
You better learn how to write like James Agee. Good luck with that.
Excellent advice; you should take it. (Please remember that re-stating Agee's positions, or even Kerr's, does not constitute writing like them.)
Jump to: Board index » SILENTS » Talking About Silents
JLNeibaur wrote:As far as the importance of the Agee article is concerned -- I always understood that the real resurgence of screen comedy's popularity happened with the release of The Golden Age of Comedy (1958) which started out playing art houses and extended to a more mainstream release due to expanding interest. Laurel and Hardy were playing on TV, the Stooges started generating interest with a new generation (which continues to this day), and silent comedies were being marketed as kiddie fare (I remember in the early 60s discovering silent comedy via stuff like Funny Manns and Comedy Capers). I don't know that the Agee article made as much of a difference in the resurgence of silent comedy later on.
Mike Gebert wrote: silent comedy tends to divide between people who like the anarchic, zany humor of Sennett and people who like the solid construction and more realistic situation comedy of Roach.
oldposterho wrote:Mike Gebert wrote: silent comedy tends to divide between people who like the anarchic, zany humor of Sennett and people who like the solid construction and more realistic situation comedy of Roach.
That can actually be said of all comedy, not just the silents. It's one of those mysterious barriers that can separate groups of people and empty the bullpen when one group or the other feels slighted.
For the record, Langdon creeps me out, but I also can barely stand Chaplin (there, I said it). However, I laugh out loud when I do watch their films but my gut reaction is as noted. Just personal taste.
--Peter
FredFitch wrote:????
Agee loved the Keystones. You do realize he was going to see them as a kid, right? If anything, his view of them was colored by those golden childhood memories of his dad taking him to see 'Charlie' at the local theater.
Kerr gave them quite a bit of time, but seriously--they are not great films. They're not. C'mon. Important films, sure. Like Melies is important in the development of films using special effects, but do they hold up in their own right today? Some more than others, but the Hal Roach comedies hold up a lot better.
Bob Birchard wrote:
While it may be true that Agee's literary star does not burn as brightly as it once did, it is essentially irrelevant with regard to his piece on silent comedy, which was revolutionary in its day and age, and which essentially (along with silent comedies on kiddie TV in the late 1940s and early 1950s) started the reevaluation of the form and the practitioners thereof. This essay has become a "standard text," and will remain so even after Agee's poetry and fiction have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Agee was also writing at a time when it was difficult to see a lot of the films he was recalling. Of the fifty Sennett films on the Blu-Ray set, likely no more than a dozen would have been easily accessible in 1949. Not to say they weren't out there, but that it would have required some diligent effort to see them all at the time.
It also must be remembered that elevating Keaton, Lloyd and, to whatever extent, Langdon, took some cajones and imagination at the time. Lloyd had essentially been off the screen since 1938, and even by then his best work was long behind him and largely unseen since original release. Keaton would have been known to most, if at all, in 1949 as an occasional bit player whose current work bore no relation to the genius Agee suggested existed in his silent features. Likewise, Langdon, already dead for five years, would have been remembered for some mildly amusing (at best) Columbia shorts and for NOT being Stan Laurel in ZENOBIA.
Likewise, the Sennett vs. Roach dynamic (and this still pretty much holds sway) was tainted by the fact that only the best of the Hal Roach Studio stuff was consistently revived, while the worst (and there was so much of it) remained largely unseen, while Sennett was often represented by Chaplin Keystones and some clips that appeared in occasional Warner Bros. pastiches, and a few Chester Conklin, Mack Swain and Ford Sterling reels that happened to be handy and not at all "filtered" for their cinematic excellence.
Even after all the discussion since Agee's essay appeared, did he really get anything wrong? He might have used a wider sampling (had it been available); he might have thought higher of Langdon (had he been able to revisit any of Harry's silent features at the time); he might even have moved Laurel & Hardy into the pantheon with the other three or four (but who knew of their enduring appeal and just how much better they were than most of the other 2-reel practitioners--the perspective just wasn't there).
Agee's essay was an informed piece of intellectual "slumming," based on memories that for the most part were twenty or more years old. He created awareness, and desire. Those of us fans of silent comedy owe much to his pioneering opinion piece. The challenge, or gauntlet, laid down by Agee has led many to look more closely at the silent comedy "food chain," and add immeasurably to the shelf of opinion and criticism on the subject. Today there are whole books on silent comics like Ford Sterling, Lloyd Hamilton, Laurel & Hardy, Our Gang, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Edgar Kennedy, et. al. and more on the way--there has even been a massive tome chronicling the dreck of the Roach Studios, undertaken because others have already chronicled the studio's better output. None of these would have likely seen the light of day if Agee had not written his piece in the first place.
So, this "ancient" thread has reopened for discussion. At least here there is discussion, rather than the endless posting of youtube links and decade old Cinevent notes that make up the not very interesting content of a group that shall remain nameless.
Bob Birchard wrote:As Smari1989 writes, you have to take Agee in his time. In the late 1940s NO ONE was thinking about silent comedy, and no one had been thinking about it since the release of MODERN TIMES in 1936--except, perhaps, for those misguided souls who somehow felt the Marx Bros. embraced silent comedy (via Harpo) even as they pioneered a "new" all talking vaudeville sensibility that propelled film comedy in new directions.
While it may be true that Agee's literary star does not burn as brightly as it once did, it is essentially irrelevant with regard to his piece on silent comedy, which was revolutionary in its day and age, and which essentially (along with silent comedies on kiddie TV in the late 1940s and early 1950s) started the reevaluation of the form and the practitioners thereof. This essay has become a "standard text," and will remain so even after Agee's poetry and fiction have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
JLNeibaur wrote:Bob Birchard wrote:
While it may be true that Agee's literary star does not burn as brightly as it once did, it is essentially irrelevant with regard to his piece on silent comedy, which was revolutionary in its day and age, and which essentially (along with silent comedies on kiddie TV in the late 1940s and early 1950s) started the reevaluation of the form and the practitioners thereof. This essay has become a "standard text," and will remain so even after Agee's poetry and fiction have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Agee was also writing at a time when it was difficult to see a lot of the films he was recalling. Of the fifty Sennett films on the Blu-Ray set, likely no more than a dozen would have been easily accessible in 1949. Not to say they weren't out there, but that it would have required some diligent effort to see them all at the time.
It also must be remembered that elevating Keaton, Lloyd and, to whatever extent, Langdon, took some cajones and imagination at the time. Lloyd had essentially been off the screen since 1938, and even by then his best work was long behind him and largely unseen since original release. Keaton would have been known to most, if at all, in 1949 as an occasional bit player whose current work bore no relation to the genius Agee suggested existed in his silent features. Likewise, Langdon, already dead for five years, would have been remembered for some mildly amusing (at best) Columbia shorts and for NOT being Stan Laurel in ZENOBIA.
Likewise, the Sennett vs. Roach dynamic (and this still pretty much holds sway) was tainted by the fact that only the best of the Hal Roach Studio stuff was consistently revived, while the worst (and there was so much of it) remained largely unseen, while Sennett was often represented by Chaplin Keystones and some clips that appeared in occasional Warner Bros. pastiches, and a few Chester Conklin, Mack Swain and Ford Sterling reels that happened to be handy and not at all "filtered" for their cinematic excellence.
Even after all the discussion since Agee's essay appeared, did he really get anything wrong? He might have used a wider sampling (had it been available); he might have thought higher of Langdon (had he been able to revisit any of Harry's silent features at the time); he might even have moved Laurel & Hardy into the pantheon with the other three or four (but who knew of their enduring appeal and just how much better they were than most of the other 2-reel practitioners--the perspective just wasn't there).
Agee's essay was an informed piece of intellectual "slumming," based on memories that for the most part were twenty or more years old. He created awareness, and desire. Those of us fans of silent comedy owe much to his pioneering opinion piece. The challenge, or gauntlet, laid down by Agee has led many to look more closely at the silent comedy "food chain," and add immeasurably to the shelf of opinion and criticism on the subject. Today there are whole books on silent comics like Ford Sterling, Lloyd Hamilton, Laurel & Hardy, Our Gang, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Edgar Kennedy, et. al. and more on the way--there has even been a massive tome chronicling the dreck of the Roach Studios, undertaken because others have already chronicled the studio's better output. None of these would have likely seen the light of day if Agee had not written his piece in the first place.
So, this "ancient" thread has reopened for discussion. At least here there is discussion, rather than the endless posting of youtube links and decade old Cinevent notes that make up the not very interesting content of a group that shall remain nameless.
I am glad it was reopened, as it has been interesting to read the most recent comments. I agree we are at a better vantage point with regard to the accessibility of the Keystone films (restored on blu ray with appropriate musical accompaniment, no less). While I find James Agee to be one of the more interesting film critics of that era (for Time and The Nation), I always understood him to have had little impact during his lifetime, and that his work gained added recognition after he died. I appreciate the significance of Comedy's Greatest Era, but really think the Youngson compilations and the issuing of silent comedies as TV kiddie fare are more responsible for people our age to have picked up and carried the interest further. I've always been more attracted to cinema's aesthetics than its trivial history (it's pretty unnerving to listen to DVD commentaries hoping to hear something regarding the comedian's creative process, and to instead get where the fourth billed actor bought his hats), so I certainly appreciate a discussion thread like this one.
JN
Daniel Eagan wrote:Bob Birchard wrote:As Smari1989 writes, you have to take Agee in his time. In the late 1940s NO ONE was thinking about silent comedy, and no one had been thinking about it since the release of MODERN TIMES in 1936--except, perhaps, for those misguided souls who somehow felt the Marx Bros. embraced silent comedy (via Harpo) even as they pioneered a "new" all talking vaudeville sensibility that propelled film comedy in new directions.
Not having been alive in the late 1940s, I don't like to make assumptions about cultural life at the time. However, silent comedy couldn't have been completely neglected. The Perils of Pauline came out in 1947, and while it may not be a very good movie it was set in and around silent comedy. The Sin of Harold Diddlebock/Mad Wednesday may not have been a success, but again had to have raised awareness of silent comedy (and received a ton of publicity as well). Lloyd eventually got a Golden Globe nomination, and the film played at Cannes.
Keaton was no longer a comedy icon, but he did okay. A bit part in In the Good Old Summertime would have exposed him to a fairly large audience; earlier in the decade he appeared in a number of B-movies, like San Diego I Love You. He continued writing, was returning to the stage, and would soon have roles in Sunset Boulevard and Limelight. I'm not trying to make a case that Keaton and Lloyd received anywhere near the attention they did twenty years earlier, but it is clear they were still part of the industry. They functioned something like stars of the 1930s did twenty years later, performing in smaller roles but bringing their history along with them.
And of course cartoons continued to ransack silent comedy for ideas and bits, just as television would loot the silent library for material to broadcast.While it may be true that Agee's literary star does not burn as brightly as it once did, it is essentially irrelevant with regard to his piece on silent comedy, which was revolutionary in its day and age, and which essentially (along with silent comedies on kiddie TV in the late 1940s and early 1950s) started the reevaluation of the form and the practitioners thereof. This essay has become a "standard text," and will remain so even after Agee's poetry and fiction have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Writing criticism for The Nation used to mean a lot more than it does now; writing film reviews for Time gave Agee huge exposure. As for a spread in Life, it was the equivalent of a piece on 60 Minutes today. Whether he was "right" or "wrong" about silent comedy, his opinion carried weight, perhaps more with the intelligentsia than with the mainstream. But John Huston was just about to hire him to work on The African Queen, about as high profile as you could get at the time.
Bob Birchard wrote:I did not suggest that silent comedies had disappeared, only that it took some effort to see them.
In the late 1940s NO ONE was thinking about silent comedy, and no one had been thinking about it since the release of MODERN TIMES in 1936
Few average moviegoers of the time would have had any sense of his past glory.
Daniel Eagan wrote:Bob Birchard wrote:I did not suggest that silent comedies had disappeared, only that it took some effort to see them.
But you originally wrote:In the late 1940s NO ONE was thinking about silent comedy, and no one had been thinking about it since the release of MODERN TIMES in 1936
That suggests some sort of collective amnesia about a dominant social and cultural medium that was occurring not even twenty years earlier. That's really hard to believe, given the way art forms feed on their past. I think consumers of the time were more familiar with silent stars than we're willing to give them credit for.
You write about Keaton thatFew average moviegoers of the time would have had any sense of his past glory.
I'd argue just the opposite. The only reason he got that stupid bit part in In the Good Old Summertime was because of his history as a silent comedian. That's why producers continued to hire him for beer commercials, TV shows, beach party cameos, etc.
Yes, he wasn't making movies like The General in the 1940s, but he wasn't that performer anymore either. He was a different person, he adjusted, the marketplace adjusted, and he found a comfortable niche essentially re-enacting bits from earlier in his career. Older viewers recognized what he was doing, younger viewers saw an old guy doing bits.
You complain that kids today don't know who Joan Crawford is. Or Clark Gable. But if you asked them about their own stars, stars you probably don't recognize, they do just fine. They get it when Katy Perry hires Lenny Kravitz and Missy Elliot for her Super Bowl show, even though neither Kravitz nor Elliot will ever be as big as they used to be. Chevy Chase wasn't hired for Community because he was funny, it was because he was a former SNL and movie star.
Keaton and all the other silent clowns committed the cardinal sin of getting old. On one level that's what Mad Wednesday is about.
Bob Birchard wrote:Would FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND been possible, however, without the cultural boost of the LIFE/Chaney article? Perhaps. Shock Theater was just making its way to TV, but it seems pretty clear to me that the desire to explore horrors past came at least in part from the Cagney/Chaney piece in LIFE, and although there was a lot of current horror and sci-fi in the 1950s, it did not capture the imagination in quite the same way that images of Chaney and METROPOLIS did.
Jack Theakston wrote:MAN OF A THOUSAND FACES falls under a different kind of nostalgia of the 1920s that was cultivated by the studios in other biopics like BUSTER KEATON STORY, LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, I'LL CRY TOMORROW, etc., and probably reaching fever-pitch on television with THE UNTOUCHABLES.
Return to Talking About Silents
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests