Topic: Some Harold Lloyd thoughts

[falsealarms]

Saw MOVIE CRAZY for the first time tonight and was blown away. Based on what I had read about it, I figured I'd like it... Felicia Feaster was right when she wrote "the film is especially appreciated by modern film fans for its glimpse of early talkie-era film production techniques."

But MOVIE CRAZY was better than I expected. The relationship between Lloyd and Cummings was so well done -- those two had great chemistry. Cummings, who died just a few years ago, was spectacular. The rain scene was a real treat. The always great Arthur Housman was welcomed. The party scenes with hi-jinks originating from a coat mix up with a magician were fun. As soon as that got going, I immediately thought of LOCO BOY MAKES GOOD and sure enough Lloyd went on to sue over the use of the sequence in LOCO BOY. The fight on the movie set was great and the bit with Lloyd twirling around on a coat rack and punching another guy brought memories of SING A SONG OF SIX PANTS.

A pair of Lloyd silents, HIGH AND DIZZY and GET OUT AND GET UNDER, were also enjoyable but not to the level MOVIE CRAZY was. The bit with, I think, Ernest Morrison in GET OUT AND GET UNDER was particularly good.

Lloyd is pretty off the radar nowadays... I think if shown a picture of him, most wouldn't have any idea who he was. I'd suspect most casual movie fans could still ID the Stooges, the Marxes, Laurel/Hardy and the like... in fact, in a Japanese history course last year, my professor put up a picture of Chaplin and asked the class if anyone knew who that was... several did. A picture of Lloyd probably wouldn't have been as recognizable. People might recognize the clock hanging picture, but not necessarily the guy hanging.

In fact, in a 2005 USA Today article, Lloyd's granddaughter was quoted as saying, "people have no idea of who he is except an image of him hanging off a clock (in 1923's Safety Last!), and they will say, 'I know him. He's Buster Keaton.' No!"

Perhaps if Lloyd wasn't so protective about his films, then his stuff would have remained in the public eye as opposed to falling completely out of it.

[metaldams]

Glad you enjoyed MOVIE CRAZY.  It's been a while since I've seen it, but I certainly remember it being enjoyable and probably the first Lloyd talkie where you feel he got the hang of sound.  His first talkie, WELCOME DANGER (1929) is fascinating from an academic point of view and even has a few gags familiar to Stooge fans, but it also is overly long and really suffers from what I like to call "early talkie syndrome," which can be said for about any 1929 talkie.

If you like Lloyd talkies, I highly suggest THE CAT'S PAW (1934).  It has a very different feel than any other Lloyd films, so fans are pretty divided about it, but I think it's a classic.  It's the first Lloyd talkie I saw, and I wasn't expecting much at the time, so let's just say I was pleasantly suprised.  The last bit in the basement with all the crooks has to be seen to be believed.

For silents, just about all his '23 - '28 films are masterpieces.

[Seamus]

Unfortunately my only exposure to Lloyd so far was catching the last half of WELCOME DANGER a few months back on TCM, and that was just not good (other than the historical interest Metaldams mentioned).  I remember a lot of long, drawn out "scare" scenes, and Lloyd's grating "weeny" voice had me wishing I was watching one of his silents.

But I understand DANGER was one of his weaker efforts.  I should really check out his good stuff sometime.

Metaldams:  Do you think "early talkie syndrome" applies to the Marx Brothers' COCONUTS?  I thought that one worked surprisingly well for a 1929 talkie.  Seemed to dive into the new medium with a lot more confidence than most other early talkies I've seen, if you know what I mean.

[metaldams]

Metaldams:  Do you think "early talkie syndrome" applies to the Marx Brothers' COCONUTS?  I thought that one worked surprisingly well for a 1929 talkie.  Seemed to dive into the new medium with a lot more confidence than most other early talkies I've seen, if you know what I mean.

Yes and no.  For a Marx Brothers movie, yes, it suffers from early talkie syndrome.  Like most early talkies, it does feel very stage bound as opposed to the last three Paramounts, but then again, it was based on a stage play.  But overall, it is one of the better films of 1929 for the simple fact the brothers and the script carry the film.

If the last half of WELCOME DANGER is the only Harold Lloyd you've seen, then yeah, you didn't get an ideal introduction.

[Dog Hambone]

Lloyd is pretty off the radar nowadays... I think if shown a picture of him, most wouldn't have any idea who he was.

Thanks to TCM and their relatively frequent showing of his work, I have become a huge Harold Lloyd fan. I admit to not knowing much at all about him until he was featured on TCM. As with most acts, his body of work has good stuff and bad stuff. But I would rate the good stuff up there near the top. He is nothing short of amazing at times with some of those stunts - even more so when you realize he did a lot of them with a severely injured hand.

And I agree with you - those silent films of his from the 1920s are masterpieces!   

[Bruckman]

I've always thought Lloyd's silent features and two and three-reel shorts ought to be studied by anyone interested in how to build a comedy....That doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with Walter Kerr's assessment of Lloyd as no more than a comedy "architect", a good builder or constructor; he was a master at subtle comedic characterization too. But to start out with, his mature films show an unerring ability to develop and extend laughs from really very basic situations, working all kinds of variations on a single gag idea (the sequence where Harold keeps messing up one simple scene during the shooting of the film-within-the-film in MOVIE CRAZY is a good example; it's been cited as an influence on numerous avant-garde filmmakers, e.g. the screen test sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2, for example). That's why I can watch a Lloyd film repeatedly; I'm always amazed by the man's ability to provide fresh twists and turns to basic material, even to the point of surprising the viewer. MOVIE CRAZY  is an especially nice example because it not only shows how he could use essential sight-gag material from the silent era (the running gag of the shattered door or the casting director's mangled straw hat - another touch Fellini appropriated in AMARCORD) but could use such sight gags to advance characterization and story - such as the "putting up the car top" sequence (Howard Hawks had to have had this sequence in mind when he was working on BRINGING UP BABY).

In other words, if you want to know how to construct, pace, and develop comedy, you can go to few better sources than Lloyd's output. A master of the comedy cinema and not afraid to experiment freely with differing styles, as Metaldams pointed out in re THE CAT'S PAW.

[metaldams]

I've always thought Lloyd's silent features and two and three-reel shorts ought to be studied by anyone interested in how to build a comedy....That doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with Walter Kerr's assessment of Lloyd as no more than a comedy "architect", a good builder or constructor; he was a master at subtle comedic characterization too. But to start out with, his mature films show an unerring ability to develop and extend laughs from really very basic situations, working all kinds of variations on a single gag idea (the sequence where Harold keeps messing up one simple scene during the shooting of the film-within-the-film in MOVIE CRAZY is a good example; it's been cited as an influence on numerous avant-garde filmmakers, e.g. the screen test sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2, for example). That's why I can watch a Lloyd film repeatedly; I'm always amazed by the man's ability to provide fresh twists and turns to basic material, even to the point of surprising the viewer. MOVIE CRAZY  is an especially nice example because it not only shows how he could use essential sight-gag material from the silent era (the running gag of the shattered door or the casting director's mangled straw hat - another touch Fellini appropriated in AMARCORD) but could use such sight gags to advance characterization and story - such as the "putting up the car top" sequence (Howard Hawks had to have had this sequence in mind when he was working on BRINGING UP BABY).

In other words, if you want to know how to construct, pace, and develop comedy, you can go to few better sources than Lloyd's output. A master of the comedy cinema and not afraid to experiment freely with differing styles, as Metaldams pointed out in re THE CAT'S PAW.

Seriously bro, welcome back.

I agree with what you're saying, nobody, and I mean nobody, can milk a simple situation better than Lloyd.

Harold gets about 5 minutes worth of laughs alone from just losing a wallet in NUMBER, PLEASE, and it's breathtaking to see how many variations he can do for one simple gag.  I also dig the losing his pants sequence in AMONG THOSE PRESENT.

To me, the closest the Stooges ever came to milking a gag so brilliantly is the sweater scene in HOW HIGH IS UP?, but overall, gag variation is more Lloyd's forte.

Just a Harold aside, to this day, I've still never seen PROFESSOR BEWARE!

[Herman]

Watch "The Kid Brother" if you want to see a terrific Harold Lloyd movie!

[metaldams]

Watch "The Kid Brother" if you want to see a terrific Harold Lloyd movie!

I'll second that.  I think Lloyd combined drama and comedy in THE KID BROTHER better than any other film he did.  It's a beautiful looking film too, the outdoor scenery is gorgeous, as is Jobyna Ralston, who was Harold's best leading lady (no disrespect to Mildred and Bebe).  Easily a five star film.