Raymond Griffith

[David B Pearson]

If you didn't like Paths to Paradise or Hands Up!, then I doubt that you will like any of his other features. The Night Club does have Wallace Beery as a villain, but it's still a pretty low budget feature.

I had the same basic problem with both films.

In the case of Hands Up! I started the film with considerable enthusiasm. I'm also a Civil War buff, and knew something as grim and pompous as that war was would be and easy target for laughs. Of course, The General had already been one of my pet films for several years, and sound comedies like Uncivil War Birds and A Southern Yankee had also scored with me. Furthermore, I had thoroughly enjoyed Advance to the Rear (1960), the film that had inspired F-Troop, and, on paper, the plots of Hands Up! and Advance to the Rear had a lot of common ground.

With Paths to Paradise, I went into it, as everyone in here would imagine, with considerably more reserve, but was quickly won over by the Chinatown sequence, which I found both cute and clever. I'm also a fan of detective films, so again, I was easily winnable. Besides, Compson was pretty likable too.

In both cases then, by the the end of the first reel I had positive feelings about both films. By the end of the second, I was allowing for the need to set up plot. By the end of the third, I'd already began to grow weary of all the various tricks and double-crossing. By the end of the fourth, I was already thinking about how much better these films would have been with Charley Chase in the lead, and by the start of the sixth all I was waiting for was some sort of smash finishes to pull these things out of the fire. In Hands Up!, it never came. Even the "Utah or Bust" sign I'd been expecting ended up being "To Salt Lake City." Paths to Paradise was slightly better, but zooming around in process photography backdrop thrills me about as much as the Sennett Cyclorama, and while a bunch of cops on motorcycles looks impressive in a chase, it just isn't terribly funny to me if there's no interaction with Griffith. So its all pretty dull, and when the film ends abruptly (because of the missing reel), it seems a relief. Only bit I really liked in that chase was the tire changing sequence.

So, in conclusion, I still don't see that the big deal regarding Griffith was about. I'm willing to keep trying, but as Bruce suggests, this is looking pretty futile for me.

DBP

[Chris Snowden]

Other folks have made some of the points I was going to suggest. In small roles, Griffith does liven up some otherwise bland films; often, those films only come to life when he's onscreen, and the one with Clara Bow is a perfect example.

I think that Sherlock Holmes is a greater creation than any of the actual stories the character appeared in. Raymond Griffith is the same way. I don't think there's a four-star classic Raymond Griffith film out there, but I really love watching him work. I love that he's distinctive, I love the sly looks, the confidence, the resourcefulness, the moral ambiguity. I love that he's a rascal, even when he's on the right side of the law.

If you flip through very many exhibitor reviews of the films they were booking in the mid-1920s, you discover pretty quickly that a lot of people flat-out hated Raymond Griffith and W. C. Fields. It's not hard to see why. In a world of childlike, silly/shabby comedians with hearts of gold, Griffith and Fields stood alone: cynical, shady, out for themselves. That had to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Apart from the characterization, I find Griffith a funny comedian, especially with an audience around me. Watching him by myself, I can appreciate what he's doing, but films like his just play a lot better with an audience.

If not for his raspy voice, I think Griffith could've been a sensation in talkies. His screen persona would have been right in sync with the times. Can you imagine Griff in Warner Bros. pictures, teaming up with the likes of Joan Blondell or Ann Dvorak, pulling scams, outwitting cops, bankers, gangsters? I'd take that over Joe E. Brown any day.

[David B Pearson]

If you flip through very many exhibitor reviews of the films they were booking in the mid-1920s, you discover pretty quickly that a lot of people flat-out hated Raymond Griffith and W. C. Fields. It's not hard to see why. In a world of childlike, silly/shabby comedians with hearts of gold, Griffith and Fields stood alone: cynical, shady, out for themselves. That had to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I don't hate Raymond Griffith, but on the other hand I have close to zero emotional attachment to his character. And if that is what supposed to hold my attention, it is indeed part of the problem. That and the gags seem pretty weak.

If he'd made it in sound, maybe if would have made a difference. It does with Fields.

DBP

[Richard M Roberts]

If you flip through very many exhibitor reviews of the films they were booking in the mid-1920s, you discover pretty quickly that a lot of people flat-out hated Raymond Griffith and W. C. Fields. It's not hard to see why. In a world of childlike, silly/shabby comedians with hearts of gold, Griffith and Fields stood alone: cynical, shady, out for themselves. That had to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I don't hate Raymond Griffith, but on the other hand I have close to zero emotional attachment to his character. And if that is what supposed to hold my attention, it is indeed part of the problem. That and the gags seem pretty weak.

If he'd made it in sound, maybe if would have made a difference. It does with Fields.

DBP

Well, if you're looking for an emotional attachment to Griffith's character, you're going about him in the completely the wrong way to begin with, because the whole point of his character is to have no emotional attachment to whats going on about him in the first place. It is also the problem with placing his character n any sort of a plot where he has to carry the story, and it apparently became more of a problem as time went on. It's why he succeeds in stealing lesser films he playing supporting roles in, because he basically works in a vacuum, but leads have to care about what's going on around them or why the hell is anyone spending their time watching them. But Griffith does work excellently with an audience, which is the whole point of any comedian frankly, and the gags in PATHS TO PARADISE and HANDS UP are far from weak. So, if you sit down and write a "Raymond Griffith is not funny because I watched these films alone and didnt laugh" article, you're going to look a bit silly because one can point to any number of showings of these films in which large numbers of people laughed at it. Say he just isn't your cup of tea and get on with it.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

[David B Pearson]

If you flip through very many exhibitor reviews of the films they were booking in the mid-1920s, you discover pretty quickly that a lot of people flat-out hated Raymond Griffith and W. C. Fields. It's not hard to see why. In a world of childlike, silly/shabby comedians with hearts of gold, Griffith and Fields stood alone: cynical, shady, out for themselves. That had to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I don't hate Raymond Griffith, but on the other hand I have close to zero emotional attachment to his character. And if that is what supposed to hold my attention, it is indeed part of the problem. That and the gags seem pretty weak.

If he'd made it in sound, maybe if would have made a difference. It does with Fields.

DBP

Well, if you're looking for an emotional attachment to Griffith's character, you're going about him in the completely the wrong way to begin with, because the whole point of his character is to have no emotional attachment to whats going on about him in the first place.

Actually, I was looking for gags to laugh at. When that failed, I looked at the character. That failed too.

It is also the problem with placing his character in any sort of a plot where he has to carry the story, and it apparently became more of a problem as time went on. It's why he succeeds in stealing lesser films he playing supporting roles in, because he basically works in a vacuum, but leads have to care about what's going on around them or why the hell is anyone spending their time watching them.

Points taken.

But Griffith does work excellently with an audience, which is the whole point of any comedian frankly, and the gags in PATHS TO PARADISE and HANDS UP are far from weak.

I beg to differ about the gags. They seem sparse, and a bit on the cheap.

So, if you sit down and write a "Raymond Griffith is not funny because I watched these films alone and didn't laugh" article...

Well, I didn't have a whole lot of choice on THAT one. In the wilds of rural Mississippi, I can't get anybody to watch THE MUSIC BOX, much less a Raymond Griffith silent.

...you're going to look a bit silly because one can point to any number of showings of these films in which large numbers of people laughed at it. Say he just isn't your cup of tea and get on with it.

Raymond Griffith isn't my cup of tea.

DBP

[Gary Johnson]

I liked what Chris said about cynical comedians in the 20's. It just wasn't the right time for that ilk to flourish. Comedians were loopy and surreal and extremely clever in the silents but they were also heroic. More often than not they had to come out on top. It was hard for a good anti-hero to succeed in that era. Now the 30's - that was a good time to express cynicism, what with that pesky Depression and all of the baggage it brought. It wasn't just Fields who found re-newed fame in the 30's, it opened the doors for a whole slew of character actors who stood on the sidelines and swilled cocktails while commenting on the state of the union. Think Robert Benchley. This would of fit Griffith to a tee if he had a voice since that was basically the roles he played when he first joined Paramount.

Gary J.

[Bob Birchard]

Yes, there are more than two, including Changing Husband, Open All Night, When Winter Went, Miss Bluebeard, You'd Be Surprised, Trent's Last Case (incomplete), The Sleeping Porch (talkie short), and several shorts from the Teens. Not all of these are starring roles for Griffith, and I'm not sure any or all would change your opinion about Griffith--but the one that is probably the most edifying is "Miss Bluebeard." Griffith steals the film in what is essentially a small, and some might argue unnecessary, role. But his performance leaps off the screen compared to the other actors in the film. But even as Griffith was starring in films, he was regarded as a highly effective "picture doctor," and he went on to become a major producer at 20th Century-Fox. I would argue that the best of the Fox features from 1935 through his retirement in 1940 have Raymond Griffith's credit as Associate Producer.

[Bob Birchard]

Oh, and I forgot The Night Club