Die Unschuld und der Bösewicht

This review will be roundly slapped down as 'Not Helpful'. But with the best will in the world this teaming of the director of 'Never Give a Sucker an Even Break' and the cameraman of 'The Wild Bunch' with a dream cast never takes flight, and sadly outstays it's welcome. 'Hellzapoppin' managed the same idea with far more success the following year.

Had it been just part of a longer film - like the melodrama 'The Drunkard' in 'The Old Fashioned Way' - it might have been quite diverting; but doesn't sustain a full-length feature, even one clocking in at barely an hour. Buster Keaton is utterly wasted, again, although Margaret Hamilton is briefly permitted to display a surprisingly attractive singing voice.

I hate melodrama, but had reservations about this satire of the genre nonetheless. I thought it would be one of those films Buster Keaton only appeared in order to garner a paycheck. My qualms quickly diminished as I watched this unheralded classic. I have watched it a few times since I first obtained a copy, and it never fails to make me laugh throughout. Keaton is superb, as is the rest of the cast, and the comedy stands up very well. As long as we have soap operas, "The Villain Still Pursued Her" will always be funny!

This is a solid, if often silly, parody feature that spoofs the conventional melodrama genre. Most of it is played in a style that is far from subtle, and not all of it works smoothly, but it has a decent cast and some other good features. The broad parody works well most of the time, almost poking fun at itself as it pokes fun at melodrama conventions.

The story has the familiar setup of a helpless widow and her daughter who find themselves at the mercy of an unscrupulous villain, played by Alan Mowbray, and who seek help from a virtuous but naive young heir. Mowbray does a pretty good job of parodying melodrama villains, and Buster Keaton has some very good moments, although his role is smaller. Keaton's timing and his appreciation of gag possibilities are still there. Some of the other performances are a little plain, but at least some of the time that may have been by design.

There are some slower stretches, but there are also some sequences that are pretty amusing. It builds up to a suitably tangled finale that has some good moments, although it is unfortunately marred by one inappropriate gag. Overall, it's uneven, but at least worth seeing for those who have an interest in its era and genre.

Hollywood movies killed the type of melodramatic social message play that was popular in American theater at the turn of the 20th century. In the teens and twenties, it had both copied it and satirized it to the point that it lost its audience. It simply could not be appreciated by a more sophisticated audience weened on sophisticated Hollywood productions.

It would seem that 1940 would be too late to be satirizing a style of theater and acting that had gone out of style 15 or 20 years before. Still, the majority of Americans past 30 had grown up with such fare and could appreciate the satire. Today, of course, this style of theater and acting is unknown except for the theater and film buffs. 21st Century audiences can only find this film a bit boring and very bizarre.

There are three ethereal performances in this movie - Anita Louise, Margaret Hamilton and Richard Cromwell look like they are in a trance. Joyce Compton is also hilariously effective as a deranged woman. Billie Gilbert and Hugh Herbert do their typically funny bits.

Like me, most people who watch this movie will probably do so to see Buster Keaton. One has to feel a bit disappointed that Keaton just delivers his lines, but hardly does anything really Keatonesque. Yet the whole film, because it was directed by Keaton's friend, Eddie Cline, has a Keatonesque quality to it.

It is hard to imagine the style of acting portrayed in this movie being a real and popular style. The actors seem to avoid all facial expression after reciting their lines. Yet this was considered good acting before the Stanislavsky Method revolutionized theater at the dawn of the 20th century.

This movie should be especially studied by actors and directors for its record of a long gone acting style. It may not be as funny as it once was, but it is more fascinating with the passage of time.

This is an excellent example of parody. People that like the later humour in Airplane might see a few early hints of it here. Keaton and the villain were especially good.