Lon Chaney retrospective

[Rodney]

<<It>>

Don't know where you got that info, but it is completely wrong. Lon NEVER owned a theatrical troupe.

By 1914, his stage career in Los Angeles was over, due to his wife's attempted suicide in the wings of the Majestic Theatre in 1913 and the resulting newspaper coverage.

Lon was steadily working at Universal by mid-1913 and never went back to theatre work.

"In February of that year (1912), Charley joined Lon Chaney's vaudeville troupe in a show called "Fischer's Follies." A few months later, the show disbanded." This is a quote from Yair Solan's "The World of Charley Chase" website, under the heading, "Charles Parrott aka Charley Chase." I stated Mr. Chaney owned a theatrical troupe, when it actually reads a "vaudeville" troupe. Please confirm whether or not Chaney managed the troupe. It also appears I have the date wrong; it is 1912 rather than 1914. While I have your attention, Mr. Blake, could you direct me to any information regarding the professional relationship between, Charles F. Alphin and Lon Chaney. Mr. Alphin appears to have be a friend and colleague to Mr. Chaney throughout his theatrical career. Thank you.

The usage "Lon Chaney's vaudeville troupe" might just mean the troupe Lon was currently acting in, not one that he actually owned -- sort of like "Charley moved to Lon Chaney's neighborhood" or "Charley joined Lon Chaney's Moose lodge."

[Native Baltimoron]

<<It>>

Don't know where you got that info, but it is completely wrong. Lon NEVER owned a theatrical troupe.

By 1914, his stage career in Los Angeles was over, due to his wife's attempted suicide in the wings of the Majestic Theatre in 1913 and the resulting newspaper coverage.

Lon was steadily working at Universal by mid-1913 and never went back to theatre work.

"In February of that year (1912), Charley joined Lon Chaney's vaudeville troupe in a show called "Fischer's Follies." A few months later, the show disbanded." This is a quote from Yair Solan's "The World of Charley Chase" website, under the heading, "Charles Parrott aka Charley Chase." I stated Mr. Chaney owned a theatrical troupe, when it actually reads a "vaudeville" troupe. Please confirm whether or not Chaney managed the troupe. It also appears I have the date wrong; it is 1912 rather than 1914. While I have your attention, Mr. Blake, could you direct me to any information regarding the professional relationship between, Charles F. Alphin and Lon Chaney. Mr. Alphin appears to have be a friend and colleague to Mr. Chaney throughout his theatrical career. Thank you.

The usage "Lon Chaney's vaudeville troupe" might just mean the troupe Lon was currently acting in, not one that he actually owned -- sort of like "Charley moved to Lon Chaney's neighborhood" or "Charley joined Lon Chaney's Moose lodge."

From the Website "Aphostrophes, Bloody Aphostrophes", "There are two simple situations when apostrophes are used. The first is to denote ownership and the second to indicate an abbreviation." Thank you, Rodney.

[Einar the Lonely]

Aside: I have just started a tribute series on my stills blog:
http://gimlihospital.wordpress.com/cate ... and-faces/

But so far, just one entrance only.

I love Chaney, but my all-time-favourite is him:
http://gimlihospital.wordpress.com/cate ... ter-lorre/

[YS]

Don't know where you got that info, but it is completely wrong. Lon NEVER owned a theatrical troupe.

By 1914, his stage career in Los Angeles was over, due to his wife's attempted suicide in the wings of the Majestic Theatre in 1913 and the resulting newspaper coverage.

Lon was steadily working at Universal by mid-1913 and never went back to theatre work.

"In February of that year (1912), Charley joined Lon Chaney's vaudeville troupe in a show called "Fischer's Follies." A few months later, the show disbanded." This is a quote from Yair Solan's "The World of Charley Chase" website, under the heading, "Charles Parrott aka Charley Chase." I stated Mr. Chaney owned a theatrical troupe, when it actually reads a "vaudeville" troupe. Please confirm whether or not Chaney managed the troupe. It also appears I have the date wrong; it is 1912 rather than 1914.

Just to clear up a discrepancy here, the piece you're citing regarding Charley Chase and "Fischer's Follies" is not from my Chase website but from the Our Gang website "The Lucky Corner," which I am unaffiliated with. According to Michael Blake's "A Thousand Faces," Lon Chaney performed in "Fischer's Follies" from Feb-Aug 1912, where he was an actor, choreographer, and stage manager (p.17). While the quote you cited regarding Chase/Chaney is somewhat ambiguous, if it means to (mistakenly) imply that Chaney had owned the show, perhaps somewhere along the line, Chaney's role as stage manager had been confused for actually owning a theatrical troupe.

Yair S.

[Native Baltimoron]

Sorry for the mix up on the sites; that is truly my mea culpa. Thank you, however, for clearing up the mystery of Mr. Chaney's participation. Could you tell me if Charles Parrott was a member of that production as well. Thanks again.

[YS]

Sorry for the mix up on the sites; that is truly my mea culpa. Thank you, however, for clearing up the mystery of Mr. Chaney's participation. Could you tell me if Charles Parrott was a member of that production as well. Thanks again.

Brian Anthony's Chase biography "Smile When the Raindrops Fall" asserts that Parrott was in "Fischer's Follies". I have not yet come across any primary source which confirms that Charles Parrott was in that particular troupe, but it's very possible, as Parrott was treading the boards in Los Angeles at the time.

And regarding Charles Alphin - he operated the Olympic Theater in L.A., where Lon Chaney had performed early in his career. Alphin renamed the theater "The Alphin" in 1914, and I do know that Charles Parrott had appeared in at least one stage production there (written by Alphin) that same year. Very curiously, Alphin gets writing credit on a few Charley Chase comedies of the mid 1920s.

[Native Baltimoron]

Brian Anthony's Chase biography "Smile When the Raindrops Fall" asserts that Parrott was in "Fischer's Follies". I have not yet come across any primary source which confirms that Charles Parrott was in that particular troupe, but it's very possible, as Parrott was treading the boards in Los Angeles at the time.

And regarding Charles Alphin - he operated the Olympic Theater in L.A., where Lon Chaney had performed early in his career. Alphin renamed the theater "The Alphin" in 1914, and I do know that Charles Parrott had appeared in at least one stage production there (written by Alphin) that same year. Very curiously, Alphin gets writing credit on a few Charley Chase comedies of the mid 1920s.

Reading the Chase biography, was the first time I saw "Fischer's Follies " mentioned, and neither have I come across a primary source to place Parrott with the troupe.

Mr. Alphin is an interesting connection between Chaney and Parrott/Chase. I found some information on a geneology website stating that Alphin gave Chaney his first job as a stagehand in Colorado Springs, CO??? No primary source yet. The thread goes on to say that Alphin did employ Chaney at the Olympic, as you stated. I found a primary source (LA Times, 1914) stating that Parrott worked for Alphin in a stage production written by him, during that year. Twelve years later, it appears that Mr. Alphin may have worked for Chase as a gagman/writer. The thing that makes me lean in that direction is "Bromo and Juliet" (1926), for which IMDb gives Alphin a writer's credit. It is, to an extent, a play within a movie, and a rather clever use of the device. I would suspect that an idea like this might come from a theatrically trained writer. Any thoughts?[

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Brian Anthony's Chase biography "Smile When the Raindrops Fall" asserts that Parrott was in "Fischer's Follies". I have not yet come across any primary source which confirms that Charles Parrott was in that particular troupe, but it's very possible, as Parrott was treading the boards in Los Angeles at the time.
.

Anthony also claims that Charlie's sister was torch singer Helen Morgan, so I would take what he says with ... well ... Lot's wife.

[Native Baltimoron]

Ms. O'Dowd-
I don't disagree. After I read the Chase biography, I went looking for primary sources to substantiate what I had read. It's some of the best archeology I've ever done because it's nothing but digging. It will take me longer, but the product I hope to produce will be a well-sourced article about the Parrott/Chase career off screen. He was truly a man of many abilities, not the least of which was as a comedian.

[Arndt]

THE PENALTY (1920)

It is plain that after THE MIRACLE MAN the game had changed. Chaney had moved up a rung and was now a full-blown star in his own right. The screenplay of THE PENALTY was obviously constructed around him to showcase his unique abilities. In part this works very well: Chaney utilizes his character's handicap to great effect for example. He manages to give "Blizzard" integrity and even dignity, but only when he is allowed to show some restraint.
Unfortunately though, as an evil genius, he has to dispense a certain amount of homicidal rage and insatiable desire during the course of the film, which, even more unfortunately, is accompanied by lots of grimacing in close shots and sometimes rather silly intertitles ("At her laugh his hell-born passions broke loose.", "But almost instantly he knew that he had blundered -", "- and like a good general tried to retrieve his mistake.") The problem here is that the film is trying to oversell Chaney by making his character so much larger than life and by thereby killing all subtlety of characterization. In these scenes his Blizzard is nothing but a clichéd supervillain. This would be a lot more palatable if it were accompanied by the tongue-in-cheekness that often goes with the depiction of such characters - look at Feuillade's VAMPIRES and FANTOMAS or at Lang's MABUSE. Unfortunately - no such luck here. What gets in the way of such levity is Blizzard's harrowing back story of course.
Two more things: Why is it of such paramount importance that all of the soldiers in Blizzard's army of disgruntled foreigners wear identical straw hats, or - for that matter - that these straw hats be particularly well made?
And secondly: I love that bust that depicts Chaney as Satan. I wonder what happened to it.

[Einar the Lonely]

I like the exterior shots of THE PENALTY, San Francisco makes always a good location. Also, I find Chaney's ability to move with his legs strapped behind his back amazing. Some scenes are pretty gruesome for 1920.

[Chris Snowden]

THE PENALTY (1920)

The problem here is that the film is trying to oversell Chaney by making his character so much larger than life and by thereby killing all subtlety of characterization. In these scenes his Blizzard is nothing but a clichéd supervillain. This would be a lot more palatable if it were accompanied by the tongue-in-cheekness that often goes with the depiction of such characters - look at Feuillade's VAMPIRES and FANTOMAS or at Lang's MABUSE. Unfortunately - no such luck here.

The problem for Chaney is that he often plays characters who are so single-mindedly obsessive (for power, for revenge, whatever) that it takes a skilled writer or director to keep that character from becoming a caricature.

I wonder what was going through Chaney's mind on the set, as his director bellowed at him to glare into the camera and slowly clench his fist (for the umpteenth time).

Tod Browning had his faults, but he was very good with stories and characters like these. In fact, if all of the Browning-Chaney collaborations were lost today, we'd be left with an array of hammy performances in silly movies, and we'd have a much lower opinion of Lon Chaney today.

[dr.giraud]

Tod Browning had his faults, but he was very good with stories and characters like these. In fact, if all of the Browning-Chaney collaborations were lost today, we'd be left with an array of hammy performances in silly movies, and we'd have a much lower opinion of Lon Chaney today.

Watching THE UNHOLY THREE again last night (for the first time in 4-5 years) I was struck by how much the characters hate each other, and the generally all-around high level of anger and mistrust. That's why the big romantic scene between Mae Busch and Matt Moore works so well, and her breakdown is so effective--what a relief to let go, eventually, living in such a world?

In his best movies, like this, and WICKED DARLING, THE UNKNOWN, WEST OF ZANZIBAR, WHITE TIGER, Browning was indeed a master of malice.

[FrankFay]

Backtracking a bit- I just located my copy of the novel THE SCARLET CAR. I bought it for the striking Frederick Dorr Steele illustrations- I'll give it a go through and try to see where the plot intersects the Chaney film (which I haven't seen either)


UPDATE: I've skimmed the novel- easy to do since it's really three short stories which share characters. The movie plot shares nothing at all with the book except the names of the characters and the Scarlet Car they drive around in. Story 1. is a love triangle with political complications, and a small town sheriff arrests the lovers for speeding . In Story 2. the lovers and their friends get lost in the countryside at night and foil a burglary plot at the isolated mansion of a reclusive millionaire. In story 3. a crooked lawyer holds the lovers hostage (in a comfortable house with a party going on) to gain advantage in an election. As with much of Richard Harding Davis' output the stories are well written piffle. The illustrations are superb.

[Arndt]

NOMADS OF THE NORTH (1920)

Am I right in thinking this was an independent production? That would tally, as the film comes across as fairly naive and even amateurish in some aspects, very much like DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS. And just like that whaling opus NOMADS uses a lot of documentary-type footage to pad out the rather feeble story.
This has been my least favourite film in the retrospective so far. It's fine if you like cutesy bear cubs and puppies, but apart from that it has not got much to offer. Chaney is totally wasted on a romantic role he simply does not know what to do with. So he mercilessly overacts. Shudder!
I found this film only just bear-able.

[Arndt]

OUTSIDE THE LAW (1920)

If ever there was an engineered sensation, this is one. The notorious ballyhoo used in promoting the film, the action-packed screenplay, the double role for Chaney - everything is geared to make this film a must-see.
And it does not disappoint, as long as you don't try to take it too seriously. It is a rolicking gangster romp and not much else. I found it a bit too much sometimes. Chaney for example does not get much of a chance to make more of his roles than gangster/ching-chong-chinaman clichés. My favourite sequence was the only quieter one: when Oakman and Dean hole up in the apartment after their jewel heist the film finally allows some character development and proper acting. The way Dean reluctantly allows herself to be won over by the little boy is charming. Unfortunately Chaney comes into this sequence only to break up the calm.
Notable also are two actors in minor roles. The always enchanting Anna May Wong can be seen for about half a minute. Even more interesting, however, is the casting of John George as Chaney's associate, a role he would memorably reprise in THE UNKNOWN.

[Arndt]

THE ACE OF HEARTS (1921)

My favourite so far. A terse little masterpiece!
Chaney plays Mr Farallone (far and alone?), a member of a secret society of anarchists who plan to assassinate a rich man they deem "has lived too long" already. He is in love with fellow member the beautiful Lilith (Leatrice Joy), but so is yet another member, Mr Forrest. The assassin is chosen by chance - Mr Forrest draws the ace of hearts and is to carry out the hit. For that he gets to marry Lilith. Farallone is distraught and holds vigil outside the couple's apartment in a rainstorm.
The next morning love has transformed Forrest and Lilith. Forrest cannot explode the bomb, which puts him now on the society's hit list. To make possible the lovers' getaway Chaney selflessly blows up the headquarters, killing all the conspirators including himself.
Finally Chaney is given a chance for greatness again, in one of his many love triangles. "The man of a thousand ways to suffer" does not disappoint. He finds yet another way. Farallone displays a peculiar mixture of pride, desire, integrity and sensitivity that makes him the focus of the film. The young lovers seem silly in comparison. Chaney's final act of defiance is simply delicious for the audience to anticipate.
What makes the film especially satisfying for me is that it has been trimmed down to the essentials and does not carry any bulk, yet it still gives the audience as much characterization as is necessary and leaves Chaney room to shine. His tormented pantomime in the rainstorm is particularly strong.
Now here's my question: has this film never been remade? And if not, why not? It would have been a shoo-in for Hitchcock, who seems to have taken his famous "bomb under the table" dictum from its climax. These days it would be just the right stuff for Tarantino. There's a thought, Quentin, in case you're reading this.

[FrankFay]

I'd like to enjoy this film, but the only part I really enjoy is the pair of young lovers in the restaurant- Cullen Landis and an actress I can't identify. A fleeting cameo but a perfect one.

[Jack Theakston]

has this film never been remade? And if not, why not? It would have been a shoo-in for Hitchcock, who seems to have taken his famous "bomb under the table" dictum from its climax. These days it would be just the right stuff for Tarantino. There's a thought, Quentin, in case you're reading this.

As far as I know, it was not, although it's somewhat surprising, considering that it was quite applicable during the '50s red scare. However, the trappings in ACE OF HEARTS are definitely the same that you find in any films where there are extremist terrorists plotting to blow up some place.

[Arndt]

SHADOWS (1922)

Now...what to say about this film? It's THE SCARLET LETTER meets BROKEN BLOSSOMS meets UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. Chaney's performance as Yen Sin is certainly remarkable, but I don't feel like congratulating him on it, as it makes him complicit in an unsavoury example of condescending racial stereotyping. Of course one can read a subversive subtext into his portrayal of "the chink" - the "heathen" giving the self-righteous Christians a lesson in morals (cf. BROKEN BLOSSOMS), but the fact remains that Yen Sin is treated as a cute and cuddly half-a-man (cf. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN). The "mee likee veree muchee" intertitles alone mark him out as that. Chaney's servile crouchy posture becomes more annoying to me the longer the film goes on. Altogether I found SHADOWS not an enjoyable film to watch.
However, there was one highlight for me in this intertitle:

"Pray - or get out! We're all believers in Urkey - we want no heathens!"

I had never realized that Urkey was worshipped in New England.

[Mike Gebert]

has this film never been remade? And if not, why not? It would have been a shoo-in for Hitchcock, who seems to have taken his famous "bomb under the table" dictum from its climax. These days it would be just the right stuff for Tarantino. There's a thought, Quentin, in case you're reading this.

I don't know, the corporate board of terrorists plotting things in such a businesslike manner seems like such a Victorian-to-Edwardian thing, like The Suicide Club or The Man Who Was Thursday, it would have been comically out of date even in the 50s. Admittedly James Bond still had SPECTRE but they had a Cold War spin, at least; or when something like it turns up in The Dark Knight, it's just so that Joker can demonstrate that he's crazier and more badass than they would dare to be.

Real terrorists today plot in vast abandoned warehouses and have two day stubble, I have this on good authority of the movies.

[Arndt]

I prefer my old-fashioned, clean-shaven gentlemen terrorists. So much more civilized. Those were the days when one virgin was reward enough.

[Arndt]

OLIVER TWIST (1922)

This excellent adaptation of Dickens' novel was obviously made to showcase the talents of fresh child star Jackie Coogan. And even though he is maybe two or three years too young for the part, Coogan's charm forms a goodly part of the film's attraction. It is a splendid production, with lovely sets and a fine cast of character actors. Lon Chaney as Fagin does an excellent job here in conveying the character's ambiguity.
The film's only problem in my eyes is that David Lean's 1948 version of the novel is so good it knocks it into a cocked hat. I have a similar problem with Chaney's HUNCHBACK vis-a-vis the Dieterle/Laughton version.

[Arndt]

THE LIGHT OF FAITH/ THE LIGHT IN THE DARK (1922)

Unfortunately I had no access to the recently restored 6 reels of the original film and had to make do with the 30-minute version available on the Kino DVD. So I may well be doing THE LIGHT IN THE DARK an injustice here. I did not enjoy it very much at all. Chaney's character does not really come together for me, and neither does "J. Warburton Ashe", number two in the (inevitable) love triangle. The plot seems trite and facile - anyone having to resort to the holy grail as an actual prop to tell a 20th century story seems to me to have seriously run out of ideas.
But most of these flaws could be attributable to the fact that I have only seen a cut-down version of the film. The leading lady's acting, however, cannot. And it is diabolical, if you ask me. Hope Hampton looks like she would be more at home in a 1912 film. She just emotes too much.

[Arndt]

THE SHOCK (1923)

Chaney gets to give a full-on performance not only as a reformed gangster, but also as a man bravely overcoming a physical handicap. Chaney is the film - there is nothing here to detract from his amazing performance. Once his character has seen the light he exudes such an energy that he is virtually unstoppable. He will move heaven and earth to achieve his goals, and indeed the earth moves for him just when he needs it. In this light it seems almost inevitable that he will overcome his handicap in the end. I felt like cheering when he finally did.

[FrankFay]

THE LIGHT OF FAITH/ THE LIGHT IN THE DARK (1922)

Unfortunately I had no access to the recently restored 6 reels of the original film and had to make do with the 30-minute version available on the Kino DVD. So I may well be doing THE LIGHT IN THE DARK an injustice here. I did not enjoy it very much at all. Chaney's character does not really come together for me, and neither does "J. Warburton Ashe", number two in the (inevitable) love triangle. The plot seems trite and facile - anyone having to resort to the holy grail as an actual prop to tell a 20th century story seems to me to have seriously run out of ideas.
But most of these flaws could be attributable to the fact that I have only seen a cut-down version of the film. The leading lady's acting, however, cannot. And it is diabolical, if you ask me. Hope Hampton looks like she would be more at home in a 1912 film. She just emotes too much.

I've seen the full version but not the 30 minute version. It's not a great film but Chaney has nice sequences- I don't know if they're in the cut you saw. He's trying to hide so he hops out on the fire escape and lays under the window- but the smoke from his cigarette betrays him. He also has a great exit.

[spadeneal]

Tod Browning had his faults, but he was very good with stories and characters like these. In fact, if all of the Browning-Chaney collaborations were lost today, we'd be left with an array of hammy performances in silly movies, and we'd have a much lower opinion of Lon Chaney today.

Just watched Freaks again for the umpteenth time, though I hadn't seen it in a very long while this time. Even with 20-25 minutes presumably shorn from the director's cut, Freaks is everything it needs to be in a purely filmic sense. I had long been disappointed in what I felt was Browning's kind of elementary approach to shots and cutting, but as a rule he was most strongly concerned with storytelling and uses close ups very sparingly. But they matter -- Cleo pouring the bottle of poison into the champagne at the wedding party, for example. He liked long takes, and Chaney was the kind of an actor you would want to make long takes with. Art direction also seems to have been very important to him.

I wonder if Dracula is even truly finished; we tend to think of the Medford version as "better" as it maintains a more comprehensible story arc. But that may be that it adheres to the shooting script more closely; given its lack of inserts, music and other odd anomalies the Browning Dracula looks almost like a rough cut, like he was either fired or walked off before it was fully baked. But the Medford version doesn't have the sense of menace that the Browning does, even if it the latter is more limited and minimal by comparison; the Medford plays more like a standard melodrama (and a good one.) I agree that Tod Browning was "a master of menace" as someone put it here, in a post I cannot locate now; seeing Freaks again underscores that point.

spadeneal

[Arndt]

MR WU (1927)
This is a remarkable film in many ways. For one thing it does not feel very American to me. This is due to the strange, otherworldly atmosphere created by the amazing set of house and garden, where (nearly) all the action takes place, but also to the very deliberate slow pacing. There is only the slightest nod to American conventions in Holmes Herbert's half-hearted bit of comic relief.
Then there is the ruthless integrity of story and character that cruelly demands the early death of Renée Adorée's character. Not only is there no happy ending, there is also little scope for the viewer to identify with any of the (surviving) characters. I guess Louise Dresser's character is your best bet here, but it becomes rounded very late in the film.
Chaney's Wu jr. is a triumph. It is the most ambiguous role I have seen him in so far. The quiet dignity and moral rectitude he exudes are central to the film, but seen against his cruel treatment of his gardener his character remains a mystery. His portrayal of Wu sr. is nothing but a gimmick.
This is a beautiful but disturbing film to watch, certainly no easy fare.

[Rob Koeling]

I'm enjoying this threat and since I was in the same situation, I've followed suit. Not so much in in chronological order, but I'm trying to keep up anyway. I was afraid that 'Mr Wu' would be in the 'Shadows' department and that was the main reason why it has been gathering dust. I'm working late tonight and this is scheduled as an after work treat.

At the same time, I'm also going through mr Blake's biography (A Thousand Faces). Even though this is clearly a very well researched book and I do appreciate the wealth of information in it, I sometimes wish it was a bit more critical (surely the great man had his weaknesses). Are there any other biographies (complementing this book) that are worth reading?

- Rob

[Arndt]

THE ROAD TO MANDALAY (1926)
Another superb Browning/Chaney collaboration. Despite the dupey, incomplete state of the copy I have access to I enjoyed the film tremendously. Chaney's make-up is one of the best I've seen him in. I have been fascinated by it ever since I saw that photo where he says hello to Garbo on set in character. The scratched-out blind eye is a lovely ghoulish touch.
Altogether his is a powerful and once again deliciously ambiguous character - Singapore Joe. As in MR WU it is Chaney's character's daughter who wants to marry a man her father deems inappropriate. But this time she does not even realize Chaney is her father.
In true Tod Browning fashion this film is all (seedy) atmosphere and character. The interplay of Chaney and Sojin is particularly impressive. There is a great feeling of pent-up energy whenever Chaney's character appears, especially in his long freezes and stares. The stand-offs between this latent powerhouse and Sojin's equally immobile, but totally different animal of a character are the highlights of the film for me.
I'd love to see a better copy. Maybe next year in Bonn?