Il cantante pazzo

Despite being a super-popular and historic film, Al Jolson's picture, "The Jazz Singer", is a rather tedious movie when you see it today. Despite its reputation as 'the first talking picture', very little of it actually is this way. The songs are on the soundtrack and SOME of the dialog, but it's essentially a silent movie with a tiresome plot...along with some sound. Here with his follow up picture, "The Singing Fool", the same sort of style of film is here (essentially a silent with added dialog and music) but the overall plot is a bit better...no, a lot better. Now folks watching it today probably won't be very interested, but for its day, this was a dandy little film.

When the film begins, Al is a jovial waiter who occasionally performs in a night club. He's smitten with Molly, though she clearly does NOT reciprocate. However, when he writes a hit song and strikes it big, suddenly Molly is interested and marries Al. They have a young son, who Al adores, and life seems great to Al. However, Molly is an evil tramp and soon bores with married life. So, she runs off with a new guy--taking the baby in tow and leaving Al unable to function. What's next in this soapy film? Watch it and see.

There's a lot to love and a lot that is incredibly dated in this one. The songs might just be the best thing about this film, as I found myself singing along with Jolson's "Sittin on Top of the World" and a few other tunes. As for the tender scenes between father and son, they are a mixed bag. They were tender and enjoyable...to a point. Unfortunately, they often went overboard into a sickly, schmaltzy direction. Jolson certainly did NOT believe in subtlety in these portions of the film! Additionally, like in "The Jazz Singer", hold onto your seat, as the finale includes Jolson in black-face--a common and beloved tradition that would horrify viewers today. Oddly, despite this, the film ALSO has the first, or one of the first black actors in a talking picture-- and the guy is NOT some racist stereotype or buffoon.

Overall, despite the film having many shortcomings, it is STILL quite enjoyable and holds up well--much better than many old talkies. Mostly of interest to film historians and weirdos like me, it's still worth a look for everyone else.

I think the brothers Warner learned a lot after making 1927's TheJazz Singer. That knowledge is reflected in 1928's The Singing Fool. The Jazz Singer was only 15% sound, whereas this film is, per author Scott Eyman, 70% integrated soundtrack. The production values are better and the story more compelling. Especially powerful are the moments when he struggles to balance being a public person and having private moments as a public figure. Also this may be the first film that deals with father's rights during a divorce. This part is a very real story and still an issue in our society today.

Jolson himself is so much more likable in this film than in Jazz Singer. I've tried to not like him in the past, I think because of the complications around his use of blackface. But his performance is winning and his scenes of affection and caring towards other cast members are so genuine and disarming. Josephine Dunn is also very impressive as a gold digging opportunist, Davey Lee is amazing as Sonny Boy and Betty Bronson is very winning as Grace.

Most impressive is the wonderful sequence with the child playing his son (the aforementioned Davey Lee) and Jolson. Most actors would not have performed on screen with a child-they are considered camera hogs, stealing focus from the hard working adults in the scene. Nonetheless, Jolson is fearless. It's a largely improvised bit and he truly listens and responds to the boy. Instead of Lee stealing the scene, he and Jolson are equals.

As a result of all this hard work, the film grossed $5.8 million worldwide (of which Jolson made almost $1 million himself).

So why, dear readers, would the producers decide to have Jolson in blackface for the last ten minutes? I am not sure. But at the 1:32 mark he begins to paint his face black in the presence of his unbilled African American dresser (one wonders what he thought as this was unfolding take after take). I cannot image how blackface would be seen as a rationale choice and I am curious to find out what people, otherwise sane and very talented, thought about this choice. I am going to have to do some historical research to better understand this disturbing trend, so stay tuned.

If there were no blackface I'd give The Singing Fool a higher score. Perhaps a 6. But judged on its entirety I gave it the lower score of a 4.

The movie is obviously designed as a Jolson vehicle. It is pretty obvious that the star came first, and everything else followed.

Despite being made in 1928, the film holds up remarkably well today, the humour being one aspect that hasn't dated. Jolson sings Sonny Boy to great effect three times, although he puts so much emotion into it that I was left wanting him to sing is straight just once. The film may seem oversentimental but if you engage with this and look at it from the point of view of a contemporary audience you will enjoy it more, and the film's shock ending is, in my opinion one of the bravest I have seen Hollywood do. In fact the only shock endings which I think compare with this are Terry Gilliam's Brazil or Doctor Who: Earthshock.

The supporting performances are sterling, but there's no other actor who has the Charisma of Jolson. It's apparent to me that nowadays, the film's leading lady, Josephine Dunn, playing a singer, would have been given one or two songs to sing, but the producers rightly realised that the audience was there to see Jolson and Jolson alone.

The film is also of historical interest, being one of the first talkies. It's apparent that synchronised sound is used sparingly, and, like its near-contemporary The Jazz Singer, the opening parts use caption slides in place of speech.

Enjoy it for its Jazz age settings, the grand costumes (Miss Dunn's gowns are particularly exquisite) and of course for Jolson's singing.

Herbert Goldman's recent biography of Al Jolson makes the case that with the release and success of The Singing Fool Jolson was at the height of his career. His big Broadway successes and all the songs associated with them were behind him and his future song hits would be identified primarily with film. And the incredible profits The Singing Fool was bringing to Warner Brothers because people could not get enough of the novelty of sound was giving Jolson new vistas for his talent. More people saw him in The Singing Fool than ever did on Broadway or all the road tours he made with his stage shows.

If The Jazz Singer was mawkish and sentimental, The Singing Fool doubled the bet in that pot. Jolson plays a singing waiter who gets a big break because a Broadway producer spots his act. A woman who is played by Josephine Dunn who wouldn't give him the right time of day before now sees success and its tied to Jolson. She and Al marry and they have a child whom we never hear identify as anything else, but Sonny Boy.

In fact the child is the only thing Jolson really cares about other than his career. When one is taken the other goes downhill.

A lot of Jolson's previous song hits were interpolated into The Singing Fool as in The Jazz Singer. Two new songs were written for him and became identified with him, There's A Rainbow Round My Shoulder which to me fits his style perfectly and is the best thing in the film. The other is Sonny Boy.

In the film The Best Things In Life Are Free there is a scene where Jolson played by impersonator Herbert Brooks calls Gordon MacRae, Ernest Borgnine, and Dan Dailey who play the songwriting team of DeSylva, Brown and Henderson and asks them to write a maudlin sentimental ballad he has to sing to a child. They sit down and write one to those specifications and the three of them as well as Jolson are shocked it becomes a hit. Goldman's book says there's reason to believe the story is true.

For nearly the entire film Jolson plays it without blackface. Then the finale with him singing Sonny Boy again he dons the minstrel cork to me for no apparent reason. It will forever be a mystery to me why Jolson continued to use the blackface long after he didn't need to.

Fans of Al Jolson should see The Singing Fool and folks who want to know about his performing art should see it as well. It is mawkish, maudlin, and sentimental and all Jolson.

The Singing Fool" is relatively unknown compared to the previous year's "The Jazz Singer", probably because it was the first feature film with synchronized dialogue. However, 1928's "The Singing Fool" is important for a number of reasons. For one, it was the first talking picture many people ever saw. Remember that in order to exhibit a talking picture special equipment had to be installed in the theater, and theater owners weren't sure enough of the future success of talking pictures to invest in that equipment until well after "The Jazz Singer" came and went. Also, "The Singing Fool" was the top box office draw of 1928. In fact, with the Great Depression just over the horizon, no film made more money until "Gone with the Wind" in 1939. Finally it is one of the very few talking pictures that survive from the year 1928 due to the ease of breakage of the Vitaphone discs.

The story behind "The Singing Fool" is not that remarkable. It is overly sentimental and you can see from the start exactly where it is headed. Jolson plays singing waiter Al Stone who loves snobby Molly, a singer at the night spot where he works. Likewise, Al is loved in secret by the cafés's cigarette girl. When Al makes a big hit with an agent, Molly suddenly finds Al - and his money and fame - very attractive. Of course Al is blind to Molly's poisonous ways until it is too late. You have to remember that the whole purpose behind the film is to give you a chance to see and hear the world's greatest entertainer, Al Jolson, singing on screen in his prime. In this film you get that in bigger doses than you got in "The Jazz Singer". So, if you are a Jolson fan, you are in for a big treat. However, be warned this film is what was known in 1928 and 1929 as a "goat gland" movie. That is, it is part silent. The exact ratio is about 75% talking, 25% silent. How it is chopped into sound/silent portions is particularly baffling. Some dialogue is sound, then will abruptly transition to silent. Warner's had already made an all-talking picture, in fact they made the first - 1928's "The Lights of New York". That film was supposed to be a two reel short that grew to six reels when Jack Warner was out of town, but it was a huge hit and sent the march towards talking pictures into overdrive. With the technical challenges of making an all-talking picture behind them, you would have thought Warner Bros. would have made Jolson's second talking picture an extra special effort and given it the all-talking treatment too. They didn't, but it was still a huge success. In conclusion, if you are a Jolson fan and you are interested in the early sound era of motion pictures, you'll love this film.