Langdon book review by Brad Linaweaver

[Ed Watz]

LITTLE ELF

A Celebration of Harry Langdon
By
Chuck Harter and Michael J. Hayde

Bear Manor Media 2012, $49.95

Reviewed by Brad Linaweaver

You may think the new Telephone Directory somehow wound up in your mail when you open a package containing this astonishing achievement from Bear Manor Media. It stops short of 700 pages, but not by much. It is a big book.

Older fans who might be suffering from deteriorating vision will have no trouble perusing the exhaustively informative text, or pouring over the 500 pictures.

"But who is Harry Langdon?" a novice cineaste might be imprudent enough to ask in a careless moment. This book alone is sufficient to crush such a helpless innocent awash in ignorance.

That is unless such an innocent, with careful choreography and a little help from the Almighty, gracefully dodges the blow the way Harry Langdon would in a classic two-reeler! Think how much mayhem can be avoided with just the right amount of vaudeville.

Harter and Hayde (who sound like a comedy team for Mack Sennett) provide a book that is biography, filmography, and even a spirited defense of their subject.

Langdon benefits from the defense because he suffered years of abuse from no less than Frank Capra. The one and a half screen legends (guess which is which) worked together on comedies in the 1920s. That was before Capra went on to more fanciful and maudlin melodramas that the American people confused with reality.

During the endless years of his later fame, Frank Capra rarely passed up the opportunity to denigrate his earlier collaborator. But the story doesn't end there. It's a bit like a movie scenario, actually. Capra never denied the comedy genius of Harry Langdon -- a genius this book proves and celebrates. That objectivity makes the narrative more interesting than a typical Hollywood feud.

(Despite his long standing grudge that began when Langdon fired Capra, the great director could still be objective about the actor's work on screen. Contrast that with Curt Siodmak's mean-spirited attacks on Bela Lugosi's talent as well as the man, personally.)

Of all the fascinating material in the book, the grudge casts a shadow, leading to this big kick: Frank Capra wanted to take credit for understanding and guiding Langdon's art better than the Little Elf ever did himself.

What makes it perfect is that Capra came up with the moniker of "Little Elf" himself, encapsulating the child-like magic Langdon could bring to adults who watched his films.

What makes it imperfect for Capra is that despite his remarkable career, he could never get over his obsession with being slighted by Langdon. And then there is the added irony that Chuck Harter and Michael J. Hayde understand Langdon better than Capra, without in any way diminishing the contribution the director made to a talent that he nourished, but could not dominate.

Could Langdon have been as great as Chaplin or Keaton? The important thing is that he is remembered. Enough of the silent star's work survives, right into the Talkies (he died in 1944) for future reappraisals. Fashions change. Taste is fickle.

The battle is to be remembered at all. He worked with everyone from Oliver Hardy to Al Jolson to Joan Crawford. He was funny with Billy Gilbert. He looked perfectly content with gorgeous Nell O'Day. He did a lot of pictures.

Harter and Hayde have made their contribution to memory. They analyze and cherish and consider. You can hear the laughter flowing through the book. Langdon's comic timing was about taking enough time to figure out a situation. The reader should do the same, and not rush through these wonderful pages.

[Gary Johnson]

For those who love to rail about the inaccuracies perpetuated by Capra about his former boss and decry that those myths still live today, here is an idea....stop continually linking the two as if they were one! This reviewer -- who obviously admires Langdon -- didn't let more than a paragraph go by before he brought Capra into the mix and then would not let him leave. I thought I was suddenly reading a review of McBride's The CATASTROPHE OF SUCCESS rather than a bio on Langdon.

I know this subject rankles many members to this day because Capra continually got the last word in without ever being questioned about the authenticity of his version or probed about his motives, but it is by now pretty common knowledge (amongst those who care) that Langdon was his own creative muse, nobody lead him around by the nose (outside of his ex-wives) and that he didn't depend solely on the talents of one future Academy-award winning director to give him success in the movies. If we truly want to make sure that the record is set right, start writing about Capra's pecking order in the Langdon hierarchy -- as a young, talented, junior gag writer -- and stop immediately elevating him to the status he would later achieve in the Thirties. It acts as a disservice to all that Langdon achieved in his time, even if it is done as a means to defend Langdon's legacy.

[Michael J Hayde]

If we truly want to make sure that the record is set right, start writing about Capra's pecking order in the Langdon hierarchy -- as a young, talented, junior gag writer -- and stop immediately elevating him to the status he would later achieve in the Thirties. It acts as a disservice to all that Langdon achieved in his time, even if it is done as a means to defend Langdon's legacy.

That WOULD be ideal, but the reality is that the damage Capra has done to Langdon's legacy has remained nearly intact some thirty years after allegedly being "disproved." The review was not aimed at "those who care"; it's targeted toward a wider, less knowledgeable audience.

Until LITTLE ELF, there were two American-penned books devoted to Langdon, and neither did a comprehensive job of debunking the myth. In both editions of William Schelly's book, he opines that Capra's account of his and Arthur Ripley's shaping of the Elf character "rings true." Joyce Rheuban's book makes a solid case for Langdon having forged his character and style in vaudeville, but she relies on Capra's description of JOHNNY'S NEW CAR as a foundation for that thesis, and also assumes Langdon's comedic persona arrived intact as early as 1906. Neither is true.

Like it or not, the fact is that Capra, while beginning as a "junior gag man," did not retain that status beyond two films: ALL NIGHT LONG and BOOBS IN THE WOOD. From there, he would co-write with Ripley, and McBride wrote that Capra took the lead on HIS FIRST FLAME. In terms of the "gang of four" - Langdon, Edwards, Ripley and Capra - perhaps that should be the pecking order, but the reality is all four brought different aspects and experiences to Langdon's development as a SCREEN comedian. The films demonstrate they were essentially equals, and F. Richard Jones deserves more than a nod for assembling and guiding the team up to his departure at the end of '24.

Michael

[Gary Johnson]

Well Michael, I happen to live in an ideal world so I'll stick to my thesis.

And what damage are we now talking about? Harry is in the midst of a renaissance. Thanks to the outstanding work of Mr. Gierucki Langdon's silents are now widely available for home viewing. One can't ask for more than that. There is nothing that creates more interest in an artist's work than accessibility and with interest comes knowledge. I don't see the need for any hand-wringing here. Landgon is due for a grand celebration. He doesn't need another wake.

[Michael J Hayde]

Well Michael, I happen to live in an ideal world so I'll stick to my thesis.

And what damage are we now talking about? Harry is in the midst of a renaissance. Thanks to the outstanding work of Mr. Gierucki Langdon's silents are now widely available for home viewing.

With all due respect to Mr. Gierucki, I thought David Kalat and Kino Video were responsible for the wide availability of Langdon's silents. It's my understanding that Paul has four Langdon titles in the queue for his Mack Sennett compilation.

Landgon is due for a grand celebration. He doesn't need another wake.

Agreed. And I think a 692-page biography/filmography that is subtitled "A Celebration of Harry Langdon" more than qualifies!

Michael

[Richard M Roberts]

If we truly want to make sure that the record is set right, start writing about Capra's pecking order in the Langdon hierarchy -- as a young, talented, junior gag writer -- and stop immediately elevating him to the status he would later achieve in the Thirties. It acts as a disservice to all that Langdon achieved in his time, even if it is done as a means to defend Langdon's legacy.

That WOULD be ideal, but the reality is that the damage Capra has done to Langdon's legacy has remained nearly intact some thirty years after allegedly being "disproved." The review was not aimed at "those who care"; it's targeted toward a wider, less knowledgeable audience.

Until LITTLE ELF, there were two American-penned books devoted to Langdon, and neither did a comprehensive job of debunking the myth. In both editions of William Schelly's book, he opines that Capra's account of his and Arthur Ripley's shaping of the Elf character "rings true." Joyce Rheuban's book makes a solid case for Langdon having forged his character and style in vaudeville, but she relies on Capra's description of JOHNNY'S NEW CAR as a foundation for that thesis, and also assumes Langdon's comedic persona arrived intact as early as 1906. Neither is true.

Like it or not, the fact is that Capra, while beginning as a "junior gag man," did not retain that status beyond two films: ALL NIGHT LONG and BOOBS IN THE WOOD. From there, he would co-write with Ripley, and McBride wrote that Capra took the lead on HIS FIRST FLAME. In terms of the "gang of four" - Langdon, Edwards, Ripley and Capra - perhaps that should be the pecking order, but the reality is all four brought different aspects and experiences to Langdon's development as a SCREEN comedian. The films demonstrate they were essentially equals, and F. Richard Jones deserves more than a nod for assembling and guiding the team up to his departure at the end of '24.

Michael

Ah, I’m sorry Michael, and I hate to rain any on your Celebration of Langdon, but the facts do not bear out that Capra, Langdon, Ripley and Edwards were considered “equals” at the time Langdon was at Sennett, nor when he made the move to First National. To begin with, Capra not coming on board until ALL NIGHT LONG indeed does leave him out of a large part of the creation process of Langdon’s developing cinematic style, and I find it questionable to call either ALL NIGHT LONG or BOOBS IN THE WOODS Capra/Ripley collaborations when Capra is not credited on them(and Vernon Smith and Hal Conklin are credited with ALL NIGHT LONG's story in the first place). We’re back to Capra’s own ego and inflating of his own self-importance to the Langdon unit here when he was just one of several uncredited gagmen working on those pictures. It’s also telling that, even after Capra begins to contribute to the Langdon pictures and getting credit for it, he’s still also working on other Sennett pictures without Langdon even into mid-1925, whereas Ripley, even though he has become Mack Sennett’s Head of Scenario Staff as of late 1924, is getting no other story credits on other Sennett films apart from Langdon’s, or Edwards, who directs no other Sennett films in 24-26 apart from Langdon’s once he joins the team with LUCK OF THE FOOLISH. And when Capra is finally creditedly collaborating with Ripley, with the exception of THERE HE GOES, Capra is always the second-billed.

But what is even more telling about Capra’s actual status with Langdon and the Team is the fact that when Langdon leaves for First National and cannot immediately bring Arthur Ripley along, he hires Tim Whelan to be Story Editor over Capra on TRAMP TRAMP TRAMP. When Langdon gets Ripley back for THE STRONG MAN and loses Edwards, it then makes sense, most likely more from a financial standpoint when Langdon had gone over budget on his first feature to make Capra Director of THE STRONG MAN and save a few dollars on the Director, especially when Langdon considers himself in creative control and can oversee an debuting Director hired from within the team, and at that time Tim Whelan had no directing experience either, and hadn’t been part of the team as long, and Capra was certainly itching to direct.

I hate to say it, but I’m afraid LITTLE ELF (the term itself coming from a Capra quote, and one that I feel is no more successful in describing Langdon’s actual comic character than terms like “The Baby” or “The Baby Dope-fiend”) still leans a bit too much towards the Capra point of view, and that view is perhaps the most egomaniacal and self-serving piece of fiction this side of Howard Hawks and Raoul Walsh’s own memories.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Gary Johnson]

With all due respect to Mr. Gierucki, I thought David Kalat and Kino Video were responsible for the wide availability of Langdon's silents. It's my understanding that Paul has four Langdon titles in the queue for his Mack Sennett compilation.
Michael

Yes, of course. I get the two mixed up ever since they both tried to beat out Sally Ride to become the first teacher into space.

[Michael J Hayde]

I hate to say it, but I’m afraid LITTLE ELF (the term itself coming from a Capra quote, and one that I feel is no more successful in describing Langdon’s actual comic character than terms like “The Baby” or “The Baby Dope-fiend”) still leans a bit too much towards the Capra point of view, and that view is perhaps the most egomaniacal and self-serving piece of fiction this side of Howard Hawks and Raoul Walsh’s own memories.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

And on the flip side, we have Leonard Maltin, who thinks Chuck and I were entirely too hard on poor Mr. Capra, and not critical enough of that "sorry lot" of Roach shorts.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmalti ... ry-langdon

There's just no pleasing some people!

Michael

[Richard M Roberts]

And on the flip side, we have Leonard Maltin, who thinks Chuck and I were entirely too hard on poor Mr. Capra, and not critical enough of that "sorry lot" of Roach shorts.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmalti ... ry-langdon

There's just no pleasing some people!

Michael

Not with Langdon there isn't.

Leonard is always overprotective of Capra, partially because he knew Capra pretty well, and he moaned like that about the commentaries when we did the Landgon All-Day DVD set. And his mind is made up and closed on the Langdon Roach Shorts, partially because of what he wrote in THE GREAT MOVIE SHORTS, but I'll bet he never saw them with an audience then, nor has probably looked at them since, with or without an audience. He'll really love my book, because in my chapter on the Roach Langdons, I love them.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Gary Johnson]

As do I. Each succeeding Roach short gains in style and entertainment value.
I don't know how anyone could let go someone who just made THE KING. The malevolent man-child could had been an entirely new sound variation of Langdon's silent characterization.