The Strong Man

A meek Belgian soldier, who had been receiving letters from an American penpal during the war, comes to the US to find her after the armistice. He's a rube and is taken in by a pickpocket woman, a strong man performer, and finally a raucous bar before he causes a lot of mayhem, helps to save a town from booze, gets the girl, and gets a new job.

Langdon is a different kind of silent comedian. He's more about strangeness, little looks, a quirky innocence despite his age. Sure there are a few pratfalls and slapstick moments, but it's the reactions he has that makes it all work. A totally under-appreciated performer and well worth a look. This might be his most accessible movie and is a good place to start or to use to show others.

Not all comedies are made equal. Even as this picture is directed by acclaimed filmmaker Frank Capra, and star Harry Langdon gets mentioned in the same breath as other stars of the silent era, it doesn't necessarily strike the same chord as films of his brethren. Some scenes run a little long in the tooth, and in the first place some gags or story beats rely on a concatenation of circumstances that may be a little too contrived or forced. Sadly, some bits just don't inspire much of a reaction at all, and to be frank, in 2022 the "god-fearing" folks don't come off any better than the ruffians. I suppose all this is the risk one carries with making comedies, of course. On the other hand, even if this specific title isn't perfectly, robustly funny, it's still mildly enjoyable. The root premise is full of great potential, and much of that potential is borne out with situational comedy, sight gags, and physical comedy, earning a few solid laughs. "Strong" is maybe too charged a descriptor, yet 'The strong man' is sufficiently well made to offer a good time.

Langdon demonstrates a swell sense of physicality and expression that shows why he may get mentioned alongside Chaplin, Keaton, or Lloyd. Gratifyingly, not least under Capra's guidance, his co-stars illustrate a like capacity, and their lively displays and willingness to sacrifice their bodies lends to some swell humor. Though some moments may lag at one point or another, more so than not the scene writing is duly stimulating to orchestrate the silliness, or in quieter moments to propel the story. That narrative is perhaps a tad more uneven still - at the same time that the core concept could have been teased out a little more to greater comedic effect, some aspects of the plot that we do get languish in the more dramatic elements, or constitute middling, blasé plot advancement. And, again just to emphasize - call it pacing by way of the feature overall, or timing in regards to where would-be laughs should fit into a scene: there were at least as many instances while I watched in which I thought to myself "Okay, well, moving on I suppose," as instances that sparked joy.

If it seems like I'm being more critical of 'The strong man' than not, well, I guess that's not incorrect. To be clear, I don't dislike it: broadly speaking it's well made, the cast perform admirably, and some moments are especially well done, including the climax. Only - this is a title that suggests "passive amusement" more than "active fun," and I say that as someone who loves silent movies. Some of the best movies ever made hail from the silent era, and this just isn't one of them. I appreciate the work put into it; would that the result were more consistent, and I'd like it more than I do. When all is said and done there are a lot worse things you could spend 75 minutes on, and if you happen across 'The strong man' it's a fair way to pass the time. Just don't go out of your way, and keep your expectations in check.

The peculiar talents of Harry Langdon are displayed to their fullest advantage in the baby-faced clown's best silent feature. Seen today, it's certainly the most accessible of his few surviving films, but Langdon's curious, childlike habits and demeanor, so totally bizarre in a character meant to be a functioning adult, may still leave many viewers scratching their head. The success of this particular film can be credited, in part, to director Frank Capra, who had the patience to nurture Langdon's unique pantomime skills, using long, extended takes in which the comedian could freely improvise. Capra's pious sentimentality can be cloying (the story involves a wholesome small town rescued from gamblers and bootleggers), but he gave Langdon all the elbow room the comedian needed to work his innocent, uncertain magic. Playing the hapless assistant to a vaudeville strong man, Langdon responded with more than one unforgettable routine, proving himself the equal to his better remembered peers in the art of silent comedy.

There's something about Harry Langdon that just doesn't work for me. Judging by the high marks this film has received and the uniformly positive reviews I'm clearly in the minority, but I simply can't see the appeal of this curious, borderline weird babyman. Langdon had a good sense of comic timing, there's no argument there, and with good direction from Frank Capra he clearly knew what his character was about (but only through his director's instruction, it would later transpire) and this film is even free of the over-sentimentality that so often plagued silent movies of all genres, but the fact is - his material just isn't very funny.

That's not to say there aren't any laughs in this, Langdon's first feature length comedy. There are a few: the shuffling upstairs backwards scene, the strong man act, the... erm... well, the shuffling upstairs backwards and the strong man act are about it to be honest. The meeting between Langdon's timid Belgian soldier and Mary Brown, the woman whose love letters sustained him during the Great War, is extremely well-handled, but even this scene is let down because Capra didn't seem to want to say 'cut.'

The film begins in WWI and Harry is a Belgian soldier who has an American pen pal. After the war, he comes to America as a sideshow strong man's assistant. However, he thinks it will be easy to find a girl named "Mary Smith"--which it naturally isn't. Eventually, he and the act arrive in a small town where Mary happens to live, but she is avoiding meeting Harry and it looks bad for our intrepid hero.

Years ago, I saw a compilation film about silent comedians (WHEN COMEDY WAS KING) and the film said there were "three truly great comedians of this age--Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and Harry Langdon". Well, I knew this wasn't true, since Arbuckle (before the scandal) was much more famous and during most of the twenties, the most successful (and possibly best) comedian was Harold Lloyd. I truly think the film made this assertion because back in 1960 when it was made, Lloyd's films were not available--being owned by Lloyd and were locked in his safe.

As for Langdon, I've not seen tons of his films, though most are no longer in existence today. However, I've seen enough to know he wasn't one of the greats--perhaps a near-great. This film is supposed to be one of his best films and at no point did it approach the great work of Lloyd, Keaton or Chaplin. In fact, I much prefer Langdon's short films more than his full-length ones because the pacing is much better. In THE STRONG MAN, the film is 75 minutes long, but could easily had 10 minutes snipped off without harming the film at all. Plus, there are a few really good gags, but only a few. Now this doesn't mean that I must have a silent comedy that is constantly funny (after all, the other three greats I mentioned did make some wonderful character-driven full-length films). However, poor pacing undid the film and with this slight trimming, it would have probably earned a 9.

A very good comedy, just not one of the great ones.