Le metteur en scène

Buster Keaton was looking forward to talking pictures since everyone agreed his voice was a good fit for the new technology. He wanted to make his final silent movie, 1929's "Spite Marriage," as his talkie debut. But MGM producers had a different opinion. The studio kept the 1929 movie as a silent while scheduling his March 1930 "Free And Easy" as Keaton's first sound picture. He plays Elmer Butts, a gas station attendant dragged by the winner of a local beauty pageant, Miss Gopher, Elvira (Anita Page), and her overbearing mother (Trixie Friganza) to chaperon them as they travel cross country to be screen tested by MGM in Hollywood.

Unlike the majority of his past films that portrayed his characters consistently emerging as the hero and winning his gals in the end despite a series of obstacles, in "Free And Easy," he's the smacked around throughout the movie looking like a loser. To add insult to injury, Keaton finds himself dressed up as a fat clown prancing on stage in a lengthy finale musical number. Buster called this sequence the most ridiculous thing he had ever done. As writer Robert Sherwood wrote "Buster Keaton, trying to imitate a standard musical comedy clown, is no longer Buster Keaton and no longer funny." To rub his character's humiliation deep into his face, MGM writers had Keaton attached to strings acting as a marionette puppet in the clown suit. Buster's biographer describes the scene symbolically as MGM's treatment to the once brilliant comic. But the studio was happy with the theater receipts. "Free And Easy" became a bigger financial success than most of his silent classics.

The first 2/3 of the flick has Buster Keaton rambling around movie sets, pretty much getting into trouble. While the last roughly 1/3 of the movie focusing on the "Free and Easy" dance presentation, very entertaining (at least to this writer). If you are at all interested in the 1930's movies then this is a must have for your collection, and you WILL enjoy it!

Incidentally, it's easy to see why background dancer, Ann Dvorak went from an 18 year old dancer in this film to co-starring in a major movie (Scarface) only two years later. She really captures your attention – a beautiful gal!!

Regarding the singer/dancer listed as "Marion Shilling", IMDb indicates that Marion Shilling is the "Singer and Dancer in 'The Free and Easy' Number (uncredited)". The girl dancing with Keaton most decidedly is not Marion Shilling.

"Free and Easy" was released March 22, 1930. I have a number of DVD's featuring Marion Shilling in co-starring roles: "Shadow of the Law'with William Powell (released a couple months later on June 6, 1930). I also have DVD's of Marion Shilling in "Rio Rattler" (released Aug 1, 1935) and "I'll Name the Murderer" – Jan. 27, 1936. The dancer with Keaton in "Free and Easy" bears little resemblance to the Marion Shilling that co-starred in the DVD's I list above.

In his review of Free and Easy, Kidboots states: "Elmer is teamed with a cute dancer (Estelle Moran)". This may well be; however I could find no movies or pictures of an actress named Estelle Moran (or "Estelle Morgan") from that period. So the identity of the singer/dancer remains unclear – except it is not Marion Shilling. Perhaps if you listed the dancer as "Unknown" it would be more accurate.

Free And Easy is another variation on the Merton of the Movies type film where unknown schnook goes to Hollywood and winds up a comedy star. It worked fine for Glenn Hunter on stage and Stu Erwin on the screen. The lead in Free And Easy was a part that was perfect for Eddie Cantor. But Buster Keaton got it and it wasn't quite right for him.

Keaton, known in Hollywood as the Great Stone Face, was one of the greatest pantomimists the screen ever knew. Why you would star someone in a film that has musical numbers, though you would not classify it as a musical is beyond me. That title song which Keaton croaks would have been perfect for Eddie Cantor.

In watching it I thought I recognized the plot of this film. It was part of the story line of Pepe, the great Cantinfas all star production from thirty years later. Keaton is in love with young Anita Page who is the young screen hopeful from his home town. But she's got eyes for the flawed young movie star Robert Montgomery.

Like Pepe, a number of folks on the MGM lot made guest appearances as themselves. One of the most interesting was William Haines who at that time competing with Robert Montgomery for juvenile parts. Haines of course was one of the first film stars outted as gay and his fall was a lucky break for Montgomery's career.

Best in the film is Trixie Friganza, a great vaudeville star who played Page's number. She really harries and harasses poor Keaton. Page has won some kind of contest and for reasons I can't explain the Chamber of Commerce of their hometown has appointed Keaton as her agent and manager. Like they have the right and the power. No wonder Trixie's mad at him.

If you've seen Pepe, you know how this turns out.

Buster Keaton's talents sadly are not put to very good use here. He appears to be sufficiently alert, however the producer and writers have given him nothing to work with and there is clearly no opportunity for his trademark expertise at improvisation. Sad-eyed Buster's excessively shrill nemesis is a stage mother from Hell who steals all of their scenes together through sheer brute force by overacting, rendering Mr. Keaton's character pathetic and perpetually downtrodden. Then again, the viewer is also subjected to Robert Montgomery crooning so there really is plenty of blame to go around here from a production standpoint. Nevertheless, this is an important movie that features unique and valuable insights into Hollywood soon after the industry's changeover to sound. Billy Haines appears in a cameo as himself and he says a few words before wending his way down to the reserved seating section far forward in the Grauman's Chinese Theater--and the camera follows him! The POV includes panoramic scenes of the interior, as well as a close-up look at the Red Carpet outside of the theater as the glamorous stars of the day drove up, alighted from their magnificent cars and had a few words to say into the microphone before heading inside, framed by shots of the crowd that has gathered outside to witness the spectacle. Jackie Coogan is featured here as himself, and the story soon shifts to the MGM Studio where we are afforded further behind-the-scenes eyefuls of a sound stage with all the trappings, outbuildings, gated entrances and eavesdropping on the likes of Fred Niblo and Cecil B. DeMille as they candidly discuss Garbo, Crawford and Shearer! I have always prized MGM's The Jean Harlow Story, starring Jean Harlow--er, make that BOMBSHELL for the unique and rare glimpses that it provides of the Metro-Golden-Mayer studio circa 1933, but this movie was made three years earlier and the storyline is set at the studio. It is therefore particularly instructive for anyone who is similarly intrigued by sustained peeks at real, undesigning people and authentic settings of historical significance in Hollywood from some of the earliest days of its glorious Golden Age. There is some vintage lightning in a bottle here in this Keaton clunker, for anyone who cares to a take a look.

As a twist on the old 'innocent makes it big in the movies' theme, it's not a bad plot: a pretty blonde beauty queen from a sleepy provincial town comes to Hollywood in the chance of a lifetime... only, instead of Elvira winding up as a star, it is her Olympian harridan of a mother and incompetent booby of a would-be manager who end up with contracts -- as comic relief.

Trixie Friganza provides a wonderful performance as the stage-door mother from hell, with the bonus of some very attractive costume routines in the film-within-a-film. Anita Page is naive and sweetly shy as the unambitious Elvira, establishing sympathy and character in a relatively small part. Robert Montgomery is competent but unremarkable as the caddish movie star she falls for, and who ultimately repents and offers her the prize of every good girl's virtue: marriage.

But the question one is inevitably left asking concerns the casting of Buster Keaton as 'Elmer Butts', the shambling idiot. Nominally, this is a "Buster Keaton Production"; but in fact, his character is probably the biggest reason not to watch it, since most of the time Elmer is just embarrassing. Once you hide 'the great stone face' under sad-clown makeup, so that he can't use it to act with, and conceal the trained grace and expression of his body under tent-like trousers or padded tights, so that he can't act with that either, and then give him semi-moronic dialogue to recite so that he can't even act with his voice -- you have to ask yourself: why hire the talents of Keaton, of all people, in the first place?

Presumably, given a scene in which the character gets repeatedly hit in the face and flung to the ground by a succession of muscular ladies, it helps if you employ an actor who can take a fall without getting hurt. Keaton manages to work in a few trademark variations on the basic tumble during this tedious sequence, and elsewhere in the film there are a couple of acrobatic moments of note: when Elmer launches himself straight into a horizontal tackle at neck-height at Elvira's seducer, and the illusory dive into a shallow tank of water. In the final dance sequence he forgets to shamble, and gives us a glimpse of crisp vaudeville steps despite the obliterating handicap of the costume. Otherwise, the part doesn't appear to demand his particular skills at all.

The song and dance numbers raised a few -- I suspect not all intentional -- laughs, but tended to drag, an ongoing problem. Many of the dialogue scenes outstay their welcome, including the seduction sequence with its repeated cuts back to the chase, and almost all Elmer's allegedly amusing stand-up exchanges: I suspect you could shorten at least ten minutes out of this film and it would only be an improvement.

Comedy-wise, it's effective from time to time. I was surprised into a few genuine laughs, including a couple where Keaton gets to slip in a dry sotto-voce aside -- an acting style that would clearly have suited him much better than the verbose mumbling and misunderstandings he has to labour through in this script. I'm not familiar enough with Buster Keaton's voice to tell how much of the slurred delivery here was produced for 'comic' effect and how much was his natural vocal range... but frankly, in a number of scenes he sounds quite simply drunk, an effect that can't possibly have been wanted!

The ending, meanwhile, appears to lack effective resolution, and left me somewhat up in the air as to what message it was supposed to convey. Elvira marries her actor, as Elmer's stumbling attempts to confess his own love inadvertently contrive to bring together the estranged pair; but the film, mis-paced as ever, doesn't end at this point. Instead Elvira, still innocently unaware of Elmer's feelings for her, kisses him in gratitude, laughs at him, and sends him back out in front of the cameras to be comic (which, as ever, he fails in any noticeable degree to achieve)... and then we have yet another musical number, with the two love-birds caught up in each other's eyes, and Keaton just standing there immobile, grotesquely painted and (presumably) heartbroken.

Is it supposed to be funny? Is it trying for some ironic depth hitherto unheralded by the rest of the film? Are we supposed to feel sorry for Elmer -- and if so, just what sort of a comedy ending is that?

(Plus, an unpalatable point: if one of your actors has a mutilated forefinger, then don't have him fidgeting with the stump throughout in the foreground of a dialogue scene! In Buster's own films, spot-the-finger is an endearing game to be played by those in the know, with a complicit wink; here, it's painfully obvious.)

There were moments, at the beginning, when I thought this film might have potential; it was never going to be a classic, but it might have been an unpretentious contemporary spoof. The script needs tightening up throughout, often wasting its laughs by labouring the point instead of cutting out a line or two in favour of a reaction shot. But the outcome is basically doomed from the moment that the plot starts dressing the miscast Keaton up: he might just have carried Elmer off as a deadpan role in ordinary clothing, but in third-rate pier end farce he hasn't got a hope. And no amount of proclaiming on screen that the result is the biggest thing in comedy is going to help.