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
Search Index Here

Saturday, February 23, 2008

W.C. Fields From Stage To Screen

We may never know the identity of the funniest man who ever lived, since he would not necessarily have worked in show business, but narrowing down those who did would surely lead us to W.C. Fields, by all accounts the biggest laugh-getter of the last century and maybe for the next. All that’s a matter of opinion, of course, and I’d allow for those who can’t abide him, as Fields was never set upon capturing every heart in his audience. Balking at pathos and loathe to playing at lovable, he was recognized (still is) as one comic who saw life as it was. What we’ve inherited on DVD is but a suggestion of gaieties a live audience knew when Fields trod Broadway boards. Louise Brooks wrote of how his routines collapsed when translated from stage to screen. She was around during the twenties to see both. So was actress Jane Wyatt, who reminisced for biographer James Curtis. It’s just long enough ago for most of those auditoriums to have emptied into eternity. Soon there won’t be anyone left who saw Fields live. Unlike his movies, we have precious few stills to commemorate long runs he had with the Follies and other revues. To be a Broadway historian (which I’m not) is to know sublime frustration, as you’ll never see varied objects of your study. Fields’ stage hit Poppy survives by way of 1925’s Sally Of The Sawdust and the 1936 remake Poppy. Good as he is in both, I’ll concede that Fields doing it in person would be tenfold better, but maybe it’s best not to think too much about that, though some marked differences can’t be overlooked. First off, Sally is silent. If we’d never heard Fields speak, had his career ended before talkies arrived, this wouldn’t be such an issue. As it is, we miss his voice a lot. Filling the blanks with your imagination helps. We "hear’ Fields even in a silent film, surely a tribute unique to his persona (though I’ll confess to picking up faint, if identifiable sounds from pre-talking Ronald Colman and William Powell as well). Sally Of The Sawdust is virtually the only silent Fields readily available. Other survivors are in Paramount cold storage. That inexcusable state of affairs is likely to continue, barring a small DVD label (Criterion’s Eclipse?) subleasing them. Sally represents opportunity to examine the first permanent footprint Fields left (at feature length), and is as close as we’ll get to Broadway’s 1923-24 run of Poppy.

Sally Of The Sawdust is W.C. Fields building the foundation of a screen character upon ground giving way beneath director D.W. Griffith and co-star Carol Dempster. Urban critics who thought he’d slipped since early triumphs Birth Of A Nation, Intolerance, Hearts Of The World and Broken Blossoms knocked Griffith, quite forgetting that, after all, the man had to eat. Commercial shows since these were all over revenue charts. Historians for instance now rank One Exciting Night among DWG’s worst, yet there it stands among his biggest commercial successes ($836,000 in domestic rentals). Sally Of The Sawdust was another Griffith bid for ticket-buyers indifferent to art. It’s a lot more entertaining than what we’d expect from a director supposedly in decline. Fields and Griffith hit it off right away. The latter was no technician with sight comedy, but had wisdom enough to leave his star alone to improvise whatever bits might help. A lot of that wound up cut, unfortunately. There was a story to tell, and Griffith was bound to his tried-and-true ways of getting narrative across. That means melodramatic framing devices, country idylls for romantic pairs we care little about, and extended dance recitals for Carol Dempster, Griffith’s own love interest but anathema to co-workers and much of her audience. Every leading lady is someone’s cup of tea, however. I find Dempster appealing in a kooky kind of way. She mugs and flails about as if to parody much-lauded Griffith forebears Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh. Hoydenish is a term modern critics use, and they don’t mean it as any complement. For me, that’s the very thing that makes her work. When Dempster’s united with a grandmother who’s never seen her, she crawls into the woman’s embrace and all but laps her like a dog. Not exactly what I expect from a Griffith heroine, but I’ll take it over Gish’s eternal suffering. On-set observers watched Fields doing all sorts of routines that aren’t in any print we know today. There was a newspaper gag, one about flirtation and flypaper; all shot and later excised. Much of my work was eliminated because it diverted attention from the star, Fields would say. Dempster allegedly made DWG shoot more close-ups of her after rushes revealed WCF was off and running with the picture. Assistants damned the actress. She ruined him … She had nothing … that sort of thing. I wonder if some of that’s a bum rap. Fields and Dempster apparently got along. She called him Pops, and scenes they play together are some of the film’s best. Griffith didn’t mean to undermine Fields’ performance. It just didn’t jive with editing patterns the director adhered to. His juggling of multiple characters and stories was not unlike Fields keeping balls and cigar boxes aloft. Problem is once the comedian got such objects in the air, the last thing we needed was cutaways to drama happening four miles off. Still, they had much in common, and Griffith did give Fields his best start in movies. Both were students of nineteenth century literature and talked for years thereafter of getting together to do Dickens’ Pickwick Papers. These were men who’d gotten extensive self-education poring over great writers. The stage Poppy may have introduced the dominant Fields image, but Griffith gave it first screen expression. Watching Sally Of The Sawdust made me wish all the more for someone to find That Royle Girl, the follow-up teaming of Griffith, Dempster, and Fields now sadly lost. Ironic that both director and comedian would go to Paramount shortly after Sally ($722,000 in domestic rentals) to become factory artists bound to schedules and supervision. Most of what Fields did there is lost, and you wonder how things might have been had autonomy been his to make a series of silent features the Fields way. Thankfully, that’s pretty much what he (and we) would enjoy once talkies arrived.

W.C. Fields laid sick for nine months before he did Poppy in 1936. All sorts of projects were announced and later scotched. This was a proven property and ready to go if only Paramount’s star could get through the shooting. Two preceding it, Mississippi and The Man On The Flying Trapeze, were considered substandard (at the time, certainly not now). The public knew well of Fields’ illness. He’d be a figurative Lazarus rising on that first day he showed up to begin Poppy. In the last two years, Fields has become a sort of myth or legendary character, entitled, therefore, to make his entry in a hush, said The New York Times after visiting the set. Director Edward Sutherland (shown here with Fields facing the camera) described a struggle to get useful footage. I don’t think Willie was in twenty-five percent of the picture. Watching Poppy today gives the lie to that estimate, but when Sutherland sat for an oral history at Columbia University in February 1959, who was there to correct him? Film history in those days turned upon memories shaded by years gone by and temptation to juice up otherwise commonplace events. Poppy would have been difficult to revisit in any case. There was a limited Paramount reissue in 1949, then sale to television as of April 25, 1958, but most recollections of Poppy harked back twenty-three years by 1959, and whose among these were any more accurate than Sutherland’s? Fields is doubled primarily for stunts, climbing, and falls he’d have ceded in any event. The stand-in wearing Fields’ costume and a rubber mask (Johnny Sinclair) was visible to me in only two scenes. Maybe he did a lot more, but that’s likely footage cut before release (Poppy runs a mere 75 minutes). The star is slowed by his afflictions. Timing is off by centimeters. You’d not notice with most comedians, but this being Fields, you do. As if to cover, he’s referred to as old-timer early on. Juggling was proposed but nixed by the comedian. To have attempted that would reveal infirmities he’d otherwise work to conceal, but even Fields at half-strength is a Fields rich in comic invention, and highlights in Poppy are right up to former standards. Set pieces include a croquet match similar to the golf routine he’d done in several previous shows. From the original stage Poppy, there is the kadoola-kadoola (Fields playing a bizarre boxed instrument with strings), which allows him to remain seated throughout but calls on timing only he could master so brilliantly. Some have commented that Fields is offscreen too much of the time, but I never felt cheated. Crowded theatre reaction was expected to cover for musical scoring they omitted during Fieldsian recitals. That silence is all but deafening when you’re watching Poppy alone on DVD, but may be preferable to intrusive boinks, slide whistles, and other cues to laugh as supplied by Universal in their four Fields comedies of the late thirties and early forties.

Larcenous Fields reassured depression crowds. Here was their champion using bluff and cunning to ward off poverty, with Poppy a how-to manual for getting oneself out of hard times, never mind the means for doing so. This ideal timing allowed Fields to intersect with his public’s prevailing mood. Too bad such a peak found the comedian too physically compromised to seize full advantage. Poppy appears to have been a sizable hit. Though not having figures to back it up, I’d guess it was his biggest for Paramount. Both fans and studio could only have been frustrated by the relapse Fields suffered after completion of Poppy. He’d be down for months more even as Paramount promised another comedy for the 1937 season. A major problem was devising vehicles up to exacting standards Fields set. Being the creative mind behind all of his features, he wouldn’t go forward with production until satisfied with content. Fields resisted assembly line mentalities anxious to meet release schedules even when that yielded inferior product. The uniformly high standard of Fields’ output was the result of staying home until material was properly honed. He’d grow tired of opening every show selling snake-oil to suckers, though I suspect audiences then as now preferred him in that more assertive posture. Fields the family man carried about an air of defeat. You’re Telling Me even found him contemplating on-screen suicide at one hopeless juncture. A reason Poppy hit was confidence Fields generated, as if to assure depression dwellers that if he could overcome stuffed shirts and high-hats, so could they. The costume helped as well, an arresting visual enhancement (nearly identical to the outfit he’d worn in the 1923-24 stage Poppy, as shown at top) and probably the wardrobe we most associate with Fields to this day. Delays attendant upon health concerns ground down production wheels on Fields features to come. Judging by the condition he was in, it’s a wonder he ever completed Poppy. Those positive reviews were as much valediction for a trouper emerging from his sickbed to make us laugh for possibly the last time. Few could have imagined then that Fields would go on entertaining for another ten years.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another great post, John. Every now and then, when I begin to think that appreciation for W.C. Fields is on the wane, something like this (and, indeed, James Curtis's bio) comes along to hearten me. Still, he's a tough sell sometimes, especially with females. I always loved Pauline Kael's zinger: "For women, Fields is often an acquired taste, like scotch and soda. But what the hell, you can't go around sipping daiquiris all your life."

8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear John,Sit down and get comfortable, this one may go on a bit.I think one my chief reasons for getting "hooked" on older films is because of W.C. Fields. I was one of those kids who would haunt the local camera exchange(ours being in Beverly Hills) and look for 8mm extracts from Fields' Universal features, bring them home and run them ad nauseum for family, friends, the dog, anyone I could corral. I poured over my father's copy of the Robert Lewis Taylor bio countless times. But we (people of our age, I think)were lucky because his films were still playing all over the place on television in those days, so exposure to most of his best work was assured. I got to know Carlotta reasonably well in her later years -- and I'm only talking roughly 15 years or so ago -- because we used to go to the same neighborhood restaurant in West Hollywood. She was a great gal, and one could easily see what Fields must have seen in her: In short, as Micawber might have said, she must have been a knockout in her prime! We talked and talked about her days with Fields of course -- among other things she said he was a man's man --meaning men were crazy about him. I guess it's true that with women he was -- and is -- a sometime thing.(although I must tell you my mother was crazy about him, and like myself, loved watching his old movies)Anyway, I told Carlotta a great story my dad used to recount and as seasoning to the delicious entree you've served-up John, I'll recount it as briefly as possible. Hollywood - mid-thirties: My grandparents had just moved out here from New York, when Leo Forbstein (who headed the music dept.) had my grandfather placed under contract as staff composer at the studio. The family took up residence around the 'Los Feliz' area, not far from Warners. Pop said he used to walk his dog "Smokey"( who I guess must have been named for Dick Foran's horse -- M.K. was scoring all the Foran B- westerns at that time)around DeMille Drive and there would be Fields , sitting on his front porch every morning when Dad would pass his house. "Good morning,Mr. Fields" he would say respectfully. "Ah, hallo, my boy how are you - " Mr. Fields would intone back.According to dad, Fields always sat there on his front porch every morning with a pitcher of martinis (breakfast, no doubt)and a loaded shotgun by his side. "Why the shotgun?" I would not unnatually inquire. "Because", Pop explained, "the kids from Hollywood High would go riding past his house in their jallopies, hurling epthets and curses at Fields("You drunken old SOB"., and so on. Not everyone, apparently, knows how to treat a Legend with respect.High schoolers today would probably do the same to Paris Hilton, if given the chance). All true, according to Dad. I told this to Carlotta -- yes, she told me, absolutely correct -- except for one small detail: Fields didn't sit outside with a full pitcher of martinis, just one glass -- but it was always filled! Thanks for your patience in enduring all this. Finally, I would like to add to anyone passionately interested in Mr.Fields and his cronies, who are within the sound of my voice , to seek out a book written in the mid-fifties by Gene Fowler, called "Minutes of the Last Meeting" . And, absolutely finally, John (I promise), in the picture of Fields on the set with the typewriter, do you know if the lady standing over him is his long-time secretary Magda Michael ("Mickey Mouse")? I remember my late aunt telling me about going to high school out here with her daughter, a "professional school"for kids who were, or wanted to be, in show business, called Mar-Ken. My aunt's best friend out there was the late Lon McCallister, who reminded me of all this when we corresponded shortly before his passing, but oh God! That's another story! Thanks for this great posting, John!

10:09 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Jim, I'm with you about that James Curtis book. It's an amazing work of scholarship and a wonderful read.

R.J. -- THANK YOU for these fantastic recollections. I loved reading about your family's Hollywood connections. Please do come back with more of this anytime. That anecdote about Fields on the front porch was just priceless! By the way, the lady in the photo with him was named Jessie Virginia Lee, who was a contest winner visiting Paramount.

2:13 PM  
Blogger Vanwall said...

Great post - I used to see Fields movies on TV all the time as a kid, especially on the independent station where I grew up - un-affiliated enabled them to show whatever they could afford, and old B&Ws were priced right, I guess. I was fascinated by his voice, which was cranky and smooth at the same time - not a croak, and not a bottle of castor oil, but I liked hearing it just the same. My grandmother always called him "a scandalous old man" - she wasn't a fan of drinkers and his vaguely lecherous characters rather put her off, as well. I thought he was smoothly comical in "The Old Army Game" and that film may have captured some of his stage persona better than some other films. As for Sutherland's memory, I never have taken his reminisces at face value - Brooksie's seemed much more valuable regarding Fields, and hell, anything else - she had some things to say regarding Eddie's directing skills, I seem to remember, and I don't think it was just ex's revenge. It still boggles the mind why Paramount hasn't released their buried treasures. What's with that anyway?

6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fantastic post, with fascinating pictures too, John.

I first came to Fields in a roundabout way. I was a huge Mae West fan in my twenties, and when UK TV finally got around to showing MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, I was exposed to Fields for the first time. Although the film isn't deemed a particular success, it was great to see the two legends together.

I also remember seeing a tribute act to Fields in variety shows during the 1970s - anyone know who this impersonator was? And there was also an unusual British crime series in the 70s called GANGSTERS, now available on R2 DVD, which featured a hitman who impersonated Fields. Worth a look, if you like bizarre TV series...

7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for a great post! I read the Curtis book last year, and really enjoyed it. Oddly enough I'm more familiar with Fields through his radio work (mostly with Charlie McCarthy)--he and Charlie phoned it in towards the end, but in the early days of the Chase and Sanborn Hour, when Bill was re-emerging after a long illness and had lengthly solo spots sans Charlie--well, he really shines. I also really love vaudeville and early Broadway so it was great reading about his experiences in those media.

I've seen clips of his films, but haven't yet sat through a full one. I'm a bit apprehensive, actually. I'm worried that it just won't be as funny, watching it alone in my living room. But I've never had the opportunity to catch him in a full theater, which is how he deserves to be seen. Having said that--any suggestions on which films to start with, for a classic film fan who's a film Fields neophyte?


10:34 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Greetings Dr. OTR ---

The Fields shows I'd start with include the following ---

It's A Gift
The Bank Dick
You're Telling Me
Man On The Flying Trapeze
You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

Actually, most all his starring features have considerable points of interest --- few if any duds.

Catch the shorts too if you can. There are many great routines in these.

Most of Fields is available now on DVD, albeit a few of the Paramounts are Region 2 only. The best of his films can be had in the US, however.

10:55 AM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

And once you've watched those, be sure to catch his four Mack Sennett shorts -- Fields would've had a great career in two-reelers.

And then, as a finale, watch "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break," the most bizarre, hilarious American movie of the 1940s. Still ahead of its time.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, John! Your suggestions are spread across vol. 1 and 2 of the WC Fields Comedy Collection--I may just have to keep an eye on them both and buy whichever goes on sale first. (Amazon does have irregular sales, but you have to watch out for them. Over the past few months I've managed to buy the Three Stooges, a Vincent Price Collection, MGM Horror, Boris Karloff, Loony Tunes and several others, all for about 40-50% off instead of Amazon's usual 20-30%. I put items I want in my Shopping List and then check them regularly to see if the price has dropped.)

What I really wish is that I could buy some time to watch all of these things! Living in DVD age, we are truly spoiled for choice.

Incidentally, you may not know that Fields was spoofed for several years on the Fibber McGee and Molly radio show in the person of Horatio K. Boomer, a con artist voiced by Bill Thompson (best remembered as the voice of Droopy). Boomer spoke in a wonderful Fields impersonation. The character was essentially retired when Fields died, though he re-appeared in the late 40s at least once or twice.


1:29 PM  
Anonymous saat said...


8:01 PM  
Blogger riprense said...

Wonderful blog, but can you please provide ID's for the photos? I am especially interested in knowing who the blonde is in the photo toward the bottom. Thank you.

9:58 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Good question, riprense.

The still's back caption identifies her as Jessie Virginia Lee, a Paramount extra, "who won $5000 in the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes after which she's been deluged with marriage proposals." W.C. Fields assists Jessie in answering some of the letters.

8:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • 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