Boire et déboires

This is a solid, if often silly, parody feature that spoofs the conventional melodrama genre. Most of it is played in a style that is far from subtle, and not all of it works smoothly, but it has a decent cast and some other good features. The broad parody works well most of the time, almost poking fun at itself as it pokes fun at melodrama conventions.

The story has the familiar setup of a helpless widow and her daughter who find themselves at the mercy of an unscrupulous villain, played by Alan Mowbray, and who seek help from a virtuous but naive young heir. Mowbray does a pretty good job of parodying melodrama villains, and Buster Keaton has some very good moments, although his role is smaller. Keaton's timing and his appreciation of gag possibilities are still there. Some of the other performances are a little plain, but at least some of the time that may have been by design.

There are some slower stretches, but there are also some sequences that are pretty amusing. It builds up to a suitably tangled finale that has some good moments, although it is unfortunately marred by one inappropriate gag. Overall, it's uneven, but at least worth seeing for those who have an interest in its era and genre.

Villain Still Pursued Her, The (1940)

** (out of 4)

Strange but dull comedy about a villain who's in love with a married woman. In order to steal her he turns the husband into an alcoholic so that he won't be able to support her or their son. It's strange seeing how alcoholism was looked at back in the day but this film gets zero laughs, although the strangeness keeps it watchable. Not even Buster Keaton can get any laughs in his small role.

Sadly Keaton had to appear in a lot of small budget stuff like this and even more sad is that this is one of the better films that he did.

Hollywood movies killed the type of melodramatic social message play that was popular in American theater at the turn of the 20th century. In the teens and twenties, it had both copied it and satirized it to the point that it lost its audience. It simply could not be appreciated by a more sophisticated audience weened on sophisticated Hollywood productions.

It would seem that 1940 would be too late to be satirizing a style of theater and acting that had gone out of style 15 or 20 years before. Still, the majority of Americans past 30 had grown up with such fare and could appreciate the satire. Today, of course, this style of theater and acting is unknown except for the theater and film buffs. 21st Century audiences can only find this film a bit boring and very bizarre.

There are three ethereal performances in this movie - Anita Louise, Margaret Hamilton and Richard Cromwell look like they are in a trance. Joyce Compton is also hilariously effective as a deranged woman. Billie Gilbert and Hugh Herbert do their typically funny bits.

Like me, most people who watch this movie will probably do so to see Buster Keaton. One has to feel a bit disappointed that Keaton just delivers his lines, but hardly does anything really Keatonesque. Yet the whole film, because it was directed by Keaton's friend, Eddie Cline, has a Keatonesque quality to it.

It is hard to imagine the style of acting portrayed in this movie being a real and popular style. The actors seem to avoid all facial expression after reciting their lines. Yet this was considered good acting before the Stanislavsky Method revolutionized theater at the dawn of the 20th century.

This movie should be especially studied by actors and directors for its record of a long gone acting style. It may not be as funny as it once was, but it is more fascinating with the passage of time.

Surprisingly, still very funny affectionate parody of silent cinema cliches. A cult film ahead of it's time.

This absurd parody of Victorian melodramas watched in the right frame of mind is very enjoyable. The cast attacks the material with the proper degree of whimsy playing it broadly, the only reasonable approach to something designed to be this silly.

The director and studio were wise to cast character actors with a talent for either farce or slapstick and then give them free rein to dig into the ridiculous situations with aplomb. The biggest surprise is probably Anita Louise, an busy and very lovely actress until her retirement but not especially known for her comedic skills. In this she jumps right into the mood of the proceedings playing a character that can only be described as an imbecile in her naiveté. By playing it straight and never winking at the audience she makes the woman an object of sympathy no matter how dumb she seems.

If you start watching this expecting anything but an overblown bit of ridiculousness you will either be disappointed or irritated.