Tweet Hands Up! (1926)

With all the work of the major silent comedians so readily available, it's easy to forget about the other, less-known clowns whose work isn't as easy to find. Raymond Griffith falls under this category, because so much of his work is lost, and what does survive isn't that easy to see.
Thankfully, the DVD of HANDS UP does justice to the film, with a great musical score to boot.What struck me immediately was the endless parade of sight gags in the film.

The opening scene with Abraham Lincoln meeting with his cabinet set up a serious tone that is delightfully contrasted in the very next scene, when Ray Griffith rides up to visit General Lee. The sight gags begin immediately, and in this scene reminded me of similar battlefield gags in DUCK SOUP (shells flying through the window, etc). Thankfully, the rest of the film kept up the ingenuity and clever gags found in this scene.Griffith himself is a very fun performer to watch. His characterization of the unruffled gentleman in the silk hat played very well against the overall zaniness of the film. I would really enjoy seeing more of his work. Mack Swain, always great, turned in a memorable supporting appearance here.

The length of the film is perfect for a comedy. It's one thing that pre-WWII comedies had as a major advantage-that they could end after 60 or 70 minutes and not have to hang on a lot of exposition and plot wrap-up for the mandatory 90 minute-plus running time of today.

[silentfilm]

Did somebody say "Hands Up!"...


Griffith convinces Mack Swain that Montague Love is a spy.


Griffith gets a ride out of the mine from an old friend.


After being attacked by Indians, Griffith turns the table in a game of dice.


Griffith expresses his "love" for Virginia Lee Corbin.


Montague Love and Mack Swain suspect that their fellow passenger is a spy.


Having been caught, Griffith is escorted to a hanging party.




A furious Montague Love is about to be outsmarted by Griffith again.

One of the things that I love about this film (and Paths to Paradise) is that Griffith is almost a comic James Bond. He gets into an almost impossble situation, and he is able to think of his way out. Even better, his first attempt may fail (like at the firing squad), but he'll think of something else.

Did somebody say "Hands Up!"...

One of the things that I love about this film (and Paths to Paradise) is that Griffith is almost a comic James Bond. He gets into an almost impossble situation, and he is able to think of his way out. Even better, his first attempt may fail (like at the firing squad), but he'll think of something else.

And--like James Bond--he's nattily attired while he does it. Was there any other silent comic who dressed as beautifully as Griffith? I think not.

Fred

.....John Bunny??!!!?

Gary J.

Max Linder was always impeccably dressed, unless the plot demanded otherwise.
Same for Charlie Chase.

[silentfilm]

Charley Chase was usually dressed nice, but he was usually a mild-mannered middle-class guy. He would never be in a tuxedo.

Raymond Griffith almost always wore a tux and top hat, even if the part didn't require it. In Hands Up! he is caught and sent to the firing squad precisely because he is so well-dressed.

Charley Chase was usually dressed nice, but he was usually a mild-mannered middle-class guy. He would never be in a tuxedo.

Raymond Griffith almost always wore a tux and top hat, even if the part didn't require it. In Hands Up! he is caught and sent to the firing squad precisely because he is so well-dressed.

Agree. There's more to chic than nice clothes. There are people on this planet who look stunning in a potato sack and then there are those who spend thousands and still look like the potatoes that escaped from the sack. It's all in the attitude and the style. Chase and Linder often wore fine togs--Raymond Griffith was Raymond Griffith.

Fred

I thought Buster Keaton looked quite fine on those rare occasions where he dressed nicely (the dream sequence in SHERLOCK JR., while we're on our "pre-figuring James Bond thread, comes to mind.)

Rodney

I saw this recently (bought it from Grapevine, can I say that?) and was really impressed. It's sad so much of his work is lost.
Can anyone answer why he 'slipped through the sprockets'.
Had he no Rohauar savior?
Why?
Your thoughts?

[silentfilm]

It's sad so much of his work is lost.
Can anyone answer why he 'slipped through the sprockets'.
Had he no Rohauar savior?
Why?
Your thoughts?

Almost all of the big comedians like Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon, and Colleen Moore produced their own features. Thus they owned the films. Griffith, like Arbuckle, worked for Paramount as a contract actor (and writer). He had no financial or artistic interest in saving his films.

He was actually a rich producer at 20th-Century Fox in the 1930s and early 1940s. He might have been able to rescue some of his films if he wanted to, but the 1940s may have been too late for many of them. I do know that in the 1950s he occasionally attended John Hapton's Silent Movie Theater.

He did donate all of his papers to the Margaret Herrick library. Someday I'm going to have to make a trek out there and go through them.

Keaton may have produced his films, but he didn't own them. They were owned by the Buster Keaton Corporation which I strongly suspect was owned by his brother-in-law, Joe Schneck, and later by MGM.

Bob

Keaton may have produced his films, but he didn't own them. They were owned by the Buster Keaton Corporation which I strongly suspect was owned by his brother-in-law, Joe Schneck, and later by MGM.

The Schencks owned about 40% of Buster Keaton Productions, at least initially, and Buster himself didn't own any of it. But when Raymond Rohauer eventually acquired its assets (Buster's films), I believe he struck the deal with Buster to get them, so I guess at some point Buster did have a significant stake in the company. I don't know.

Keaton may have produced his films, but he didn't own them. They were owned by the Buster Keaton Corporation which I strongly suspect was owned by his brother-in-law, Joe Schneck, and later by MGM.

The Schencks owned about 40% of Buster Keaton Productions, at least initially, and Buster himself didn't own any of it. But when Raymond Rohauer eventually acquired its assets (Buster's films), I believe he struck the deal with Buster to get them, so I guess at some point Buster did have a significant stake in the company. I don't know.

Joe and Nick? or just Joe? I've never figured out exactly what Joe's business relationships were around that time. I went to look in my detailed and extensively footnoted and referenced biography of Joe Schenck, and then remembered that I don't have one. Annoying.

Fred

This reminds me of the day when Roberto Di Chiara showed me what seemed to be the last reel (in 16mm) of a film with Adolphe Menjou that we didn't manage to identify.

I hope that his widow managed to keep it because his sons threw away many films that where in decomposition.

The fate of his archive is a sad story and I regret not to be in Buenos Aires to be helping his widow, with the films that he managed to rescued himself (including some that his sons had already disposed) for her.

Joe and Nick? or just Joe?

Joe, Nick and Nick's wife Patsy together owned 39.33 percent, according to Tom Dardis' Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down (pg. 114).

Joe and Nick? or just Joe?

Joe, Nick and Nick's wife Patsy together owned 39.33 percent, according to Tom Dardis' Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down (pg. 114).

Who owned the rest of him?

Fred

Actually the Keaton Film corporation is one of the reasons I think that Rohauer's and successors' interests may be doubtful. Rohauer obtained Keaton's claims on his films, from what I understand, but I would be interested in seeing the line of documents that led from the B.K. Film Corporation to Rohauer.

Bob

Actually the Keaton Film corporation is one of the reasons I think that Rohauer's and successors' interests may be doubtful. Rohauer obtained Keaton's claims on his films, from what I understand, but I would be interested in seeing the line of documents that led from the B.K. Film Corporation to Rohauer.

Bob

Was B.K. Film incorporated in California? Incorporation papers are available starting from 1912 here.

Fred

Actually the Keaton Film corporation is one of the reasons I think that Rohauer's and successors' interests may be doubtful. Rohauer obtained Keaton's claims on his films, from what I understand, but I would be interested in seeing the line of documents that led from the B.K. Film Corporation to Rohauer.

When did Rohauer ever need a rightful claim to get something?

Actually the Keaton Film corporation is one of the reasons I think that Rohauer's and successors' interests may be doubtful. Rohauer obtained Keaton's claims on his films, from what I understand, but I would be interested in seeing the line of documents that led from the B.K. Film Corporation to Rohauer.

Bob

Actually, what happens to companies when they cease being active? Do they have to be formally unincorporated if they are not merged or bought out by another company? Rohauer must have had some dealings with Joe Schenck since he ended up with the Norma and Constance Talmadge films. And who owned those companies? Norma and Constance got a percentage and probably had at least part ownership, but it's not clear to me what happened with those once they were not making pictures any more. And when Norma died she willed her shares in Joseph M. Schenck Productions, Inc. to Constance. What happened to that company? Was it a successor corporation to the previous companies? Or something new? I got this from a newspaper report which of course didn't have the whole contents of the will but no mention was made of Norma Talmadge Film Corporation in their report.

Actually, what happens to companies when they cease being active? Do they have to be formally unincorporated if they are not merged or bought out by another company? Rohauer must have had some dealings with Joe Schenck since he ended up with the Norma and Constance Talmadge films. And who owned those companies? Norma and Constance got a percentage and probably had at least part ownership, but it's not clear to me what happened with those once they were not making pictures any more. And when Norma died she willed her shares in Joseph M. Schenck Productions, Inc. to Constance. What happened to that company? Was it a successor corporation to the previous companies? Or something new? I got this from a newspaper report which of course didn't have the whole contents of the will but no mention was made of Norma Talmadge Film Corporation in their report.

I believe (don't quote me) that if the corporation transfers to another owner that information is all with the incorporation papers. I have L-Ko's incorporation papers, which begin with the establishment of the corporation, include the name change to Century Film, and then on to the legal dissolving of the corporation. In another case I have incorporation papers that show a corporation being suspended by the State for non-payment of fees. But I'll bet the paperwork relating to Joe Schenck's ownership of anything is pretty darned Byzantine, so it might be hard to locate and disentangle all the threads. These papers also don't say much about the finances of the company, though, sure wish I had annual reports.

Where were Norma and Constance's companies incorporated? New York?

Fred

Where were Norma and Constance's companies incorporated? New York?

Fred

Not positive, but odds are that it was New York, since their business office was there as well as the studio. Not sure about the BK company, though--wasn't he already working in Hollywood at the time of the corporation? Did Comique continue past that time?

I'll bet it was byzantine! In one article i saw in a library (which wouldn't let me copy) Joe was talking about the divorce and the difficulty of disentangling his and Norma's holdings and the effect of the economic downturn on their assets and it sounded more like a corporate divestiture than a divorce. Reportedly whenever he started a new business (or found any other particularly good investment), he made sure Norma got some stock. But, wouldn't these have been privately held corporations and not public ones? Only public companies have to issue Annual reports, right?

By the way, in one of Norma's obits it said she only had recently given up her seat on the New York Stock exchange. Why would she have have one?

greta

People owned seats on the New York Stock Exchange not just for the purpose of being able to go onto the floor and buying and selling, but for speculation (the price of a seat on the NYSE varied between tens of thousands of dollar to several millions, just before it converted to a stock corporation) and for income via leasing the seat to someone who wishes to trade but not to make the capital investment of buying a seat.

Bob

Not positive, but odds are that it was New York, since their business office was there as well as the studio. Not sure about the BK company, though--wasn't he already working in Hollywood at the time of the corporation? Did Comique continue past that time?

You can incorporate in a state other than where the corporation is located, Delaware is a popular state for incorporations...dunno why, someone know?

I'll bet it was byzantine! In one article i saw in a library (which wouldn't let me copy) Joe was talking about the divorce and the difficulty of disentangling his and Norma's holdings and the effect of the economic downturn on their assets and it sounded more like a corporate divestiture than a divorce. Reportedly whenever he started a new business (or found any other particularly good investment), he made sure Norma got some stock. But, wouldn't these have been privately held corporations and not public ones? Only public companies have to issue Annual reports, right?

Betcha much of that is spelled out in the divorce papers. Were they divorced here?

Fred

Delaware is a popular state for incorporation because the laws that govern a corporation are the laws of the state it is incorporated in, and Delaware has a long history of being business-friendly and its Court of Chancery (which is, I think, the branch of courts that handle corporations) has a long and clear set of precedents.


Bob

Delaware is a popular state for incorporation because the laws that govern a corporation are the laws of the state it is incorporated in, and Delaware has a long history of being business-friendly and its Court of Chancery (which is, I think, the branch of courts that handle corporations) has a long and clear set of precedents.


Bob

Did that apply back in the teens and twenties? or was there another state that was favored for incorporations then? or were the Talmadge companies just as likely to be incorporated in New York?

Fred

I couldn't say, Frederica. Corporations are typically incorporated in the states in which they are headquartered and do business in, but as they go public and national they tend to reincorporate themselves in friendlier states, particularly Delaware. I would suspect that Schenck's companies were incorporated in New York, New Jersey (where their principal businesses were headquartered) or Delaware.

In New York, corporations fall under the control of the Secretary of State, but it may be different in other states.

Bob

Betcha much of that is spelled out in the divorce papers. Were they divorced here?

Fred

Juarez. Seems to have been her favorite divorce spot since she also divorced Jessel there. The AP report said she was accompanied by her lawyer Ingle Carpenter and the report says that "The Juarez divorce records are not available for public inspection." Maybe that's one reason? Apparently a very short residency requirement as well. Anyway, further down it says "Mr. Schenck, following their separation, announced property matters had been settled by mutual agreement. The amount of the settlement upon Miss Talmadge was never officially disclosed, but it was generally reported at $500,000."

But i'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.

Betcha much of that is spelled out in the divorce papers. Were they divorced here?

Fred

Juarez. Seems to have been her favorite divorce spot since she also divorced Jessel there. The AP report said she was accompanied by her lawyer Ingle Carpenter and the report says that "The Juarez divorce records are not available for public inspection." Maybe that's one reason? Apparently a very short residency requirement as well. Anyway, further down it says "Mr. Schenck, following their separation, announced property matters had been settled by mutual agreement. The amount of the settlement upon Miss Talmadge was never officially disclosed, but it was generally reported at $500,000."

But i'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.

Kiss that idea off, then...unless anyone wants to tackle the Mexican Court Archives? Looks like they worked the property settlement out via lawyers. $500,000, my patootie. That may have been the cash settlement, but I'll bet she got a load of stock and real property, let's not even count the jewelry. And why the hell not, it was made on her name!

Fred

Kiss that idea off, then...unless anyone wants to tackle the Mexican Court Archives? Looks like they worked the property settlement out via lawyers. $500,000, my patootie. That may have been the cash settlement, but I'll bet she got a load of stock and real property, let's not even count the jewelry. And why the hell not, it was made on her name!

Fred

You bet! The article mentions the Talmadge Apartments and there was plenty more. It's said in various sources that i'm too lazy to look up right now that Peg made sure that a lot of their holdings were in their own names--presumably that included the percentage deal on their pictures, which not only brought in a lot of money but also charged the theaters high booking fees. The article goes on to say "Ever since their separation Miss Talmadge and Mr. Schenck have remained close friends, she admitting she frequently consulted him on business matters."

An unsourced 1952 article someone gave me (it's posted with the scrapbook pictures on my site) says: I'll venture to say that Joe Schenck made more money for Norma Talmadge than he did for Joe Schenck. And i'll bet a cookie that she has a bigger pile of stocks and bonds today than he does."

They were estimating her fortune at 2 million at that point. At her death it was estimated at "several million" and included lots of real estate.

greta