The Star Boarder is special. It is the first time the Tramp is like the Tramp known and loved. Before, he was depicted as rude and uncaring unless acting otherwise benefits him. Here, he’s very different from that portrayal. There’s basically no transition between these two character types. The Tramp’s difficult in His Favorite Pastime and dandy here. An excerpt of this film’s synopsis on Wikipedia states, “Charlie, a resident in a boarding house, is the favorite of his landlord’s wife.” This shows the Tramp improving and being kinder to people. He apparently has the resources to live there, so maybe he got a job or friends who will float him. Maybe he always had this place, but perhaps not. The Tramp was always chasing various girls, but here he seems happy just being friends with this woman, played by Minta Durfee. The Tramp doesn’t show any obvious interest in being romantic with Minta. This suggests that he’s gotten over the chasing, suggesting his previous outings are all set well before this one. It might’ve been nice to see the chapters in between.
The acting is much more sharp than in previous Keystone movies. Durfee and Chaplin have great screen chemistry as they playfully talk and enjoy a good day. The landlord is played by Edgar Kennedy, whose mustache might be the greatest actor of all time. That ‘stache can be moved by Kennedy. He uses this ability to expertly communicate facial expressions. It’s hilarious. He does a great job of working off Chaplin. Edgar often bothers and shows a disliking for the Tramp. Chaplin is giving his character a warm smile and vibrant eccentricity. There’s more layers and humanity in the Tramp, perhaps because he’s receiving housing and affection from a woman that cares about him. He feels livelier and more relaxed and more at peace with life. He’s not starting petty fights or bothering random people as he’s done in the past. The living situation seems like a possible explanation for that. It’s always good to see Chaplin’s face crease. It gives more nuance to his performances.
A recurring theme of Chaplin’s films is to show people being treated unfairly poorly. This is shown here with The Tramp being bothered by Edgar and other people living at the house for happening to be the favorite of Minta. While no one is ever mean to Minta, they don’t exude this love of life and warm innocence that The Tramp has. It makes sense why Minta likes him. This characterization makes the audience feel bad when The Tramp is perturbed. The Tramp has a few seconds alone where he dances briefly as he walks to something. The dance is very cute and simple and easy to not register. It shows Chaplin as a craftsman who is injecting personality into something mundane. Other actors might just walk to where they’re going. As The Tramp is a quirky and out-there character, why not show him doing a little extra and getting an extra laugh from the viewers?
While most of the film isn’t very eventful, it works better here than in the past as we’re essentially just playing around with warm characters running around being engaging. The less plot dense moments also establish the characters. These characters are well written enough to not need the plot so fast. The plot proper is perfectly fine… until the ending, which once more devolves into a dumb fight as many Keystone films have done. It’s a shame a more clever ending couldn’t have been used apparently.
SPOILERS
The ending is foreshadowed well as a small child is taking pictures of situations. The Tramp shows his weakness for drinking, established in previous films which show him drunk. It’s kind of shown as a weakness that he shouldn’t be doing. If that is the case, it’s yet another moment of sympathizing with him instead of looking at him as villainous. The drinking might’ve been played for laughs, especially as it doesn’t affect the plot meaningfully. The Tramp also acts more passive here when drunk than in previous films where he’s often engaging other people. The Tramp’s next scene is him stealing a little food from the house’s fridge. All of his following scenes would make perfect sense if he was sober. There’s no apparent reason to include the Tramp drinking other than it being for those that were following his story throughout these films. The child from earlier gets everyone living in the house to look at his photos. The photos look very professionally taken and as if they were taken while the actors were still and posing for a picture. Based on what follows, the pictures show The Tramp and Minta flirting and Edgar flirting with another woman, though the pictures seem innocent to me. A fight breaks out, with Edgar attacking the Tramp for flirting with his wife. Amusingly, the wife goes to the child to spank him. The film unfortunately ends with this fight, without any closure.
It was such a shame to take this more nuanced film about a once beaten character gaining a little love and respect for others and devolving it into a beat ‘em up. The fight isn’t all bad. It shows the repetitiveness and senselessness of violence. Even when people are just trying to live a good day, problems come up. The reason many people disliked the Tramp was for a very silly reason. The reason the fight started was because Edgar couldn’t just talk to The Tramp. The fight is a bit brilliant for subtly and probably unintentionally conveying this, though it could’ve been contextualized better. Instead of it being tacked on, it’s what the story was going for. Make it so the point is that the fight is stupid and wasting time. Instead it is that.
OVERVIEW
The Star Boarder is a classy way to enjoy twelve minutes. There’s interesting characters living it up and progressing through a day. It’s an investing next chapter in the story of The Tramp. He’s more nuanced here. Even the dumb, standard Keystone elements work better here, but the film’s writer, Craig Hutchinson, should’ve thought about what the film is trying to do and do it. The best parts of the movie are not commonly seen in the ‘Stone.
Cruel, Cruel Love is a weird one. It, like many other films here, runs on fumes and the stock way that various characters act. Characters in Keystone films often get news, jump to conclusions, and act based on them in exaggerated fashions. This film is sadly no different. Charlie Chaplin plays the boyfriend of Minta Durfee’s character. Their relationship is challenged a bit. In order for the plot to work, both characters have to make some weird decisions.
The plot is complete nonsense, but not even fun nonsense where you can at least enjoy the stupidity of it all, this one is less amusing due to a lack of gags. There also aren’t any brilliant performances. Charlie Chaplin seems to have been trying not quite as hard for the past few installments, which is understandable, but unfortunate. The opening of the film shows him as a new character; a rich, polite, well cut gentleman. He plays such a role very well and has some fun moments. For most of the film, he’s doing what could almost be considered a Ford Sterling impression, who stopped appearing in Chaplin films not too long ago.
Chaplin first has a dramatic moment, which seems like a parody of one. If his goal was to play it seriously, he failed, if it’s to parody dramatic moments in movies, he succeeded. It’s hard to tell what the intention was. He then mugs and flails around, much like Ford Sterling. Perhaps it was the decision of the director, George Nichols or the producer, Mack Sennett, to have Chaplin act like this. Even then, the performance isn’t meritless. Some of the Chaplin charm seeps in with some good facial expressions and one of my favorite Chaplin gags where he’s flailed around by someone else like a rag doll. Some of the facial expressions give a lot more flavor to this very dry production. This is a little more fun than a lot of “Keystone performances”. Chaplin does Sterling better than Sterling! Overall, it is nice seeing Chaplin get solo moments to at least try to shine in.
A great facial expression
SPOILERS
Minta thinks Charlie is flirting with his maid and instantly breaks up with him. Talk about jumping to conclusions. Charlie drinks some poison and panics, causing the overacting. A guy in the house laughs at him. What’s the point? Who is this guy? We don’t know. Minta realizes her mistake and has a letter sent apologizing. Charlie tells the messenger he’s been poisoned. It was only then that it became clear he even was poisoned. I thought he was just drinking alcohol. Minta, some doctors, and some other people come to aid him. Upon learning he actually drank water, Charlie for no reason starts beating and fighting the doctors and a fight breaks out between all the male characters. Why? What’s the point in all of this? Can this movie at least try to have a point or basic plot progression? What if one of the doctors discovers how all this started and insults Minta, then the fight starts? That’s at least something to start the fire. Charlie and Minta embrace in love. The end. I’m sure that offscreen their relationship fails.
OVERVIEW
Cruel, Cruel Love is very weak in story structure or in creating compelling characters or drama. It features probably Chaplin’s weakest performance as it’s so over the top. Despite being over the top, it is at least a little fun and worth seeing for the diehard Charlie fans.
One review from 1914 states: “If there is an audience any where that does not roar when they see this comedy, they cannot be in full possession of their wits. It is absolutely the funniest thing the Keystone Company has ever put out.”
His Favorite Pastime is nothing. Nothing happens. The Tramp wanders around a bit, getting in some very contrived antics. There’s no progression in stakes or development of the characters (within this film). It’s just a bunch of stuff. I really wonder if this film was improvised like some other Chaplin films. Clearly, some people enjoyed this installment, but the lack of anything makes it hard to even laugh at. There’s nothing much to ground the jokes in. Some Like It Hot is one of the most beloved comedies. A lot of the jokes in that film are based on the plot. Here, they technically are based in the plot, but the lack of any meat and barely a bone make it hard to get invested in the film.
There are some funny jokes, but most of the jokes are very repetitive. The Tramp hitting something or someone or falling down happens so often it loses all meaning and numbs the viewing brain. I was very curious when the story would start. In a sense, it does, in the last few minutes. Near the beginning of the film, The Tramp sees a pretty lady. She then presumably stands around for several minutes as we watch The Tramp bump around a bar for most of the runtime. He then walks back out, sees her leaving and goes after her. This attempt just leads to more bumping around. We may as well have just stayed in the bar as the same stuff could’ve happened there. Some jokes that worked was the first time The Tramp hits a door and it flies back and hits him. There were also some people throwing around the character like a ragdoll, with him acting like one.
The most interesting parts of this film are the things outside of it. For starters, we get another appearance from Roscoe Arbuckle. More interestingly, we get more of the Tramp character. The character is once more a jerk, just like in previous films. He’s regressed slightly from the a little nicer and more sympathetic last times we saw him in Between Showers and A Film Johnnie. Not noticed immediately, the title of the film is more relevant than initially thought, “His Favorite Pastime”. What does this mean? Well, it’s The Tramp’s favorite pastime. For fans, it’s intriguing to see what this character likes to do. Presumably he doesn’t like getting hit all the time in previous films. Here, he’s drinking! We’ve never seen him drinking before, though we have seen him drunk. While unintended, this paints sympathy for the character. His only real love is drinking and perhaps running around towards things that interest him, like women (which he does in several films). We’re getting more of how he, and other people of his lot in life, do to spend the days. It’s tragic, especially when considering what the character will become. Perhaps it’s less tragic as the character is unlikeable for the most part in these early tales. His Favorite Pastime can be appreciated and respected for respecting The Tramp enough to show us more of the actual character.
SPOILERS
The Tramp goes to the woman’s house and gets knocked around by people that live there. It’s overall pretty pointless and stupid, just a way to kill more time. One of the actresses (not the woman of the Tramp’s eye) is a little funny when she hits him around. Most notably of this “sidestep”, though this is perhaps technically the main plot, I’m not sure honestly, is that the Tramp’s hat and cane remain in the woman’s house and The Tramp realizes this after being kicked out. The film then ends. Will he get it back? While The Tramp probably will find another elsewhere, I’d like to imagine him sneaking back in the house for them. Now that’s a plot!
OVERVIEW
His Favorite Pastime is absurdly nothing and disjointed. It’s only accomplishments are what’s achieved outside the film itself. For the diehard fans only.
I’ve watched Ed Wood multiple times. This being the third. I quite literally proclaimed it the greatest film ever made after the first viewing. As I got older, I appreciated it more, but didn’t think it was as good. I now appreciate and love it more than last time.
Ed Wood is an amazing, beautiful film. The cinematography is so sharp it’s astounding. The black and white film glistens and glows so beautifully. Not only does it look incredible, but it drives you in the film. Our protagonist, Ed Wood, looks at life like it’s the chance to cut a movie. The movies he’s making are in black and white. The B&W also gets one in the dumb horror movie vibe. Even if the story, or writing of this film was bad, which it mostly certainly isn’t, Ed Wood would be well known and well liked for how good it looks. The sharp contrast of lighting and perfectly lit sets are gorgeous.
The film is immediately engrossing. We start the film with Jeffrey Jones as “The Amazing Criswell”, breaking the fourth wall to introduce the tale of Ed Wood. This is one of the few weak performances, but it works as that’s the type of performance you’d get to an introduction to a shlock horror movie. Jones’ performance is much better in the film proper. There is also some infrequent awkward dubbing, presumably as there was something the matter with the performance in the used takes. Basically all of the performances are really great. Even minor actors go above and beyond what’s expected. Favorites are the depressed and contemplative Bunny Breckinridge, played by Bill Murray and the loveable and passive Tor Johnson, played by George “The Animal” Steele. Johnny Depp, who often can annoy and fall into Johnny Depp roles, where he’s playing the same, watered down character in several films, gives a brilliant performance here. The layered performance showcases Ed Wood’s stresses and comforts, what he does and why. One highlight is him at peak discomfort and frustration near the end.
However, the second best performance in this film is comically idiotic and inept when compared to the performance of Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi. Landau has elegance and subtlety and nuance and realism to his role. There’s a lot going on in Bela’s head and you can see that when Landau acts. He often feels both well and poor at the same time. This is demonstrated in his first scene where he gets out of a coffin he’s considering buying. Landau has some funny lines there, a particularly fun one is “This is the most uncomfortable coffin I’ve ever been in!” You can’t help but feel bad for Bela during the film. You want him to be younger and happier and more successful so badly. While an audience might feel for a sympathetically written character with a bad actor, here you feel for Bela and very strongly due to how he’s played.
There’s many funny and witty lines, which don’t detract from the more dramatic story. They work in building the mood and how the characters are. Some favorites are A.) “Sound?!” “We don’t have sound.” B.) “Better than not getting the job?” pause “Yes!” C.) “Well, I was wondering if maybe sometime you’d like to go out and maybe grab some dinner.” “You mean like a date? I thought you were a fag.” “Me?! No, no, I’m just a transvestite.”
OVERVIEW
Edward D. Wood Jr. is easy to make fun of. His failure to make the high art he wanted can make someone wonder what kind of a person he was. While Ed Wood isn’t always historically accurate, it shows the audience that pretty well. Just like with Bela and all the other filmmakers portrayed in this film, you want them to succeed. You want Ed Wood to succeed as he’s such a visionary and he’s so determined. You want his movies to be masterpieces.
Ed Wood goes through a journey. He learns and changes and develops, leading to a very satisfying and well earned ending. This film has some of the best uses of music scoring an emotional moment. Usually, such moments are better without scores. The music here perfectly emphasizes the struggle and the dynamics and the drama and most importantly, the payoff of Ed’s experiences. It’s difficult to express how hard and how well the ending hits. Johnny and director Tim Burton really tie the film together. It’s doubtful that anyone could’ve given the performance that Johnny Depp did.
Charlie Chaplin and Ford Sterling are back at it again in another Keystone Comedy! Tango Tangles features many elements seen before and some yet to come. For the third time in Chaplin’s career, he’s not playing the Tramp. Just like in Kid Auto Races at Venice, there is no script. Tango came to be by director Mack Sennett asking Chaplin, Sterling, and Roscoe Arbuckle to go in a scene and do some funny and they’re let loose. Arbuckle and Chaplin would later collaborate more, but this is the first time they play off of each other. Sterling and Chaplin, who’ve been together in three of the first six Chaplin films, have their final collective appearance in this one, #7. Fittingly, this is the best performance of Sterling. It’s not good, but there’s a little more subtlety here. He’s gone from acting like he drank thirty cups of coffee to about twenty. Seeing as the film is set in a dance hall, he seems to want to play a more gentlemanly character.
Roscoe Arbuckle does very little, interacting with Chaplin very little. He doesn’t come off as very memorable other than a quick scene of him that’s pretty funny. Chaplin doesn’t play the Tramp here, but his character is very similar to the Tramp. The Tramp has been depicted as drunk in a few of these early films. Chaplin’s character appears drunk here as well. He sports a bowler hat and cane, like the Tramp, but also has a nice, well fitting tuxedo. He’s foolish and prone to mistakes. Chaplin falls several times in this film, some funnier than others. He gets plenty of moments to shine, despite sharing the screen with two other people, though Sterling’s the only other one trying to get screen time.
The plot is that Charlie, Ford, and Roscoe all are interested in a hat check girl at the dance. Comedic antics ensue. The plot is perfectly serviceable. It’s not exactly riveting, but gets us well to the point of the film, which is to get laughs. There are some laughs to be had. The lack of a script does lessen the picture as there’s no depth or cohesion to it, but there’s silly guys running around. The three main actors are taking focus from each other and trying their hardest to be the funniest. That’s a decent way to support a ten minute film. Thankfully, this film isn’t any longer as it stays its welcome and is probably a hair or so too long, but it’s not a big concern. The drag is easy to ignore.
SPOILERS
While there is some filler and jokes that aren’t funny, such as basically any scene with Sterling and Arbuckle together, they don’t gel well together, there are some pretty good jokes. Roscoe picks up some random person in an attempt to throw him at Ford. That was pretty surprising and decently funny. Chaplin gets some good moments where he’s talking to the hat check girl. He puts his hat on the girl’s head, she then extends her hand to give him a ticket and he shakes her hand. That handshake is the best joke in the film as it’s easy to miss but so funny and clever in how subtle and small it is. This scene also shows us where his character’s head is at. Chaplin is really good at small moments.
Ford and Charlie fight over the girl for a good amount of the ending. It’s also pretty funny, though not as clever as the other joke I raved about. Ford knocks over Charlie similarly to how he did so in Between Showers. It was funny to see Charlie hit him back the same way. They continue fighting to the point of destroying some stuff and when they’re both tired from the fighting, Ford says Charlie can have the girl. Charlie gives Ford a very light hit in the face and they both fall over. That last joke is pretty good. Some films can forget that it’s good to end a comedy with a sharp “final joke”, this one doesn’t.
In the end, Roscoe gets the girl. I guess Roscoe was supposed to be the protagonist? Roscoe is the most composed of the three, so I suppose that was the idea, but he doesn’t really do anything. This film doesn’t have a clear protagonist. Having one would’ve likely invested the audience in the film as you’re thinking about and rooting for that person to come out on top.
OVERVIEW
Despite having some negative qualities, Tango Tangles is decently funny. It’s not something you can’t live without, but it’s quaint and nothing. You get all the good and bad from that type of work.
That’ll Be the Day is an interesting film. I went in thinking it was a music film. It’s not not a music film, but that’s not what it’s about. Our protagonist, Jim, played by David Essex, is bored by the monotony of life, especially by things like going to school. Jim decides to go for some independence. This movie is filled with great 1950s songs, including some I coincidentally listened to recently. Music is a great interest to Jim. This film brilliantly ends with one of the greatest songs of them all, “That’ll Be the Day”. It’s such a sharp and memorable tune that could end anything really.
This film features many characters. Some of their actors I’m familiar with. Doctor Who alumni, Deborah Watling is a standard 50s girl. Her role is small, but significant. Keith Moon, drummer for one of my favorite rock bands, The Who, plays a drummer in this film, showing off his abilities a bit. Ringo Starr, drummer of the Beatles, plays Mike in a pretty prominent role. He’s a friend of Jim that’s more seasoned to the world and romance. All of the acting is pretty solid. The actors/characters have their purpose and they fulfill it fine. Special praise to Essex and Starr. Starr impressed as the best actor of all the Beatles in their numerous films, but disappointed greatly in Lisztomania, which also features a member of The Who. Here, Starr gives an impressive performance. He goes against type by being more rough around the edges and dishonest and discharitable. He plays the role very well and it’s easy to forget how much older he is than the character he’s playing.
Essex gives the best performance of the film. There is a range in emotions that he must play while also having grounding tenets and he pulls it off very well. He can effortlessly make you think contrasting elements about his character, such as that he’s going down a certain path in life against what it seems like he’d do. It’s very well handled. He changes a lot. This is complemented by the directing, which can create very solid moments. The sound of a baby crying recurs throughout the film. One scene features him running from it. It’s quite striking.
The main “point” of this film is to give us a look at youth. You want all these things, you think all these things, you have no money or patience for what you don’t like. You get better at some things and worse at others. Sometimes you gotta stay where you are, sometimes you gotta run, sometimes you gotta do both at the same time. It’s so easy to relate to this film and all it’s trying to say. It doesn’t always say it the best, but it gets the gist down. The pacing is pretty quick. I was surprised by how fast the 30, 45, 60 minute marks on the film were coming and going. Some of this plays into the realism the film is going for. One particularly brow raising moment was a sex scene between two characters that showed a lot more than I expected to see. It makes sense that in a movie about experiencing the young adult life, you’d see more of what they’re up to and where their heads are at. The protagonist’s parents are a recurring element of the story. How is one affected by ma and pa?
SPOILERS
Jim’s father leaves home when he’s young and never comes back. Jim also leaves home due to disliking his life at home. While initially very nervous, Mike teaches Jim the ropes. Mike talks to two girls and gets one for the both of them. Jim is with a girl, played by Deborah Watling, and he finishes in a few seconds. We see Jim “grow” more from there. The parental figure of Mike leaves Jim’s life and Jim gets better at his job and better with women, though he in many ways is staying the same. His friend from the beginning of the film, Terry, is educated and doing well. Jim is perceived by many as a deadbeat. There’s one moment with Jim where he debatably rapes a schoolgirl. It’s not made clear how old she is, but the implication is that she’s a hair odd under 18. The scene didn’t portray itself as undeniably a rape, but that it’s not 100% consensual. She does agree to it, but after too much pressure from Jim. She might’ve felt she couldn’t say no. Jim in the beginning of the film is nicer and more collected. While there’s no clear answers, that younger Jim probably wouldn’t have done that.
In my favorite scene of the film, Jim is with a woman who he finds out is a mother as when he goes back with her to her place, he sees her baby. He dislikes her callousness and carelessness about her baby and he runs from her, with her being partially unrobed. He runs out as the baby cries. A baby was also crying when he was with Watling’s character, but that didn’t stop him then. This incident causes Jim to go back to his mother and improve a lot, claiming to go to night school among other things. He marries Terry’s sister. The first sign of Jim going back down the hill comes with him sleeping with another woman the night before his wedding. Jim has a child and continues life. We see him claim to go to night school but then actually go to a concert. This makes you wonder if he ever went to night school or when he stopped. Depressed by mundane life just like in the beginning of the film, Jim packs his things and leaves his family just like his father did. The film ends with Jim buying a guitar and “That’ll Be the Day” plays. It was disappointing to not get a happy ending for Jim’s wife, but the poignancy leaves a strong impression and a great way to end this chapter of the story of Jim. He’s very young, but is already a father and was getting his life together.
OVERVIEW
What do the pressures of life do to a person? How does it make them feel? Is it perfect and flawless and healthy? This film posits not. If you want to lose something, pressure it to stay. That’ll Be the Day is about life. How does one go through what they don’t like in life? All roads can be miserable and usually are. What’s the solution to getting out of it all? How does one fix their current problems and avoid new ones? Start fresh? Keep with what you know? At the very least, what do you do today?
Contemporary reviews of Chaplin’s Keystone films tended to be very, very positive. The only bit of gold seen in them nowadays is Chaplin. One review of the time by Moving Picture World seems to be ahead of its time; “Edgar English’s [Chaplin’s] work in this picture will keep it amusing.”
A Film Johnnie is mostly not a change of pace for “Chaplin at Keystone”. The quality of the writing, directing, and acting are pretty constant. It’s average, though leaning hard in the negative. There’s some contrivances in this film to make the plot go. The Tramp sits where someone’s trying to work or he extends his arms, which hit someone and then he does it again. This one gets a lot of groans. These gags scream “Please laugh, we beg of you!” Even Charlie Chaplin, who’s usually brilliant, seems to not be trying as hard. He stood out well above other co-actors like Ford Sterling and Henry Lehrman as he wasn’t trying so hard, unlike them. Here he does seem to be pushing a little by exaggerating his gestures. He still isn’t bad, just not very strong.
Johnnie is the very first film where Charlie Chaplin is undeniably the main character. Previous films had him share the limelight, usually getting about half of it. Here he’s the focus for the twelve minutes. The characterization of The Tramp continues as before. He’s very annoying to the other characters, mostly just being played as some jerk that won’t leave everyone alone! However, this film features the first time where the audience is supposed to sympathize with the Tramp, he’s attracted to a woman he can’t have. Chaplin would later be known for holding up a mirror to society and showing their lives, struggles, pain, etc. This is the first time we see him do that.
The ending isn’t too shabby. Some absurdities happen which make for a good change of pace. A film can be appreciated for seeming like the conceptualisation was “Something weird happens, then let’s see where it goes!” The ending is like that, though some weird decisions break from it being more solid. The ending was a change of pace as for almost all the film, almost nothing happened. The first few minutes could’ve been cut entirely and the rest could’ve been trimmed down a lot. Apparently Chaplin collaborators, Ford Sterling and Roscoe Arbuckle appear in the film, but I couldn’t spot them.
SPOILERS
The Tramp sees a woman on a movie poster which is labelled a “Keystone Comedy”. He goes in the theater where it’s depicted as dramatic. It could just be a dramatic moment from an otherwise comedic film. There’s a pretty good gag of The Tramp crying followed by him ringing a rag and a bunch of water comes out. The Tramp then goes to Keystone Studios. He walks on a film set and unintentionally creates problems. Just like in every previous Chaplin film, he falls over, though this time it’s not as funny. The first time something actually happens is when a woman is attacked for the film, but the Tramp doesn’t realize it’s staged and attacks the attacker. For whatever reason, he’s not kicked out and does it again. Fortunately, the same exact punchline doesn’t happen and we get to the start of the ending, which is mostly solidly engaging. The Tramp pulls out a [Chekhov’s] gun he found earlier and fires it. Everyone is startled and tries to hide. The Tramp goes for the woman. From his acting, it’s clear he suspects he’s saving her and she’ll be grateful, but she obviously isn’t. The Tramp gets a funny and well shot moment of walking out the studio and casually throwing away the gun after using it to light a cigarette.
The film is resumed outside. The Tramp sees the scene and the same thing happens. There’s another new direction to the joke that’s quite funny. The cameraman loses his cool and attacks the Tramp with a big piece of wood. The Tramp escapes the attacker and like in previous films, isn’t very respectful to women, harassing her. Unlike before, she isn’t taking it and hits him off. Nice to see a modern woman who isn’t going to be made an object of desire by a man. Her actress gives a fun performance doing this.
OVERVIEW
The first half of this film is the most boring and least eventful six minutes of any Chaplin at Keystone film so far. Fortunately, a little bang can liven things up a bit, though not so much to make the film good, but at least it’s a little interesting and a little different to stuff before.
I greatly respect and revere the courageous woman, Christine Jorgensen, a Transgender woman who wasn’t going to let society keep her down and stop her from living her best life. It was nice to know that an actualfilm was made about her, as opposed to the “Eh, kinda” movie from 1953 called Glen or Glenda. Glen or Glenda is famously considered one of the worst films ever made. Christine need not shed tears as the connections to her life are so tenuous, no one would think it’s about her if they weren’t told it was (and it barely was). The Christine Jorgensen Story does have some pretty large deviations from the real life story, but there’s at least a fair amount of accuracy. Unfortunately there’s quite a few questions about whether or not scenes were accurate as there’s no good info pointing either way.
Accurate or not, The Christine Jorgensen Story is excellent. Having watched the film in 2018 and then again here in 2020, it stands up very well. Producer, Edward Small got Irving Rapper to direct as he “required someone who had sensitivity.” Sensitivity is one thing that is necessary to make this film work and Rapper succeeds. Christine is a very subtle character. She is prone to say little and feel a scene. The scene then feels her. Any moment of joy, sadness, or both at the same time is pulled off excellently as the characters are well understood and comprehended by the camera. You’d think Rapper had a huge desire to get her right. Shots will be framed in such a way to paint a scene. A character will be represented in a mirror, showing duality in the scene or the camera will follow an action to give the audience the impression it’s going to go a certain way. The craftsmanship is usually excellent.
The acting is mostly very good. There’s a little ham here and there, but most actors give very solid and nuanced performances. One favorite is Christine’s father, played by John Himes, who wants a manly man son. Christine’s birth name “George” is also her father’s name. There’s also some scholars who are intrigued by, but respectful of Christine and speak with a frankness and earnestness that comes from a good place. Trent Lehman plays Christine at age 7, who doesn’t understand some of the feelings she’s having. Lehman is pretty good for a child actor. Some of the ways he delivers his lines could be improved a bit, with the goal of making him seem more honest and childlike. The squeaky voice is very representative of a child, but his performance isn’t quite there because of some awkward line deliveries. However, Lehman gets several great facial expressions. These expressions show a desire to fix whatever’s making him want to play with the girls and not like football. In some scenes, child George is trying to prove himself a man, other times she is very attracted to girly things.
Trent Lehman and John Himes
Most of the film features John Hansen as the adult Christine. He’s great in this. While Christine tries to stay composed, her angst and desires slip through. Each scene of his builds on the last. Christine learns something about herself or someone else and she carries that feeling with her for the rest of the film. When George’s ego is damaged, you can see that on her face in every subsequent scene. After George finds something she’s looking for, there’s a look of interest on what to do next. Determination fills Hansen’s face. After that point, Christine is more relaxed, as she’s achieved a big goal of her’s. You can see how hard George then Christine tries to fit in society and how any given attempt goes can be understood just by looking at John Hansen’s 18-year-old face.
This film is not all positive. An automatic turn-off which happens in the first scene is the presence of a narration. Oftentimes, this is just a shortcut so something can be told instead of shown. Whenever something is described in the narration, if we instead saw what was described, the film would be better paced and more engaging. Narration usually pulls one out of the movie. Sometimes this theatrically released film can look like a tv movie. There’s snowing in the beginning and the snow looks really fake. During one scene, Christine dreams of past moments in the film, but skewed to be more like nightmares. While this is a good idea, the slowing down of footage and weird music choice make the scene laughable. Some of the dialogue throughout the film lacks subtlety.
SPOILERS
We get good introductions to our protagonist and her father. The father is loving, but conservative and unwilling to let his child make their own path. This is shown by a scene where the dad says his son will grow up to be an architect like him, but Christine doesn’t even want to do that. He says he does. George shows an attraction to her sister’s dolls. The look Lehman gives to the dolls is brilliant. She wants to be allowed them, but feels she shouldn’t want that. This is gathered from just Lehman’s face.
George gets in an argument with some other kids for being bad at football. The other boys call George a girl. George’s feminine impulses are contrasted with that sweet, sweet testosterone used to punch a kid. The parents foreshadow Christine’s gender transition not so subtly by saying how their son is different, but the lame dialogue is made up for by the acting being really good. The mother is a little confused about George’s femininity and the dad can’t even see the feminine qualities.
Another scene is mishandled. George is a photographer. After George photographs her sister’s wedding, she is in bed jealous that her sister is female. This scene was shot and performed goofily. The narration didn’t help. It would be more effective to show George in bed upset, we get a closeup of George’s face, then we cut to a shot of her sister, and then a shot where her sister looks particularly feminine. No dialogue, no dumb music.
On the set of a shoot, one woman calls George feminine pronouns. This peeves George. While one might think why George would dislike this, George has been conflicted by a feminine desire and this just adds to the inner torment and conflict by having an exterior element come in. Despite possibly being attracted to men, George doesn’t let a fellow male associate named Jess have his way with her. This gives respect to the character. George may think she’s straight for women at this point. We never get a scene throughout the whole film where George then Christine shows sexual attraction towards a woman or a disliking to women romantically. George does meet with a female prostitute at one point, but George seems deterred not by her being a woman, but her being very abrasive and aggressive. George is clearly very uncomfortable with the prostitute. She discusses what women like, a good man. This doesn’t make the insecure George feel any better.
Jorgensen with the prostitute
There’s a great moment where George breaks down a bit in front of a woman she barely knows. She confronts her gender there and speaks of it to the woman vague enough for her to not connect the dots. George frantically tells the woman, “I want you to believe me, I’m not like Jess.” George’s face and tone of voice show a self-confrontation. George is like Jess as she’s attracted to men, but she’s not gay. This inner conflict of not being a narrow-pathed Heterosexual bothers her as she knows most would consider her gay.
George, gaining a bit more understanding of herself, does research by reading numerous books to obtain more knowledge. She is intrigued by a book by a Professor Estabrook. She enrolls in a class by Estabrook. We get another great scene of the two talking. George tells the doctor her “instincts” are female. Estabrook wants to sample her blood. The needle prick is followed by a shot of George thinking of her childhood, we cut to a scene from her childhood. The transition is very effective. Estabrook knows a Dr. Victor Dahlman in Denmark who can transition George.
George tells her family she’s going to Denmark to take photographs and she’ll stay at the home of her Aunt Thora. After several one on one scenes of George and her mother throughout the film, we get one last with George and her mother. “Mom, I have to be somebody.” “All this time, I thought you were.” This quick conversation is so powerful due to the performances and double meaning that George and the audience are aware of. George tells her aunt, played by Joan Tompkins, her true reason for coming to Denmark. She’s supportive, but after a little awkward moment, she breaks the tension with some lighthearted banter. Tompkins plays her character very warm and friendly. She loves and respects George and what she’s doing.
One of the more clever moments comes when George looks at the painting, Creation of Eve, by Michelangelo. This draws a comparison between Eve and Christine. Jorgensen was the first “Trans celebrity”. This opened the gate for more Transgender people to feel the world is safe enough for them to be open in it. This film is the Creation of Christine. Dahlman offers George papers to sign as the first step of the transition. She eagerly goes to sign it, but is stopped by Dahlman. Dahlman explains the various procedures. This wraps the minds of the viewer and our protagonist on what is actually going on and the risks involved. She’ll be saying goodbye to a functioning penis and testes. She’ll also be the first person the procedure is done on. John Hansen says a whole lot with facial expressions. This scene confronts our protagonist with what she wants with reality and uncertainty.
George confronting the dream
Once it’s all over, Aunt Thora mentions the name Christine, which inspires George to want to adopt it. She asks for the name and Thora gives it happily. Thora and Christine hug. The wig John Hansen is wearing isn’t very good. The real life Christine Jorgensen had lots of natural beauty. This wig makes Hansen look like he’s wearing a costume. The story of Christine hits the news. Her dad is not happy about what happened. The dad is realistic for a man of this time. He doesn’t hate Christine, he’s just confused. There’s a great scene of Christine lamenting the lack of acceptance from her father. This is Hansen’s rawest performance in the film. She’s speaking like she’s exposed and must be honest. It’s very down to earth.
When there’s less than thirty minutes left to the ninety minute film, a news reporter named Tom Crawford convinces Christine to participate in telling her real, true story. And the two fall in love… A romance element isn’t a bad idea, but this film crams in numerous romance clichés. “Let’s be associates.” “I love you!” “We can’t be together!” “I’m sad.” “Yes we can be together!” This mishandling of the romance element is especially a shame as Tom was made up for this movie. Jorgensen’s real life romantic encounters were way more interesting than this. Fortunately, the cheesy romance takes up very little of the film, but that’s also the problem. The romance plot is so crammed in at the end it’s baffling. Several of Tom’s scenes lose weight as he hasn’t been along for the ride with Christine and the audience, he just showed up at the end. We do get some scenes that aren’t clichés and in fact are pretty good. There’s a good scene of Christine and Tom pondering in shadow about the other person and their future.
Life is for the Living
The film comes to a head at the end of the film. All of Christine’s moments of crying and insecurity boil over as she tells Tom she doesn’t want to be laughed and joked at for the rest of her life or put her family through harassment. She’ll just stay in Denmark forever and try to avoid drawing attention, so as to not be a bother. This is the type of thing many will think of doing when they just want the oppression and pain to stop, “I’ll lock myself in the box.” Hansen realizes this pain perfectly. All of the movie is working to this big, emotional moment of Christine really losing her calm. Tom says she can and should go to America so she can live a good life. “Things are going to be what you make them.” The two kiss. Christine returns to America and ignores the press making fun of her. She spots her family, all with smiles. They reunite happily and walk off. Tom implies in narration that Christine was the first step in more Transgender support in America and many can now get the help they need without as much hassle as Christine went through.
OVERVIEW
This film is a very engaging and quality production. The mostly excellent acting and story are very enticing. This film is a love letter to Christine Jorgensen’s massive influence on the world. She perhaps matters more now than ever. While this isn’t as elegant a production as it could be due to some cheese, The Christine Jorgensen Story is a fascinating watch as one of the first stepping stones of a civil rights movement still going on today.
I gained an appetite for an adventure, espionage thriller. This film seemed good enough. Decent reviews, decent plot, contained a favorite actor of mine, William Russell (who unfortunately wasn’t in the opening credits). Why not?
The Man Who Never Was is a very sharp film, though it does not give that impression initially. There’s plenty of scenes of people just talking about the plot. That scene ends, then the next is more of that. It’s honestly kind of incredible how much of that there is, but it’s never boring or fluff, though you’d think it would be. This is a movie filled with high ranking military members, so it makes sense this would occur. They basically leave a spot open for the audience member to dress up in one of those nice suits and discuss along. It’s very approachable.
The plot thickens and intensifies not because of big spectacles, such as a Nazi invasion or big shocking twist. It intensifies as the plot just simply moves forward. “Let’s do “A”.” Okay, done. “Let’s do “B”.” Done. The film entices and intrigues its viewer. The conflicts come very, very naturally from just this type of situation. The kinds of problems you’d expect are shown and handled. Some of these scenes might come off as filler, but they serve to enrich the story and boost the importance of what’s being discussed. They answer questions an audience member might have. There’s a change in the film halfway, which leads to way less talking and more observing. The shift isn’t jarring at all as, of course, it’s just the sensible next step. There’s no reason to talk. There is a scene relatively close to the end that breaks from this. It’s not what you’d think would happen, but it’s dramatic. It works very well as it’s so unexpected that the tide would change at all that it doing so is engrossing.
The main character of the film (for most of it) is Clifton Webb as Lt. Cmdr. Ewen Montagu. His intelligence and way of speaking instantly draw one in the film as he’s so elegant. He’s directing and moving the plan forward the best he can. All the performances are very subtle. You say what you think or what you know, then you move on. There is one exception. There’s a subplot about a young woman named Lucy, played by Gloria Grahame, who is concerned over the safety of her fiancé, who’s in war. She loves him and wants the two to be happy together after the war. She has multiple monologues where she discusses her feelings as dramatic music plays. It’s incredibly corny and she is overacting, but not greatly. The movie wants tears jerked from the audience, but there’s no real reason to. The movie doesn’t need to do that to tell a compelling story. The scenes aren’t great diversions, but they are little annoyances.
There are a few other moments of “movie dialogue” as opposed to more realistic dialogue. “Please be quiet for a moment and let me speak. I got a gut feeling on something!” “No you listen to me!” Neither of these are direct quotes, but it’s the kind of thing you more or less get in tons of movies. It stings the ears as they’re cartoonish and over the top by nature.
SPOILERS
There’s a very large plothole in the film that is very frustrating. Lucy’s fiancé, Joe, played by William Russell, is going off to war. Some time later, she gets contacted about the death of The Man Who Never Was, named William Martin, who isn’t Joe and isn’t even named Joe. The plot is forwarded greatly by a scene where she cries over the death of William. She doesn’t even know who William is. How could she? As he was made up by the British to try to fool the Germans. It was wondered if there was a scene or line I had looked over or if something would be explained later. Perhaps Joe was killed (as backed by the Wikipedia page on the film) and she’s crying about that. Why is she crying about Will then? It was all quite baffling. I am quite curious if Joe is actually dead and if the two get a happy ending.
Before she showed up, we had probably the best scene in the film. A German spy pretending to be a friend of William, played by Stephen Boyd, discusses him with a woman involved with the British military. She knows he’s a spy wondering if this man is real and he knows he can find out from Lucy if William is real. As the tension releases very slightly, Lucy walks in. William Martin starts to feel more real as the film progresses. A backstory is given and it makes it sadder he died, even though he’s not real! The last scene is very touching and poignant on this. Montagu receives a medal and puts it on Martin’s grave, as he was buried by people who thought he was real. Montagu doing this satisfies the audience need to have some relief as there is that attachment to William. His death is accepted.
OVERVIEW
The Man Who Never Was is a very classy and sharply written, directed, edited, and acted film. There’s very suspenseful moments and good drama. It’s a great time for those that appreciate a great and well thought out story. Praise be to director Ronald Neame and writer Nigel Balchin!
I was extremely excited when I first learned of the existence of Hell W10. It combines several things I love; movies of dirty, British, underground life; silent films; crime movies; and the Clash! The two main characters are played by Clash members; Paul Simonon as Earl and Mick Jones as “Socrates”. Joe Strummer, another Clash member, is the writer and director. It’s like this movie was made for me.
Calling this film amateur is an understatement. There’s awkward cutting, handheld camerawork which moves unnecessarily, bad (thankfully practical) effects, hokey acting, and more of that song and dance. If someone unfamiliar with the Clash were to watch this film, they’d probably not get it and think it’s laughably bad, but taking those negatives and putting it through the Clash prism makes it instantly better. The charming factor is off the charts. When someone gives an unconvincing performance or you see some obviously fake blood, it warms the cold, little heart. I love that they gave the villain such a dumb mobster name like “Socrates”. This film is a lot like The Evil Dead. It’s very interesting and the sillier and less convincing it is, the more engrossing it is. You can tell everyone really tried. Objectively speaking, it’s not well made. The pacing is hit by the awkward cutting which often cuts away too fast. A lot of shots really would have benefitted from a dolly being used instead of handheld.
There are two REALLY big pluses for Hell. The first is the look of the film. We see the dirty streets, the poverty, the ways people live their life. It’s so interesting just staring at the protagonist’s apartment as it’s filled with interesting posters and knick knacks. Of all the actors, the two leads especially have cool clothes and faces. Paul Simonon looks like a dirty, lowlife just living his life how he can, he only knows the streets. Mick Jones has an expressive, Buster Keaton-like face and wears nice suits. Some of the actors are pretty awkward, but that once again adds to the charm. Most of the actors appear to be in their 20’s or early 30’s, but they’re supposed to be in organized crime gangs. It can be hard to look past the baby faces. One character that’s blind acts like an old man, but he’d pass as a high schooler. If there was one actually good performance in the film, the whole thing might suffer as it would make everyone else seem worse. The look of the film does support the actors quite a lot.
The second positive is the MUSIC. The soundtrack consists of actual Clash songs, which are excellent. They do a great job of setting mood and atmosphere, sometimes with subject matter the same as what’s on screen. Even if the songs didn’t add to the film, they’re still great, catchy, punk-rock songs. The ending means more than it probably would’ve if it wasn’t set to Rock the Casbah.
This film is only fifty minutes long, thus there’s certainly more that should’ve been included. It can be hard to grasp what’s going on as something can be established and then we’re quickly onto something else. Some scenes have a lot of weight to them, as something deep happens, but then we’ve immediately moved on. It would be so much better if something bad happens to Earl, we get a scene of Earl in pain; something bad happens to Socrates, we get a scene of Socrates in pain; repeat. There is some of that, but not nearly enough. The biggest frustration is that some cops have a little plot which has no resolution. It’s not such an open wound that it’s a big deal, but there’s no fleshing out or payoff for what happens.
Some characters are very suddenly introduced relatively late in the film. As an example, some of Earl’s friends have their first scene in the movie around the middle when they’re needed for the plot. What could’ve and should’ve happened is have them all introduced in the beginning, then we see how they affect the plot. Some scenes go on too long, many featuring friends of the main character. More emotion could brew with a more narrow focus on Earl and how he impacts Socrates, as well as Socrates and how he affects Earl. The final scene is pretty effective. It’s not very well edited, but the message and atmosphere are there. More focus on the characters involved would’ve made it way more effective. It still works as is.
SPOILERS
The most clever part of the movie is in the ending. Earl, Socrates, and many of their associates are killed. Some children watch from a distance, while smoking a cigarette. This is a pretty subtle and brilliant way to show the spread of crime and the stupidity of it. It would’ve been nice to see the corrupt, racist cops from earlier in the film show up at the scene, as it adds to the spread of violence in society and it’d be a little closure for the cops.
Whenever someone is killed, there’s really bad fake blood and effects. Someone is being attacked with an axe and the axe clearly isn’t hitting them. One guy gets stabbed in the eye and we get a shot of the impaled eye, which is laughably fake looking, it barely looks like an eye. Earl’s girlfriend breaks up with him for no explained reason and starts dating Socrates. There’s no explanation of how she got in with Socrates and why. It’s never shown if Earl knows she’s with Socrates or how Socrates feels about dating Earl’s ex-girlfriend. These are big missed opportunities for character growth. The girlfriend witnesses them both be killed, but it doesn’t mean anything.
OVERVIEW
This is such a weird and interesting film. It’s filled with character and life and passion. There’s so much going on that it can be disorientating. Despite Hell W10 not being very good, that just makes it great.
The Filme Diary 