{"id":471,"date":"2013-07-19T10:46:00","date_gmt":"2013-07-19T14:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=471"},"modified":"2020-12-06T21:27:23","modified_gmt":"2020-12-07T02:27:23","slug":"moving-beyond-the-big-four","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=471","title":{"rendered":"Moving Beyond the Big Four"},"content":{"rendered":"

I was having a discussion, a polite one, with another film historian the other day.\u00a0 He\u2019s a guy I like and respect, so I won\u2019t sully this conversation by naming him, because I disagreed with his whole premise.\u00a0 That\u2019s OK, because he disagreed with my whole premise.<\/p>\n

To sum up, this was his position:<\/p>\n

Comedians other than the \u201cBig 3\u201d are only of academic interest and should not be shown to general audiences.\u00a0 General audiences are so far removed from the days of silent comedy that they can no longer relate to it in any way and shouldn\u2019t be asked to.\u00a0 The whole idea that we have the \u201cBig 3\u201d is because the critics have decided that these are the best and most worthwhile comedians to watch, and therefore any uninitiated audience should see them first.\u00a0 The other comedians should not be run for first time audiences because they are not as good and unique as the \u201cBig 3.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Big 3, of course, are Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd.\u00a0 Some people will call it the Big 4, including Harry Langdon.<\/p>\n

Now I\u2019ll sit here right now and tell you that I have absolutely NOTHING against Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, or Langdon.\u00a0 I like them, every one.<\/p>\n

But I hate this idea to its very roots.<\/p>\n

I have this strange and odd counter-idea.\u00a0 I think comedy should be run because it\u2019s funny.\u00a0 And I have another strange and odd idea: I don\u2019t believe that there is a Jeffersonian Meritocracy<\/a> of comedians and that we\u2019ve decided who the good ones are and who the less worthy ones are.\u00a0 There are just plain too many films that we haven\u2019t seen to judge accurately.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve pointed this up before, but I have to say it again: films don\u2019t necessarily survive and get shown because they are good.\u00a0 They survive and are shown because they are available, out of copyright, and can be found in nice-looking prints.\u00a0 Film history is written by the survivors, not necessarily the best films.<\/p>\n

This whole notion got started in Walter Kerr\u2019s book called The Silent Clowns<\/i>.\u00a0 Now, again, I don\u2019t have a problem with Kerr, either.\u00a0 My problem is that he wrote his book in 1975 when it was just downright impossible to see a lot of the films that we take for granted today.\u00a0 In 1975, we could say that DW Griffith was the father of film, because everything we could see showed Griffith streets ahead of everyone else.<\/p>\n

Now we see that this wasn\u2019t true, that there were others who were doing really interesting work.\u00a0 It was the fact that Griffith\u2019s films were seen and preserved that put him in such a hallowed position.\u00a0 And, again, Griffith deserves a hallowed position, just not as the only guy who made movies move forward.<\/p>\n

In 1975, there were only a few Charley Chase films available, almost no Max Davidson around, no Charley Bowers at all, and not even all of the Keaton and Lloyd films were obtainable.\u00a0 The Langdons were spotty.\u00a0 Kerr had to rely on memories and prints that he could find in private collections (thank you, Bill Everson.)<\/p>\n

Arbuckle?\u00a0 Not much.\u00a0 Lloyd Hamilton?\u00a0 A few.\u00a0 Snub Pollard?\u00a0 Hit and miss.\u00a0 Lupino Lane?\u00a0 Never heard of him.\u00a0 Larry Semon?\u00a0 Yeah, there\u2019s some stuff around.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s only the tip of the iceberg to me.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think we should look at Kerr\u2019s book as the roadmap for \u201cthis is all we should watch\u201d because he studied it and wrote the book for us.\u00a0 In my opinion, he\u2019s telling us, \u201cHey, I\u2019ve studied these films, these are some of them that I like, and here\u2019s why I like them.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s valuable, and that\u2019s why the book is great.\u00a0 But if we limit ourselves only to what he covered, it\u2019s a sad thing.\u00a0 It\u2019s like eating only Big Macs at a Smorgasbord.\u00a0 Hey, Big Macs are popular, some of the most popular food in the world, nothing wrong with them.\u00a0 But you can find those anywhere<\/i>, and there\u2019s so much other stuff you could try… even just to nibble on!<\/p>\n

I would also make an argument that limiting ourselves to these guys is sad on another level.\u00a0 Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Langdon all had an interesting commonality: they had almost complete control of their pictures and basically unlimited budgets.\u00a0 Chaplin even had almost unlimited time.<\/p>\n

Is it really fair to compare Chaplin, who made one movie in 1925, to Charley Chase, who made 19 movies in 1925?\u00a0 I\u2019d wager that all of Chase\u2019s movies together cost less than Chaplin\u2019s one.\u00a0 Does that make Chase a lesser comedian, or Chaplin a better one?<\/p>\n

WHO CARES?\u00a0 Chaplin is funny and so is Chase, and there\u2019s not a fair benchmark to compare them.\u00a0 Want some laughs?\u00a0 Watch Chase in His Wooden Wedding.\u00a0 <\/i>Chaplin?\u00a0 Well, you know about him already.\u00a0 At least I hope you do.\u00a0 Otherwise, watch The Gold Rush<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The guy that I\u2019d like to see analyzed by the academic types is Larry Semon.\u00a0 This guy was insanely popular in the 1920s, his movies made money, he had a great following, and his own studio.\u00a0 And his movies are interesting but not very good when seen today.\u00a0 It is <\/i>fair to pit Semon against those other guys, but for some reason, no one does.<\/p>\n

And we do other odd things.\u00a0 The Big 4 are to be revered because they came up with individual comic characters, when no one else did.\u00a0 Seriously?<\/p>\n

\"chase\"<\/a>Chase had a unique character, and we can now see him build into it<\/a>.\u00a0 Then, when talkies came in, he became too old for the man-about-town-misunderstood-husband, and he changed the character.\u00a0 Max Davidson had a unique character, quite unlike anyone who has come before or since.<\/p>\n

Oh, but Max had help, you cry.\u00a0 Leo McCarey and George Stevens worked on his films.\u00a0 Yeah?\u00a0 You think those other guys didn\u2019t have brilliant writers?\u00a0 Clyde Bruckman worked with almost all of them at one point.<\/p>\n

Apparently, Arbuckle, who invented a lot of things that got ripped off later, isn\u2019t a genius because he didn\u2019t last long enough into the 1920s, even though he did a lot of directing after the scandal that unfairly sidelined him.<\/p>\n

Lupino Lane was too British and was willing to use special effects in conjunction with his amazing acrobatic abilities, so that negates him.<\/p>\n

Charley Bowers doesn\u2019t count either because he used extensive special effects, and didn\u2019t have a unique comic character.\u00a0 It was just a ripoff of Keaton, according to those who are \u201cin the know.\u201d<\/p>\n

Seriously?<\/p>\n

I have two criteria for judging comic performers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. is it funny?\u00a0 Does it make me laugh?<\/li>\n
  2. is it stale?\u00a0 If I\u2019ve seen it before done by someone else, then I\u2019m not too impressed, and even less so if you don\u2019t do it a lot better than I saw it the first time.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    By this yardstick, I officially love Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd, Lupino Lane, Max Davidson, Charley Chase, and Charley Bowers.\u00a0 And a lot of other comedians, too.<\/p>\n

    Let me make a slight sidelight for two of them.\u00a0 As many of you know, I\u2019m a sucker for something different, something I\u2019ve never seen before.\u00a0 I really hate boring predictable movies, especially if they\u2019re comedies.<\/p>\n

    This is why I especially love the silent comedies of Max Davidson and Charley Bowers.\u00a0 Lupino Lane is great too… but he\u2019s an acrobat with a great sense of timing and danger.\u00a0 It\u2019s familiar stuff done fantastically well.<\/p>\n

    \"bowers\"<\/a>But Bowers.\u00a0 Wow.\u00a0 I disagree completely with the dismissal that he\u2019s part Chaplin and part Keaton. (He actually looks a little like Keaton, which isn’t his fault, but it’s led to his being dismissed as an imitator.) \u00a0Bowers is all Bowers<\/a>.\u00a0 He is a reality-challenged go-getter (actually rather more like Lloyd than the other two) who solves problems in ways that no one ever thinks of.\u00a0 There It Is <\/i>(1928), which is probably his finest surviving silent film, is so bizarre as to be beyond description.\u00a0 Now You Tell One <\/i>(1926) has some of the most haunting ideas I\u2019ve ever seen in a film: Bowers marches elephants into the Capitol Building, and has invented a grafting potion that allows any item to grow from a stem: cats grow from cattails, eggplants sprout eggs, etc.\u00a0 The sheer volume of ideas that strike Bowers is enough for me to love him.<\/p>\n

    And there\u2019s nothing like him again in all Cinema.<\/p>\n

    \"max\"<\/a>And Max Davidson<\/a>.\u00a0 Oh, Max.\u00a0 I\u2019ve come to really love Max as an actor because he pops up in movies all the time.\u00a0 A shock of hair, a beard, but an amazingly flexible face that can even portray policemen if necessary.\u00a0 As a cheap Jewish character, Max got his own series along Chase and Laurel and Hardy in the late 20s.\u00a0 I love Max\u2019s reaction shots.\u00a0 Max\u2019s reaction to the chaos that often surrounds him is priceless.\u00a0 He\u2019s every bit as good (and different) as Babe Hardy was at portraying frustration or just plain bewilderment.\u00a0 Pass the Gravy <\/i>(1928) hinges on him not understanding a key element of the plot for 15 minutes, and he absolutely sells the idea that he doesn\u2019t follow it.\u00a0 The guy sells a one-joke comedy for 15 minutes, and it\u2019s one of the funniest films I\u2019ve ever seen.<\/p>\n

    And there\u2019s nothing like Max again in all Cinema.<\/p>\n

    I suppose I should sum up by saying that there\u2019s nothing wrong with watching only the big 4 comedians.\u00a0 I like them all.\u00a0 But there\u2019s so much more out there today, stuff that\u2019s funny, stuff that does <\/i>stand up to the test of time, and if only watch the big 4 you\u2019ll be missing it, along with a lot of laughs.<\/p>\n

    You can still get a Big Mac at the Smorgasbord, but there\u2019s a McDonald\u2019s on every street corner all around the globe.\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t it be fun just to taste a spanakopita from Greece?\u00a0 I love them, too.\u00a0 Think what you might be missing.<\/p>\n

    Don\u2019t take my word for it.\u00a0 Your tastes may vary.\u00a0 Find out for yourself, and get back to me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I was having a discussion, a polite one, with another film historian the other day.\u00a0 He\u2019s a guy I like and respect, so I won\u2019t sully this conversation by naming him, because I disagreed with his whole premise.\u00a0 That\u2019s OK, because he disagreed with my whole premise. To sum up, this was his position: Comedians … Continue reading “Moving Beyond the Big Four”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"powered_cache_disable_cache":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,207],"tags":[153,148,147,149,151,152,150,146],"class_list":["post-471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dr-films-pocket-rants","category-film","tag-buster-keaton","tag-charley-bowers","tag-charley-chase","tag-charlie-chaplin","tag-harold-lloyd","tag-harry-langdon","tag-max-davidson","tag-silent-comedy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1909,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions\/1909"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}