demotion from his family and friends by stealing his uniform. Upon being discovered, he loses all prestige and becomes miserable. Then the ending. The horrible horrible ending.

Review: It has been my dream to be involved in writing or directing a romantic comedy. A recently divorced woman bumps into a man just this side of nebbish to still appear desirable. They do not hit it off. The divorcée's friend recommends the "perfect guy" who turns out to be the man she met previously. Through a series of crazy coincidences, the two keep running into each other and slowly bond over some ridiculous shared trait (loves dogs, ham radio, whatever). Everything goes beat for beat like every romantic comedy in history until the final five minutes. The man, after their first night together, leaves the house. Shortly thereafter, the director to a local asylum for the criminally insane knocks on her door to inform her that her new lover is an escaped murderer. The boyfriend comes in, sees this and murders the both of them in a scene just gorenographic enough for Murder-Set-Pieces or the eventual movie of Blood Meridian. Credits roll.

What does this have to do with Der Letzte Mann?

Der Letzte Mann's ending is as surprisingly antithetic as my torture porn/romantic comedy and completely ruins everything the previous 95% of the movie. I knew going into this that the ending was supposedly tacked on by the studio and undermines what Murnau was doing. I imagined something pretty ridiculous and Der Letzte Mann went beyond my imagination. Never will there be an ending so bad, so tacked on, as this and I have seen A. I. If you remember The Simpsons episode with the alternative ending to Casablanca where Ilse parachutes from the plane killing Hitler and marries Rick with Sam playing piano outside the church, this is the kind of tacked on happy ending Der Letzte Mann has (see The Simpsons take on Casablanca here starting at 12:47). It overshadows the preceding 80 minutes and ruins the entire experience. I am genuinely angry at having sat through that ending.

I know movies are ultimately a product. Studios want to protect their investment and make money. It's a film industry. That doesn't mean films can't be altered for the good by a studio. I suspect the 155 minute version of Tati's Play Time drags even more than the current version. Maybe the excised footage from The Wizard Of Oz slowed down the film. I don't know but I know which version of Brazil or Army Of Darkness I prefer. I know that no one is asking to see the theatrical release of Touch Of Evil or the 141 minute version of Seven Samurai. Der Letzte Mann is the best example of why studios shouldn't meddle in movies. Of all the footage lost forever, why couldn't the last few minutes of this join it?

The ending is so horrifically bad, this screen precedes it:

Enough about the ending because it really shouldn't be here at all.

When Norma Desmond said in Sunset Blvd. that silent movies didn't need words because they had faces, this is the kind of movie she was talking about. This movie has only one intertitle before the introduction to the, ugh, end. The entire movie really is told by the faces of the characters. The doorman is in virtually every scene and without words he makes every scene watchable (partly because of his great facial hair).

With no dialogue or intertitles to tell the story, the movie relies even more than the average silent film on overacting. After losing his job, the porter is so overcome with shame and emotion that he moves about like a character from a Rankin/Bass Christmas special. It's unnerving to see the almost stilted movement.

More unnerving is the porter's phyical transformation. This still shows the porter at his absolute best in the film: This still is him at his worst:He has gone from smiling which a woman on each arm to a jobless thief who apparently has chosen the path with the least amount of grooming. Even his previously immaculate uniform has started to fall apart.

That is, essentially, the movie. It's watching a man lose everything for no real reason. It is not a uniform and job to him. It is his dignity--his means of respect from his peers--being taken from him. All because he is aging he loses everything.

So, it's not quite a feel good movie. It's a feel bad movie but the kind that is completely watchable and engrossing. If you want to feel bad, this is the movie to watch. If you want to feel even worse in a totally different way, watch the ending.

A final note because it must be mention. This has probably the most influential camera work in film history and the modern audience probably won't notice. F. W. Murnau called in "unchained camera technique." The modern terminology is "movement." There is no existing film released before Der Letzte Mann with a moving camera. It is believed that Der Januskopf may have had one scene with a moving camera, but it can not be confirmed as it is lost forever. All camera movement--as this entire list from a few movies from now should contain save maybe some Ozu (heh)--can be tied back to this movie.

Score: 9/10 Please please please stop the movie before the tacked on ending.

23. Sherlock, Jr. - 1924

Director: Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, Buster Keaton

Synopsis:Buster Keaton is wrongfully accused of stealing a watch. He falls asleep and it all comes together nicely in the end...nicely for Buster Keaton not the guy that actually stole the watch.

Review: Film has the ability to be the most oneiric medium if only because it can assault the senses easier than any other medium. Adding that film typically assaults two senses--three or more if Odorama or Percepto is involved--which is one up on most other media, it is more immersive by nature. Seeing a film feature a dream literally become a movie is interesting at least.

The best part of Sherlock, Jr. aside from the "How did Buster Keaton not die while doing that?" motorcycle section is the movie within a dream within a movie. I really couldn't decide what part struck me hardest: Keaton walking from the stage through the screen or Keaton's reacting to the ever changing background. Barring this being removed from Youtube, see it here. It's obvious that jump cuts were used extensively to place Buster in the rapidly changing background but it's staged so well that it's hard to spot.

Beyond blurring the distinction of film and dreams, reality is added into this. It's a blurring of Keaton's dream, the film Keaton is watching which is also called Sherlock, Jr., and how each of these things affects Keaton's reality within the film.

Keaton is dreaming about himself Sherlock, Jr. while the film's audience watches Sherlock, Jr. while we are watching Keaton as Sherlock, Jr. I am having flashbacks of trying to explain Wes Craven's New Nightmare to someone right now and my mind is being blown by the comparison. Anyway, Keaton is dreaming of the case being solved and he awakes to the case being solved. Even Last Action Hero didn't get this deep. My mind is again blown by this apt comparison.

Enough of all this high brow dissection of Sherlock, Jr. This movie is funny. Isn't that what Buster Keaton is all about? I know The General is general-ly considered Keaton's masterpiece but I have my doubts after seeing this; I haven't seen it recently enough for a quality comparison. I guess I will know in a couple weeks when I see The General again.

This benefits so much more from being shorter--44 minutes--than Our Hospitality. There is no room for boredom. Even if a joke doesn't work which is rare in this one, another one immediately follows it. This suffers a bit from the same "flaw" of Our Hospitality that audiences have seen physical comedy evolve for 80+ years. Portions of this don't work quite as well as they did in 1924. Buster does his physical work as well as anyone today does and does it better for the most part.

For example, the still above is from Buster Keaton riding on the handle bars of a motorcycle with no driver through moving traffic. It's amazing because there about a dozen scenes that are all ridiculously dangerous and this isn't the scene where he BROKE HIS NECK. I could go on about the amazing physical work Keaton employs here and elsewhere in the film but it must be seen to be believed.

I suppose the plot is kind of lacking on this but it doesn't really matter. Sherlock, Jr. was made to have Buster Keaton do his thing which he does. Even the subdued by comparison to his death defying work is great. He can show pain and dejectedness in his face gaining the right amount of sympathy and laughs.

Some side notes that don't really fit in anywhere else and I'm too lazy to flow into rest of this:

Something I had never seen in a film before or since is the actors--not characters--named in the intertitles. I had technically seen this before but must shamefully admit to wondering why the Canfield family in Our Hospitality had a daughter named Natalie Talmadge. Ummm...I am a stupid.

Of particular note is the horrific score on the Kino print. I think it was by Club Foot orchestra or something. I can not fathom someone thinking this is remotely appropriate. There are sections that border on jazz fusion. There is surf rock. There is an honest to God James Bond reference. I'm not sure which is worse, the Kino soundtrack or the Youtube clips that feature J. Geils Band and Air.

Large sections of this are on Youtube. I didn't see the part where Buster gives away dollar after dollar to movie patrons or him literally following a suspect closely. The other truly brilliant moments are there though. Find the whole thing as this is totally worth it.

Score: 9/10