Category Called Comedy #9
CCC: Charlie Calms Down and '72 Roll in Aisles for What's Up, Doc?
CHAPLIN TAKING SLOWER TRAINS --- To play features vs. shorts with Great Comedians may not be a fair contest. Each had to embrace longer form eventually, the marketplace leaving them little choice. Transition from skit to “three-act” undertaking went beyond ken of most, certainly those bred of vaudeville or music halls where on-off quick was necessity understood by all. I looked at Chaplin in The Rink and Easy Street, then Modern Times. In a way it’s like a different guy did them. Near-twenty years separated shorts from the feature, dog years as many experienced and understood then, Charlie having blacked hair gone premature gray after barrel Lita and family rolled him in. The Little Tramp of kicks to rears, shortest term employs, and all etcetera’s for bumming life was no good with narratives taking longer to unfold, Modern Times at 87 minutes a challenge to Charlie as giddyap and get gone reliable. Tempo was slower, as if fleet movement might topple house he's built. Buster Keaton talked about long-form requiring his team to tell “realistic” stories, which meant no more being chased by hundreds of cops, and who really cares why? Seven Chances had similar pursuit by as many would-be brides, a situation set up by reels of exposition, heavy burden Keaton carried for playing real people against real settings. Charlie does a same in Modern Times, job toiling as he never would in Mutual comedies, the Tramp’s independent spirit our assure that he’s for hitting solitary road soon as current crisis clears. We know he’ll not last as a waiter in The Rink, nor does he pretend concern for livelihood, eating from refuse pails or stealing sustenance OK in any pinch. Modern Times loads him up with Paulette Goddard plus eventually her urchin sibs, this to likely follow happy (?) walk into sunset, or is it sunrise?
Regular jobs were bane of funsters making features ---this implying normalcy and dread absorption by convention. We are meant to identify with clowns where they hold us an hour or more, downside their having to knuckle down and deal with frustrations we expect them to relieve us from. I like Charlie loose as a goose and skidding round corners, not being “misunderstood” by authorities (the labor march) and pitched in jail for it. Search for a next job would stink in the nostrils of Mutual-era Chaplin, as would slow-go set-pieces like the Bellows feeding machine and dropping food in Chester Conklin’s mouth while he’s trapped in machinery. Charlie for me was the one trapped. He skates in Modern Times and that harkens to freedom of The Rink, but grace ends there as struggle renews and back we are to victimhood of the Depression. On one hand the Tramp seems ideal for such context, me happier with Charlie a free spirit who’d snatch what could be snatched from a system broke down with rules of conduct suspended like carefree day past. Sound era Charlie however had to be more responsible, earn his bread, never again bite off a baby's frankfurter like in The Circus. A Great Depression seemed ideal opportunity for ultimate will of the wisp Charlie to whom the world owed a living. Prudent ending to any Mutual seems temporary and refreshingly insincere. He’ll wrap Easy Street having quelled villainy, kept his police uniform, and escorting Edna to church, but not to worry for Who Cares Charlie will soon be back on the bum, no chance Easy Street would see a sequel any more than The Immigrant where for a fade he marries Edna. Chaplin features play too much for keeps, length alone requiring solutions for him to be permanent ones. City Lights was best for doubting he’ll keep Virginia now that she has seen him for the derelict he is. I prefer Charlie in such aftermath kicking up a heel and headed back for transient life as he effectively did in The Circus, such ending what we expect and prefer for a character that must never be tied down. Suppose Paulette will go a day, let alone night, without pressuring Charlie to go back and locate her orphaned relations, feeding of which will put him right back on assembly lines? Some happy ending.
WHAT’S UP DOC? (1972) --- You just had to be there. Our College Park Cinema of past celebration opened with What’s Up Doc? in 1972. Laughs were uproarious. Peter Bogdanovich’s screwball plus slapstick plus smart was bracingly new to a public not so inclined as Peter to sit up nights watching same tropes played against 30’s backdrop. “Somehow it doesn’t seem as funny” was what Ann said when last we sampled What’s Up Doc?, shorthand for Turn It Off, which I dutifully did. What comedies survive after half a century gone? … yet there are silent ones 100 years old to sustain aplenty, or is that my lone opinion? What’s Up Doc? I remember in terms of crowd reaction, a thing not had from old films short of see/hear first-hand with seat-neighbors for whom it’s fresh and new. Doc today is for fast-forward to scenes roof-raising in yore and again when Doc campus-ran at alma mater two years later. Most contempo-humor dates, but here is closest to one you’d play to moderns and possibly get by. I applied brakes for moments that “killed” then-audiences to guess whether still they might. First to loose howls was when “Howard Bannister” (Ryan O’ Neal) realizes madcap Judy (a sometimes too much Barbra Streisand) will be valuable toward his getting a research grant (you know the story so I won’t belabor). Mirth built while characters at a luncheon all stooped under a table as “Eunice Burns” (Madaleine Kahn) enters to demand she be seated with them. Moment when camera moves close on Howard and he says “I never saw her before in my life,” followed by Eunice dragged bodily out and leaving heel marks all the way to the exit got as huge a response as I ever saw at a movie, but the topper was still to come.
This was finish where Howard and Judy clinch as expected, him telling her he’s sorry for conduct before, to which she replies, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry,” her eyes blinking as Bacall’s did in a similar moment from To Have and Have Not. Cascade of laughter that began here drowned out Howard’s “That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard,” O’Neal’s gag at the expense of previous Love Story, embraced by many now embarrassed to have done so and ready two years later to ridicule that film’s most quoted line. Porky Pig bursting from the Looney Tunes drum to say That’s All Folks is the perfect coda. In fact, crowds I saw What’s Up Doc? with were still laughing, and loud, when final cast credits came up. Good will attached to What’s Up Doc? with fond memory to carry for years to come. My college had a year’s contract with Warners Brothers Film Gallery, features to fill both semesters of which many were clucks, but not What’s Up Doc? Taking the package meant paying less per title, this a one and only that would fill every seat in our notably large auditorium. It seemed at the time that What’s Up Doc? would always please, forever more fill rooms with laughter, though like others before and since, it would retreat into recall increasingly distant and as with Ann, seem “less funny” where seen through eyes many years older. I hear tell of similar aftereffect Forrest Gump (1994) now has. Many who laughed and cried with that wonder now what made them do so. Best of movies are presumed to stay so, but how many do? We’ll none of us be here long enough to test the “forever” part, but when we see what we thought were perfect flowers wilt upon vines, it is safe to say that even those titles held most precious are fragile as are people who created them and those who’d embrace them. “As good as it ever was” is declared often with certainty, but who can begin to say for certain what will truly last among entertainments we cherish, assume never to part from, but ultimately do. My list is long … what of yours?
10 Comments:
I saw WHAT'S UP DOC when it first came out in '72, I think on Easter Break, at the now long gone Ridge Cinema here in Richmond. It was before any reviews came out. I remember this as the best audience response to a film I have ever witnessed. No secret that comedy plays better with an audience, especially a large one. I have the movie on blu ray and it is still enjoyable, but that night in '72 cannot be replicated.
The difficulty the comedy film stars of the 1920s had in adapting their style to the longer forms of movie entertainment as it arose has a faint modern echo in the attempts by the cast members of 'Saturday Night Live' to extend their various comedy skits into full-length feature film entertainments; the results have been very hit and miss, even though those films have usually turned a profit.
I saw WHAT'S UP DOC when it premiered on television with my whole family (I was 1 year old when it was originally released). Even though the film was dubbed in Spanish, we were all laughing hard from beginning to end. Then TV and later cable rotated it so frequently that its proceedings felt cold in the sense of how the scenes were staged. To some extent, I always felt that Barbra Streisand was miscast in a film that rehashed the kind of comedy associated with Howard Hawks. I remember seeing MODERN TIMES for the first time in 1988, and it was constantly rotated in both cable and TV for at least 10 years, feeling too much to the point I had to consider why would I collect it on video. But it is my favorite Chaplin feature, his best by far combining humor and some melodrama, and it is also his best staged. Chaplin was able to time his shorts in a satisfactory way, as he later managed to do it with his features.
Comedy is more funny strange than funny ha-ha the longer you look at it. I listen to “old-time radio” on Sirius/XM and some comedy shows from the 40s and 50s are fresh and hilarious (Fibber McGee, Burns and Allen) while others are just painful (Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis). All subjective I know, but that’s the point. What’s “funny” is always a mix of culture, upbringing, attitude, charisma and circumstance all changing all the time. Some comedians dodge future potholes, maybe by accident, others build their act on them.
Richard M. Roberts comes to the defense of WHAT'S UP DOC?.
John,
Have to disagree with you utterly on this one, I recall Linda and I watching WHAT'S UP DOC? a few years ago and laughing our asses off. To begin with, the casting is perfect, Ryan O'Neal could run hot and cold with us, but this and PAPER MOON (and I can even make it a Bogdanovich threesome for O'Neal, I like him in NICKELODEON too) show him with spot-on timing and playing characters far more interesting than his earnest and annoying juveniles in LOVE STORY et all. And Bogdanovich manages the impossible for me in DOC, making Barbra Streisand sexy. Then Madeline Kahn makes her major film debut in a hilarious masochistic part, then you also have great character players like Kenneth Mars, Austin Pendleton and John Hillerman keeping it going. I remember seeing it when it opened with an appreciative crowd at the Kachina Theater in 1972, and as 70's comedies go, it is still one of the tops on a short list and one of the few not made by either Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, or Monty Python.
I like Chaplin in general, but I agree I enjoy the more aggressive Chaplin of the Keystone-Mutual years than the "genius" Chaplin of the features. MODERN TIMES is the last of his films where the comedy and the proselytizing still blend well and the proselytizing gets worse once Charlie found his voice. At least Keaton finds more depth to his original character in the features, and was much better directing other actors apart from himself in his features (Chaplin just choreographs everyone to the point of over-rehearsal to make sure no one is going to steal the scene from himself).
I found FORREST GUMP to be a clothesless emperor when it came out and still feel that way, a great example of a film pretending to have a deep message that is really extremely shallow, and one of the few films where Tom Hanks actually got on my nerves, his voice in that is truly annoying.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
I personally regard WHAT'S UP DOC? as plenty good. What I'm speculating on is other people's present-day response to it. In other words, I ask rather than conclude. For all I know, a modern viewership might fall from their chairs laughing. Question is, have they?, would they? And how many of us who were there in 1972 will, like Richard, "laugh our a--es off" upon seeing DOC again?
I remember seeing WHAT'S UP DOC in a theater in '75 or '76. Was it re-released a couple of years later or were the Colorado distributors lethargic? The laughs were plenty and loud, like a Pink Panther movie. I went to see a Pink Panther movie once and remember people still laughing in the parking lot afterwards.
"I liked the shorts best." - Stan Laurel
Another great post, as usual. As to those early ‘friskier’ shorts, it’s worth remembering those films were made by very young men and women. Comics, directors and actors in their twenties or, at most, early thirties were like 1950’s rock stars; crazy with talent working off limited personal experiences but in an era when it was not uncommon for young men to flit from one occupation to another with little training (a few weeks as a plumber, followed by a stint in a butcher shop then a gig painting signs etc.) By the time the the thirties came along, not only did the longer form stabilize comedy, but the silent era comedians were aging out and even new vaudeville trained comedy stars were already middle age men (Eddie Cantor, Joe E. Brown, et al). Laurel & Hardy hit their stride in their forties and even while occasionally portraying vagrants, possessed an odd dignity that placed them solidly as misplaced middle-class types.
Have not seen WHAT’S UP DOC in years but had a similar experience the other day. Jean and I tried EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX* (*BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK) once hailed as the funniest of Woody Allen’s early ‘jokey’ comedies. Did. Not. Hold. Up. We too bailed early on, too pooped after picking out the few gems among way too many Bob-Hope-TV-Special type jokes. Sigh. I remember howling at that film in the theater. In fact, the one fully delightful bit was the charming credit sequence employing lots of bunnies and clever use of asterisks in the typography (asterisks, of course, were prominent in the title of the original best selling book). Ironically, soon after this film Allen would refrain from all funny credit sequences, and stick to plain Windsor Light Condensed type on a black background for all his movies!
Never found nor saw anyone else consider EVERYTHING---SEX to be Woody Allen's best of anything, nor did the audience I saw it with when it came out. It was very up and down and was dated 20 minutes after it came out. Now take a look at SLEEPER or LOVE AND DEATH again and you'll have something, especially the latter, it still holds up great on lone viewings.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
MODERN TIMES has been on my Top Ten List for some forty years. I know I'm supposed to think THE GOLD RUSH and CITY LIGHTS are Chaplin at his peak, but for me MT is the culmination of everything he did for twenty years. It's worth noting that Lloyd was never able to adapt his go-getter to the Depression, but that period was tailor-made for the Tramp.
On a comedic note, MODERN TIMES is really funny, like watching four Mutuals strung together. The only gag that falls flat for me the process shot of the sinking boat. The entire film to me is a farewell to what we gave up trading sight gags for sound. On its own, it's really a great film; taken as part of Chaplin's body of work, it's a near-perfect coda.
Post a Comment
<< Home