Der Jazzsänger

There's not much to say about this other than even today, for this viewer, it is emotionally effective. Yes you know you are being manipulated. Yes, the acting conventions of the silent screen are comically exaggerated. Yes, it is shameless in setting up the ultimate choice. But this is so well structured that even today it escapes cliché. That's so remarkable, because big movies are almost always turned into clichés as bits of them are digested and continuously re-served to us as our visual grammar.

The love interest here is so unusual. He does fall in love with a pretty dancer, but tells her plainly that his career is more important than she is. She later doesn't become part of the choice — as would be the case in nearly every other script — instead she becomes part of the audience, presenting the dramatic quandary: the stage or God.

The presentation of religion is unique in my experience. Everyone here is a Jew, except the performers. They are the "real" and everyone else is "pretend," performing. Though there are many opportunities to fall into obnoxious stereotypes, its avoided over and over. That's despite the dozens of examples they had before.

In fact, there's an amazing engineering of story here. As any viewer will know, this was the first talkie. It was new, and to emphasize its newness a story was created to emphasize the contrast between old and new.

This film is part silent, part "talkie." It shows a struggle between the old (obviously obsolete) and the vital young. It also depicts in a rather subtle but effective way the "old" god, and the new: there's plenty of talk about the performance hall being a modern church. The music as well: we have the implication that it is not only the setting, the performer and the calling, but the music itself that is something new.

Along the way we get street scenes of the Jewish area of New York. These are genuine street scenes and are absolutely phenomenal: there isn't anything I know that compares. There was an attempt of sorts in "The Pawnbroker," which by itself was strong. But nothing compared to this.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

Whatever might be the shortcomings of this famous film, it is an uncanny experience to visit it from time to time. As we know, although it's the first 'talki' it's mostly a silent movie with all that entails. Nevertheless, those moments when sound and image are synchronised, often just for one side of the disc used for the soundtrack, are electrifying. The heat is turned up by the fact that Al Jolson improvised some of his lines, much to the horror of his stage mother. And besides, the tale of the errant son making good in the big lights is affecting. The music is superb, and we are rewarded by some haunintg evocations of the Jewish cantor tradition. I love the film.

An historic film, billed as "the first talkie," this was a surprise because many of the lines are not verbalized, only when Al Jolson sings or just before or just after his songs. Otherwise, most of it is still a silent film with the words shown on the screen as in the other silent films.

This is a powerful story with interesting characters and good songs, to boot. It was different to see Warner Oland as somebody else besides Charlie Chan. He played Jolson's father and I never would have recognized him had I not read the credits. Nor would I have recognized William Demarest.

Jolson, however, is the man who dominates the film. Some of this songs wound up being classics, ones played for years and years, such as "Toot, Toot Toosie" and "Mammy."

Faced with a very tough decision on what to do with his life, Jolson's character does the right thing in the end, which was nice to see. Overall, it's entertaining.

I have seen the Jazz Singer several times over my 60 years. I became interested in 1920 entertainers when I was in my mid teens. My grandfather had seen Jolson in a few Broadway shows and actually met him on a few occasions. Jolson was, as he claimed, "The Worlds Greatest Entertainer". He wasn't the greatest talent, such as Sammy Davis Jr. was, but his dynamic extroverted personality and the way he could capture an audience in his live Broadway Performances was never captured on screen. I know it may sound strange, but the movie producers just couldn't contain all of his energy and exuberance in front of a camera. His dialog delivery,singing and acting was quite good in this movie. Let us not forget that in 1927, black and white silent films were still the standard. That standard brought over dramatization,dark make up, etc. They were not going to take a chance on giving up the tried and proved silent ways completely. They weren't sure on how sound would go over with the movie attendees. How can that be? Silents were a technology that the audiences accepted. The use of all sound was taking a big risk, and difficult to produce using Vitaphone, which was basically synchronizing large recorded discs to the film. Nearly all of the movie houses were not set up for any type of sound at that time. In my opinion, the sound technology and the performance of Jolson carried the film.

I have great difficulty in understanding the comments listed in the posts of how today's human rights standards can be applied to a film that was created 80 years ago.

We are talking about 1927,and it is hard for me to understand how today's negative comments are made about the Black-face and other racial comments. This was a convention of the time 80 years ago. I do not for a moment agree that the way minorities were treated was correct, but that was 1927, not now! You cannot erase history to make it fit today's standards.

I thought Al Jolson did a superb job in his singing,dialog,and acting in this film for the era. One would need to review and compare the singing and acting styles,that of other performers of the era and make comparisons. Crosby, Sinatra, Eddie Fisher, even Elvis Presley & Jackie Wilson said that Al Jolson was a great influence on their careers. To say he could not sing as in some posts here, is absurd.

For a mawkishly sentimental play that was outdated even when it first was presented on Broadway, The Jazz Singer has had a remarkable life with now three movie versions and possibly more to come. Of course it being considered the first sound film probably has a whole lot to do with it. I doubt it would have been remade twice already if it wasn't a historical moment.

But for trying to hold up the Brothers Warner for some extra salary for doing that first sound feature, Georgie Jessel might have been able to repeat the role he created on Broadway as Jakie Rabinowitz aka Jack Robin, cantor's son who runs away from home as a juvenile and comes back home in time to sing Kol Nidre at Yom Kippur services in place of his dying father. Jessel's greed was Al Jolson's gain as America's greatest live entertainer at the time got to inaugurate the era of movie sound.

As Al Jolson was wont to do in his stage shows, he interpolated material from all sources in his first film that he felt was suitable for him. Toot Toot Tootsie and interestingly enough My Mammy were songs he'd done on stage before and were proved material his audience would respond to. The first song he actually does sing is Dirty Hands, Dirty Face which was something he had not done before. Blue Skies which he sings to his mother after returning home as a Broadway star was in fact a current hit on Broadway at the time Jolson was singing it.

People from that era say that you cannot appreciate Jolson on the screen, that to really get the full impact of his dynamic stage presence you had to see him live. Maybe so, but since that isn't possible, there's enough of him in The Jazz Singer and other of his films to realize what a great entertainer he was, black-face or not.

Warner Oland, later to be the first Charlie Chan, plays Cantor Rabinowitz and Eugenie Besserer is touching as Jolson's mother caught hopelessly between her husband and son. In that first scene of a grownup Jolson in a café before he sings Dirty Hands, Dirty Face you will note that is William Demarest who he's dining with. Myrna Loy has a small role as a chorus girl.

Still both the play and the personality dictate that this film is owned exclusively by Al Jolson. Despite later versions with Danny Thomas and Neil Diamond in the lead, the story will always be identified with the man who said we ain't heard nothing yet.

Though The Jazz Singer is exponentially sentimental and mawkish, it does have a very nice depiction of Jewish life and neighborhood in the Teens and Twenties of the last century. And of course The Jazz Singer is a historic first.