Sidewalk Stories

Going silent (or almost entirely silent) was an outstanding choice by Charles Lane, and his film feels like an homage to Chaplin in its humor and humanism. In updating the tramp character to a homeless person of color, he seems to ask mainstream audiences to remember a time when so many more were destitute, and to suspend our tendency to judge in favor of empathizing. He also inverts the 'get rich quick by meeting a rich man' theme from Depression era films by having a female shop owner be the wealthy one and love interest. Most of all, he makes a film that's touching and funny.

Not hearing these characters (or even seeing intertitles) in no way took away from the ability to tell the story, and ironically it made me connect to them more deeply. I should say, not hearing them until the very end, when hearing a few plaintive requests for help hits like an emotional ton of bricks. Nicole Alysia is adorable as the little kid, Charles Lane is heartfelt as the struggling street artist, and Sandye Wilson is compelling as the business woman whose heart is as big as her right cross. How did Charles Lane not get more opportunities after creating this film, even if 'True Identity' was a bust? How did Sandye Wilson never appear in a feature film again?

An artist (Charles Lane) does portraits and sells his paintings on the streets. He lives in an abandoned apartment. He comes upon a murdered man and finds the man's baby. He reluctantly takes care of the little girl.

This is a black and white silent film set in the modern day New York City. Its sensibilities is mostly set in the silent film era. Charles Lane is the star and the filmmaker. He seems to be doing Chaplin and the Kid but with a modern black man and without the slapstick. It is a bit long. The old silent films are usually an hour. It probably does need the dialog text which is missing here. All in all, it's an intriguing black indie.

Our protagonist is resourceful, tenderhearted, homeless. He finds himself with a baby, someone else's, and suddenly his life shifts focus. The child, thankfully, does not redeem the main character whose actions are a natural extension of who he is-a nameless person. Without home and name doesn't mean without personality, and a life, and the instinct for survival. The main character suddenly has to be concerned for someone other than himself, and this is the charm of the film, charm without sentimentality.

This is an intriguing contrast of the humorous set against the plight of the homeless in NYC; it works, partly because it is so outrageous and comic in its implementation-e.g. the conflict with the other street artist, the use of the bathtub. A gentle, good film whose final moments still resonate in the mind, not because of their greatness, but because of the unexpected but successful shift in focus and technique. It achieves.

Charles Lane as writer, director, and main character has done a very fine job in three areas, none suffering because of the others.

I saw this film a number of years back---circa 1990---on PBS. It got ONE airing...and I never saw it again. I had even forgotten the title...until I ran across it by accident.

Charles Lane pays homage---in a manner of speaking---to Chaplin...by way of default. This was a period when Blacks were still struggling to get any film made...and struggling to have films released. Lane ran out of dollars, evidenced by some few moments of sound.

But he manages to salvage the film in the style of pantomime...like the "ol' time flickers". This film is more a commentary on the times, than an homage to any particular screen idol of the past. Homelessness and poverty are its main themes, and the struggle to survive is intensified when the hero takes on the added responsibility of caring for a child whose parent has gone down in an "unfortunate happenstance".

The acting is natural, not campy, and there are a few "hot scenes". But, all in all the film is a good watch, rather touching at points, filled with 'Chaplin-esque' pathos (a la "The Kid"...but it doesn't get quite that intensely mushy). However, the closing scene is pretty intense, and reveals a bit of the pain, misery and suffering all too pervasive during that time---all in the name of greed--and much of which remains with us to this day.

Charles Lane needs to make other films, and he needs to put this one back into circulation--it merits an across the board viewing. This one is a stand alone of the genre of Black films and, though it had nothing even close to the budget of Mel Brook's "Silent Movie", its point are well taken. It is a movie that you will enjoy...and I would caution having the kids watch due to some sexual situations and a little violence. But enjoy. I don't know if this film is back in circulation---I understand it has been out of circulation for some time...but I would not mind coming into possession of a copy.

In the age of realism, don't expect the charm of Chaplin, but sundry Lane (writer director actor) gives a pretty good imitation of his pioneering namesake in this low Talkie tale (dog bark & closing comments) about a street artist who witnesses an alley murder and then assumes care of the victim's 2-year old child.

Think of a story in parts Paper Moon, Midnight Cowboy and The Kid (21) but this Charlie make is longer (98m) than the Coogan kind, more stressful, yet, like the Silent great, keeps you engaged on a scoop of romance (Wilson), dash of drama (kidnapping chase) and pinch of poignancy in closing message on plight of the homeless. Production values in camera (Dill) and score (Marder) are high, while Dad's (Williams) final game of chance (coin flip) adds whimsy of days long gone. And watch for an early Edie Falco (The Sopranos) as half a kissing couple in carriage ride (3/4).