El cantante de jazz

I have seen the Jazz Singer several times over my 60 years. I became interested in 1920 entertainers when I was in my mid teens. My grandfather had seen Jolson in a few Broadway shows and actually met him on a few occasions. Jolson was, as he claimed, "The Worlds Greatest Entertainer". He wasn't the greatest talent, such as Sammy Davis Jr. was, but his dynamic extroverted personality and the way he could capture an audience in his live Broadway Performances was never captured on screen. I know it may sound strange, but the movie producers just couldn't contain all of his energy and exuberance in front of a camera. His dialog delivery,singing and acting was quite good in this movie. Let us not forget that in 1927, black and white silent films were still the standard. That standard brought over dramatization,dark make up, etc. They were not going to take a chance on giving up the tried and proved silent ways completely. They weren't sure on how sound would go over with the movie attendees. How can that be? Silents were a technology that the audiences accepted. The use of all sound was taking a big risk, and difficult to produce using Vitaphone, which was basically synchronizing large recorded discs to the film. Nearly all of the movie houses were not set up for any type of sound at that time. In my opinion, the sound technology and the performance of Jolson carried the film.

I have great difficulty in understanding the comments listed in the posts of how today's human rights standards can be applied to a film that was created 80 years ago.

We are talking about 1927,and it is hard for me to understand how today's negative comments are made about the Black-face and other racial comments. This was a convention of the time 80 years ago. I do not for a moment agree that the way minorities were treated was correct, but that was 1927, not now! You cannot erase history to make it fit today's standards.

I thought Al Jolson did a superb job in his singing,dialog,and acting in this film for the era. One would need to review and compare the singing and acting styles,that of other performers of the era and make comparisons. Crosby, Sinatra, Eddie Fisher, even Elvis Presley & Jackie Wilson said that Al Jolson was a great influence on their careers. To say he could not sing as in some posts here, is absurd.

There's not much to say about this other than even today, for this viewer, it is emotionally effective. Yes you know you are being manipulated. Yes, the acting conventions of the silent screen are comically exaggerated. Yes, it is shameless in setting up the ultimate choice. But this is so well structured that even today it escapes cliché. That's so remarkable, because big movies are almost always turned into clichés as bits of them are digested and continuously re-served to us as our visual grammar.

The love interest here is so unusual. He does fall in love with a pretty dancer, but tells her plainly that his career is more important than she is. She later doesn't become part of the choice — as would be the case in nearly every other script — instead she becomes part of the audience, presenting the dramatic quandary: the stage or God.

The presentation of religion is unique in my experience. Everyone here is a Jew, except the performers. They are the "real" and everyone else is "pretend," performing. Though there are many opportunities to fall into obnoxious stereotypes, its avoided over and over. That's despite the dozens of examples they had before.

In fact, there's an amazing engineering of story here. As any viewer will know, this was the first talkie. It was new, and to emphasize its newness a story was created to emphasize the contrast between old and new.

This film is part silent, part "talkie." It shows a struggle between the old (obviously obsolete) and the vital young. It also depicts in a rather subtle but effective way the "old" god, and the new: there's plenty of talk about the performance hall being a modern church. The music as well: we have the implication that it is not only the setting, the performer and the calling, but the music itself that is something new.

Along the way we get street scenes of the Jewish area of New York. These are genuine street scenes and are absolutely phenomenal: there isn't anything I know that compares. There was an attempt of sorts in "The Pawnbroker," which by itself was strong. But nothing compared to this.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

I saw this movie for its historial value, but I stayed for its greatness. Because, first talkie or not, this is just a great movie. The 6.3 rating baffled me; didn't everyone else like this interesting story about a boy who abandons tradition and his father who disowns him? I can't think of anything not to like about the movie. It's a fabulous movie, and a filmmaking landmark.

I'd like to comment on someone else's comments now. Someone said this movie was very racist and that's why it was successful, saying, "Would this film have still been successful if it was just Jolson as himself and not black-faced? Probably not. That's because people watched it to make themselves feel better about themselves."

I wonder if this commenter actually saw the movie. Jolson is only wearing blackface for about 15 minutes for a performance. The rest of the movie, Jolson IS himself. Jolson never plays an African-American as his character in the movie, he just sings a song as one. Yes, the song is somewhat racist by today's standards, but most of this comment is not valid at all. In fact, I suspect the comment was written solely based on a glance at the video box cover.

Anyway, if you wanna see a historical landmark in film or if you wanna see a fabulous movie (half-talkie, half-silent), go ahead and see "The Jazz Singer."

I gave this movie a 10 out of respect for the first talkie. Imagine the pressure in Hollywood at the time. Movies were rolling along at a great pace and silent film stars were icons. The technology of putting talking words to film was being developed and Hollywood had to choose the one star that could make it happen. That star...Al Jolson. Already incredibly adored and admired for a great singing and entertaining talent this legend accepted the challenge and forged Hollywood into a brand new era. Until the advent of computers and graphic enhancements with special effects Hollywood just refined that which Jolson brought to the public in 1927.

If ever you want to get a real kick see this movie, if you can find a viewable copy, and revel in the historical significance of it. Also take out your copy, or pick up Singing In The Rain, which pays homage to the advent of talking pictures. Although they goof with the characters, such as the voice of Lina Lamont, the very real challenges of transitioning from a silent world to a talkie world is very evident.

An historic film, billed as "the first talkie," this was a surprise because many of the lines are not verbalized, only when Al Jolson sings or just before or just after his songs. Otherwise, most of it is still a silent film with the words shown on the screen as in the other silent films.

This is a powerful story with interesting characters and good songs, to boot. It was different to see Warner Oland as somebody else besides Charlie Chan. He played Jolson's father and I never would have recognized him had I not read the credits. Nor would I have recognized William Demarest.

Jolson, however, is the man who dominates the film. Some of this songs wound up being classics, ones played for years and years, such as "Toot, Toot Toosie" and "Mammy."

Faced with a very tough decision on what to do with his life, Jolson's character does the right thing in the end, which was nice to see. Overall, it's entertaining.