Raymond Griffith

[David B Pearson]

Was he really that big of a deal, or is he an overrated figured foisted by Walter Kerr's fancy in 1975?

[Richard M Roberts]

Was he really that big of a deal, or is he an overrated figured foisted by Walter Kerr's fancy in 1975?

Yes, he's that big a deal.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Gary Johnson]

Don't let Bruce see this topic.

Gary J.

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Was he really that big of a deal, or is he an overrated figured foisted by Walter Kerr's fancy in 1975?

HANDS UP and PATHS TO PARADISE are both great films. I really wish more of his stuff existed. He isn't my fave, but he's damn fine. I'd put him in the number 5 spot, after the Big Three and Charley Chase. <<ducks a pie thrown by Richard Roberts>>

[David B Pearson]

Was he really that big of a deal, or is he an overrated figured foisted by Walter Kerr's fancy in 1975?

HANDS UP and PATHS TO PARADISE are both great films. I really wish more of his stuff existed. He isn't my fave, but he's damn fine. I'd put him in the number 5 spot, after the Big Three and Charley Chase. <<ducks a pie thrown by Richard Roberts>>

Well, I've yet to see PATHS TO PARADISE -- and that might be better than sliced bread -- but HANDS UP! was one of the LEAST impressive feature comedies I've ever seen. One dull film. Unimpressive gags. Plot is too long winded, as if being used as filler. Photography looks drab. Even Swain is looking tame. Only funny thing in it to me was the ending, and I had Kerr's notes to prep me for that one.

Has PATHS TO PARADISE been found complete now? If it hasn't, an incomplete film is pretty thin stuff to hang a reputation on. As it stands, Raymond Griffith ain't in my top five, or top ten, or even top twenty. In fact, he coming in under Snooky the Chimp.

[Richard M Roberts]

Was he really that big of a deal, or is he an overrated figured foisted by Walter Kerr's fancy in 1975?

HANDS UP and PATHS TO PARADISE are both great films. I really wish more of his stuff existed. He isn't my fave, but he's damn fine. I'd put him in the number 5 spot, after the Big Three and Charley Chase. <<ducks a pie thrown by Richard Roberts>>

Well, I've yet to see PATHS TO PARADISE -- and that might be better than sliced bread -- but HANDS UP! was one of the LEAST impressive comedies I've ever seen. One dull film. Only funny thing in it to me was the ending, and I had Kerr's notes to prep me for that one.

Has PATHS TO PARADISE been found complete now? If it hasn't, an incomplete film is pretty thin stuff to hang a reputation on. As it stands, Raymond Griffith ain't in my top five, or top ten, or even top twenty. In fact, he coming in under Snooky the Chimp.

Well, it doesn't sound like you've seen enough of Griffith to make an informed opinion David, and if you think HANDS UP is a dull film, an opinion made most likely while watching the film without an audience, I'm inclined to think it's you, not the film's fault. I've seen HANDS UP go over gangbusters with many a crowd, and I think PATHS TO PARADISE, even missing a reel, is even better, and it goes over even stronger than HANDS UP with a group.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[David B Pearson]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've seen enough of Griffith to make an informed opinion David, and if you think HANDS UP is a dull film, an opinion made most likely while watching the film without an audience, I'm inclined to think it's you, not the film's fault. I've seen HANDS UP go over gangbusters with many a crowd, and I think PATHS TO PARADISE, even missing a reel, is even better, and it goes over even stronger than HANDS UP with a group.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That could be very true. Here in rural Mississippi, my chances to see a silent comedy with an audience are slim indeed. On the other hand, I've seen 50% percent of the available Raymond Griffith silent comedy canon (or a bit over 50% I guess) and I generally trust my own instincts on what's funny -- or at least what WAS funny in the historical context -- than I do on somebody's else's insistence. For example, I don't need somebody to tell me that Harold Lloyd's films are going to have a big reaction with an audience, although I've never witnessed that myself. As for HANDS UP!, I'm only bewildered about what the big deal is -- and, as you know, I'm the anal type that strips a film apart looking at the details.

I'll wait on PATHS TO PARADISE before dropping the hammer.

[Brent Walker]

The missing reel doesn't really affect PATHS TO PARADISE negatively (which you'll understand when you see it). It's definitely the best Griffith, and also the one that wears the best on repeated viewings, though Betty Compson's contribution to it cannot be overestimated.

The one thing I will have to say about my own experiences with HANDS UP (and most Griffith films, other than PATHS TO PARADISE) is that I loved it the first time I saw it, but each time I've seen it I enjoyed it not quite as much and the last time a bit less than that--and I realized there were some terrific and surprising gags that made it all worthwhile (and still worthwhile), but nevertheless there are quite a few slow segments building up to those (as there are in some of Fairbanks' early swashbucklers). I also personally think that over long-time exposure to Griffith's character, he can kind of reach a saturation point where what once seemed clever now becomes "too hip for the room." The first time you see him doing his nonchalant thing and outsmarting all the other characters in the film you are really with him, but when you start seeing the same films repeated times there may become a bit of a "disconnect" with him. (Whereas I can watch Keaton and Lloyd's best features many many times, and know everything that's coming, and still get as much enjoyment as the first time.)

But I only point this out because there are flaws in all comedians (after all I love a lot of two-reel comedians who were one dimensional and couldn't have carried a feature at all as Griffith could), and that the very nature of his character makes him a bit difficult and a challenge--like Langdon he is walking a tightrope and so, in a way, to best enjoy him you have to appreciate the risks he's taking. The bottom line about Raymond Griffith is that he was highly-original and startling for his time, and that still earns him a high place in the pantheon of silent comedians as an absolute original (and a million times better than Snooky--though maybe only several thousand times better than Joe Martin). But if you're looking for a "beloved" comedian in the manner of Arbuckle, Keaton, Lloyd, Chaplin, L&H, etc., you're not going to "get" him because he is as much an "anti" comedian in his way as Langdon is in his.

[Richard M Roberts]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've seen enough of Griffith to make an informed opinion David, and if you think HANDS UP is a dull film, an opinion made most likely while watching the film without an audience, I'm inclined to think it's you, not the film's fault. I've seen HANDS UP go over gangbusters with many a crowd, and I think PATHS TO PARADISE, even missing a reel, is even better, and it goes over even stronger than HANDS UP with a group.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That could be very true. Here in rural Mississippi, my chances to see a silent comedy with an audience are slim indeed. On the other hand, I've seen 50% percent of the available Raymond Griffith silent comedy canon (or a bit over 50% I guess) and I generally trust my own instincts on what's funny -- or at least what WAS funny in the historical context -- than I do on somebody's else's insistence. For example, I don't need somebody to tell me that Harold Lloyd's films are going to have a big reaction with an audience, although I've never witnessed that myself. As for HANDS UP!, I'm only bewildered about what the big deal is -- and, as you know, I'm the anal type that strips a film apart looking at the details.

I'll wait on PATHS TO PARADISE before dropping the hammer.

So what constitutes this 50%? What other Raymond Griffith films have you seen?


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[David B Pearson]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've seen enough of Griffith to make an informed opinion David, and if you think HANDS UP is a dull film, an opinion made most likely while watching the film without an audience, I'm inclined to think it's you, not the film's fault. I've seen HANDS UP go over gangbusters with many a crowd, and I think PATHS TO PARADISE, even missing a reel, is even better, and it goes over even stronger than HANDS UP with a group.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That could be very true. Here in rural Mississippi, my chances to see a silent comedy with an audience are slim indeed. On the other hand, I've seen 50% percent of the available Raymond Griffith silent comedy canon (or a bit over 50% I guess) and I generally trust my own instincts on what's funny -- or at least what WAS funny in the historical context -- than I do on somebody's else's insistence. For example, I don't need somebody to tell me that Harold Lloyd's films are going to have a big reaction with an audience, although I've never witnessed that myself. As for HANDS UP!, I'm only bewildered about what the big deal is -- and, as you know, I'm the anal type that strips a film apart looking at the details.

I'll wait on PATHS TO PARADISE before dropping the hammer.

So what constitutes this 50%? What other Raymond Griffith films have you seen?


RICHARD M ROBERTS

There's more than two?

DBP