Some of my favorite movies, and some of the best movies ever made, hail from the silent era. There is a treasure trove of cinema classics from way back when that has been sadly forgotten, or even lost. Not all silent pictures are equal, however, and some just don't capture the imagination in the same way that others do. I can appreciate why Harry Langdon was considered a fine comedic star, as he routinely expresses a certain bumbling, nervous disposition, and demonstrates adept physical capability, to bring his characters to life. For whatever cleverness he may claim, though, or the writers or co-stars of his films, from what I've seen to date of his oeuvre his pictures kind of struggle to inspire: not bad by any means, but even compared to other contemporaries, they bear very simple - and very light - entertainment. Yet with this said, I'm pleased that for my money 'Tramp, tramp, tramp' seems to be a little more consistent and worthwhile.
Frank Capra's is a name that I think most any fan of movies should recognize, and here he serves the picture as its screenwriter. However slight, the narrative is suitable as a vehicle for the humor, and more important here is the scene writing - the details poured into each passing moment to build not just the story, but the active comedy. There's some wonderful wit to be had in 'Tramp, tramp, tramp,' with physical comedy, sight gags, and situational humor serving up some fun. Langdon and his fellow actors do a swell job of making the silliness as lively as it could be, alongside director Harry Edwards, whose orchestration of the more robust instances is fairly tight and mindful. The stunts, set pieces, and effects that we get also look great, relatively uncomplicated as they are for the era.
There are, however, unquestionably elements of the production that raise a skeptical eyebrow. Most substantively, there are multiple points where story beats or gags linger too long and lose their luster - what Benjamin Franklin said about fish and houseguests applies just as well to bits in film or television. There's also something distinctly off about the fundamental presentation. Theoretically it could be chalked up to a degraded surviving print, but the nature of the issue indicates that something is awry with the makeup, lighting, cinematography, or some combination thereof. Specifically, this extends almost exclusively to Langdon: there are instances where his facial features are all but indistinguishable, and his face seems to perfectly match the clothes he's wearing - while other people with whom he shares the scene look normal and realistic. Then, too, at the same time that Langdon is distinguished in this way in some scenes, in others he is not, and one can readily discern his expressions. And this is true throughout the whole film, back and forth, with no rhyme or reason to the discrepancies.
Still, the only intention here was to have a good time. In this case the faults aren't so severe as to wholly squelch the entertainment, and despite them, 'Tramp, tramp, tramp' succeeds more than it doesn't. There's some earnest intelligence and heart in Capra's screenplay. Edwards makes use of some shots or camerawork that were still somewhat novel for the 1920s, and while she only has a supporting role, it's a small joy to see Joan Crawford here in one of her earlier features. I don't know that I'd say this title is outright funny, or solidly engaging, but even with some rough patches it is at least rather reliably amusing - more than some others could boast. And that steadiness ultimately makes more of an impression than any shortcomings, with the result that this comes off as a quietly delightful viewing experience.
Not all viewers can abide silent pictures, which I certainly understand, and there are definitely issues with this specific film that detract from the greatest of what it could have been. Those issues include an especially ham-handed and even unnecessary ending that frankly just altogether breaks with the tone of the preceding material. But when all is said and done, 'Tramp, tramp, tramp' actually bests my expectations. I enjoyed watching this, and I think it earns a soft recommendation for silent cinephiles who happen to come across it. It may not stand out as much as some other pictures of the era, yet nonetheless stands tall enough on its own merits.
Frank Capra's is a name that I think most any fan of movies should recognize, and here he serves the picture as its screenwriter. However slight, the narrative is suitable as a vehicle for the humor, and more important here is the scene writing - the details poured into each passing moment to build not just the story, but the active comedy. There's some wonderful wit to be had in 'Tramp, tramp, tramp,' with physical comedy, sight gags, and situational humor serving up some fun. Langdon and his fellow actors do a swell job of making the silliness as lively as it could be, alongside director Harry Edwards, whose orchestration of the more robust instances is fairly tight and mindful. The stunts, set pieces, and effects that we get also look great, relatively uncomplicated as they are for the era.
There are, however, unquestionably elements of the production that raise a skeptical eyebrow. Most substantively, there are multiple points where story beats or gags linger too long and lose their luster - what Benjamin Franklin said about fish and houseguests applies just as well to bits in film or television. There's also something distinctly off about the fundamental presentation. Theoretically it could be chalked up to a degraded surviving print, but the nature of the issue indicates that something is awry with the makeup, lighting, cinematography, or some combination thereof. Specifically, this extends almost exclusively to Langdon: there are instances where his facial features are all but indistinguishable, and his face seems to perfectly match the clothes he's wearing - while other people with whom he shares the scene look normal and realistic. Then, too, at the same time that Langdon is distinguished in this way in some scenes, in others he is not, and one can readily discern his expressions. And this is true throughout the whole film, back and forth, with no rhyme or reason to the discrepancies.
Still, the only intention here was to have a good time. In this case the faults aren't so severe as to wholly squelch the entertainment, and despite them, 'Tramp, tramp, tramp' succeeds more than it doesn't. There's some earnest intelligence and heart in Capra's screenplay. Edwards makes use of some shots or camerawork that were still somewhat novel for the 1920s, and while she only has a supporting role, it's a small joy to see Joan Crawford here in one of her earlier features. I don't know that I'd say this title is outright funny, or solidly engaging, but even with some rough patches it is at least rather reliably amusing - more than some others could boast. And that steadiness ultimately makes more of an impression than any shortcomings, with the result that this comes off as a quietly delightful viewing experience.
Not all viewers can abide silent pictures, which I certainly understand, and there are definitely issues with this specific film that detract from the greatest of what it could have been. Those issues include an especially ham-handed and even unnecessary ending that frankly just altogether breaks with the tone of the preceding material. But when all is said and done, 'Tramp, tramp, tramp' actually bests my expectations. I enjoyed watching this, and I think it earns a soft recommendation for silent cinephiles who happen to come across it. It may not stand out as much as some other pictures of the era, yet nonetheless stands tall enough on its own merits.