MOMA film review
I'm back from my wonderful trip to New York. I had a great time, and as I mentioned in my last post, went to MOMA to see While New York Sleeps, as part of their Hollywood on the Hudson, Filmmaking in New York 1920-1939 series.
The film, directed by Charles Brabin (Theda Bara's hubby), was a series of 3 mini-movies rolled into one. The first segment: the story of a wealthy couple where the wife, while the husband's at work, gets a "surprise" visitor; the second, the story of a cheatin' husband and the trouble he gets into with the vamp he meets at Ziegfield's Follies; and the third, a thoroughly depressing tale of a poor, working-class father and son who suffer tragedy at the hands of a heartless woman.
All in all, not a bad evening's entertainment, although nothing to set your socks on fire. I had hoped to see more scenery of early NYC, but sadly, what was shown (in the third act) was minimal, so I was very disappointed.
Another surprise was that the film, billed at being 70 minutes long, was a lot longer than that, making me very late for my dinner guests. (They were very forgiving.)
Would I see it again? Um, no, nor would I buy it on DVD. But if it were showing, I would encourage silent film fans to go, if only because I (believe) the Follies girls were the real deal (and always cool to see them), and to take in the costumes, scenery, direction and camera work associated with an early film.
The film, directed by Charles Brabin (Theda Bara's hubby), was a series of 3 mini-movies rolled into one. The first segment: the story of a wealthy couple where the wife, while the husband's at work, gets a "surprise" visitor; the second, the story of a cheatin' husband and the trouble he gets into with the vamp he meets at Ziegfield's Follies; and the third, a thoroughly depressing tale of a poor, working-class father and son who suffer tragedy at the hands of a heartless woman.
All in all, not a bad evening's entertainment, although nothing to set your socks on fire. I had hoped to see more scenery of early NYC, but sadly, what was shown (in the third act) was minimal, so I was very disappointed.
Another surprise was that the film, billed at being 70 minutes long, was a lot longer than that, making me very late for my dinner guests. (They were very forgiving.)
Would I see it again? Um, no, nor would I buy it on DVD. But if it were showing, I would encourage silent film fans to go, if only because I (believe) the Follies girls were the real deal (and always cool to see them), and to take in the costumes, scenery, direction and camera work associated with an early film.
posted by Kally at
4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home