Free and Easy (1930).

Review #2219: Free and Easy.

Cast: 

Buster Keaton (Elmer), Anita Page (Elvira), Trixie Friganza (Ma Plunkett), Robert Montgomery (Larry Mitchell), and Lionel Barrymore (director) Directed by Edward Sedgwick (#774 - The Phantom of the Opera, #1774 - The Cameraman, #1937 - Spite Marriage)

Review: 

At last, it was time to hear the words of Buster Keaton in a film. This was the third feature film with Keaton at the hands of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which came after The Cameraman (1928) and Spite Marriage (1929). Followers of Keaton already know that his MGM tenure was the one he regretted the most, but at least those two films were actually liked by people even when it came to studio-maintained mayhem. With this film, one would get the weirdest of the two worlds: a movie where Keaton gets to talk and also gets to be in the foreground in favor of featuring cameo appearances from performers such as Willy Haynes, Jackie Coogan, Lionel Barrymore and, well, also Cecil B. DeMille and Fred Niblo. The film was shot in several languages such as Spanish (the latter was called Estrellados, which had Keaton play opposite a different lead actress) and French (mainly with intertitles, but still). There are three credited writers: Richard Schayer (a career guy behind co-work such as The Mummy) wrote the "scenario", while Paul Dickey did the "adaptation", and Al Boasberg (one of the co-writers of The General) was behind the dialogue. Made for roughly $500,000, the film was enough of a hit with audiences that Keaton would continue to do a few more films with MGM, such as his next sound feature with Doughboys (1930) and five further films until 1934.

Poor, poor, poor Keaton. There have been so many good Keaton movies in the previous decade that it becomes apparent not long into this one that he has become a puppet for mediocre setups. Sure, his accent when it comes to voicework is pretty earthy on the ears and he does have some interesting moments when it comes to antics within the backlot. But the romantic triangle is flabby and pathetic, and the overall execution is 92 painfully average minutes that cannot measure even with one of his weaker silent efforts such as say, The Saphead (1920). It is plain and all-around just not interesting to watch a movie dilly-dally on a set when you've seen better days for Keaton in mayhem. You've seen better movies when it comes to "inside a studio" in films such as Show People (1928), which incidentally was also an MGM film. The funny thing about Page was fresh off The Broadway Melody (1929), the original all-talking MGM musical (mediocre as hell to folks like me, but it was a really big thing back then). Her and Montgomery have about as much energy together as a sound test. Probably the one highlight is Keaton getting to audition as an actor and doing such things like bumbling a line about swooning queens. He may be playing a silly boob, but at least he at least is physical enough and committed enough to even try his hand at singing. God help us the film is one of those that thinks it is amusing to have a conversation where characters think they are talking about the same thing but actually are not. I don't even feel like thinking about the downbeat ending, because, well, it seems fitting to give an ending where our hero gets the shaft in a non-memorable movie. In the long run, going from any random silent Keaton feature to this film is practically like night and day. It is a movie that probably would've been better if done a few years earlier because, well, Keaton would've had the time and energy to really make it a worthwhile effort. Instead, it is just not worth the effort to call it a lame movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Broadway Melody.

Review #1330: The Broadway Melody.

Cast: 
Anita Page (Queenie Mahoney), Bessie Love (Harriet "Hank" Mahoney), Charles King (Eddie Kearns), Jed Prouty (Uncle Jed), Kenneth Thomson (Jacques Warriner), Edward Dillon (Stage Manager), Mary Doran (Flo), and Eddie Kane (Zanfield) Directed by Harry Beaumont

Review: 
It can be an interesting experience looking at an old film musical and think about the effort that it must have taken to make it come out to the screen, particularly when it comes to talking about the beginning of the sound era along with the studio of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The company had begun in 1924 as a merger of three studios: Metro Pictures Corporation, Goldwyn Pictures, and Louis B. Mayer Pictures, since Marcus Loew desired better quality for films to distribute with Loew's Theatres along with find someone to run operations in Hollywood, which is where Mayer comes into the picture, alongside with Irving Thalberg (whose first notable film as a producer was The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), which he did at 24) as production head. The studio became prolific very quickly, releasing major films such as Ben-Hur (1925), with a desire to tap into a need from the audience for stars and stories to go alongside them (whether through adapting works or big spectacle). Interestingly enough, MGM could have had a different fate before the decade would pass. William Fox from Fox Film Corporation had desired to expand his grip, seizing an opportunity to buy the holdings of MGM upon the death of Loew in 1927. Strong connections from Mayer, combined with an severe automobile accident involving Fox in late 1929 and the Wall Street crash ended any possibility of a possible merger. In any case, it should only figure that MGM's first full-talkie film would be a musical - what better way to attract appeal than with singing, talking, and dancing in one film. The original version of the film even had a Technicolor sequence included (which is now lost to time).

With all that in mind, one can then note how the film hasn't quite aged as well as others of its decade. It was a big hit with audiences and Academy voters for its day, but to me it is a bit of a clunker. Not every great film gets to have awards or initial recognition, but they manage to find a way to having staying power and interest after several decades. This is one of those cases where one can acknowledge some of the triumphs it must have had nine decades ago while still seeing it as a pretty mediocre experience. Beyond the clunkiness of the dialogue and okay direction is a movie that can do a bunch of singing and dancing but can't really sell its characters as anything other than cliches. Is it really a cliche if its the 1920s? If it seems like a cliche and looks like one, by golly it must be a cliche. Nobody seems to have chemistry with anybody, and the conclusion of its love triangle (or perhaps square since it really involves four people) seems awkwardly silly (getting punched out by a rich jerk when trying to help the younger sister of the girl you were involved with and then getting with said younger sister? ...sure, why not). The singing (aided through the music of Nacio Herb Brown and lyrics by Arthur Freed, both key MGM music figures) is fair, in the sense that one isn't checking their watch as much when compared to seeing a barely moving camera with mild actors trying to warm up pale characters on screen. Page and Love come out decently enough, in that they seem fitting to see perform on a screen moreso than when trying to be on-screen sisters. King may have been a vaudeville and Broadway actor, but that doesn't mean he brings the screen presence needed to really drive himself forward in interest. In other words, I don't really find myself gravitating attention to him in interest when on screen. Technically Prouty attracts attention, in that one can't really forget a stutterer - he isn't exactly funny, but then again the film's best hope is trying to not be unintentionally funny to pick at with its characters, so there's that. Look, this is a film that comes and goes at 100 minutes without too much trouble in delivering a fair bit of sound without devolving itself too much into noise for the sake of it. It has that kind of dated quality like The Jazz Singer had, but that film managed to pass off better with its sentiment and charm than this does. There exist three further Broadway Melody films (1936, 1938, 1940), in the sense that they aren't necessarily sequels but rather share a basic premise involving putting on a show, and there was even a remake with Two Girls on Broadway (1940). Whatever one prefers when it comes to a musical, there exist plenty to choose from, whether in starting with the 1920s or later. This isn't a bad one to go with as a companion to early talkie musicals, even if it isn't necessarily a great one to cherish as much as others could.

Next Time - Coquette, with Mary Pickford. Also, an announcement.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.