Harry Langdon's third released feature is widely regarded as his last great work in the silent era. Yet it is a striking paradox that so many dislike the film, or at least consider it an uneasy experience, best to ignore. The film was made under hard pressure, most of which erupted due to the disagreements between star Harry and director Frank Capra, who was in fact fired shortly after completion of shooting. Capra wanted to tell the story somewhat differently than Langdon had suggested, and the uncomfortable atmosphere on the set can be glimpsed in some parts of the film that feel rather rushed and forced. However, I totally disagree that the film is nearly as unfunny or flawed as some historians like to claim; there is at least no doubt that LONG PANTS provides the most fascinating exploration of the "Elf character's" unpredictable nature.
I must be fair, though, and admit that the first time I watched this film, I found little amusement in it; I found it plain disturbing, everything from Harry's (sort of) affair with the beautiful but deeply troubled drug-smuggler to his attempt at murder. In the film, we first find Harry reading romantic novels, with whose worlds he is totally obsessed; much like a modern Don Quijote, Harry is a boy without any experience in the real, often ugly world, which leads him to believe in the fictitious, romantic world of his books. His mother has never let him wear a set of long pants as she is convinced that once his son enters adulthood, it is likely to get him into trouble. Finally, the boy's father persuades her to let him throw away his shorts and become part of adulthood, something which we understand, even though Harry's age is never specified, has taken a far too long time that it will turn out well. Harry falls in love with a vamp of the city, but is forced to marry a country-girl. Frustrated to marry a girl he can never love, and to rescue the vamp (who barely knows of Harry's existence) from prison, he decides to kill the girl. He does not succeed, but elopes to the city anyway, whereupon he finds himself trapped into many threatening predicaments.
Harry's fascination in the vamp is not hard to figure, as his illusion of love singlehandedly has its origins in a mystified fantasy world; his dreams make him blind for the real world. What seems to bother most people to a far larger degree, myself included at first, is Harry's attempts to shoot the naive girl with whom he's engaged. Buster Keaton, who admired Langdon, said in an interview that it was ridiculous for a comedian playing innocent to do attempts at murder and believe it would gain any laughs; had he turned it the other way around, and let the girl try to murder naive Harry, it'd perhaps have had potential, he claimed. Many share Keaton's sentiments; some even take this sequence for proof to the unending myth that Langdon did not fully understand his character. In my eyes, however, it rather proves, if anything, the opposite. If we twist the story the other way around and place Harry in the girl's position, we might have some funny business going which would suit Harry's childlike persona perfectly. But this is not the Harry we know from other films: Harry the child has now been forced into adulthood, and the question to ask next is, how does a man who can't grow up react when the world expects him to do so? What is certain is that Harry has no clue as to how the real world works or what it wants from him. His distorted understanding of things is justified by his very innocence; he is not inconcerned about the world, just lost in it. He had always been lost of course, but saved by the lack of people's expectations in him as a child.
Further complaints concern the apparent lack of gags. The film does move slowly at times, something which I suspect would have been of less bother had the Langdon-team been on better terms at the time of shooting. Yet there are many amusing sequences to mention, at least to people well acquainted with Harry: his confrontation with a cop, a brick and an alligator is superbly timed and executed, and feels like a nice, light contrast to the otherwise dark atmosphere of the film. Capra's direction is also worthy of acclaim; even at such an early point he's maturing as a first-rate director with great speed. He provides us with a few clever camera-angles which add to the mystification of the film, if only because it escalates the action.
I say it once more. LONG PANTS is an odd movie about identity confusion, symbolized through dark comedy which you may not want to view for young children. It is unlike anything else ever done in the silent era, and provides, in my opinion, the most fascinating exploration of Harry Langdon's character, precisely due to his apparent transformation OUT of character. If that makes any sense. Maybe it doesn't. But did Harry ever make sense?
I must be fair, though, and admit that the first time I watched this film, I found little amusement in it; I found it plain disturbing, everything from Harry's (sort of) affair with the beautiful but deeply troubled drug-smuggler to his attempt at murder. In the film, we first find Harry reading romantic novels, with whose worlds he is totally obsessed; much like a modern Don Quijote, Harry is a boy without any experience in the real, often ugly world, which leads him to believe in the fictitious, romantic world of his books. His mother has never let him wear a set of long pants as she is convinced that once his son enters adulthood, it is likely to get him into trouble. Finally, the boy's father persuades her to let him throw away his shorts and become part of adulthood, something which we understand, even though Harry's age is never specified, has taken a far too long time that it will turn out well. Harry falls in love with a vamp of the city, but is forced to marry a country-girl. Frustrated to marry a girl he can never love, and to rescue the vamp (who barely knows of Harry's existence) from prison, he decides to kill the girl. He does not succeed, but elopes to the city anyway, whereupon he finds himself trapped into many threatening predicaments.
Harry's fascination in the vamp is not hard to figure, as his illusion of love singlehandedly has its origins in a mystified fantasy world; his dreams make him blind for the real world. What seems to bother most people to a far larger degree, myself included at first, is Harry's attempts to shoot the naive girl with whom he's engaged. Buster Keaton, who admired Langdon, said in an interview that it was ridiculous for a comedian playing innocent to do attempts at murder and believe it would gain any laughs; had he turned it the other way around, and let the girl try to murder naive Harry, it'd perhaps have had potential, he claimed. Many share Keaton's sentiments; some even take this sequence for proof to the unending myth that Langdon did not fully understand his character. In my eyes, however, it rather proves, if anything, the opposite. If we twist the story the other way around and place Harry in the girl's position, we might have some funny business going which would suit Harry's childlike persona perfectly. But this is not the Harry we know from other films: Harry the child has now been forced into adulthood, and the question to ask next is, how does a man who can't grow up react when the world expects him to do so? What is certain is that Harry has no clue as to how the real world works or what it wants from him. His distorted understanding of things is justified by his very innocence; he is not inconcerned about the world, just lost in it. He had always been lost of course, but saved by the lack of people's expectations in him as a child.
Further complaints concern the apparent lack of gags. The film does move slowly at times, something which I suspect would have been of less bother had the Langdon-team been on better terms at the time of shooting. Yet there are many amusing sequences to mention, at least to people well acquainted with Harry: his confrontation with a cop, a brick and an alligator is superbly timed and executed, and feels like a nice, light contrast to the otherwise dark atmosphere of the film. Capra's direction is also worthy of acclaim; even at such an early point he's maturing as a first-rate director with great speed. He provides us with a few clever camera-angles which add to the mystification of the film, if only because it escalates the action.
I say it once more. LONG PANTS is an odd movie about identity confusion, symbolized through dark comedy which you may not want to view for young children. It is unlike anything else ever done in the silent era, and provides, in my opinion, the most fascinating exploration of Harry Langdon's character, precisely due to his apparent transformation OUT of character. If that makes any sense. Maybe it doesn't. But did Harry ever make sense?