Michel Hazanavicius’ effortlessly charming dramedy is really like discovering a lost film from the silent age. The director of the popular French OSS 117 spy spoof series recreates every aspect of a black and white silent film of the 1920s. From the classic 1.37:1 aspect ratio to the title cards to the dramatic pitch, he gets all the details right. His performers nail the acting style, which is a key to the film’s success. But it’s not just a gimmick. It’s a reminder that sometimes words get in the way of visual storytelling.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin, OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES) is the biggest silent movie star. During the red carpet for his latest international action film, he bumps into Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, A KNIGHT’S TALE), a pretty young fan looking for an autograph. Embarrassed at first, soon she’s posing for the cameras along with Valentin. The next day she goes to the studio looking to get a job as an extra and lands a role in Valentin’s next picture. He is so charmed by the young woman that he flubs scenes just so he can dance with her over and over again.

The problem is that Valentin is married to Doris (Penelope Ann Miller, CARLITO’S WAY), a prune-faced woman who seems constantly perturbed with her husband even when he and his trained dog are being utterly irresistible. Peppy moves on and gets better and better parts. Meanwhile, studio head Al Zimmer (John Goodman, THE BIG LEBOWSKI) shows Valentin a test of a sound film. Valentin laughs it off as a fad, but Zimmer sees it as the future. Defiantly, Valentin goes out on his own and produces a new silent adventure. But then the stock market crashes even worse than his film does and he is broke.

Dujardin, who won Best Actor at Cannes for this performance, is a big star in France and one can see why here. He has screen presence like any movie star of the Golden Age or today. He performs in the more conscious style of 1920s and 30s. For his films within the film, he mugs it, but contrasts that with a more honest performance for his character’s downward spiral. Bejo is his equal and even has the more difficult role. Her character is plucky in that way that only 1930s film ingénues were. She doesn’t hold back and goes for it without a moment of self doubt that she might come off corny. Their dedication to what Hazanavicius is trying to do is crucial to why I fell in love with this film.

Hazanavicius uses imagery that just doesn’t work the same way it would if there were dialogue we heard. After sadly watching his old films, Valentin curses the man he has become as his shadow appears on the screen. He literally is a shadow of the man he once was. Watch the melodramatic direction Hazanavicius uses during a scene where Valentin frantically pulls sheets off hidden treasures from his past. In any other film, this scene would have come off over-the-top, but in this one it has a power in a purely cinematic way.

As true to the silent era style Hazanavicius is, he doesn’t make this film in a vacuum. He has fun with the conceit right from the first title card. Valentin is being tortured in his action film and the title card reads, “No I won’t talk!” He has a great deal of fun with Valentin’s bad dream about talkies. And Valentin’s resentful co-star Constance (Missi Pyle, GALAXY QUEST) uses a gesture that certainly wouldn’t have been in a 20s flick, but does convey her feelings quite well without words.

And I would be remiss to not mention two other performances. James Cromwell (BABE) is the perfect steady figure as Valentin’s dedicated chauffeur Clifton. Uggie is one of the breakout performers of the year. He plays Valentin’s dedicated Jack Russell terrier, who hits his cues like a comic genius. There hasn’t been a dog this charismatic since his screen soulmate Asta from the THIN MAN series graced the screen.

Despite being a black and white silent film, this is accessible to a wide audience even across language barriers. It establishes its characters through comedy and romance and then connects us with them through tragedy. Like the films that inspired it, emotions move quickly in melodramatic ways, but that is part of its soul and its allure. Like a vintage movie poster would have said – You’ll laugh! You’ll cry! You’ll fall in love!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

F.W. Murnau is best known for his German silent classic NOSFERATU. He came to the U.S. specifically to make SUNRISE, a visually innovative romantic drama. At the very first Oscars, the film garnered awards for actress Janet Gaynor, cinematographers Charles Rosher and Karl Struss, and Best Unique and Artistic Production (an award only given at the first Academy Awards). Many critics’ lists rank this film among the best films of all time. The American Film Institute ranked in 63rd on its 100 Passions List, and last year the film made the 10th anniversary redo of AFI’s famed 100 best American films list. The Library of Congress added it to the National Film Registry in 1989, while the film ranks within the top 250 films voted by fans on the Internet Movie Database. I list these accolades for nothing more than to show how a simple, well-told story can last the test of time. Film styles and techniques have evolved over time, but a powerful story never fails to resonate.

As the opening title cards state, this is a story that could take place at any time or any place. The characters are simply named The Man and The Wife. The Man (George O’Brien, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON) is cheating on his wife (Gaynor, SEVENTH HEAVEN) with a vacationing Woman From The City (Margaret Livingston, THE CANARY MURDER CASE). The scheming vamp finally convinces the man to drown his wife then sell the farm and move with her back to the city. After a great deal of struggle, the man finally takes his beautiful blonde bride out on the lake to commit the evil deed, but she catches wind of his devious plot.

This film is one of the best romances because it understands reality, which makes its love story feel more real. The man and his wife where inseparable when they first wed, but time has pulled them apart, and left room for the husband’s eye to wander. The bittersweet irony of the ending brings real emotion to this story. Though the story is very simple, Murnau takes the tale, which was based on a novel by Hermann Sudermann and adapted for the screen by Carl Mayer, and brings heart to the material, touching on universal feelings of marital ruts and the differences between country folk and city dwellers.

On the filmic side, Murnau’s innovative use of superimposed images to capture the inner feelings of the characters is still effective. There’s something very haunting about the tormented man sitting on the edge of his bed and the ghostly image of his mistress appearing with her arms around his neck. Rosher and Struss paint the frames with light and shadow like masters. The title derives from the final shot, which is a poignant exclamation point on the film’s themes of renewal, love and redemption. Even the title cards, while used sparingly, are not neglected. One of the key dramatic plot points in revealed in titles that dramatically melt away.

Gaynor won the Best Actress award for this film along with her work on SEVENTH HEAVEN and STREET ANGEL. At the time an actor or actress could be nominated for their body of work for a given year. With Gaynor’s three nods to Gloria Swanson (SADIE THOMPSON) and Louise Dresser’s (A SHIP COMES IN) single nominations, how did the others stand a chance? Nonetheless, for this single performance, Gaynor is the heart of the story, giving the most natural of the performances. She is especially effective in the film’s more carefree moments, which there are many. Despite the lofty title and plot description, this movie does have many light and funny moments, along with its dark and dramatic elements. There’s a simple walk through traffic that even adds a brilliantly dose of whimsy. Often our favorite movies are the ones that can balance between various emotional ranges without seeming melodramatic or manipulative. SUNRISE does this marvelously.

A true masterpiece is a film that is of its era and yet transcends it as well. Even some good silent films have not dated well, but this is not the case with SUNRISE. Being awarded Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production makes the film seem overly artsy and pretentious, but really what makes this film unique and artistic is its innovative and evocative use of camerawork. Murnau uses his understanding of cinema to bring us deeper into the tale. The story is so good that we forget about the lack of sound or the mannered performances, and just fall under the spell of these characters.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

The epic apology for his racist BIRTH OF A NATION, INTOLERANCE is often used as an apology for film critics who want to recognize D.W. Griffith’s accomplishments without embracing the hard to recommend NATION. In retrospect, Griffith’s follow-up to his most notorious film is an overlong experiment that saves itself by coming together so well in the end. At its time of release, audiences were turned off by the four interwoven stories from four unconnected ages as well as the three plus hour running time. Modern audiences will have the same issues. Much like a crumbling ancient ruin, there is much to admire about INTOLERANCE as a historical document, but as a modern piece of art it has not held up over the test of time.

The subtitle for the film is “Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages,” which is actually a better description than intolerance of what connects the four tales. The modern story sees the intolerance of the reform movement, leading to the closure of a mine and the poverty of its workers. In the wake of the mine closing, an Irish boy (Robert Harron) gives up a life of crime to marry the innocent little Dear One (Mae Marsh). Framed for two crimes, the boy is sent to the gallows for a murder he did not commit and Dear One tries everything to save him. The Babylonian story sees a poor Mountain Girl (Constance Talmadge) fighting to defender the peace-loving secular Prince Belshazzar (Alfred Paget) and his Princess Beloved (Seena Owen) from the forces of Cyrus (George Siegmann), who has Babylon’s traitorous priests on his side. The next segment is set in 1572 in France where Catholic Catherine de Medici (Josephine Crowell) convinces her son King Charles IX of France (Frank Bennett) to carry out the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and how these events affect the Huguenot lovers, Brown Eyes (Margery Wilson) and Prosper Latour (Eugene Pallette). The fourth and shortest tale chronicles key events in the life and crucifixion of Christ (Howard Gaye). Also intercut between all the stories is Lillian Gish as the Mother Mary rocking Jesus’ cradle.

The impressive weaving of the four stories in the ending makes the long journey worth the wait, however it also highlights how the first two hours of the film do not meld very well. The longer stories — the modern tale and Babylonian story — often over shadow the other two stories making them feel like afterthoughts. Thematically though, the modern story seems to connect the least with the other three and feels like it should be its own film. (It was actually released as THE MOTHER AND THE LAW in 1919.) The Jesus story is all but forgotten for large parts. In light of the acting in Raoul Walsh’s 1915 REGENERATION, INTOLERANCE seems dated. Outside of some moments of subtlety and nice comic timing from Talmadge, the acting has the curse of silent movie pantomime, which takes away some of the film’s emotional connection with the audience.

What remains impressive is the epic battle scenes. This is the feature most viewers will not forget. The Babylon battles and celebration scene include amazing sets and more than 3,000 extras. Though the battles often take on the role of spectacle over story too often, there is a grittiness to the violence, at times, that makes a strong point. As the stories build to their conclusions, Griffith finds poetic ways to mirror his themes of tragic love and call for tolerance in the various stories. The Mountain Girl next to the two doves is very effective.

The editing works so well that one finally begins to care about some of the stories that for the previous two and a half hours seemed to drag. This happens because Griffith focuses his attention on the characters that we’re supposed to care about instead of focusing on drawn out scenes with the villains. (This is especially a problem in the French story.) Narratively speaking, the extremely melodramatic modern tale gains a real sense of tension and emotion after seeing how the other tales have ended.

In the end, Griffith’s film presents a message of hope. Though he lays it on thick, the message that if we do not learn from our past, we are doomed to repeat it is nicely presented. The film deserves to be remembered, but more so as one-sixth of a masterpiece. As a three-hour epic, the weaker parts severely weigh down the rest of superior ending. BIRTH OF A NATION is also extremely long, but Griffith tells one story, making us understand the motivations of its central characters as it builds. INTOLERANCE plays like a patchwork quilt were only a small section has been stitched together tightly. Griffith bites off more than he can chew.

Nonetheless, I’d recommend INTOLERANCE outright versus NATION, which I’d give only two-and-a-half stars to. As a complete film, NATION is far superior to the flawed INTOLERANCE, but the latter film has a more redeeming message for modern audiences. As for representing the work of Griffith without recommending NATION, there are many other great films to pick. INTOLERANCE is more impressive for what Griffith was trying than for its success. Griffith had an epic eye and was a product of his age. With patience, there is greatness to be found here. The rest needs to be watched with an eye for history.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

This silent masterpiece presents interesting questions when one watches it. How was this subject matter received in 1929 when it was first released? How has the meaning and sympathies changed or not changed? Despite lacking any nudity, why does this film still retain such a high erotic appeal?

In its time, the film was received with great controversy for its frankness toward its scandalous material. Star Louise Brooks’ sexual abandon and provocative allure must have been shocking in its day. Part of its erotic charge still remains for two reasons — 1) despite being benign by today’s standards we have a clear sense when watching this silent film that its trying to get away with something naughty and 2) Louise Brooks, who grabs one’s attention from the first frame and will not let go, which is exactly what her character is supposed to be. Brooks plays Lulu, a freewheeling flapper who uses her sexuality to move upward in the world. She’s a party girl, who likes having a good time and above all — having sex.

At the start, she is living in a luxury apartment thanks to her lover Dr. Peter Schon (Fritz Kortner), who is about to dump her to marry his more respectable fiancée. Then the scruffy Shigolch (Carl Goetz) shows up. Lulu calls him her first patron then later refers to him as her father. Some have written that they believe he is her pimp, but I think he’s closer to an opportunist who took Lulu under his wing when she was younger (possibly homeless at the time) and helped her find men to woo. She’s not a prostitute per se, but a woman looking for better sugar daddies to take care of her or just another fella to have a good time with. Shigolch has brought the fat, drunkard Rodrigo Quast (Krafft-Raschig) to meet Lulu, because he hopes Quast will add Lulu to his stage act. However, Lulu has better prospects, batting her eyes at Dr. Schon’s musical writer son Alwa (Francis Lederer) and the wealthy, stage patron Countess Anna Geschwitz (Alice Roberts), who is clearly one of the first lesbian characters to reach the screen.

At first we write off, Lulu as a conniving gold digger, but soon she wins us over like everyone else that meets her. She embraces life with a carefree and innocent zeal that is infectious. However, she has a bad habit of attaching herself to men, who don’t always have her best interests in mind. As the plot moves forward, her situation becomes more and more desperate to the point where she’s wrapped up in a murder, almost sold into slavery and meets up with a new Jack the Ripper (Gustav Diessl).

The entire film’s success hinges on the compelling and natural performance of Brooks. She was born to play the character, having been too wild for Hollywood and virtually exiled to Europe in real life. Her performance lacks the pantomime that is typical of the silent era acting style. Unlike so many silent films that rely of camera and editing to elicit emotion, this film combines realistic performances with building melodrama that we can believe in. As the tragic tale gets worse and worse for Lulu, we care what happens to her and more and more come to believe that she doesn’t deserve such as raw deal.

Director G.W. Pabst uses his camera well, creating some wonderfully ironic shots. There’s one in particular with Lulu and Dr. Schon that uses smoke where the lack of sound actually adds to the dramatic effect of the shot construction. In addition to the entire cast’s more natural acting, the film avoids the dated curse of other silent films by dealing with its salacious subject matter in a frank way.

The taboos it addresses are still taboo today. Female sexuality, lesbianism and serial murders are all topics that modern films are still grappling with. As for its lasting impact on pop culture, Brooks’ short bob haircut became a style sensation — defining the modern look of the flapper. The haircut was even referred to as the Lulu. With THE JAZZ SINGER ushering in sound two years prior to the release of this film, PANDORA’S BOX balances on the crux between the world of silent cinema and talkies. It’s compelling characters and drama, acting style, natural make-up and frank sexuality are far more akin to modern films than silent movies. In addition to its truly compelling story, PANDORA’S BOX is a masterpiece, because it’s like watching a giant evolutionary step in the way films are made unfold before your eyes.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Coming out in the same year as screen classics like THE GOLD RUSH and BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA doesn’t match the quality of those films, because it’s not trying to be those films. What the film succeeds in doing is taking a fairly simple story with thin-characters and lifting the material to another level with iconic imagery and action. The film isn’t about emotional subtlety, but grand notions. You could say it’s one of the first truly great popcorn flicks.

Much of its success lies in the hands of Lon Chaney (LAUGH, CLOWN, LAUGH) as the Phantom. Having done his own make-up, Chaney creates one of the greatest character design feats in cinema history. Because the face of the Phantom has become an icon of pop culture, the lead up to the big reveal is not nearly as shocking as it was in 1925, however we still anticipate it with eagerness. The filmmakers (created director is Rupert Julian, uncredited directors have included Ernst Laemmle, Edward Sedgwick and even Chaney) knew exactly how to play that moment. They even filmed it with flare, having the camera go out of focus like its scared of the Phantom’s hideousness and to enhance the skull-like look of the creature.

The story is the most faithful to Gaston Leroux’s novel. The Phantom haunts the gothic catacombs underneath the opera house where he was tortured during the Revolution. He desires the pretty young singer Christine Daae (Mary Philbin, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS), hoping that if he makes her a star; he can make her love him and regain some of his humanity. Christine desires to be famous even shunning her fiancée Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry, THE UNKNOWN) for the call of the Phantom. However, upon seeing the Phantom’s deformed face, Christine runs back to the arms of her former lover. This enrages the Phantom, spurring him to go to any length to possess Christine.

Chaney’s performance is perfectly over-the-top, but not more so than some other superhero film villains. Like many great movie monsters, we sympathize with the character for we understand the torment society has thrust upon them. The Phantom is a fascinating character, because he wants what we all want and that’s to be loved, however his demons have made him unable to go about seeking love in any normal way.

As any big spectacle of today, this film uses the most cutting-edge technology of its day. Stylistically the film tints many of its scenes to add to the mood of the settings, which includes the River Styx-like catacombs, which have inspired set designers for decades. For the big masquerade ball, the film utilized early two-strip color, which makes the Phantom even more grand when he enters wearing a skull mask and deep red cape. The shot of the Phantom on the statue overlooking Christine and Raoul is wonderful.

Unlike some ironic early horror monsters like Bela Lugosi’s Dracula or Boris Karloff’s Mummy, this film holds up well with its good pacing and grand style. This film was a huge event in its day. It was booked in one theater in New York with only two showings a day. The Phantom’s face was purposely kept a secret. The film isn’t cinema art like NOSFERATU, but that’s because it wasn’t trying to be. It was trying to be entertainment and in doing so has become a great example of what pop art can attain.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

In this silent classic, Buster Keaton plays spoiled millionaire’s son Rollo Treadway, who wants to marry snobby rich girl Betsy O’Brien (Kathryn McGuire, SHERLOCK, JR.) He plans the wedding and books a cruise for their honeymoon. All he has to do now is ask her. However, she denies him. So, saddened Rollo heads out on the cruise by himself. Through some mishaps Rollo and Betsy both end up on a steamship that is set adrift in the ocean.

Most of the humor of the film comes from the two rich kids being completely helpless on the ship. The gags are often character based and flow nicely. Besides Keaton’s impeccable comic timing, this film shows off McGuire’s skills as well.

The only detriment to the film is its touch of cultural insensitivity. The film has many black characters, but they’re presence can be either read as simple or primitive or both. To call the film racist might be too much, because the film presents stereotypes rather than superiority and the black actors are never made to act over-the-top buffoonish.

An interesting thing about the film is that it was co-directed by Keaton and famed character actor Donald Crisp, who won an Academy Awards for his supporting work in HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY. Keaton thought Crisp could handle the film’s more dramatic moments while he tackled the comedy. However, Crisp was more interested in the comedy so Keaton ended up letting him go and directed the dramatic scenes as well.

The idea for the film came when Keaton saw the large ship being used on another picture and convinced the producer to buy it for $20,000 so that he could make a film using it. It just shows Keaton’s brilliance that he could design unique characters and an interesting plot from the simple inspiration of wanting to make a film around a ship. Keaton proves again that he is a master of both comedy and film.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

I love Buster Keaton. He was a genius of an amazing range of talents. Up until seeing this film, THE CAMERAMAN was my favorite of his work. Now it’s this film. In only 44 minutes Keaton has created one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen.

He plays a movie projectionist who is studying to be a detective. He wants to marry his girl (Kathryn McGuire, THE NAVIGATOR), but the local sheik (Ward Crane, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) also vies for her hand. After the sheik sets up the projectionist as stealing the girl’s father’s (Joe Keaton, THE GENERAL) watch, the wanna-be detective is heartbroken. He goes back to the theater and as he falls asleep he is transported into the crime film playing on the screen where he becomes the suave detective Sherlock, Jr.

The real life bumbling of the projectionist in contrast to the skills of Sherlock, Jr. is quite wonderful. Then comes the gags, which are a collection of some of the best Keaton has ever done. The most amazing part is that every gag helps build the character.

I absolutely loved the billiards sequence. The timing in the film is perfect. The special effects in the film are amazing and can make even the most observant film watcher scratch their heads and wonder how they were done. There’s one stunt where Keaton gets hit by a flow of water that years later Keaton discovered actually broke his neck and he didn’t even know it.

Keaton is so charming that his characters are inherently likable. Like Chaplin, he relatively played the same type of character, but for Keaton each film has a little bit of a twist. Here Keaton gets a chance to play two opposite characters, but we know they have the same heart. I cannot stress how amazing and laugh out loud funny this film is. If you’ve never seen a silent comedy before, this is the place to start. One of the best ever made.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Mel Brooks’ idea for making a silent movie was great, but the film doesn’t capitalize on its potential. Brooks plays Mel Funn, a recovering alcoholic film director who hasn’t had a hit in ages. Along with his sidekicks Marty Eggs (Marty Feldman, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN) and Dom Bell (Dom DeLuise, THE LOVED ONE), they set out to make a silent film.

Their Studio Chief (Sid Caesar, GREASE) doesn’t think it’s a good idea, but Funn sells it by saying he’ll get big stars. The Studio Chief is desperate because a huge conglomerate Engulf & Devour, run by Engulf (Harold Gould, THE STING) and Devour (Ron Carey, HISTORY OF THE WORLD: PART I), are staging a hostile takeover of Big Pictures Studio.

The film really works when it uses the clichés and conventions of a silent film to get laughs. I love when it uses title cards to either comment or counter the action happening on the screen. However, the film fails to completely captivate because the plot is just an excuse to string gags together.

You could say that about all silent comedies, but Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd knew how to weave the gags into the narrative seamlessly and create central characters with real pathos. Brooks doesn’t seem to care about the characters only the gags, which at times are older than most silent films. Cameos from stars Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minnelli, Anne Bancroft and Paul Newman have varying levels of success, but legendary mime Marcel Marceau gets one of the biggest laughs in the film.

In the end, the film serves as a “big production” comedy that doesn’t fire on all cylinders. Mel Brooks fans should certainly check it out, but others should skip it and find Brooks’ greatly underrated LIFE STINKS.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Canadian director Guy Maddin is known in film circles for making avant-garde cinema. His DRACULA: PAGES FROM A VIRGIN’S DIARY is just that. The film’s style perfectly captures the look and feel of a silent film like NOSFERATU. For effect, Maddin even uses color tinting to compliment the mood of the scenes. However, Maddin also uses the elements of silent films for comic effect — oh, how he has fun with melodramatic title cards.

Maddin tells the story of Dracula, mixing the plotline of the Bram Stoker novel with ballet. In 73 minutes, he boils down the plot into its key elements and presents an actually faithful adaptation of the Stoker tale. However, Maddin is too sly to make it that simple. He turns the novel’s themes of sexual promiscuity and foreign invaders into a contemporary satire on those issues. Dracula is played by Wei-Qiang Zhang, which highlights the irrational fears of immigration. The creature of the night stalks the blonde beauty Lucy (Tara Birtwhistle), but has his eyes set on the innocent Mina (CindyMarie Small, 2004’s SHALL WE DANCE?). Queue the xenophobic Dr. Van Helsing (David Moroni).

The ballet is graceful and fits perfectly with the silent film concept. The style does get overbearing at times and gets in the way of any real emotional connection, but it never bores. The short running time keeps the story flowing. Maddin has so many elements working at the same time that depending on how you want to watch it you could see a different kind of film on various viewings. The artistry of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet is so suited for the style that it’s amazing that it hasn’t been done before. So one could watch it as simply a dance film. Maddin so perfectly captures the look of silent melodramas — from the tints to the wipes to the iris shots to the acting style — one could reasonably take it as a lost film from the 1920s. But with all the elements put together and the modern wink winks that Maddin injects, the whole production could be seen as one big farce too.

The film is original, smart, erotic and creepy. For film fans desperate for something new, Maddin had to go back to something very old to bring it to us. His work is a great example of style enhancing substance… or even becoming it. For Maddin, this isn’t an experiment; this is his personal style. I want to see more. I’ve discovered another director worth waiting to see what he does next. I mean this more than I’ve ever meant this before — you’ve never seen anything like this before.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

I’ve seen almost as many Harold Lloyd films as I’ve seen Charlie Chaplin films now. I’m sadly behind on watching Buster Keaton films, which I will remedy as soon as I can. This film is Lloyd’s masterpiece. It perfectly balances story, gags and pathos.

Lloyd plays Harold Lamb, a teenager who is extremely excited to be attending Tate College. He over prepares himself for school and ends up looking like a fool to the upperclassman. Harold desperately wants to be as popular as the football captain Chet (James Anderson, FLEETWING). He throws his savings at the other students to make friends, but unbeknownst to him the college cad (Brooks Benedict, SPEEDY) ridicules him behind his back. This all saddens the young maid Peggy (Jobyna Ralston, WHY WORRY?), who meets Harold on the train and over time falls for him.

The story acts as a send-up of both college life and sports. Some of my favorite scenes include: the crossword puzzle moment, Harold’s “wardrobe malfunctions” during the dance and the big football game. Lloyd’s clueless determination and eternal optimism make the viewer relate to the character instantly. There’s also a wonderful visual moment when Harold cuts his picture out of the paper and tacks it to the wall next to Chet’s picture from the yearbook. This is revisited two times later with the last being sad and funny at the same time.

The movie is fun, smart and had some of the most humorous title cards I’ve ever seen in a silent comedy. Lloyd’s SAFETY LAST! will amaze you, but THE FRESHMAN will win your heart.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network