Spoilers below! I describe the entire film!
Harry Langdon was one of the great silent comics. He arrived later than Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, following twenty years of success in Vaudeville. His act earned many fans -- including Harold Lloyd, who recommended that his friend and producer, Hal Roach, sign Langdon to a film contract.
In the end, Roach didn't sign Langdon. The successful comic took other bids, and Langdon began his movie career elsewhere.
Over a series of shorts, Langdon gradually honed his movie character. He looked young for his age and he used heavy white make-up to provide himself with a child-like appearance. He gradually developed more child-like mannerisms, until he became like a child in a man's body.
Unfortunately, Langdon's film persona did not prove nearly so elastic as personas of his peers. Keaton's "stone face" (unsmiling but not inexpressive) and Lloyd's bespectacled boy next door fit on almost any rung of the social ladder. They played rich and poor, city and urban alike (see Keaton's historical comedy "The General" and Lloyd's pastoral "The Kid Brother", both of which came out the same year as "Three's a Crowd.")
Langdon's childish character fit nicely in short films; but after a few notable feature films ("The Strong Man" and "Tramp Tramp Tramp"), his finely-honed character's bag of tricks was running low.
With two good films behind him that played to audience expectations in their admirable presentation of his film persona, Langdon may have felt compelled to make his character explore darker and more uncertain regions.
His next feature, "Long Pants", was about an aspiring womanizer who takes the local girl who loves him out in the woods to shoot her to freely pursue the drug-smuggling vamp he lusts for. The movie is extremely funny, though in places Langdon does show his ability to milk a joke too far.
Langdon followed "Long Pants" with his directorial debut, "Three's a Crowd" (Hereinafter "TAC"). So many reviewers have focused on what "TAC" is not, they've done a disservice to what "TAC" is.
**SPOILER ALERT** Here's the movie in a nutshell: Harry is a poor chap working for a low-rent moving company. Though he wants a family, Harry doesn't know how to get one. The film introduces Harry in an amusing vignette of gags that builds to a great set-piece of Harry hanging by a rug from a trap door beneath a very high apartment. In keeping with his character, Harry cannot comprehend the physics of his situation. He keeps climbing up the rug and opening the trap door; and every time the trap door opens, more of the rug slides out and Harry comes closer to falling. It's a good sequence and the image of Langdon hanging by a rug should be iconic.
With Harry's character set up, the weather turns bitter. A woman wandering away from an alcoholic husband is lost in the snow. Harry finds her when she collapses and puts her to bed. When he discovers she's about to have a baby, he rushes out and rustles up every doctor and midwife in town. When the baby is born, Harry believes he has discovered an instant family.
Then he finds a picture of the woman's husband. He's very handsome, and Harry starts to beat the picture up. Having consulted a palmist, Harry is persuaded that he deserves this family and the woman will come to love him.
Though the term "pathos" is overused for the movie, Langdon continues to build his gag sequences -- such as baking a peach pie in a diaper. Langdon always had great eye movements, and his look when he discovers this mistake is a classic moment.
Harry climbs into a crib with the baby and rocks it to sleep -- and himself with it. While he sleeps, Harry dreams that the woman's husband arrives like a stereotypical silent-movie villain to steal Harry's family away. Harry tries to stop him, and they two wind up in a boxing match for possession of the family. After a set-up about a growing boxing glove, Harry loses the bout almost immediately.
When he wakes up, the husband does arrive to take his family home. He's turned over a new leaf. He shakes Harry's hand for caring for his family, then he takes his wife and child away in a fine automobile (circa 1927). Harry has their gratitude and their promise of a reward and continued friendship for all he's done. But Harry, selfishly, doesn't want to see his instant family taken from him.
Harry wanders out into the street to the Palmist's shop. He's about to throw his trademark brick through the storefront window, but he tosses it away instead -- knocking loose a huge, metal drum, which crashes through the Palmist's shop, utterly destroying it. So the movie ends
**END SPOILER**
Though some of the direction is rough, the film has nice moments, as when Harry blows out a kerosene lamp -- and all the street-lamps fade, too. And "Three's a Crowd" lacks any sequence with an overlong milking of a joke, as in "Long Pants" when Langdon tried to get a ventriloquist's dummy to chase him.
"TAC" wasn't the instant classic Langdon wanted. It failed at the box office. And unlike other failures in their day (Keaton's "The General" -- or even "Citizen Kane") critical opinion has not changed in more than 80 years since the film's release. He did remain true to the character he had developed over the years; but perhaps he strayed too far from situations to which his audience were conditioned. "TAC" is worth seeing as part of the continuing development of an artist looking for new ways to peddle his wares. It needs to be accepted on its own uncompromising terms, though it should be seen after his shorts and his other features.
Harry Langdon was one of the great silent comics. He arrived later than Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, following twenty years of success in Vaudeville. His act earned many fans -- including Harold Lloyd, who recommended that his friend and producer, Hal Roach, sign Langdon to a film contract.
In the end, Roach didn't sign Langdon. The successful comic took other bids, and Langdon began his movie career elsewhere.
Over a series of shorts, Langdon gradually honed his movie character. He looked young for his age and he used heavy white make-up to provide himself with a child-like appearance. He gradually developed more child-like mannerisms, until he became like a child in a man's body.
Unfortunately, Langdon's film persona did not prove nearly so elastic as personas of his peers. Keaton's "stone face" (unsmiling but not inexpressive) and Lloyd's bespectacled boy next door fit on almost any rung of the social ladder. They played rich and poor, city and urban alike (see Keaton's historical comedy "The General" and Lloyd's pastoral "The Kid Brother", both of which came out the same year as "Three's a Crowd.")
Langdon's childish character fit nicely in short films; but after a few notable feature films ("The Strong Man" and "Tramp Tramp Tramp"), his finely-honed character's bag of tricks was running low.
With two good films behind him that played to audience expectations in their admirable presentation of his film persona, Langdon may have felt compelled to make his character explore darker and more uncertain regions.
His next feature, "Long Pants", was about an aspiring womanizer who takes the local girl who loves him out in the woods to shoot her to freely pursue the drug-smuggling vamp he lusts for. The movie is extremely funny, though in places Langdon does show his ability to milk a joke too far.
Langdon followed "Long Pants" with his directorial debut, "Three's a Crowd" (Hereinafter "TAC"). So many reviewers have focused on what "TAC" is not, they've done a disservice to what "TAC" is.
**SPOILER ALERT** Here's the movie in a nutshell: Harry is a poor chap working for a low-rent moving company. Though he wants a family, Harry doesn't know how to get one. The film introduces Harry in an amusing vignette of gags that builds to a great set-piece of Harry hanging by a rug from a trap door beneath a very high apartment. In keeping with his character, Harry cannot comprehend the physics of his situation. He keeps climbing up the rug and opening the trap door; and every time the trap door opens, more of the rug slides out and Harry comes closer to falling. It's a good sequence and the image of Langdon hanging by a rug should be iconic.
With Harry's character set up, the weather turns bitter. A woman wandering away from an alcoholic husband is lost in the snow. Harry finds her when she collapses and puts her to bed. When he discovers she's about to have a baby, he rushes out and rustles up every doctor and midwife in town. When the baby is born, Harry believes he has discovered an instant family.
Then he finds a picture of the woman's husband. He's very handsome, and Harry starts to beat the picture up. Having consulted a palmist, Harry is persuaded that he deserves this family and the woman will come to love him.
Though the term "pathos" is overused for the movie, Langdon continues to build his gag sequences -- such as baking a peach pie in a diaper. Langdon always had great eye movements, and his look when he discovers this mistake is a classic moment.
Harry climbs into a crib with the baby and rocks it to sleep -- and himself with it. While he sleeps, Harry dreams that the woman's husband arrives like a stereotypical silent-movie villain to steal Harry's family away. Harry tries to stop him, and they two wind up in a boxing match for possession of the family. After a set-up about a growing boxing glove, Harry loses the bout almost immediately.
When he wakes up, the husband does arrive to take his family home. He's turned over a new leaf. He shakes Harry's hand for caring for his family, then he takes his wife and child away in a fine automobile (circa 1927). Harry has their gratitude and their promise of a reward and continued friendship for all he's done. But Harry, selfishly, doesn't want to see his instant family taken from him.
Harry wanders out into the street to the Palmist's shop. He's about to throw his trademark brick through the storefront window, but he tosses it away instead -- knocking loose a huge, metal drum, which crashes through the Palmist's shop, utterly destroying it. So the movie ends
**END SPOILER**
Though some of the direction is rough, the film has nice moments, as when Harry blows out a kerosene lamp -- and all the street-lamps fade, too. And "Three's a Crowd" lacks any sequence with an overlong milking of a joke, as in "Long Pants" when Langdon tried to get a ventriloquist's dummy to chase him.
"TAC" wasn't the instant classic Langdon wanted. It failed at the box office. And unlike other failures in their day (Keaton's "The General" -- or even "Citizen Kane") critical opinion has not changed in more than 80 years since the film's release. He did remain true to the character he had developed over the years; but perhaps he strayed too far from situations to which his audience were conditioned. "TAC" is worth seeing as part of the continuing development of an artist looking for new ways to peddle his wares. It needs to be accepted on its own uncompromising terms, though it should be seen after his shorts and his other features.