Hollywood, 1929: Let’s Revue, Shall We?

It’s rare that a single event changes the movies forever.  So rare that, for all intents and purposes, it’s happened only once, with the advent of sound.  The advent of color had almost no immediate impact.  From two strip to three strip, developed from almost as early as the cinema itself, color movies didn’t become the norm until the late fifties/early sixties.   Special effects, like stop-motion, optical printing, and blue screen all saw increased use in certain types of movies but by no means became the norm for all movies.  CGI has had a slow, gradual acceptance into mainstream cinema, used to fill in where extras once served or create backdrops where matte paintings once ruled the day.  And 3-D, while being adopted and retrofitted for many a movie,  still isn’t the norm and even if it was, it would have taken years to get there.  But sound?  Holy cow!  Once they knew it could work and draw in the audiences, specifically with that single event in the form of the release of Warner Brothers’ The Jazz Singer, in 1927,  that was all she wrote for the silent period.  Everything became sound and the vanishing handful of silents left were almost all done by Chaplin.

Hollywood Revue 1929C

In 1928, most movies begun as silents were finished as sound and by 1929, despite malingerers like Chaplin, the silents were dead.   Making a movie with no sound presented a problem to only one genre in particular.  You could make silent westerns, comedies, dramas, horror, science fiction, historical epics and so on but you couldn’t make musicals.  Because, you know, no music.  Oh sure, you could compose a score for the silent film to be played against, but you couldn’t do a proper musical with songs and dancing until sound came along.   And while you could do comedy, it had to rely on the visual type.  Comedic banter was pointless in the silents.  So when sound came about, musical revues, employing singing, dancing and vaudevillian routines, became a big deal.  Much of the time, these were done as shorts that would show a little of each, sometimes as feature length narratives with some basic plot loosely stringing the action together, like The Broadway Melody, and sometimes, they were all out feature length revues, purposely recreating the look and feel of a vaudeville production.  The Hollywood Revue of 1929, with several silent performers, including Joan Crawford, making their first foray into sound, is one of my favorites.

Now, let me qualify that statement, “one of my favorites.”  The Hollywood Revue of 1929 is done with a leaden touch, its comedy poorly timed (because no one knew how to pace for sound film yet), its camera practically immobile, and its musical numbers performed in static, unimaginative ways (Singin’ in the Rain, in front of a backdrop of Noah’s Ark, at the climax, being the highlight, I guess).  The fact is, it’s not very good.  In fact, it’s another example of how bad movies were at the onset of the sound era.  But I find it fascinating because this revue on film documents the awkwardness of the transition better than most, as everyone involved seemed to be trying to figure out what to do.   It fails so much of the time that I can’t look away.  I’ve seen it, I kid you not, five times all the way through.   It throws everything it can at the viewer, from sound, first and foremost, to comedy, singing, dramatic readings of Shakespeare with a comic twist, and even a handful of color sequences.  And all of it fails, but in a way that should be studied and analyzed.

Hollywood Revue 1929B

The revue is emceed by Jack Benny and Conrad Nagel who introduce acts to a movie theater audience (and now a computer/television/smart phone audience) they can neither see nor hear.  Nagel has the honor of introducing Joan Crawford, right near the start, as “the personification of youth and beauty and joy and happiness!”  Given how Joan’s persona played out over the years, this now seems knowingly funny (“Joan Crawford?! The personification of joy?!”) but the fact is, she made it unlike so many of the rest.  There are singers here we all know, like Ukulele Ike (Cliff Edwards), and actors from John Gilbert to Marie Dressler, but Joan is arguably the most successful performer in the whole movie.  While some, like Jack Benny, enjoyed great success, Joan became an all-time Hollywood legend.  All these years later, even with another legend in the cast, Norma Shearer, she’s the one person in the movie that has the best chance of being known by modern day casual moviegoers.

After being introduced, Joan sings “Got a Feeling for You” and then adds in a flapper dance, something in which Joan specialized.  If it looks awkward and clunky today, that’s because flapper dances weren’t known for their grace, but Joan performs the hell out of it!  Once Joan’s done, there are a series of comedy skits and other songs and dances that fill out the revue.  This being 1929, there’s also unnerving blackface, right at the top of movie(!), and contemporary comedy ill-suited for modern audiences, like a skit of Romeo and Juliet where Norma Shearer and John Gilbert, supposedly being directed by Lionel Barrymore, are asked to rename the play “The Neckers” and perform it using modern (to 1929) slang.  It doesn’t work.  But it is in color and, call me crazy, just seeing something in sound and color from 1929 still amazes me.  So, there’s that.

Hollywood Revue 1929A

In the end, what the Hollywood Revue of 1929 shows is how little anyone understood the possibilities of sound film in 1929.   It treats sound as an opportunity to finally get revues up on the screen, as if we all had to suffer through years of cinematic art and now, at last, we can just film vaudeville routines!  And, to a degree, they weren’t entirely nuts.  The movie was a huge hit.  Still, it’s as cinematically limited as they come which is why it’s such a great movie to watch to understand what happened for a brief period during the advent of sound.  People grasped, desperately, for anything that might work.  I rarely recommend movies almost exclusively for their historic/archival value over basic quality or entertainment values but this is one time I will.  It currently plays on TCM’s On Demand service until January 10th.  Give it a view and see a world you will never see again.

15 Responses Hollywood, 1929: Let’s Revue, Shall We?
Posted By Doug : January 8, 2014 5:12 pm

This is a perfect example of why I love TCM and visiting here at Morlocks.
We can view (revue) so much history and receive an education of film.
TCM and Morlocks a hundred years from now will appreciate these touchstones to our cinematic past.

Posted By tdraicer : January 8, 2014 8:23 pm

It is amazing how much that had been learned in decades of silent film-making went out the window once sound was added, and had to be rediscovered all over again. (Yes, I know, the sound cameras were huge and hard to move. But still…)

Also, the idea that most people today don’t know Jack Benny is appalling but almost certainly true.

But more importantly, who is the woman in that last shot (I don’t think it is Crawford). And do you have her phone number?

Posted By Jennifer : January 8, 2014 8:47 pm

The one person who would have known above all others what would work for himself was Buster Keaton. He didn’t speak in this film, he danced. Buster was a fabulous dancer too, but in this he was a novelty dancer and he made me wince at how unfunny the routine was. The only part I liked was the gymnastics at the end. I’m quite certain that if he were not under the thumb of MGM, he could have done a better routine, but then he wouldn’t have been in this film. Which would probably have been just as well.

Posted By Doug : January 8, 2014 10:57 pm

tdraicer-”And do you have her phone number?”

three cranks
ask Beulah to connect you to the long distance operator
ask for California exchange
Hollywood exchange
ask for Gertie
she knows everybody!

Posted By DevlinCarnate : January 9, 2014 12:24 am

i think we tend to categorize too easily…whether it’s genre,era or medium,fans of cinema will always have their own preferences,it’s just human nature,but the bottom line is we “all” love films for diverse reasons…like any of the arts,beauty is in the eye of the beholder,cliche it may be,but very true

Posted By Susan Doll : January 9, 2014 1:18 am

Very good point about the use of sound as a way to capture musical revues, at least for some studios. Of course several directors would understand the potential of sound early on (Rouben Mamoulian; Hitchcock), but the idea of hearing musical numbers or seeing stars perform songs and dances lingered in Hollywood movies for a while. I have seen many a movie from the late ’20s and early ’30s in which there is at least one awkwardly performed song, no matter the genre.

Posted By gregferrara : January 9, 2014 2:42 am

I have seen many a movie from the late ’20s and early ’30s in which there is at least one awkwardly performed song, no matter the genre.

And it’s perfectly understandable, I mean, finally they could sing onscreen. But like tdraicer said, they chucked so much out the window in that first year. When you do see early sound work that’s good, like the directors you mention, you wish more had seen the possibilities as quickly.

Posted By gregferrara : January 9, 2014 2:45 am

But more importantly, who is the woman in that last shot (I don’t think it is Crawford). And do you have her phone number?

It’s Albertina Rasch, but I’m afraid her phone number went quiet back in 1967.

Here’s a lovely picture of her.

Posted By gregferrara : January 9, 2014 2:47 am

Jennifer, Buster Keaton was a genius with physical movement but he’s wasted here, like so many of the performers who were put into quickly devised sketches with little quality control.

Posted By tdraicer : January 9, 2014 4:12 am

>It’s Albertina Rasch, but I’m afraid her phone number went quiet back in 1967.

To the Wayback machine!

Posted By george : January 10, 2014 3:25 am

Leonard Maltin perfectly summed up HOLLYWOOD REVUE OF 1929: “A curio for film buffs; tough sledding for others.” At least it has Bessie Love and Laurel & Hardy. And that lively Crawford dance number.

If you’re interested in film history, those crude early talkies are fascinating. I recently watched Barbara Stanwyck in MEXICALI ROSE (1929), which is a mediocre film by any standard. Stanwyck loathed it. But it’s fascinating to watch the 22-year-old Stanwyck learning to act for the camera.

Posted By Richard Brandt : January 10, 2014 6:08 am

That HOLLYWOOD REVUE was nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, and BROADWAY MELODY actually won, shows how the industry’s sense of taste was thrown totally off-kilter by the advent of sound.

Posted By gregferrara : January 10, 2014 5:47 pm

Yeah, the 1929 Oscar selections are truly abysmal. Also, in line with what George said, it is fascinating to watch bad early talkies but also, watching young actors learn their craft. The William Holden performance is Golden Boy is so eager to please, you can practically see Holden reading along in his head with the other actors’ lines waiting for his turn to speak again.

Posted By george : January 10, 2014 9:05 pm

It’s even more interesting to watch actors without Stanwyck’s stage experience, like Crawford or Cooper, learning to act as the cameras turned. You’re watching unformed clay taking shape.

If you think talkies of the late ’20s are crude, go to YouTube and search for NURSERY FAVORITES, an Edison sound experiment from 1913. Talk about primitive. But it IS fascinating to hear voices in a movie made 14 years before THE JAZZ SINGER.

Posted By swac44 : January 13, 2014 8:44 pm

I love those early Crawford dance numbers. There’s one pre-code of hers (possibly Laughing Sinners, but I’m not 100% sure) where she does a kind of hillbilly dance in a posh nightclub, it’s hilarious and endearing all at the same time.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

As of November 1, 2017 FilmStruck’s blog, StreamLine, has moved to Tumblr.

Please visit us there!


 Streamline is the official blog of FilmStruck, a new subscription service that offers film aficionados a comprehensive library of films including an eclectic mix of contemporary and classic art house, indie, foreign and cult films.