Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Daily Dose of Doozy #1: Comedy's Golden Age-The View from the 1950s


Recommended Posts

I think a lot of people are entirely missing some key points. First, Agee was writing a mere twenty years after sound was introduced. That’s less than one full generation of new comedians having developed for the screen, and already television was blooming in color. He was, in Monty Python’s famous phrase, “pining for the fiords.” His example, comparing the scene from “Paleface” to the one from “Navigator,” makes perfectly obvious the kind of extremes he references as the new weaknesses and absences in the “best” of what was then contemporary comedy. Much has changed since then and the “golden age of television” plus the “golden age of stand-up” had a great deal to do with that. So, then, we also have to consider precisely what people mean by “golden age,” another point people are missing. It really does have a meaning, artistically. It refers to a time when key forms are set in stone, rules are laid down that continue to be followed for generations after, and masterpieces are created by gifted artists that are considered timeless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed your responses. I agree with most of not all of your thoughts. Humor has definitely evolved and not necessarily for the better. I think the funniest stuff I've seen in movies are the gags involving self-embarrassment where the real Humor is reflecting on one's own short comings but not being ashamed of it but rather putting it out there for the universe. I cried from laughter in Will Ferrel and John C. Reply bits from Taladega Nights and Step Brothers. I will say this I cannot see John C. Reily as a serious performer any longer. He is way too good at playing straight in the silliest of circumstances. Probably my favourite quote was when he referred to grandpa's comment as "kind of creepy ain't it!" It's a different almost obnoxious humor we see by today's standards where as the artistry was self reflection whether silly, awkward, off putting, or otherwise. The Humor is more selfish seems to be the evolution. We are in 'selfie' times by society's standards. All the fans of yesteryears comedy escape the modern when we tune in to silent slapstick, or situational screwball. True standard or test of comedy should be do we laugh so much and so hard that we cannot contain ourselves...

 

Just more thoughts :)

Standards of humor are always going to be different from one person to another, from one culture to another (even within broader cultures) and from one time period to another. Certain broader aspects of humor will never change. The question of what is funny to any individual has to do with their personal sense of humor. The question of what is funny in a creative/artistic sense is a different matter. It is a hard line to define, though, especially when you aren't finding things "funny" for whatever reason.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you agree or disagree with Agee and Youngson's statements that the silent films from 1912 – 1930 constituted "comedy's greatest era" or its "golden age?" Why or why not?

 

As I get older  I can appreciate the pure genius behind the invention of moving pictures and have come to value most nearly everything from fashion to automobiles that were made in the past. That being said, I don't think I would necessarily agree with Agee and Youngson. In fact, with the exception of Mel Brook's "Silent Movie," I don't think that I can say I've laughed nearly as hard watching/reading any of the old movies. When a movie makes me laugh so hard that tears roll down my cheeks, or I have to stop and walk away to compose myself, that is what comedy is-period! Perhaps I haven't seen enough of the silent movies to say that anyone of them strike me as funny as Mel Brooks or Woody Allen films, but either way the title of comedy's greatest era would be an overstatement. Golden age would be more appropriate.

 

2. Do you agree with the film's narrator that in the silent film era the "gags were completely visual—a form of wit that has all but disappeared from the land, but which experts now agree were among the most imaginative and enduring comedy of all…?” Did this form of comedy "disappear" or did it simply evolve in the sound era?

It would be too easy to say that the visual nature of gags has all but disappeared, but perhaps at the time Agee & Youngson created their compilation, it may have been true. Comedy relies on gestures and gags so it would be hard to say that these aren't used anymore. It would be better to say that some comedies aren't as funny as others and perhaps that's what they are lacking.

 

I do agree that the gags in the film clips were pretty darn imaginative. I especially like how the film clip revealed to the audience the tricks behind the scenes and then incorporated them into the show.

3. What impact do you think documentaries, compilation films, and essays like these have had on popular opinion about the silent film era?

For me, this compilation helps be to better understand an era that I most likely would pass on. In my childhood, I found black & white movies boring and silent films were especially annoying. After watching TCM's summer of noir films last year, I've gained a whole new interest and perspective on black & white movies. My interest in silent films is on the rise too as I continue with this course.

I had a young friend the other day who lost all of her photographs stored on a hard drive. After consoling her, I tried to remind her that civilization had existed for 10,000 years without not only hard drives but without photographs, entertaining their memories of people, places and things with...memories, as elusive as those may be. She'll be more careful in the future, I'm certain. Paying attention is always important, but understanding what is and isn't taking place is always key. Seeing things in THEIR context rather than your own becomes crucial when you want to understand them rather than yourself (although, of course, understanding yourself is also crucial). Before color there was no color in film and people were entertained by black and white. Before sound people were absolutely fascinated by silent films. There is no reason why we cannot place ourselves, as human beings, back into the consciousness of people who lived only two and three generations before us. We have not become so brainwashed by sound and color, by television and digital effects, that we cannot use our own minds.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Standards of humor are always going to be different from one person to another, from one culture to another (even within broader cultures) and from one time period to another. Certain broader aspects of humor will never change. The question of what is funny to any individual has to do with their personal sense of humor. The question of what is funny in a creative/artistic sense is a different matter. It is a hard line to define, though, especially when you aren't finding things "funny" for whatever reason.

That's true. I'm actually evaluating "standards" of Humor during this course. It really does come down to the individual. Maybe that's why societies have progressed the way we have. Another question your comments raised for me is is it funny if we do not laugh? I believe yes. Just because we state "lol" virtually does not make laugh out loud reality. And when we laugh it isn't always funny. Those type scenarios intrigue me. There are also different types of laughs I.e. Out of humility or because a group of people laugh we laugh aloud in a herd mentality. Also, another point I'd add is when I laugh it isn't always authentic I've learnt from a comedian who pointed out he'd rather hear no laughs than sarcastic ones :) naturally I shut up after that. After all I felt my laugh was being picked on. Now I question my own laughs. There were times (like when I was younger) when I was less analytical I'm sure, but not anymore... Especially in the hugely PC environment we've created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Physical comedy didn't die, it evolved. Just a few examples where while there was sound in the scenes, it was the physical comedy that made you laugh; Harpo Marx in anything, Don Knotts in the Ghost and Mr. Chicken, Rowen Atkinson in everything Mr Bean, and Chevy Chase in Christmas Vacation. There are a great many more but these are, in my view, examples where you can turn the sound off in a number of scenes and they would be just as funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, like everyone else..   all of whom made WONDERFUL points..   here are my two cents.

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with Agee and Youngson's statements that the silent films from 1912 – 1930 constituted "comedy's greatest era" or its "golden age?" Why or why not?

Looking back AT the years in question, with a broader expanse to take into account, I would say that 1912 - 1930 constituted "comedy's greatest slapstick era" and was slapstick's "golden age".  Gags were concise and to the point. 

Even the longer gags evolved. IE  Buster's cow gag in "Go West" progressed and moved the plot along, literally through the town.  (it could have been a wee bit shorter, imho).

At the risk of being stoned. my humble theory is that,  when sound came along, performers, Chaplin as an example, felt he had to KEEP talking.. it was sound, after all. 

My intro to him was a talkie, I don't even know which one, but I thought he'd never shut up. Twice in the film he jabbered on and on; I finally turned it off.  His Silents are amazing. So, comparing his talkies to his Silents, those earlier films were indeed better (in my opinion). To this day I still don't watch his talkies.

Looking at the film comedies of the 50's, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_films_of_the_1950s, they're pretty dialogue driven. Of the ones I've seen, Abbott and Costello aside, if one were to  measure their slapstick quotient: exaggeration, physicality, make believe, violent or ritualistic aspects I'd have to say the pre-1930s films were definitely the "golden age" of slapstick.

Sheer comedy quality? It's like comparing apples to oranges. Shorter, Silent comedy films w/ a predominantly instinctively, direct focus on funny vs. longer talkies with comedy interludes. As difficult as it is to make an entire film of visual gags, it's even harder to do so w/ dialogue.   

Charlie's banana peel vs "Heeeey, Abbbbbbottttt"....   it's a toss up, for me at least.




2. Do you agree with the film's narrator that in the silent film era the "gags were completely visual—a form of wit that has all but disappeared from the land, but which experts now agree were among the most imaginative and enduring comedy of all…?” Did this form of comedy "disappear" or did it simply evolve in the sound era?

Perhaps they were "completely visual" in that you don't need sound to understand and appreciate them, but one can not deny that sound enhances the film content and viewing experience.

Machines such as the fotoplayer (http://laist.com/2013/12/22/this_crazy_instrument_made_the_musi.php) were in use.  The organs installed in the theaters of the era (The Silent Film Society of Chicago continues to use one) also had non-musical sound effects to augment the film. So, yes, they may have been successful from a completely visual perspective, but as with other things, one must consider the quality of the experience.

As far as the evolution of sound...  it just picked up where the live organists left off and never looked back.   That's why we have foley artists...   "Foley artists match live sound effects with the action of the picture. The sound effects are laid "manually" and not cut in with film. " http://filmsound.org/terminology/foley.htm

 

 

 

3. What impact do you think documentaries, compilation films, and essays like these have had on popular opinion about the silent film era?

 

Any documentary or compilation film, to be POSITIVELY worthwhile, first off, has to give you enough information about a clip so that, if your interest is piqued, you are able to track it or the performer down.  Otherwise you have the equivalent of a fat, fact-laden book without an index. Useless. 

Documentaries have evolved over the years, as others have pointed out... some tend to pass over the origins of film as primitive or are demeaning. Those do the era a disservice.

I think, if more documentaries / compilation films were made in the vein of our Web Lectures (not to sound like a brown-nose) and made available to the general public, that more people would be inclined to explore the genre. 

The web lectures are:
1) brief & don't over tax the time or attention span. (How much of today's society is wired.)
2) They reference names, titles, dates, matters of interest and clips of interest making it easy to pursue the interest.  
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One scene that immediately comes to mind for me when comparing these two eras is a direct reference to the difficulties of the switch to sound films in Singin' in the Rain. The first cut of a silent star's first sound film has the audience laughing their heads off at how badly they made the transition, but the meta-narrative level is that it's deliberately funny for us watching the movie. I'm thinking especially of Don's melodramatic tossing his cane away, causing it to make a giant crashing noise when it lands; the joke is entirely dependent on sound, yet is also undeniably in the slapstick genre.

 

One of my first exposures to silent films was a compilation of Harold Lloyd's work at age five, which instantly cured me of the notion that movies that old couldn't have any enjoyment in modern times. So these kinds of documentaries definitely serve their purpose in that way, as kind of a stepping stone for people not quite sure if the era is for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes I agree with Agee and Youngson's statements about silent films from 1912-1930 being constituted as "comedy's greatest era" or "golden age". I believe this because the original characters and the original films were the first actors/actresses and first films to be scene. Anyone that tries to do a remake has to live up to the people before them. That is why you hear people say the classic was better or the book was better before the movie and so on. It has to be hard making remakes of films before because your not going to get that same atmosphere and feeling as the first. Its all new and the perspective of the story is all new and its not the same.

 

2. I agree that in the silent film era the gags were completely visual but I don't think they have disappeared completely today. I think sound has boosted the gags over time. Sound puts an extra feeling and emphasis within the films and at moments of comedy. It draws our attention more and we are able to remember those moments more when we laugh because we remember not only what happened but the music as well.

 

3. I think the impact made on me is the fact that these documentaries, compilation films, and essay's teach and go more into depth with silent film. Go behind the scenes and what it takes to make these films. What makes slapstick comedy and how its impacted the world when it was first established. It's a great way to get in sites on each and everything. People will better understand and appreciate it more. At least I know this is what it has done for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what I've read and watched! Yes this was the Golden Era of comedy! Through those decades something wonderful happened, the cinema! The cinema was expanding along with the genres and comedy was one of the first genres that created the cinema! All those gangs and prunks and slapstick silent films were not silent they were loud and powerful as they tried to bring the laughs to a world that was changing and that was tearing apart. There were never be like this before so primitive and original. The need for people to laugh was huge and the cinema offered those films to the generations tht suffered a lot from depression and wars. Yes we may look at them as a jewel from the past, maybe we're curious to know and learn how everything happened just for the history. The sure thing is that the basis was there and what we see now has its roots over the Golden Age of Comedy! I loved watching the film! Thanks a lot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. I'm actually evaluating "standards" of Humor during this course. It really does come down to the individual. Maybe that's why societies have progressed the way we have. Another question your comments raised for me is is it funny if we do not laugh? I believe yes. Just because we state "lol" virtually does not make laugh out loud reality. And when we laugh it isn't always funny. Those type scenarios intrigue me. There are also different types of laughs I.e. Out of humility or because a group of people laugh we laugh aloud in a herd mentality. Also, another point I'd add is when I laugh it isn't always authentic I've learnt from a comedian who pointed out he'd rather hear no laughs than sarcastic ones :) naturally I shut up after that. After all I felt my laugh was being picked on. Now I question my own laughs. There were times (like when I was younger) when I was less analytical I'm sure, but not anymore... Especially in the hugely PC environment we've created.

You're revealing why things do and don't make you laugh and part of it is the self-consciousness you feel at times. For others, as it has been revealed over and over in the comments, it is the cultural standardization that certain criteria have to be met (color, sound, digitization, music, etc.) to make things funny. Some people require a certain tempo. For me it has always been a question of timing, and I think that is something I share with a lot of people because it is something comedians have talked about for generations. Some people respond to the violent action. I don't believe there are hard and fast rules. Children find certain things funny, then their feelings tend to change as they grow older. Women tend to find things funny that men don't. Europeans find Americans funny and vice versa. Aaron Sorkin always tells the story about the CBS exec who lived by the rule about no one would ever accept a Jewish character on TV, or a character with a mustache. How's that for funny? Where do you think that exec is, now? Da-dum-dum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot over-emphasize this fact, since people keep getting it wrong, that silent films were, for the most part, silent. Right into the 1920s most people did not enjoy the luxury of musical or sound effect accompaniment unless it was provided by the audience. This has been documented by historians. The industry attempted to provide standardized musical scores starting around 1912, but the world was VERY DIFFERENT back then and even after sound was introduced in 1928 most theaters didn't have sound for several years. To say that silent film goers enjoyed musical accompaniment on a regular basis is like saying that Technicolor movie goers enjoyed Cinerama on a regular basis. It just ain't so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, again, consider what the term "golden age" implies. The Athens of Classical Greece had a "golden age." The Renaissance was a "golden age." The Enlightenment was a "golden age." The phrase does have a real meaning. But "the greatest" actually doesn't; it's an opinion, purely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot over-emphasize this fact, since people keep getting it wrong, that silent films were, for the most part, silent. Right into the 1920s most people did not enjoy the luxury of musical or sound effect accompaniment unless it was provided by the audience. This has been documented by historians. The industry attempted to provide standardized musical scores starting around 1912, but the world was VERY DIFFERENT back then and even after sound was introduced in 1928 most theaters didn't have sound for several years. To say that silent film goers enjoyed musical accompaniment on a regular basis is like saying that Technicolor movie goers enjoyed Cinerama on a regular basis. It just ain't so.

But most theaters had live music, didn't they? At least one musician.

 

And on an interesting side note, Japanese and maybe other east Asian theaters had a live narrator, a "benshi", from the beginning. People creatively filled the void of missing sound in early cinema.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the clips go behind the scenes to reveal the tricks such as the rotating backdrop and the seesaw horse. It says to me that the laughs don't depend on the filmmaking techniques. You can pull back the curtain and reveal the guy turning the crank and it's still funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I really don't think there is a "greatest era" of anything. I think nostalgia is often a big factor when people are judging the best and the greats of a genre. Agee and Youngson are writing from the 1950s and judging the greatest comedy era as having been decades earlier. Yet, today, Lucille Ball and her iconic show "I Love Lucy" are widely regarded as monumental comedy greats. Didn't they realize they were in the middle of a great comedy era - what we know call the Golden Age of Television -themselves? (To be fair, Agee wrote his essay before "I Love Lucy," but this does seem to be a broader '50s perspective and I wonder if Agee would've changed his mind later on in the decade(s) to come). Nostalgia, I think, had them looking backwards. There's no doubt that Chaplin and Keaton (I'm looking forward to getting to know Harold Lloyd and his films better this week) are comedic geniuses. Their films continue to resonate and their gags continue to make us laugh even today. Yet, I wonder who people during the early 1900s would call their comedic heroes and which era they would say produced the best comedy. I don't necessarily disagree with Agee and Youngson's assertions, if I *had* to choose an era, I might very well choose that one. Rather, I think it's too reductive to call one period the best of all time for comedy or anything, really.

 

Anyone who's watched "I Love Lucy" knows that she took great inspiration from earlier comedic forms, especially vaudevillian numbers (Fred Mertz and Williiam Frawley had vaudeville roots just as Keaton and Chaplin did) which often figure largely into the show's storylines. Lucy's gags and storylines are often mimicked in modern comedy shows and many today would cite her as one of the best comedic performers ever and the 1950s as a golden age of comedy as well. What these two eras have in common is that each had new technology (film at the turn of the 20th c. and TV in the 1950s) that was revolutionizing the popular culture. The best and most memorable comedians of each era were pioneers in adapting and creating jokes, gags, etc. within and for this new technology. I think artistic invention on the heels of great technological change is a common denominator between these two golden ages of comedy, and I think that there will likely be another renaissance soon with the advent of the new technology that's in our midst now (streaming sites like Netflix and YouTube). I realize that I'm jumping between two different modes - film and television - but they are both visual and since the two critics are from the '50s, I thought it seemed appropriate. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely see why Agee and Youngson argue that this period from the 1910s-1930 or so is the "golden age" for comedy.  This is where slapstick gets its beginnings on screen, and while this type of comedy had been popular in the live settings of vaudeville and music halls, the camera adds that focus point for the actors performance.  I enjoyed the behind-the-scenes look of Sennett's Studios and how the production didn't shy away from exposing all of the production elements. Slapstick films such as these one and two reelers begin to break the fourth wall and bring the audience (via the camera) into the action and the gag.  While I think there has definitely been great slapstick (and comedy) in film since the silent area, there is definitely more of a reliance on the visual storytelling which has been lost (or replaced) a bit by sound in cinema. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. I feel that there is not nor will there ever be an era that could come close to the "Golden Age" of comedy, or any other genre that you're analyzing, for that matter.  For the most part, I do agree with the statement made that the silent film era had its greatest triumphs of the comedy world during this time, although it is difficult to be objectively definite with these types of assertions.  When dealing with silents, I feel that a completely separate assessment must be taken into account to judge them by.  Like many have said, because of the lack of verbal dialogue, the silents and their actors have that much more awareness, emphasis, and devotion to make their gags work well.  With this, that's just what we have, from the greats, that is.  Complete attention to detail packed with dangerous, complex skits, along with the coming of a more narrative-centered film (whether that floats your boat or not).  So, I heavily believe that the silent film era gave the greatest and perhaps the most surprising and inspiring comedy films we will ever see.   
  2. I surely agree with the narrator to some extent.  Like I previously mentioned, without sound, there was a different level you had to work on, with a special emphasis on the visual, of course.  Because of talkies, it could be said that comedy has taken advantage of sound in regards to slapstick and the utmost visual comedy – you can now get laughs without nearly killing yourself.  Of course, there will always be a nostalgia surrounding silent films of all genres (not solely because of the subject content or even actors, but just by how it all looked on screen), and so I don’t think that this type of comedy completely “disappeared” from film, but has, indeed, evolved.  And yes, slapstick had lived on well for centuries and will so evermore!
  3. These types of feedback gives a fresh perspective on films that are over a century old that may, otherwise, not have had the impact it has had on both younger and older viewers.  With these forms of critical opinion, you are also given a brief history of the actor(s) and the time it was made, perhaps interesting newer viewers.

     

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. I disagree that this "completely visual" style of gags has disappeared from comedy. Montages of multiple gags over time with music playing would be one type of example in which we see this gags without words being performed to great effect. So, even if the film or show is not silent, there are pieces of it which are funny physical comedy being performed wordlessly. I think these gags have evolved in the sound era, especially now with all the visual special effects. There are different ways to insert physical comedy into a work. One is by integrating it with new technology or new cultural references - think a similar gag but this time done by an other-worldly superhero in an imagined universe - or by having it be silent and acting as a contrast to other "wordier" parts of the modern comedy. 

 

Moreover, If you pay attention and have watched classic films, you start to see how the directors and writers of early shows and movies reference and pay homage to the comedic giants of yesteryear in their own modern creations. They love and appreciate film and film history just as much as we do, and I see those references come through sometimes.

 

3. I think these documentaries, compilation films, and essays affect popular opinion on the silent film era in a positive way. These directors, writers, and scholars helped people appreciate the past as having been a wonderful, fruitful era that produced great art and great comedy. They helped, I think, provide a context for the comedic films of the past and the comedy of their present. The past is important to study, remember, and appreciate. Sometimes, there's so much to watch and consume in our modern-day lives that it can be easy to overlook the artistic predecessors to the films and shows we love today. Documentaries and essays can help to bring attention back to what was exceptional in the past and help us understand what and why we love what we love today. Still, I do think that referring to something as definitively "the best" or "the greatest" can be off-putting since that may be *your* favorite, but how can it be unequivocally determined to be the best? There had to be part of that 1950s audience who read Agee's essay or saw the silent gag reel clips and still thought that the comedies of their era were pretty darn great and maybe even the best. I can't say those people were wrong! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. As has been mentioned, its difficult to label something as 'best' or 'golden era' as much of it has to do with personal preference, plus it instills the concept of competition, which is not typically the point of a film, an era, a genre...  

I think what the silent era provided was a unique time when films were a new form of entertainment, and as such, had no rules, nor restrictions - the seeds of creativity.  So those individuals had to define film language and standards from scratch, often varying per genre.  Additionally, they had to overcome the absence of sound by making an extra effort to communicate visually.

Slapstick of the period

- translated stage comedies, expanding the audience of already classic bits and performers

- leveraged special effects to enhance the image and action, unique to film which opened up near limitless creative visuals, delving into the fantastic and unreal ("Slapstick is make believe")

- the absence of sound set it apart from the eras which followed, but also necessitated creative methods to communicate visually.

So I would label the entire silent era, not just slapstick, as not a golden era as much as a golden age of creativity.

2. While the introduction of sound caused many films of the early thirties to abandon visual gags for verbal ones, eventually the pendulum swung closer to center when site gags came back into acceptability, as part of the widening catalog available to filmmakers.   The trick was to avoid just rehashing what had already been done by adding some originality or expansion to the visual humor.  It certainly has never fully disappeared.  

3. Often such documentaries and essays trivialize or pigeon-hole their topic to simplify it, or to state a singular opinion.  This then prejudices the opinion of a portion of the audience, if no other exposure is pursued (particularly if this initial definition is unappealing to the individual).  To some degree, The Golden Age of Comedy seems more interested in making fun or parody of the films presented, rather than document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had a lot more time to not only read but chat about all of these great and well thought out comments.I haven't had the exposure to different films and really appreciate my classmates pointing out some of their favorite films so I have the opportunity to search them out, watch and learn. It is hard for me to pull up specific movie memories but looking at the great Peter Seller's performances in the Pink Panther movies you can see multiple gags that run through them all in a perfect ballet of slapstick craziness. And I can't help but see the silent stars in each of them as he struggles to maintain his personal sense of dignity falling as the globe turns, or hurtling through the air and totally missing Cato, or sucking the parrot into the vacuum. The timing is exquisite, the exaggeration over the top. And as with all the films I have seen that have that comic appeal it can be traced back to the beginning of not only film but of what we humans have always seen as funny in our own bizzare way.

I love great word play, but actions seem to appeal to something deeper, something that was there before words.This course is starting to give me a better appreciation of those roots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OUCH! A Salute to Slapstick Began tonight, painfully so, with the full version of Comedy's Golden Age, part of which was integral to our first Daily Dose of Doozy yesterday.  My wife (aka Redpaws), and I shared some Slapstick, and introduced it to our daughter Sophia.  While we enjoyed Laurel and Hardy and the Keystone Cops, we all got to see Harry Langdon's impressive comedy style for the first time.  Early appearances from Carol Lombard, Jean Harlow (and later with Marie Dressler) proved that comic acting didn't require a perfect body type. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is fair to call this the Golden Age of Comedy. Without dialogue to move the action along, the gags had to be exaggerated. That is not to say that we don't have visual comedy now, its just not the only means of comedy. There are some gags that will always be funny. 

Watching clips of movies like this show the funniest parts of the films, but it does make people interested in the movies and they may look for other clips or the full movies. Its important that we see things from a time when technology was different from what we have now. Now some stunts like this would not even be done by live people, its all computer generated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...