Wow, interesting film. I was surprised at first by its lack of plot but I think this omission allowed me to view the film techniques more closely. Many of the techniques seem ahead of their time for a 1930 film. The illusory ghost figures in ‘My Bridal Veil’ as well as the way in which pictures fade into real characters in ‘It Happened in Monterey’ really interested me. I was unaware that they knew how to perform these types of visual effects at that early stage in film production. I’m certain that these effects were part of the film’s drawing power during the 1930’s.
Another wonderful part of the film was the collection of songs by Bing Crosby and the ‘Rhythm Boys’. I am a big fan of Bing Crosby, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, etc. so I really enjoyed his first debut. The songs were often senseless, such as the song about bluebirds and blackbirds, but they had really catchy tunes. Very fun! I'm not quite sure I really could see their songs as jazz though. If they are to be considered jazz, I will need to rethink my research paper topic because jazz is much more diverse than I figured. Hmm...
HOWEVER: Although the effects are interesting and the ‘Rhythm Boys’ entertaining, I had trouble accepting Paul Whiteman as the supposed king of jazz. Jazz seems to carry with it a kind of sensual, sexy appeal that a round-faced white man with a tiny moustache just doesn’t have. He looked more like a character in the Laurel and Hardy sketches. I was further intrigued--and disappointed--by the absolute absence of musical numbers that reflected the roots of jazz. Jazz in this film seems a more upper class operatic production than the improvised, highly individualistic art it was. This is further reflected in Whiteman’s presentation of the band, which is contained within a box. Could this film be attempting to put jazz into a nifty, little, controllable box? While it is true that the film may reflect the flapper scene and the luxurious party-life of the 1920’s, it is out of touch with jazz roots. It reflects what jazz had become among the white elite, which is pretty one-sided.
One reason that the film might not have captured the sensuality of jazz may be the restrictions surfacing in the film industry at this time. In 1930, the Production Code was adopted which restricted film content. In fact, an article I found about “The King of Jazz” states that three sketches were cut from the original version because of the code. Here’s a link to the code: http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html. Amazing as it may seem, this code lasted until 1967! No wonder Westerns and thrillers were so clean! No wonder love scenes were created through the power of implication! No wonder the full nature of jazz was restricted! Hmmm....
More later....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I forgot to mention--and I have no idea how I could forget--that the sets are absolutely awesome! Having directed for community theaters, I recognize that the sets are truly works of art in themselves. Of course, they definitely counter the improvised nature of jazz . For some reason, there appears to be little improvisation in this version of jazz though.
I had no idea about the censorship of film. Wow, that was great to learn. About the "It Happened in Monterrey," scene: I was kind of annoyed by that scene in general. Everybody talks about blackface, but nobody ever mentions brownface. It made me think of a lot of films where anglo actors portray Mexican people. I don't know. It was also missing something in the music. Of course, this is a jazz class, so that really might not matter in this case. But I just thought I'd share.
Post a Comment