Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd

>There are those who find this book to be the finest assessment of silent
>comedy ever written. I think it is great in parts. I actually prefer Clown
>Princes and Court Jesters, which has chapters on comedians like Max Asher
>and Billy Parsons -- people nobody else wrote about.
>
>JN

I often hear Lloyd referred to as the only silent film comedian who did
not have any stage experience as a comic. Were there any others who
came to films as either a dramatic actor or even stunt man and ended up
doing comedy full-time? I believe Oliver Hardy's stage experience was
limited to singing (and I consider Hardy a full-fledged comedian, not
just a "comic actor" or "straight man"-his camera looks, timing, and
comic personality place him firmly in the ranks with the best of the
best, in my opinion). I believe many of the Keystone players had
experience as circus clowns, which certainly provided good training for
timing.

Chaplin's earliest experience had been in straight acting parts but he
really learned his craft with the troupes he performed with.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

Matt Barry wrote:

> Kerr talks about how Chaplin
> appeared, nearly fully formed, in his second Keystone comedy, and how
> Keaton arrived at his full character after making shorts with Arbuckle.
> On the other hand, he mentions how it took Lloyd over 100 films to find
> his character.

Kerr's strength is in analysis, and his weakness is in historical
context. His chapters on Lloyd and Langdon really suffer because with
those guys he's basing his analysis on misunderstood history.

In Langdon's case, Kerr swallowed all of Frank Capra's self-serving
testimony about Langdon being clueless about the character he was
playing, and that it was created for him at Sennett. Kerr based his
whole analysis of Langdon on this. He wasn't a film historian, so he
didn't realize that most of what Capra wrote was distorted or simply
wrong.

In Lloyd's case, Kerr took Hal Roach's remark about Lloyd just being
an actor who performed comedy as the whole basis for his presentation
of Lloyd as a guy who struggled for years to make people laugh. Again,
his analysis was bound to end up all wrong because it was based on a
mistaken assumption.

Roach and Lloyd squabbled a little over the rights to Lloyd's early
films, and Roach's statement about Lloyd not being a real comedian
might betray some personal resentment. Lloyd was actually a natural
comedian and his films were successful from the start, but we have to
remember that he wasn't working for a major studio, and his films
weren't getting widely distributed for a while. Rolin was a
nickel-and-dime operation, a total unknown, during Lloyd's first year
or two of playing leads. Contractually, the studio had to deliver one
reel of finished film to Pathe every week, a truly grueling pace.

Nevertheless, Lloyd was successful almost from the start, and his
"Lonesome Luke" films steadily caught on. It just took time to attract
an audience, the way even a really good TV show usually has to build an
audience over a season or two. Most of the Lukes are lost today, but
you can gauge their popularity from the trade papers, and the
recollections of people like Blackhawk Films' Kent D. Eastin, who grew
up in the silent era and loved Lonesome Luke.

Even after Lloyd started doing his "glasses" character, he had to
alternate those films with Lukes until the glasses character caught on
well enough for Pathe to accept the loss of Luke (who had moved up to
two-reelers by then).

What's amazing is how funny Lloyd's early films are. Even without
time for rehearsals or careful construction, they're consistently good.
I've never, ever, seen a Lloyd film NOT go over well with an audience.
Even things like ALL ABOARD and HIS ROYAL SLYNESS, which I'd always
thought were fairly weak when I watched them at home, turned into very
funny films once I saw them with audiences who loved them immediately.

Anyone who needs further proof of Lloyd's talent for comedy should
watch one of his brother Gaylord's films. Gaylord had his own series at
Roach for a little while, and while he doesn't wear the glasses, he
does a letter-perfect Harold Lloyd impression, getting all the
mannerisms down perfectly. But he's not funny! He's interesting to
watch, and he's doing all the right things, but you don't laugh. When
Harold does the same things, he's naturally funny.


> Would he have been surprised that Chaplin was not a fully
> formed comic artist yet? Would he dismiss Chaplin if he had seen the
> years and presumably many tries it took for him to get his comedy
> "right", the years of "hard work" that Chaplin put in on the stage to
> arrive at his fully formed comedy later on?

I don't think the Tramp is fully formed at all in MABEL'S STRANGE
PREDICAMENT or KID AUTO RACES. He's such a casually violent character
during that early period, very different than the Tramp of THE KID or
THE GOLD RUSH.

I think all the great comedians went through a period of refinement
that lasted for two or three years: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon
all did, certainly. So did Arbuckle. Stan Laurel didn't really find his
character for nine or ten years, but no one would claim that Stan was
just an actor playing the part of a comedian.



> Kerr makes some other assumptions later in the book that fly in the
> face of reality. He talks about Chaplin needing to make films such as
> SUNNYSIDE and A DAY'S PLEASURE to help himself arrive at a fuller sense
> of his character. He ignores the fact that the reason Chaplin made
> (actually, had to make) these two films (which are generally regarded
> as somewhat uninspired and unoriginal by Chaplin's standards) is
> because Chaplin's bosses demanded a certain number of films from him,
> regardless of whether or not Chaplin was feeling artistically inspired
> that month.

Well, that was true earlier. At Essanay, Jess Robbins stayed with
the Chaplin unit and kept him cranking out material, and Mutual had a
guy (I forget his name) who'd be sent from New York to the Lone Star
studio from time to time to lean on Chaplin enough to keep the new
releases flowing. I don't think First National really put much pressure
on him to crank out film. There's an interesting passage in his
autobiography where he threatens to bat out a few low-grade comedies
just to fulfill his contract and be rid of it, and the FN execs just
say, "Fine, Charlie, if that's what you want to do."



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

Shush wrote:
> Matt Barry wrote:
>
> > Kerr talks about how Chaplin
> > appeared, nearly fully formed, in his second Keystone comedy, and how
> > Keaton arrived at his full character after making shorts with Arbuckle.
> > On the other hand, he mentions how it took Lloyd over 100 films to find
> > his character.
>
> Kerr's strength is in analysis, and his weakness is in historical
> context. His chapters on Lloyd and Langdon really suffer because with
> those guys he's basing his analysis on misunderstood history.
>
> In Langdon's case, Kerr swallowed all of Frank Capra's self-serving
> testimony about Langdon being clueless about the character he was
> playing, and that it was created for him at Sennett. Kerr based his
> whole analysis of Langdon on this. He wasn't a film historian, so he
> didn't realize that most of what Capra wrote was distorted or simply
> wrong.

I don't want to open the whole Langdon/Capra can of worms again, but I
have read some convincing evidence lately that almost completely
debunks many of Capra's claims to have "invented" Langdon's character.
Most of this is evidence from Langdon's old vaudeville act, in which he
had perfected many of the characteristics that Capra later claimed to
have developed. I generally like Langdon myself, even though his
character takes a while to get used to, as opposed to Chaplin, Keaton
and Lloyd's.

I admire Capra greatly as a filmmaker. He is rightfully regarded as one
of the finest craftsmen in the medium. But it is hard to say what kind
of impact he was having as a gagman for a major comedian. It would sort
of be like arguing that Sam Taylor was "responsible" for Harold Lloyd's
success, or that Leo McCarey was the only reason Laurel and Hardy ever
amounted to anything.

>
> In Lloyd's case, Kerr took Hal Roach's remark about Lloyd just being
> an actor who performed comedy as the whole basis for his presentation
> of Lloyd as a guy who struggled for years to make people laugh. Again,
> his analysis was bound to end up all wrong because it was based on a
> mistaken assumption.

Some of Hal Roach's later comments about his comedians strike me as
strangely negative. He seemed to have a fairly low opinion of Stan
Laurel's abilities when it came to story construction as well. I don't
see how Lloyd was any more an "actor" than either Chaplin or Keaton. In
fact, I think Chaplin might have done more actual dramatic acting if we
take into consideration his early years on the stage, than Lloyd did.

>
> Roach and Lloyd squabbled a little over the rights to Lloyd's early
> films, and Roach's statement about Lloyd not being a real comedian
> might betray some personal resentment. Lloyd was actually a natural
> comedian and his films were successful from the start, but we have to
> remember that he wasn't working for a major studio, and his films
> weren't getting widely distributed for a while. Rolin was a
> nickel-and-dime operation, a total unknown, during Lloyd's first year
> or two of playing leads. Contractually, the studio had to deliver one
> reel of finished film to Pathe every week, a truly grueling pace.
>

I think the very fact that Lloyd progressed beyond the ranks of the
bottom-rung, basic gag comics who were so prolific in the mid- to
late-teens proves that he was an extraordinary talent. I actually saw
some early Keystone comedies recently where Lloyd played the boy. His
performance was much more natural and subtle than the over-zealous
mugging of Ford Sterling. But he was also quite funny-he wasn't just
playing a straight man to Sterling by any means. I think in a sense,
Lloyd was ahead of his time, working against the conventions of the
time by discarding the grotesque makeup and characterization so
prevalent then. Of course, he had to use this in his Lonesome Luke
films because it was expected of him, and made lots of money. But he
still pushed for using the more natural "glass" character after a
couple years, even when he wasn't sure that it would be in the best
financial interests.

> Nevertheless, Lloyd was successful almost from the start, and his
> "Lonesome Luke" films steadily caught on. It just took time to attract
> an audience, the way even a really good TV show usually has to build an
> audience over a season or two. Most of the Lukes are lost today, but
> you can gauge their popularity from the trade papers, and the
> recollections of people like Blackhawk Films' Kent D. Eastin, who grew
> up in the silent era and loved Lonesome Luke.

There is a lot of evidence that the Lukes were quite popular. In
"Harold Lloyd: The Third Genius", Andrew Stone talks about when he used
to run a cinema, and that the Lukes would always guarantee a huge
audience, especially among kids.

>
> Even after Lloyd started doing his "glasses" character, he had to
> alternate those films with Lukes until the glasses character caught on
> well enough for Pathe to accept the loss of Luke (who had moved up to
> two-reelers by then).
>
> What's amazing is how funny Lloyd's early films are. Even without
> time for rehearsals or careful construction, they're consistently good.
> I've never, ever, seen a Lloyd film NOT go over well with an audience.
> Even things like ALL ABOARD and HIS ROYAL SLYNESS, which I'd always
> thought were fairly weak when I watched them at home, turned into very
> funny films once I saw them with audiences who loved them immediately.
>
> Anyone who needs further proof of Lloyd's talent for comedy should
> watch one of his brother Gaylord's films. Gaylord had his own series at
> Roach for a little while, and while he doesn't wear the glasses, he
> does a letter-perfect Harold Lloyd impression, getting all the
> mannerisms down perfectly. But he's not funny! He's interesting to
> watch, and he's doing all the right things, but you don't laugh. When
> Harold does the same things, he's naturally funny.

Lloyd's films definitely benefit from being seen with an audience.
Until you have seen them with an audience, it is really impossible to
convey just how much it adds to the experience.

>
>
> > Would he have been surprised that Chaplin was not a fully
> > formed comic artist yet? Would he dismiss Chaplin if he had seen the
> > years and presumably many tries it took for him to get his comedy
> > "right", the years of "hard work" that Chaplin put in on the stage to
> > arrive at his fully formed comedy later on?
>
> I don't think the Tramp is fully formed at all in MABEL'S STRANGE
> PREDICAMENT or KID AUTO RACES. He's such a casually violent character
> during that early period, very different than the Tramp of THE KID or
> THE GOLD RUSH.
>
I think this is another assumption Kerr makes in keeping with his
agenda. Chaplin was certainly still developing the tramp character into
new levels right up to 1918, when he added additional elements of
pathos with A DOG'S LIFE.

> I think all the great comedians went through a period of refinement
> that lasted for two or three years: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon
> all did, certainly. So did Arbuckle. Stan Laurel didn't really find his
> character for nine or ten years, but no one would claim that Stan was
> just an actor playing the part of a comedian.
>
I was watching some shorts off of Kino's STAN LAUREL COLLECTION the
other night, and as much as I enjoyed them, I still find it staggering
how much Laurel improved as a comedian when he teamed with Hardy. His
character in the solo films is just too brash for my tastes, and I
think that is one major reason he never became the comedian he wanted
to be in those early years. This is one reason why I don't buy into the
theory that Oliver Hardy was just a comic actor or straight man,
either, because he added so much to the comedies that he played in,
especially with Stan. Hardy was quite in demand as a character
player/heavy as early as the mid- to late-1910s, and by the 1920s had
evolved into one of the best supporting comics in films.

>
>
> > Kerr makes some other assumptions later in the book that fly in the
> > face of reality. He talks about Chaplin needing to make films such as
> > SUNNYSIDE and A DAY'S PLEASURE to help himself arrive at a fuller sense
> > of his character. He ignores the fact that the reason Chaplin made
> > (actually, had to make) these two films (which are generally regarded
> > as somewhat uninspired and unoriginal by Chaplin's standards) is
> > because Chaplin's bosses demanded a certain number of films from him,
> > regardless of whether or not Chaplin was feeling artistically inspired
> > that month.
>
> Well, that was true earlier. At Essanay, Jess Robbins stayed with
> the Chaplin unit and kept him cranking out material, and Mutual had a
> guy (I forget his name) who'd be sent from New York to the Lone Star
> studio from time to time to lean on Chaplin enough to keep the new
> releases flowing. I don't think First National really put much pressure
> on him to crank out film. There's an interesting passage in his
> autobiography where he threatens to bat out a few low-grade comedies
> just to fulfill his contract and be rid of it, and the FN execs just
> say, "Fine, Charlie, if that's what you want to do."
>
>
>
> --Shush--

Chaplin was spending most of his creative energies on THE KID at that
time, and it was a huge step forward for screen comedy in general when
he released that film. However, his other work at First National seems
somewhat inferior when you consider the resources he had at his
disposal at that point. It seems odd that finally given his own studio
to work in, his hand-picked cast and crew, and much more time and money
to spend on the films, he generally produced some of his most inferior
work at First National.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

Matt Barry wrote:

> Chaplin was spending most of his creative energies on THE KID at that
> time, and it was a huge step forward for screen comedy in general when
> he released that film. However, his other work at First National seems
> somewhat inferior when you consider the resources he had at his
> disposal at that point. It seems odd that finally given his own studio
> to work in, his hand-picked cast and crew, and much more time and money
> to spend on the films, he generally produced some of his most inferior
> work at First National.


Well, I can't agree that the FNs are inferior to the Keystones and
Essanays. I even prefer them over the Mutuals myself, though I'm in the
minority there. Certainly all of the FNs I've seen with audiences went
over like gangbusters, and those editions use alternate takes that may
not have been generally as good as those in the original editions. And
THE KID is as great a film as he ever made.

One thing that I've never really understood is why it took so long
to complete the First National contract. He did have some major
distractions (the bond tour, a failed marriage, the death of a child,
the creation of United Artists), but there was still a whole lot of
downtime during that period. I don't know if that can be explained by
creative blocks, a lack of motivation or what, but for the first time
in his career, Chaplin was almost as likely to be found relaxing at
Catalina as working in the studio.


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> "Matt Barry" (mattbarry10@hotmail.com) writes:
> > Shush wrote:
> >> Matt Barry wrote:

> >
> > Some of Hal Roach's later comments about his comedians strike me as
> > strangely negative. He seemed to have a fairly low opinion of Stan
> > Laurel's abilities when it came to story construction as well. I don't
> > see how Lloyd was any more an "actor" than either Chaplin or Keaton. In
> > fact, I think Chaplin might have done more actual dramatic acting if we
> > take into consideration his early years on the stage, than Lloyd did.
>
> I don't think so. Lloyd was not a comedian by early training in the same way
> that Chaplin and Keaton were. It would be fair to say he was a good actor
> with a deft comic touch or a flair for comedy.
>
>
<snip>
> >>
> >> > Kerr makes some other assumptions later in the book that fly in the
> >> > face of reality. He talks about Chaplin needing to make films such as
> >> > SUNNYSIDE and A DAY'S PLEASURE to help himself arrive at a fuller sense
> >> > of his character. He ignores the fact that the reason Chaplin made
> >> > (actually, had to make) these two films (which are generally regarded
> >> > as somewhat uninspired and unoriginal by Chaplin's standards) is
> >> > because Chaplin's bosses demanded a certain number of films from him,
> >> > regardless of whether or not Chaplin was feeling artistically inspired
> >> > that month.
> >>
> >> Well, that was true earlier. At Essanay, Jess Robbins stayed with
> >> the Chaplin unit and kept him cranking out material, and Mutual had a
> >> guy (I forget his name) who'd be sent from New York to the Lone Star
> >> studio from time to time to lean on Chaplin enough to keep the new
> >> releases flowing. I don't think First National really put much pressure
> >> on him to crank out film. There's an interesting passage in his
> >> autobiography where he threatens to bat out a few low-grade comedies
> >> just to fulfill his contract and be rid of it, and the FN execs just
> >> say, "Fine, Charlie, if that's what you want to do."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --Shush--
> >
> > Chaplin was spending most of his creative energies on THE KID at that
> > time, and it was a huge step forward for screen comedy in general when
> > he released that film. However, his other work at First National seems
> > somewhat inferior when you consider the resources he had at his
> > disposal at that point. It seems odd that finally given his own studio
> > to work in, his hand-picked cast and crew, and much more time and money
> > to spend on the films, he generally produced some of his most inferior
> > work at First National.
> >
> > Matt
>
> The First Nationals, with the obvious exceptions of _Sunnyside_ and _A Day's
> Pleasure_, are excellent films representing a transitional phase from
> two=reelers to features. Though I am quite fond of the Mutuals, I like
> the more polished execution of the First Nationals, and sometimes prefer
> to watch them.
>
> Connie K.

I enjoy the First Nationals a lot myself. I personally don't think
there was as much consistent comic invention as there was in the
Mutuals, but then with films such as A DOG'S LIFE and THE KID (two of
my favorite), there was an added layer of pathos and even a certain
grittiness that helped accent the comedy. THE IDLE CLASS is a very
clever film, but I never cared as much for PAY DAY.

Lloyd's two- and three-reelers of this same period (roughly 1918-21)
were all of excellent quality, and showed a continual progression of
his character and integrating plot and gags (Lloyd's shorts contain, by
far, some of the most involved plots of any short comedies), that lead
to his production of feature films full time after 1921.

I'm sure that Chaplin was under great pressure in those years, because
he had Keaton and Lloyd both turning out a series of highly acclaimed
comedies at a much faster rate. As I mentioned before, I think the fact
that Chaplin remained at the top of his game for really all of the
silent era, as well into the mid-1930s (judging from the box office on
MODERN TIMES) is an incredible accomplishment. Most stars, especially
today, rarely hold that kind of box office power for more than a few
years.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

"Matt Barry" (mattbarry10@hotmail.com) writes:
>>There are those who find this book to be the finest assessment of silent
>>comedy ever written. I think it is great in parts. I actually prefer Clown
>>Princes and Court Jesters, which has chapters on comedians like Max Asher
>>and Billy Parsons -- people nobody else wrote about.
>>
>>JN
>
> I often hear Lloyd referred to as the only silent film comedian who did
> not have any stage experience as a comic. Were there any others who
> came to films as either a dramatic actor or even stunt man and ended up
> doing comedy full-time? I believe Oliver Hardy's stage experience was
> limited to singing (and I consider Hardy a full-fledged comedian, not
> just a "comic actor" or "straight man"-his camera looks, timing, and
> comic personality place him firmly in the ranks with the best of the
> best, in my opinion). I believe many of the Keystone players had
> experience as circus clowns, which certainly provided good training for
> timing.
>
> Chaplin's earliest experience had been in straight acting parts but he
> really learned his craft with the troupes he performed with.
>
> Matt

Actually Chaplin's earliest stage experience was primarily as a dancer,
though he did some imitations of Bransby Williams while he was working
with the dance troupe. His legitimate stage work was limited to his
early teens, but that was enough to give him a grounding in stage
technique, which certainly was useful to him when he joined the Karno
companay at the age of nineteen.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

James Neibaur (jneibaur@wi.rr.com) writes:
> Matt Barry 1/22/06 7:09 PM
>
>> I still love "The Silent Clowns" book, and it has excellent chapters on
>> Keaton, Ray Griffith, and Langdon in particular, but it also contains
>> some sections that need to be re-evaluated before taking them too
>> seriously.
>
> There are those who find this book to be the finest assessment of silent
> comedy ever written. I think it is great in parts. I actually prefer Clown
> Princes and Court Jesters, which has chapters on comedians like Max Asher
> and Billy Parsons -- people nobody else wrote about.
>
> JN

Yes, it's an uneven book, very seductively written, that tends to sound
convincing even when it's inaccurate.

Kerr does impressionistic criticism, and some of his impressions are better
than others, but he does have an enthusiasm for the subject that makes it
an excellent read.

I just found _Clown Princes_ dull, though it is a useful source of
information.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

I would say that Kerr is a man of the
theatre to such an extent that he can't
understand the superbly cinematic
virtues of Lloyd's films. Much more
so than Chaplin, Lloyd was a master
craftsman of the medium. His eagerness
to share his love for the medium comes
out in the "extras" included in the new
Lloyd collection, and MOVIE CRAZY
is an admirable attempt to communicate
this on film.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

George Shelps wrote:
> I would say that Kerr is a man of the
> theatre to such an extent that he can't
> understand the superbly cinematic
> virtues of Lloyd's films. Much more
> so than Chaplin, Lloyd was a master
> craftsman of the medium. His eagerness
> to share his love for the medium comes
> out in the "extras" included in the new
> Lloyd collection, and MOVIE CRAZY
> is an admirable attempt to communicate
> this on film.
>
>

This is very true. I especially enjoyed the UCLA seminar on the DVDs
with Lloyd discussing his comic craft with the younger comedians.
The thing I don't understand in regard to so much of the criticism of
Lloyd as a "comic actor" (which is really marginalizing his comic
abilities) is that just because he worked solely in the cinematic
medium, does that make him any less of a comedian than one who works
strictly on the stage? Of course not. I'm not sure why the particular
medium matters so much, as long as he was funny. I suppose it is a
tribute to a comedian's talents if they can branch into many mediums,
but Lloyd is so much funnier than many comedians who appear on stage,
film, and TV that it hardly seems fair to ever criticize him for just
making use of one medium for his comic abilities.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> Matt Barry wrote:
>
>> Kerr talks about how Chaplin
>> appeared, nearly fully formed, in his second Keystone comedy, and how
>> Keaton arrived at his full character after making shorts with Arbuckle.
>> On the other hand, he mentions how it took Lloyd over 100 films to find
>> his character.
>
> Kerr's strength is in analysis, and his weakness is in historical
> context. His chapters on Lloyd and Langdon really suffer because with
> those guys he's basing his analysis on misunderstood history.
>
> In Langdon's case, Kerr swallowed all of Frank Capra's self-serving
> testimony about Langdon being clueless about the character he was
> playing, and that it was created for him at Sennett. Kerr based his
> whole analysis of Langdon on this. He wasn't a film historian, so he
> didn't realize that most of what Capra wrote was distorted or simply
> wrong.
>
> In Lloyd's case, Kerr took Hal Roach's remark about Lloyd just being
> an actor who performed comedy as the whole basis for his presentation
> of Lloyd as a guy who struggled for years to make people laugh. Again,
> his analysis was bound to end up all wrong because it was based on a
> mistaken assumption.
>
> Roach and Lloyd squabbled a little over the rights to Lloyd's early
> films, and Roach's statement about Lloyd not being a real comedian
> might betray some personal resentment. Lloyd was actually a natural
> comedian and his films were successful from the start, but we have to
> remember that he wasn't working for a major studio, and his films
> weren't getting widely distributed for a while. Rolin was a
> nickel-and-dime operation, a total unknown, during Lloyd's first year
> or two of playing leads. Contractually, the studio had to deliver one
> reel of finished film to Pathe every week, a truly grueling pace.
>
> Nevertheless, Lloyd was successful almost from the start, and his
> "Lonesome Luke" films steadily caught on. It just took time to attract
> an audience, the way even a really good TV show usually has to build an
> audience over a season or two. Most of the Lukes are lost today, but
> you can gauge their popularity from the trade papers, and the
> recollections of people like Blackhawk Films' Kent D. Eastin, who grew
> up in the silent era and loved Lonesome Luke.
>
> Even after Lloyd started doing his "glasses" character, he had to
> alternate those films with Lukes until the glasses character caught on
> well enough for Pathe to accept the loss of Luke (who had moved up to
> two-reelers by then).
>
> What's amazing is how funny Lloyd's early films are. Even without
> time for rehearsals or careful construction, they're consistently good.
> I've never, ever, seen a Lloyd film NOT go over well with an audience.
> Even things like ALL ABOARD and HIS ROYAL SLYNESS, which I'd always
> thought were fairly weak when I watched them at home, turned into very
> funny films once I saw them with audiences who loved them immediately.
>
> Anyone who needs further proof of Lloyd's talent for comedy should
> watch one of his brother Gaylord's films. Gaylord had his own series at
> Roach for a little while, and while he doesn't wear the glasses, he
> does a letter-perfect Harold Lloyd impression, getting all the
> mannerisms down perfectly. But he's not funny! He's interesting to
> watch, and he's doing all the right things, but you don't laugh. When
> Harold does the same things, he's naturally funny.
>
>
>> Would he have been surprised that Chaplin was not a fully
>> formed comic artist yet? Would he dismiss Chaplin if he had seen the
>> years and presumably many tries it took for him to get his comedy
>> "right", the years of "hard work" that Chaplin put in on the stage to
>> arrive at his fully formed comedy later on?
>
> I don't think the Tramp is fully formed at all in MABEL'S STRANGE
> PREDICAMENT or KID AUTO RACES. He's such a casually violent character
> during that early period, very different than the Tramp of THE KID or
> THE GOLD RUSH.
>
> I think all the great comedians went through a period of refinement
> that lasted for two or three years: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon
> all did, certainly. So did Arbuckle. Stan Laurel didn't really find his
> character for nine or ten years, but no one would claim that Stan was
> just an actor playing the part of a comedian.
>
>
>
>> Kerr makes some other assumptions later in the book that fly in the
>> face of reality. He talks about Chaplin needing to make films such as
>> SUNNYSIDE and A DAY'S PLEASURE to help himself arrive at a fuller sense
>> of his character. He ignores the fact that the reason Chaplin made
>> (actually, had to make) these two films (which are generally regarded
>> as somewhat uninspired and unoriginal by Chaplin's standards) is
>> because Chaplin's bosses demanded a certain number of films from him,
>> regardless of whether or not Chaplin was feeling artistically inspired
>> that month.
>
> Well, that was true earlier. At Essanay, Jess Robbins stayed with
> the Chaplin unit and kept him cranking out material, and Mutual had a
> guy (I forget his name) who'd be sent from New York to the Lone Star
> studio from time to time to lean on Chaplin enough to keep the new
> releases flowing. I don't think First National really put much pressure
> on him to crank out film. There's an interesting passage in his
> autobiography where he threatens to bat out a few low-grade comedies
> just to fulfill his contract and be rid of it, and the FN execs just
> say, "Fine, Charlie, if that's what you want to do."
>
> --Shush--

There was quite a bit of friction between Chaplin and First National,
starting with _The Kid_, which they thought was taking too long to
make. They didn't particularly want a feature-length film, and when
it was finally finished, they didn't want to meet Chaplin's demand for
special terms. A similar conflict occurred over how he would finish his
contract with First National, detailed in Robinson, pp.298-301.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

"Matt Barry" (mattbarry10@hotmail.com) writes:
> Shush wrote:
>> Matt Barry wrote:
>>
>> > Kerr talks about how Chaplin
>> > appeared, nearly fully formed, in his second Keystone comedy, and how
>> > Keaton arrived at his full character after making shorts with Arbuckle.
>> > On the other hand, he mentions how it took Lloyd over 100 films to find
>> > his character.
>>
>> Kerr's strength is in analysis, and his weakness is in historical
>> context. His chapters on Lloyd and Langdon really suffer because with
>> those guys he's basing his analysis on misunderstood history.
>>
>> In Langdon's case, Kerr swallowed all of Frank Capra's self-serving
>> testimony about Langdon being clueless about the character he was
>> playing, and that it was created for him at Sennett. Kerr based his
>> whole analysis of Langdon on this. He wasn't a film historian, so he
>> didn't realize that most of what Capra wrote was distorted or simply
>> wrong.
>
> I don't want to open the whole Langdon/Capra can of worms again, but I
> have read some convincing evidence lately that almost completely
> debunks many of Capra's claims to have "invented" Langdon's character.
> Most of this is evidence from Langdon's old vaudeville act, in which he
> had perfected many of the characteristics that Capra later claimed to
> have developed. I generally like Langdon myself, even though his
> character takes a while to get used to, as opposed to Chaplin, Keaton
> and Lloyd's.
>
> I admire Capra greatly as a filmmaker. He is rightfully regarded as one
> of the finest craftsmen in the medium. But it is hard to say what kind
> of impact he was having as a gagman for a major comedian. It would sort
> of be like arguing that Sam Taylor was "responsible" for Harold Lloyd's
> success, or that Leo McCarey was the only reason Laurel and Hardy ever
> amounted to anything.
>
>>
>> In Lloyd's case, Kerr took Hal Roach's remark about Lloyd just being
>> an actor who performed comedy as the whole basis for his presentation
>> of Lloyd as a guy who struggled for years to make people laugh. Again,
>> his analysis was bound to end up all wrong because it was based on a
>> mistaken assumption.
>
> Some of Hal Roach's later comments about his comedians strike me as
> strangely negative. He seemed to have a fairly low opinion of Stan
> Laurel's abilities when it came to story construction as well. I don't
> see how Lloyd was any more an "actor" than either Chaplin or Keaton. In
> fact, I think Chaplin might have done more actual dramatic acting if we
> take into consideration his early years on the stage, than Lloyd did.

I don't think so. Lloyd was not a comedian by early training in the same way
that Chaplin and Keaton were. It would be fair to say he was a good actor
with a deft comic touch or a flair for comedy.


>> Roach and Lloyd squabbled a little over the rights to Lloyd's early
>> films, and Roach's statement about Lloyd not being a real comedian
>> might betray some personal resentment. Lloyd was actually a natural
>> comedian and his films were successful from the start, but we have to
>> remember that he wasn't working for a major studio, and his films
>> weren't getting widely distributed for a while. Rolin was a
>> nickel-and-dime operation, a total unknown, during Lloyd's first year
>> or two of playing leads. Contractually, the studio had to deliver one
>> reel of finished film to Pathe every week, a truly grueling pace.
>>
>
> I think the very fact that Lloyd progressed beyond the ranks of the
> bottom-rung, basic gag comics who were so prolific in the mid- to
> late-teens proves that he was an extraordinary talent. I actually saw
> some early Keystone comedies recently where Lloyd played the boy. His
> performance was much more natural and subtle than the over-zealous
> mugging of Ford Sterling. But he was also quite funny-he wasn't just
> playing a straight man to Sterling by any means. I think in a sense,
> Lloyd was ahead of his time, working against the conventions of the
> time by discarding the grotesque makeup and characterization so
> prevalent then. Of course, he had to use this in his Lonesome Luke
> films because it was expected of him, and made lots of money. But he
> still pushed for using the more natural "glass" character after a
> couple years, even when he wasn't sure that it would be in the best
> financial interests.
>
>> Nevertheless, Lloyd was successful almost from the start, and his
>> "Lonesome Luke" films steadily caught on. It just took time to attract
>> an audience, the way even a really good TV show usually has to build an
>> audience over a season or two. Most of the Lukes are lost today, but
>> you can gauge their popularity from the trade papers, and the
>> recollections of people like Blackhawk Films' Kent D. Eastin, who grew
>> up in the silent era and loved Lonesome Luke.
>
> There is a lot of evidence that the Lukes were quite popular. In
> "Harold Lloyd: The Third Genius", Andrew Stone talks about when he used
> to run a cinema, and that the Lukes would always guarantee a huge
> audience, especially among kids.
>
>>
>> Even after Lloyd started doing his "glasses" character, he had to
>> alternate those films with Lukes until the glasses character caught on
>> well enough for Pathe to accept the loss of Luke (who had moved up to
>> two-reelers by then).
>>
>> What's amazing is how funny Lloyd's early films are. Even without
>> time for rehearsals or careful construction, they're consistently good.
>> I've never, ever, seen a Lloyd film NOT go over well with an audience.
>> Even things like ALL ABOARD and HIS ROYAL SLYNESS, which I'd always
>> thought were fairly weak when I watched them at home, turned into very
>> funny films once I saw them with audiences who loved them immediately.
>>
>> Anyone who needs further proof of Lloyd's talent for comedy should
>> watch one of his brother Gaylord's films. Gaylord had his own series at
>> Roach for a little while, and while he doesn't wear the glasses, he
>> does a letter-perfect Harold Lloyd impression, getting all the
>> mannerisms down perfectly. But he's not funny! He's interesting to
>> watch, and he's doing all the right things, but you don't laugh. When
>> Harold does the same things, he's naturally funny.
>
> Lloyd's films definitely benefit from being seen with an audience.
> Until you have seen them with an audience, it is really impossible to
> convey just how much it adds to the experience.
>
>>
>>
>> > Would he have been surprised that Chaplin was not a fully
>> > formed comic artist yet? Would he dismiss Chaplin if he had seen the
>> > years and presumably many tries it took for him to get his comedy
>> > "right", the years of "hard work" that Chaplin put in on the stage to
>> > arrive at his fully formed comedy later on?
>>
>> I don't think the Tramp is fully formed at all in MABEL'S STRANGE
>> PREDICAMENT or KID AUTO RACES. He's such a casually violent character
>> during that early period, very different than the Tramp of THE KID or
>> THE GOLD RUSH.
>>
> I think this is another assumption Kerr makes in keeping with his
> agenda. Chaplin was certainly still developing the tramp character into
> new levels right up to 1918, when he added additional elements of
> pathos with A DOG'S LIFE.
>
>> I think all the great comedians went through a period of refinement
>> that lasted for two or three years: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon
>> all did, certainly. So did Arbuckle. Stan Laurel didn't really find his
>> character for nine or ten years, but no one would claim that Stan was
>> just an actor playing the part of a comedian.
>>
> I was watching some shorts off of Kino's STAN LAUREL COLLECTION the
> other night, and as much as I enjoyed them, I still find it staggering
> how much Laurel improved as a comedian when he teamed with Hardy. His
> character in the solo films is just too brash for my tastes, and I
> think that is one major reason he never became the comedian he wanted
> to be in those early years. This is one reason why I don't buy into the
> theory that Oliver Hardy was just a comic actor or straight man,
> either, because he added so much to the comedies that he played in,
> especially with Stan. Hardy was quite in demand as a character
> player/heavy as early as the mid- to late-1910s, and by the 1920s had
> evolved into one of the best supporting comics in films.
>
>>
>>
>> > Kerr makes some other assumptions later in the book that fly in the
>> > face of reality. He talks about Chaplin needing to make films such as
>> > SUNNYSIDE and A DAY'S PLEASURE to help himself arrive at a fuller sense
>> > of his character. He ignores the fact that the reason Chaplin made
>> > (actually, had to make) these two films (which are generally regarded
>> > as somewhat uninspired and unoriginal by Chaplin's standards) is
>> > because Chaplin's bosses demanded a certain number of films from him,
>> > regardless of whether or not Chaplin was feeling artistically inspired
>> > that month.
>>
>> Well, that was true earlier. At Essanay, Jess Robbins stayed with
>> the Chaplin unit and kept him cranking out material, and Mutual had a
>> guy (I forget his name) who'd be sent from New York to the Lone Star
>> studio from time to time to lean on Chaplin enough to keep the new
>> releases flowing. I don't think First National really put much pressure
>> on him to crank out film. There's an interesting passage in his
>> autobiography where he threatens to bat out a few low-grade comedies
>> just to fulfill his contract and be rid of it, and the FN execs just
>> say, "Fine, Charlie, if that's what you want to do."
>>
>>
>>
>> --Shush--
>
> Chaplin was spending most of his creative energies on THE KID at that
> time, and it was a huge step forward for screen comedy in general when
> he released that film. However, his other work at First National seems
> somewhat inferior when you consider the resources he had at his
> disposal at that point. It seems odd that finally given his own studio
> to work in, his hand-picked cast and crew, and much more time and money
> to spend on the films, he generally produced some of his most inferior
> work at First National.
>
> Matt

The First Nationals, with the obvious exceptions of _Sunnyside_ and _A Day's
Pleasure_, are excellent films representing a transitional phase from
two=reelers to features. Though I am quite fond of the Mutuals, I like
the more polished execution of the First Nationals, and sometimes prefer
to watch them.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

James Neibaur wrote:

> I always understood that Buster Keaton wasn't terribly popular with
> moviegoers during this period, at least not at the level of Lloyd and
> nowhere near Chaplin. I thought the likes of Larry Semon and Ben Turpin
> were enjoying as much, or more, box office success as/than Buster. His
> genius as a comedian and filmmaker was discovered and appreciated later on,
> perhaps as late as the 50s or 60s. Correct me if I am wrong.

In the 1920s, there were three tiers of mainstream theaters. The
neighborhood houses played a mix of everything from independent
B-movies to the blockbusters that were about half a year old, or older.
The first-run theaters ran the films released by the major studios, and
almost nothing else. And then you had the prestige theaters, a small
number of picture palaces where you'd see exclusive engagements of new,
high-profile films, which would run from about a month on up to a year
or more.

Chaplin's were just about the only comedies that played those
prestige theaters, whose usual fare would be the Fairbanks, DeMille,
Griffith, Pickford kind of thing, along with specials like THE IRON
HORSE, PETER PAN, SEVENTH HEAVEN, etc. You'd be more likely to see live
vaudeville acts than two-reel comedy shorts here.

Keaton's films debuted in the first-run theaters, where they'd play
for a week or two, then move on to a first-run house someplace else.
The Keatons performed about as well as the other typical big-studio
films, but unlike the palaces, these theaters drew steady customers who
expected to see a new show every week or so. As far as I can tell,
Lloyd's features also appeared in these theaters first, but at higher
rental rates than the Keaton films (or most anyone else's). Here you'd
also see shorts offered by the stronger distributors, like Paramount,
Fox and First National.

The neighborhood theaters were usually Mom-and-Pop operations, not
tied down to block-booking contracts, and they couldn't afford to pay
much for the films they ran. Features from guys like Monty Banks and
Larry Semon would show up here first, and bounce around the country
until they were played out. These theaters would also book shorts from
Universal, Pathe, Educational and the states-rights distributors. And,
once the rental prices came down, these theaters would also show the
same films that had played the bigger theaters months (or even years)
earlier... and these prints were usually pretty beat-up by the time
they made it this far down the chain.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd 

Constance Kuriyama 1/24/06 11:29 PM

> I just found _Clown Princes_ dull, though it is a useful source of
> information.

The info it contains is on so many comedians whose bios would likely not
have been published in any form so I always found it to be especially
important. It eschews the notable Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd for the
inclusion of these lesser knowns (but does have Arbuckle, Normand, Langdon)

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd