Topic: Sherlock Jr. (1924) - Buster Keaton

[Paul Pain]

Watch SHERLOCK JR. in the box above and get the Damfino's note here:
http://www.busterkeaton.com/Films/C04_Sherlock_Jr.html

SHERLOCK JR. is like the Keaton version of BEAU HUNKS; it's a really long short subject, because it feels too short to be a complete movie.  Unlike last week's film, this week's features comedy and feats of engineering over plot.  And the plot's good too!

The opening scenes help to nicely set up the sliminess of the villain while also introducing us to diminutive Buster, who has to rely on his wit as always.  Ward Crane was a star of the day, so having him in this film added to Buster's own credence.

The devices and mechanical gags in this film are almost innumerable: the water pipe (which broke Buster's neck), the hatchet, the billiard game (Clyde Bruckman plagiarism warning), the crossing arm, the motorcycle, the jumping-through-a-hoop-into-a-dress, the fence, the car, etc. all work in astounding ways to astonish the viewer with their sheer brilliance.

It's classic Buster fare, folks.

10/10

[Umbrella Sam]

Unlike OUR HOSPITALITY, which focused on meeting a nice blend of comedy and drama, SHERLOCK JR. goes back to focusing more on the comedy. For what we lost, though, we gained an impressive mixture of camerawork and editing.

Plot-wise, the film doesn’t have much going for it. The resolution to the problem occurs pretty early on and in addition to Keaton not being a part of it, we don’t see what happens to Ward Crane. The late Joe Roberts’ presence is also missed. Joe Keaton, rather than having a comedic bit part, instead plays the girl’s father, while Erwin Connelly plays the handyman. Both of these roles felt like they would have benefitted from being played by the much more intimidating-looking Roberts.

Neither of these elements are really that important to this film, though. Its focus is mainly on the comedy and the film certainly delivers. Keaton having to get people to describe their dollar bills before giving them back, Keaton following Ward Crane and imitating his every move, and the train are all highlights of the opening scenes.

Then we get back to the theater and this is where the film truly gets a chance to show off. Keaton drifts off and we see both the dream Keaton and the real Keaton in the same scene. The dream Keaton then enters the projection screen. The editing of the various background settings in this is simply brilliant. Keaton takes advantage of every possibility opportunity he could with this idea and it looks fantastic.

After that, we get to Keaton as Sherlock Jr. Rather than just imitate what happens earlier in the film, Keaton adds more ideas such as Crane and Connelly trying to kill him in various ways, only for Keaton to avoid all of them. Rather than imitate Crane while following him, which was already a funny idea, Keaton instead gets to fall off a crossing arm into the back of Crane’s car. When he gets into Crane’s hideout, he comes up with a very clever idea: jumping out of the window into a dress to trick the villains.

Another great gag is when Keaton jumps into the suitcase. This was supposedly an old vaudeville trick and this will  be one of the last times, if not the last time, that we see these kinds of gags. While these gags were very funny and worked well in shorts, Keaton could no longer use them in features because of how illogical they were. He was able to do it here since it was a dream sequence.

Keaton then rides on the handlebars of a motorcycle, only for the driver to fall off and Keaton not realize this for most of the ride. He narrowly avoids cars and trains and it is once again very thrilling. Same thing goes for the car chase. The ending gag of Keaton imitating what’s on the screen also leads to a pretty good punchline.

As a feature (and yes, it is technically considered a feature), SHERLOCK JR. does not work nearly as well as OUR HOSPITALITY. SHERLOCK JR., though, is so funny and impressive that it is very easy to forgive its problems. SHERLOCK JR. is a unique viewing experience and is a must-watch for any movie fan out there.

10 out of 10

P.S. Towards the beginning, the theater has advertisements for some real movies. One of these is for a comedy starring a then-little known comedian named Stan Laurel called MUD AND SAND.

[metaldams]

      Umbrella Sam, nice catch on the MUD AND SAND poster.  All of these years watching this film and I never noticed that until you pointed it out.  I of course noticed the Mary Pickford picture, but that's more front and center.

      SHERLOCK, JR. is a very special film to me as it was my introduction to Keaton and got me into silent comedy in general.  Before this, I saw four Chaplin Essanay shorts from 1915 on TCM and was not impressed.  These days, I appreciate those Essanay shorts for what they are....early Chaplin and ahead of their time, but there's a huge difference between 1915 and 1924, so starting out with mature silent films (basically, the 20's) is best for the newbie.  First viewing of SHERLOCK, JR. blew me away instantly.  I was blown away by the creative gags, the dangerous stunts, the wit, and Keaton's demeanor in general.  I've been on board ever since.

      As far as the length, SHERLOCK, JR. is a short feature.  Basically, anything 40 minutes or more and at least four reels is a feature.  SHERLOCK, JR. just squeezes by.  Since this week's film routinely is called a Keaton feature, I am consistent.  Chaplin's first directed feature, in my eyes, is not THE KID, but SHOULDER ARMS, and I also count THE PILGRIM.  They're the same length as SHERLOCK, JR.

      The plot of SHERLOCK, JR. is really not the point of the film, so I do not consider the minimal plot a flaw.  Yes, the plot is resolved early on.  The point of SHERLOCK, JR.; besides being a great comedy, is that we can aspire to be what we're not in dreams and live out fantasy, and to dig even further, movies are also an avenue where we can live out fantasy.  Not that I'm a fan, but how the Hell else do you explain all these super hero movies that are coming out today?  The majority of Keaton's dream takes place in a movie, so the two are definitely intertwined.

      Pre dream Keaton is a wanna be detective and lover, and he's not very good at either (staying true to the proverb at the beginning of the film).  He gets outwitted with the pawned watch, overshadowed by his rival for his girl, and when he is with his girl, is hilariously too timid to make a move towards her.  The scene where Keaton and Kathryn McGuire are next to each other and Keaton gives the ring and proves to be a timid love maker are the closest to Harry Langdon Keaton ever got....and I love Langdon. 

      OK, so Keaton's inept in real life, but in his movie/dream, he's always one move ahead of his rivals.  He knows not to drink the poison liquor, he knows to grab away the explosive pool ball, he pre plans his escape when the rivals let down their guard and expose the pearls through that brilliant window gag, and he saves the girl nonchalantly and gets her in the end.  When we return to real life, Keaton is again inept at making love to his girl, so what does he turn to for advice?  The movie on the screen in front of him, impersonating, rather timidly, every move the leading man makes towards his lady.  The very last gag which ends the film, which I won't give away for those who haven't seen it, is one of the most hysterical endings ever and takes the impersonation thing further than Keaton can go.

      The physical comedy is wonderful and at times dangerous.  Keaton really broke his next falling down from the water pipe by the train but didn't know about it until years later!  The motorbike chase is awesome and that really blew me away first viewing....still does.  The timing and mechanics of some of that stuff, like the stuff with the trucks and bridges especially, is breathtaking.  I also love Keaton shadowing his rival early on, again, an act that must've taken great rehearsal and timing.  Oh, and the transition scene into Hearts and Pearls where Keaton enters the movie screen and keeps transitioning into different surroundings is also brilliant, as is the ghost Keaton who enters the screen.

      Really, one of the greatest movies ever made and a perfect introduction to silent film for any doubter.  A very important film in my life.

10/10

[Umbrella Sam]

As far as the length, SHERLOCK, JR. is a short feature.  Basically, anything 40 minutes or more and at least four reels is a feature.  SHERLOCK, JR. just squeezes by.  Since this week's film routinely is called a Keaton feature, I am consistent.  Chaplin's first directed feature, in my eyes, is not THE KID, but SHOULDER ARMS, and I also count THE PILGRIM.  They're the same length as SHERLOCK, JR.     

You know, now that I think about it, this has always been something that has bothered me. People qualify SHERLOCK JR. as a feature, yet they never count SHOULDER ARMS or THE PILGRIM as features, despite the fact that both technically qualify and are about the same length. Technically, A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN also qualifies, though Chaplin did not direct all of the footage nor did he approve its release (just another reason to not be a fan of Essanay ).

[metaldams]

You know, now that I think about it, this has always been something that has bothered me. People qualify SHERLOCK JR. as a feature, yet they never count SHOULDER ARMS or THE PILGRIM as features, despite the fact that both technically qualify and are about the same length. Technically, A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN also qualifies, though Chaplin did not direct all of the footage nor did he approve its release (just another reason to not be a fan of Essanay ).

      Yeah, I don't qualify A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN for the very reason you mentioned.  Also, throw in A SAILOR-MADE MAN, another roughly 45 minute four reeler, being considered Harold Lloyd's first feature, and that's more of an argument to add SHOULDER ARMS and THE PILGRIM in Chaplin's feature film filmography.

[Dr. Mabuse]

"Sherlock Jr." is Buster Keaton at his absolute best — in other words, pure cinema.  At 45 minutes, the overall length works fine.

In a 1958 interview, Keaton said "Sherlock Jr." was "the trickiest of all the pictures I made." However, it didn't rank among his personal favorites: "The General" and "The Navigator." Nevertheless, he was justifiably proud of the film-within-a-film dream sequence, which has been emulated but never surpassed. More than 96 years later, "Sherlock Jr." remains a masterpiece of technical virtuosity that expands upon the brilliance of Keaton's best two-reelers.

10/10

[metaldams]

"Sherlock Jr." is Buster Keaton at his absolute best — in other words, pure cinema.  At 45 minutes, the overall length works fine.

In a 1958 interview, Keaton said "Sherlock Jr." was "the trickiest of all the pictures I made," even though it didn't rank among his personal favorites: "The General" and "The Navigator." Nevertheless, he was justifiably proud of the film-within-a-film dream sequence, which has been emulated but never surpassed. More than 96 years later, "Sherlock Jr." remains a masterpiece of technical virtuosity that expands upon the brilliance of Keaton's best two-reelers.

10/10

Saying 96 years later how the technical virtuosity still stands really says a lot.  Makes me wonder how the CGI stuff of today will hold up in 96 years.

[NoahYoung]

Before I get to this picture, I did want to point out that SHOULDER ARMS is a 3-reeler, and always has been. This is well documented. On my Image DVD, it says 45 minutes, but that is because David Shepard had the penchant to use a fairly low fps rate. The CHAPLIN REVUE version, now considered to be the official "daddy" version by his estate, runs 36 minutes (but that includes the 4% PAL conversion speed-up)
http://www.silentera.com/video/collChaplinRevueHV.html

Anyway, SHERLOCK, JR. is my second favorite Keaton feature (after THE GENERAL). I think it is perfect, and would not change a thing about it. It is listed as a 5-reeler, but projected at 24fps runs 45 minutes -- so really 4.5 reels. No doubt that it is indeed a feature.

Fatty Arbuckle directed at least part of this movie. Buster himself mentions it in his autobiography, but he changed the story a bit subsequently, so he never gave a definitive answer on just how much of it Arbuckle directed. The hypothesis offered in the book BUSTER KEATON'S SHERLOCK JR., edited by Andrew Horton, David B. Pearson, speculates (with thorough reasoning to back it up) that Arbuckle directed for the first 2 to 3 weeks, and then was dismissed by mutual consent. (Arbuckle and Keaton were excellent friends, and remained so until Arbuckle's death in 1933.)

[metaldams]

Before I get to this picture, I did want to point out that SHOULDER ARMS is a 3-reeler, and always has been. This is well documented. On my Image DVD, it says 45 minutes, but that is because David Shepard had the penchant to use a fairly low fps rate. The CHAPLIN REVUE version, now considered to be the official "daddy" version by his estate, runs 36 minutes (but that includes the 4% PAL conversion speed-up)
http://www.silentera.com/video/collChaplinRevueHV.html

Anyway, SHERLOCK, JR. is my second favorite Keaton feature (after THE GENERAL). I think it is perfect, and would not change a thing about it. It is listed as a 5-reeler, but projected at 24fps runs 45 minutes -- so really 4.5 reels. No doubt that it is indeed a feature.

Fatty Arbuckle directed at least part of this movie. Buster himself mentions it in his autobiography, but he changed the story a bit subsequently, so he never gave a definitive answer on just how much of it Arbuckle directed. The hypothesis offered in the book BUSTER KEATON'S SHERLOCK JR., edited by Andrew Horton, David B. Pearson, speculates (with thorough reasoning to back it up) that Arbuckle directed for the first 2 to 3 weeks, and then was dismissed by mutual consent. (Arbuckle and Keaton were excellent friends, and remained so until Arbuckle's death in 1933.)

I have the David Shepherd DVD’s and bought them back when they were in print.  My understanding is the film speeds on those releases are the original (or as original as can be supposed, I imagine different theaters ran at different speeds), and Chaplin made adjustments when re-released in 1959, as he did with a lot of his films.  Hey, people can enjoy the films anyway they want and that’s the most important thing, but I like the versions I have.

You’re right though, SHOULDER ARMS is three reels and therefore a short, different than SHERLOCK, JR.  I failed to recognize the reel length in my original post.

[NoahYoung]

I have the David Shepherd DVD’s and bought them back when they were in print.  My understanding is the film speeds on those releases are the original (or as original as can be supposed, I imagine different theaters ran at different speeds), and Chaplin made adjustments when re-released in 1959, as he did with a lot of his films.  Hey, people can enjoy the films anyway they want and that’s the most important thing, but I like the versions I have.

You’re right though, SHOULDER ARMS is three reels and therefore a short, different than SHERLOCK, JR.  I failed to recognize the reel length in my original post.

No worries -- I'm just a nauseating stickler for this stuff. 

Yes, I think we've discussed the fps that was used back then -- different by theater, and different by projectionist. In all my years, I have never researched when they went from hand-cranked cameras and projectors to electronic ones. All I know is that for talkies, it had to be electronic to be exactly 24fps. I have always heard the term "under-cranking" or "over-cranking" for filming silent films, though. Get two silent film fans in the room and they won't agree on the correct fps. I think the cameramen became experts at consistent cranking speeds, and could even hit, say, 21fps right on the mark if told to do so. Also, the directors sometimes shot different scenes at different rates. Chaplin wanted his films projected faster than they were filmed at. He quickly learned to take full advantage of the new medium for his films, and as we have seen in UNKNOWN CHAPLIN pulled a lot of proverbial rabbits out of his hat, including printing scenes in reverse. Nothing wrong with it -- film is an illusion anyway. Ben Model has some videos on youtube -- one in particular shows a scene from A DOG'S LIFE slowed down to show how speeding up made the scene funny, whereas projected at normal speed (meaning approx at the rate is was filmed at), it really lessens the effect.

I bought the Image Chaplin Shepard DVDs on eBay after they went out of print. I still got good prices, though. I don't have all of them -- I bought THE CIRCUS almost a year ago, and it is still in its shrink-wrap.

Chaplin step-printed THE CHAPLIN REVUE and THE IDLE CLASS when he added music for re-release, something he didn't do for his other films, knowing that the projectors in theaters could only run at 24fps. It kind of gets confusing, because this conflicts with him have Rollie Totheroh under-crank. I have also read somewhere that parts of SHOULDER ARMS in THE CHAPLIN REVUE were not step-printed. It's as clear as mud.

My solution -- I might have mentioned this before -- use VLC Media player (again, it's free and well supported.) You of course need to play the DVDs on your PC/Laptop, or you could rip them to your hard drive. In either case, you can adjust the speed with VLC to your liking. I do this with my mK2 Chaplin disks to adjust for the PAL speedup. (Set to 0.96 speed.) For the talkies like THE GREAT DICTATOR, set it to adjust the pitch because I believe mK2 adjusted the pitch when they sped them up by 4%. Even for the silents, you might want to do that if your ears are sensitive to pitch changes in music.

Back to Keaton, it is well documented that Keaton wanted THE GENERAL projected at 26fps, not 24fps. The latest Blu-Rays, I believe, have honored that request.

SHERLOCK JR. I believe is shown at 24fps on the original Kino VHS and DVD releases, not sure about the latest DVDs and Blu-Rays.
The book I mentioned above about SHERLOCK, JR. is must reading for fans of the film. Although it breaks my law that it shouldn't take longer to read about a film than to watch it, the difference here is that each chapter is an essay written by a different author. I haven't read it cover-to-cover since I bought it when first published in 1997, but it is definitely not high-falutin' stuff like my bs film review. It is quite interesting.  I doubt it is still in print, but in today's world, that no longer really matters.

[NoahYoung]

Just one of Ben Model's videos showing how under-cranking was used to create comedic effect. I'm not sure how Model knows what the original cranking speeds were, but based on what I see in the video, the slowed-down version does look like real-life natural movement.

[metaldams]

Just watched this one again today for the millionth time, though it’s been a while.  It’s crazy that in the part of the dream sequence outside the store just before Buster takes the big ride from the roof to the car, there’s something I never noticed before.  Buster is going around each corner of a pole in perfect timing so Ward Crane doesn’t see him.  Crazy to think I never noticed that - but then again, I have a small TV and was sitting relatively closer than I normally do, that may have made a difference.

But either way, this film still holds new discoveries.