As the sound age began, Hollywood bigwigs had no idea what to do with their biggest silent stars. Chaplin, wisely, did not jump into talkies--choosing to take his time making his kind of pictures. As a result, his first sound film, CITY LIGHTS, is considered a classic. Harold Lloyd made some very, very good sound films but the public reaction was surprisingly rather underwhelming (FEET FIRST and MOVIE CRAZY were wonderful and should be remembered). Of the big three silent comedians, Buster Keaton made, in hindsight, the worst career moves at this time--allowing MGM to put him into vehicles that in no way played to his strengths as a comedian.
In this film, FREE AND EASY, much of the film is a musical!!! A musical for a wonderful visual and very physical comedian?! And, unfortunately, it got much worse during the 1930s--as MGM paired him with Jimmy Durante--who the the complete opposite of Keaton in every way. Keaton was quiet, sweet and physically adept, while Durante was loud, brash and just plain annoying! Why, oh why did Keaton allow this to happen?! Why did VERBAL humor come to predominate in his films when this was by far his weakest point as an actor? Oh, I guess I should stop complaining and just address this film.
FREE AND EASY was a very odd film because unlike his earlier starring roles, he was just one of many characters in the film and far less of the movie's focus was on him. Instead, a plot involving Anita Page (as "Miss Gopher Falls") and her mother as they travel to Hollywood is the main thrust of the film--and Keaton is just along for the ride. Later, naturally, the film involves much more of Keaton, but for about the first third, he was definitely a secondary character.
When in Hollywood, Miss Page met up with an aspiring young actor (Robert Montgomery--who, unlike the other Hollywood stars and directors does NOT play himself but a fictional star). This part of the film I liked best, as there were may behind the scenes clips where you got to see some great actors in seemingly casual scenes (such as William Haines, Lionel Barrymore and Jackie Coogan). Additionally, super-important directors like Fred Niblo (who directed many of the great early MGM films) and Cecil B. DeMille were on hand. Unfortunately, while these scenes were very interesting to film fans like myself, they weren't all that funny.
As for the rest of the film, it was very disappointing because there just weren't many laughs. Plus, placing Keaton in the musical portion was sad indeed. His Pagliacci-style character with sad makeup just seemed pathetic and overly based in pathos--which was Chaplin's style, not Keaton's. The ending was in many ways also a knockoff of Chaplin's THE CIRCUS, as Keaton professes his love but loses the girl. To make matters worse, this wasn't set up well at all--and his confession seemed to come completely out of left field.
The bottom line is that this film was NOT Keaton but was like another person stuck in Buster's body. While it's a pleasant enough film, that's all it is--no magic and nothing to remember.
In this film, FREE AND EASY, much of the film is a musical!!! A musical for a wonderful visual and very physical comedian?! And, unfortunately, it got much worse during the 1930s--as MGM paired him with Jimmy Durante--who the the complete opposite of Keaton in every way. Keaton was quiet, sweet and physically adept, while Durante was loud, brash and just plain annoying! Why, oh why did Keaton allow this to happen?! Why did VERBAL humor come to predominate in his films when this was by far his weakest point as an actor? Oh, I guess I should stop complaining and just address this film.
FREE AND EASY was a very odd film because unlike his earlier starring roles, he was just one of many characters in the film and far less of the movie's focus was on him. Instead, a plot involving Anita Page (as "Miss Gopher Falls") and her mother as they travel to Hollywood is the main thrust of the film--and Keaton is just along for the ride. Later, naturally, the film involves much more of Keaton, but for about the first third, he was definitely a secondary character.
When in Hollywood, Miss Page met up with an aspiring young actor (Robert Montgomery--who, unlike the other Hollywood stars and directors does NOT play himself but a fictional star). This part of the film I liked best, as there were may behind the scenes clips where you got to see some great actors in seemingly casual scenes (such as William Haines, Lionel Barrymore and Jackie Coogan). Additionally, super-important directors like Fred Niblo (who directed many of the great early MGM films) and Cecil B. DeMille were on hand. Unfortunately, while these scenes were very interesting to film fans like myself, they weren't all that funny.
As for the rest of the film, it was very disappointing because there just weren't many laughs. Plus, placing Keaton in the musical portion was sad indeed. His Pagliacci-style character with sad makeup just seemed pathetic and overly based in pathos--which was Chaplin's style, not Keaton's. The ending was in many ways also a knockoff of Chaplin's THE CIRCUS, as Keaton professes his love but loses the girl. To make matters worse, this wasn't set up well at all--and his confession seemed to come completely out of left field.
The bottom line is that this film was NOT Keaton but was like another person stuck in Buster's body. While it's a pleasant enough film, that's all it is--no magic and nothing to remember.