Topic: Three's a Crowd (1927) - Harry Langdon

[Paul Pain]

IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018484/

THREE'S A CROWD is perhaps the most unfairly panned film I have ever reviewed. Again, we are dealing a very demented crowd with the Frank Capra fan club, who will do anything to destroy the reputation of other people to prop up Capra (why I do not know).  Heck, people pan this just because a relatively unknown actress was chosen as the female lead in spite of the fact that she's just there to look pretty and does just thatl

There is a bizarre hypocrisy in the reviews on the IMDB page.  Almost every hater of this film hates it because of the very things that made Keaton, Lloyd, and Chaplin the legends they are: storytelling.  This film particularly goes down the Chaplin route.  Thus, this film is panned for "not being funny enough" when it tells a complete and touching tale.

Pathos, the thing that Chaplin is so praised for, is the key to this film.  Atmosphere, the thing that makes so many Keaton films so famous, complements the pathos.  No, there's no Harold Lloyd here, but Harry tells a very sad tale in this film.

Harry is an ordinary man who just wants a family.  It's a tale I relate too as I realize that I too will age out of fatherhood much as the character in this film did.  When fatherhood lands on his doorstep (almost literally), everyone is happy for the circumstances that Harry has lucked into, but then it's ripped away from him.

A lovable but dim-witted character is when Harry is at his best.  Sometimes he gets kind of pervy, but his best is when he's innocently charming yet too immature to ever reach the goal.  Here, Harry plays that too perfection in what was apparently a very limited set for a very expensive film.

Not every film needs to be the Marx Brothers or Abbott & Costello where the comedians are the idiots who by dumb chance drive the plot to a magical and happy conclusion.  The great comedians drive their own plot, and Harry drives it here for sure.

It is undoubtable that Harry was taking from Chaplin's book.  The entire setup to make sympathize with Harry leads to him finding the pregnant mother just so we can stand in darkness and feel the sadness he feels at the conclusion of the film.  That street light scene is a hint of genius, but the film ends on the kind of note that is signature Harry Langdon.

The snowstorm is a perfect illustration of this.  The people running in panic.  The slippery stairs.  The dilapidated shanty that hangs perilously near its doom.  The windstorm.

The carpet scene and the dream sequence are classic Harry Langdon. 

In the former, as he hangs over Arthur Thalasso's truck while flailing his legs, we see Harry's physical comedy at its best.  Lloyd would have bravely swung to the rafter.  Keaton would have brilliantly lowered himself to a safe height.  Chaplin would have guiltlessly and gracefully leapt onto the truck.  Harry Langdon keeps climbing up until the rug literally falls out from under him.

In the latter, his villainous vision of the husband the resulting boxing match are so typical.  Even in a dream, he's still Harry, gets knocked out in a single blow in spite of having super-human strength, and decides to take a nap instead.

There are clear directorial flubs in this, such as the poor splicing of the retained film (much was cut from this) and some poor choices in camera angle.  In addition, Langdon ordered many expensive and possibly unnecessary retakes.

One of the amazing things about Harry is how little he depends upon title cards.  Instead, we must infer what the players are saying by reading their lips or using our imaginations.  This further forces the viewer to immerse themself into an emotionally driven film.

Praise this for what this is; don't knock it for what you wish it was.  This is by no means perfect, but THREE'S A CROWD receives an undeservedly negative reputation at the hands of a very toxic group of people.

I am going to venture a guess that metaldams thinks very highly of this even he also sees it as flawed.

[metaldams]

I am going to rewatch this movie sometime this week, but for now, I am going to make a point.

Buster Keaton’s absolute peak as an artist was unquestionably BATTLING BUTLER.   From there, he made three independent features which were relative commercial failures.  As a result, he had to go to MGM because clearly, those last three films showed an artist who lost the plot and was out of touch with his audience.  Keaton had all the creative control in the world but lost it due to bad artistic decisions.

The above paragraph sounds really unfair, right?  Who judges Buster’s latter independent films like that?  Nobody that I know of.  Yet this is exactly what they do to Harry.  Yes, in both Harry and Buster’s case, commercial considerations were indeed important in their career trajectory and are valuable to know, but why do people let them effect their enjoyment of Harry but not Buster?

It’s almost 100 years later and I will judge THREE’S A CROWD based on what I think, not audiences of the twenties.  I know my opinion already and will share it when I get that fresh viewing.

[HomokHarcos]

I have two main opinions on the film, those being the entertainment value and on the set design. My views are kind of the opposite regarding that.

It was my least favorite Harry Langdon First National feature, I didn't find it really engaging. I liked a few gags, particularly the one near the beginning when he is hanging under the stairs, and the boxing match near the end, but the story wasn't too fun for me. Long Pants and The Chaser, despite their mixed reactions, had very funny plots. I didn't get that from this movie.

On the other hand, I love the art direction. I'm not exaggerating when I say this is probably my favorite setting in film history. I like the old streets the movie takes place in (kind of like Easy Street), but in addition to that, there is snow! I don't like the coldness of winter, but I like the way snow-covered areas look. I liked it when Harry was shoveling snow off the roof. I'm aware it's probably not real snow, but it looks close enough! Just for the scenery alone I might have to give this movie a thumbs up.

[metaldams]

      THREE’S A CROWD.  I’ve been looking forward to this one for years.  So my overall opinion is I love this film even though I think it is a horrible example of silent comedy.  Actually, THREE’S A CROWD is a horrible example of being anything other than being THREE’S A CROWD.  This film is a completely unique experience unlike anything else I have ever seen.  Sure, it has a few funny moments, but this is a dramatic art film more than anything else.

      If you guys watch The Silent Comedy Watch Party on YouTube, Ben Model likes to say most of the slapstick with Langdon is in his head and facial expressions.  I agree with that statement.  Here?  It’s the drama that’s in his head.  I point to the infamous scene where Langdon just stands there and stares blankly after he sees the mother with the child for the first time and has to assume the role of father.  It’s all the thoughts that must be going through his head that are fascinating.  My interpretation is, “What the Hell did I just get myself into?”  “Will these two be safe here?”  “Can I handle this responsibility?”  Yeah, not exactly comic, but a fascinating twist, done to the extreme of Langdon’s blank stare he has done for years.

      Paul is right that this film is about a man wanting a family, though I don’t know if I’d use the word ordinary.  Like a lot of fine people out there, sure, but not ordinary.  Harry is a grown man who has a meager job that is conveniently close to his meager home.  He can manage that much.  He has a highly structured morning routine.  He does some socially inappropriate things, like the passive aggressive letter to his boss’s wife and trying to go in the room when the girl is giving birth.  Add in the fact Langdon on screen has neurological differences and I would classify this character as high functioning autistic.  I don’t believe that was Langdon’s intent when making this film, but the character does come across that way to me.

       Actually meeting a woman, forming a relationship and conceiving a child seems out of Harry’s reach, but he has the yearnings just the same.  The whole girl and child falling into his hands is the substitute without doing the work, just like the doll was the substitute before.

      After the child is born, this is when the film gets the most isolating.  It takes a really long time for Harry to prepare those diapers.  Talk about slow Langdon, this is as slow as it gets.  Langdon is so focused on the girl in the room that he puts peaches in a pan and makes a pie without realizing it.  The girl who is being focused on is always in a different shot and is looking anywhere but at Harry, probably thinking of her lost husband.  That’s what I mean by isolating, two people in a room in different worlds.  There is a funny comic scene within, but this isolating tension takes over for me.

……and yes, gotta talk about the art direction.  Agreed, unbelievably beautiful.  The small town, the snow and the buildings have a very down to Earth look worthy of Griffith.  I love the lighting shots with the lamp, the scene when Harry is shoveling snow on top of the roof (and incidentally, it’s comical he’s shoveling his roof in the first place) and my favorite?  When the wife, husband and child are leaving in the snowy dark and a lonely Harry stands on top of those long stairs with the lamp in his hand.  What a beautiful shot.  A work of art.  Also love those stairs in general and love the fact this film ends with Harry running up those stairs after the film’s best silent comedy gag.  Yeah, he throws a few in there.

      So I get why this film is not for everyone or even most people.  Like I said, this film is a genre unto itself.  To me, it’s a great story, a beautiful looking film and if that comic character of Langdon who was developing all those years would make a drama, this would be the appropriate one.  A misunderstood masterpiece and yes, buy the DVD so you can hear David Kalat’s audio commentary for further appreciation.

[Paul Pain]

Our opinions on the product vary, but I am quite pleased to see we all view this film as an artistic masterpiece.

I am going to rewatch this movie sometime this week, but for now, I am going to make a point.

Buster Keaton’s absolute peak as an artist was unquestionably BATTLING BUTLER.   From there, he made three independent features which were relative commercial failures.  As a result, he had to go to MGM because clearly, those last three films showed an artist who lost the plot and was out of touch with his audience.  Keaton had all the creative control in the world but lost it due to bad artistic decisions.

The above paragraph sounds really unfair, right?  Who judges Buster’s latter independent films like that?  Nobody that I know of.  Yet this is exactly what they do to Harry.  Yes, in both Harry and Buster’s case, commercial considerations were indeed important in their career trajectory and are valuable to know, but why do people let them effect their enjoyment of Harry but not Buster?

It’s almost 100 years later and I will judge THREE’S A CROWD based on what I think, not audiences of the twenties.  I know my opinion already and will share it when I get that fresh viewing.

This is the most accurate summary possible of Langdon's oeuvre.  He is damned in a light into which none of the other comics were thrust in spite of their own errors or mistakes.  At worst, it's "So-and-so made a bad decision, but he's still great!"

[Dr. Mabuse]

Buster Keaton’s absolute peak as an artist was unquestionably BATTLING BUTLER.  From there, he made three independent features which were relative commercial failures.  As a result, he had to go to MGM because clearly, those last three films showed an artist who lost the plot and was out of touch with his audience.  Keaton had all the creative control in the world but lost it due to bad artistic decisions.

From Tom Dardis' Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down (1979): "United Artists did not promote the Keaton films as forcefully as MGM had. In addition to their poor job of publicity, United Artists ran into open hostility from many of the exhibitors because these exhibitors felt they were being forced to pay far too much for the films and that there was no way to make any money on them. Actually, the exhibitors couldn't afford not to book the films of Chaplin, William S. Hart, the Talmadge sisters, Pickford and Fairbanks: [Joseph] Schenck was perfectly aware he was offering the film trade the very best, and he made them pay for it. The fantastic popularity of Chaplin in the twenties withstood this exhibitor pressure against paying Schenck's price, but in the case of the less-popular Keaton, the exhibitors had the option of not booking his films at all. This may explain the appallingly low grosses. . . . MGM had more clout with the exhibitors than United Artists, as well as better publicity."

This poses an intriguing question:  What if MGM had distributed "The General," "College" and "Steamboat Bill, Jr." instead of UA?

[Umbrella Sam]

Hoping to get to this film tomorrow. Like LONG PANTS, this is one of the films I’ve been most interested in seeing, as from my understanding it’s supposed to be this very Chaplin-inspired film. Reading your guys’s thoughts on the Keaton-Langdon critical consensus brings to mind an occasional thought I’ve wondered: if Langdon had lived to see the renewed interest in silent comedy and been around to counter Capra’s negative comments (or better yet, reconcile), would his films and career have been viewed in a better light critically? I would think yes, especially considering that he did actually produce his later features and therefore would have had an easier time than Keaton with regards to rights and redistributing the films.

[metaldams]

Hoping to get to this film tomorrow. Like LONG PANTS, this is one of the films I’ve been most interested in seeing, as from my understanding it’s supposed to be this very Chaplin-inspired film. Reading your guys’s thoughts on the Keaton-Langdon critical consensus brings to mind an occasional thought I’ve wondered: if Langdon had lived to see the renewed interest in silent comedy and been around to counter Capra’s negative comments (or better yet, reconcile), would his films and career have been viewed in a better light critically? I would think yes, especially considering that he did actually produce his later features and therefore would have had an easier time than Keaton with regards to rights and redistributing the films.

I really have no clue what Langdon living would have done for his reputation - but it certainly would have been nice to hear Langdon respond to Capra.  Then again, would Capra have even made those remarks if Langdon was living?

[Freddie Sanborn]

I think Langdon was a taste too rarified to get in on the nostalgia boom of the 60’s and 70’s. But had he lived into the TV era, I could see him having a second career as a foxy grandpa. The kind of roles that later went to Bert Mustin.

[metaldams]

I think Langdon was a taste too rarified to get in on the nostalgia boom of the 60’s and 70’s. But had he lived into the TV era, I could see him having a second career as a foxy grandpa. The kind of roles that later went to Bert Mustin.

I looked Mustin up and they do have similar faces.  Even born the same year.

[Umbrella Sam]

Well, I finally got to THREE’S A CROWD. First of all, when Paul talks about the poor splicing, he’s not kidding. I was so confused by that carrier pigeon part that I thought I was missing something. There’s a poster in HARRY LANGDON: KING OF SILENT COMEDY that shows drawings based off of the different reels and one of them was of Langdon looking outside with a telescope and a pigeon, so it seems quite a bit was cut from that. The poster also showed a reel dedicated to Langdon running away from an overweight woman (thankfully, that part seemed to have been cut entirely). So, from that standpoint, I can see some of the criticisms, as well as the beginning with him getting ready for his day. Nothing about it really seemed clever or funny; it’s not really until he first goes outside that the film starts to pick up somewhat as far as comedy goes. The part with him dangling in the air is a pretty good thrill gag, and it is done in the way only Harry does: by simply failing to get himself out of it.

As far as the actual story goes, I do think it’s an interesting one in that Harry strives for the family aspect of the relationship and not just falling in love with a woman. That’s not something you really tended to see in silent comedies; even in THE KID, Chaplin doesn’t actually want to keep the kid at first, only warming up to the idea of taking care of him after he sees the note from the mother. In that respect, I think it’s actually kind of a brave idea for Langdon to handle, and I think he handles it well. The way he’s reacting when he finds out she’s having the baby is done in the expected Langdon manner, but it’s also convincing for just about anyone to have that kind of reaction given the unexpected circumstance. It’s actually quite realistic, which is not the type of thing you expect in a Langdon film.

I think the film is at its best in its second part. Langdon adapting to this new life gives him some fun opportunities like setting up a crib only to put both himself and the baby in it. I really laughed hard at that part where he accidentally makes the pie. I loved his reaction to that. The ending is sad, but it’s also done in the Chaplin way where it feels like things were meant to be that way. The husband got his life back on track and is realistically able to better provide for the wife and child, and they both still indicate that they want Harry in their lives in some capacity. It’s not like FREE AND EASY where it’s a case of “be sad because Chaplin does it”; this actually does feel like there some thought put into it. It ends with a funny gag involving a brick and a window which is admittedly kind of poorly placed, but still funny regardless.

So, yeah, I liked it. I don’t know if I’d go so far as calling it a classic, especially given the editing problems and slightly boring beginning, but it’s definitely better than its reputation suggests and admirable in the fact that it was kind of a big risk for him to take, one that didn’t even pay off in the end. Good film, I too like the art direction.

[Umbrella Sam]

I think Langdon was a taste too rarified to get in on the nostalgia boom of the 60’s and 70’s. But had he lived into the TV era, I could see him having a second career as a foxy grandpa. The kind of roles that later went to Bert Mustin.

Interesting. I know Mustin played Ed the vault guard in the last season of THE JACK BENNY PROGRAM, but I’ve only seen the ones with Joseph Kearns in the role. I could not imagine Langdon as Ed, but I assume that it’s a pretty unusual role for Mustin given that he was taking it over from someone else.

I could see Langdon playing meek, slightly inept roles very well. I always felt like, had he lived and if he and Capra had made up, Langdon would have been a good choice for the role of Uncle Billy in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

[metaldams]

Interesting. I know Mustin played Ed the vault guard in the last season of THE JACK BENNY PROGRAM, but I’ve only seen the ones with Joseph Kearns in the role. I could not imagine Langdon as Ed, but I assume that it’s a pretty unusual role for Mustin given that he was taking it over from someone else.

I could see Langdon playing meek, slightly inept roles very well. I always felt like, had he lived and if he and Capra had made up, Langdon would have been a good choice for the role of Uncle Billy in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

I think Langdon would have made a good Clarence the Angel as well.

[Umbrella Sam]

I think Langdon would have made a good Clarence the Angel as well.

Yeah, I could see Harry working as Clarence as well.