Le chanteur de jazz

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."

Almost every movie fan knows the historical importance of the Al Jolson version of "The Jazz Singer", even if they've never had the chance to see it from start to finish. Although it's actually not, as it is often described to be, 'the first talking picture', it was the one feature that, more so than any other, captured the public's attention on behalf of sound movies. It's also still worth seeing in its own right, and while it is far from a masterpiece, as a movie it is somewhat better than its reputation.

The movie is actually a hybrid, with some silent sequences and some sound sequences. Successful experiments with sound movies go back to the 1890s, and got closer and closer to the goal during the 1920s. "The Jazz Singer" was really just one of a number of steps on the way towards full-length all-talking pictures becoming commonplace, but it probably would not have caused such a sensation if it did not also have some good material to go along with the new technology. The sound quality and other technical aspects do reflect the limitations of the time, and some of the material does also reflect the perspectives of its era, and thus now seems odd or uncomfortable. But there is still a solid core of the story that is still worthwhile, in the conflict between Jack's talents and dreams on the one hand, and his family and heritage on the other.

In following Jack as he pursues his career and tries to make his family understand, the specific details of the situation and setting aren't really crucial to understanding his position. Anyone whose family or friends want them to do one thing, but who feels called in his or her heart to do something else, can easily identify with this kind of struggle. These themes are handled rather well, although some of the time the story is simply used as a device to set up the musical numbers. Most of these do not seem especially noteworthy now, at least in themselves, but they must have impressed the movie's original audiences.

The year 1927 produced an unusual number of great (silent) movies that have deservedly become highly-regarded classics. This version of "The Jazz Singer" doesn't stand up to those classics on its own merits, but in itself it is still as good as any other movie version of the story, and for anyone who enjoys either classic movies or movie history, it's definitely worth seeing.

Whatever might be the shortcomings of this famous film, it is an uncanny experience to visit it from time to time. As we know, although it's the first 'talki' it's mostly a silent movie with all that entails. Nevertheless, those moments when sound and image are synchronised, often just for one side of the disc used for the soundtrack, are electrifying. The heat is turned up by the fact that Al Jolson improvised some of his lines, much to the horror of his stage mother. And besides, the tale of the errant son making good in the big lights is affecting. The music is superb, and we are rewarded by some haunintg evocations of the Jewish cantor tradition. I love the film.

A simple story of a guy winning back his estranged father, told in strong and memorable images. Jolson looks just right, and although it was done for reasons of cost and technological limitations, it's actually pretty cool that this is a traditional silent movie that turns talkie for the performance scenes. It makes the terrific musical numbers come alive, and it gives the plotting no more or less emphasis than it deserves. Not a great film, but an enjoyable one, and obviously a historically significant one.

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.