Raymond Griffith: A Physiognomic Appreciation

You’ll be hearing a lot about this young fellow!

I first took note of him after stumbling across THE SURF GIRL, a better-than-average Keystone knockabout. Griffith intrigues in it by his lack of exaggeration and ability to suggest more than one thought or emotion flickering across his countenance at a time: an unheard of thing at the Sennett studio.

Now I’ve seen a few more of his features (cinematic, not facial) and will be writing about all of them as Griffith strikes me as a major and, yes, Forgotten talent.

But first, his face.

Although svelte of form, Griffith has heavy, slightly jowelly lower features. Rather like Doug Fairbanks in that sense, perennially super-fit and nimble as he appeared: zero per cent body fat, sixty per cent chin fat. The bell-bottomed face is really the only unattractive thing about Raymond, in principle, but he exults in using his face to create delightfully unpleasing effects: but not by any contortion or grimacing. He just smiles in a subtly but distinctly horrible way (the curl of the lip), or otherwise makes himself uglier than he naturally is.

It’s a sort of inverse William Powell effect. Powell had a face like a raccoon, but made himself suave and dashing through elegant styling and an air of almost genetic debonairness. He could act handsome and make you believe it. Raymond Griffith was a decent-looking fellow who enjoyed making himself seem positively indecent.

While other comics of the period celebrated the moustache in all its more baroque and rococo variations, Griffith adorned his philtrum area with a simple, Dabney Coleman-type brush, such as you might see hanging around any street corner. Even today, when the facial fuzz is less favoured, you might still pass a half-dozen moustaches of the Griffith style in a day’s perambulation and think little of it. It’s an upper-lip decoration that refuses to draw attention to itself.

So with Griffith, although he makes sure he gets your attention.

Here he is in two sequences from HANDS UP!

Broad stuff — the Warners cartoon style avant la lettre. But Griffith keeps his own contribution simple. Other scenes in the movie play in a slower and more subtle register altogether. There are two entire features on YouTube, HANDS UP! and PATHS TO PARADISE. Well, I say entire — all prints of PTP are missing the final reel, but it’s still a very satisfying film.

It’s taken me forty years of film viewing to stumble on Griffith, with a little help from Walter Kerr’s The Silent Clowns. Based on this, I’d be inclined to call him the most shamefully neglected performer in Hollywood history.

9 Responses to “Raymond Griffith: A Physiognomic Appreciation”

  1. Some very witty and perceptive comments on Mr. Griffith’s mug. I think the clip you’ve included might be the wrong one, since it’s “The Night Club” rather than “Hands Up! Extract.”

    It’s a pity that the only circulating version of “Hands Up!” seems to be derived from Grapevine’s poor quality print. Apparently a much better quality version was briefly sold by Reelclassicsdvd.com until legal issues cropped up–that version now seems impossible to find, though I’m still looking.

    Eddie Sutherland had an interesting take on Griffith (as told to Kevin Brownlow in The Parade’s Gone By):

    “His big failing as a comedian, which I pointed out to him, was that he didn’t know the difference between comedy, travesty, farce, or light comedy. He’d mix it all up. And he would never be the butt of any joke. Now the success of almost all great comedians comes from being the butt of jokes. Griffith was too vain for this. He would get himself into a problem, and then he’d want to think himself out of it. This worked well for a few pictures, but it wasn’t a solid basis.”

    Frankly, this says more about Sutherland’s limitations than Griffith’s…

  2. Thanks — clip now corrected.

    Sutherland’s observations are correct, but the value judgements he goes on to draw from them sure aren’t. He was an amiable but somewhat limited filmmaker himself. What he objects to is the essence of Griffith’s uniqueness, since he’s a light comedian AND a farceur AND a slapsticker.

    If Kino or somebody enterprising like that released a “best of” DVD they could likely fit three of those features on one disc…

  3. Wouldn’t you rather have seen him in the starring role in God’s Gift To Women? As it was, he only co-wrote the script.

  4. Ah, but Frank Fay is fay-nomenal. That movie starts out dead in the water but by the last act it’s pretty hilarious. Still, it’d be “better” with RG. But I quite like the strangeness of the casting.

  5. Oh, you know I like Fay in it quite a bit, and the weirdness is endearing (I never saw a film with as many nude female bits of objet d’art in it), even Fay as The Most Unlikely Lothario In Film works after awhile. I thought if the film had Barrymore it could have taken off as he was an great farceur, and Griffith might have brought something different as well. Interesting to look at Griffith’s credits after his acting days were over.

  6. Christopher Stilley Says:

    love that firing squad sequence! :o))

  7. So then this might be the first example of a, wait for it, trump lol painting in film?

    Sorry about that, loved the clip though and I’ll be looking for his films on youtube. How does his character compare to Max Linders’ dandy? There looks like there might be some influence or synchronicity there.

  8. Linder certainly came first. But with Raymond, there’s something of the cad, also — he anticipates the disreputable charm of George Sanders. So, as Chaplin reinvigorated Linder’s dandyism by applying it to the character of a tramp, Griffith reinvigorates it by applying that gentlemanly aura to someone who’s no gentleman!

  9. […] blog and and his regular ‘The Forgotten’ column for the online cinematheque site MUBI. Read more (and more […]

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started