Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

HAROLD LLOYD, as well as Keaton

Marc Chevalier

Gone Home
Messages
18,192
Location
Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Matt, you're right; all of you are right. Keaton was sublime.

But Harold Lloyd ... the fella with the glasses ... holds a special place. Lloyd's persona was a 1920s version of many of us: a pleasant-looking guy with a flaw (poor eyesight), striving for middle-class (or higher) stability and respectability, and living firmly in his time ("the Age of Ballyhoo") and place (small town and big city America). The Man with the Glasses made a fool of himself in the most typical situations of modern life (at an amusement park, on a subway train), yet he never let anyone make a fool of him and get away with it. In other words, Harold Lloyd was a proto-Bugs Bunny: he always had the last laugh (which is precisely what we want to have in our own lives)!

At the height of his career, Lloyd was one of the most popular and highest-paid stars of his time, whose films made (in today's money) more than a billion dollars. While his achievements have been overshadowed by the work of contemporaries Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, he made more films than the two of them combined. With hits like his 1922 film "Grandma’s Boy", Lloyd became a strong force in bringing about the advent of the "feature-length" film.

Born in Nebraska in 1894, Lloyd’s stage career began at the age of 12. Although he had none of Chaplin’s or Keaton’s childhood Vaudeville training, the young Nebraskan had a natural talent that led him to make the most dangerous tumbles and falls seem effortless. In 1913, Lloyd moved with his father to Los Angeles, where the motion picture industry was still in its infancy. There he tried desperately to break into show business, taking any small part he could get. Lloyd soon made friends with another extra, Hal Roach, who was putting together his own production company. In a short while the company had taken off and was making movies featuring Lloyd as "Lonesome Luke," a Chaplin-inspired bumbler. While "Lonesome Luke" was popular, Lloyd knew his mimicry of Chaplin was inevitably a dead end.

In 1917, Lloyd began work on a new character, one that was to remain a signature through out his career. With round glasses, a straw boater and a mail-order suit, this new invention still had many of the qualities associated with Chaplin’s "Little Tramp", but something was different. Lloyd's persona seemed both the fool and the fox, able to outsmart the bad guy (though only by a hair). In 1919, at the height of his acclaim, a tragedy struck. While posing for a studio photograph, Lloyd was handed what he imagined to be a fake bomb and lit it with a cigarette. The excessive smoke, strange for a papier-mache prop, made Lloyd realize that the photograph would suffer. He figured that they'd try again, with another "bomb" prop -- as he reached to place the first bomb on the table, it exploded.

The force of the blast tore a hole in the sixteen-foot ceiling of the studio. The photographer fainted. Lloyd, still in his mark, didn't register what happened until moments later, when the pain just started to set in. He described his face as "raw meat." He couldn't see out of either eye after the blast. However, more painful was the permanent reminder of this fateful day: the thumb and forefinger of his right hand were severed.

Lloyd was rushed to the Methodist Hospital, which would be his home for the next month and a half. His eyesight eventually returned, but for a while the doctors feared for his right eye. Physicians also worried that gangrene might set in on his face, and the gashes in his lips produced cracks that were very painful. Lloyd noted that "the pain was considerable, but trivial compared with my mental state." He had good reason to be worried. The story was front-page news and it seemed the end of this daredevil’s career.

Never the quitter, Lloyd bounced back and made dozens more films, among them his best and most highly acclaimed, including "Safety Last" (1923) and "Speedy" (1928). Even into the talkies era, Lloyd persisted while many other silent movie stars threw in the towel. In 1971, twenty-three years after his last feature film, he died in his Hollywood mansion.

From his early black-and-white shorts to his full-length talkies, Lloyd recognized that humor was nothing without a sense of play. Athletic and rigorous, he could fall from a window as well as he could scale a wall. It was said that Lloyd was not a natural comedian, rather, that he was a great actor playing comedic roles. His ability to create multi-dimensional characters, both funny and moving, has helped to shape our contemporary view of what a comic actor can be.

Lloyd also understood the role fear could play in heightening comedy. One day while on his way to the studio, he watched a man scaling the side of a building. Crowds had gathered around and were completely consumed by the sight of the climber. Lloyd knew that if he could keep an audience on the edge of their seats like this, he could make them laugh even harder. So, using the tricks of photographic perspective, he began to shoot scenes that looked as if they were happening on the sides of buildings, on scaffoldings, or hanging from clocks. These acrobatic hijinks seemed amazingly real in a time before special effects. More than simply renewing the audience’s interest in his work, these progressive techniques earned him the respect of others in the film industry.

Looking at the other films of the time and at the progress of comic acting and cinematography since, it is clear that Lloyd’s inspired work was an essential part in the growth of the industry. In his brilliant 1923 epic, "Girl Shy", Lloyd employed many of the high-action comic bits that made him famous. In its climactic chase scene, we recognize the beginnings of the action film genre, and can see the influence on movies from "Ben Hur" to "Speed". While Harold Lloyd’s name had -- until recently -- all but been forgotten by the public, this Nebraskan's spirit lives on in the movie industry he helped to create.
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,228
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Nice post!

I love Lloyd's films too - but back then, as now, selling the most tickets doesn't prove that you're the superior artist. Lloyd's films are fine-tuned laugh machines (literally: he often recut repeatedly after testing his films with audiences to make sure the jokes flowed optimally), and he was a master architect of audience sympathy. But he was *of* his time a lot more than either Chaplin or Keaton, and that's both his blessing and his curse:

It's good in the sense that his films are a magnificent window into what the vast majority of ordinary folks thought/felt in the 20s (not to mention how things looked). There's an almost Sinclair Lewis accuracy about the films' and characters' brash, optimistic, zippy "modern" world of the time (minus even a trace of Lewis's acid cynicism - Lloyd was too concerned with being *nice*). Some of it hasn't aged well: for example, there's a fawning love and respect for the rich and beautiful, but with a stark obviousness that doesn't have a trace of modern irony. Lloyd's characters aspired to win the big game, the boss's daughter, and conventional success... without any questioning, deep thinking, or irony.

This same superficiality keeps Lloyd from being an *artist* in the sense that Chaplin and Keaton were. There is no criticism of society, just a total embracing of the nice-guy work-ethic and the assumption that the winners always deserve to win. Chaplin's social criticism and his idealism of nature - not to mention his sympathy for the poor and disenfranchised - is nowhere to be found. Keaton's man-vs.-machine and man-vs.-nature and man-vs.-woman, etc., messages are absent. And Lloyd lacks both Chaplin's grace and Keaton's eternal coolness, gesticulating like mad where Chaplin floats and Keaton always underplays.

In a way, they always played themselves:

Chaplin was the Victorian sentimentalist with the Dickensian childhood, the eternal everyman outsider who could become anyone when presented with the right props and situation (note: the true precursor of Bugs Bunny!) - but there was always tremendous sadness and loss just kept at bay by his jaunty antics.

Keaton (the product of a unique childhood as a vaudeville star who had never spent a day in school) was the odd, simultaneously human and superhuman cipher who faced the huge obstacles in his path stoically, following convention at times, but always mystified by it.

Lloyd *was* the average American of the time - energetic, clever, hardworking... and utterly conventional. It's no accident that he always managed to fit into society at the end of his films, while Chaplin and Keaton favored more abstract and ambiguous endings. And it's no accident that Lloyd's great symbol was climbing buildings: he was the ultimate social climber.

Again, I love Lloyd, and I have seen most of his films (I've owned some on film for many years) and read all the biographies. At his best, he is downright hilarious and very inventive. And unlike Chaplin or Keaton, he hung onto his fame and possessions and always remained the Hollywood insider.

But there's a part of me that's very bothered by the fact that in the early 1950s, when Chaplin was denied a return visa by US immigration witch-hunters because of his long history of outspoken politics (and Keaton was barely eeking out an existance in live TV, forgotten by the Hollywood bigwigs he had made rich), Lloyd received a special Oscar for being a "good citizen".

That's too perfect. You can't make this stuff up!
 

Marc Chevalier

Gone Home
Messages
18,192
Location
Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Doctor Strange said:
Nice post!
And nice reposte!



Doctor Strange said:
Lloyd's characters aspiried to win the big game, the boss's daughter, and conventional success... without any questioning, deep thinking, or irony.
Agreed, with one big exception: Lloyd's 1947 talkie, The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (aka Mad Wednesday), written and directed by none other than Preston Sturges. The very premise is irony itself: Lloyd's persona, the big game winner of 1924's "The Freshman", is immediately offered a desk job "with great possibilities" befitting such a "young man of promise." Twenty years pass, and the "possibilities" never materialize. Harold Diddlebock, that "young man of promise," ends up a hunched-over, middle-aged failure in a cubicle ... until he is unceremoniously fired to make room for "new blood." So much for the American Dream, '20s-style. The tetotalling Diddlebock, now on the street, finds his way into a bar, takes a drink, and ...
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,228
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
I've seen "Diddlebock". It's a great idea, but not that well executed. It starts very strong, but eventually runs out of steam and substitutes noisy slapstick for the sharper comedy that both Preston Sturges and Harold Lloyd were eminently capable of. (I love Struges too, but he was past his prime by the time he made this film.)

But I agree that it's awfully interesting, and it shows the Lloyd could be a little deeper when he got a push. And that opening (where twenty years have passed and he's at the same desk) is priceless.

========
"I'm just a regular fella. Step right up and call me 'Speedy'!" - Harold's inane trademark line (stollen from a silly movie about college life) that he wears out when he gets to college in "The Freshman"
 

Matt Deckard

Man of Action
Messages
10,045
Location
A devout capitalist in Los Angeles CA.
I have a lot of watching to do. I have seen just about everything available on Buster and Chaplain, though I still have to get into Lloyd.

What I love about the era ofthe silent comadies is the use of physical comedy that was developed on the vaudville stage and perfected for use in silent movies. Physical comedy today to me is too encumbered by special effects and stunt doubles. Thankfully we have Jackie Chan.

I'm going to stock up on the Harold Lloyd and Popcorn and Felix The Cat Silent films and come up with a more intellectual response to this thread.

I will say... It may take some time as Clara Bow is ahead of Harold in the silent movie list
 
I watched Diddlebock last week for the first time in probably 25 years. Yeah, it's rough, all right, charming but rough. I thought the funniest scene was the slapstick bit with the lion on the ledge.

But even though everyone says Sturges was done by then, '47, he still had 'Unfaithfully Yours' just a year in the offing, and I find this to be one of his best films. Maybe it was because it was actually written some 15 years before being filmed.

Don't want to hijack this thread, so perhaps we need to get a Sturges thread going.

Regards,

Senator Jack
 

jake_fink

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,279
Location
Taranna
One of the best bits in the neglected Diddlebock:

When Diddlebock and his new found friend enter a bar and tell the bartender that Diddlebock hasn't had a drink. The bartender asks if he means that he hasn't had a drink today, and Diddlebock responds that he has never had a drink, ever in his life.

"Sir," the bartender says, his eyes starry, "you inspire me."

He then creates "The Diddlebock"

Laughs ensue.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,263
Messages
3,032,533
Members
52,727
Latest member
j2points
Top