Most Helpful Customer Reviews
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Much better than expected, November 28, 1999
This review is from: The Taming of the Shrew (Hollywood Classics Collector's Edition) (VHS Tape)
This must surely be the most maligned film of its generation. Generally written off as the failure that ended both the careers and the marriage of Douglas Fairbanks, few people have had much good to say of it. And yet it holds up quite well. By no stretch of the imagination is this good Shakespeare, but its a fun film. Doug is better than Mary; his persona suits the character far better. Mary looks great but only occasionally springs to life - not surprisingly that is when she doesn't speak. Sam Taylor lets the film down badly with an unimaginative, stagey, literal approach. But a few facts should be aired. The film was neither a critical nor a box office failure in 1929. It earned a tidy profit and received, if anything, more praise than it deserved. (The New York Times put it on its Ten Best List for the year.) The famous credit "with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor" is also pure myth. There was never any such credit line. Try and give this film a fresh, objective viewing. But don't expect anything beyond a fun time killer.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Two Superstars in "Shrew", August 18, 2004
Doug and Mary were legends of the silent screen -- the power couple of their day. This short version (66 minutes) of "The Taming of the Shrew" was Mr. Fairbanks first talking picture (let's not count the two brief talking scenes in "Iron Mask," filmed months before this one) and Ms. Pickford's second (her first being "Coquette" with the same director -- Sam Taylor -- directing Mary to an Oscar.)
"Shrew" has had horrible legends attached to it over the years: the film was a disaster, a commercial flop, shattered Ms. Pickford's confidence in herself and her talent, etc. The reality is, only the last item has any truth to it. Mary Pickford states in her autobiography that filming of "Shrew' was not enjoyable, since her husband Douglas Fairbanks (and the co-producer of the film) spent each morning sun-bathing and working out before showing up on the set. (Doug was a compendium of both good and bad habits. He drank no alcohol and exercised religiously, but was also a chain smoker.) Mary, always tense about wasting money, fumed as extras and crew stood around getting paid for doing nothing.
"Shrew" ended up weakening Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks's marriage and business partnership, but the film itself is far from being a stinker. Fairbanks ends up with one of his best speaking parts (he made only five more talkies) and Pickford, though miscast, is energetic and charming. The film is handsomely mounted and punches across its story and comedy points -- of which there are many. (It's a close relative of Laurel and Hardy's early sound shorts.) The one thing it's not is undiluted Shakespeare.
Unfortunately, the only version of the film that is now available is a 1966 release version with added music and voice tracks that stand out like enflamed digits against the original (and far scratchier) Vitaphone tracks. The 1966 release version is also shorter than the '29 release, and cries out for a fresh restoration with the added sounds of '66 stripped away and the old, original ones cleaned up with digital technology.
Hey, Pickford Corporation! How about a NEW release? One that takes us back to the original, with cleaned up tracks? I'd buy THAT in a heartbeat!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Who Cares that its Shakespeare?, August 30, 2005
Shakespeare is always difficult to watch for most people, especially when it is left in any of the original dialogue. It seems inaccessible and silly for the most part. This version of the Taming of the Shrew retains some of the original dialogue although much has been changed while remaining similar. However, it is acted well and with comprehension which helps the reader to understand the motives behind the words even if the words are not heard absolutely clearly or if they are not completely understood. This is thanks to their training on the stage and the silent screen.
This film is also hindered by its being an early talkie made only in 1929, two years after the first talkie was made. The technology was crude, often planting actors near stationary objects where microphones could be hidden and employing large gaps of silence between spoken word. Unexpectedly though, this film is neither static nor silent. It abounds with action and cleverly placed points for speaking so that the actors could move around when not delivering lines. It also used background music to pad scenes that had no dialogue and sound effects when necessary. What results is a film that technologically was ahead of its time.
Part of the draw to this film was the stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, Hollywood's golden couple. The two were in their downfall, and making this film together contributed to the tension between them. Still, they have tremendous chemistry and talent which enables them to give a wonderful show. However, it seems to be more of a vehicle to showcase Fairbanks than Pickford.
This film, although ridden with a few Shakespearean stereotypes such as quivering jesters and servants, has a modern comedic flair. Mary Pickford's excellent screwball-esque timing and Douglas Fairbanks' overbearingly forward personality prove that the two should not have been on the decline. Sadly, the public wanted new stars to replace the ones they had loved so dearly during the silent era. This is the only reason that this film was not the large success that it should have been. For a Shakespeare film, it is wonderful.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
