jpg00008

The Back of Joan Crawford’s Head

Up above, that’s a picture of the back of Joan Crawford’s head.

You might be wondering why I think that’s worth looking at, or how I expect to squeeze 1500 words out of it. I happen to think this is a potent and symbolic moment in the history of American screen comedy.

Longtime readers are used to my familiar soapbox rantings by now—I’ve spent most of my time here at TCM’s Movie Morlocks spinning my argument that the transition from silent slapstick to talkie screwball is *not* about the advent of sound. Most historians, if asked to demonstrate why screen comedy changed so radically in the 1930s, would point to a blackface Al Jolson singing his heart out and say, “here, lookit.” Not me. I’m going to point to the back of Joan Crawford’s head. “Here, lookit.

ec8a0e90efd0b13faab6568bb9b98009

I’m not saying that the technological transformation wasn’t real, or wasn’t significant. It was clearly a profound shift in Hollywood’s gravity: theaters invested heavily in the new equipment and needed to justify that expense by switching over to showing talkies instead of silents; the sound-recording technology imposed clunky limitations on filmmaking technique; some former movie stars were vexed by how their voices did not fit their screen personas… true, true, true.

But the question I posed isn’t whether The Jazz Singer was a big deal, it was why the decades-long international dominance of silent slapstick suddenly gave out and was replaced by a brand new genre of romantic comedies? If that’s the question, then the whole Jazz Singer thing becomes a noisy variable (see what I did there?). Take it out of the equation—for example, by imaging a world where the advent of sound happened much later, or much earlier—and you’ll see the same transition taking place anyway.

thumbnailImage

If we want to understand why the dinosaurs died off, let’s start by looking at the dinosaurs. Silent slapstick flourished from basically the dawn of cinema (L’Arroseur arrose, 1897) and throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century. In its purest form, it was a cinematic form that prioritized the “hero” comedian—Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd. Their movie adventures were designed as vehicles in which these great men would perform their physical comedy and visual gags. There were exceptions to the rule—lady slapsticians like Alice Howell, or comedians like Sidney Drew who de-emphasized visual comedy. But in the main, when we talk about silent slapstick, we’re talking about a tradition derived from live vaudeville in which a male solo performer would command the attention of his audience by doing funny things with his body.

Harry Langdon entered Hollywood in the mid-1920s, when this format had cohered into formula. He was himself a mature adult, approaching middle age, joining a mature medium. His brand of comedy depended on audience familiarity with the formula—he played off existing audience expectations, specifically by screwing with the timing of familiar jokes and defying genre norms. Langdon was decidedly a second generation screen comic—he exemplified Slapstick 2.0.

jpg00009

Other practitioners of Slapstick 2.0, who similarly made their careers out of playing off variations of what had gone before, included Laurel and Hardy, Our Gang, and the Three Stooges—comics who are remembered at least as much, if not exclusively—for their work in sound films. To the extent slapstick was going to continue into the 1930s, this was to be its direction. Harry Langdon was the spearhead of the future.

And by 1926, Harry Langdon pretty much owned the screen. His run of short comedies at Mack Sennett’s studio had been an unprecedented hit, and he was fast eclipsing the better established comedians who’d blazed the trail before him. He’d left Sennett (who was more Slapstick 1.0 than Sennett?) to start making feature length pictures for First National, the same studio that ushered Charlie Chaplin from shorts into features. The first of these was to be Tramp, Tramp, Tramp.

jpg00013

Tramp, Tramp, Tramp concerns a cross-country foot race into which Langdon has been improbably and inappropriately registered. He is smitten by a billboard model, and since the foot race is sponsored by the company she advertises, he’s all but compelled to do it.

And the movie therefore conspires to put Langdon face to face with the model. Whereupon he goes into fits of both mental and physical gymnastics trying to work out how his angel can be both on the billboard and standing next to him.

jpg00003

And it’s here that we find Ms. Joan Crawford. She’s only 22 years old—and that’s if we believe her birthdate was in 1904. There’s some controversy about that date, and it’s possible she’s actually still a teenager in 1926. She’s certainly still quite green—she’s little more than a glorified extra at this point in her career. In the years to come, she will become one of the enduring stars of Golden Age Hollywood. But first she has to finish this take.

In Tramp, Tramp, Tramp she has the chance to be the leading lady. That’s a bit of a misuse of the term—she doesn’t get much screen time nor much characterization, since Langdon’s solo act dominates the proceedings, but she will be the top-billed actress in a film by one of Hollywood’s hottest comedians. That’s a career boost no matter how you cut it.

But she cannot get through a single take without giggling uncontrollably. Langdon is going into spasmic fits, and as he does his schtick, Crawford does what everybody in the audience will do—she laughs.

jpg00004

Exasperated and exhausted, director Harry Edwards offers a solution: we don’t have to do this in one take. We’ll frame it so we see Langdon and the back of your head. You can laugh—as long as you hold your head still. Then, when we go to do your close-ups, Harry can go back to his trailer and take a break, and you don’t have to try to keep a straight face while looking at him.

It was a fine solution. But it only worked because the film didn’t require Harry and Joan to actually interact at all. Her character is just a cipher, a prop. You don’t need to see anything but the back of her head. It worked because the movie was about Harry Langdon, and everything else was secondary.

jpg00010

In other words, the real problem was that the strength—and weakness—of the film depended wholly on Langdon. This was the hidden fault line in all classic slapstick. Get a great comedian working at the height of his powers and relatively unfettered creative freedom and you could get a masterpiece. But the added value of great collaborators was always going to be limited. There was a wellspring of talent in Hollywood—they were pouring into the city by the bus load, and some of them were geniuses. The working method and style of the great slapstick auteurs had little use for these talents, whose skills were being wasted.

Or, put another way, Slapstick 2.0 didn’t have much room for women. Go back and take a look at my list above—Langdon, Laurel & Hardy, Our Gang, the Stooges. It’s not that Hollywood didn’t have any funny women—they just didn’t have much of a place at the slapstick table.

It’s also worth noting that the funny women coming into movies weren’t generally coming from that vaudeville stage tradition that had minted the likes of Harry Langdon. Instead, Carole Lombard, Claudette Colbert, Jean Arthur, and so on were glamour queens who demonstrated awesome comic chops and started getting opportunities to explore those skills because the filmmakers they worked with saw something special.

Fredric_March_and_Carole_Lombard_in_Nothing_Sacred_1

For several years now, there was new generation of great comedians who had been rising to prominence as writers and directors, but not necessarily as performers themselves. They made comedies to be enacted by others. These writers and directors had come up the ranks during the Slapstick era—Leo McCarey, Ernst Lubitsch, Gregory La Cava, George Stevens, Frank Capra. They’d seen the old model at work, and they’d mastered it. Now they were building something new.

And that something new would be a more ensemble-based style of comedy, which gave pride of place to these funny ladies. They would be comedies which would derive as much comic pleasure out of how they were written and directed as how they were performed. And put together, these factors means that this new comic form would emphasize social criticism—deriving laughs from how these funny ladies defied social norms.

CAPRA-SERIES-PAGE-MAIN2050

And Capra? That’s him, standing alongside Harry Edwards, telling poor Joan Crawford to keep her back to the camera. The only reason we even know this story is because Capra told it.

Of course that right there makes it suspect. Capra told many stories about his time with Langdon and few of them were strictly true. The staging of Crawford’s scene with Langdon is perfect as it is—it’s actually tough to imagine a superior setup in which her face would have been visible during the take.

But the fact this anecdote, however exaggerated, stuck with Capra long enough to make it into his memoir means that it says something about Capra, regardless of whether it accurately describes anything about Crawford. And what it says about Capra can be best understood by watching what he did in the years following his break from Langdon.

Claudette_Colbert_in_It_Happened_One_Night

Roughly ten years later, with It Happened One Night, he’s bottling lightning. The pieces of screwball have been swirling about Hollywood’s orbit for years. In other words, It Happened One Night wasn’t precisely the first screwball comedy, but it makes for an easy to identify moment when all the ingredients appeared in the same recipe.

It isn’t that the new formula emerged fully formed in 1935—more that these ex-Masters of Slapstick had all been rowing in the same direction for several years, and the blockbuster success of It Happened One Night was a very public proof of concept to the new aesthetic.

Capra never directed Crawford in one of these newfangled screwballs, but his use of the likes of Jean Arthur and Claudette Colbert shows the lesson learned from Tramp Tramp Tramp: if you’ve got a great actress in your film and all you can think of for her to do is stand with her back to the camera, you’re doing it wrong.

jpg00007

 

12 Responses The Back of Joan Crawford’s Head
Posted By Jeffrey E. Ford : May 2, 2015 2:42 pm

Never forgetting, of course, that Joan Crawford also played the back of Norma Shearer’s head around the same time. It may have been work, but I’m sure that she preferred the time laughing with Harry Langdon, even if Harry Edwards and Frank Capra found her a take-ruining pain. Ah, Hollywood history….

Posted By Steve Burrus : May 2, 2015 3:51 pm

David yoiurs’ is the first “Movie Morlocks” post which I read

Posted By Steve Burrus : May 2, 2015 3:55 pm

David yoiurs’ is the first “Movie Morlocks” post which I read EVERY SINGLE WORD OF, I guess to try to understand the point that you were trying to make. We can only imagine how early Hollywood would have been back in the 19teens – the 1920′s if women had have been the main stars of these early movie comedies instead of the likes of Chaplin or Keaton!

Posted By george : May 2, 2015 8:04 pm

Well, there was Mabel Normand. She was already a star when Chaplin made his first movie.

Posted By Steve Burrus : May 2, 2015 8:32 pm

What big pre-Chaplin movie did Mabel Normand star in anyway? I cannot think of even one.

Posted By oystercrakker : May 2, 2015 9:31 pm

One of the many extraordinary things about Crawford is that in her progression one can witness the progression of cinematic values, mores, etc. — to an extent that seems almost unique with her … although I’m just a beginner at appreciating her early work …

I need to see a lot more of her early work than I have, in fact (I’ve heard that her early film “Possessed” — unrelated to her later noir vehicle of the same title, if I understand correctly, is one of the best)

Finally getting around to watching “Strange Cargo” properly from beginning to end the other day was an utter revelation to me … Whereas Clark Gable essentially has his gone-with-the-wind type of hard-boiled persona more or less in place (although unlike some critics, I nevertheless really love his performance in Cargo); Crawford on the other hand, though supposedly playing some sort of fallen harlot, appears completely natural and de-glamorized … And is so WONDERFUL like that, with a face seemingly capable of any sort of expressiveness … and THIS was 1940 already …

It really gave me pause to contemplate that this same woman would so soon go on to become the ideotype of extreme, excessive, even self-parodic levels of over- glamorization … (And then push this self-parodic level even further in her ludicrous but often self-humiliating late horror and “cult” films) … What a talent — to be at the pinnacle of expressiveness without a drop of make-up — & then to embody the extreme opposite polarity of feminine expression with EQUAL success and aplomb …. What a fascinating woman!

Posted By Steve Burrus : May 2, 2015 9:48 pm

I recentluy saw Crawford’s performance in the 1932 movie “Rain”, from a story by Somerset Maugham. She r eally was an acting “powerhouse” in that. What did you think of her “Rain” performance if you have seen the film?

Posted By Christine Hoard-Barre : May 2, 2015 11:54 pm

Mabel Normand made many, many shorts with Fatty Arbuckle at Vitograph and Keystone and she is very funny. Her career dates back to 1911. I believe “Mickey” from 1917 is her biggest full-length solo hit.

Posted By george : May 3, 2015 1:39 am

Normand also co-starred with Chaplin and Marie Dressler (another funny woman) in the first feature length comedy, TILLIE’S PUNCTURED ROMANCE (1914).

According to the IMDB, Normand acted in 218 films, most of them short subjects, from 1910 to 1927. She also directed 10 films — which led to friction with Chaplin, who resented being directed by a woman.

It’s sad that most people know Normand, if at all, for her (apparently innocent) role in the William Desmond Taylor murder. This and another scandal — a shooting at a party she attended — wrecked her career. She died from tuberculosis in 1930 without making a talkie.

Jeanine Basinger’s book, “Silent Stars,” gives Normand her due. I highly recommend it. And many, many Normand films can be viewed on YouTube.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0635667/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Posted By Martha C. : May 3, 2015 1:59 am

I much catch some Harry Langdon comedies! I’ve read so many of your posts David and feel like I have missed a genius who might once and for all make me fully appreciate silent slapstick comedy. Loved this post.

Steve and oystercrakker, I’m such a huge fan of all Joan Crawford films, the very early ones especially. Rain is a great film albeit a bit too melodramatic. Love her entrance with all those quick closeups of various body parts, jewellery ending with her overly made up face, cigarette.

Posted By swac44 : May 8, 2015 12:25 pm

Everything about Langdon’s films is so different from what his contemporaries were doing, even now we’re still coming to terms with what he was doing to stand out from the crowd.

Posted By vp19 : May 9, 2015 3:19 pm

Carole Lombard was a glamour queen to be sure, but she gained plenty of comedic experience working for Mack Sennett in his twilight years. Lombard was blessed with both beauty and athleticism (see the two-reeler “Run, Girl, Run,” available via YouTube, for proof), but instead of graduating directly from Sennett to screwball, she instead spent several years in the dramatic wilderness before “Twentieth Century” proved her comic breakthrough in the spring of 1934.

From this entry, one might infer that either Carole saw Sennett as a springboard to dramatic roles (think alumna Gloria Swanson) or that his studio’s affiliation with Pathe, which wasn’t strong in its own comedic material, precluded her going in that direction (in other words, did a 1928 Lombard envision herself as a Colleen Moore/Clara Bow type, or someone happy with any sort of stardom?).

If only we could play around with history and have Lombard — following the auto accident that led to her dismissal as a Fox starlet and left her budding career very much in doubt — wind up with Hal Roach and his somewhat more modern brand of comedy. Then again, Roach might have employed her as a Thelma Todd type, assuming Carole wound up there before Thelma did. A “what-if” question to ponder. Still, I sense Lombard probably would have been a better match for Langdon than her old Cocoanut Grove dance rival Crawford, for whom comedy never really was her strong suit.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

Streamline is the official blog of FilmStruck, a new subscription service that offers film aficionados a comprehensive library of films including an eclectic mix of contemporary and classic art house, indie, foreign and cult films.