Chicago (1927)

CHICAGO (1927) is the story of Roxie Hart (Phyllis Haver), a bored young housewife who kills her lover during an argument. She convinces her doting husband Amos (Victor Varconi) that she killed the man in self- defense. Amos goes to great lengths to save her from the noose, hiring oily lawyer William Flynn (Robert Edeson). Meanwhile, a slick reporter (T Roy Barnes) plays up her beauty and "innocence", making her into a nationwide celebrity. Direction is credited to Frank Urson, but in actuality Cecil B DeMille directed the majority of the film.CHICAGO is an adaptation of a play by author Maurine Watkins, which was inspired by Watkins' own articles about the trial of real-life murderess Beulah Annan. The film is tight and well crafted. In particular, it's a sharp and merciless satire on unearned celebrity, societal double standards, and the hedonistic 1920s lifestyle. There are many laugh-out- loud hilarious scenes, including a scene where Flynn coaches Roxie on how to appear during his closing statement to the jury, and a scene of the photographer posing Roxie shortly after the murder takes place. Many scenes use exaggeration to make points about media sensationalism and lawyers' appeals to emotion, rather than truth, in order to exonerate their guilty clients. The humor is balanced by the dramatic portrayal of Amos' efforts to save his undeserving wife from the noose. Amos is the moral center of the movie, a decent man who is so in love with his wife that he is willing to break the law to save her, yet struggles with her murderous deed and self-centered, callous attitude.The acting in CHICAGO is nothing less than excellent. Phyllis Haver makes a great lead, portraying the many facets of Roxie Hart's character skillfully. She shows equal comedic and dramatic ability. One could argue that Roxie is a sociopath, able to turn on the charm and the waterworks at will in order to get her way, but fundamentally lacking a conscience. Haver's portrayal of Roxie is perfect. I had never heard of Victor Varconi before, but he played Amos with great skill, sensitivity and restraint, turning in a very believable performance. The rest of the cast does fine work as well.Visually, CHICAGO is top-notch, with skillful editing, fluid camera work, and meaningful use of visual cues. One instance of this is a shot of a crowd walking heedlessly on a newspaper with Roxie on the front page once her 15 minutes of fame are up. The visual style of the film points the way forward to the classic Hollywood style of the 1930s and 40s. This film came out the same year as landmark movies like SUNRISE, WINGS, and METROPOLIS, and even though it is not as celebrated as those visual marvels, in its way it's just as accomplished.SUMMARY: CHICAGO is a skillful blend of satire and drama that boasts a razor-sharp script, excellent performances, and highly accomplished direction. The message of the movie has just as much resonance now as it did in its time. A classic! SCORE: 10/10.

Chicago in the mid 20's of the last century. In this modern Amerikan city reside the Hart's, a young married couple, who adapt to the spirit of the big city. Herr Amos Hart works in a tobacco store and Frau Roxie Hart does absolute nothing but to be unfaithful to her husband with an old man. The old-timer accommodates her whims although this is coming nearly to an end. So when Frau Roxie hears this news; she, who is a bad, bad girl ( besides a peroxide blonde with no brains ... excuse this Herr Graf for such obvious remark ) kills her lover in her apartment.Desperate over what she has done, she calls for help to her husband telling him that the old man tried to get advantage of her. Herr Hart who is a good man but not stupid at all, discovers what really happened in there. But his love for Roxie is so important to him that he decides to help her by taking the services of a famous, greedy and unscrupulous advocate ( excuse again this Herr Graf for such an obvious remark ); this in order to defend his wife from the death penalty. However, such favour has an expensive price – 5.000 grand that obviously Herr Hart doesn't have.During a visit to his greedy advocate, he finds out where he hides a lot of money in his bureau and during the night steals the money ( an honourable deed indeed, to rob an advocate ). Meanwhile Frau Roxie Hart's famous trial is nearly begun."Chicago", a film directed by Herr Frank Urson in the silent year of 1927, was based in a Broadway play which in turn was based on a true story ( occurring in a real city! ). Reminiscences of the original stage play in its primal concept can be seen in the film, when the director uses a few sets ( the Hart's apartment, the jail or the trial court ) in order to develop the story as it were different acts of a play. This is especially during the first part of the film during the dramatic development at the Hart's apartment and at the end of the movie during the trial. However, Herr Urson makes fairly good use of the proper characteristics of the cinema film narrative in "Chicago" by, constructing excellent visual metaphors ( the jury's feet responding Frau Roxie charms, the tabloid paper going down the gutter ). There are also important and sibylline sexual remarks that are present during the whole film (ah, that garter bell belt). And let's not forget the social realism that can be seen in the film ( Chicago daily life or the Hart's apartment ). Especially outstanding is the power of the yellow press in those old days ( and unfortunately in these modern days too ); the sensationalist journals build up stories on innocent celebrities that certainly have few merits. Naturally this happened with the madcap Roxie, a situation depicted in "Chicago" in a raw and effective way.Another merit of "Chicago" is the combination of comedy and drama in equal terms highlighting Frau Roxie's stupidity, selfishness and easy living in contrast with her self-sacrificing husband who suffers the acts and nonsense of his wife. He's a man who honestly cares about and loves his wife enough to steal and lie for her although this affection and emotion is not returned.Starring as the couple are two excellent and not well-known actors who handle their roles considerably well. Herr Victor Varconi as Herr Amos Hart is the lovingly and humiliated husband. Frau Phyllis Haver shines and takes all the credit in the picture thanks to her brilliant performance as Roxie Hart, a madcap, simple and selfish modern girl who has no scruples combined with no brains ... who will have a moment of glory as a famous killer thanks to the help of the yellow press ... who will meet her end on the end of a rope … a woman who lives her own life caring for no one except the money."Chicago" is an excellent silent movie for all those reasons mentioned above by this German count. Don't forget also a modern one added recently featuring a superb musical score compiled by Herr Rodney Sauer and "The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra". They capture the spirit and mood of the roaring twenties of the last century.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must to return to the Schloss from the Windy City.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com

Last night the Sam Goldwyn theatre at the Academy in Los Angeles was filled to capacity for the screening of this 1927 silent movie. The print was a restoration, by UCLA, of the original nitrate copy from the DeMille family's archives. It was a full length version, with a 10 min. intermission. Johnny Crawford's orchestra provided a live musical accompaniment, based on original scoring notes. A standing ovation at the end proves that a really well performed silent movie can stand the test of time. Phyllis Haver had a range of expressions from A to Z - fantastic - and the courtroom scene, played for comedy, was truly a highlight. If a DVD is made, as has been suggested, you're in for a treat.

Yes, the 1927 silent film 'Chicago' is the same story that became the big-budget Oscar-winning musical of 2002. (There was a remake in between, 'Roxie Hart': starring Ginger Rogers.) Apart from the obvious difference that one 'Chicago' is silent and the other is a musical, both films tell exactly the same story. The major difference is that murderess Velma is a minor character in the silent version. Also, in the silent version, Roxie's husband is presented more sympathetically rather than as a fall guy.When I saw the 2002 'Chicago', set in the Jazz Age 1920s, I was annoyed by a couple of musical numbers in which the dancers were wearing blatantly modern disco-era outfits, which would never have been tolerated in 1927. Yet, ironically, the 2002 'Chicago' does a much better job than the 1927 original in evoking the 1920s period settings. The silent-film 'Chicago' is conceived as a MODERN story, set in the jazz-baby present day, and so it makes little effort to evoke its own period. Much of this movie takes place in cramped studio sets which are supposed to be dingy walk-up flats or courtrooms, but which fail to convince.If you've seen the recent 'Chicago', then you already know the plot of this 1927 movie, including all the surprises and plot twists. During Roxie's trial for homicide, the prosecutor (Warner Richmond) has a larger and more sympathetic role than in the musical remake. Fans of Eugene Pallette will be impressed with him here, but disappointed by how little he has to do. Phyllis Haver is excellent in the lead role, and sexier than Rene Zellweger. (Though not nearly as sexy as Catherine Zeta-Jones.)This 'Chicago' was produced in 1927, the first year of the Academy Awards. I wonder what the people connected with this movie would have thought if someone had told them that this story would win the Oscar for Best Picture... but not until 75 years later.I'm a silent-film fan. When a silent film is remade as a talkie, I often enjoy the silent version much more than the remake. In this case, I don't. I'll rate the 2002 'Chicago' 10 out of 10, very much deserving its Academy Award for Best Picture. I'll rate this 1927 'Chicago' only 5 out of 10. I recommend it as a curiosity, but it inevitably suffers in comparison with the musical version. Quite apart from all those razzle-dazzle dance numbers, the 2002 version actually told the STORY better.