The King of Jazz?

Since there are no readings this week to anchor and contextualize our readings, I feel that there's no real lense through which to view this week's film. The last few weeks, I feel that the readings gave me a place from which to watch the movies, a place to start, a vision to work the movie into. So, this week, I'll just mark a few things I thought noticeable, probably most of which the rest of the class, you all, will also probably remark upon.
The first, and most obvious, has, of course, to do with the very different definition we find of jazz within the film, The King of Jazz. Looking with the clearer vision of almost a century now, we are able to easily categorize music, jazz included. It exemplifies an era to us postmodern types. It's a people, a place, a type of clothes, a hairstyle, the way a tie is tied. It's a jazz hall; it's both the music and the instruments played. It clearly definable, clearly distinguishable from other kinds of music, or emotions, or times. But, within The King of Jazz, the producers, director, actors, etc. all work from an obviously different definition, one that exemplifies for us the context of the time period. The film was created much closer to the beginning of jazz as a type. They were so close, in fact, that the form and style was not a neatly categorized type. It was still a blurry amalgamation of what was considered "other" in America. It was music from all places, as characterized by the last big scene, the melting pot. It was music of England, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Russian, even the American revolutionary drums of the marching soldiers. It was the cowboys of the wild west, the East Coast flappers, the sailors of the ports. All these places and people were shown to us through their costume, their instruments. Bagpipes and plaid skirts, Violins, harps, lutes. Salsa dancers, sombreros. All the nationalities that made America the melting pot. This was the vision of Jazz, the blurry, uncategorized notion of Jazz of white Audience to a white audience, the Whiteman's scrapbook that were the pages we gleamed through the various scenes and sections of the show, The King of Jazz.
Through these postmodern eyes, the film looked more like a show from the sixties with family singing troupes and comedic interludes of boys in overalls with sticks of hay in their teeth. It didn't seem like it was meant to be taken seriously; it's singular purpose seemed to be to entertain. But, it was obvious that some extravagance had been allowed in costumes and sets. The revolving main bandstand, the various costumes, the piano big enough for five to play and an entire orchestra to inhabit. This calls for a bit more than lavish entertainment, maybe. Maybe.
These were just a few things.
I'd be interested to know the context of this film. Who watched it? Where was it advertised? It what cities was it well and not so well received?
I think the film was useful in the purpose of studying film. It showed a lot of things we hadn't seen before. The fade-ins, the fade-outs, the shadowing, the lighting (colored and black and white), the intentional use of these new film techniques, like the ghost bride procession and the picture that came to life. They were new and interesting moments.
I'm sure we'll cover many of the other things I noticed in class. Look forward to hearing what you all thought.