Sidewalk Stories

In the age of realism, don't expect the charm of Chaplin, but sundry Lane (writer director actor) gives a pretty good imitation of his pioneering namesake in this low Talkie tale (dog bark & closing comments) about a street artist who witnesses an alley murder and then assumes care of the victim's 2-year old child.

Think of a story in parts Paper Moon, Midnight Cowboy and The Kid (21) but this Charlie make is longer (98m) than the Coogan kind, more stressful, yet, like the Silent great, keeps you engaged on a scoop of romance (Wilson), dash of drama (kidnapping chase) and pinch of poignancy in closing message on plight of the homeless. Production values in camera (Dill) and score (Marder) are high, while Dad's (Williams) final game of chance (coin flip) adds whimsy of days long gone. And watch for an early Edie Falco (The Sopranos) as half a kissing couple in carriage ride (3/4).

Our protagonist is resourceful, tenderhearted, homeless. He finds himself with a baby, someone else's, and suddenly his life shifts focus. The child, thankfully, does not redeem the main character whose actions are a natural extension of who he is-a nameless person. Without home and name doesn't mean without personality, and a life, and the instinct for survival. The main character suddenly has to be concerned for someone other than himself, and this is the charm of the film, charm without sentimentality.

This is an intriguing contrast of the humorous set against the plight of the homeless in NYC; it works, partly because it is so outrageous and comic in its implementation-e.g. the conflict with the other street artist, the use of the bathtub. A gentle, good film whose final moments still resonate in the mind, not because of their greatness, but because of the unexpected but successful shift in focus and technique. It achieves.

Charles Lane as writer, director, and main character has done a very fine job in three areas, none suffering because of the others.

It takes a lot of nerve to update a classic silent comedy, and do it again as a silent film, but that's the idea behind this Reagan-era remake of the 1921 Chaplin comedy 'The Kid'. Writer/producer/director Charles Lane himself takes the Little Tramp role, playing a homeless New York City street artist who reluctantly adopts an abandoned toddler (in real life Lane's own daughter). Both have big shoes to fill, Lane most of all because, unlike Chaplin, he isn't exactly a creative genius, and his attempts at visual comedy are never more than mildly amusing, at best.

But silence is golden, and more to the point for a struggling independent filmmaker, it can be economical as well. By muting the voices on screen Lane succeeds in muting the harsh impact of poverty, bringing some charm to what could have been a merely depressing backdrop. So why introduce the panhandler's begging voices in the final scene, when their faces alone would have been eloquent enough? It amounts to thematic overkill in an otherwise engaging novelty (if not much else), with a likable underdog as its director and star.

An artist (Charles Lane) does portraits and sells his paintings on the streets. He lives in an abandoned apartment. He comes upon a murdered man and finds the man's baby. He reluctantly takes care of the little girl.

This is a black and white silent film set in the modern day New York City. Its sensibilities is mostly set in the silent film era. Charles Lane is the star and the filmmaker. He seems to be doing Chaplin and the Kid but with a modern black man and without the slapstick. It is a bit long. The old silent films are usually an hour. It probably does need the dialog text which is missing here. All in all, it's an intriguing black indie.

I saw this film a number of years back---circa 1990---on PBS. It got ONE airing...and I never saw it again. I had even forgotten the title...until I ran across it by accident.

Charles Lane pays homage---in a manner of speaking---to Chaplin...by way of default. This was a period when Blacks were still struggling to get any film made...and struggling to have films released. Lane ran out of dollars, evidenced by some few moments of sound.

But he manages to salvage the film in the style of pantomime...like the "ol' time flickers". This film is more a commentary on the times, than an homage to any particular screen idol of the past. Homelessness and poverty are its main themes, and the struggle to survive is intensified when the hero takes on the added responsibility of caring for a child whose parent has gone down in an "unfortunate happenstance".

The acting is natural, not campy, and there are a few "hot scenes". But, all in all the film is a good watch, rather touching at points, filled with 'Chaplin-esque' pathos (a la "The Kid"...but it doesn't get quite that intensely mushy). However, the closing scene is pretty intense, and reveals a bit of the pain, misery and suffering all too pervasive during that time---all in the name of greed--and much of which remains with us to this day.

Charles Lane needs to make other films, and he needs to put this one back into circulation--it merits an across the board viewing. This one is a stand alone of the genre of Black films and, though it had nothing even close to the budget of Mel Brook's "Silent Movie", its point are well taken. It is a movie that you will enjoy...and I would caution having the kids watch due to some sexual situations and a little violence. But enjoy. I don't know if this film is back in circulation---I understand it has been out of circulation for some time...but I would not mind coming into possession of a copy.