User Reviews

The film was made with Lloyd Hamilton and released in 1924. I found an article on it in The Washington Post, April 21, 1924:

Hamilton ComedyAnd Sennett Film On Crandall Bill

The film play in which David Wark Griffith, producer of 'The Birth of a Nation' and 'America,' had expected to present Al Jolson as a star of a silent drama is on viewfor the first time in Washington as chief feature of the Easter bill at Crandall's theater. When Mr. Jolson decided that the screen was not for him and departed for Europe, Lloyd Hamilton was called from the West coast to fill the breach. With what success he met in his first full feature-length comedy may be gathered by listening to the roars of laughter that are elicited by "His Darker Self" at Crandall's any time from now through Wednesday night.

"His Darker Self" displays the varied moods into which a young man may be thrown while attempting to find a murderer in the "black belt" by smearing his face with burnt cork and invading questionable precincts of a dusky gambler who held life cheaply. There is a lot of fun here, due principally to Mr. Hamilton, but with Tom Wilson, Tom O'Malley, Lucille La Verne, and others aiding the cast.

I have a feeling this film does not exist. It is not like the Marx Brothers' HUMORISK, or W. C. Field's THAT ROYALE GIRL, or Laurel & Hardy's THE ROGUE SONG (which exists in parts). Those films were made, but the finished product was destroyed decades ago - in the case of HUMORISK it probably never got real release. In the case of THAT ROYALE GIRL (whose director is the same one here) it was released, and signaled the only time W. C. Fields, Louise Brooks, and that director were in the same film - but copies have disappeared. One may turn-up, but none have so far. A complete film and sound version of THE ROGUE SONG is missing, except for a small segment I have reviewed, and the recorded motion picture sound-track. So one can make an educated guess about what THE ROGUE SONG is like. Not so for the others.

In 1923 it was obvious, except possibly to George M. Cohan, that the greatest figure in American entertainment was Al Jolson. He was big as a singer, whose songs sold thousands of records. He was big as a Broadway star. That year Jolson was approached in New York City by a man who was also at the peak of his career as America's greatest film director. His name was D. W. Griffith. His previous films included such titles as BIRTH OF A NATION, INTOLERANCE, HEARTS OF THE WORLD, WAY DOWN EAST, BROKEN BLOSSOMS.... He was a founding member of United Artists with his fellow movie titans Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks, and William S. Hart. Soon he was to add a few other titles to this list most notably ORPHANS OF THE STORM and ISN'T LIFE WONDERFUL?, before he became aware that in movies you only remain successful if your films sell tickets. It was not that Griffith was unaware of box office. His film BIRTH OF A NATION was based on a best seller called THE KLANSMAN by Thomas Dixon. He knew how to build up a host of stars to appear in many productions, like the Gish sisters, Bobby Harron, Lionel Barrymore, and later Carol Dempster. But he was so set on the next cinema vision he had that he frequently overlooked building up his cash reserves by making popular, but cheaper films for awhile. As a result he frequently was over-extended financially. In the end it destroyed him.

When Griffith approached Jolson about movie making in 1923 he knew he had a real hard sell - one that the Warner Brothers would also face, but with greater success in 1927. Jolson was invited by Griffith to his movie studio in upstate New York to shoot some scenes for a film that would star Jolson, apparently named MAMMY'S BOY. It was a fascinating prospect to Jolson - after all, his ego liked the idea of being on the big screen. Griffith also talked about an idea he was working on...which Jolson was curious about too.

Ever since 1894 when Edison took out his patent, movies had been silent. This was not something Edison or the Lumiere Brothers or George Melies, or any of the pioneers wanted - they wanted film to talk. But aside from Edison struggling to get the sound and visual components together nobody came close to doing it. Edison made several "talkies" that survive. I saw two years ago at the New York Historical Society (a "Civil War" story about unmasking a spy, and a comedy about a club initiation). The sound is understandable but fuzzy, and the actors have to stay near the sound equipment - a large phonograph like those used for multi-instrument musical records - and seem too stiff. Given the comparative movement of successful film by 1923 or even 1910 it's no wonder Edison gave up.

Griffith's idea was a trifle more modern, but apparently as unsuccessful. From what I read Jolson did visit the Griffith studio and was shot for a couple of scenes. Then he watched the "rushes" with D.W. And slowly Jolson became finicky. No sound - the equipment did not work. There he was on screen acting (and directed by a great director) but no sound...and Jolson knew it was the sound that the public wanted.

He left within a day or so. Jolson would eventually sing on screen...many times. Griffith would eventually make two talking pictures after 1927. But they never worked together again. And MAMMY'S BOY never saw the light of day.