The Narrative and Fomulaic Approaches of Harold Lloyd

Post on 15-Jan-2015

24 views 0 download

Tags:

description

This was originally one part of a larger group presentation that also focused on Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Laurel and Hardy. The overall presentation was orchestrated for a BA (Hons) Film and Screen Studies course. As the title suggests, I focused on Harold. I conducted a research project on his life and career and, in addition to this presentation, I also expressed that in a critical film review and a critical book analysis. I was awarded a first for all three components. I have removed the clips, but the presentation still makes sense regardless.

Transcript of The Narrative and Fomulaic Approaches of Harold Lloyd

Harold Lloyd

Do the narrative approaches of Harold Lloyd create a formulaic

approach to silent comedy?

By

Peter O’Brien

Safety Last! (Dir. Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, USA, 1923)

The Glass Character • “Chaplin and Keaton persevere because

their characters are aspirational, yet this quality, paradoxically, also makes them remote. No, matter how hard we try, we will never be as clever and as resourceful as Chaplin’s Little Tramp, nor will we ever approach impending disaster with Keaton’s stoic reserve. Ultimately, we embrace Harold Lloyd because he is one of us, an ordinary fellow, dealing with ordinary struggles, losses and embarrassments” (Vance et al., 2002:201).

• The Glass character was a much more realistic and grounded approach to screen comedy, opposed to the personas of the other comics.

The Glass Character(s)

• While the physical exterior and horn-rimmed glasses were always the same the psychological interior of the Glass Character changes from film to film.

• “I changed the attitude of my character in practically every different picture… one time he could be an introvert, he could be just a normal boy, he could be very shy or he could be exceedingly brash” (Lloyd, 1963).

An Actor Playing a Comedian

• “Harold Lloyd is not a comedian but he was the best actor to act the part of a comedian” (Roach, 1992).

• Lloyd had a versatility as an actor that extended far beyond his abilities as a physical comedian.

• Unlike Chaplin’s over sentimentality or Keaton’s constant deadpan or Laurel & Hardy’s general knockabout, Lloyd was able to inject a vast range of grounded performances into his films.

Girl Shy (Dir. Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, USA, 1924)

Two Types of Films

The Gag Picture The Character Picture

Safety Last! Girl Shy

• But there is a another banner under which we can place at least five of his films…

The Thrill Picture

• A film: “In which comedy at its most inspired and suspense at its most excruciating are ingeniously interwoven to perfection” (Vance et al, 2002: 90).

• It introduced a new formula of extreme danger comedy which became instantly popular and which the other comics absorbed into their own films.

Our Hospitality (Dir. John G. Blystone and Buster Keaton, USA, 1923)

The Circus (Dir. Charles Chaplin, USA, 1928)

Liberty (Dir. Leo McCarey, USA, 1929)

The Three Formulas • The Gag Formula

– Building on his earlier experience in slapstick knockabout comedy Lloyd constructs more intricate comedy routines. In his films one comedy routine leads into another but these films have very basic storylines.

• The Character Formula – After being inspired by Chaplin’s The Kid, Lloyd exploits his

vast acting range and injects more character and narrative complexity into his films.

• The Thrill Formula – He discovers a niche in the comedy genre that the other

comics have missed and really starts to make a name for himself because of it.

The Thrill Formula

• “Despite the fact that Harold made only five “thrill” pictures in a career that encompassed over 200 films, he is often thought as a thrill comedian. This characterization upset Harold, who rightfully thought himself more versatile than that reductive label suggests. However, Harold understood that he was best known for his “thrill” comedy because he did it better than anyone else” (Vance et all, 2002: 96).