On this blog I talk mostly about bad movies, more often than not of specific eras come and gone. What I felt like I needed for both my blog and myself as someone who talks about film were contextual pieces to act as a sort of roadmap for where various movies in the history of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and RiffTrax were made. What I wanted to do was a history project, to show what films were popular and beloved at the time and which ones wound up being remembered in the long haul.
That's the thing I love about cinema, even if you watch something bad, there is always more to discover and more to come. It's the gift that keeps on giving. You just need to take the effort to look.
The obvious starting point was the Academy Awards, because it's pretty much the Super Bowl for cinema. These were the players in the game and they're the ones who scored the points. This project started to stem from that, as an Oscar overview (I was already working on watching early Oscar winners before I decided to adapt that into this project), and the deeper I got into it the more I wanted to envelope myself in the year and compare and contrast it to what people were watching and what time remembered. So, it wound up expanding, though at its heart it's still a look at the movies that took home a statue, so those will be the main focus. While I had modest ambitions at that point of just watching a bunch of Oscar movies, I still felt I wasn't going far enough. From there, I decided to just deep dive into more, albeit less detailed, so I can get a fix on what I personally would have responded to and make my calls for what was the most memorable.
To push forward with that point, I wanted to look at the movies that people were watching, so I took a gander at the yearly top ten highest grossers of the year, so I can see what the people were into, because they don't always correlate to what the Oscars are into. And to make things all-encompassing, I'll be watching the ones that are commonly called the best of their time, of which I'll be looking at the films selected for preservation by the Library of Congress and the 1001 Movies to Watch Before You Die list (which is no longer 1001 movies, but who cares).
But we begin with a journey back to 1927. 1928 too. Well, the original Oscar gatherings are tricky to define by year, because its eligibility period started halfway through a year into halfway through the next year, so this gave me two full years to pretty much gorge. This took me way longer than I thought it would, but I got it done. Go team! But I got to sit down and watch a lot of silent cinema, which was a lot of fun, and watch the first talkies, which were less so. But let us journey into this first chapter of this little project I call Oscar Bait & Switch and check out what won out at the original Academy Awards and what films I came out treasuring when the dust settled. Our first entry is a little number I call "A Tale of Two Best Pictures"...
The VIP
Wings
⭐⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Outstanding Picture, Best Engineering Effects - Roy Pomeroy
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Drama, War
Director: William A. Wellman
Starring: Charles "Buddy" Rogers, Richard Arlen, Clara Bow, Jobyna Ralston, Gary Cooper
Jack and David are two rivals for the affection of the same girl, Sylvia. Sylvia loves David, while Jack is unaware that his neighbor Mary is secretly in love with him. The two men are recruited to the military to fight in World War I, where their butting heads turns into a budding friendship.
Officially dubbed the first Best Picture winner (Sunrise was royally screwed), Wings (NO, NOT THAT ONE) was headlined by Clara Bow despite the fact that she’s barely in it. Bow was the biggest box office draw of the cast, especially after the film It (ALSO NOT THAT ONE) made her one of the most bankable names of 1927 and officially dubbed her “The It Girl.” Bow was also dismissive of the film despite its success, calling it “A man’s picture” and her role “Just the whipped cream on top.” She’s not wrong. She has one fun scene halfway through the film, as she tries to escort a drunk Buddy Rogers home, but otherwise she bookends the entire thing with scenes of her fawning for Rogers’ character. Another notable star in this film is a young Gary Cooper, who only has a slight role as an ill-fated Cadet.
Wings is mostly sold on its action sequences, which is a thrilling combination of actual plane footage, model work, and projection screens. It’s easy to see why audiences were impressed at the time, almost making Wings the Top Gun of the 1920’s. The movie suffers a bit from waiting for these sequences to play out, as the relationship between Jack and David isn’t all that interesting. But once the film gets going, it’s a top-notch experience and one worth watching. A part of me feels like I should grade on a curve based on the perspective of a silent cinema theatergoer, but even still, the melodrama of the film tends to sink like a stone, causing me to be more reserved on it despite its best aspects.
.jpeg)
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Wings is a good movie, and I can see why it was considered very exciting and romantic in 1927. With the competition it faced, I understand why it was chosen for Outstanding Picture. Personally, I might have liked 7th Heaven more, but I’ll also concede that Wings is a more even production, as 7th Heaven became less interesting as it went on and Wings became more intense. Comparing the Outstanding Picture winner to the Unique and Artistic Picture winner, Sunrise blows Wings out of the water and deserves to be the more remembered picture. But Wings was a popular film at the time while Sunrise was less so, and its top award status is a reflection of that. It does deserve the Engineering Effect award, but I state that with the caveat that I don’t really know what it was up against. The other people up for the award were Ralph Hammeras and Nugent Slaughter, and no films were listed for either one. Considering Wings' production was considered mind-blowing spectacle at the time, it’s hard to believe that it really had any stiff competition in the category, so I’m inclined to believe it was an award well earned. I think Buster Keaton’s stunt work in The General is equally as impressive, but that film released outside of the eligibility period, so that’s a non-issue. But if you forced me to pick between which film had better effects for a 1927 film, I’d be stumped.
The MVPs
7th Heaven
⭐⭐⭐1/2
Oscars Won: Best Directing (Dramatic Picture) - Frank Borzage, Best Actress - Janet Gaynor*, Best Writing (Adaptation) - Benjamin Glazer
Oscars Nominated: Outstanding Picture, Best Art Direction - Harry Oliver
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: Frank Borzage
Starring: Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, Ben Bard
*The awards given out during the first Academy Award ceremony weren’t always given out for one film. In the case of Janet Gaynor, three were listed, with the other two being Street Angel and Sunrise. Her performance in 7th Heaven is probably worthy enough to be nominated all by itself, though.
Janet Gaynor stars as Diane, a prostitute in 1916 France who is living under the finger of her oppressive sister. When her sister almost has Diane arrested, a street sweep named Chico comes to her aid, claiming to be her husband. Knowing that the police will eventually check to see if their story is true, Chico takes Diane home with him so she can pose as his wife for a few days. But even as Chico tries to dismiss her, Diane begins to fall in love with Chico due to his kindness to her.
7th Heaven (NO, NOT THAT ONE) is sort of a Three’s Company farcical situation used to tell a romantic drama, as we have the leads who find themselves backed into a corner and forced to play pretend for those around them. Part of me wishes they had leaned into the awkwardness of the situation more, as there is clear tension in the idea that these two strangers are living together. There are fun scenes in which Diane, on her first night there, is half-seducing Chico with a sort of acceptance that they might sleep in the same bed together while also half-nervous at what the expectations of the arrangement might be, but Chico nonchalantly fails to notice and just goes to sleep on the balcony without a word, while Diane is surprised and enchanted by his lack of taking advantage of her. It would have been more amusing to see more ideas like that, or to see them try harder to put up a facade for others, but the romantic tension between the two is charming enough to make the idea work even at its most restrained.
The film is admittedly stronger in its first half than it’s second, because the romance deserves a better payoff then SUDDENLY WAR AND NOW SEPARATED. With the tension gone, it suddenly feels like a different movie. Janet Gaynor keeps the film from becoming stale though, as the hope in her eyes is powerful enough to keep audience interest. She is uniformly terrific throughout, going from depressed and suicidal to infatuated to lonely but strong-willed during the course of the picture. She holds it together better than it would have held without her. Her chemistry with her co-star Charles Farrell (who she dated in real life) was so beloved by audiences that the duo would star together in a dozen films over the next few years by audience demand, including Street Angel, which was also cited as a film Janet Gaynor won her Academy Award for.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: I am firmly Team Janet Gaynor, and she absolutely deserved her win for Best Actress, even if she put out a better performance in Sunrise, but her 7th Heaven role is nothing to sneeze at. Best Director is a little more complicated, as I think Frank Borzage’s direction is good but he might have been a little outclassed by King Vidor’s The Crowd. In the best writing category, I think it was heads and shoulders above The Jazz Singer, which was lackluster. I’d even argue that 7th Heaven has better writing than Underworld, which won its Original Story counterpart. Its two losses were for Outstanding Picture, which it had a strong argument for, and Art Direction, which is uniformly excellent. Direction is probably the only thing it was up for that it that I find a little questionable, especially when F.W. Murnau wasn’t nominated for Sunrise (which he damn well should have been), but it’s a strong showing in all categories.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: I am firmly Team Janet Gaynor, and she absolutely deserved her win for Best Actress, even if she put out a better performance in Sunrise, but her 7th Heaven role is nothing to sneeze at. Best Director is a little more complicated, as I think Frank Borzage’s direction is good but he might have been a little outclassed by King Vidor’s The Crowd. In the best writing category, I think it was heads and shoulders above The Jazz Singer, which was lackluster. I’d even argue that 7th Heaven has better writing than Underworld, which won its Original Story counterpart. Its two losses were for Outstanding Picture, which it had a strong argument for, and Art Direction, which is uniformly excellent. Direction is probably the only thing it was up for that it that I find a little questionable, especially when F.W. Murnau wasn’t nominated for Sunrise (which he damn well should have been), but it’s a strong showing in all categories.
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Best Unique and Artistic Picture, Best Actress - Janet Gaynor*, Best Cinematography - Charles Rosher and Karl Struss
Oscars Nominated: Best Art Direction - Rochus Gliese
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: F.W. Murnau
Starring: Janet Gaynor, George O'Brien, Margaret Livingston
*As stated previously, Janet Gaynor won Best Actress with three movies cited: Sunrise, Street Angel, and 7th Heaven. Whether the Academy had a certain movie in mind with Gaynor’s win is uncertain, as both Sunrise and 7th Heaven were both large presences at this ceremony, though Street Angel was not. But in my opinion, if she were only nominated for Sunrise, she would have earned it tenfold.
George O’Brien plays a farmer who has been cheating on his wife with a woman from the city, who convinces him to sell his farmland and murder his wife, played by Janet Gaynor. Reluctantly, he goes along with the plan and convinces his wife to come with him across the lake for a night in the city, planning to drown her and claim she fell overboard. During the attempt, he second guesses himself as she begs for her life. With her completely shattered, he tries to console her by providing her the romantic night he promised her, and the two fall in love all over again.
Winner of what was kinda half-of-the-first-Best-Picture award, yet rarely gets credit for it, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is a rather sensational love story told in expressionistic pantomime. It is at times both a sad tale of a love faded to an almost unforgivable act and working beyond its low point to bloom again. It’s a beautiful metaphor for finding the light in the darkness and love conquering lust. If there is one flaw in the design, Janet Gaynor’s character forgives George O’Brien a little too early in the narrative. Gaynor’s distraught performance is heartbreaking, as she shrivels up in shock, unable to look at anything, and if it would have gradually faded as the film went on, it would have underlined their love story with a little more tension in the narrative. Instead, the climax to this comes before the halfway point and the film becomes cute little comedic vignettes of their date night before a third act of an ironic turn.
Despite this, Gaynor and O’Brien are smart enough to tell this tale with their eyes. The film restrains title cards for its silent presentation until absolutely necessary, but the story is all in the looks they give each other. Sunrise is a very expressionistic film, and performances aren’t exactly natural, but you understand everything that is happening based on their body language. There are some genius uses of matting, screen projection, and camerawork as well, making it an artistic achievement in telling a story that could be trite, but instead is intense and romantic.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Oh god, yes. Why is this even a question? In the Artistic Picture category, it was up against Chang, an interesting if limited docudrama, and The Crowd, which was a good drama that wasn’t nearly as nuanced. Nether stood a chance against Sunrise. In the actress category, Janet Gaynor is a force to be reckoned with here, and she destroys her competition with every little movement she makes. The film is smartly photographed, making its Best Cinematography award a no-brainer. It’s one loss was in Art Direction, which one can argue that Sunrise is more creative than a film like Tempest, but Tempest was more expansive in its set design. But every category in which Sunrise won is well deserved. I only wish it could have won more. Personally, if Sunrise and Wings went head-to-head in the same category, Sunrise would have gotten my vote pretty easily.
The Winners
The Circus
⭐⭐⭐1/2
Oscars Won: Special Award - Charles Chaplin for Acting, Writing, Directing, and Producing
Oscars Nominated: Best Directing (Comedy) - Charles Chaplin*, Best Actor - Charles Chaplin*, Best Writing (Original Story) - Charles Chaplin*
Genre: Comedy
Director: Charles Chaplin
Starring: Chales Chaplin, Al Ernest Garcia, Merna Kennedy, Henry Bergman
*The nominations for The Circus were all scratched before voting in favor of honoring Charles Chaplin with a special award for the entire production. Whether they were afraid Chaplin would sweep each category and wanted to spread the love, it’s hard to say, but one can’t help but be curious about how Chaplin would have fared if he had stayed in the race.
Oh yes, there WILL be Chaplin. Can you imagine diving into silent film and not watching any Chaplin? Absolute chaos. The Circus is the fourth feature film he directed (but only third that he starred in), which sees his beloved Tramp character on the run from the law and accidentally becoming the star attraction of a local circus after his antics obliviously become a hit with the crowd. They hire him on to do remedial jobs, unaware that all the laughs and cheers are for him.
There is something very funny about the idea that the Tramp doesn't know that he's funny. The Tramp just is. He lacks self-awareness, not because of pride or ego, but because his gaze lies on the horizon. He dreams of something good for the next day, and how others perceive him isn't as important as it is to work toward that optimistic tomorrow. That's why the Tramp endures as character, because of that relatable underdog spirit of hope, knowing that even if today doesn't work out, there is always another day around the corner.
But the Tramp is funny. He may not know it, but he is. One moment from The Circus that stands out is when he is asked on command by the ringmaster to "Be funny." The Tramp just goes into a simple little physical routine, designed to make a child smile. It's not unfunny, because it's so obviously not what the ringmaster wants that it winds up being funny in a roundabout way. It's also amusing to see what the Tramp thinks is "funny" in relation to what Charlie Chaplin knows to be funny.
The Circus is probably Chaplin's most overlooked silent film (depending on your opinion of A Woman of Paris). Most might be tempted to bring up The Kid or The Gold Rush in conversation, or even point out the silent defiance of talkies with City Lights or Modern Times. But The Circus is probably a prime example of what Chaplin offered. It's a breezy domino effect of comedy of the Tramp stumbling from one situation to the next, finds a new life to live for the time being, and even finds a love interest who may share affections, but not in that way (the Friend Zone in this movie is full on brutal). It all ends with laughter and bittersweetness, as the Tramp walks off into the distance with the one hope of "There's always tomorrow." If Chaplin's formula was a science, The Circus would have it laid out in plain view as a refined version of it. It's one of my favorite Chaplin films because of how encompassing it is.
DID IT DESERVE TO WIN?: The Circus was an honorary award for Chaplin's impressive work on the film. The asterisk next to this is that since this award was given to it, it had to be crossed out of every nominated category. So, the question becomes not whether it deserved to win, but how much would it have dominated the other categories. It would have contended with Emil Jannings for Best Actor, and likely would have lost, while also competing with Best Original Writing and Best Director of a Comedy, which I think there is no question it would have won. Was this the right choice? Well, Underworld and Two Arabian Knights got a trophy out of it, so, I'm sure they're happy with the decision. I can't complain about The Circus getting a trophy. However, it could have gotten two. Should I die mad about it?
The Dove
(N/A)
Oscars Won: Best Art Direction - William Cameron Menzies*
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: Roland West
Starring: Norma Talmadge, Noah Beery, Gilbert Roland
*The Dove was one of two films listed in which William Cameron Menzies won the Art Direction award for, with the other being Tempest. It's a mild relief that I was able to watch that film in its entirety when I can't for this film.
The Dove is mostly lost, though surviving reels exist at the Library of Congress. The film was apparently about a dancing girl who found her boyfriend framed for murder by a man who is smitten with her. Apparently, the film wasn't very good, but the Acadamy did take notice of its set design and listed the film among the accomplishments of set designer William Cameron Menzies, along with Tempest.
The Jazz Singer
⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Honorary Award - Warner Brothers for the production of The Jazz Singer
Oscars Nominated: Best Writing (Adaptation) - Alfred A. Cohn
Genre: Drama, Musical
Director: Alan Crosland
Starring: Al Jolson, May McAvoy, Warner Oland, Yossele Rosenblatt
Al Jolson is the son of a Rabbi, who disowned him upon learning his son wished to sing for the masses instead to his God. Years pass and their rift remains, but Jolson finds himself on the verge of starting a major career just as his father becomes severely ill. Can the two make amends before it’s too late?
The Jazz Singer is a milestone in cinema history due to its use of sound via Vitaphone, which inspired all major studios to usher in the talkie era of motion pictures. The Jazz Singer is not an entirely sound film, though, instead using the technology to record star Al Jolson putting on song and dance routines. It’s actually pretty smart, working the audience with the traditional and familiar silent narrative, then Jolson addresses himself toward the audience and treats them to a song, which was something silent films were unable to do. The movie even teases the audience a bit with synchronized soundtracks up until this point, ala Mickey Mouse, with some badly dubbed songs over minor players, which sets you up with tepid amusement as to how groundbreaking The Jazz Singer is actually going to be. But the minute Jolson takes the stage, the strengths of sound recording are in full display. It’s not a dubbed song, but a recorded one that Jolson is singing on camera.
The Jazz Singer won a special award at the Oscars but didn’t win the main award it was up for, which was for its writing. I imagine that’s because while it did something noteworthy, but it’s not really that noteworthy otherwise. Someone was going to get to use Vitaphone first, and it just happened to be The Jazz Singer. This film benefits from picturing yourself as a 1927 audience member, used to silent cinema for over two decades, then suddenly seeing Jolson singing “Dirty Hands, Dirty Face” right in front of you on the traditionally mute screen. You’d want to see it again because you’d want to experience that again. Looking at The Jazz Singer, its narrative doesn’t have much to offer. It’s just a springboard for its music. That’s a fine introduction, but in retrospect there is nothing really worth looking back on other than its technical achievement. The Jazz Singer picked the correct approach to its new technology to knock out its audience, it’s just that its story is an afterthought. I’m tempted to give it another star for being a game-changer, but I’m deducting that star again because of the blackface. Even ignoring how offensive it is, I can’t be invested in your tearjerking climax when you’re covered in that shit, Al.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Al Jolson makes noise come out of his mouth real good.
The Jazz Singer is a milestone in cinema history due to its use of sound via Vitaphone, which inspired all major studios to usher in the talkie era of motion pictures. The Jazz Singer is not an entirely sound film, though, instead using the technology to record star Al Jolson putting on song and dance routines. It’s actually pretty smart, working the audience with the traditional and familiar silent narrative, then Jolson addresses himself toward the audience and treats them to a song, which was something silent films were unable to do. The movie even teases the audience a bit with synchronized soundtracks up until this point, ala Mickey Mouse, with some badly dubbed songs over minor players, which sets you up with tepid amusement as to how groundbreaking The Jazz Singer is actually going to be. But the minute Jolson takes the stage, the strengths of sound recording are in full display. It’s not a dubbed song, but a recorded one that Jolson is singing on camera.
The Jazz Singer won a special award at the Oscars but didn’t win the main award it was up for, which was for its writing. I imagine that’s because while it did something noteworthy, but it’s not really that noteworthy otherwise. Someone was going to get to use Vitaphone first, and it just happened to be The Jazz Singer. This film benefits from picturing yourself as a 1927 audience member, used to silent cinema for over two decades, then suddenly seeing Jolson singing “Dirty Hands, Dirty Face” right in front of you on the traditionally mute screen. You’d want to see it again because you’d want to experience that again. Looking at The Jazz Singer, its narrative doesn’t have much to offer. It’s just a springboard for its music. That’s a fine introduction, but in retrospect there is nothing really worth looking back on other than its technical achievement. The Jazz Singer picked the correct approach to its new technology to knock out its audience, it’s just that its story is an afterthought. I’m tempted to give it another star for being a game-changer, but I’m deducting that star again because of the blackface. Even ignoring how offensive it is, I can’t be invested in your tearjerking climax when you’re covered in that shit, Al.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Al Jolson makes noise come out of his mouth real good.
The Last Command
⭐⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Best Actor - Emil Jannings*
Oscars Nominated: Best Writing (Original Story) - Lajos Biro
Genre: Drama
Director: Josef von Sternberg
Starring: Emil Jannings, Evelyn Brent, William Powell
*Once again, the original Academy Awards were less specific than they eventually would be, as Jannings was awarded for his work for two films instead of just one performance. The Last Command is one of two films that were cited, with the other being The Way of All Flesh. The Last Command is the only film between the two that survives.
The Last Command features Emil Jannings as a Russian Grand Duke, who had fled the war-torn USSR and is living in poverty in America. He is hired by a former revolutionary who now works as a Hollywood director to play a Russian general in a motion picture, and the film flashes back to the heyday of the war, specifically the romance between the Grand Duke and the director’s sister, who sided with the revolution.
Jannings does excellent work in the role, playing both an intense and passionate soldier in the year’s prior, while switching to a broken and scarred shell of a man in the flash forward. It’s all just dominoes falling into motion for Jannings final scene, in which the man he used to be breaks out of the old man we feel sympathy to for a last hurrah. He also has strong support in his lady lead, Evelyn Brent, who works magic in both being an ice queen and absolute fire. The sexual tension displayed between the two is properly engaging.
The film looks quite striking and kept my interest. If I were left wanting anything from this movie it’s that it needed more complexity. The love story works well enough, but it would be more effective if it were fleshed out more and with a little more added nuance. The conclusion to the flashback is abrupt and overwrought while the large gap between the past and the present feels like it’s missing necessary context. It’s almost a great movie based on its best moments; it just feels unfinished.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Jannings performance is excellent, so I’d vote yes. His competition was Charlie Chaplin, who was scratched from the ticket, and Richard Barthelmess, for The Noose and The Patent Leather Kid. The Noose is lost, so I can’t judge Barthelmess’s performance in that, but The Patent Leather Kid is a dull movie that Barthelmess is just serviceable in. Jannings is much more commanding of the screen than Barthelmess. And if we were to take Chaplin into consideration, Chaplin had his performance as the Tramp down to a science by the time The Circus was released, but while he gives his consistently hilarious and touching performance, there are a few more layers to what Jannings did here, which leads me to side with him. The Last Command was also up for a writing award, which it lost to Underworld. The Last Command is a better movie, but Underworld’s plot feels less fragmented, so I’ll say that loss is justified.
Jannings does excellent work in the role, playing both an intense and passionate soldier in the year’s prior, while switching to a broken and scarred shell of a man in the flash forward. It’s all just dominoes falling into motion for Jannings final scene, in which the man he used to be breaks out of the old man we feel sympathy to for a last hurrah. He also has strong support in his lady lead, Evelyn Brent, who works magic in both being an ice queen and absolute fire. The sexual tension displayed between the two is properly engaging.
The film looks quite striking and kept my interest. If I were left wanting anything from this movie it’s that it needed more complexity. The love story works well enough, but it would be more effective if it were fleshed out more and with a little more added nuance. The conclusion to the flashback is abrupt and overwrought while the large gap between the past and the present feels like it’s missing necessary context. It’s almost a great movie based on its best moments; it just feels unfinished.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Jannings performance is excellent, so I’d vote yes. His competition was Charlie Chaplin, who was scratched from the ticket, and Richard Barthelmess, for The Noose and The Patent Leather Kid. The Noose is lost, so I can’t judge Barthelmess’s performance in that, but The Patent Leather Kid is a dull movie that Barthelmess is just serviceable in. Jannings is much more commanding of the screen than Barthelmess. And if we were to take Chaplin into consideration, Chaplin had his performance as the Tramp down to a science by the time The Circus was released, but while he gives his consistently hilarious and touching performance, there are a few more layers to what Jannings did here, which leads me to side with him. The Last Command was also up for a writing award, which it lost to Underworld. The Last Command is a better movie, but Underworld’s plot feels less fragmented, so I’ll say that loss is justified.
Street Angel
⭐⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Best Actress - Janet Gaynor*
Oscars Nominated: Best Art Direction - Harry Oliver (2nd Academy Awards)**, Best Cinematography - Paul Ivano and Ernest Palmer (2nd Academy Awards)**
Genre: Drama
Director: Frank Borzage
Starring: Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, Alberto Rabagliati
*As stated above, Gaynor’s nomination was non-specific as to what film she was nominated for. Street Angel was one of three films she released during the eligibility period, with the other two being 7th Heaven and Sunrise. It’s probably much more likely that she was nominated for the other two films as they were both up for other awards this year, including top prizes, and Street Angel was not. Street Angel was about as successful at the box office as 7th Heaven though and was a top grossing film of 1928, so it’s probably still worth noting.
**Oddly, while Street Angel is a listed film that Gaynor is nominated for here, it’s actually up for several awards in the next Academy Awards too. I’m not sure what to make of that, but I guess the rules were more loosey-goosey when the Academy was just getting started. Street Angel might have been listed for Gaynor here because it was a then-recent success for her, while maybe it was fully qualified for the following awards (though its release date is listed in April of 1928, which would put it squarely in the first eligibility period and not the second). It didn’t win anything at that second ceremony, while it still has this Best Actress award attached to it.
Janet Gaynor plays a girl who finds herself unable to pay for her mother’s prescribed medicine and tries to prostitute herself on the streets for extra cash. She is accused of stealing and is sentenced to a year in prison, but she escapes her captors only to find her mother dead at home. With nowhere to go, she joins the circus and meets an attractive artist while on the road. Injuring herself during her act, she and her beau are forced to move back to her hometown where she tries to live with him hoping to be unrecognized all these years later. But the sins of her past prove hard to outrun.
Street Angel is a tearjerker created to make the romantic heart ache. Gaynor has been dealt a bad hand and the film wants us to recognize that her life has been brutally unfair. Gaynor is the film’s biggest asset, as her puppy dog eyes are big enough for women to weep for her sorrow and men to fall in love with. I imagine Street Angel was a very popular date night movie for couples back in 1928.
It stretches thin in a few patches, as it’s very overwrought in its drama at times, as the film tends to kick Gaynor when she’s down just for its own amusement. The “run away with the circus” portion feels a bit tacky, as it feels like a trite excuse to push its plot forward. The climax is both dark and absurd and needs to be seen to be believed. That being said, the film is loving and heartfelt, and one wishes for the best possible outcome because one doesn’t want Gaynor to be sad anymore. Street Angel is a lovely little romance from early cinema that would play best with silent curious couples looking for an evening watch.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: Janet Gaynor should have won, yes. Not specifically for Street Angel, but she should have won. Gaynor is great in Street Angel, but 7th Heaven and Sunrise were better films to showcase her in.
Tempest
⭐⭐⭐
Oscars Won: Best Art Direction - William Cameron Menzies*
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: Sam Taylor
Starring: John Barrymore, Camilla Horn, Louis Wolhelm, George Fawcett
*Tempest was one of two films in which William Cameron Menzies won the Best Art Direction award for, with the other being The Dove. Unfortunately, The Dove is now a lost film, but luckily, we still have Tempest to judge his work on nearly a century later.
Yet another flick about the Revolution in Russia, this one sees John Barrymore play Ivan Markov, a peasant who aspires to achieve rank in the Russian Army. With odds stacked against him, he manages to work his way up to Lieutenant status, even as his comrades look down on him. He especially struggles with winning the affections of Princess Tamara, who he has become smitten with and seemingly her with him, but they find their tempers constantly flaring at each other. After embarrassing himself at Tamara’s birthday party, Ivan is stripped of rank and sentenced to solitary confinement. Trapped in a dungeon by himself, Ivan watches as the uprising takes over Russia from his cell window and is forced to confront his conflicting feelings toward the aristocrats of the country when he is freed.
This movie is less stylized than The Last Command, as it instead decides to endear the viewers with dramatic tension instead. Tempest is a slow burn, making its central conflict be about Ivan and Tamara’s love story. Ivan is in love with Tamara but finds her constantly looking down on him, while Tamara is in love with Ivan but is conflicted with admitting affection for someone of his stature. If they would stop insulting each other they’d find their energy best put to use by fucking like jackrabbits. Barrymore is, as always, a strong leading man, even if some of his actions are problematic. Camilla Horn is excellent as Tamara, who successfully conveys complex emotions behind an icy exterior, and is fun to watch when her expressions turn from soft to full-blown bitch mode. The drama grows more interesting as the film progresses, climaxing with an intense conflict of both emotion and danger as their surroundings is turned on its head.
Tempest won its Oscar for Art Direction, so we should really be studying the sets of this piece. They all look good and it’s clear a lot of effort was put into it, though I admit I have more details of The Last Command sticking out in my head, likely because it featured better cinematography. The Last Command probably had more dramatic pedigree behind it, though, as Tempest was directed by Sam Taylor, who has an impressive resume but one in directing comedies starring silent film legend Harold Lloyd, including beloved classics like Safety Last and The Freshman. As fun as these movies are, I wouldn’t exactly describe them as lookers. Tempest isn’t a looker either, but Barrymore and Horn command with their presence, which snaps the viewer to attention. It’s a far more grounded drama than The Last Command was, which gives its leads room to shine with much more subtle performances.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: I really wish I could watch The Dove, because with Tempest by itself I’m not too sold that William Cameron Menzies was the strongest choice for the Art Direction award. The set design in Tempest is handsome and detailed, but the work done by Harry Oliver in 7th Heaven and Rochus Gleise in Sunrise was more interesting to look at. Tempest is probably the one I wouldn’t have thought twice about, but more work is done on period pieces so perhaps Tempest was more impressive back then. It probably comes down to personal preference, but if my voted counted, I absolutely would have given it to Sunrise with the guilt of knowing that 7th Heaven was a strong contender.
Two Arabian Knights
⭐⭐1/2
Oscars Won: Best Directing (Comedy) - Lewis Milestone
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Comedy, War
Director: Lewis Milestone
Starring: William Boyd, Louis Wolheim, Mary Astor
William Boyd and Louis Wolheim star in this pretty okay lighthearted buddy movie sees two World War I soldiers captured by Germans and taken to a Prisoner of War camp. After some Hogan’s Heroes-like shenanigans, they escape and go on the run, hiding out on a ship leaving for Arabia. On board, the duo fight for the affections of veiled woman, played by Mary Astor. Once in Arabia, they find that she is in an arranged marriage, and they are in a heap of trouble.
Two Arabian Knights probably had more appeal in the 20’s than it does today, as while the comedic tussle of two dudes trying to one-up each other is timeless, the sort of wiseguy humor here plays better in talkies than it does in silents. While I have a fondness for silent cinema, I always feel like its strengths are best played visually, with title cards kept to a minimum. If title cards are relied on to move the plot too much, I feel its straining itself. That’s one of the reasons that silent comedy is a little more accessible to cinephiles, because the visual gags of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton are an excellent gateway into taking interest in the format. But before talkies there wasn’t really much room to complain, because motion pictures had to convey themselves somehow. And if you needed to crowd your film with title cards full of catchphrase “Got ‘im” humor, then that’s what you had to do. Visual gags are present, and are amusing, but the movie has less energy than the top dogs that silent film lovers hold in more reverence today.
The movie is a bit off-colored, but if you are expecting something from the 20’s to not come off as racist, you better hope that it doesn’t try to portray minorities at all. Stereotypes are abound, and there are a few racial remarks thrown about, targeting the Chinese in particular. Glazing over white people doing their “make fun of non-white people” schtick where non-whites are still played by whites, it’s a slight comedy with amusing moments. I wasn’t too into it, but I had a couple of chuckles at its sillier spots. It did help push forward an interesting career for Lewis Milestone, though. Not only did he win Best Director for this film, another of his films, The Racket, was up for Outstanding Picture, which he would eventually direct a picture that won with All Quiet on the Western Front a few years later.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: If Charlie Chaplin remained on the ticket, then not a chance. Chaplin’s films, The Circus included, are so well constructed, which is what makes them among the most timeless and beloved silent films ever made a century later. Chaplin was scratched, however, which left Lewis Milestone contending with Ted Wilde, who directed the Harold Lloyd comedy Speedy. Speedy is a better, much funnier movie than Two Arabian Knights, though Harold Lloyd movies aren’t as meticulously put together as Chaplin’s (or even Buster Keaton’s). Speedy does have that car chase finale in its favor, which is excellent. But for the most part, this is a coin toss. I’m not going to lament that Speedy didn’t win, but I probably would have thrown my hat in its favor if the choice was up to me. The Circus would have dominated both of these movies, though. And it would have deserved it.
Underworld
⭐⭐1/2
Oscars Won: Best Writing (Original Story) - Ben Hecht
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Thriller, Crime
Director: Josef von Sternberg
Starring: Clive Brook, George Bancroft, Evelyn Brent, Larry Semon, Fred Kohler
This early gangster flick sees mob boss Bull Weed take a liking to a boozehound that he calls “Rolls Royce.” The two become best of pals, but tensions mount as Bull’s girl, Feathers, and Rolls start to become infatuated with each other. Things escalate at the gangster’s ball, where rival crime lord Buck Mulligan assaults Feathers, sending Bull into a rage where he murders Buck. With Bull in jail, Rolls Royce and Feathers become conflicted between their loyalty to Bull and their love for each other, as they make the choice on whether to break him free or not.
The Last Command director Josef von Sternberg returns with another award winner, and it’s just as thrillingly filmed as The Last Command was, even if it’s a bit too theatrical, as was The Last Command. I ran a bit hot and cold with Underworld (NO, NOT THAT ONE). When the movie is hot, it’s on fire. When it’s cold, it’s an ice cube. The movie is only periodically interesting in spurts, as the whole gangster pals and love triangle bits aren’t too engaging, but when the flick starts throwing action and suspense our way, it’s pretty dynamic and exciting. I can’t say I was invested in it, though, but I did like that everyone had a cute nickname.
The movie won its Oscar for writing, which seems like something I should be heavily critical of. I think there are aspects that could have been more engaging, but for the most part the plot structure is sturdy, so I get it. I think this movie was much more involving for people during the prohibition era.
SHOULD IT HAVE WON?: While it’s not the type of movie I would have honored for its screenplay, Underworld’s competition was The Circus and The Last Command. While I liked both movies better, I think elements of Underworld tend to hold up to greater scrutiny than The Last Command, and The Circus was scratched from the ticket entirely before voting began. So, if the choice was between Underworld and Last Command, I would hesitantly have voted Underworld for that reason. I’d probably have championed The Circus, though. Charlie Chaplin is an excellent storyteller, and The Circus is wildly entertaining. With the way things stood in the end, Underworld was the right choice.
The Way of All Flesh
(N/A)
Oscars Won: Best Actor - Emil Jannings*
Oscars Nominated: SWEEP
Genre: Drama
Director: Victor Fleming
Starring: Emil Jannings, Belle Bennett, Phyllis Haver
*It's skipping record time, as I point out once again that certain award contenders were nominated for more than one film, Emil Jannings included. It's a moot point in this case, because it is lost and Jannings other film, The Last Command, survives.
The Way of All Flesh is almost completely lost, with only fragments surviving. In the film, Emil Jannings played a bank clerk who is swindled while transporting $1000 and is desperate to recover the money.
The only non-film specific award given for the night was given to Joseph Farnham, who won an award for Title Writing. Since silent film was on its way out the door, this was the only year this award was given out.
The Losers
Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness ⭐⭐1/2
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Devil Dancer (N/A)
Glorious Betsy ⭐⭐1/2
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Devil Dancer (N/A)
Glorious Betsy ⭐⭐1/2
The Magic Flame (N/A)
The Noose (N/A)
The Patent Leather Kid ⭐1/2
The Noose (N/A)
The Patent Leather Kid ⭐1/2
The Private Life of Helen of Troy (N/A)
The Racket ⭐⭐1/2
The Racket ⭐⭐1/2
Sadie Thompson ⭐⭐⭐
A Ship Comes In ⭐⭐
Sorrell and Son (N/A)
Speedy ⭐⭐⭐
A Ship Comes In ⭐⭐
Sorrell and Son (N/A)
Speedy ⭐⭐⭐
I almost put this page up without watching the movies that were up against Janet Gaynor for Best Actress. I was still glowing about Janet Gaynor and saying she deserved the award, just, you know, not knowing what else had skin in the game. Then mere days before I posted this, someone dropped Sadie Thompson and an incomplete print of A Ship Comes In on YouTube, so I had to crunch those really fast. Now I can confirm that Janet conquered the world that year.
At the same time, it's interesting to call attention to Sadie Thompson, which stars Gloria Swanson (best known for a later Best Actress nomination for Sunset Boulevard) as a happy little hooker who likes to party, targeted by a self-righteous Christian missionary who sets out to "save her soul" by harassing her. Given how Christian dominant the US audience of the 1920's was, it's not often that you see a sex-positive lady protagonist in a film with a villain who is just a religious jerk who won't mind his own business and wants everyone to conform to his rules. It's an interesting story if only because it's a criticism that we don't see made during its time period very often. Its last reel is missing, but the print I saw tried to reconstruct it the best it could.
By comparison, A Ship Comes In was also incomplete, but I probably saw enough of that movie to understand what it was going for. It's a film about an immigrant family who basically deal with in-system bigotry (man, when did movies get so woke? 1928, apparently), but try to stay positive and patriotic throughout the experience. It's a story with potential held back by its fear of really going gloves off on its immigration criticisms, choosing cheesy melodrama instead. Best Actress nominee Louise Dresser is good in it but is given nothing substantial to do.
Of the other films listed that went home without a trophy, The Crowd is worth seeking out. It's an interesting drama about how every face you see on the street has a life story, both highs and lows, and the challenges they face in sticking out among everyone else when trying to make it in life. It was up for Unique and Artistic Picture, which it rightfully lost to Sunrise, and Best Director, which it arguably should have won. The other Unique and Artistic nominee was the docudrama Chang, which was a narrative wrapped around footage of Thai farmers edited together by Merion C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, the duo behind King Kong. It'll be of interest to some more than others, though a content warning should be noted as animal harm and death is caught on camera, but it's also just a part of the documentary footage and animals weren't killed simply to service the film. The sole Best Picture nominee to go home empty-handed was The Racket, which is an okay gangster drama that didn't stand a chance against the competition it was up against. But it was probably always cannon fodder because it wasn't nominated for any other awards (but I do realize Grand Hotel will be laughing in my face in a few years).
Speedy is a solid Harold Lloyd comedy that lost out on a directing award. If one is looking to delve into silent comedy, there are worse ways to spend your time. But there are also better Harold Lloyd movies out there, even this year (I'll be talking about the lovable Kid Brother down below). Glorious Betsy was up for a writing award, which it lost (rightfully) to 7th Heaven. Considering it was also up against The Jazz Singer, I do wonder if this was partially about acknowledging the partial-talkies that were sweeping the market. Glorious Betsy has a more interesting narrative than Jazz Singer (it's about Napolean Bonaparte's disavowed sister-in-law), but its talkie soundtrack doesn't survive, so I can't judge them. Unlike The Jazz Singer, they seemed to be devoted to dramatic monologues. The only outright bad movie I watched was The Patent Leather Kid, which admittedly was a terrible print with a repetitious stock score, but woof, that was a stinker. It was a movie with okay moments of promise, but coasts high on exploiting Great War drama mixed with the sports popularity that gets more cynical with its sentimentality as it goes on.
The rest of the films are lost, except for The Noose, which I couldn't find an accessible print of. That movie was one of the listed movies Richard Barthelmess received a Best Actor nomination for, with the other being The Patent Leather Kid. Given how Kid turned out, I might have dodged a bullet on that one. But who knows. Maybe The Noose was the good one. The Magic Flame and The Devil Dancer were cinematography nominations for George Barnes, who also photographed Sadie Thompson. I'm pretty sure even if they had better cinematography than Sadie Thompson, Sunrise would have curb-stomped them. The Private Life of Helen of Troy was the only listed film for the Title Writing award, for Gerald Duffy, who lost to Joeseph Farnham, who had no film listed.
The People's Champion
1927
1. Wings ⭐⭐⭐
2. The King of Kings ⭐⭐⭐
3. The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
4. 7th Heaven ⭐⭐⭐1/2
2. The King of Kings ⭐⭐⭐
3. The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
4. 7th Heaven ⭐⭐⭐1/2
5. The Patent Leather Kid ⭐1/2
6. It ⭐⭐⭐
7. Love ⭐⭐⭐
8. The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg ⭐⭐⭐1/2
7. Love ⭐⭐⭐
8. The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg ⭐⭐⭐1/2
9. When a Man Loves ⭐⭐
10. London After Midnight (N/A)
10. London After Midnight (N/A)
Looking at the top ten list of 1927 puts into context just how popular Wings was when it came out. It’s very well remembered that The Jazz Singer rocked Hollywood and changed movies forever, but not only did Wings outgross one of the most impactful films ever made, it also outgrossed The King of Kings, which was Cecile B. DeMille’s lavish production based on the death of Jesus Christ.
That’s right, folks, you read it here. Wings was bigger than Jesus.
I think the popularity of the top three films that year is pretty self-evident. Wings was an exciting film with high flying action that people had never seen on screen before. The King of Kings appealed to the predominantly Christian populous of America and was a handsomely produced film to boot that likely would have been nominated for a few awards itself if it wasn’t released outside of the eligibility period. And we all know what The Jazz Singer had going for it.
After this point, things get a little more interesting. What I’m seeing is that 1927 audiences were very interested in seeing World War I to push dramatic conflict. Not only was Wings a World War I-based film, but number four went to 7th Heaven, which has its third act revolve around The Great War. 7th Heaven also had similar appeal to Christian audiences who went to see The King of Kings, as when you boil it down to its essential elements, 7th Heaven is the story of an atheist and a prostitute who find their faith in their love for each other. It’s the least interesting aspect of that movie, but it’s there and I’m betting audiences loved it.
Also revolving around World War I was…oh hell…was The Patent Leather Kid really that popular? It’s good to know that people would pay to see outright crap even at the dawn of cinema. You know, just in case you thought that was a recent thing.
Sigh. Okay, The Patent Leather Kid is largely a film about patriotism. It has some sports appeal in that the lead character is a boxer who is drafted into the war, and largely weary of the fight but haunted by the calls of his country to join it. I guess I’m not too surprised that crowds probably found interest in it, but its narrative is very clumsy, and it's aged like cheese that has been lying under your fridge for several decades.
We also get to see how hot Clara Bow was, and boy was she HOT. The movie It (STILL NOT THAT ONE) was a smash success, and it was a movie about sex appeal sold with Bow’s own sex appeal, of which she had plenty to spare, and Bow was stamped as “The It Girl” because of this movie. It was so popular that one could argue that It’s popularity helped propel Wings to financial success, as she was given top billing on posters for that film despite limited screen time, likely because they knew the crowds who saw It would flock to see more Clara. I know I would have, because It is adorable, and Clara Bow is such a shining star in it. I’d definitely see what’s next for her just to see that It Factor again.
As we wind down that top ten, we see the audience’s interest in romantic dramas. The second pairing of John Gilbert and Greta Garbo, Love, cracked the top ten of the year, after charming audiences with their chemistry earlier in the year with Flesh and the Devil. It’s a pretty decent film about a married woman falling in love with another man who is more devoted to her than her husband. The title is dumb, but it occurred to me after seeing the title card of “John Gilbert and Greta Garbo in Love” that the title might just be a marketing pun. Faring worse is the John Barrymore romance When a Man Loves, which starts out standard and enjoyable enough, if aggressively misogynistic, but gets more gonzo as it goes until it just ends with a mutiny on a pirate ship or whatever. That movie was weird, man. Seeing a romance like that be that popular when a movie like Sunrise existed in the same year is a bit of a shame.
Then there is The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, which seems a little bit like an odd one out. The movie is a little romantic, in that it has a romance in it, but it unfolds in a more unique manner than the other romances here because it’s not a traditional “protagonist gets the girl” narrative. The movie’s first hour mostly sees a young member of royalty going to a college town to study, where he makes friends easily and finds a girl he falls in love with. It’s pretty frothy, but it’s cute. Then the third act hits the movie like a ton of bricks, as the prince finds himself flung into adulthood with little to be happy about, forcing to leave his youth behind abruptly. The climax sees him trying to return to that youth but finds that he can’t recreate it, with even his love admitting that sometimes life just prevents two people from being together and they just have to accept it. It’s a pretty mature sentiment for a movie that could have easily clung to its cuteness and gave the crowd a happy ending, instead going for bittersweetness.
This is more than I can say for the film Love, which had two endings shot for different markets, in case they didn’t think select audiences could handle the depressing ending that they originally wanted to do. The film as originally planned ended with Greta Garbo’s character committing suicide, while the happy ending that they reshot had her meeting John Gilbert again years later, hinting their love would blossom again. The version I saw had the happy ending. I’m not sure if the suicide ending is floating around, but I’d be interested in seeing it.
Rounding out the ten is the Lon Chaney horror film London After Midnight, which is lost, despite the production photos showing off some of Chaney’s most iconic make-up. Turner Classic Movies did a recreation of this film using the original script and production photos. I did watch this out of curiosity, but I’m not going to pass judgment on the film based on it. It seems okay, but I’m sure Chaney was brilliant. He usually was.
If there’s one film on this list that I’d be in line with audiences to see in a theater back then, it would be 7th Heaven, and that’s because in doing this project I’ve discovered that I am a huge fan of Janet Gaynor and would likely be one of the theatergoers swept up in her plight in that film. I’d also be into Wings and The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, while I’d go to see It, claiming it’s just for the comedy but in reality am showing up for Clara Bow’s mischievous smile. Meanwhile The Patent Leather Kid would have me tearing my ticket up as I left the theater. Of course, if I lived in 1927, it’s probably likely I’d be wowed by The Jazz Singer, but pardon me if I’m not too intent on admitting that nowadays.
That’s right, folks, you read it here. Wings was bigger than Jesus.
I think the popularity of the top three films that year is pretty self-evident. Wings was an exciting film with high flying action that people had never seen on screen before. The King of Kings appealed to the predominantly Christian populous of America and was a handsomely produced film to boot that likely would have been nominated for a few awards itself if it wasn’t released outside of the eligibility period. And we all know what The Jazz Singer had going for it.
After this point, things get a little more interesting. What I’m seeing is that 1927 audiences were very interested in seeing World War I to push dramatic conflict. Not only was Wings a World War I-based film, but number four went to 7th Heaven, which has its third act revolve around The Great War. 7th Heaven also had similar appeal to Christian audiences who went to see The King of Kings, as when you boil it down to its essential elements, 7th Heaven is the story of an atheist and a prostitute who find their faith in their love for each other. It’s the least interesting aspect of that movie, but it’s there and I’m betting audiences loved it.
Also revolving around World War I was…oh hell…was The Patent Leather Kid really that popular? It’s good to know that people would pay to see outright crap even at the dawn of cinema. You know, just in case you thought that was a recent thing.
Sigh. Okay, The Patent Leather Kid is largely a film about patriotism. It has some sports appeal in that the lead character is a boxer who is drafted into the war, and largely weary of the fight but haunted by the calls of his country to join it. I guess I’m not too surprised that crowds probably found interest in it, but its narrative is very clumsy, and it's aged like cheese that has been lying under your fridge for several decades.
We also get to see how hot Clara Bow was, and boy was she HOT. The movie It (STILL NOT THAT ONE) was a smash success, and it was a movie about sex appeal sold with Bow’s own sex appeal, of which she had plenty to spare, and Bow was stamped as “The It Girl” because of this movie. It was so popular that one could argue that It’s popularity helped propel Wings to financial success, as she was given top billing on posters for that film despite limited screen time, likely because they knew the crowds who saw It would flock to see more Clara. I know I would have, because It is adorable, and Clara Bow is such a shining star in it. I’d definitely see what’s next for her just to see that It Factor again.
As we wind down that top ten, we see the audience’s interest in romantic dramas. The second pairing of John Gilbert and Greta Garbo, Love, cracked the top ten of the year, after charming audiences with their chemistry earlier in the year with Flesh and the Devil. It’s a pretty decent film about a married woman falling in love with another man who is more devoted to her than her husband. The title is dumb, but it occurred to me after seeing the title card of “John Gilbert and Greta Garbo in Love” that the title might just be a marketing pun. Faring worse is the John Barrymore romance When a Man Loves, which starts out standard and enjoyable enough, if aggressively misogynistic, but gets more gonzo as it goes until it just ends with a mutiny on a pirate ship or whatever. That movie was weird, man. Seeing a romance like that be that popular when a movie like Sunrise existed in the same year is a bit of a shame.
Then there is The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, which seems a little bit like an odd one out. The movie is a little romantic, in that it has a romance in it, but it unfolds in a more unique manner than the other romances here because it’s not a traditional “protagonist gets the girl” narrative. The movie’s first hour mostly sees a young member of royalty going to a college town to study, where he makes friends easily and finds a girl he falls in love with. It’s pretty frothy, but it’s cute. Then the third act hits the movie like a ton of bricks, as the prince finds himself flung into adulthood with little to be happy about, forcing to leave his youth behind abruptly. The climax sees him trying to return to that youth but finds that he can’t recreate it, with even his love admitting that sometimes life just prevents two people from being together and they just have to accept it. It’s a pretty mature sentiment for a movie that could have easily clung to its cuteness and gave the crowd a happy ending, instead going for bittersweetness.
This is more than I can say for the film Love, which had two endings shot for different markets, in case they didn’t think select audiences could handle the depressing ending that they originally wanted to do. The film as originally planned ended with Greta Garbo’s character committing suicide, while the happy ending that they reshot had her meeting John Gilbert again years later, hinting their love would blossom again. The version I saw had the happy ending. I’m not sure if the suicide ending is floating around, but I’d be interested in seeing it.
Rounding out the ten is the Lon Chaney horror film London After Midnight, which is lost, despite the production photos showing off some of Chaney’s most iconic make-up. Turner Classic Movies did a recreation of this film using the original script and production photos. I did watch this out of curiosity, but I’m not going to pass judgment on the film based on it. It seems okay, but I’m sure Chaney was brilliant. He usually was.
If there’s one film on this list that I’d be in line with audiences to see in a theater back then, it would be 7th Heaven, and that’s because in doing this project I’ve discovered that I am a huge fan of Janet Gaynor and would likely be one of the theatergoers swept up in her plight in that film. I’d also be into Wings and The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, while I’d go to see It, claiming it’s just for the comedy but in reality am showing up for Clara Bow’s mischievous smile. Meanwhile The Patent Leather Kid would have me tearing my ticket up as I left the theater. Of course, if I lived in 1927, it’s probably likely I’d be wowed by The Jazz Singer, but pardon me if I’m not too intent on admitting that nowadays.
.jpg)
1928
1. The Singing Fool (N/A)
2. Street Angel ⭐⭐⭐
3. Lilac Time ⭐⭐1/2
2. Street Angel ⭐⭐⭐
3. Lilac Time ⭐⭐1/2
4. Four Sons ⭐⭐⭐
5. Noah’s Ark ⭐1/2
5. Noah’s Ark ⭐1/2
6. The Red Dance ⭐⭐1/2
7. In Old Arizona ⭐⭐
8. The Terror (N/A)
9. Lights of New York ⭐
8. The Terror (N/A)
9. Lights of New York ⭐
10. My Man (N/A)
Charlie Chaplin was right. Talkies ruined cinema.
It’s so easy to see why the master of silents was hesitant to embrace sound, because even though sound was what made money in 1928 (with a couple of exceptions), when you looked at the ones that raked in the big bucks, they’re arguably the least interesting and least entertaining films of the year. It gets worse when I research some of the films I’ll be looking at in the Library of Congress and 1001 Movies lists, because there is usually a footnote that points out these movies were not all that popular on release, because they weren’t talkies. In fact, the best films on the top ten of this year were silent films. Even the mediocre ones were also silent films. Then there were the rest. Thanks, Al Jolson.
But you can definitely look to the top ten of 1928 and find the trends that brought in audiences reliably continuing from the previous year. The top film of the year was The Singing Fool, which was yet another partial talkie starring Jolson, who takes a break from the drama for a song every once in a while (sometimes in blackface, notably for his then-popular signature song “Mammy!”). I haven’t seen this movie. There’s a copy of it available from Warner Archive, but what it boiled down to is that I wasn’t interested in buying a physical copy of a movie that looks above all else to just be “The Jazz Singer Again.” The movie hits public domain in 2024, so I’ll likely be watching a rip on YouTube this time next year.
Following on from that, the silver medal went to Street Angel, which reunited 7th Heaven stars Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell for another sweet little tearjerker romance. It’s not as good as 7th Heaven, but it was good enough to maintain audience interest in the duo. And it's a completely silent film, so the fact that it was popular enough to achieve second place in this landscape is a testament to how popular a couple Gaynor and Farrell were. The third place entry also mirrors a previous hit with Lilac Time. If Wings was the Top Gun of the 20’s then Lilac Time was the Iron Eagle, as it’s another World War I fighter pilot movie featuring a love triangle. There is some good areal footage, but it’s not as well crafted as Wings. But it’s a charming movie in spurts. I like how the leads are introduced to each other, where Colleen Moore is covered in grease and Gary Cooper manhandles her until he learns she’s a woman, then he gets all apologetic and says if he knew she were a lady he’d have “just given her a spanking” (ah, delightful 20’s comedic sexism). The whole denied sexual tension course is fun, climaxing in a delightful slapstick sequence where Moore is trapped in a runaway biplane. The heavier dramatic sections are more mixed, but while it’s not silent film shining at its brightest, it’s not the worst example of it either. One can see why audiences flocked to it after Wings hit as hard as it did, and is supposedly a synchronized sound movie also, though the print I saw had no sound and a stock score.
Moving down the line, we get a motherfucking John “Where’s the horizon?!” Ford movie! And we’ll probably be seeing that name a lot in the coming decades, so brace yourself! Four Sons is a domestic drama taking place during World War I, as a German woman watches her sons drafted into the war and not return home, save for the one who moved to America and fought for the other side and raised a family, because Americans get shit DONE. The film is, of course, how war takes away our family for others’ glory, though it’s undernourished in certain areas (most of the sons are just glorified extras) and jumps into an awkward third act that criticizes the immigration system. I suppose it works as a hurdle to reunite a broken family, but it feels a bit more disconnected than I would have liked.
The Christian audience that supported The King of Kings the previous year seemed to also show up for Noah’s Ark. The King of Kings wasn’t exactly my speed, but I can identify a quality made movie when I see it. Noah’s Ark is not quality. It’s a strange mishmash of a lot of bullshit, starting off in the 1900’s and showing off modern day debauchery, but showcasing the Wrath of God killing an entire train full of people because two atheists were onboard. It goes on in a chaotic manner until finally telling the story of Noah’s Ark in the third act. It’s good to know church groups were still spreading “non-Christians existing equals Christian oppression, you’re all going to hell unless you conform” messages back then, but the primary difference was they had studio money to waste at the time (this was a Warner Bros. Production). From what I can tell, the reviews of this back in the day were scathing, and the studio knew it sucked because they edited a half hour out of it, including expensive talkie sequences. Didn’t seem to matter to audiences, who saw it anyway. What I will say about this movie is that I get what it’s going for, even if its swing at it is way off its game. Not a good movie, though.
1928 had no shortage of romance stories between war rivals set against the Russian Revolution and Civil War, as one can tell by Oscar winners The Last Command and Tempest. I get why, because it’s a very dramatic backdrop that is scary and dangerous, and the tension between two lovers during such a period is showing beauty among ugliness. The Red Dance seems to be the most successful of these, even if it is the weakest one of the lot. What I’ll give this movie is that it has a broader scope of the Revolution itself than other films I viewed, as Delores del Rio’s life among the people of Russia is very in-depth and they do make sense of her falling for a Russian officer despite her anger at the elite. It falls into heavy melodrama, though. So does The Last Command, but The Last Command had the benefit of the expert craft of Josef von Sternberg and an excellent performance by Emil Jannings holding it above is weakest aspect. The Red Dance doesn’t have a lot to elevate it beyond those base melodramatics, so it just winds up being an okay watch for those who are into the melodramatic pantomime that silent films can be known for. It does have an ending that is actually kind of sweeter than I was expecting, though. It takes some logic leaps to get there, but it's hard not to find it a little romantic.
But the talk of the town was…talking. Talkies were starting to bloom in cinema, and at the bottom of this list we see some full-length talking pictures bringing audience interest, none of this partial-talkie crap! One is the very first all-sound production ever made, Lights of New York. The other was a film that innovated sound by adapting the new sound equipment to be used outdoors and not just in a sound studio, In Old Arizona. I’m going to be talking about In Old Arizona in my next Oscar Bait & Switch entry (spoiler alert: it won a trophy), so I’ll talk a bit about Lights of New York primarily. And it’s bad. Very bad. I’ve been enjoying this project, because silent cinema is a blast. They’re so fun, bold, experimental, and playful. Then I watched Lights of New York, which was none of those things. It’s a go-nowhere vaudeville skit that has been extended barely past feature length, and not even an interesting one. It’s a stilted film about nothing that only exists to show off the Vitaphone tech in a full movie package. It feels more like a prototype than a movie, figuring out what the kinks are and showing off what needs to be ironed out in the future. I guess there’s some value in it, but watching this group of actors stumble over the lines that would normally be glossed over in a silent production is kinda cringe.
Lost films include the first talkie horror film, The Terror, which was apparently atrocious. A partial-talkie drama called My Man partially survives, but a complete version of it doesn’t exist. I’d be more interested in seeing The Terror, because not only was it an important horror film, it was also a bad horror film, which makes it more of a must-see than a mediocre drama any day.
My experience as a “1928 filmgoer” is more underwhelming than 1927. Janet Gaynor has a pretty good movie, and Four Sons wasn’t too bad. I think what’s supposed to be wowing me right now is the sound technology boom, as we’re transitioning out of silent films into talkies, but early sound films are so awkward that they’re hard to really appreciate outside of their technical achievements. Al Jolson is back. Good for him. I saw singing cowboys. Cool, I guess. I saw gangsters in New York try to pin a crime on a barber. Okay. Compared to the last stand of silents last year, which were at the height of their craft, the dawn of talkies is so primitive that it can’t help but feel like return to square one.
The Preserved
1927
Flesh and the Devil ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The General ⭐⭐⭐⭐
It ⭐⭐⭐
The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
7th Heaven ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The General ⭐⭐⭐⭐
It ⭐⭐⭐
The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
7th Heaven ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Stark Love ⭐⭐
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Wings ⭐⭐⭐
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Wings ⭐⭐⭐
Looking at the films preserved in the Library of Congress, a lot of them are films I’ve discussed above. The Jazz Singer is the least surprising title here, preserved for its impact on cinema and entertainment in general. Meanwhile, Academy Award heavyweights Wings, 7th Heaven, and Sunrise are also here. Wings might be here for its effects work, as well, while Sunrise probably got bonus points for being quite possibly the most gorgeous looking silent film ever made. 7th Heaven doesn’t quite have anything that heavy to brag about, but it does have a great performance by Janet Gaynor and helped make her a late silent starlet, so that somewhat equals it with Sunrise. Also here is the box office smash that was It, likely represented because it propelled Clara Bow into the spotlight, which is just as notable an accomplishment as Gaynor’s success.
One film here that I haven’t discussed above is Flesh and the Devil, which like 7th Heaven and It was the star-making film of a sensational new actress, this time Greta Garbo. It also featured her first pairing with on and off-screen lover John Gilbert, but Garbo’s career eclipsed Gilbert’s by a wide margin, which leads me to believe it’s inclusion here is more because of her than him. It’s a really good movie (though with a flimsy ending that can be boiled down to "bros before hos"), and they followed it up with the film Love, which was a bigger box office success (and discussed in the box office entry above).
Also here is Buster Keaton’s masterpiece The General, quite possibly the finest film Keaton ever made. The movie is quite frankly the most impressive piece of stunt work that Hollywood had achieved for decades. Maybe even ever. Jackie Chan comes close, and Tom Cruise is certainly trying to outdo it lately, but whether his wirework is more impressive than what Keaton was able to achieve with real trains and his daredevil antics, that’s up to you to decide. The General probably earns a content warning, as the heroes of the film are the Confederacy during the Civil War (the film is loosely based on an actual event that the Confederates came out on top of), but while the politics of the Civil War are not brought up in the film and mostly irrelevant to everything onscreen, we all know what the politics of the Confederacy were and some might take issue with that. Audiences at the time were mixed, as it was an age when actual Civil War veterans were still alive, and apparently turning the war into a comedy was not a very popular idea (Steven Spielberg got similar shit for the film 1941, but that film was much worse). History was kind to Keaton’s film, though. It’s now considered one of the must-see classics of the era.
The last film here is an interesting and unexpected one. The film Stark Love is different than any of the other films on this list, and it’s arguably not that good either. It seems preserved for its filmmaking techniques instead, of which the film is shot with a documentary type look, which is interesting, if nothing else. The movie is basically just a goofy love story between hillbillies (played by actual hillbillies, from what I gather). It’s an obscure movie, likely because it’s of limited interest.
One film here that I haven’t discussed above is Flesh and the Devil, which like 7th Heaven and It was the star-making film of a sensational new actress, this time Greta Garbo. It also featured her first pairing with on and off-screen lover John Gilbert, but Garbo’s career eclipsed Gilbert’s by a wide margin, which leads me to believe it’s inclusion here is more because of her than him. It’s a really good movie (though with a flimsy ending that can be boiled down to "bros before hos"), and they followed it up with the film Love, which was a bigger box office success (and discussed in the box office entry above).
Also here is Buster Keaton’s masterpiece The General, quite possibly the finest film Keaton ever made. The movie is quite frankly the most impressive piece of stunt work that Hollywood had achieved for decades. Maybe even ever. Jackie Chan comes close, and Tom Cruise is certainly trying to outdo it lately, but whether his wirework is more impressive than what Keaton was able to achieve with real trains and his daredevil antics, that’s up to you to decide. The General probably earns a content warning, as the heroes of the film are the Confederacy during the Civil War (the film is loosely based on an actual event that the Confederates came out on top of), but while the politics of the Civil War are not brought up in the film and mostly irrelevant to everything onscreen, we all know what the politics of the Confederacy were and some might take issue with that. Audiences at the time were mixed, as it was an age when actual Civil War veterans were still alive, and apparently turning the war into a comedy was not a very popular idea (Steven Spielberg got similar shit for the film 1941, but that film was much worse). History was kind to Keaton’s film, though. It’s now considered one of the must-see classics of the era.
The last film here is an interesting and unexpected one. The film Stark Love is different than any of the other films on this list, and it’s arguably not that good either. It seems preserved for its filmmaking techniques instead, of which the film is shot with a documentary type look, which is interesting, if nothing else. The movie is basically just a goofy love story between hillbillies (played by actual hillbillies, from what I gather). It’s an obscure movie, likely because it’s of limited interest.
1928
The Cameraman ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Docks of New York ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Last Command ⭐⭐⭐
Lonesome ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Lonesome ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Power of the Press (N/A)
Show People ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Show People ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Steamboat Bill Jr. ⭐⭐⭐
The Wedding March ⭐⭐1/2
The Wind ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The Wedding March ⭐⭐1/2
The Wind ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Oscar representation here that we’ve already covered is The Last Command, which could be here to preserve Emil Jannings’ winning performance, or it could also be here because it seems to be considered a classic film in director Josef von Sternberg’s filmography. It’s not his only film in the line-up though, which also includes the even better Docks of New York, a lovely little unlikely love story between a braggart sailor and a depressed prostitute that he saves from drowning. It sounds a lot like 7th Heaven when I spell it out, but it has a bit more grit than 7th Heaven is. Both films are highlighted by an excellent leading lady performance, but I’d also say Gaynor was half the reason 7th Heaven was worth watching, while Docks of New York is an on-the-whole better movie. Von Sternberg’s direction is probably the highlight, as it’s a swell ensemble piece full of laughs and heartbreak, though the stunning craft of The Last Command probably outclasses it.
An Oscar nominee that is also present is The Crowd, which is an excellent life-saga movie that got shunted at the awards. But it’s good that it’s still remembered despite it not getting the prizes it was up for. Also from director King Vidor is the comedy Show People, which has Marion Davies as a farm girl trying to make it in Hollywood, only to get swept up in the system as she makes her way to being a superstar. It’s kinda A Star is Born, but goofier and with lower stakes. Davies shines as the lead, and while it’s not as powerful a showcase for Vidor as The Crowd is, it’s certainly a winning comedy that proves he’s not a one-trick pony.
Buster Keaton’s out here getting immortalized in the Library of Congress’s 1928 selection not once but twice for two works, one arguably more of a masterpiece than the other. Opinions might differ on which film that is, though. For me, it’s The Cameraman, which is quite frankly one of the finest romantic comedies ever filmed and the last great movie that Keaton ever made. But, and this is a pretty big “but,” as outstanding as that movie is, nothing in the film lives up to the third act hurricane sequence in Steamboat Bill Jr., which is an undisputed masterwork of slapstick comedy and silent film ingenuity. Both films are well deserving of their slots in the Library.
Also here is the romance Lonesome, which is a lovable little look at two lonely people who happen to meet and fall in love by happenstance on one day out on the town. The film is beautifully made and full of nuanced touches that make the film powerfully relevant to the lonely heart and the hopeful connection, though I confess I do find it runs a little long in the tooth by the time it ends.
Speaking of romances that run a little long, another film here is The Wedding March, which was an attempt at a sweeping tragic love story by filmmaker Erich von Stroheim, who was notable for trying to get really fucking long movies released into theaters but getting cut down by studios because holy shit (his original cut for the movie Greed pushed nine hours). The Wedding March was part one of a two-part narrative that was planned to be released over two nights, with the second film called The Honeymoon. Telling his story over the span of two films still didn't stop Von Stroheim from attempting to make each film four hours long, but the final film runs a little less than two hours. It's a decent romance about a prince and a peasant girl who fall madly in love but are betrothed to others, which complicates the matter as they are forced apart by their separate classes, of which The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg was a more interesting version of this. I liked parts of it, and I liked seeing King Kong's Fay Wray as the leading lady in a movie where her leading man isn't a giant ape, but I think I would have endeared myself to this movie more if the characterization weren't so limited. The focus of the film is romantic swooning and bitterness at unfair reality, but I find that the movie doesn't really make me invested in the prince as a character all that much. He is introduced by agreeing to an arranged marriage on a whim then romances a girl he just met, only to be blindsided by his arranged marriage later on...and I'm supposed to feel for this impulsive assclown? I just didn't feel it. I had more empathy for Fay Wray's character, because she had a more compelling situation to contend with. That's the only point of the story that held strong for me.
I'm happy it survives though, which is more than can be said for its companion film, The Honeymoon, which was destroyed in a fire in 1959. The second film seemed to just recount this film in prologue and tell of the prince and his bride on a honeymoon, as his lower-class lover's abusive husband vows to try and kill him. It ends with him shooting the prince's bride, killing himself, causing Fay Wray to become a nun, and the prince goes off to war and dies in battle. Great. I love movies where everyone dies for no reason. Thanks Hamlet.
Coming to the end of this list is The Wind, which is a western-set movie featuring Lillian Gish as a woman who moves out west but finds herself pushed away by the jealous spouse of her adopted brother and forced into a marriage that she takes on just so she has somewhere to live, as the film manifests her anxiety for her surroundings in the form of her fear of the wind. I wasn't certain what to make of this movie for a while, in fact it took me a few viewings to get through it because I could only find it with terrible homemade musical scores that just made it hard to pay attention to. Once I got into it, I found the movie absolutely riveting. It's a well-constructed story of uncertainty, as we follow our lady lead who is a victim of unfamiliar surroundings and is haunted by the anxieties of surviving the present and not knowing her future (and also a questionable trust in the men around her). It's a beautiful movie.
There was one film that I skipped, and that was Power of the Press, an early Frank Capra film. While the film is accessible on YouTube, it’s a version that freezes and jumps every five seconds or so (all prints I could find online were like this). It was practically unwatchable. There is a DVD in circulation, but I’m not prepared for a blind buy of the film at this time, though I was quite looking forward to this one and enjoy Capra’s work. Maybe in the near future.
The Bucket List
1927
The General ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
The Kid Brother ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Jazz Singer ⭐⭐
The Kid Brother ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Metropolis ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Napoleon (N/A)
October ⭐⭐⭐
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The Unknown ⭐⭐⭐
Wings ⭐⭐⭐
Napoleon (N/A)
October ⭐⭐⭐
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans ⭐⭐⭐⭐
The Unknown ⭐⭐⭐
Wings ⭐⭐⭐
Like the Library of Congress list, The Jazz Singer, Wings, and Sunrise are givens. The people who put together the 1001 Films You Need to See Before You Die seem to think that you can go to the grave without seeing 7th Heaven, though. I guess it makes sense, but you’d be missing out on a great Janet Gaynor performance and some cute romantic comedy moments to melt your heart. It’s also better than The Jazz Singer, but then again, so is Two Arabian Knights, and I was perfectly content without having seen that film before I died. I’ll give this list points for including The General, which is one of the greatest silent films ever made.
One very notable addition seen here is the inclusion of Metropolis, which seems like it shouldn’t have taken this long into an article on 1927 cinema to mention. But the movie wasn’t honored at the Academy Awards, nor was it a box office smash, nor is it preserved in the Library of Congress (it’s a German film), so we have to dig deep to honor its legacy here. Metropolis is the most widely circulated silent film ever made, perhaps only challenged by Nosferatu (another German film). That’s likely because silent cinema’s appeal lies heavily in visuals, and Metropolis is quite possibly the most visual silent film out there. It’s a stunning looking movie, with excellent model work, costumes, and set design. The acting is a bit overdone, but it’s very intent on transporting you into a different world and letting you get invested in that, while telling a timely tale about class and social divide. It’s arguably even more relevant today than when it was made, which is interesting since it takes place in the distant future.
I find the inclusion of The Kid Brother surprising. Personally, it’s probably my favorite Harold Lloyd movie, but I’ve always been under the impression that films like The Freshman and Speedy were more popular Lloyd films, and neither one of them made the cut. But if you’re going to get into Lloyd’s filmography, it’s an excellent showcase of him. It features Lloyd, a man in his mid-thirties pretending to be young and naive, with an “Aw, shucks!” personality, winning the day and getting the girl by being exactly who he is and not through tough guy acts. It’s a good, solid representation of what made Harold Lloyd one of the most beloved comedic performers of his day. Is it more important to watch than Clara Bow charming her way through a movie like It? That’s debatable, but it’s an unflinchingly adorable movie with good, solid laughs.
Also included is The Unknown, a film featuring the legendary “Man of a Thousand Faces,” Lon Chaney. It’s not that much of a showcase of his make-up effects, as Chaney’s character in this film is a circus carny that just features Chaney’s normal mug. But Chaney isn’t intent on conforming to a normal character, playing a man pretending to be an armless knife-thrower, who also happens to be a murderer because of course he is. Clever trick shots using foot doubles, and a few skilled tricks of Chaney’s own, help sell him as someone who utilizes his feet almost as arms themselves. Things come to a head when he falls in love with a girl whose father he has murdered, but his secret lie of bodily appendage means he may lose her to the circus strongman. It’s considered a must-see Chaney classic, and while I wasn’t wowed by it, I found it entertaining enough for an early chiller.
One very notable addition seen here is the inclusion of Metropolis, which seems like it shouldn’t have taken this long into an article on 1927 cinema to mention. But the movie wasn’t honored at the Academy Awards, nor was it a box office smash, nor is it preserved in the Library of Congress (it’s a German film), so we have to dig deep to honor its legacy here. Metropolis is the most widely circulated silent film ever made, perhaps only challenged by Nosferatu (another German film). That’s likely because silent cinema’s appeal lies heavily in visuals, and Metropolis is quite possibly the most visual silent film out there. It’s a stunning looking movie, with excellent model work, costumes, and set design. The acting is a bit overdone, but it’s very intent on transporting you into a different world and letting you get invested in that, while telling a timely tale about class and social divide. It’s arguably even more relevant today than when it was made, which is interesting since it takes place in the distant future.
I find the inclusion of The Kid Brother surprising. Personally, it’s probably my favorite Harold Lloyd movie, but I’ve always been under the impression that films like The Freshman and Speedy were more popular Lloyd films, and neither one of them made the cut. But if you’re going to get into Lloyd’s filmography, it’s an excellent showcase of him. It features Lloyd, a man in his mid-thirties pretending to be young and naive, with an “Aw, shucks!” personality, winning the day and getting the girl by being exactly who he is and not through tough guy acts. It’s a good, solid representation of what made Harold Lloyd one of the most beloved comedic performers of his day. Is it more important to watch than Clara Bow charming her way through a movie like It? That’s debatable, but it’s an unflinchingly adorable movie with good, solid laughs.
Also included is The Unknown, a film featuring the legendary “Man of a Thousand Faces,” Lon Chaney. It’s not that much of a showcase of his make-up effects, as Chaney’s character in this film is a circus carny that just features Chaney’s normal mug. But Chaney isn’t intent on conforming to a normal character, playing a man pretending to be an armless knife-thrower, who also happens to be a murderer because of course he is. Clever trick shots using foot doubles, and a few skilled tricks of Chaney’s own, help sell him as someone who utilizes his feet almost as arms themselves. Things come to a head when he falls in love with a girl whose father he has murdered, but his secret lie of bodily appendage means he may lose her to the circus strongman. It’s considered a must-see Chaney classic, and while I wasn’t wowed by it, I found it entertaining enough for an early chiller.
The last movie I was able to watch was October, a Russian propaganda film about the October Revolution that helped spawn the Russian Civil War. I'd be lying if I said this wasn't an interesting watch, especially after seeing all of those Hollywood romances using the turmoiled state of the country as a backdrop. What I will say about October is that the experience is both beautiful and disorienting, like watching lovingly recreated enactments of our own Revolutionary War flashing across one's eyeballs while someone waving an American flag is screaming "PATROTISM!" in my ear. I don't know if there is more to glean from this other than that, but what else can you ask for in a propaganda piece? I am reading some stuff about the film being a bit divisive among the Soviet Union. From a filmmaking perspective, it's a quite striking swing at a large-scale docudrama montage.
There is one film on this list that I was unable to watch, and that’s Napoleon. I don’t know if this is a blessing or a curse, since the movie is five-and-a-half hours long, but my search came up short while the only DVDs I could find were imports. I’m sure it will be uploaded somewhere eventually. It’s in public domain territory now, so an internet upload is likely to happen sooner rather than later if it’s really must-see cinema. I can only presume it’s a companion piece to Glorious Betsy though, which was the other Napoleon movie of 1927.
There is one film on this list that I was unable to watch, and that’s Napoleon. I don’t know if this is a blessing or a curse, since the movie is five-and-a-half hours long, but my search came up short while the only DVDs I could find were imports. I’m sure it will be uploaded somewhere eventually. It’s in public domain territory now, so an internet upload is likely to happen sooner rather than later if it’s really must-see cinema. I can only presume it’s a companion piece to Glorious Betsy though, which was the other Napoleon movie of 1927.
1928
An Andalusian Dog ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Crowd ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Docks of New York ⭐⭐⭐1/2
The Passion of Joan of Arc ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Steamboat Bill Jr. ⭐⭐⭐
Storm Over Asia ⭐⭐
Steamboat Bill Jr. ⭐⭐⭐
Storm Over Asia ⭐⭐
The Movies to See list didn’t really steer me wrong for 1928, but I personally object to featuring Steamboat Bill Jr. as Buster Keaton representation over The Cameraman. Steamboat Bill Jr. is a fine and very funny movie but, as a whole, The Cameraman blows it out of the water. But the likely reason Steamboat Bill Jr. is listed likely has little to do with it standing as a solid piece by itself and more to do with its showstopper ending, which is a must-see. Because of that, I can’t be sore that it’s here. But c’mon. The Cameraman is a goddamn masterpiece.
Speaking of masterpieces, more might be inclined to describe The Passion of Joan of Arc as one, though I was slightly reserved on it. The French film depicts the trial and eventual execution of Joan of Arc. The movie is certainly an auteur's film, and I admired the craft and the performances of it. I don't have anything to really add to the conversation on it because as exquisite as the film is in some regards, I also found it emotionally distant. I was a bit waned on it throughout the first half, which is a very lengthy portrayal of Joan's trial, constantly being asked if she was sure she was sent by God, and her giving off persecuted stares and saying different variations on "Yup." It's funny to me to think I could have watched the first twenty minutes of this movie, left for a half hour, then came back and have not missed anything of importance. But I'm just a moron of the mass audience, so what do I know? Second half is great, though.
Other films include The Crowd and The Docks of New York, both of which I've covered already and are quite excellent and well worth your time. I imagine they’re here representing peak works for both King Vidor and Josef von Sternberg, and I have no complaints about them as selections.
We also have another Russian propaganda film. Oh...goodie? Storm Over Asia is far more balls-to-the-wall propaganda than October was, pushing a fictional narrative to serve the Soviet political rivalries with Capitalist governments. I did watch it, but I mostly lost interest in it. Soviet filmmaking is interesting, but the swift-edit docudrama look that most have set my ADHD on fire, and I want to cry. I might give this one another shot after distancing myself from the other Russian silents I watched for this.
Finally, is An Andalusian Dog, a French short film made by some people who just wanted to turn their fucked-up dreams into a twenty-minute movie. I'm not too into surrealism, because I'm mostly like "That's neat, but I don't care." I prefer narrative in my films. The thing going for An Andalusian Dog's favor is its short length, so it comes off as a demo reel of kick-ass camera tricks and weird imagery. And you get to see an eyeball sliced open. Well, that was a hell of a thing.
🏆The Golden Torgos🏆
The time has come! Now that I've watched all these movies, what are my favorites of the year! Welcome to the Golden Torgos! Because I must always link the best of cinema with Manos. It just makes sense.
First, let's take a look at the best of 1927...
🏆Best Special Effects🏆
Wings
🌟The Academy Got It Right🌟
Torn between the professional editing and camera tricks of Wings and The General using actual trains and just going to town. I'm not entirely sure if The General crashing real trains counts as "special effects," but it certainly looks spectacular. Wings uses more trickery to pull off what it's doing and the fact that it came out looking as good as it does is a testament to how much work they put into pulling it off. I'll honor The General for what it was able to pull off with a different award, so I'll give Wings its time to shine right here.
🏆Best Sound Design🏆
The Jazz Singer
It did the thing.
🏆Best Hair and Make-Up🏆
It
It is a movie about sex appeal, and a large amount of that is put into making its ladies look good. Star Clara Bow shows off her It-Factor with that cute little bob-cut of hers, and glows for the camera during the entire picture. Is there another movie this year that made this much effort to look good? Not that I saw.
🏆Best Set Design🏆
Metropolis
The sets in this movie are big and bold, detailed and barren, and beautiful and ugly. The future world aesthetic of Metropolis holds up nearly a century later as masterclass in design which continues to inspire to this day. There was no challenger for this, this was the way it had to go.
🏆Best Costume Design🏆
Metropolis
Likewise, the costuming in Metropolis is excellent work, from its angular future fashion to its incredible robot woman costume, there are so many distinctly interesting costumes in this movie that it will never fail to captivate the imagination.
🏆Best Editing🏆
Martin G. Cohn
The Cat and the Canary
This early horror film is a pretty tight "murders in an old mansion" story, which hinges a great deal on how well strung together its moments of chills are. Likewise, there are a few tricks of fading and matting that help to keep the film visually interesting while also serve functionally to move the story along. Pretty great job, I'd say.
🏆Best Cinematography🏆
Charles Rosher and Karl Struss
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
🌟The Academy Got It Right🌟
Of the handful of F.W. Murnau films I've seen so far, I can definitely tell that he always hires people who know how to compose a beautiful frame of film. In the case of Sunrise, two cinematographers are named, and I'm not fully sure if each served an individual function or if the whole film was a collaborative effort, but whatever it was it created something extraordinary. Sunrise doesn't always solely rely on framing, sometimes working unique editing tricks into how the film presents its romance to the audience, creating something surreal and stunning. It's an astoundingly beautiful work.
🏆Best Screenplay (Original Story)🏆
Howard J. Green
The Kid Brother
Probably an underdog win, but it's a movie about an underdog protagonist, so it seems fitting. While not a wholly spectacular original work, The Kid Brother is a pretty genius vehicle for Harold Lloyd, utilizing his humble, everyman screen persona better than most films he made. The story of a repressed boy (in his thirties) who lives in the shadow of his siblings, meeting the girl of his dreams, failing to hold himself to the standards of his peers, but winning the day by staying true to who he is. It's a movie that sometimes lives in the shadow of Lloyd's other work, but like Lloyd's character in it, it just might be the one that stands out when all is said and done.
🏆Best Screenplay (Adaptation)🏆
Elliot Stannard
Based on the novel "The Lodger" by Marie Belloc Lowndes
The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog
There were some solid adapted works this year, though I mostly came down to two films that were tales of paranoia and bigotry, though incidentally the winner, The Lodger, is only that because it changed the ending from its source. So did the other film, Barbed Wire, but that was more about giving the characters of it a less doomed fate. Ultimately, what it came down to was that the changed ending in Barbed Wire was a heavy-handed underlining of its themes of toleration (which actually wound up backfiring, because the film was met with vitriol upon release in Britain by audience members who still resented Germany because of the war, which was an ironic and unfortunate fate for an otherwise very good movie). The Lodger, on the other hand, seizes the opportunity to tack a new theme to it and create a different compelling idea out of it. It's an imperfect screenplay, but it's a tight screenplay of tension, traversing the audience on this journey of a rented room that may-or-may-not house a Jack the Ripper style serial killer. I'm comfortable handing this non-award to it.
🏆Best Supporting Actress🏆
Clara Bow
Wings
I wanted Clara Bow to be a contender for Best Actress for her role in It, and she may have had a chance if I wasn't stone firm on who the best leading actress of this year was (I think we all know deep down who it's going to be). Bow had a solid back-up this year with Wings, though. This is a caveat of two things: the first being that Bow has top billing in Wings, but the honest to god truth is that I don't care where she was billed, she's not the lead of this fucking movie. She also is completely superfluous to it, working a rather nothing role that mostly just ensures that the leading man has someone to kiss at the end. But she also adds so much charm to it, and when I think back to it, I remember the excellent visual techniques, yes, but the first thing I always recall is just how much fun she is in it. For a role that has no purpose in the main story, Bow is a complete scene-stealer. She is the best thing in it (aside from the film's technical marvel), and it's a credit to her that she took something as empty as this role and made it into something that shines as brightly as it does. That's the power she has over this movie, where she's in a movie about macho men fighter pilots in a pissing contest and the one minor role a woman has in it outshines all the men in it. Maybe she earned that top billing after all.
🏆Best Supporting Actor🏆
Jean Hersholt
The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg
Jean Hersholt is probably not an actor most will think of at the end of the year, but I was very endeared to him in The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg. His role was that of a private teacher that taught the prince throughout the years, only to find himself out of a job as the prince heads to college but wants him to tag along anyway. Hersholt is a warm and charming presence, and his absence in the third act is a gut punch that helps hammer the film's theme home.
🏆Best Actress🏆
Janet Gaynor
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
🌟The Academy Got It Right🌟
It has to be my girl Janet for Best Actress this year. There was no real competition of note for me, though I would have considered Pola Negri in Barbed Wire, Clara Bow in It, and Greta Garbo in Flesh and the Devil. And, of course, Janet Gaynor beats out Janet Gaynor from 7th Heaven. Gaynor is great in 7th Heaven, but Sunrise was next level pantomime artistry. It's a role created to be charmed by, fallen in love with, and make you cry, all crafted through the expressionism of the film. Gaynor meets the film at its challenge and knocks it out of the park, and it arguably wouldn't have been nearly as good if she weren't in it.
🏆Best Actor🏆
George O'Brien
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Likewise, George O'Brien holds strong as Gaynor's leading man in Sunrise. It's a less subtle performance than Gaynor's, but it's also a more tortured one, as O'Brien spends the film working for redemption and forgiveness for the demons that cause him to do harm. It's not his fault that Gaynor often leaves him in the dust at what the film asks them to do, but he does the job required with him admirably and at the end of the day, he is worth standing next to her on a podium.
🏆Best Director🏆
Clyde Bruckman and Buster Keaton
The General
I wanted this award to go to F.W. Murnau so badly, because Sunrise is such a deftly crafted masterpiece on both a performance and technical level. To an extent, The General might seem a quainter achievement as a Buster Keaton slapstick comedy, but I look at that movie and just feel in my bones how much of a bitch that entire production was. The film is one giant train chase, and setting everything up and having it come together as smoothly and thrillingly as it does is such an impressive achievement. The filmmaking in The General has blood, sweat, and tears all over it, and just creating something out of it deserves a trophy on its own.
🏆Best Picture🏆
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
It pained me not to put The General as the top film of the year, as I've been a fan of that movie for many years and wasn't really expecting anything to dethrone it, but the minute I saw Sunrise, I knew where this award had to go. A beautiful, striking, and romantic powerhouse of a movie that will stick with me for the rest of my life. A bold and lovely masterpiece.
Rounding Out the Top Ten
2. The General
3. Metropolis
4. The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog
5. The Kid Brother
6. Barbed Wire
7. The Forty-First
8. 7th Heaven
9. Flesh and the Devil
10. The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg
I could have used a loophole to spare The General the humiliation of a second-place defeat, in that some consider the film a 1926 film, instead of 1927. I looked into why that is, and it seems to be because it screened in Tokyo, Japan on December 31, 1926, while not opening in America until February. Granted my rules for eligibility are somewhat arbitrary, but I'm going to try and stick with a wide release in the country of origin, so the Tokyo release date didn't sit well with me. Buster Keaton is going to have to settle for the silver medal here, but it's for what is arguably his finest film, a frantic slapstick chase movie that grows more impressive as an achievement as time passes. Bronze goes to the ever-so-popular Metropolis, for being a visionary spectacle far ahead of its time.
Films I haven't really discussed yet includes one of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest films and his first thriller, The Lodger, a loose adaptation of a popular suspense novel with an altered ending, but one that acts as a commentary on paranoia and fear. It's an excellent peek at the future of the legendary filmmaker, showing just how much promise he had, even in the beginning, and would remain his best film until well into the sound era.
I'd also like to give a shout out to Fritzi Kramer, who runs the Movies Silently blog, and if I was going to deep dive into silent cinema years, I would have been a fool to not consult her work (and she is much better at this than I am, so check out her stuff). Among the movies her blog highly recommended was Barbed Wire, an interesting romantic World War I drama between a French woman who falls in love with a German prisoner of war who is held at her farm. I have issues with the ending, but it's a really good watch and I very much enjoyed it. And she also recommended a Russian film that I enjoyed (and if you read above, you know I have attentive issues with the style of Russian silent cinema). The Forty-First was another war drama I thought was interesting, which saw a revolutionary bond with a prisoner during the Russian Civil War. The grittier aspect of Russian filmmaking enhanced the atmosphere of this film and I found it quite engaging.
And now, here are my picks for 1928...
🏆Best Special Effects🏆
Steamboat Bill Jr.
The finale of Steamboat Bill Jr. is such a technical marvel that if you aren't versed in silent film, chances are you've seen glimpses of it without knowing where it came from. That shot of that one dude rubbing his neck as the front of a house falls forward, and he just happens to be standing in the exact spot where the window is, ensuring he's unscathed? That's Buster Keaton, and that's Steamboat Bill Jr., giving us one of the most iconic shots of the silent era. And if Buster were only an inch off his mark in that scene, and I cannot stress this enough, he would have been killed. That's how elbow deep into the craft Buster Keaton movies are, and the hurricane climax of this movie has gone down in infamy as his finest hour.
🏆Best Sound Design🏆
In Old Arizona
In Old Arizona wins this both by earning it and in a slight default. I only watched a handful of sound films from this year, and only two of them were full talkies: In Old Arizona and Lights of New York. But these were also the two most groundbreaking talkies of the year as well, so I'm pretty comfortable in saying that there probably wasn't much competition to take this award. Both films did something innovative with the new sound technologies that were taking Hollywood by storm, but Lights of New York's innovation was somewhat limited to the fact that it was the first fully non-silent film ever released. Otherwise, it didn't really do anything the partial-talkies didn't already do. It just did it for fifty minutes instead of three minutes at a time. In Old Arizona is the more impressive feature, because it takes the new tech and adapts it for outside environments, shooting a location western with it. The results are mixed, as sound quality can rise and dip at any given moment, and there are still limitations over what the production can do with it. But the innovation is worth noting, and In Old Arizona has a place in film development history.
🏆Best Hair and Make-Up🏆
Our Dancing Daughters
Our Dancing Daughters centers on a group of socialite besties looking to enchant their way through the opposite sex, so like It, a lot of this film hinges on making our ladies look attractive. And it is a fun batch of good-looking gals who are all looking their best throughout the picture. Our Dancing Daughters is a cute movie that won't get much recognition here otherwise, but this is an award well earned.
🏆Best Set Design🏆
Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark is a very bad movie. Those sets in the climax look fucking incredible, though. They're large, detailed, and impressive, showing that if Noah's Ark was actually about Noah's fucking Ark, it probably would have been fine. What a gutter ball.
🏆Best Costume Design🏆
Noah's Ark
Second verse, same as the first. There are so many things wrong with Noah's Ark, but the craft work of the finale is the one thing that threatens to make it accidentally a good movie. Too bad about the garbage it takes to get there, though.
🏆Best Editing🏆
Conrad A. Nervig
The Wind
The Wind's atmosphere owes a lot to its editing, which utilizes it to primarily depict Lillian Gish's anxiety throughout the film as it grows overwhelming for her. There are several excellent editing tricks utilized to enhance the mood and artistry, such as the sound of the storm being depicted by a horse in the sky. It's an intense work by the editing team.
🏆Best Cinematography🏆
Rudolph Mate
The Passion of Joan of Ark
There is a part of me that thinks The Passion of Joan of Ark's cinematography is an overplayed hand, as the majority of it is done in full close-up with the intent of making sure we can see all the actors acting as fucking hard as they can while also ensuring that we can see just how sweaty and greasy everyone is in all of their glory. What the cinematography does do is keep the focus on the actors, specifically star Renée Jeanne Falconetti, and ensuring we are not distracted from the work that they're putting into this movie. And when the film goes wider, its composition is deft and harrowing. Expertly innovative work.
🏆Best Writing (Original Story)🏆
King Vidor and John V.A. Weaver
The Crowd
There are elements of how The Crowd plays out that might seem trite, but it also feels all a part of the theme. If things feel a little too general, that's because the point is that its main character is "a face in the crowd." His story may not seem special because his story could be the story of anyone, but there are also points where the story is distinctly his, of moments and tragedies that are solely his, which makes him an individual. It's an interesting balance, trying to tell a story that could belong to everyone and only one person, but The Crowd does a pretty good job of working that balance to its advantage. That's such a smart idea.
🏆Best Writing (Adaptation)🏆
Jules Furthman
Based on the story "The Dock Walloper" by John Monk Saunders
The Docks of New York
What if 7th Heaven but everyone's surly and drunk? Okay, that's oversimplifying it, because Docks of New York is a rich story of grey characters spending the night making grey moralistic choices, some with positive influences and some with nasty repercussions. It's a strong drama of humans acting like humans, and sometimes the difference between the human and the humane. It's compelling and draws a viewer in, invested in the outcome of these complicated characters and these few days of their lives.
_01.jpg)
🏆Best Supporting Actress🏆
Evelyn Brent
The Last Command
Peek behind the curtain, The Last Command was the first movie I watched for this project, back when I didn't know what it was. I just decided to watch the first Oscar winners on a whim and write some bullshit about them and see what happened. I'm kind of amazed I still remember anything about it after all the movies I had seen since that I still remember anything about it. I remember Evelyn Brent, though. While she's given some cheesy stuff to do in her romantic plot, but I love how icy she can be in her silence and how commanding she can be when she lets loose. Jannings may have been the one who took home a trophy for this movie, but I wouldn't underestimate what his co-star brought to the table. She was overshadowed, to be sure, but she stepped up to the plate.
🏆Best Supporting Actor🏆
Lars Hanson
The Wind
Lars Hanson has a complicated role in The Wind. He is a suitor of Lillian Gish's character, who she initially laughs off, but winds up marrying because otherwise she'd wind up on the streets in a strange part of the country that she's not familiar with. While we're sympathetic to Gish's plight, Hanson is caught off-guard by her intentions. He wanted to believe that she married him because she loves him, but upon discovering this he is flooded with a lot of feelings about it, to the point that he comes close to sexually assaulting her. It's a little weird that the movie tries to make us sympathize with a near-rapist, but Hanson's portrayal shows his character as someone who married Gish because he loves her, and the realization that his marriage is a facade haunts him to the point of hollowness, and instead of committing to the extreme, he resigns and promises that he'll never lay a hand on her ever again, because he loves her enough to let her go. His arc in the movie is rough, and Hanson maintains it while also getting across that his character is a good man at heart. That's impressive.
🏆Best Actress🏆
Lillian Gish
The Wind
This one hurts. The honest truth is that there are two actresses that I was torn about honoring here and Gish was the one that's probably the choice that's likely to make a cinephile angry because I didn't go with the likely favorite option, the iconic performance of Renée Jeanne Falconetti from The Passion of Joan of Arc. Here's what put me over the edge: Falconetti gives a great, intense, and passionate performance that commands that camera that's shoved in her face. I felt more admirable of it than invested in it, though. Gish just does more. She is put through the ringer in The Wind, and she's asked to portray so much as she falls into a descent of madness throughout the film. Like Falconetti, so much of what makes the movie work rides on her shoulders (while the craft of both films helps their leads shine), and for my money, what Gish portrays hits me harder. This could have been a coin toss, but the hell with it. If you're looking for praise of Falconetti, you're not hurting for options. This is my area of the internet and I'll pick who I want, and Gish is the one calling to me.
Lon Chaney
West of Zanzibar
West of Zanzibar is a curious thriller that doesn't always work, but when it does, it's because of how fully committed Lon Chaney is. But nobody ever accused Chaney of ever half-assing it, as he went down in history as one of the most committed performers in the history of the medium. Chaney plays a former magician who vows to make the man who stole his wife pay, which included a long con elaborate plan of corrupting their love child over the span of two decades. Chaney is a very angry man in a cynical movie, who does very evil deeds just for an endgame moment of retribution. But the heart of this movie is about how hate can corrupt a man's soul, to which Chaney is fully embracing of. There is pure hate in his eyes throughout the film, and when the tables turn in the revelatory climax of the film, that hate turns into the sorrow of self-hate as he realizes just how horrible his actions have been. All of this is without noting the physicality of the role Chaney has taken on here, playing a paraplegic without the use of his legs. His dead-legged performance is so realistic that you could easily mistake him for an actual paraplegic, but those of us who know Lon Chaney know better, because he was just that good.
🏆Best Director🏆
Victor Sjöström
The Wind
The Wind feels simple enough at the start, with a fairly standard story of a stranger in a strange land. There are little flourishes early on that impress, but it builds itself and compounds as it goes on as it pummels Lillian Gish with hardship after hardship, leading to a climax of enhanced sensation and madness. Victor Sjöström deserves credit putting together a movie that is both jarring and gorgeous.
🏆Best Picture🏆
The Wind
The Wind blows away the competition with its compelling lead performance and its artistry. Slow out the gate, but compels more as its storyline snowballs, The Wind is an addictive film that is hard to look away from.
Rounding Out the Top Ten
2. The Cameraman
3. The Docks of New York
4. The Circus
5. Lonesome
6. The Passion of Joan of Arc
7. The Crowd
8. Show People
9. Steamboat Bill Jr.
10. Sadie Thompson
Buster Keaton settles for the silver two years in a row, and these were the best movies he ever made, so I'm going to kick dirt over this. But those are the ropes. I'm not going to complain about there being great movies that exist. Moving on, The Docks of New York took me by surprise, as I've enjoyed the works of Josef von Sternberg, but certain elements always kept me reserved on them. Docks really hit home with me, though. The Circus is one of my favorite Chaplin movies, though it gets bumped a little down the list as it loses steam in the home stretch, it's still a marvelous comedy from the master, which guarantees it a spot.
There isn't really anything here that I haven't already covered, which fills out the list with some stunning works mixed with enjoyable films. It's a weaker year than the previous, but we're also in a transition phase where a lot of effort was put into trying to make the new wave of cinema barely watchable. It's a shame that I didn't cotton enough to sound cinema to highlight some good ones from early on, but from what I have seen of them, it's possible that there weren't that many to praise.
But there is always next year, and I can already think of a couple talkies that will be worth talking about from there. I'll see you all in 1929!
No comments:
Post a Comment