Buster hat nichts zu lachen

This is another sad example of what happened to the outstanding Buster Keaton when he became controlled by a supposedly "major" studio, but one that had next to no idea of how to make a Buster Keaton movie.

With all the money and facilities available, this movie is not one-one-hundredth the quality of, for example, "The General." Buster Keaton, though, still showed some of the athleticism that make his good movies so good, and co-star Anita Page showed that she is watchable even in horrible movies.

For Keaton, it's a different kind of script, too, in that Buster is a rich guy and has money to try to do good.

Actually, most of the players do pretty well with what they have to work with, and it's a lot better than, for example, "Free and Easy," but "Sidewalks" is probably a title nobody will want to see more than once ... or maybe, since it is Keaton, more than once a year.

This is added after a viewing on TCM, 7 January 2015: Despite my dismal outlook in the previous review, this time around I liked it a lot more.

Partly I liked it more because I paid more attention to Anita Page, who had, I think, a role quite different for her. And she scored.

In previous roles -- that I have seen -- she was just a very pretty girl with no particular strength. Here she was strong as an over-protective sister "and mother and father."

Cliff Edwards was a particular joy. Usually just a with or at best second fiddle, here he showed he too could be a strong character, and his pairing with the acrobatic Keaton was perfect.

Yes, the big studio did not understand what was funny and did not know how to present Keaton.

But my second viewing, contrary to my earlier comment, made me like this a lot more and I raised my rating to seven. And I think everyone ought to see it. At least twice.

Sidewalks of New York (1931)

** (out of 4)

Buster Keaton plays a soft slum owner who falls for a woman (Anita Page) living in his building and plans on impressing her by fixing up the neighborhood and trying to make her bad brother a good kid. Keaton hated this film so much because MGM wouldn't let him have any artistic control and to his shock it became his most popular film, which was a bad thing since that told the studio they could do whatever they wanted with him. This was certainly a turning point in Keaton's career and while it's not as bad as its reputation it's certainly not the classics we're use to seeing the legend appear in. The biggest problem with the film is that it tries to be too many things at once and it doesn't do any of them very well. One moment it wants to be a comedy then it wants to be a drama and then we get more touches of a romantic comedy. The screenplay is all over the map and I found it to be too light for a drama and too mean to work as a comedy. There's a pretty ugly scene towards the end of the film when a wise guy tries to force the kid brother to kill Keaton and this stuff just doesn't work. The abuse shown at the kid who is forced to do some pretty bad things really comes off like abuse and it's hard to watch at times. Even though Keaton's hated doing this film he still manages to turn in a decent performance. Sure, this isn't the golden era of his career but he does have a few good lines and gets to show off some of his physical abilities but not enough. Page also comes off very good even though her role isn't written too well. The two actually have some nice chemistry together and make the film a lot better than it has the right to be.

I have great respect for the early movie comedians like Keaton, Chaplin, Laurel and others who created a character and developed situations and gags that fit the character's personality. They all had great autonomy within their own smaller companies, but found free reign disappear when they moved to the majors. "Sidewalks" is an MGM comedy with Buster Keaton; it's not a Buster Keaton comedy. It isn't bad, but other, even lesser comedians could have done as well because the "Buster" character doesn't appear here. Although some of the dialog is good and Keaton delivers it well, there's too much; he has an inner city gym for physical gags, but there's too little. The big studios never understood that comedians like Keaton, and later Laurel and Hardy, were their own writers, directors, and gag men. "Sidewalks" has much to recommend it, including some good support, but if you're looking for "Buster", or even "Elmer", look elsewhere.

One of the hardest things about watching the talkies MGM stuck Buster Keaton in isn't necessarily how awful they are (although Free and Easy (1930) IS awful), but how underwhelming they are. Gone are Keaton's outrageous stunts and understated sense of humor. In their place are set-bound scripts with uninspired slapstick and half-wit jokes. This precisely defines Sidewalks of New York (1932), perhaps the most boring of all the Keaton MGM films.

Keaton, Cliff Edwards, and Anita Page are all wasted on insipid material. I feel especially bad for Page, who's stuck screaming half the time. Buster has little to do other than look foolish in the most unfunny ways possible, though at least his character isn't nearly as idiotic as he was in Free and Easy. The only decent bit he got was a scene where he tries and fails to carve a roasted duck. Oh well, at least Durante isn't running about the set screeching, else this would be downright painful.

Bumbling wealthy landlord Mr. Harmon (Buster Keaton) is surprised to find his property fall into chaos caused by rowdy kids. Margie Kelly comes to aid of her little brother and knocks Harmon down. It's love at first sight for him. He decides to help the kids to win her over. It's tougher than he imagined with Margie's brother Clipper working with criminal Butch.

Silent super star Buster Keaton had mixed results during the sound era. This film is one of his successes. It does allow Buster to do his physical comedy. It's relatively funny although the seriousness of Clipper's dilemma is not that fun. Buster is still physically impressive. I do miss a large constructed stunt. While this is not at the level of his silent classics, this does allow Buster to play his character and be the butt of the joke. The romance is nice. It's not high class but Buster does his work well.