DbcultAccessing Vault...
7/10
Senior Film Conservator
A definitive 7/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. The Wedding of Jack and Jill remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
If you are looking for a deep story, keep moving because this isn't it. But if you want to see where Judy Garland started, this is worth ten minutes of your life today.
It is basically a kiddie revue. You know, those things where parents force their kids to dress up like tiny adults and perform for a camera that barely moves.
People who love old Hollywood history will find it fascinating. People who hate high-pitched kids screaming songs will absolutely hate it.
The whole thing is just a stage show filmed on a very flat set. It starts with these two kids, Jack and Jill, getting married because... well, because the title says so.
Johnnie Pirrone Jr. plays the groom and he looks like he is concentrating so hard on not messing up his lines that he forgets to breathe. He is very stiff, like a little board of wood in a tuxedo.
Then you have the Gumm Sisters. This is the main reason anyone watches this now. Frances Gumm, who became Judy Garland later, is the youngest one.
She is maybe seven or eight here? She has this huge voice that doesn't seem like it should fit in such a small person.
When she starts singing, the other kids just kind of fade into the background. It is almost unfair how much more talent she has than the rest of the cast combined.
The audio is pretty rough, which is expected for 1930. There is this constant hiss and pop that makes it sound like someone is frying bacon in the room next door.
There is a moment where the kids are all dancing and the synchronization is... not great. One girl in the back is about three beats behind everyone else and she looks genuinely confused about where her feet are supposed to go.
I like that the movie doesn't try to be anything else. It is just a talent showcase, plain and simple.
It reminds me a little bit of Andy's Dancing Lesson in how it just lets the kids be weird and theatrical. Though this one has more singing and fewer lessons.
The middle of the short is basically just a string of musical numbers. One girl does a tap dance that goes on for a long time.
I actually checked my watch during the tap dance. It wasn't bad, just... a lot of tapping for a ten-minute film.
The lyrics to the songs are also very 1930s. Lots of rhyming "Jill" with "thrill" and "hill." They weren't exactly reinventing the wheel with the writing here.
There is a strange energy to the whole thing. It feels like a fever dream where you're trapped in a giant dollhouse.
If you compare this to something like The City of Beautiful Nonsense, you can see how much more focus was put on just getting the performance right rather than making it look like a real movie.
The camera work is basically nonexistent. It just sits there and watches the kids like an exhausted parent at a school play.
I think the groom, Johnnie, might be wearing more makeup than the girls. His eyebrows are very bold. It's a bit distracting when he tries to look romantic.
Is it a good movie? Not really. But it is a real document of a time when people thought this was the height of entertainment.
I've seen worse shorts from this era. At least this one has a future legend in it. Most of these Vitaphone shorts are just forgotten for a reason.
One reaction shot of the audience (if there even is one, it's hard to tell) lingers just a bit too long on a kid who looks like he's about to fall asleep.
It is much more interesting than Beating the Game if you prefer music over silent drama. But that's just me.
The ending is abrupt. They finish the song, everyone looks at the camera, and then it just cuts to black. No real wrap-up.
I guess they ran out of film or the kids needed a nap. Either way, it ends exactly when it needs to.
Watch it for baby Judy. Ignore the rest if you want. 🎤
IMDb —
1927
Community
Log in to comment.
