lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Jun 23, 2022 17:56:19 GMT
Ask any film buff to name the biggest comedians of the silent screen and you will hear the holy trinity of Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton. But there is one comedian who, had he made better choices, could have out-shined them all: Harry Langdon. Langdon started off, like many, in vaudeville and eventually found his way to the screen with Mack Sennett where he developed a distinctive style that set him apart. He got his own full length films directed by Arthur Ripley and Frank Capra. Three of these: The Strong Man (1926), Tramp, Tramp, Tramp (1926), and Long Pants (1927) did quite well both critically and in sales. For a while he was the brightest star out there and seemed to be a future legend. So why might Langdon have been the greatest of all? Quite simply, he had more assets than other comedians. Both is body and face were naturally comical to look at. He didn't need to do antics to get a laugh, all he had to do was stand there. Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton had to work hard to overcome the fact that they really didn't look that funny without props or acting. Take away their mustaches, glasses, ill fitting clothes and kicks to the pants they are rather dull, maybe even good looking in both body and face. Langdon was the real thing and simply looked like a man assembled the wrong way. But it was not to be, for the greatest asset of any star is judgement and Langdon made horrible career decisions- including firing Frank Capra and taking more control over his own films- a task that he was poorly suited for. Having a funny body and face can't overcome dull and uninspired plot or uninteresting visuals in the rest of the film. Langdon's career began to nosedive and he died in 1944 nearly broke and mostly forgotten. But he could have been the greatest. [note: some of Langdon's work is available free on the internet including the film that I consider his finest: Tramp, Tramp, Tramp www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBIJ4Tfrn8Q ] ![]()      ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 23, 2022 22:50:34 GMT
Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd were touched with comic genius without themselves being physically or naturally amusing. All were, when you see their off-camera portraits, quite handsome. What they had, and Langdon didn't, was the ability to create and sustain brilliant comic situations from the writing to the final execution. Langdon had to rely on gag men who tailored the comedy to his perpetually infantile screen image.
Unfortunately, Langdon also had a Mt. Rushmore size ego and the driven motivation of wanting to be greater than Chaplin. For a brief year, he actually rivaled The Little Tramp in popularity. It was not enough for him, and he became abusive toward his writers and directors like Capra, often screaming at meetings for more pathos in the scripts. Capra was unable to convince him that the pathos was already built into his character, so Langdon fired everyone, took charge himself and within a short time totally destroyed his career.
He spent the rest of his life acting in short subjects, writing gags for other comedians and occasionally showing up in b-level feature films (most notably with Oliver Hardy in Zenobia).
I've never been a fan of Langdon. I find his character far more creepy than funny. If there is any counterpart to the silent comedian in the modern cinema, it may have been Pee Wee Herman, another perpetual four-year-old. Herman, however, invested his character with a sly sense of self awareness and a touch of adolescent libido that kept the character from descending into cloying sentimentality.
Langdon's greatest asset, as you mentioned, may have been his odd physical shape, but there were many such character actors of peculiar appearance from the massive Mack Swain to the cross-eyed Ben Turpin who never rose to Langdon's career height simply because they lacked that essential brilliance that put Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd ahead of everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Jun 23, 2022 22:59:42 GMT
Have seen Langdon before his head outgrew his talent and he just simply was not as good at what he was doing as Keaton, ..... Lloyd or .......................Chaplin (listed in my personal ranked order of preference.
Langdon was childish rather than childlike (reminds me of Lou Costello in that characteristic) and too one note for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Jun 23, 2022 23:11:40 GMT
Personal Harry Langdon Quotes from IMDb
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Jun 23, 2022 23:21:34 GMT
Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd were touched with comic genius without themselves being physically or naturally amusing. All were, when you see their off-camera portraits, quite handsome. What they had, and Langdon didn't, was the ability to create and sustain brilliant comic situations from the writing to the final execution. Langdon had to rely on gag men who tailored the comedy to his perpetually infantile screen image. Unfortunately, Langdon also had a Mt. Rushmore size ego and the driven motivation of wanting to be greater than Chaplin. For a brief year, he actually rivaled The Little Tramp in popularity. It was not enough for him, and he became abusive toward his writers and directors like Capra, often screaming at meetings for more pathos in the scripts. Capra was unable to convince him that the pathos was already built into his character, so Langdon fired everyone, took charge himself and within a short time totally destroyed his career. He spent the rest of his life acting in short subjects, writing gags for other comedians and occasionally showing up in b-level feature films (most notably with Oliver Hardy in Zenobia). I've never been a fan of Langdon. I find his character far more creepy than funny. If there is any counterpart to the silent comedian in the modern cinema, it may have been Pee Wee Herman, another perpetual four-year-old. Herman, however, invested his character with a sly sense of self awareness and a touch of adolescent libido that kept the character from descending into cloying sentimentality. Langdon's greatest asset, as you mentioned, may have been his odd physical shape, but there were many such character actors of peculiar appearance from the massive Mack Swain to the cross-eyed Ben Turpin who never rose to Langdon's career height simply because they lacked that essential brilliance that put Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd ahead of everyone else. Yes- brilliance is more important than looks- but looks and brilliance is unbeatable. Think of Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges, Woody Allen, Rodney Dangerfield, etc. That is what I am getting at. The greatest comedians make you laugh just by being there. (BTW- I felt Langdon was more charming than creepy- but to each his own)
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Jun 24, 2022 2:00:05 GMT
The greatest comedians make you laugh just by being there. For me, "comedians" have to be doing something or saying something that is amusing in word or in deed.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 24, 2022 4:09:46 GMT
"...taking more control over his own films- a task that he was poorly suited for."
Pride before the fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 25, 2022 20:37:37 GMT
In that last photo he looks like Robert Blake’s character in Lost Highway
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Kimble on Jul 15, 2022 19:57:03 GMT
I generally find Langdon more interesting than funny. I think that's one reason he remains popular with film historians: his seemingly contradictory man-child persona gives a lot to write about.
Not everyone agrees. In an interview quoted in Kerr's The Silent Clowns Mack Sennett called Langdon the greatest of them all, "yes, greater than Chaplin".
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jul 15, 2022 20:59:46 GMT
Could Roscoe Arbuckle reached the heights of Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton if not for the horror show that happened to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jul 16, 2022 2:53:50 GMT
Difficult to say. Arbuckle made 168 films between 1909 and 1933, almost all of them one and two-reel shorts, a lot of which are available on Youtube, including a clip of In the Dough, a talkie from 1933, the year of his death.
Image released a DVD of those he made with Buster Keaton.
Unfortunately, His feature films never seem to show up anywhere, even on TCM.
Hollywood (1923) runs 1:20 and is presumably lost. There may be a copy of Gasoline Gus (1921) a scant 50m but there are no User Reviews on the IMDB.
Leap Year, 56m (1924) was never shown theatrically in the U.S. because of the Virginia Rappe scandal, except for special museum screenings such as the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center in 1981.
His short films are wildly energetic and full of inventive gags, but he apparently took his apprenticeship with Mack Sennett too much to heart and never progressed beyond basic slapstick. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, his character never developed into anything substantial.
The answer to your question may come if any of those rare features ever see the light of day, assuming they still exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 16, 2022 8:23:21 GMT
Difficult to say. Arbuckle made 168 films between 1909 and 1933, almost all of them one and two-reel shorts, a lot of which are available on Youtube, including a clip of In the Dough, a talkie from 1933, the year of his death. Image released a DVD of those he made with Buster Keaton. Unfortunately, His feature films never seem to show up anywhere, even on TCM. Hollywood (1923) runs 1:20 and is presumably lost. There may be a copy of Gasoline Gus (1921) a scant 50m but there are no User Reviews on the IMDB. Leap Year, 56m (1924) was never shown theatrically in the U.S. because of the Virginia Rappe scandal, except for special museum screenings such as the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center in 1981. His short films are wildly energetic and full of inventive gags, but he apparently took his apprenticeship with Mack Sennett too much to heart and never progressed beyond basic slapstick. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, his character never developed into anything substantial. The answer to your question may come if any of those rare features ever see the light of day, assuming they still exist. I've seen little of Harry Langdon's silent work, actually remember seeing a handful of sound two-reelers he made for Columbia on early morning TV when I was a kid. It was likely made a good deal later than his silent work, as he wore a mustache, and I think he spoke a fair amount (this was ages ago, when even the Stooges were relatively new to television). For some reason I knew who he was, and I know I was no more than nine or ten years old at the time, so I must have been exposed to him through books of some kind. He was a name I knew, and I knew he didn't sport a stash in his silent films. That's about the size of it. As to whether I liked him, and whether I found him funny: yes, to the former, somewhat unsure to the latter. It was obvious he was middle aged and past his prime. He rather interested me, drew me in, but not with laughs. His presence was sympathetic, yet he was almost too "mature" to be a funnyman, for me anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jul 16, 2022 13:33:55 GMT
Difficult to say. Arbuckle made 168 films between 1909 and 1933, almost all of them one and two-reel shorts, a lot of which are available on Youtube, including a clip of In the Dough, a talkie from 1933, the year of his death. Image released a DVD of those he made with Buster Keaton. Unfortunately, His feature films never seem to show up anywhere, even on TCM. Hollywood (1923) runs 1:20 and is presumably lost. There may be a copy of Gasoline Gus (1921) a scant 50m but there are no User Reviews on the IMDB. Leap Year, 56m (1924) was never shown theatrically in the U.S. because of the Virginia Rappe scandal, except for special museum screenings such as the American Film Institute at the Kennedy Center in 1981. His short films are wildly energetic and full of inventive gags, but he apparently took his apprenticeship with Mack Sennett too much to heart and never progressed beyond basic slapstick. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, his character never developed into anything substantial. The answer to your question may come if any of those rare features ever see the light of day, assuming they still exist. TCM did show a few of his one reel films on Silent Sunday not long ago. Of course, I forgot to watch and forgot to DVR them. Silent Sunday is the one thing I always look out for.
|
|
