I propose that all classic movie buffs define a third type of motion picture. We already have the "silent" and "sound" categories. If we can allow for another form, the "Transitional" film, we then have the freedom to find the excellence which characterizes selected movies of this era. "Welcome Danger" is one of them.
I notice a drumbeat of whining about "Welcome Danger" when in fact it compares very well within its own period. Other, familiar examples of transitional films will immediately cast light on this brief era. The sound version of Hitchcock's "Blackmail", released both in silent and sound versions, holds up rather well on its own. But as a transitional film, it pins the needles. "Jazz Singer", a celebrated classic, was a very hybrid affair. And Chaplin's "Modern Times" is no less awkward, and has numerous dull spots of its own to boot. Are we required to just bow at the altar of Chaplin, and give him a pass, when he obviously couldn't handle talking films in the least. (Yes, I consider "Modern Times" transitional).
The transitional film will naturally have an out-of-balance feel to it, but no less so than a silent film when viewed for the first time by someone raised completely with talkies. Keeping this in mind, Welcome Danger is a treasure to watch.
There are actually 3 versions of Welcome Danger: Silent, Sound and then a silent version of the sound one. Only the last 2 survive, both of which I have seen. In the transitional genre that I propose, this is one of the best movies I have seen. Rene Clair's "A Nous La Liberte" shows some signs of the transitional struggle, even as late as 1931. Laurel and Hardy required several sound films to get the hang of this. But Lloyd is well on his way in one stroke.
The story is rich with incident and plot development. Glasses, the Can-Do character, shines again as the resourceful nerd who must prove himself in a police district groping for answers. The love plot is as corny yet meaningful, as ever. And the gags are both memorable and legendary. Watch for sight gags later adopted by the 3 stooges. You may not find them funny if you are not seeing them for the first time, but that's not Lloyd's problem.
If you have any doubts about Lloyd's awareness of what this new medium was doing, take the sequence in the dark when he's trying to climb the stairs. Here we have dialogue and NO picture, the opposite of what you had in the silents. Very clever.
OK, the sequence in the basement of the drug clan was a bit long. But that's from the perspective of a silent-or-talkie only perspective. As a transitional film, that was the correct pacing. All right, three gags in the movie were repeated too often. Big deal. The audiences today love it and the audiences back then loved it too.
Because some introductory scenes don't make perfect sense, Lloyd loses one point. (Golly, if you want to see a real problem with continuity, try Frank Capra!). I say GO!
I notice a drumbeat of whining about "Welcome Danger" when in fact it compares very well within its own period. Other, familiar examples of transitional films will immediately cast light on this brief era. The sound version of Hitchcock's "Blackmail", released both in silent and sound versions, holds up rather well on its own. But as a transitional film, it pins the needles. "Jazz Singer", a celebrated classic, was a very hybrid affair. And Chaplin's "Modern Times" is no less awkward, and has numerous dull spots of its own to boot. Are we required to just bow at the altar of Chaplin, and give him a pass, when he obviously couldn't handle talking films in the least. (Yes, I consider "Modern Times" transitional).
The transitional film will naturally have an out-of-balance feel to it, but no less so than a silent film when viewed for the first time by someone raised completely with talkies. Keeping this in mind, Welcome Danger is a treasure to watch.
There are actually 3 versions of Welcome Danger: Silent, Sound and then a silent version of the sound one. Only the last 2 survive, both of which I have seen. In the transitional genre that I propose, this is one of the best movies I have seen. Rene Clair's "A Nous La Liberte" shows some signs of the transitional struggle, even as late as 1931. Laurel and Hardy required several sound films to get the hang of this. But Lloyd is well on his way in one stroke.
The story is rich with incident and plot development. Glasses, the Can-Do character, shines again as the resourceful nerd who must prove himself in a police district groping for answers. The love plot is as corny yet meaningful, as ever. And the gags are both memorable and legendary. Watch for sight gags later adopted by the 3 stooges. You may not find them funny if you are not seeing them for the first time, but that's not Lloyd's problem.
If you have any doubts about Lloyd's awareness of what this new medium was doing, take the sequence in the dark when he's trying to climb the stairs. Here we have dialogue and NO picture, the opposite of what you had in the silents. Very clever.
OK, the sequence in the basement of the drug clan was a bit long. But that's from the perspective of a silent-or-talkie only perspective. As a transitional film, that was the correct pacing. All right, three gags in the movie were repeated too often. Big deal. The audiences today love it and the audiences back then loved it too.
Because some introductory scenes don't make perfect sense, Lloyd loses one point. (Golly, if you want to see a real problem with continuity, try Frank Capra!). I say GO!