Sometimes a movie starts from an attention-grabbing premise but doesn't quite keep up its promise. I think of David Cronenberg's 'Rabid,' which at its core is just a zombie movie with a unique point of origin, or 'Kill me later' with Selma Blair, in which an intriguing idea starts the plot and is then rather dropped for the rest of the film. Harry Langdon's 'Long pants' derives its title from the notion that all the tomfoolery to follow comes from the simple development of the protagonist getting his first ever pair of pants that extend below the knees. From the get-go the curious viewer can only wonder how important the titular concept is to the feature as a whole. The frank answer is "not very" - it's a quick absurdist plot device to advance the protagonist from "homebody good boy" to "romantically aspiring man about town," and could be swapped out for just about anything. In a similar fashion, at many points (toward the beginning not least of all) the story progresses with the type of silly circumstances, demanding willful suspension of disbelief, that makes one imagine the writer penning the script while slamming their fist into their hand with each word, "This. Is. How. The. Story. Will. Go!"
But so it is with some silent films, comedies in particular, that are founded on a generally less sophisticated sense of entertainment. More significant here is just the matter of whether or not the picture is suitably enjoyable. Viewers who have a hard time abiding the silent era aren't likely to find anything here to change their mind - but on the other hand, one recognizes elements of situational comedy, sight gags, and physical humor that can be traced all the way through to modern features. And with that, cinephiles at large and particularly those enamored of old movies are sure to have a great time. Langdon sometimes gets mentioned in the same breath as Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, and while his oeuvre may not be as consistent, at his best one can certainly discern deserving comparisons. What some of Langdon's other pictures may lack, like 'The strong man,' is an especial spark to capture the imagination, yet for whatever commonness one may perceive in 'Long pants,' there's also unquestionably a bit of a daring sensibility to many parts of the narrative and its humor. Pair this with Langdon's willingness to throw himself about and be a fool in front of the camera, in ways that sometimes seem to have been lost since the advent of talkies, and the feature becomes delightful.
Underlying plot device aside, I'm really quite pleased with how witty the writing is here, and in my mind Langdon handily demonstrates the worth of his reputation. These aren't the only aspects to earn praise, though, as the rest of the cast is swell in playing off Langdon's character and helping to build the fun in each passing moment. This especially goes for Priscilla Bonner and Alma Bennett who, as the female leads, have ample opportunity to ply their trade. Moreover, all the contributions from behind the scenes are just dandy - set design and decoration most of all, but definitely stunts and effects, too. The costume design is fetching, and maybe more than anything else, Frank Capra illustrates the keen, mindful direction that within in a few years would make him a household name. Every scene is orchestrated with marvelous, attentive cleverness, seeming ever geared toward attaining only the most outrageous takes. The hard work of all involved paid off handsomely, because 'Long pants' is a truly splendid, brilliant farce that in my opinion really does match Langdon's contemporaries toe to toe.
I admit to some skepticism when I first began watching, and the first quarter of the runtime is a shade pale relative to all that follows. Get past that exposition, however, and the movie is a total blast that outweighs and compensates for any initial lag. Not every comedy can elicit earnest laughter, but this has done so many times over its 60 minutes. It won't appeal to all comers, yet the entertainment value here is so very strong that I rather think this should be a recommendation even for those who are unsure about silent films but want to give them a try. And for everyone else - well, honestly, this is pretty much a must-see. I had mixed expectations out of the gate, but Langdon, Capra, and the writing team readily bested them: 'Long pants' is a stupendous, smart, funny, highly enjoyable silent classic that deserves more recognition, and one hour hardly feels like enough.
But so it is with some silent films, comedies in particular, that are founded on a generally less sophisticated sense of entertainment. More significant here is just the matter of whether or not the picture is suitably enjoyable. Viewers who have a hard time abiding the silent era aren't likely to find anything here to change their mind - but on the other hand, one recognizes elements of situational comedy, sight gags, and physical humor that can be traced all the way through to modern features. And with that, cinephiles at large and particularly those enamored of old movies are sure to have a great time. Langdon sometimes gets mentioned in the same breath as Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, and while his oeuvre may not be as consistent, at his best one can certainly discern deserving comparisons. What some of Langdon's other pictures may lack, like 'The strong man,' is an especial spark to capture the imagination, yet for whatever commonness one may perceive in 'Long pants,' there's also unquestionably a bit of a daring sensibility to many parts of the narrative and its humor. Pair this with Langdon's willingness to throw himself about and be a fool in front of the camera, in ways that sometimes seem to have been lost since the advent of talkies, and the feature becomes delightful.
Underlying plot device aside, I'm really quite pleased with how witty the writing is here, and in my mind Langdon handily demonstrates the worth of his reputation. These aren't the only aspects to earn praise, though, as the rest of the cast is swell in playing off Langdon's character and helping to build the fun in each passing moment. This especially goes for Priscilla Bonner and Alma Bennett who, as the female leads, have ample opportunity to ply their trade. Moreover, all the contributions from behind the scenes are just dandy - set design and decoration most of all, but definitely stunts and effects, too. The costume design is fetching, and maybe more than anything else, Frank Capra illustrates the keen, mindful direction that within in a few years would make him a household name. Every scene is orchestrated with marvelous, attentive cleverness, seeming ever geared toward attaining only the most outrageous takes. The hard work of all involved paid off handsomely, because 'Long pants' is a truly splendid, brilliant farce that in my opinion really does match Langdon's contemporaries toe to toe.
I admit to some skepticism when I first began watching, and the first quarter of the runtime is a shade pale relative to all that follows. Get past that exposition, however, and the movie is a total blast that outweighs and compensates for any initial lag. Not every comedy can elicit earnest laughter, but this has done so many times over its 60 minutes. It won't appeal to all comers, yet the entertainment value here is so very strong that I rather think this should be a recommendation even for those who are unsure about silent films but want to give them a try. And for everyone else - well, honestly, this is pretty much a must-see. I had mixed expectations out of the gate, but Langdon, Capra, and the writing team readily bested them: 'Long pants' is a stupendous, smart, funny, highly enjoyable silent classic that deserves more recognition, and one hour hardly feels like enough.