On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:37:19 GMT, Bob Birchard
Post by Bob BirchardI find it fascinating that Lon Chaney continues to be one of the most discussed
silent actors. I'd hazard a guess that many of us became interested in Chaney
before we were every really interested in the broader realm of silent film. I
include myself in this group. I first became aware of Chaney in 1957 or so when
Life Magazine ran a feature on "Man of a Thousand Faces" with photographic
comparisons of the Chaney and Cagney makeups for several roles including the
Vampire, Phantom, Road to Mandalay, Unholy Three, etc. The Chaney makeups were so
superior that it made me want to see the films.
And I eagerly sought out those films as I could, but I have to say that for me
many of them have been disappointing. I don't think M-G-M (for the most part) had
a clue what to do with Chaney. Had he lived he probably would have become Wallace
Beery if he's stayed at Metro. There are all these gawdawful stories about the old
guy falling in love with the young dame who has her cap set set for William Haines
or Carroll Nye or some other fellow of questionable male credentials.
Some of these pictures are reasonably well made (Tell it to the Marines, silent
Unholy Three)--but two reels too long, some of them (Mr. Wu, talkie Unholy Three)
are just bad movies that only hold interest because Chaney is in them. While the
City Sleeps is a creditable but reasonably unremarkable picture that could just as
easily have starred Thomas Meighan, Richard Dix.
I know Michael Blake disagrees with me about The Monster, but I think it is one
of Chaney's best surviving films because plays to his strengths as an actor. Let's
face it, Chaney was an actor of the "grand manner" school--not uncommonn at the
time--but he simply wasn't suited for subtle material--or he needed directors much
stronger than Rupert Julian, Herbert Brenon, George Hill, Benjamin Christiansen or
William Nigh to guide his performances. Browning wasn't much better than the group
just listed, but he did have a sense of the bizarre that sometimes clicked, as in
The Unknown.
*** Before we dismiss these films as generally mediocre, let's look at
how they performed financially at the time they were released (figures
Post by Bob BirchardThe Penalty (1920) Great.
Ace of Hearts (1922) Dull, dull, dull. Six reels of people playing cards.
He Who Gets Slapped (1924) Generally a fine film.
Gross: $881,000 Cost: $172,000 Profit: $349,000
Post by Bob BirchardMonster, The (1925) Great! A lot of fun.
Unavailable
Post by Bob BirchardUnholy Three, The (1925) Pretty average at best.
Gross: $704,000 Cost: $114,000 Profit: $328,000
Post by Bob BirchardTower of Lies, The (1925) LOST
Gross: $653,000 Cost: $185,000 Profit: $271,000
Post by Bob BirchardBlackbird, The (1926) A Buptkie.
Gross: $656,000 Cost: $166,000 Profit: $263,000
Post by Bob BirchardRoad to Mandalay, The (1926) Another buptkie.
Gross: $724,000 Cost: $209,000 Profit: $267,000
Post by Bob BirchardTell It to the Marines (1926) Robert Israel's score is great but the film is a
very pedestrian programmer stretched to too many reels.
Gross: $1,658,000 Cost: $433,000 Profit: $664,000
Post by Bob BirchardMr. Wu (1927) yet another buptkie.
Gross: $1,068,000 Cost: $267.000 Profit: $429,000
Post by Bob BirchardUnknown, The (1927) Great!
Gross: $847,000 Cost: $217,000 Profit: $362,000
Post by Bob BirchardMockery (1927) And still another buptkie.
Gross: $751,000 Cost: $187,000 Profit: $318,000
Post by Bob BirchardLondon After Midnight (1927) LOST. TCM ran the reconstruction.
Gross: $1,004,000 Cost: $152,000 Profit: $540,000
Post by Bob BirchardBig City, The (1928) LOST
Gross: $833,000 Cost: $172,000 Profit: $387,000
Post by Bob BirchardLaugh, Clown, Laugh (1928) Rather maudlin and below average
Gross: $1,202,000 Cost: $293,000 Profit: $450,000
Post by Bob BirchardWhile the City Sleeps (1928) Although this is incomplete there's more than enough
to give it a fair shake. Jon and Michael really like this one, I find it a pretty
average program picture at best.
Gross: $1,035,000 Cost: $259,000 Profit: $399,000
Post by Bob BirchardWest of Zanzibar (1928) This is a really fine film, playing to Chaney's strengths.
Gross: $921,000 Cost: $249,000 Profit: $347,000
Post by Bob BirchardWhere East is East (1929) Have not seen this one
Gross: $920,000 Cost: $295,000 Profit: $283,000
Post by Bob BirchardThunder (1929) Only fragments survive
Gross: $1,018,000 Cost: $352,000 Profit: $272,000
Post by Bob BirchardUnholy Three, The (1930) Chaney is great, but the picture is a stiff.
Gross: $988,000 Cost: $279,000 Profit: $375,000
Total MGM Grosses: $15,863,000 (17 Films)
Total MGM Profits: $6,304,000
Post by Bob BirchardIs there any other actor who could survive such a mediocre filmography and
still hold the attention of an audience this many years later?
I think a better question is: Was there another star in the 1920's who
performed more consistently at the box office, with 17 films from
1924-1930, every single one turning a healthy profit, with no serious
missteps or box office flops? The films were produced for 1920's
audiences, not 2003 audiences.
You could easily make the argument that MGM and Chaney had a extremely
solid grasp of what his audience expected in a Chaney star vehicle.
The box office results prove that.
Rather than a mediocre filmography, I think what Chaney's films
represent is one of the most amazing runs of box office consistency in
Hollywood history.
For that alone, I think he commands our interest. In addition, I
think some of the films you dismiss as "buptkies" are extremely well
crafted.
--John A.