Post by rmichaelpyle on Mar 28, 2011 11:37:55 GMT -6
Yesterday I watched what remains of "The Road to Mandalay" (1926) with Lon Chaney, Sr. Also in the cast are Lois Moran, Owen Moore, Henry B. Walthall, and Kamiyama Sôjin; these the most prevalent. I say "what remains" because a number of reels are missing, rather obviously, too, but not necessarily to the detriment of the picture as far as continuity. Originally, this was about 80 minutes or so long, 7 reels, but now only about half of that remains. What is interesting is that the print that remains was taken from a 9.5mm French home print and turned into a 16mm print over here - and not that long ago, sometime in the 1980's. According to Michael Blake, the world's foremost expert on Chaney and his films, there is a little 35mm material remaining also, but it has never been put into place in the other!
Although Chaney doesn't play an Asian in this film, it takes place in British Colonial Mandalay in Burma, and the Chinese and Burmese aura is prevalent to a great extent here. Chaney played nearly fifteen parts either as an Asian or in an Asian country or ambiance in the last ten years of his life! I find that most interesting and curious. This film's intertitles, all of which have been translated from the extant French intertitles, contain many derogatory references to blacks, browns, yellows, and the like. Very un-PC for today's sensitivities: just a warning!
This is one of the collaborations between Chaney and Tod Browning, and, as a result, it has enough macabre and sometimes downright disturbing moments to make it both fascinating and nearly repellant - as every one of the collaborations do.
Chaney's make-up is the one binding factor for the remaining minutes, too. Although the theme, the plot, the motives, and so on remain, so much is missing that what remains is only really great when Chaney is on the screen. His make-up is riveting, and mostly it's his left eye, ostensibly "missing"; and what Chaney did to achieve such an effect was to insert one of the first plastic type contact lenses over his entire eye. The effort was masterful. His scars on his face he did with non-flexible collodion. When he is on-screen the viewer can't take his or her eyes off of Chaney! I will admit, however, that when Kamiyama Sôjin is on the screen, he, too, is most fascinating. He was a very fine bad guy!
Lois Moran plays Chaney's daughter in this one, although she is unaware that Chaney is her father. Evidently, there was once a scene where we see Chaney's wife dying in childbirth, too. It's no longer around. Chaney goes off to Mandalay and opens up Singapore Joe's and becomes a merchant of every kind of evil, accumulating [evidenly] a lot of money in the meantime. The captain of his ship for - whatever; piracy, perhaps? - is played by Owen Moore, once husband of Mary Pickford. His is a major role, for he transforms from a debauched drunkard and major sinner into a reformed man who falls in love with Chaney's daughter in Mandalay and tries to marry her. Chaney won't hear of it; kidnaps Moore; takes him back to Singapore Joe's where Moran eventually comes to find him; she is cornered by the immensely evil Sôjin who wants to make her a "new girl" in the place; Chaney comes around and stops this, and in the ensuing minutes is stabbed by his daughter, though he kills Sôjin; and the end comes around. Many, many minutes of plot - most of which can be figured out - are missing in all of this.
This is, like nearly all of Chaney's pictures, played much like a parable. It has overtones of Christianity - or at least strong faith - which play out in the theme. One of the interesting parts in the film is played by Henry B. Walthall who plays Chaney's brother, and he's a priest - just the opposite, if you will, of Chaney.
I liked the film, but I like Chaney better than any other actor in the silent era. Many consider this film a bunch of bunk. I look at it another way, too: this film made nearly $250,000 of profit - profit over the $170,000 cost of making it. In other words, people of the era liked it, too. It's hammy - at least what remains is hammy - but it's good, and it continues the "Chaney-like part" in a role made for him. That's not bad. What is bad is the condition of the remaining film. It's very dull, dark in some places, blurry in much of it, and generally difficult to see clearly, although I own three copies of the film, and, believe me, some are much better than others. Some are obviously taken from much later generations of the available print.
If you're in the mood for good, but not great, Chaney; if you want to see great make-up, fairly good acting for the period, and you're willing to do so with inferior material as far as the print is concerned - watch, enjoy, learn, and go to sleep with satisfaction in your soul.
Although Chaney doesn't play an Asian in this film, it takes place in British Colonial Mandalay in Burma, and the Chinese and Burmese aura is prevalent to a great extent here. Chaney played nearly fifteen parts either as an Asian or in an Asian country or ambiance in the last ten years of his life! I find that most interesting and curious. This film's intertitles, all of which have been translated from the extant French intertitles, contain many derogatory references to blacks, browns, yellows, and the like. Very un-PC for today's sensitivities: just a warning!
This is one of the collaborations between Chaney and Tod Browning, and, as a result, it has enough macabre and sometimes downright disturbing moments to make it both fascinating and nearly repellant - as every one of the collaborations do.
Chaney's make-up is the one binding factor for the remaining minutes, too. Although the theme, the plot, the motives, and so on remain, so much is missing that what remains is only really great when Chaney is on the screen. His make-up is riveting, and mostly it's his left eye, ostensibly "missing"; and what Chaney did to achieve such an effect was to insert one of the first plastic type contact lenses over his entire eye. The effort was masterful. His scars on his face he did with non-flexible collodion. When he is on-screen the viewer can't take his or her eyes off of Chaney! I will admit, however, that when Kamiyama Sôjin is on the screen, he, too, is most fascinating. He was a very fine bad guy!
Lois Moran plays Chaney's daughter in this one, although she is unaware that Chaney is her father. Evidently, there was once a scene where we see Chaney's wife dying in childbirth, too. It's no longer around. Chaney goes off to Mandalay and opens up Singapore Joe's and becomes a merchant of every kind of evil, accumulating [evidenly] a lot of money in the meantime. The captain of his ship for - whatever; piracy, perhaps? - is played by Owen Moore, once husband of Mary Pickford. His is a major role, for he transforms from a debauched drunkard and major sinner into a reformed man who falls in love with Chaney's daughter in Mandalay and tries to marry her. Chaney won't hear of it; kidnaps Moore; takes him back to Singapore Joe's where Moran eventually comes to find him; she is cornered by the immensely evil Sôjin who wants to make her a "new girl" in the place; Chaney comes around and stops this, and in the ensuing minutes is stabbed by his daughter, though he kills Sôjin; and the end comes around. Many, many minutes of plot - most of which can be figured out - are missing in all of this.
This is, like nearly all of Chaney's pictures, played much like a parable. It has overtones of Christianity - or at least strong faith - which play out in the theme. One of the interesting parts in the film is played by Henry B. Walthall who plays Chaney's brother, and he's a priest - just the opposite, if you will, of Chaney.
I liked the film, but I like Chaney better than any other actor in the silent era. Many consider this film a bunch of bunk. I look at it another way, too: this film made nearly $250,000 of profit - profit over the $170,000 cost of making it. In other words, people of the era liked it, too. It's hammy - at least what remains is hammy - but it's good, and it continues the "Chaney-like part" in a role made for him. That's not bad. What is bad is the condition of the remaining film. It's very dull, dark in some places, blurry in much of it, and generally difficult to see clearly, although I own three copies of the film, and, believe me, some are much better than others. Some are obviously taken from much later generations of the available print.
If you're in the mood for good, but not great, Chaney; if you want to see great make-up, fairly good acting for the period, and you're willing to do so with inferior material as far as the print is concerned - watch, enjoy, learn, and go to sleep with satisfaction in your soul.
