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.
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.