Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Monday, June 16, 2025

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:

Blogger Jim Cobb said...

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.

10:14 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

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.

10:23 AM  
Blogger Jorge Finkielman said...

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.

6:32 PM  
Blogger Cheez Whiz said...

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.

8:08 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

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

4:18 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

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?

8:19 AM  
Blogger Tommie Hicks said...

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

8:46 AM  
Blogger Dave K said...

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!

1:27 PM  
Blogger lmshah said...

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

8:45 AM  
Blogger William Ferry said...

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.

2:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024
  • July 2024
  • August 2024
  • September 2024
  • October 2024
  • November 2024
  • December 2024
  • January 2025
  • February 2025
  • March 2025
  • April 2025
  • May 2025
  • June 2025