The Jazz Singer (1927)

Country: USA

Released: October 6th, 1927

Genre: Musical

Directed by: Alan Crosland

Produced by: Darryl F. Zanuck

Written by: Alfred A. Cohn

I was worried going into The Jazz Singer. It's reputation is one similar to that of The Birth of a Nation: An outstanding landmark cinematic technology (in The Jazz Singer's case, the advent of synchronized sound) burdened by archaic racial attitudes. When a film's most iconic image is this...

...can anyone be blamed for being less than thrilled to delve into it?

The Jazz Singer however is no Birth of a Nation, that much needs to be emphasized. In fact it's not much of a "talkie" either come to think of it. Whereas Birth of a Nation was nothing less than a racial manifesto deliberately attempting to scrub history for political purposes (which for me, as an aspiring historian, is one of the most heinous things a piece of art can do), The Jazz Singer has no such agenda. It's aim is to explore more universal themes such as inter-generational expectations, the immigrant experience, and to a far more subtle extent what it means to be American.

But I'm getting somewhat ahead of myself. The film stars the legendary Al Jolson as Jackie Rabinowitz, an aspiring jazz singer and son of the cantor for a local synagogue. Expecting his son to honour his family's traditions and become a fellow cantor, Jackie's father (Warner Oland) punishes him for indulging in jazz, prompting him to run away from home to seek fame. Twenty years later Jackie, now working under the alias Jack Robin, is offered his big break on Broadway while his father falls ill on the eve of Yom Kippur. Desperate to find a replacement cantor Jackie's mother (Eugene Besserer) and family friend Otto Lederer (Moisha Yudelson) beseech Jackie to abandon the premier of his show and sing for the temple, forcing Jackie to choose between his dreams and his family, and on a deeper level between his individuality and his roots. The film ends with Jackie choosing to sing for the temple, absolving himself in the eyes of his father before being offered another chance on Broadway and successfully getting his own show.

It should be stated that blackface is only briefly present in the movie, and that the film's legacy as a vehicle for racism is overstated and undeserved. Jackie only dons the makeup in two scenes and in neither of these is it really used to emphasize racial themes. In fact I would go so far as to argue that the blackface itself shouldn't be classified as racist as contextually it carries a very specific thematic purpose. I mean, the mode itself is racist, given the cultural baggage, but it's utilization seems very removed from racial elements. Jackie's adoption of blackface represents a literal cultural mask between himself and his family. When his mother, who is supportive of her son's dreams first sees Jackie in the makeup she is uncomfortable as she feels Jackie is severing his Jewish roots. Reconciling tradition and new modes is the central theme of the film and is why jazz plays a central role. As a new musical genre (and a wholly American one at that) jazz serves as the perfect vehicle through which to explore such ideas, and Jackie's struggle between the jazz in his heart and the songs of his people is strengthened by it. The blackface therefor is not solely a technical tool but central to the plot, and serves as a representation of Jackie's assimilation into American culture, because that's fundamentally what the story is about; the clash of old cultures with new environments, in this particular case a multi-cultural America. This is not to absolve The Jazz Singer of all sin entirely as it is difficult to ignore the baggage carried by minstrel shows. However I feel that dismissing the film as racist misses the point. 

Ultimately though as I've already mentioned huffing about the film's politically incorrect methods is futile, as is the snobbery inherent in ascribing contemporary morals onto past generations. Attempting to judge past peoples by our standards is stupid, and I wish more people realized this. This obviously does not make said crimes okay (I certainly did not let the Birth of a Nation off the hook), but it does require that certain pieces be approached with specific expectations in mind. The movie also helped me think about blackface's role in our world today. In North America blackface is universally condemned as racist, as negative stereotypes permeated the minstrel shows that utilized the technique, but this is not so in other parts of the world. The Netherlands is a country that comes to mind, where the tradition of Black Peter always draws condemnation. Essentially Black Peter is magical character who in Dutch mythology is Santa Claus' assistant. The character is generally portrayed by white actors in blackface and has naturally drawn condemnation over the years. 

A Dutch friend once told me that the character is not intended to be a representation of black people but supposed to be a-racial. This does feel like a bit of a cop-out though when the character also sports bright red lips and large hoop earrings, common visual tropes of racist caricatures. I had another similar experience when I went to Brazil and saw blackface featuring prominently on television. When I asked my Brazilian friend about it she explained that the method does not carry a negative connotation the way it does in the States, but was seen similarly to when actor's wear drag. Yet the problem is that when an actor is in drag they generally adopt a hyperbolic version of female mannerisms to both emphasize his gender swap and for comedic purposes. This classic Monty Python sketch is a good example. The cross dressing is not the joke but is just a way for the actors to play different characters. However in doing so they clearly imitate old women, or at least how they are traditionally conceived. Would doing the same for black people not be inherently offensive, as it caricatures an entire culture/people?

It is not my intention to answer these question because frankly, while they are worth asking they are no easy answers. So let's move away from this topic and onto the movie itself. As mentioned this is the first movie with synchronized sound, although it's very limited in it's use. Besides the musical segments the movie is still silent. Apparently what little dialogue is in the movie was never meant to be in there. You see it was believed at the time that people wouldn't be interested in just having people talk on screen, so the plan was to use synchronized sound solely for the music. However Al Jolson ad libed and the footage was kept in the final cut, thus giving rise to dialogue in movies. Funny to think that people didn't think talking would fly in film. And what exactly was the first thing ever said in film? "You ain't heard nothing yet!"

How wonderfully appropriate.

I also like that the first song ever sung with synchronized audio is a Jewish hymn. At a time when mass pogrom's were still being organized in Europe on a regular basis, do you think that maybe this was intentional? After all Hollywood at this time was dominated by men of Jewish origins. Perhaps this was an act of defiance on their part. A way to irrevocably inscribe their culture onto America's landscape.

Besides this there isn't much to say about the movie. Well, except maybe that Jackie's dad is a piece of shit. Refusing to acknowledge your son because he chooses his own path is a huge dick move, and rather than having a satisfying moment where he learns the error of his ways instead he continues to spurn Jackie until he hears him sing the hymns, at which point he exclaims something along the lines of "my son has returned!" What kind of Confucian familial-piety bullshit is this? Jackie, just because some douche forgot to wear a condom does not mean they're entitled to your respect. Parents have to earn respect just like everyone else.

So with all this in mind, is the movie any good? Meh. It's okay I suppose. Honestly it didn't wow me that much. I at first loved the parts with the singing, as the contrast between them and the silence really packs a punch and for a second I felt like someone in 1927 watching a talkie for the first time. However once the novelty wears off all you're really left with is something a little generic. The jazz is alright, but it's a really old school kind of jazz, one that bears a closer resemblance to ragtime or blues than with anything by Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington. It's not really my style. Still, everything is done competently enough that I still had a decent enough time, so give it a watch anyways. If nothing else you can people you saw a piece of film history.