Watching "The Jazz Singer." What a piece of crap.

[elperromagico]

This film is not a masterpiece. It's not even good. Melodramatic claptrap with a couple of scenes of dialogue and singing.

To think that this garbage set back the art of cinema at least 20 years. Oy vey.

Limited historical significance aside, this film is fundamentally worthless. 80% of films from this era no longer exist; it's a pity this film made it into the other 20%.

End rant.

[pacifictiger]

1. So which version

are you referring to?
And how old are you? Each era has its own relevance to the way people perceive things.

[elperromagico]

13. The Al Jolson version.

For the record, I'm 23. Before you leap up and say, "You're too young to understand," let me make it clear that I am a fan of the films of the late silent era and of the cinema of the late 30s. Compared to those films, the "legendary" Jazz Singer is a joke. It does merit comparison, as it is supposed to somehow bridge the gulf between the two eras. Instead, it represents a dip.

[pacifictiger]

19. Ahhhhh 23

you have much yet to learn in life grasshopper.

[Spinzonner]

2. Who died and made you a movie critic ?

Interesting that you deduce it 'set back the art of cinema at least 20 years' without even seeing the other missing 80% missing films.

Tell us, oh cinima guru, what it would have been like without this film ...

[da_chimperor]

4. You, my fellow DUer, have quite a sharp tongue. n/t

[Atlas Mugged]

6. Pauline Kael?

[Spinzonner]

7. Or that thing above Gene Shalit's lips

[elperromagico]

8. If you consider the early talkies,

with their stationary cameras and stilted dialogue, to be superior to the films of the late silent era, then I don't know what to say to you.

By the time of The Jazz Singer, cinema (not "cinima") had learned how to tell complex stories using only visuals. With the advent of sound, cinema had to learn all over again how to tell a story - not just visually but aurally. The early talkies are no better technically, therefore, than the early silent films of the 1900s. The only difference is they have dialogue.

As to who died and made me a movie critic... Who died and made you a smartass? I'm guessing they're the same person. :)

All good wishes,
epm

[Spinzonner]

17. Self Appointed

[Paul Dlugokencky]

3. Was it ever considered to be a "masterpiece"?

It was more of a technical breakthrough, jolting the film industry out of the silent era.

Or were you writing about the Neil Diamond version? Now *that's* a masterpiece! ;)



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[elperromagico]

12. Laurence Olivier as the cantor: "I hef no son!!!"

Neil Diamond, as we all know, is a genius... of some sort.

[mrbill]

5. the "jazz singer" is not a "masterpiece".............

It's ground breaking film technology - the first talkie.

"set back the art of cinema 20 years"??? Surely you jest.

Twenty more years without sound???

[elperromagico]

10. It wasn't the first talkie, to begin with.

Lee DeForest had been hawking a sound-on-film technique (and making films using that technique) for at least five years. The Vitaphone method (which synchronized a record with the film) used on The Jazz Singer had been in use for at least a year as well. At least two decades before that, Edison had been experimenting with syncronizing a phonograph record to his films.

The Jazz Singer has entered into the realm of cinematic myth. It has become the film that changed Hollywood overnight. It wasn't. The major Hollywood studios (with the possible exception of Warner Brothers) continued to produce silent films well into the next year because they thought that The Jazz Singer was just a fluke.

I do not deny that the film has some significance. If anything, it's interesting to see how Al Jolson performed in his prime. However, I do deny that the film is some earthshattering, groundbreaking work. The movies learned to talk; the problem was, it took them several years to say anything worth hearing.

I will continue to contend that it set back the art of cinema. If you disagree, I welcome you to help yourself to a viewing of a few dozen post-Jazz Singer talking films. They're interesting only as museum artifacts. It was as though Hollywood, so caught up in the novelty of sound, completely forgot the cinematic devices it had learned in the last two decades.

Hollywood did regain its footing quickly, as the films of the mid to late 30s demonstrate. But the early talkie era (The Jazz Singer included) does represent a major setback.

Sorry if we disagree.

[mitchum]

9. I'm actually a big fan of minstrel history...

but the film is pretty rotten

[elperromagico]

11. It is interesting to see how Al Jolson actually performed.

As a record of a popular performer, it has significance. As a record of the popular entertainment of the era, it also has significance.

Otherwise, it's pretty weak.

[swag]

14. You don't like it, huh?

I guess I'll never see it.

I have a few other toilets to flush before I die.

[elperromagico]

15. Oh no, I love it.

It has given me such ample opportunities to complain. :D

[tjdee]

16. Yup, pretty much sucks.

You're correct.

[Bzzzz]

18. I liked the movie...

It wasn't a masterpiece, but I don't think it was made to be one. I like Neil's music.

[Tom Kitten]

20. I liked the SCTV version

Starring Al Jarreau and Sid Dithers (Eugene Levy)

now that version was indeed socially redeeming...

[Nikia]

21. I liked Neil Diamond's version

I liked the music. I also thought that the story line was good: The whole culturual contrast, the conflict between one's roots and what wants to be.