The Timid Young Man

The only time Buster Keaton and Mack Sennett worked together professionally was on this short, although Sennett in his autobiography includes Keaton's name in a list of the stars he had helped. Except for a few Keaton moments, the film's humor seems quite uninspired. One review of this short says that Keaton worked for Paramount in the 1920's which is not true. His shorts were distributed by First National, Metro, Metro-Goldwyn and his features by Metro-Goldwyn and United Artists. Tiny Sandford also appears in "The Timid Young Man" and this same review claims that he was a Sennett villain, but he was not. He worked for Hal Roach primarily and appeared in many Laurel and Hardy films and also was in several Chaplin films.

For years, it was commonly believed Buster Keaton done his first film work with Mack Sennett. In reality, the only time the two ever collaborated was in 1935, with the short film The Timid Young Man. The results are less than spectacular, though considering the gulf between the style of Sennett and the style of Keaton, I'm not sure if the two of them in a more ideal situation would have produced anything much better.

The film is rather uninspired with only Keaton's amusingly deadpan reactions to the nonsense around him to recommend it. His leading lady Lona Andre is not obnoxious, thank God above, and I think the two of them could have made a better team had they been given a decent script. As it is, the plot can barely sustain its twenty minute length: Buster and Lona have been unlucky in love with others, fall for one another, and find themselves at the mercy of a brute who wants Lora and a shrewish woman whom Buster promised marriage to while inebriated the night before.

There are some amusing moments, but I doubt you'll be laughing.

In the mid-1930s, Buster Keaton left MGM. This was not a bad thing, as the studio seemed to have no idea how to use this comic and put him in progressively worse films--culminating with him being paired with Jimmy Durante--the worst possible pairing, as the two had diametrically opposed styles. So, when the began making films for tiny Educational Studios, the films could only get better--though they still were not nearly as good as the films he made in the 1920s for Paramount.

This short comedy marks an interesting milestone. It's the first and only time that Mack Sennett (who used to own Keystone Studios) directs Buster Keaton. For that reason alone, it's worth a look but be advised that both Keaton and Sennett had seen better days in the prior decades. In addition, one of the old Sennett villains (frequently with Chaplin), Tiny Sandford, is in the film as well. Unfortunately, this rare combination of talent did not equate to an especially good film nor a funny one. I could try to explain the plot but frankly it never made much sense nor did it make me laugh even once. Sad.

This film marks the only time Buster Keaton and Mack Sennett worked together. The results are less than sparkling. We start with a very low budget, a director who is way past his prime, and a comic premise that could have been used in the earliest, pre-Chaplin Keystone films. Basically, Buster escapes his dominant fiancée, meets another girl, and gets into a battle with a larger man who also fancies Buster's new girl friend. Buster plays his spoiled wealthy boy character here; he is called "Milton" instead of the usual "Elmer". Why not "Buster"? I guess Keaton may have been embarrassed by these cheap Educational comedies. Thank goodness the dialogue is minimal and the focus is on slapstick action. However, both Sennett and Keaton seem to be quite tired and burnt out. I believe that this is the last film Sennett ever directed, and what a sad way for him to go out. Most of the Keaton Educationals are better than this one. The usual director is Charles Lamont, who had a strong background in comedy and got along well with Buster. These Educational shorts, along with the later Columbia shorts, are definitely worth seeing. Keaton did not have a high opinion of these films, but it is fascinating to see him working with sound and showing his comic-athletic prowess.

Timid Young Man, The (1935)

** (out of 4)

While this Educational film isn't all that good, it's still rather historically important as it's the only film where Buster Keaton was directed by Mack Sennett. In the film, Keaton takes off for the mountains after a woman demands that he marries her. On the road Keaton runs into another woman (Lona Andre) and the two hit it off but they soon bump into a large man (Tiny Stanford) who wants to take the girl for his own. THE TIMID YOUNG MAN isn't a very good movie and consider the two legends both in front and behind the camera you can't help but call this a major disappointment. When you see the name Keaton and Sennett you expect something much better than what you actually get here but I'm sure everyone knows that neither man were near their prime during this period. While there aren't any great laughs to be had we at least get a couple good scenes. One happens when Buster accidentally feeds a dog some Mexican jumping beans, which makes the dog jump at a wild pace. Since he's fishing Buster decides to try and catch fish using these beans. The joke itself is a fairly good one but the low-budget is painfully obvious as you can easily see the string that is making the fish jump out of the water. Another very embarrassing scene is when Buster is driving down the road and first meets the young woman who is hitchhiking. Just take a look at how poorly edited this scene is as the takes are so different that you can't help but wonder what Sennett was doing to allow such a bad connection. It's even worse later when the duo run into the large man on a mountain yet the next shot has Keaton and the girl back on the road where they met!! There are a few other decent moments including one where Sandford is making the duo make him salad and Keaton accidentally puts gas in it. Keaton, Andre and Sandford are all very good together and you can tell that the cast are trying to do the best that they can to bring the material to life. In the end, however, this is a disappointing film that doesn't have enough laughs to make it a memorable film but considering it's history, film buffs will at least want to watch it once.