Tweet My Trouble With Harry

There's something that troubles me, and it's that I'm not wild about Harry. I wish I was a Langdon fan. I don't dislike him, and I'm glad I have his collected surviving silents on DVD now; I've watched a few of the shorts as well as HIS FIRST FLAME and THREE'S A CROWD (and started on THE STRONG MAN but haven't finished it yet) and find them intermittently interesting, and sometimes funny, but I just can't get into his character enough to fully enjoy his films. Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Chase -- I connected with them all immediately from frame one. Langdon, not so much. Perhaps it's because his character is more pathetic to me than sympathetic. I recognize the fact that he's an extremely talented guy, and am glad he's finally getting his well-deserved renaissance of sorts, but although it is undeniably unique, his style just doesn't enthrall me. I genuinely wish it did. Currently, my fave Langdon screen appearance is as himself, when he memorably helps our dear Colleen in ELLA CINDERS.

For you Langdonites out there on this board, what are your fave Langdon silents, and why? Gimme a list of your must-sees, 'cause I'm feeling like I need to give him another go-round.

As far as the features go, you might perhaps have "started on the wrong foot" as Three's a Crowd is generally considered a weaker effort compared to The Strong Man, Long Pants and Tramp, Tramp, Tramp. As for The Chaser, it may be messy/unresolved in structure, but for my money it has some of the most hilarious bits in silent comedy when the run-around Harry is ordered by court to "play the wife" in his marriage and a whole series of "gender role" gags ensue. An early Women's Lib pic!

Of the shorts, favorites of mine include All Night Long, Boobs in the Wood and His Marriage Wow. I'll admit that I was at first a bit wary of checking out his sound shorts, coming as they did after the legendary "tragic fall" from stardom - and found to my delight that they included some clever and fast-paced items such as Knight Duty and Hooks and Jabs. Artistically he seems much more in control in this period than Buster.

Why do I love Harry? Because he's funny! Why is he funny? First and foremost, he's simply one of the greatest pantomimists of all time, absolutely on a par with Chaplin, Keaton and Laurel (the two last-named both hailed him as one of the greats). He may be most comparable to Laurel in that he wasn't even in need of an especially funny situation to elicit laughs - he gets the laughs through sheer expert body language and personality.

Some reasons people have stated for disliking Langdon is the "creepiness" of his child-man character and the macabre humor that often appears in his films. For me, the dark humor combined with a superficially innocent character is a perfect blend and makes him somehow very modern, even - dare I trot out the cliché? - ahead of his time.

One thing that sets Harry apart from his famous peers is that he was a late bloomer cinematically, not making his film debut until the age of 40. Which is one reason I'm looking forward to reading the new biography and learning more about his years of stage work before stepping out in front of the camera. It's also one reason I think Capra was full of it, insisting in his autobiography and in interviews that Langdon was totally lost without the guiding hand of Capra himself and other "professionals".

As far as the features go, you might perhaps have "started on the wrong foot" as Three's a Crowd is generally considered a weaker effort compared to The Strong Man, Long Pants and Tramp, Tramp, Tramp. As for The Chaser, it may be messy/unresolved in structure, but for my money it has some of the most hilarious bits in silent comedy when the run-around Harry is ordered by court to "play the wife" in his marriage and a whole series of "gender role" gags ensue. An early Women's Lib pic!

Of the shorts, favorites of mine include All Night Long, Boobs in the Wood and His Marriage Wow. I'll admit that I was at first a bit wary of checking out his sound shorts, coming as they did after the legendary "tragic fall" from stardom - and found to my delight that they included some clever and fast-paced items such as Knight Duty and Hooks and Jabs. Artistically he seems much more in control in this period than Buster.

Why do I love Harry? Because he's funny! Why is he funny? First and foremost, he's simply one of the greatest pantomimists of all time, absolutely on a par with Chaplin, Keaton and Laurel (the two last-named both hailed him as one of the greats). He may be most comparable to Laurel in that he wasn't even in need of an especially funny situation to elicit laughs - he gets the laughs through sheer expert body language and personality.

Some reasons people have stated for disliking Langdon is the "creepiness" of his child-man character and the macabre humor that often appears in his films. For me, the dark humor combined with a superficially innocent character is a perfect blend and makes him somehow very modern, even - dare I trot out the cliché? - ahead of his time.

One thing that sets Harry apart from his famous peers is that he was a late bloomer cinematically, not making his film debut until the age of 40. Which is one reason I'm looking forward to reading the new biography and learning more about his years of stage work before stepping out in front of the camera. It's also one reason I think Capra was full of it, insisting in his autobiography and in interviews that Langdon was totally lost without the guiding hand of Capra himself and other "professionals".

I found the Roach sound shorts I've seen of Harry not bad at all once I got used to the pacing, which started very slow and sped up as it unreeled. I found Harry a lot easier to take than a later man-child like Joe Penner, who comes off like Langdon's bratty vaudevillian brother. Where Harry may present something straight, Penner will present it as shtick. I won't mention that Lewis fellow, as he has fans here. I thought someone could do a thesis in film studies on "The Man-Child In Cinema" using just those three. The black humor fits Harry well, but I can see how during the era it may not have played, where modern audiences now have more of a taste for it. When I saw Keaton's black humor long ago, I was more delighted by it than the pathos of Chaplin (though Chaplin's brilliance more than made up for that).

I learned to discount Capra's hucksterish self-promotion even before I read anything he wrote about Langdon.

There's no requirement, Waverboy. Some of Langdon's stuff I like very much. I thought his Roach shorts were fine and his early Sennet's excellent. I can usually find something to enjoy, even in his PRC phase, but I was so bored by THE CHASER that I walked off. His comic personna is certainly not mainstream and his taste in gags is directly opposite to, say Keaton's. If Keaton were the sort of magician who made elephants vanish, Harry was the one who sat down with you and said "Pick a card."

It's certainly tougher to get drawn into Harry's world than Keaton's. However, when he does, his construction is just as impeccable. Sometimes, though, he didn't seem to put in the work to draw us in.

Bob

WaverBoy wrote:

There's something that troubles me, and it's that I'm not wild about Harry. I wish I was a Langdon fan. I don't dislike him, and I'm glad I have his collected surviving silents on DVD now; I've watched a few of the shorts as well as HIS FIRST FLAME and THREE'S A CROWD (and started on THE STRONG MAN but haven't finished it yet) and find them intermittently interesting, and sometimes funny, but I just can't get into his character enough to fully enjoy his films. Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Chase -- I connected with them all immediately from frame one. Langdon, not so much. Perhaps it's because his character is more pathetic to me than sympathetic. I recognize the fact that he's an extremely talented guy, and am glad he's finally getting his well-deserved renaissance of sorts, but although it is undeniably unique, his style just doesn't enthrall me. I genuinely wish it did. Currently, my fave Langdon screen appearance is as himself, when he memorably helps our dear Colleen in ELLA CINDERS.

For you Langdonites out there on this board, what are your fave Langdon silents, and why? Gimme a list of your must-sees, 'cause I'm feeling like I need to give him another go-round.

Many people are uncomfortable with the Baby Dope Fiend, but Harry is a true original. Try watching the Kino edition of THREE'S A CROWD with David Kalat's commentary. If this does nothing for you, love is dead, and you should start seeing Lloyd Hamilton.

If Keaton were the sort of magician who made elephants vanish, Harry was the one who sat down with you and said "Pick a card."
Bob

I'm going to steal that phrase.

The first Langdon I saw was The Strong Man at the Silent Movies in L.A., probably around 1994 or so. I'm a big Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd (etc.) fan, and I thought this was just about the funniest thing I've ever seen. I think that seeing it in the theater with an appreciative audience is a real help, but I understand that's out of your control.

On a side note, I just ordered the "Little Elf" book and can't wait to get it.

My opinions on Harry's films shift depending on how much I've learned about them, and simply what kind of mood I'm in. What never varies, though, is how completely fascinating I find HL *himself*. Not just what he does, but the thought processes that go into his actions and the tiny facial movements that had the capacity to transform the amusing into the brilliant.

Tramp, Tramp, Tramp isn't his most famous film but it might be the one to start with--at least it was the one that I liked the most when I revisited his features recently. It has enough of a coherent plot and good comedy to keep HL neophytes interested and it also avoids some of the nagging problems of the two Capra features. The Strong Man is a very good picture with many funny moments, but the small-town scenes with the bootleggers vs. the church congregation adds some rather dour notes to the proceedings, especially when it would have been easy to take a more tongue-in-cheek approach. (The cynical urbanites who corrupt a rural paradise foreshadow some of the other tiresome themes that Capra played with in his later works.) But the individual set pieces in The Strong Man are exceptional--the benches falling over like dominoes at Ellis Island, Harry dragging Gertrude Astor up the stairs, Harry squaring off against the saloon patrons. Actually, the scene in Gertrude Astor's apartment is wonderfully directed and acted--the whole business of her pawing Harry to get back her money is suggestive enough, but there's also an overhead shot of the two tussling on her bed that adds even more spice.

Long Pants has the feel of a Charles Ray film (Harry even looks a bit like him during the early fantasy sequence in a castle). The scene of him trying to shoot Priscilla Bonner to get out of marrying her can seem utterly bewildering and disturbing, especially since the thought appears so suddenly in his mind without any lead-up that could prepare viewers (perhaps this part of the plot was staged a bit more carefully in the original script and the lead-up was either discarded or doesn't appear in extant prints). Some people enjoy the black comedy of the sequence, particularly since Harry can't handle the gun worth a dime, but for others the scene (if you'll excuse the pun) totally kills the rest of the film. The police mannequin bit is pretty funny, but the scenes with Alma Bennett hidden in a wooden box could've been played more outrageously (à la Harry's manhandling of Gertrude Astor).

More later, maybe.

-HA

Walter Kerr in his landmark book The Silent Clowns
wrote (to paraphrase) that Harry Langdon must be
taken within the
context of the silent era in general and the silent
comedians in particular. While the rest tried to leap
higher and run faster than each other (Buster Keaton
bulleting across great expanses in Seven Chances
comes to mind), Harry Langdon moved slowly with
foggy logic of how the world worked relying on
friend/heavy Vernon Dent to explain the world to
him. Sometimes Dent would take advantage of poor
Harry for his own selfish motives.

Women seemed more mother to him than companion.

Even Frank Capra in an interview from the Hollywood series
relates that it was never "faster, faster" with Harry Langdon
(relating a shoot much later in Langdon's career where he witnessed
a director yell these words to him), it should have been slower,
slower.

I'm one of the ones that tends to find Langdon weird and creepy at times--but i'm realizing looking at this discussion that it's the Capra films that creep me out the most--so so much for his claims! I think i may have liked The Chaser best of his silents, despite its poor reputation. But, oddly, i find him most appealing in his talkies. His voice and manner of speaking suit him perfectly, which i found less surprising when i realized how many years he'd had in vaudeville before coming to films. He knew exactly what he was doing. I thought he and Babe Hardy made a charming team in Zenobia.

greta

Where Langdon is concerned I was lucky : I first saw The Strong Man with live music and an appreciative audience. It was a delightful experience, and it’s far and away my favorite Langdon feature.

Several of the Sennett two-reelers are first rate. My favorites include The Luck of the Foolish and His Marriage Wow. But I find, with Langdon, that opinions of individual films vary sharply among the fans, so this is all highly subjective anyhow. The “Lost and Found” box set from All Day/Lobster Films is a must for anyone interested in seeing more.

I’d also agree that some of his sound shorts (from Roach and Educational in particular) are surprisingly good, though I’ve found both treats and duds among them. But it’s striking how well his voice suited his screen character.

Do you know what troubles me? I'm not wild about Harold Lloyd. I'm in the same boat as you though, I want to like him, but I just find him kinda generic. I can see how people like him, the "everyday guy" overcoming odds and getting the girl, but he just doesn't capture me like Langdon or Keaton do. Granted, I'm biased when it comes to HL, heck, I even built a whole website dedicated to him and his craft. I was introduced to him during one of Robert Youngson's fine comps. The minute I saw him, I was captivated by him and his style of comedy. I too can see why people could be turned off by him, but I think he's brilliant. He is one of THE best pantomimist that has graced the stage and screen by far. Some people may find him boring because he doesn't act quick enough to a situation, but again, that's just another thing that I think makes him unique.

Like R Treadway stated, you may have set yourself up for a disaster by starting with Three's A Crowd. Personally, I think it's a great film, but maybe you would have been better off watching The Strong Man or Tramp, Tramp, Tramp if you were looking for a feature. Just like others have mentioned, I enjoy his Sennett shorts too. Not so much his earlier work there because they didn't allow him to "do his thing", but once he had a little more freedom, there was no stopping him. I do enjoy Shanghaied Lovers (offered by Looser Than Loose), The Hansom Cabman, and Saturday Afternoon, just to name a few. As much as I enjoy his Roach shorts as well, I've always thought his work during the silent era was top shelf. Maybe it's because I'm more of a diehard HL fan, but I think The Chaser and Three's A Crowd are very underrated.

His beginning days with Roach appear to mimic (at least to me) his first days with Sennett. It seems like he's trying to find his footing again and it takes him a few shorts to get back into it. Not to say there aren't great bits in each and every short, it just seems like the ones in the beginning aren't as solid. Again, this is all opinion though, and everyone has their own.

Harry was wildly unique for his time, and still kind of is, and that's why I love him. Sure, I love Keaton, Chaplin, Arbuckle, etc., but Harry is #1 in my book. Almost every comedian and comedienne has their "thing" that make them stand out, and for some reason I was drawn to Harry's impish way. To each his own I guess.

Holmes wrote:

Do you know what troubles me? I'm not wild about Harold Lloyd. I'm in the same boat as you though, I want to like him, but I just find him kinda generic. I can see how people like him, the "everyday guy" overcoming odds and getting the girl, but he just doesn't capture me like Langdon or Keaton do.

Lloyd's silent features are consistently strong. Did you like THE KID BROTHER? If you don't get emotionally invested in that one, you can probably stop trying. Do you like Johnny Hines?

For me, the greatest joy of working on LITTLE ELF was in watching the films chronologically while researching Langdon's life. Chuck was much more familiar with the films and Harry's gifts than was I (which is pretty much why he took charge of the filmography). It was fascinating to see the hints of better things to come right from the earliest Sennett comedies; to watch Harry's growth while discovering that critics of the day were seeing the exact same things I was. Knowing (mostly through the work of Joseph McBride and Brent Walker) exactly when Edwards, Capra and Ripley were brought into the picture enabled us to discern what each man contributed to both the Harry character as well as Langdon the artist.

My recommendation to anyone unfamiliar with Langdon, or wanting to better understand what the fuss is about, would be to watch the films in order. Start with Discs 1-3 of the "Lost and Found" set, where ordinary slapstick situations mature into one-of-a-kind character comedy, then move on to the First National features.

Michael

MikeH0714 wrote:

For me, the greatest joy of working on LITTLE ELF was in watching the films chronologically while researching Langdon's life. Chuck was much more familiar with the films and Harry's gifts than was I (which is pretty much why he took charge of the filmography). It was fascinating to see the hints of better things to come right from the earliest Sennett comedies; to watch Harry's growth while discovering that critics of the day were seeing the exact same things I was. Knowing (mostly through the work of Joseph McBride and Brent Walker) exactly when Edwards, Capra and Ripley were brought into the picture enabled us to discern what each man contributed to both the Harry character as well as Langdon the artist.

Michael, when I first realized how comprehensive your book is, I thought I might wait until Christmas, but now I don't think I can wait out the year. I've waited decades for Harry to get the same treatment that everyone from Chaplin to Our Gang has gotten: An appraisal of every film in the canon. Thank you for putting in the work to get this done, and filling a void in bookshelves the world over.

There's something that troubles me, and it's that I'm not wild about Harry. I wish I was a Langdon fan. I don't dislike him, and I'm glad I have his collected surviving silents on DVD now; I've watched a few of the shorts as well as HIS FIRST FLAME and THREE'S A CROWD (and started on THE STRONG MAN but haven't finished it yet) and find them intermittently interesting, and sometimes funny, but I just can't get into his character enough to fully enjoy his films.

This is what makes horse races. There are some (Kevin Brownlow among them) who believe "The Strong Man" to be the single greatest silent comedy ever made. I am not one of them. I am not surprised you have not finished watching it, I have seen it several times with audiences, in theaters, beautiful prints and appropriate musical accompaniment, and I have yet to hear anyone in an audience for this film crack a smile, let alone laugh out loud. For, me, although I almost always find Langdon interesting, "The Strong Man" is a complete mis-fire--right up there with "Spuds" and "Battling Orioles" as being among the most over-touted films by their partisans--leading viewers to expectations that are never met.

"Three's a Crowd" is certainly interesting--but for it to work it really needed stronger players in the other two roles. They needed to be at least as able to capture eyeballs as Langdon--and they aren't.

The two Langdon's that always get dumped on, "Long Pants" and "The Chaser" I find to be among his better features. That dark streak really enhances Langdon's screen character IMHO--in an odd way, for me, the darkness adds a touch of much-needed humanity to the arrested development in Langdon's screen persona--a realization (or self-awarenes, if you will) on the character's part of the frustration he feels at not being able to fit into the broader society.

I have seen only one of the Roach shorts--"The Head Guy"--and based on that, one can say that Roach let Langdon do what he did--but it just did not work--at least in that film. I really enjoy Langdon's prime Sennett stuff, and the Educationals I've seen have been pretty funny. So, too, the much-maligned Langdon Columbias. With an audience a number of them are quite funny.

There's something that troubles me, and it's that I'm not wild about Harry. I wish I was a Langdon fan. I don't dislike him, and I'm glad I have his collected surviving silents on DVD now; I've watched a few of the shorts as well as HIS FIRST FLAME and THREE'S A CROWD (and started on THE STRONG MAN but haven't finished it yet) and find them intermittently interesting, and sometimes funny, but I just can't get into his character enough to fully enjoy his films.

This is what makes horse races. There are some (Kevin Brownlow among them) who believe "The Strong Man" to be the single greatest silent comedy ever made. I am not one of them. I am not surprised you have not finished watching it, I have seen it several times with audiences, in theaters, beautiful prints and appropriate musical accompaniment, and I have yet to hear anyone in an audience for this film crack a smile, let alone laugh out loud. For, me, although I almost always find Langdon interesting, "The Strong Man" is a complete mis-fire--right up there with "Spuds" and "Battling Orioles" as being among the most over-touted films by their partisans--leading viewers to expectations that are never met.

Now this is,of course, total horsepucky. I and others have seen all three of those films hit quite big with audiences, and have seen them do less well at other times but then again, for Birchard to actually hear someone laugh during a picture, or the even rarer instance of laughing himself, he'd have to stay awake through it, and we all know that has not been a common occurance of late......

That said, it is okay to like some comedians and some comedians films less than others. It is indeed what makes horse races. With Langdon, it does indeed seem to be a matter of how involved you get in the character's plight, and with a comedian whose whole modus operandi is to up the tension level of his audience so that he can play them like a guitar string for laughs, for those who don't detatch from their entertainment, or those who are just uptight in general, that comedy style can be more of a turnoff than turn-on. And there is that faction that get creeps out by Langdon's character, again they seem to skew more female and empathetic and seem to be afraid that Langdon's character is actually retarded or the like. The best way to watch Langdon is with the knowledge that God or something is looking after him, and that he will most likely survive whatever part of his very surreal universe is currently threatening him. The humor is in how he reacts to it, not how he will survive it.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

And there is that faction that get creeps out by Langdon's character, again they seem to skew more female and empathetic and seem to be afraid that Langdon's character is actually retarded or the like.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

I'd be one of them, I find him completely creepy. Retarded didn't occur to me, he's more like a big, possibly malevolent baby. Can you think of anything more inherently dangerous and creepy than a huge baby? I can't. When I saw The Strong Man at SFSFF I wanted to flee the theater, but I was absolutely determined I'd finally finish a Langdon film.

But everyone's mileage varies. Langdon speaks to some people in a language I do not understand, but that doesn't mean the language isn't real. As has been pointed out, it's what makes the horserace.

Holmes wrote:

Do you know what troubles me? I'm not wild about Harold Lloyd. I'm in the same boat as you though, I want to like him, but I just find him kinda generic. I can see how people like him, the "everyday guy" overcoming odds and getting the girl, but he just doesn't capture me like Langdon or Keaton do.

Lloyd's silent features are consistently strong. Did you like THE KID BROTHER? If you don't get emotionally invested in that one, you can probably stop trying. Do you like Johnny Hines?

I enjoyed The Kid Brother, but I never really connected with Lloyd in it, or many of his films for that matter. I have many a comedian's DVD sets in my collection, but nothing of Lloyd's. He just never convinced me enough to go out and purchase anything of his.

I ignored this thread for a week because I assumed it was about Hitchcock's THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY.

My recommendation to anyone unfamiliar with Langdon, or wanting to better understand what the fuss is about, would be to watch the films in order. Start with Discs 1-3 of the "Lost and Found" set, where ordinary slapstick situations mature into one-of-a-kind character comedy, then move on to the First National features.

Michael

A better idea I feel is watch an assortment of silent comedy from the Teens up to 1925, then turn to Langdon. During this time slapstick had grown louder, faster and imaginatively bizarre on screen. And the public was showing a feeling of ennui with the constant sameness that was being exhibited (especially in the shorts). Langdon turned the genre on it's head. He slowed it down, made it more quieter and showcased character over gags (a similar road was being taken over at the Roach studio). And the audiences quickly noticed. His rapid rise to popularity -- which is always talked about when discussing Langdon's career -- is more of a comment on the state of film comedy at that time than it is on Langdon. He helped pave the way for audience re-interest and appreciation to this most unique form of American humor, culminating with the rise of Laurel & Hardy.

None of this really matters as to whether or not modern film geeks connect to his humor or not. He was unique. I find him as fascinating to watch on screen as Keaton or Chaplin, but I'm not about to defend his legacy or his works. His comedy speaks for itself.

And there is that faction that get creeps out by Langdon's character, again they seem to skew more female and empathetic and seem to be afraid that Langdon's character is actually retarded or the like.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

I'd be one of them, I find him completely creepy. Retarded didn't occur to me, he's more like a big, possibly malevolent baby. Can you think of anything more inherently dangerous and creepy than a huge baby? I can't. When I saw The Strong Man at SFSFF I wanted to flee the theater, but I was absolutely determined I'd finally finish a Langdon film.

But everyone's mileage varies. Langdon speaks to some people in a language I do not understand, but that doesn't mean the language isn't real. As has been pointed out, it's what makes the horserace.

I probably take it too seriously, but in certain examples of "loser" comedy I find myself rooting for the girl to GET AWAY FROM THIS GUY! HE WAS UNBELIEVABLY LUCKY THIS TIME! BUT HE'S A LOSER AND HE CAN'T BE LUCKY EVERY TIME! The Langdon comedies probably bother me the most (I'm one of those who sympathizes with the wife in Saturday Afternoon -- this toddler shouldn't be trusted with his own money), but even movies like The Cameraman (can this version of Buster really hold on to that job?) and Spite Marriage (is morbid obsession a good basis for a marriage?) can only be ignored if you remember that it's only an actress, a prize for our hero; not a real person with her own real life. In films where the hero really is in control (most of the earlier Keaton films, and most of the Harold Lloyd canon), you get the feeling that this is a man worth having. Langdon? Not so much. Please, let him walk off down Chaplin's country road all by himself, until such time as he grows up, if he's got it in him...

I'm not saying that the films aren't funny -- I like them. But they also creep me out a little, so I get the original poster's point of view. And the lack of any character, moral values, or potential for growth or success in Langdon's character may explain some of the male/female discrepancy here.

. . . for Birchard to actually hear someone laugh during a picture, or the even rarer instance of laughing himself, he'd have to stay awake through it, and we all know that has not been a common occurance of late......
RICHARD M ROBERTS

I find it ironic that the guy with the sourest personality, the guy who seems to find fault with everyone, the guy who can't seem to begin a reply to anyone without some sort of personal attack is the same person who declares himself a comedy expert. I did manage to stay awake at least long enough for a short subject with one of your commentaries recently, Richard, and laughed myself silly with your repeated mangling of Glenn Tryon's name. It is Tryon (as in, "would you like to try on this pair of pants." NOT Try-ron--there is no second "R."

Oh, and BTW, the Will Rogers picture is "Jubilo" prounounced Ju-bilow (as in "It must be now the Kingdom's comin', and the year of Jubilo") not Who-blee-oh.

My opinions re: "The Strong Man" and Langdon are my own, and are no more or less horsepucky than your own opinions, and worth about the same two cents on the open market. You really do need to get off of yourself, and yes that last comment references the old joke about . . .

. . . for Birchard to actually hear someone laugh during a picture, or the even rarer instance of laughing himself, he'd have to stay awake through it, and we all know that has not been a common occurance of late......
RICHARD M ROBERTS

I find it ironic that the guy with the sourest personality, the guy who seems to find fault with everyone, the guy who can't seem to begin a reply to anyone without some sort of personal attack is the same person who declares himself a comedy expert. I did manage to stay awake at least long enough for a short subject with one of your commentaries recently, Richard, and laughed myself silly with your repeated mangling of Glenn Tryon's name. It is Tryon (as in, "would you like to try on this pair of pants." NOT Try-ron--there is no second "R."

Oh, and BTW, the Will Rogers picture is "Jubilo" prounounced Ju-bilow (as in "It must be now the Kingdom's comin', and the year of Jubilo") not Who-blee-oh.

My opinions re: "The Strong Man" and Langdon are my own, and are no more or less horsepucky than your own opinions, and worth about the same two cents on the open market. You really do need to get off of yourself, and yes that last comment references the old joke about . . .

Bob Birchard lecturing me on personal charm.......pardon me while I smirk.

Bob Birchard lecturing me on pronounciation, this coming from the man who is still convinced Kroger Babb is pronounced "Krojer Babe"--------pardon me while I smirk again.

He asked for it and received, and what I called horsepucky was not his opinions, it was the attempt to paint opinion as fact, and the fact is that THE STRONG MAN, SPUDS, and THE BATTLING ORIOLES have done just fine in showings I have attended. Birchard hasn't attended every showing of any of those films, and I question his remaining consious at the ones he did attend, so his tarring them with a "one size fits all" attitude is and continues to be horsepucky.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I'd be one of them, I find him completely creepy. Retarded didn't occur to me, he's more like a big, possibly malevolent baby. Can you think of anything more inherently dangerous and creepy than a huge baby? I can't. When I saw The Strong Man at SFSFF I wanted to flee the theater, but I was absolutely determined I'd finally finish a Langdon film.

But everyone's mileage varies. Langdon speaks to some people in a language I do not understand, but that doesn't mean the language isn't real. As has been pointed out, it's what makes the horserace.

I probably take it too seriously, but in certain examples of "loser" comedy I find myself rooting for the girl to GET AWAY FROM THIS GUY! HE WAS UNBELIEVABLY LUCKY THIS TIME! BUT HE'S A LOSER AND HE CAN'T BE LUCKY EVERY TIME! The Langdon comedies probably bother me the most (I'm one of those who sympathizes with the wife in Saturday Afternoon -- this toddler shouldn't be trusted with his own money), but even movies like The Cameraman (can this version of Buster really hold on to that job?) and Spite Marriage (is morbid obsession a good basis for a marriage?) can only be ignored if you remember that it's only an actress, a prize for our hero; not a real person with her own real life. In films where the hero really is in control (most of the earlier Keaton films, and most of the Harold Lloyd canon), you get the feeling that this is a man worth having. Langdon? Not so much. Please, let him walk off down Chaplin's country road all by himself, until such time as he grows up, if he's got it in him...

I'm not saying that the films aren't funny -- I like them. But they also creep me out a little, so I get the original poster's point of view. And the lack of any character, moral values, or potential for growth or success in Langdon's character may explain some of the male/female discrepancy here.

I remember arguing this once with someone somewhere and I what I have always found interesting on this take is the bringing in of realistic ideals in evaluating comedy characters, especially Langdon, whose character is frankly as close to a cartoon character in a cartoon universe that one can get in live-action. Langdon's whole persona and comic universe is a fantasy conceit, and he really walks a tightrope in making it hard to define what his character actually is. This is why he frequently seems to have dropped into the plot almost like he fell out of a UFO, or we arrive at the setup of the situation fully formed wituout much backstory. In HIS MARRIAGE WOW, Langdon is going to marry major-babe Natalie Kingston, no mention of how this could ever happen in a realistic universe, we're given the facts of the plot and run from there. To ask more questions would completely unravel the plot and his character because a lot of Langdon laughs come from that mystery about what he really is, a baby, an adolescent, a full-grown man, we're never sure and we're not even sure he's sure.

And when Langdon is nailed down to any absolute, thats when his comedy fails and his character begins to unravel. It's as if Bugs Bunny started worrying about drug abuse or paying his taxes, they're questions and problems we'd never ask of him or expect him to deal with. Wondering why any woman would be involved with a comic's character, loser, brash go-getter or otherwise, is asking the wrong question, especially if one wants to laugh.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard's post has prompted me to go off on a slight tangent regarding cartoon characters in real-world situations, or worlds that are too realistic. Pixar's "Cars" would have worked much better for me as a cartoon movie rather than CG. The CG in the film was so well done and was so (sort of) realistic that I couldn't buy the characters and the world. If I see a talking car in a cartoon I don't think twice about it. But a photo-realistic car in a photo-realistic world makes it hard for me not to think "who made that stuff?"

I suppose it's sort of like: a photo-real talking Bugs Bunny in a live-action movie would be weird and you'd wonder why the humans don't react, but a cartoon Bugs talking to a cartoon person doesn't present any problems (especially because that's an elephant gun and you can't shoot a rabbit with an elephant gun).

"Cars" had that reality problem for me, could some people have a version of that problem with Harry? I know it's a stretch, but I wonder.

I think that's at least part of it for me anyway. When I walked out on THE CHASER, it was when he was standing around inertly in a dress while men tried to put the move on him. It struck me that he didn't care and if he didn't care about his life, then why should I?

"Why" is not a question that you should ask about Harry Langdon. Sometimes, though, he fails to distract me from it.

Bob

When I walked out on THE CHASER, it was when he was standing around inertly in a dress while men tried to put the move on him. It struck me that he didn't care and if he didn't care about his life, then why should I?

Enjoying the discussion so far, but this one has me floored. My partner and I didn't exactly go into ecstasy over THE CHASER, but I sure don't remember anything like this. The first time he gets propositioned by a man, he has a complete (and very un-Harry like) fit, chasing the guy out of the house, throwing a chamber pot at him and stomping on the porch in such fury that, in an all-too-mechanical fashion, he falls through the darned thing, sending cats scurrying.

The second time it happens - accompanied with a kiss full on the lips - he tries to commit suicide.

After contending with the effects of excess castor oil and a night spent sleeping in the henhouse, it happens a third time, and when it does, Harry's reluctantly resigned to it; offering his cheek perfunctorily, as if its inevitable, like mother wiping your face with her saliva, and best just to get it over with. It's one of the biggest laughs in the film.

Michael

Bob Birchard lecturing me on pronounciation, this coming from the man who is still convinced Kroger Babb is pronounced "Krojer Babe"--------pardon me while I smirk again. RICHARD M ROBERTS

I would be cut to the quick, maybe, if you managed to get my "mispronunciation" of Kroger ("Mom and Dad") Babb's name correctly. I have always said (at least since 1969 when I met the man and got to know him slightly) that he pronounced his name Craw-jur Bobb--not "Babe." How did I come by this pronunciation? He had an office in the 9000 Building on Sunset and I worked at the Granada Theater downstairs in the same building. Kroger would often come by the ticket kiosk and ask how the current picture was doing and chat about the picture business in general, and one day I asked the man how he pronounced his name, and he said: "Craw-jur Bobb." But, Richard, if you know more about how the man pronounced his name then he himself did, then by all means I'll defer to the expert.

Bob Birchard lecturing me on pronounciation, this coming from the man who is still convinced Kroger Babb is pronounced "Krojer Babe"--------pardon me while I smirk again. RICHARD M ROBERTS

I would be cut to the quick, maybe, if you managed to get my "mispronunciation" of Kroger ("Mom and Dad") Babb's name correctly. I have always said (at least since 1969 when I met the man and got to know him slightly) that he pronounced his name Craw-jur Bobb--not "Babe." How did I come by this pronunciation? He had an office in the 9000 Building on Sunset and I worked at the Granada Theater downstairs in the same building. Kroger would often come by the ticket kiosk and ask how the current picture was doing and chat about the picture business in general, and one day I asked the man how he pronounced his name, and he said: "Craw-jur Bobb." But, Richard, if you know more about how the man pronounced his name then he himself did, then by all means I'll defer to the expert.

Thank you Bob, because I have videotape of Dave Friedman, Dan Sonney and MIldred Babb, Kroger's wife, who all call him "Kroger Babb", and I think the words of those who knew, worked, and/or were married to him tend to trump you. If he told you his name was "Craw-jur", he saw you comin', and if anyone knew there's a sucker born every mnute, it was Kroger Babb.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Thank you Bob, because I have videotape of Dave Friedman, Dan Sonney and MIldred Babb, Kroger's wife, who all call him "Kroger Babb", and I think the words of those who knew, worked, and/or were married to him tend to trump you. If he told you his name was "Craw-jur", he saw you comin', and if anyone knew there's a sucker born every mnute, it was Kroger Babb.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

It is possible that Kroger was pulling my leg, equally possible that he decided to change the way he pronounced it through the years--after all, Cesar Romero calls himself "Sessar" Romero in "Hollywood Screen Test" (1937) and called himself "Seezur" Romero in later years. Maybe Kroger was too polite to correct those who mispronounced his name, or maybe he didn't care. There are also people who insist on pronouncing a name in their own manner whatever the evidence to the contrary. I knew a fellow named Michael McGhee (which he pronounced "Ma-Gee [hard "G']) but a mutual friend of ours insisted on calling him "MaGee-hee"--sort of the equivalent of what you often get in movies of the 1930's: "This is Mr. Smith" "Oh, hello, Mr. Smyrhe." So I freely admit that others pronounced Kroger Babb's name differently--but the basis of my pronunciation is what the man told me himslf--which carries at least as much authority as several secondary sources.

What is your authority for "Try-Ron" and "Who-blee-oh"?