Wait a minute, wait a minute, you ain't heard nothing' yet! Adapted for the screen by screenwriter Alfred A. Cohn, and based on Samson Raphaelson's 1921 short story "The Day of Atonement" which also popular the 1926 Broadway play of the same name. The film tells the fictional story of a young Jewish man, Jakie Rabinowitz (Al Jolson), who defies the traditions of his devout family, in order to become a famous jazz singer, under the name, Jackie Robin. Without spoiling the movie, too much, Warner Bros.' and director Alan Crosland's 1927's 'The Jazz Singer' was a mixed bag for me. While, I do champion it, for being one of the pioneers of motion pictures with synchronized sound & dialogue, it's still far from being the great use of it. What confuses me about this film, is odd use of dialogue title cards. I don't get, why they kept most of the dialogue silent, if they did had the ability to put sound effects, music, and singing. It made the film, a little bit jarring. I know, the Vitaphone sound-on-disc system might have been expensive to use, but I felt the film should had either, go all the way, with the sound or none at all. Seeing the film, go halfway, felt a bit lazy. In total, the movie contains barely two minutes, worth of synchronized talking, much or all of it improvised. It's not a 'talkie', as much as film historian, think it is. Another complain, I have against this film is the idea that this, was the first 'talkie'. In truth, the development of commercial sound cinema have start, way before 'The Jazz Singer', became an idea for a film. The first synchronized sound probably started with a film made by William K.L. Dickson at the Thomas A. Edison laboratory in West Orange, New Jersey in the fall of 1894, however the phonograph cylinder have long been badly damaged that's it's nearly unplayable to modern viewers to prove the claim. Nevertheless, later films like 1905's Phonoscène short film about vaudeville artist, Polin by female pioneer Alice Guy-Blaché proves that synchronized singing has been, done, way before, this film, came out. So, why is this movie considered as the first talkie then? It's actually quite simple, Warner Bros was the first studio that took the talking movie seriously and also managed to commercialize it with great success. However, the film's success did not change things overnight; it took a few more years, until Hollywood was fully onboard with film with sound. Anyways, there is other things to praise about this film. It's one of the first movies to feature, a Jewish character outside of biblical films. It's very rare to see, a movie focus so much on the conflict of doing cultural assimilation versus keeping cultural diversity. The typical story of a man seeking his place, attempting to find his voice in the world and the struggles he faced, was pretty smart and compelling to see. No wonder, why the Warner Bros, like it. But the film suffers from the same problem that many films from this era, has, with portraying ethic characters in the modern era. It went a little too racism. The older Jews looks a little too straight out of 'Merchant of Venice' central casting for my taste. However, the most offensive thing in the film, is seeing Jackie Robin portraying in blackface on the Broadway stage. That's a little hard to watch for the modern viewer. Yes, I know, it was a common practice at the time, and help single-handedly introduce African-American culture to white audiences. Nevertheless, it's still troublesome, as most of the practice does portray black people as buffoons. Regardless, I tend to be more forgiving in this film's version of blackface, because it does seem like Al Jolson and his character had good reasons to donning the paint. I believe, the film was trying to portray the troubles, most African-Americans and Jewish people were going through, in America through a metaphor of mutual suffering. After all, some of the songs that Al sing, during the film was about life in the poverty line and helping break down racial attitudes. If anything, the performance in blackface feels more like satire, mockery of white society portrayal of Negro culture than on African American, themselves. Pretty much, like the way, people portray author Harriet Beecher Stowe's 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'. It raise eyebrows. Regardless, it's still uncomfortable to watch, even if Al Jolson in real-life, was known for fighting against discrimination. With that say, I would rather have a black Jewish actor portray Jack, than Al Jolson. I really don't think Jolson is a great actor or singer. He comes across, very corny and amateurism. The music that comes with 'the Jazz Singer', also fall to impress me. It doesn't even sound like Jazz. Where was all the scat singing!? I was really hoping for something, more entertaining, like a tune from Duke Ellington, Louie Armstrong, or Adelaide Hall. None of the songs were really that memorable. Some of the music, they chose, doesn't even fit the tone of the film like composer, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's orchestic work 'Romeo and Juliet'. That was just odd! Overall: I can't say, this movie was the most entertaining film about achieving a singing career. But, at least, I can say, it's better than the 1952, 1959 & 1980's remakes of the same name. In the end, it does deserve to be preservation in the National Film Registry of "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" motion pictures. However, it shouldn't be, nowhere near the top of IMDb 250 films of all-time.

The Jazz Singer is a historically important film for being the first use of sound- though the film is one that is part silent and part sound- and being the first successful talkie. But it's also a film that is more than just a curio. Because while it is very of the time, and has some crude lighting at times and has some broad over-acting(particularly Warner Oland, who I feel is more suited in comedy than in drama, Eugenie Besserer is guilty sometimes of stock gesturing), it is still a good film in its own right. The Jazz Singer is well-shot and has production values that still hold up reasonably well. The songs are terrific, especially Toot, Toot Tootsie, My Mammy and Blue Skies(also have a soft spot for Mother of Mine), and the use of classical music is well-done, Bruch's Kol Nidrei stands out as being utilised very touchingly(the oft-repeated Romeo and Juliet Overture while an amazing piece had times where it was a tad out of place). What was also great was how remarkably rich the orchestra sounded. The story is sentimental, but not overly-schmaltzy and certainly not crude, it still comes across as very moving and powerful especially in the depiction of Jolson's love and devotion for his mother. Some have called The Jazz Singer out for being racist which I don't agree with, any scenes that may give off that vibe are barely seen here and when they are it's shown in an optimistic light and came across as being more reflective of the time it's set in rather than trying to intentionally offend. The Jazz Singer is notable for its historical importance and its music but it's notable also for the very charismatic and immensely charming lead performance of Al Jolson, he also sings his songs with a lot of emotion and spirit and has an interesting if personable quality to his voice. May McAvoy is touching, as is on the most part Eugenie Besserer, while Otto Lederer is both amusing and likable. Watch out too for William Demarest and Myrna Loy. Overall, a pioneering film of historical significance but also a good one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Finally after all these years of hearing about this movie, and seeing clips from it in historical film documentaries, I finally watched it! And I really liked it too! The story is universal and still applies today, Jolson was great as the Jewish cantor's son who wanted to be a jazz singer instead of a cantor like his father. Of course this movie is famous for having bits of dialogue spoken, and they are spoken during the song sequences. This device is both really cool, and makes you wish the whole movie were a talky, but it also is kinda annoying at times too, as the transitions are a bit awkward. Overall, I really liked this movie, though, it's got heart.

Contrary to well-established legend, this is not the first of its kind. But it was a smash hit, and the first sound film where music—sound at its fullest chromatic range—was central to the plot, the first musical film, and history was bent to accommodate. The film is in fact a silent, except when we are on a stage and someone is singing.As a film, it throws away the many wonderful advances of the late silent era—L'Herbier, Pudovkin, Pabst—so we can have singing, it's uninteresting to watch. As a musical, bulky sound technology of the time prevents dazzle or movement. All the emphasis is placed on the novelty, that is listening to Al Jolson sing.The story is partially about the transition to sound. In a nutshell, the young Jewish kid wants to be a jazz singer instead of a cantor like his father and five generations before him. Heartbreak ensues, he runs off. Years later, his father has fallen ill and there is no one to replace him on the same night as the son's years of struggle pay off in his Broadway debut.Generally speaking, I would not recommend this to you—it is emotionally stodgy and heavy. Its metaphors—blackface to emphasize the 'otherness' of the show business from the mother's pov— are as draining as in those films about sad clowns pretending to be happy.I saw this as part of a project on musicals I'll be running through winter and have two remarks to make.The film is in what would prove a popular model for Depression-era musicals, a show about a show being staged, in fact two, Broadway and synagogue. It starts here, even though there is no choreography to speak of.We only have song, but the premise is the same—expressions of some purity can mend hearts, 'magically' solving reality. There are three notable instances of this, one in a theatre where song takes us to the synagogue, the second where a mirror becomes a window, the third when a deathbed window is opened and song flows in and lifts the barrier between father and son.No, I find this the most interesting as the dissonant artifice of an old world that vanished as the lights and stage were being set for the modern world; the contrast in the form between silent film and splashes of song, musical shifts from ragtime to mournful Jewish chants, Freudian fixation on the mother instead of a healthy love interest, all of it is curious here, curious because simply no one would make films this way again. In a mysterious way it manages to unsettle.