The third Fantômas film suffers from too much of a good thing

Fantômas III: The Murderous Corpse (aka "The Deadly Corpse" and "The Dead Man Who Killed") (1913)
Starring: Georges Melchior, René Navarre, Fabienne Fabrèges, Edmund Breon, Luitz-Morat, Jane Farber, Marie Dorly, Naudier, and Renée Carl
Director: Louis Feuillade
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Fandor (Melchoir) attempts to solve the mystery of how the fingerprints of a man who died in prison are showing up at crime scenes. Meanwhile, Fantômas (Navarre) is murdering, stealing, and undertaking a stock swindling scheme, all without fear of detection now that his nemesis Inspector Juve (Breon) is missing and presumed dead.

"The Deadly Corpse" is the longest Fantomas chapter so far, but it would have been better served if it had been shorter. While a few scenes are padded with characters meandering about and not much happening, the bigger problem is that the film is crammed too full of sinister Fantômas-ing.

In "The Deadly Corpse", Fantômas is basically engineering a stock manipulation scheme, but he goes about it with a ridiculously complicated web interconnected crimes--such as framing a guy for murder and then murdering him (as well as stealing his dead body), a jewel heist and some related extortion, and a second murder (for which he frames the missing dead man). All of these things are excellent ideas and very well presented in the film... but these good pieces add up to a less than satisfying whole. This would have been a much stronger film (not to mention shorter) if Fantômas had just done the heist and the second murder, or perhaps skipped the heist and just used the mystery of the how a dead man of the first kill could be committing murder to sensationalize the second the kill. Maybe my reaction is coming from being 100+ years of development of cinematic thriller tropes removed from this film, or maybe this film is a prime example of "too much of a good thing."

Another issue is the return of Lady Beltham (played by Renée Carl). The character's murky relationship to Fantômas in "Juve vs Fantomas" bothered me, but here I find it downright annoying. Even Fantômas seems surprised when she turns up on his doorstep to offer her assistance in his latest schemes, putting a lie to my notion that there was some twisted romantic relationship between the characters. Perhaps viewers in 1913 understood Lady Beltham's role in the over-arcing storyline of the series--these films were based on best-selling novels of the day, so the target audience already knew all the characters and how they were connected to each other--but I was left wondering why she was brought back instead of the far more interesting new female assistant that was introduced in the previous film (and who is nowhere in this one).

I was also bothered by the fact that this film is tinted, but I went on about my issues there extensively in my write up of"Juve vs Fantomas" so I won't repeat them here. 

Ultimately, "The Murderous Corpse" is a somewhat disappointing entry in the "Fantômas" series with a bunch of good components coming together to form a less-than-satisfying whole. Maybe things get better again in Part Four!

A genre-founding game of cat and mouse...

Juve vs Fantomas (1913)
Starring: Edmund Breon, Georges Melchior, René Navarre, Yvette Andréyor, and Renée Carl
Director: Louis Feuillade
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Fantômas (Navarre)--a psychopathic murderer, master of disguise and leader of a vast criminal enterprise--attempts to eliminate his dogged pursuers Police Inspector Juve (Breon) and journalist Fandor (Melchoir) while enacting a scheme to rob wine dealers of 150,000 Francs.

I have seen the Louis Feuillade-directed Fantômas material described alternatively as a serial and as series of sequels. Having watched now (finally) the second installment of the series, it's clearly a serial. While the first film delivered a complete story and stood relatively well on its own (read the review here), this one relies not only on prior knowledge of the characters featured, but on some degree of what happened in the previous film, but also ends with a number of unresolved plot elements.

Although "Juve vs. Fantômas" is part of a serial with no solid beginning and no end, it is made up of shorter, almost self-contained stories centered on either Fantômas and his gang schemes and heist attempts, or the back and forth between Juve & Fandor trying to catch Fantômas while Fantômas is trying to kill them.

From a genre history perspective, this is an interesting film to watch, because its chase scenes, shoot-outs, and general pacing and alignment of characters show how little the action and thriller genres have changed in the 110+ years since this "Juve vs. Fantômas" was released. The technology and techniques of filmmaking may have changed, but the pursuit scenes, confrontations between heroes and villains, shoot-outs--every story element really--could be transferred to a modern film with very little revision. (Okay, so Fantômas' method of escaping from Juve and Fandor when they nab him about halfway into the film would have to be completely reworked, but almost everything else would fit in a modern thriller. Oh... and me staying that Fantômas escapes from his pursuers is not a breach of my general policy of not providing spoilers; Fantômas will ALWAYS escape, because, although he's the villain, these films are more about what he and his crew are getting up to than the heroes that are trying to catch him.)

Highpoints of the film are the startling aftermath of Fantômas' gang robbing a wine broker they'd cat-fished; a shoot-out that's s equal parts thrilling and hilarious, with it being a very tense sequence that feels like heroes Juve and Fandor are in geuine peril, but funny due the way the gunmen trying to kill them pop up and down from cover; the scenes that underscore exactly how confident Fantômas is in his abilities to avoid capture, such as when he returns to finish his date at a nightclub with two lovely ladies after almost getting pinched at that very nightclub; and the entirety of cat-and-mouse game between Juve and  Fantômas that culminates in the film's final minutes that shocking cliffhanger.

On the downside, Fantômas' murky relationship with Lady Beltham (Renée Carl) continues from the first film, without any additional clarification of it. We're introduced to a new female assistant to Fantômas (Yvette Andréyor) at the beginning of the film--one who is a straight-up criminal like he, and who shares at least some of his talents for disguise, deceit, and being a social chameleon, and is all-around more interesting and even prettier than Lady Beltham--so I figured Fantômas had gotten all the use he could out of Beltham and moved on... but this is not the case. She is brought back into the story and cooperates with him for reasons even less comprehensible than her working with him before, and we get no further insight into why she cooperates with him or why he even reaches out to her. (Although I was a bit annoyed to see whatever it is that binds Fantômas and Beltham together, I hope she'll appear again in future installments, perhaps even get killed off and replaced by Josephine.)

On the presentation side, a near-constant annoyance for me was the fact that this film was tinted. Outdoor daylight scenes were tinted yellow or green (I can't tell which for sure due to being somewhat colorblind), outdoor night scenes being blue, and scenes involving fires, explosions, and fiery crashes (of which there are several) being tinted red. Scenes that take place indoors were tinted inconsistently, sometimes just in the native black and whit, but other-times in yellow/green or blue, depending on whether the light is on or not. I understand that this wasn't an uncommon practice back when this film was made, but it annoys me whenever I come across it. Maybe it's my color blindness or maybe it's just my love of the black-and-white medium (which is tied to my color blindness, according to at least two different wags I know), but I view it as a strike against a film, no matter how much I otherwise enjoy it. It's especially annoying to me when the tinting is applied inconsistently like it's done here.

In the end though, the good parts of "Juve vs. Fantômas" vastly outweigh the bad parts--and the finale makes up for any and all sins committed during its run-time. I will have to implement Fantômas Fridays for the rest of November so I can see how things turn out! 

If you have an interest in the history of film and where genre conventions come from, or if you just want to enjoy a fast-paced, old-timey crime drama, I think you'll find watching "Juve vs. Fantômas".

'The New York Hat' crowns Mary Pickford's stint at Biograph

The New York Hat (1912)

Starring: Mary Pickford, Lionel Barrymore, Charles Hill Mailes, and Madge Kirby

Director: D.W. Griffith

Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A village parson (Barrymore) triggers mean-spirited, self-righteous gossipers when he buys an expensive hat for a teenaged girl, Mollie (Pickford). 

I usually don't have the patience for silent dramas., especially the ones from the early 1910s. More often than not, when I try to watch one, I give up a few minutes in. I'm usually turned off by the pacing, the disorganized and uninspired staging of most scenes, and the style of acting which seems laughably over-the-top to my modern eyes.

When it comes to the dramatic short films helmed by director D.W. Griffith, however, I have yet to disappointed. He's three for three in holding my attention, as well as showing that he deserves to be remembered as one of the greatest directors of the silent film era.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Griffith understood how to frame a scene and how to place actors within it to get the greatest impact; it's like he's creating paintings that move instead of just recording stage plays with indifferent blocking. And speaking of stage plays, Griffith also seemed to understand that if he just let stage actors give their usual kind of performances, he'd get all the impact that was needed, with the audience being more than able to pick up on the action. Griffith had a feel for the film media that was far superior to many of his contemporary, and this is why these short films are worth watching today.

And this is very much true of "The New York Hat". Aside from being a showcase for Griffith's ability to frame a scene, his ability to let actors be their very best is also on brilliant display here, with Mary Pickford convincingly portraying the hurt and excitement of a naïve young teen, despite the fact she was 20 when this film was made; and with Lionel Barrymore being allowed for the first time to show he could do more than comedy in film. (While this film was a first for Barrymore, it was a last for Pickford--it was the last film she'd make at the company that launched her film career in 1909... but far from her last collaboration with Griffith.)

In addition to great performances from its stars, "The New York Hat" is filled with other excellent performances, ranging from bit parts by customers at the hat shop to church elders; to minor players, such as the "mean girls" and the three town gossips; and supporting characters like the hat-shop clerk (Madge Kirby) and Mollie's skinflint, domineering father (Charles Hill Mailes). In fact, the only thing that isn't excellent about this film is the ending which is just a little too pat for my liking.

I invite you to take a few minutes out of your busy day and check out this great movie, right here from this post. 

You'll have fun with 'Young Mr. Jazz'

Young Mr. Jazz (1919)

Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Bud Jamison, Harry Pollard, Marie Mosquini, and Noah Young

Director: Hal Roach

Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

An overly protective father (Jamison) and the young couple he is trying to keep apart (Daniels and Lloyd) all end up in a seedy dance club and become the target of muggers and pickpockets.

"Young Mr. Jazz" is a swift-moving comedy populated by amusing characters played by charismatic actors. (In fact, it's so swift-moving that I think the version I watched might be missing an intertitle, just like it was missing its opening title and credits.)

Made toward the end of Bebe Daniels' four-year tenure at the Hal Roach Studios, and her fruitful onscreen partnership with Harold Lloyd, this is about average for their output. There aren't any belly-busting gags, but there aren't any that fall flat either; what viewers get is a solid ten minutes of non-stop entertainment... and that's really all we can ask and expect when it comes right down to it.

Highlights of the film include the way Lloyd performs more like an animated character (as in one that exists in cartoons than in a live-action film) during the beach scenes, the pickpocketing sequences in the dance club, and the massive brawl that breaks out at the end when Lloyd and Daniels come to the rescue of her endangered father. An added nice touch is the openly lecherous attitudes of the father character, leering at women on the beach and later accepting the attentions of a random woman at the  club, even while trying to chase away his daughter's boyfriend. It's a nice bit of characterization that gives Daniels' character every moral right to be "rebellious." (Also, the differences in how Americans dressed at the beach 100 years ago, and how we do it now, are fascinating... at least to me.)

I invite you to take a few minutes to check out "Young Mr. Jazz" right here from this post. Let me know if you liked this film as such as I did.

'Somewhere in Turkey' is dated but fun

Somewhere in Turkey (1918)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, William Blaisdell, and Harry Pollard
Director: Alf Goulding
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

An explorer (Lloyd) and a beautiful castaway (Daniels) fall in love while imprisoned by an idol-worshipping sultan (Blaisdell).

"Somewhere in Turkey" may be one of those films that the passage of time has left behind... or maybe it's just not that good and even audiences in 1918 might have felt a little disappointed. While it's probably both, I think it's more of the latter than the former.

First, while the film has many strong slapstick moments (several involving literal slapping), most of the comedic routines are stretched to the point they stop being funny and start being repetitive; this is not a good thing for any film, but it's Very Bad when we're talking about something with a running-time of 10 minutes. Second, the story is sloppily constructed with Harry Pollard's character just vanishing about 2/3rds of the way through... and Lloyd's character doesn't seem to give him a second thought as he rides off with his new lady-friend. It's actually unusual for these comedies to leave such a huge element unresolved. (Of course, since the version I viewed--which is embedded below--is 10 minutes in length, and various sources report that it's 12 minutes long, so maybe Pollard's fate is explained in that missing footage.)

As for the film being left behind by the passage of time, I think there are some things that modern viewers will find distracting that might not have bothered audiences a century ago. For example, there's an executioner in the sultan's palace that appears in straight-up minstrel show black face instead of a black actor playing the part--something which probably shouldn't have been so far-fetched an idea, since less than two years later, black characters were being played by in films headlined by Buster Keaton, such as "Convict 13".

I have some further nitpicks about the costuming choices for this film. The characters look more Arab or Tunisian than Turkish, but that's all those are... nitpicks, and I probably wouldn't even have thought about it if not for a far bigger problem in the film:

It's a major plot point that the Sultan's court are idol-worshippers, in spite of the setting being northern Turkey and the Sultan ruling over Muslim. Even for a goofy comedy, this really stretched my disbelief, even allowing for Turkey being more "secular" in those days. Maybe audiences of 1918 didn't have the same level of cultural insights we have today--or maybe it's me that's over-educated in this matter--but more so than anything that bothered me about this film. (It's possible that the Sultan and his inner circle are secret idol-worshippers, as this is something that's hinted at in the manner Lloyd' and Pollard's characters end up in the mortal danger, but it seems more likely to me that this is just another artifact of indifferent writing. These problems could have been avoided if the film's setting had been a fictitious nation, It's a problem that could have been avoided if the location had been an imaginary one, such as in "His Royal Slyness", a 1919 film also starring Lloyd. That said, it's entirely possible that the film originally was set in a fictitious country, but was "relocated" due to Turkey being an enemy of U.S. and allies in World War I.)

For all the negativity I've just heaped on "Somewhere in Turkey", I have to say that Lloyd and Daniels are excellent together as always (once they finally get to share the screen). In fact, Daniels is front and center in all the best scenes in the film, from her melodramatic posturing when captured at the beginning of the film; to her confrontation with the Sultan; and her imprisonment and escape with Lloyd's character at the end, the scenes are all cute, funny, and to the point. In fact, I think that Daniels' presence, more than anything else, makes this film worth your taking a few minutes to check out. (And you can do so right now, since it's embedded below.)

'The Portrait' is a well-done early horror film

The Portrait (1915)
Starring: Andrey Gromov and Ivan Lazarev
Director: Wladyslaw Starewicz
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A young artist (Gromov) buys a painting to liven up his cramped rooms. He soon comes to regret his choice, as the painting begins to change and come to life...

"The Portrait" is a rare silent horror movie that holds up to modern viewing in almost every respect. Sure, the main character is a bit over the top in his emoting, but he's not as bad as what I've seen in other films of this period. The practical effects are well done, and all the bits of business surrounding the painting coming to life are creepy and well staged. It's almost perfect.

Almost.

Unfortunately, this is one case where I desperately wanted there to be the sort of "shocking" surprise twist-ending" that's usually anything but surprising that I so often complain about in the reviews I post to Terror Titans. This film would actually have benefitted from something--almost anything--else than its actual ending. I understand why it ended the way it did... I just wish it hadn't.

But what don't you judge for yourself. Check out "The Portrait" below, and let me know if you agree with my estimation of the ending.

'Just Neighbors' is just a lot of fun

Just Neighbors (aka "Neighbors") (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Harry Pollard, Bebe Daniels, and Margaret Joslin
Directors: Harold Lloyd and Frank Terry
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Fighting breaks out between once-friendly neighbor couples (Lloyd & Daniels and Pollard & Joslin) after escalating damage happens to both homes following a failed attempt at one husband to help the other with a backyard construction project.

If one wanted a cinematic illustration of what "that escalated quickly" means, "Just Neighbors" fits that purpose exactly. From the point where the two husbands (Harold Lloyd and Harry Pollard) run into each other on their way home from work in the city through Lloyd's misbegotten attempt to show off his handyman skills, through to the property destruction and literal slap-fight across the backyard fence, this film is a string of small situations that get out of hand--and hilariously so.

While none of the gags in this film are going to surprise anyone--what we have here is sit-com territory that's been well-trod in the past 100 years--but they're economically delivered by a cast with perfect comedic timing, so the action is constantly moving and not a second of screen-time is wasted.

The only complaint I can mount about the film is that I would have liked to see some more situations where the wives fight with each other was well. Any movie where Bebe Daniels has more to do is a better movie!  (I think the film might have been more interesting if perhaps it had played up and on the class differences between the two couples... but that would have probably resulted in a different and much longer movie.)

But, thanks to YouTube, you can check out "Just Neighbors" right now and see if you agree or disagree with my take on it.

Before the Mustache There Was 'Love in Armor'

Love in Armor (1915)
Starring: Mae Busch, Charley Chase, Fritz Schade, Frank Oppermann, Billie Bennett, William Hauber, and Bert Hunn
Directors: Nick Cogley, Francis J. Grandon, Frank Griffin and Mack Sennett
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A conman (Schade) snakes his way into the good graces of a young woman's wealthy parents (Bennett and Oppermann) - but he comes to regret his life's choices when he gets between her (Busch) and her true love (Chase).

I really wanted to like "Love in Armor" more than I do. It has some really cute moments in it, a handful of funny gags, and I don't recall seeing a film with Charley Chase or Mae Busch in which they weren't good. But, despite the presence of these good bits, the bulk of the film borders on tedious. 

As could be expected, the best parts of this film are scenes involving Busch, Chase, or both of them. Busch's parents don't approve of Chase seeing her, so the would-be young couple have to sneak off into the bushes which leads to cute bit of mildly sexy physical humor where Busch is unable to pull down her skirt because it's caught on a branch is a good example of this. Another is where Chase, hidden in a suit of armor, puts the film's villains in their place and ultimately gets the girl with pranks and straight-up violence. There is also a running gag involving the world's most inept and clumsy butler.

But each of these fun parts is either preceded or followed by sequences and gags that are either so poorly motivated or ineptly staged that they never quite reach their potential, or are dragged out to the point where they stop being funny. A sequence where successive characters end up sitting on a cactus embodies all these problems. It's got all sorts of potential--that it almost reaches when Busch and Frank Opperman (as her father) end up with their butts prickled--but its set-up is so weak it taints the entire bit, and it is allowed to go on just a little too long. Meanwhile, the film's climax is a tangled mess of slapstick that's so badly executed and so repeptative that I thought perhaps there was some bad editing in copy I watched and the same moment got repeated twice.

Sloppy writing (or perhaps direction) also hurts the film a bit. There is a great moment between Chase and Busch when he makes it known to her that he is hiding in the suit of armor; it's my favorite part of the whole movie. However, this revelation happens within full view and earshot of Busch's mother who remains oblivious to her daugher's weird interaction with a suit of armor.

Despite my complaining above, "Love in Armor" is entertaining and it's 13-minute runtime speeds by. If you're a fan of Mae Busch or Charley Chase, you'll definitely enjoy yourself. You may find yourself wishing Chase got a little more screen-time, but at least you'll get to see what he looked like before the mustache!

And guess what? You can watch it right here, right now! Just click on the arrow below to start the video!

Witness the birth of cinematic genres with 'Fantômas: In the Shadow of the Guillotine'

Fantômas: In the Shadow of the Guillotine (1913)
Starring: René Navarre, Edmund Breon, Renée Carl, André Volbert, and Jane Faber
Director: Louis Feuillade
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Inspector Juve (Breon) finally captures the coldblooded, murderous master theif Fantômas (Navarre) and sees him given the death sentence. Can the villain with a thousand faces pull off one more impossible escape and cheat Death itself?

If you love movies, there are some films you should watch just because of the important place they occupy in the development of film. That is especially true these days when so many classic and important films are available from so many different sources, conveniently and cheaply (or even free).

Among the movies I've felt I really should watch are the silent thrillers from Louis Feuillade, because they are, without exageration, the foundation for everything that followed in that film genre. Although I've had complete DVD collections of both Feuillade's "Fantômas" and "The Vampires" series sitting in my "To Be Watched" pile for quite some time, I put off watching them because I have generally not enjoyed feature-length silent films dramas and thrillers. However, since I recently watched and loved "Seven Footprints to Satan" and "Nevada", I thought I'd finally get around to plugging a hole in my film history education.

I almost wish I hadn't waited this long to see "Fantômas: In the Shadow of the Guillotine", because it's a really good movie that's help up well. Also, as someone who loves detective films, horror movies, and crime dramas, it was fascinating to see how the elements that make up those genres appearance in their infancy... and how little has changed over the past century of cinematic story-telling.

Despite having many of the hallmarks and flaws of one of these early films--a static camera and actors that over-emote to a ridiculous degree--Feuillade keeps things moving with such a rapid pace that these problems don't become too annoying. Possibly due to this rapid pace, Feuillade mostly avoids the thing that kills my interest in many of these early dramas/thrillers--scenes that drag on and on and on, while the actors mill about, overacting. There are only two scenes in the film that go on a little longer than is good, and I think that I may have felt that way about one of them because I knew where the scene was going and I was eager for it to get there so I could enjoy the pay-off.)

The only real complaint I can mount about this thoroughly enjoyable film is that the relationship between Fantômas and a woman who provides him assistance is too murky for the film's own good. She may be his long-time lover, she may related to him and his criminal enterprises in some other way... but it's never explained. The only thing we know for sure is that Fantômas murdered her husband and that the name of an identity he was using was included in the husband's address book. That may even have been Fantômas's actual identity for all the audience knows. It could be that the movie-goers of 1913 knew all about the connection between the two characters, because this film was an adaptation of a hugely popular novel of the day, and director Feuillade could just have assume that the audience already knew how the two characters were tied to each other. Still--it annoys me when this assumption is made with adaptations of properties I'm familiar with, so even if this was the case, it kept me from giving this film Seven Stars (on my Ten Star scale).

If you have an interest in the history of film and where genre conventions come from, or if you just want to enjoy a fast-paced, old-timey crime drama, I think you'll find watching "Fantômas: In the Shadow of the Guillotine" is time well spent.

'Caught in a Cabaret' is a fun little film

Caught in a Cabaret (1914)
Starring: Charlie Chaplin, Mabel Normand, Edgar Kennedy, Harry McCoy, and Minta Durfee
Director: Mabel Normand
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A waiter at a low-class joint (Chaplin) comes to the aid and defense of a wealthy young woman (Normand) when her cowardly boyfriend (McCoy) doesn't. Romance subsequently blossoms, but will the jealous ex-boyfriend find a way to tear them apart?

"Caught in a Cabaret" is a fun little film that's marred by predictability. The moment Charlie Chaplin's character lies about who he is and what is social standing is--he claims to be a foreign ambassador--you know that eventually the truth will out and our hero will be in trouble. Nonetheless, the rest of the film is so artfully executed that the preordained ending. The scenes in the cabaret--whether it's the crowded hall full of customers and performers, or the back-room with the bickering employees and their slapstick battles--are excellently staged and beautifully framed. The cabaret's common room more than once takes on the feeling of an animated 19th century painting.

The only thing that keeps this film from getting a Seven on my 0-10 scale is that an important plot element of the first half of the film seems to be just dropped for no reason and with no explanation. (It's entirely possible that a piece of the film is missing, but it seemed really odd to me that Chaplin's dog just vanishes at one point...)

Aside from that one (major) flaw, "Caught in a Cabaret" is an excellent early Chaplin film, and a fine example of Mabel Normand's deft directorial touch. I invite you to take a few moments and watch this great little film right now!

Dawn of the Photobomber

Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914)
Starring: Charlie Chaplin and Henry Lehrman
Director: Henry Lehrman
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

An attention-loving jerk (Chaplin) ruins the day of a film crew trying to document a boxcar race in Venice Beach.

"Kid Auto Races at Venice" is one of those films that show the more things change, the more they stay the same. Anyone who's been part of a crew trying to film or take photos when members of the public are around, has had to deal with "photobombers"--and even if you haven't had to deal with them directly, you've probably seen their handiwork in photographs and evening news stand-up sequences. Even as early as 1914, attention-whoring photobombers were common enough that Charlie Chaplin lampooned them in a delightful, mostly improved, short film.

This was Charlie Chaplin's second screen appearance, as well as the beginnings of his "Little Tramp" signature character, so those Chaplin fans who have yet to see this little film will find that checking it out below will be six, well-spent, enjoyable minutes. Everyone with an interest in filmmaking, or who has worked as a photographer, should also get a kick out of it. (The proceedings become even funnier when you realize that there are real photobombers photobombing in the background while Chaplin and Lehrman are making a film the film that's lampooning them.)

Join Harold & Bebe and go 'Back to the Woods'

Back to the Woods (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Harry Pollard, Bud Jamison, Marie Mosquini, T. Henderson Murray, and Arthur Housman
Director: Hal Roach
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A city slicker (Lloyd) and his man-servant (Pollard) head into the country where they run into lions, bears, a flirtatious Native American girl (Mosquini), and gun-toting hillbillies (Jamison and Daniels).

"Back to the Woods" is a great short film that delivers an even mix of situational comedy and slapstick and features Harold Lloyd and Bebe Daniels not only at their best and working with some excellent material.

Lloyd plays another one of those love-starved/sex-starved characters that seems to have been his bread-and-butter during the late 1910s. His character is less obnoxious than in, for example, "Ring Up the Curtain" and "Hey There". which is good because if he had been he probably would have gotten shot by Bebe Daniels' character. Their interaction throughout the picture is mostly as equals, as they rescue each other from bears and the psychotic backwoodsman played by Bud Jamison. It makes the film more palatable to the modern viewer, I think.

The characters played by Lloyd and Daniels in this film are also more appealing that the ones they portrayed in "Off the Trolley" where they were equals who were equally interested in getting laid but also equally unpleasant personality-wise. While "Back to the Woods" has characters who are an example of opposites attract, "Off the Trolley" is one of perfect mates).
Aside from the character interplay between Lloyd and Daniels, the most amusing parts of the film are scenes involves them interacting with bears... and it appears to be Lloyd in some of the scenes with an actual bear.




The version of "Back to the Woods" I've embedded below is not only the one I found online that's the clearest visually, but the music track is also better and more thoughtful than much of what is provided for many of these films. Check it out--it's well worth 10 minutes of your day!

'An Unseen Enemy' is a little creaky but still worth watching

The Unseen Enemy (1912)
Starring: Dorothy Gish, Lillian Gish, Grace Henderson, Elmer Booth, and Harry Carey
Director: D.W. Griffith
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Recently orphaned sisters (Gish and Gish) may be the victims of more than just robbery when their corrupt maid (Henderson) and her safe-cracking boyfriend (Carey) decide to steal part of their inheritance.

"The Unseen Enemy" was a surprising treat. While its a historically important film in that it's the debut picture of future silent movie super-stars Lillian and Dorothy Gish, it's also a thrilling little drama that has held up surprisingly well. While viewers will have to have some level of tolerance for the sometimes overly dramatic acting styles of the day, this is a film with  well-drawn characters, a multi-pronged and fast-moving plot, a nicely staged action sequence involving speeding automobiles... all of which leads to a satisfying conclusion.

Although Griffith manages to deliver a story that has everything (romance, comedy, drama) in less than 1/3rd the time it takes most modern crime dramas with stories like this, it's not a perfect effort. In addition for viewers to a need to have tolerance for some over-the-top acting at a couple points, the dramatic scene shown in the picture I've used to illustrate this piece ends up being a tad more silly than suspenseful. It starts out tense, and there's a couple moments during the sequence where Griffith manages to recapture the suspense, but there's an easy way for the girls to get out of the threatening situation they're in, and even when they try to take it, Griffin cops out and makes it so they don't succeed.

I'm aware that these days one is supposed to react with faux outrage when the names D.W. Griffith and Lillian Gish are mentioned, and we're supposed to run for the fainting couch at the merest suggestion that one should watch a film Griffith directed or one that Gish appears in--because, you know, of the terrible, TERRIBLE sin against all of humanity that is "The Birth of a Nation". However, since I have a greater interest in the art of film than I have in over-the-top hystrionics that would even embarrass Elmer Booth (the most prolific over-actor in "An Unseen Enemy"), I appreciate Griffith as a man who had a talent for cinematic storytelling and who recognized potential when he met with actors. (Sure, it would have been easy for him to see the talent in the Gish sisters, who came to him already seasoned stage actresses, but he also saw the greatness in Bessie Love who had no acting experience and was just looking for a summer job.)

I recommend you check out "An Unseen Enemy", right here and now, as I've embedded it below.

'Getting Acquainted' is a film worth seeing

Getting Aquainted (aka "A Fair Exchange") (1914)
Starring: Mabel Normand, Charlie Chaplin, Phyllis Allen, Mack Swain, Edgar Kennedy, and Glen Cavender
Director: Charlie Chaplin
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A day in the park turns chaotic when husbands (Chaplin and Swain) hit on each other's wives (Normand and Allen) and then up being chased by an increasingly irate police officer (Kennedy).

"Getting Acquainted" is a comedy of manners--mostly bad manners--with a healthy helping of slapstick thrown in. The comedy grows in equal amounts from the bad behavior of the husbands, the reactions of their wives, the threat to the husbands when the wives meet each other, and the various beatings doled out by the cop, a random guy (whose girlfriend the husbands also hit on), and even the wives. There's also some slight humor in the fact that physically you'd think Chaplin's character would be Normand's husband, while Allen and Swain's characters seem like they'd a better match, too.

This film may also be of historical interest to Chaplin fans, as it features one of the earliest appearances of his "Little Tramp" character--at least as far as the costume goes, since I don't think I've ever seen Chaplin's signature character being quite this much of a caddish horndog in any other films. Meanwhile, it's also easy to see why Normand was such a big star in her day; she all but leaps off the screen she has so much presence. It's also helpful that she keeps the Cuteness Meter pegged at Maximum in every scene.

You can get acquainted with "Getting Acquainted right here in this post, because the film is embedded below, via YouTube. Take a few minutes and watch it right now!

'Mabel's Blunder' will be your entertainment

Mabel's Blunder (1914)
Starring: Mabel Normand, Harry McCoy, Al St. John, Eva Nelson, Charles Bennett, and Charley Chase
Director: Mabel Normand
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A young secretary (Normand) comes to believe her fiance (McCoy) may be cheating on her with a strange, beautiful woman (Nelson) he's being awfully familiar with. To keep an eye on them, she trades clothes with her brother (St. John) and poses as their driver as they head out to a garden party. Things get complicated when her boss (Bennett), who also happens to be her fiance's father, decides to puts the moves on the cross-dressing brother...

"Mabel's Blunder" is a swift-moving, charming farce that is lots of fun when it works, and a little annoying when it doesn't. It's also a little creepy at times. This feeling may be a result of cultural changes that have taken place in the more than 100 years that have passed since this film was released, just like it's story line has become predictable because it's been done hundreds of times.

I'm going to give away the "big twist" in the film, since I'm sure you'll see it coming anyway, just like did--the mystery woman is her fiance's sister, so Mabel's jealousy was her "blunder". HOWEVER, the brother and sister here seem just a little too physical in their effection for each other, with the the phrase "it's okay to love your sister, but you shouldn't love your sister" coming to mind while watching them. I dunno... maybe this is just one of those things that were seen differently by audiences when this film appeared more than 100 years ago at this point, but it seemed very odd to me. I, too, would have assumed they were lovers rather than siblings, given the way they carried on. Maybe I was just raised by cold and distant people and I don't know what affection truly is?

But, aside from what seems to be an overly physical relationship between a brother and a sister, the rest of the film is cuteness overload. Watching the lecherous boss hitting on who he believes to be the office secretary (who is actually her brother in a woman's coat, hat, and veil) is both uncomfortable and hilarious. The performances of the cast are also very entertaining, which isn't surprising when one examines the cast list; every cast member either was a big star at the time it was made (like Mabel Normand and Charles Bennett), or soon would be (like Al St. John and Charley Chase).

Star Mabel Normand is of particular note here. Although she is barely remembered today, she was one of cinema's early super-stars, and I think it's easy to see why in this film. She is even more remarkable in that she was one of those rare triple-threat filmmakers who was equally talented as a writer, director and actor: Normand was the creator of this film, and it's a shame that her career and life was disrupted and cut short by ill health, alcoholism, and just tragic, bad luck.

As entertaining as I found this film, it's not without its flaws. First, it could have used one or two more intertitles, as some of the action and character relationships remains a little unclear, even when everything's come together by the end. Second, at the opposite end of the scale from the problem with the lack of intertitles , we have Normand gesturing over and over and over, in scene after scene, to her character's engagement ring to remind viewers of how her heart and vows made are being betrayed by her fiance. It becomes tiresome very quickly, and it is the only weak part about the performances and pacing in this film.

Several versions of "Mabel's Blunder" can be watched for free on YouTube, but none of them do the film the sort of justice it deserves. All the ones I found are fuzzy visually and a few have completely horrendous and inappropriate musical soundtracks. I watched the film on the Netflix streaming service, in its Classics section, under the "Early Women Filmmakers" collection. I am embedding the best of the YouTube versions below, but I really recommend that you check this film out on NetFlix if you're a subscriber. (It's only 15 minutes long, so I'm sure you can find the time!)

Get ready with 'Captain Kidd's Kids'...

Today seems like the perfect day to review a silent pirate movie, and to embed it in the post so you can watch it right here. Why is that, do you ask? Well,. because it's Talk Like a Pirate Day tomorrow!

 (Oh wait... maybe there's a slight flaw in this plan. Oh well... it's too late now!)


Captain Kidd's Kids (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Harry Pollard, Bebe Daniels, and Helen Gilmore
Director: Hal Roach
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

After falling overboard from a cruise ship, an obnoxious young man (Lloyd) discovers his fiancee (Daniels) and her shrewish mother (Gilmore) are operating a pirate ship crewed entirely by sexy women.

"Captain Kidd's Kids" is a short film that takes too long to get to the pirates promised in the title. It spends half of its running time hammering home how unlikable and dumb Harold Lloyd's character with a series of gags where he's abusive to his servants and other hired help. What's perhaps worse is that the gags are only mildly funny and every one of them outstays its welcome because the routines are too long.

Things get a better once we get to the ship full of sexy pirates, but even here the gags are weak. While none drag on the way the ones in the first half of the film did, they are mostly so predictable that they must have be old back in 1919. There is a very funny and surprising bit involving dinner time on the ship, it's satisfying to see Lloyd's servant throw in with the pirates and pay is boss back for all the abuse early in the film, and Lloyd's ukulele strumming inspiring an impromptu pirate chick dance party inspires a chuckle, but otherwise this is a rather disappointing affair... especially since the idea of Lloyd's dorky trickster character going up against a ship of sexy lady pirates is a concept that held so much promise.

"Captain Kidd's Kids" isn't a terrible move... it's just disappointing, because it falls short of what it could be. But why don't you watch it for yourself and tell me if you agree or disagree with my take on it? It's embedded for your convenience below.

'Suspense' is one of the earliest cinematic thrillers... and it's still highly effective

Suspense (1913)
Starring: Lois Weber, Sam Kaufman, Valentine Paul, Douglas Gerard, and Lule Warrenton
Directors: Lois Weber and Phillips Smalley
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

A young woman (Weber) is home alone with baby when a homicidal hobo (Kaufman) decides to break into the isolated house.

"Suspense" is a film that lives up to its title. It's a very early cinematic thriller that doesn't waste a second of its ten-minute running time on anything that doesn't build suspense. From establishing the house's isolation, to presenting the home invader in a sinister fashion, though the husband's desperate attempt to make it home to save his wife after her plea for help is cut off in mid-sentence... it's all edge-of-your-seat stuff. The film is strengthened further by fairly restrained performances (compared to what you might find in other films from this time).

What makes "Suspense" even more entertaining and engaging for modern viewers is the creative and, for the time, innovative approach taken in the cinematography. There's an impressive use of three-way split-screen at various points in the film when the wife is on the phone with her husband, as the deadly intruder is drawing closer. There are also numerous shots that use mirrors to expand the visual depth of a scene, or to allow the viewer to see what is going on in two different directions. Overall, the way the film elegantly shows events happening simultaneously at different locations, or tries to give a sense of a 360-degree view of the unfolding action, is exciting stuff even more than 115 years later. (The only thing that keeps this film from getting a Ten of Ten rating is that the ending isn't quite what it could have been, I think. But it's a very narrow miss.)

Several different versions of "Suspense" is available for viewing on YouTube. It can also be found streaming on Netflix as part of the "Early Women Filmmakers" package under the Classics category. The Netflix version has a better musical soundtrack than any of the ones I checked out on YouTube, but for those of you without Netflix who want to take ten minutes to watch this great film, I've embedded the best of the YouTube versions below.


Trivia: Lois Weber appeared in over 140 films, and she directed or co-directed roughly 100 of those. During the early 1920s, she was counted among Universal Pictures' best directors, but after her personal production company went bankrupt, her career stalled.

The most complete version of 'Pinched'

As regular readers of Shades of Gray (all seven of you) have probably noticed, I've been trawling YouTube for things to review much more than I used to. This is because the place is a treasure trove of films I otherwise would never even have realized existed... and even if I had known, I wouldn't have seen them, because I am too cheap to buy DVD collections of silent films and cartoons from the 1920s and 1930s.

Every so often, I also come across someone who is using the YouTube platform to give a gift to all us film-lovers out here, at great effort. Most recently, I came across Dave Glass's restored version of "Pinched" (1917). He assembled it from three different sources, did some digital clean-up on some sections, and uploaded what, for now at least, is the closest we'll get to seeing what movie-goers saw when they settled into their seats 100 years ago.

Getting easy access to an effort like this is what makes the web so great... and it's makes it even greater because of the ease I can share it with all of you, right here, at the bottom of this post.


Pinched (1917)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Harry Pollard, and Bud Jamison
Directors: Harold Lloyd and Gilbert Pratt
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

After being framed as his own mugger (Lloyd), a young man's attempts to avoid arrest lands in him jail for ANOTHER crime he didn't commit.

Like many slapstick comedies, "Pinched" is a loosely connected series of vinettes that each revolve around one or two set-piece gags. They are tied together in this one primarily by a checkered cap that blows off Harold's head while he is out driving with his girlfriend. It's a fun idea that makes the events of film seem a little more reasonable than they might otherwise have if the main character had just wandered from situation to situation and gotten into trouble completely randomly.

Check it out; it might be the most fun you'll have today!

'Ring Up the Curtain' has Harold Lloyd bringing down the house

Ring Up the Curtain (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Harry Pollard, Bud Jamison, and William Blaisedell
Director: Alf Goulding
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

An incompetent stage hand (Lloyd) gets the hots for a flirtatious leading lady (Daniels) and ruins a performance as a result.

"Ring Up the Curtain" is a fun little tale that demonstrates the importance of having a good backstage crew supporting the performers on stage... because all the complications in this picture arise from the bad choices made by a theatre owner (William Blaisdell) in hiring a bunch of drunks. He compounds his error by firing them all, except for one, as a troupe of vaudevillians are about to put on a performance. His catastrophic mistakes are to our benefit, however, as the chaos Harold the Useless Stagehand is hilarious to watch.

The film isn't perfect, though. After a strong start, featuring the sacking of the drunken stagehands, about a minute is wasted on the theatre owner abusing Harold and some shtick with a bowler hat that drags on for too long. Once Bebe Daniels and the rest of the acting troupe shows up, the film gets back on target.

The good outweighs the bad here, though. The scene were Harold out-and-out sexually harasses Bebe Daniels in the middle of the performance and ends up on stage fighting with her husband (played by Harry Pollard) is already comedy gold, but it's made even funnier by the way Harold forces an actor practicing his lines to hold the rigging ropes in the wing.

But don't just take my word for how fun this little movie is; I've made it easy for you to check it out by embedding it below, via YouTube.

'Two-Gun Gussie' is fun, but not remarkable

Two-Gun Gussie (1918)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, William Blaisdell, Charles Stevenson, Harry Pollard, and Bebe Daniels
Director: Al Goulding
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A brutish trouble-maker (Blaisedell) swaps his photo in a police alert for that of a mild-mannered piano-player at the local saloon (Lloyd). When everyone starts treating the piano-man like a desperado, he becomes so convinced of his toughness that he eventually goes toe-to-toe with the man whose reputation was pinned on him.

"Two-Gun Gussie" is a fast-paced spoof of westerns that has very little plot to get in the way of the jokes... and what there is of a plot doesn't make a whole lot sense and feels forced. Since this film is only 10 minutes long that hardly matters though. This is one where you should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

The film is at its best during the kinda-sorta shoot-out between Harold and bartender 'Snub' Pollard, although Harold trying to intimidate the tough guy like he does the townspeople will also inspire a chuckle or two. The most disappointing aspect of the film is that Bebe Daniels is almost totally wasted in the role of a Salvation Army fund-raiser, with very little to do but be the object of a ridiculous insta-romance between herself and the main character. (One thing though--if there was ever any question that it's her playing Dorothy in the "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (1910) , this film should put that to rest; the panicked genstures she makes here are exactly like those she made as a young child actress.)

I've made it easy for you to enjoy this fun little film; it's embedded in its entirety below, via YouTube. I hope you enjoy it!