Tweet BROADWAY (1929)

10 or 15 years ago in a used bookstore I happened across a hand-bound copy of the script to "Broadway" -- actually the SCRIPTS to Broadway, because both the silent and sound versions were in it. Since it also had been autographed back in '29 by director Paul Fejos, I decided I had to buy it.

I picked up the Criterion disc with Broadway a few weeks ago and my goal is to watch the sound version and follow along with the script, but I haven't had a chance yet. I did spend a very few minutes watching the opening, and my impression was that the version on DVD did NOT match the sound script very closely. But I need to confirm that, to see how far they really diverge.

I also have a bootleg dvd I bought last year of the silent version that someone attempt to re-edit to conform to the soundtrack, but the results, both from an editing standpoint and simply from the picture quality, are unwatchable.

After I do some annotations I'll follow up with a post here.

--Larry Groebe

There is a lot to like in BROADWAY...
There is very little "coverage" (i.e., shot variety) of each scene in terms of closeups, cutaways, and over-the-shoulder dialogue cutting -- it's mostly played in long takes in medium and long shots...

You make some very good points about the way BROADWAY was filmed.
But regarding the long takes, I actually find some of them interesting and impressive. In some scenes the actors (often Tryon and Kennedy) talk for what seems like five minutes - without a cut. I was impressed - I doubt I could memorize that much dialogue and do such long scenes.

There is a lot to like in BROADWAY...
There is very little "coverage" (i.e., shot variety) of each scene in terms of closeups, cutaways, and over-the-shoulder dialogue cutting -- it's mostly played in long takes in medium and long shots...

You make some very good points about the way BROADWAY was filmed.
But regarding the long takes, I actually find some of them interesting and impressive. In some scenes the actors (often Tryon and Kennedy) talk for what seems like five minutes - without a cut. I was impressed - I doubt I could memorize that much dialogue and do such long scenes.

They were basically doing a stage play, since the movie is split up by all the dance numbers, it's less conspicuous that Act 1 Scene 1, Scene 2, Act 2, Scene 1. Curtain call.

I'm a big fan and collector of 1920's popular music, and therefore most of the tunes from Broadway have been familiar to me for 30-40 years. What was irritating to me is that there was almost no presentation of a complete tune. All the musical numbers were cut into by dialog scenes happening in the back rooms of the club. In my opinion it is inaccurate to call a film a musical without at least 3 tunes being fully presented without interruption. Most of the other musicals of the era presented their "hits" complete at least once, sometimes reprising the tune in the background music.

What was irritating to me is that there was almost no presentation of a complete tune. All the musical numbers were cut into by dialog scenes happening in the back rooms of the club. In my opinion it is inaccurate to call a film a musical without at least 3 tunes being fully presented without interruption.

That may be setting the bar a little high--though I wish it had been a rule enforced with the stringency of the Production Code. Though I haven't seen Broadway (alas & alack!), these interruptions sound to me like worst-case examples of a more common (but no less aggravating) form of interruption: the camera shifting from the performer on stage to audience reaction, or something going on in the wings, such as an argument, or low-brow comedy. Most infuriating example I can think of off-hand occurs during the magnificent "Let's Pretend" number in On With the Show. This variety of interruption is so common that I can well believe editors & cutters assumed an audience would become bored with a "straight" musical performance.

It was simply a matter of a new film genre being figured out on the fly by the filmmakers of the era. There were no set rules for depicting the fantasy world of the film musical and not everything happened overnight. As soon as Astaire earned enough clot he demanded that they stopped inserting close-ups of his feet dancing. He wanted the entire body shown. I find it interesting tracing how they got from BROADWAY MELODY (29) to SWINGTIME (36) in a few short years.

What was irritating to me is that there was almost no presentation of a complete tune. All the musical numbers were cut into by dialog scenes happening in the back rooms of the club. In my opinion it is inaccurate to call a film a musical without at least 3 tunes being fully presented without interruption.

That may be setting the bar a little high--though I wish it had been a rule enforced with the stringency of the Production Code. Though I haven't seen Broadway (alas & alack!), these interruptions sound to me like worst-case examples of a more common (but no less aggravating) form of interruption: the camera shifting from the performer on stage to audience reaction, or something going on in the wings, such as an argument, or low-brow comedy. Most infuriating example I can think of off-hand occurs during the magnificent "Let's Pretend" number in On With the Show. This variety of interruption is so common that I can well believe editors & cutters assumed an audience would become bored with a "straight" musical performance.

Well, the cutaway shots of audience reaction and such, doesn't usually mean an alteration of the sound of the musical number, but when you cut to dialog scenes in another place, the music either goes away, or is so reduced in volume so the dialog can be heard, that it seriously mars the musical performance.

As an example of one of the supreme insults in this instance, I believe there's a sequence in the UK film Wings of the Morning where a (past his prime) John McCormack is performing, and then the camera cuts away to focus upon...whom I forget, perhaps that Henry Fonda creature, perhaps not. Irrelevant since the combined cast talent would be worth a warm bucket of--well--compared to Mr. McCormack's decades of achievements. The Redeemer of Bel Canto interrupted. The very idea.

As an example of one of the supreme insults in this instance, I believe there's a sequence in the UK film Wings of the Morning where a (past his prime) John McCormack is performing, and then the camera cuts away to focus upon...whom I forget, perhaps that Henry Fonda creature, perhaps not. Irrelevant since the combined cast talent would be worth a warm bucket of--well--compared to Mr. McCormack's decades of achievements. The Redeemer of Bel Canto interrupted. The very idea.

Maddening, but hardly surprizing given the cult of the "moving camera." Once & only once have I seen a cut-away that didn't detract from the impact of a vocal performance: at the end of Grace Moore's wonderful One Night of Love, as she sings "Un bel di," the camera briefly cuts, not to a meaningless wide shot of the audience, but to tastefully-composed close-ups of faces of people spellbound, mesmerized, transfixed by the beauty of her voice & this glorious aria. I think this imaginative cut-away conveys the magic of such a performance even more powerfully than a fixed shot would have done.

On the other hand, if the camera did NOT cut away from Mr. McCormack someone would be certain to comment "at this point the picture stops dead while John McCormack sings."

In any case, the recording horn and microphone served McCormack far better than the motion picture camera.

On the other hand, if the camera did NOT cut away from Mr. McCormack someone would be certain to comment "at this point the picture stops dead while John McCormack sings."

I don't doubt it--and it might well be be the same nitpicker, or his brother, who complained about the "static camera" in The Tresspasser! To which the condign rejoinder should be, "I'm only watching this quota-picture tripe to see John McCormack sing!"

I am still a little undecided on Broadway-I bought it recently and was more impressed with Lonesome. I quickly watched Broadway and wasn't impressed-now I have taken time to really watch it again.....I made myself concentrate on the fact that it was an early sound movie with a nightclub setting-complete with gangsters,cops and wisecracking hoofers. It is frustrating to see the musical numbers really not performed all the way through-not to mention the black floor where performers legs seem to disappear.Then there are the odd choices in the musical numbers -why are the dancers not wearing the feathered outfits for the "what came first the chicken or the egg" number??Then there are the wonderful and crazy skyscraper art deco costumes that you would think would be worn for the finale.As for the performances you can almost feel the actors over concentrating trying not to flub the scene -the result of which would be of course to start over.Glenn Tryon is very unsympathetic and why would he want to leave this ritzy night club to be in vaudeville??? The crane shots are impressive-the color at the end interesting...it is just a vvvverryyyy strange movie...in my opinion that just makes one say to oneself Huh??? Don't get me started on the beginning credits with the giant devil in the city ......