Sennett on Langdon v. Chaplin (1928) and a Couple of Theor..

We actually had a good little thread going on Langdon before it
degenerated into name-calling, so here's a crack at reviving it. In
his interview with Theodore Drieser in the August 1928 issue of
Photoplay (Heart Trouble was just about to go into release when this
issue hit the stands), Mack Sennett holds forth on the art of Fairbanks
and Chaplin, concluding, "Then Harry Langdon, who I consider the
greatest of them all."

"Greater than Chaplin?", I interpolated.

"Yes, greater than Chaplin," he replied. "Well, Langdon suggests a kind
of baby weakness that causes everybody to feel sorry for him and want
to help him out. He's terribly funny to me. On the other hand,
Langdon knows less about stories and motion picture technique than
perhaps any other screen star. If he isn't a big success on the
screen, it will not be because he isn't funny, but because he doesn't
understand the many sides to picture production. He wants to do a
monologue all the time; he wants to be the leading lady, the cameraman,
heavy and director all in one. So far in my experience that attitude
has never proved successful."

Later, Sennett goes on at great length about Chaplin's demanding work
habits during his Keystone days and concludes, "Chaplin's one fellow
who has to work alone, and alone he works."

"And," he went on, "Harry Langdon is another of the same sort. He
came to me four or five years ago and I picked him for a sure thing.
About the same case as Chaplin - same temperament - only I think him
the greater artist."

"Why?"

"A wider range of emotions and so a wider appeal...And in Langdon the
same restless energy and criticism of everything. Why, nothing was
ever right, because, like Chaplin, he had his own ideas, exactly, of
how everything should be done. And he didn't want to be interfered
with, although, of course, he was there under contract and had to take
direction from others."

Me again. Wow! Talk about back-handed compliments or giving someone
the kiss of death. Everything that Sennett says about Langdon could
just as easily be applied to Chaplin. Both were strong, take-charge
personalities who knew exactly what they wanted and chafed under
others' direction. But Chaplin's aggressive temperament fit his
character much better than Langdon's. Somehow the idea of this
infantilized elf barking out commands rubbed people the wrong way.

There is also the over-saturation theory. The arc of Langdon's
starring career played out over four years, but Langdon, thanks in part
to Sennett, was constantly on-screen for the 26 months lasting from
Nov. 29, 1925 to Feb. 12, 1928: one 2-reeler, three 3-reelers, and six
features! No other starring comedian in features, major or minor, came
close to that output. Laurel & Hardy may have generated more reels in
a similar time-frame, but these were all shorts, where occasional
misses were quickly forgiven and forgotten. Features commanded more
attention and critical scrutiny. By the time of Heart Trouble, and
Sennett's interview, moviegoers may have gotten just sick and tired of
Harry Langdon.

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
July 19-22, 2007

robfarr53 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> There is also the over-saturation theory. The arc of Langdon's
> starring career played out over four years, but Langdon, thanks in part
> to Sennett, was constantly on-screen for the 26 months lasting from
> Nov. 29, 1925 to Feb. 12, 1928: one 2-reeler, three 3-reelers, and six
> features! No other starring comedian in features, major or minor, came
> close to that output. Laurel & Hardy may have generated more reels in
> a similar time-frame, but these were all shorts, where occasional
> misses were quickly forgiven and forgotten. Features commanded more
> attention and critical scrutiny. By the time of Heart Trouble, and
> Sennett's interview, moviegoers may have gotten just sick and tired of
> Harry Langdon.

The over-saturation theory helps explain Langdon's troubles at the
box office in 1927-1928. His new, self-produced features had to compete
at the box office with films he'd made earlier at Sennett, but which
had been held back from release: HIS FIRST FLAME, FIDDLESTICKS, SOLDIER
MAN, etc.

Put yourself in the place of the typical neighborhood theater
manager. Would you rather pay First National a hefty rental for a new
Langdon feature, or just pay Pathe forty or fifty bucks for a Langdon
two-reeler? Either way you'll draw the Langdon fans, but by taking the
short you'll save a lot of money. Meanwhile, First National's not
making as much on the features as it expected, it doesn't renew its
contract with Langdon's production company, and film buffs spend the
next eighty years talking about what a failure Harry Langdon turned out
to be.



--Shush--