The Netflix version of "Tumbleweeds" is the Paul Killiam version redone in the 1970s, and it has Hart's farewell to the screen. Sure, it's over the top today, but the man was a Shakespearean actor long before he started doing Westerns, and his other stage roles included that of Messala in, I believe, the original stage production of "Ben-Hur." He then, at age 48, didn't sit on his laurels but instead went into the physically demanding field of making Westerns, apparently because the current Westerns of the time didn't portray accurately the real Wild West he had grown up in; and he did some fine work there before finally retiring.
After all that, if the man wanted to pull out all the stops in his final farewell, more power to him!
Some of "Tumbleweeds" is a little hokey (the singing and some of the plot developments, for example), and Hart's acting seems a little wooden today (although it does convey an inner strength that helps his character get through physical trials, like that long hard ride in the land rush), but the authenticity grabs your attention in spite of that. Right at the start, for instance, it seems as though they are showing film of a 19th Century cattle drive. The interiors are very realistic, too, as are the vehicles, costumes,and mannerisms (I love the way Barbara Bedford reacts when Richard Niell puts his hand on her shoulder -- quite in character with those times and quite a contrast to the mores of 1920s America, let alone modern times).
The land rush scene is very famous and has been copied a lot, but it still is terrific to watch, particularly the way Hart works the story line into it.
I really enjoyed Lucien Littlefield's performance, too (Kentucky Rose, Hart's sidekick). It takes a lot of skill and hard work to look that "stupid" and yet carry the plot along so well: it is so easy to overact and turn it into a farce. Littlefield walks the line but always stays on the right side of it and is very funny and yet also touching (the secondary romantic plot). This was the first role I noticed him in (though he was in "Sons of the Desert," too -- I don't remember him in that). He worked a lot. The Wikipedia entry for him notes that his years of activity were 1914-1960 (the year of his death). Not too many other actors had such a long career.
Kentucky Rose would be considered very politically incorrect today, as would (NOTE: there be spoilers ahead!) the shooting of a snake, but there are some very positive things in "Tumbleweeds," too: rescuing two wolf pups and describing the debt the cowboys owe them because they poisoned their parents; apologizing (sort of) to the snake after killing it; showing African-Americans present in the land rush crowd; and presenting Indians (presumably Cherokee) in a positive way, as Hart's friends (though that sign language discussion seems a little long-winded and overwrought, given what they're actually saying).
Speaking of sign language, this is the first silent film I've seen that doesn't leave much dialogue to the audience's imagination. Everything is spelled out carefully in the titles, and I think that shows it was aimed at a very specific demographic and not necessarily the same one, say, that Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., was reaching for with his costume dramas at the same time.
The filming is also very straightforward and a little rough. Having just watched "Hangman's House" (1928), I couldn't help contrasting the land rush scene here with the horse race in Ford's film, which is very "arty" in comparison. In both films, horses rush at the camera, but the image and its effect on the viewer are very different. One approach is not better than other, of course; each technique fits the film in which it occurs, but it's interesting to note that even in the 1920s, there were different audiences to be catered to.
It's also interesting to note that this "rough" film stars a Shakespearean actor while Ford's "arty" film stars a former bare-knuckles boxer (Victor McLaglen) and is also famous today as being the first movie in which a former USC football player, John Wayne, can be clearly seen on camera.
Hollywood, especially in the early years, is full of delightful little surprises like that.
After all that, if the man wanted to pull out all the stops in his final farewell, more power to him!
Some of "Tumbleweeds" is a little hokey (the singing and some of the plot developments, for example), and Hart's acting seems a little wooden today (although it does convey an inner strength that helps his character get through physical trials, like that long hard ride in the land rush), but the authenticity grabs your attention in spite of that. Right at the start, for instance, it seems as though they are showing film of a 19th Century cattle drive. The interiors are very realistic, too, as are the vehicles, costumes,and mannerisms (I love the way Barbara Bedford reacts when Richard Niell puts his hand on her shoulder -- quite in character with those times and quite a contrast to the mores of 1920s America, let alone modern times).
The land rush scene is very famous and has been copied a lot, but it still is terrific to watch, particularly the way Hart works the story line into it.
I really enjoyed Lucien Littlefield's performance, too (Kentucky Rose, Hart's sidekick). It takes a lot of skill and hard work to look that "stupid" and yet carry the plot along so well: it is so easy to overact and turn it into a farce. Littlefield walks the line but always stays on the right side of it and is very funny and yet also touching (the secondary romantic plot). This was the first role I noticed him in (though he was in "Sons of the Desert," too -- I don't remember him in that). He worked a lot. The Wikipedia entry for him notes that his years of activity were 1914-1960 (the year of his death). Not too many other actors had such a long career.
Kentucky Rose would be considered very politically incorrect today, as would (NOTE: there be spoilers ahead!) the shooting of a snake, but there are some very positive things in "Tumbleweeds," too: rescuing two wolf pups and describing the debt the cowboys owe them because they poisoned their parents; apologizing (sort of) to the snake after killing it; showing African-Americans present in the land rush crowd; and presenting Indians (presumably Cherokee) in a positive way, as Hart's friends (though that sign language discussion seems a little long-winded and overwrought, given what they're actually saying).
Speaking of sign language, this is the first silent film I've seen that doesn't leave much dialogue to the audience's imagination. Everything is spelled out carefully in the titles, and I think that shows it was aimed at a very specific demographic and not necessarily the same one, say, that Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., was reaching for with his costume dramas at the same time.
The filming is also very straightforward and a little rough. Having just watched "Hangman's House" (1928), I couldn't help contrasting the land rush scene here with the horse race in Ford's film, which is very "arty" in comparison. In both films, horses rush at the camera, but the image and its effect on the viewer are very different. One approach is not better than other, of course; each technique fits the film in which it occurs, but it's interesting to note that even in the 1920s, there were different audiences to be catered to.
It's also interesting to note that this "rough" film stars a Shakespearean actor while Ford's "arty" film stars a former bare-knuckles boxer (Victor McLaglen) and is also famous today as being the first movie in which a former USC football player, John Wayne, can be clearly seen on camera.
Hollywood, especially in the early years, is full of delightful little surprises like that.