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, October 14, 2024

Category Called Comedy #7

 


CCC: A&C Celebrate Strange Birthday, For Harold's Sake, Ty and Loretta's Second Honeymoon, and Stooge Inflected 3-D

HAPPY BIRTHDAY FOR THEM --- The cake and cutting and (maybe) eating was genre all its own where selling meant anything to arrest eyes traveling over newspapers, magazines, print media of any sort. You may bet that far more saw these birthday snaps than paid to see Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, consumption of movies by most seldom rising to anything past moment’s glance at silly stills in a morning edition and then off to activities, or recreation, other than filmgoing. Anxiety to draw patronage was profound. Was Glenn Strange as the Frankenstein monster cutting his cake with A&C incentive enough to go? Unless you were predisposed to attend Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, probably not. Posing for publicity in whatever capacity, and there was myriad of capacities, was in ways harder work than performing for the camera. It certainly took as much time, for stills were never caught on a fly. They had to be lit, composed to convey what was needed, specific purpose always to be served. Images here commemorate what is presumably Glenn Strange’s birthday, but we assume more than two were taken. Completists may have a dozen different captures, each closely wed to the other, all bound for print publication in advance of playdates. Bud and Lou might well have asked, Of what use is this?, but being pros they were, there was no need to wonder. Months later glance through a day’s delivery would reacquaint them with the hour or so spent on set to celebrate Glenn’s natal day. Always I ask: Did anyone eat the slices served? Cake ladled with lard click always for me, supermarket baked sections generous with them. All hail this underappreciated treat.


FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE (1926) --- A smaller Harold Lloyd feature, like Hot Water more a matter of shorts stitched together, in this case the second half less inspired than the first. Buster Keaton had emphasized from his full-length start that two-reel formats would not work if grafted onto six-reels. His and Lloyd’s tended toward brief as result, especially where stories were slight and narrative was carried by situation alone. For Heaven’s Sake sees wealthy wastrel Harold, that character again, supporting a settlement house so he'll have access to Jobyna Ralston, their mid-way misunderstanding readily resolved and wedding to proceed, so why last-minute race to reach the alter with guests willing to wait however long it takes, Girl Shy minus suspense and better gags that lent urgency to the previous feature. Herding a trolly filled with drunks may have seemed promising to gagman meetings, but outcome doesn’t always fulfill promise, too little at stake to sustain humor hoped for. For Heaven’s Sake plays like Lloyd filling volume’s order, his yield overall good, maybe best of then-popular comedians. Whatever disappointment crowds felt would be forgiven come a next Lloyd feature, in this case The Kid Brother and then Speedy, both improvements upon For Heaven’s Sake. Ask anyone, especially Harold adherents, if For Heaven’s Sake is funny, and they will say yes, moments splendid throughout and there are plenty of them. Maybe that is all to count in a long run, especially where end result lasts below an hour with standards more/less met. For Heaven’s Sake has not surfaced so far on Blu-Ray. Maybe Criterion opted out of further Lloyd releases, their having quit short of everything being released (none of his talkies so far). TCM uses For Heaven’s Sake enough for it to stay viable, theirs the estate-authorized and preferred, meanwhile PD uploads are spread over You Tube, mute since underlying music is protected, so viewing will require needle-drop to whatever home score is handy. Good luck with that.


SECOND HONEYMOON (1937) --- Fox makes Code-era argument for adultery and crack-up of marriages that stand in a way of pretty people Tyrone Power and Loretta Young coupling at close. What’s so the matter with Young’s spouse, Lyle Talbot? Nothing to start … just wait for him to commit small wrongs that will make OK renewed union of wife Loretta with playboy rascal, and her ex Ty. Second Honeymoon was further instance of mesmerizer stars drawn together like magnets and never mind vow taken to others, obstacle easily overcome despite Code of conduct prevailing then, rules bent to accommodate screen lovers whatever the morality of their actions. There’s always the loser, well-intentioned or not … remember Otto Kruger giving up Joan Crawford to Clark Gable in Chained as if he had any other choice to make? Same with Lyle Talbot, however dull or business-obsessed, yet hardly deserving a mate so blithely snatched by Tyrone Power, marriage an elastic bond where Power and Loretta Young are parties predestined to merge. Might male audience members resent Power for husband-be-damned outlook? And Young’s character … did extraordinary looks spare her seeming a slut given this circumstance? Implications were diluted, very much deliberate, by comic support to keep audience eyes off the ball, thus Stuart Erwin, Marjorie Weaver, Ed Bromberg … each unreal as to distract from reality of a marriage playfully dismantled. Pictures like Second Honeymoon were not meant to be delved so deeply, but issues are there for the delving. I’m just surprised the PCA let so much of this go by without objection. Second Honeymoon hasn’t shown up on TCM to my knowledge, though there is a DVD in one of the Tyrone Power box collections, and it looks OK enough.



PARDON MY BACKFIRE (1953) --- May finally comprehend my problem with the Stooges. Their gagging is grotesque. Look at Larry pulling a wire into his ear, through his head, and out his nose as thanks to 3-D we clearly see the paste-on device he’s using to affect the effect. But is this funny or what they nowaday call “cringe”? I always thought Moe had a mean face. It helped to learn later what a nice offscreen guy he was. Did fans really wander into his yard to be greeted warmly when Moe detected them? Pardon My Backfire was watched because of 3-D, being an extra with Twilight Time’s The Mad Magician. Private sellers at Amazon want $55 for a second-hand disc, which many would give for Backfire and Spooks alone (both the 3-D Stooges are there), and never mind Vincent Price. The boys have a garage from which they don’t wander (no exteriors), sixteen minutes of them capturing a trio of robbers plus moll. Countless gags feature objects, eye pokes, etc. thrust forward to the camera, fun when the films were fresh, but how many theatres in benighted days of depth got projection right as in two-print synchronized right? Too few from what reading on the period suggests. I’d guess Pardon My Backfire was a bigger spend than customary for the Stooges, though chances are some patrons went, especially children, just to see what their favorite team would do with the process. If idea is to demonstrate your 3-D for guests, then Pardon My Backfire is undoubted best for what the gimmick could give within short term of time and patience. Being asked to switch off before those sixteen minutes are up may be cue to chuck future runs of 3-D and the Three Stooges. For a meantime however, keep Pardon My Backfire in reserve if screening novelty calls for it.

15 Comments:

Blogger Kevin K. said...

Guess I'm in the minority, but I found "For Heaven's Sake" funny from beginning to end. "Speedy" is better I guess, but "Sake" made me laugh more. Wasn't that the movie Lloyd himself tried to buy back from Paramount because he didn't think it very good? It was definitely a box office hit.

That genre of "beautiful woman with dull husband" always bugged me. Why did they get married to begin with? I always sympathized with the guy rather than the wife, especially when her ex came back into her life somehow or another. Bad enough with dramas, but comedies? Ugh.

Those 3-D Stooge shorts ran on TV in the '60s. Watching them thrust stuff straight at the camera for no reason made for dull going when shown flat on Saturday (or any) morning. The gags might be silly in 3-D but at least they're there for a reason.

6:30 AM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

I'll have to watch PARDON MY BACKFIRE more closely. If folks don't have it THE MAD MAGICIAN with the bonus Stooges shorts and lots more can be had from Powerhouse Indicator in Britain. Another great reason to have an ALL REGIONS 3D Blu-ray player: https://www.powerhousefilms.co.uk/products/the-mad-magician-bd . Bonus materials include: Audio commentary with film historians Kevin Lyons and Jonathan Rigby (2020)
Three-Dimensional Magic (2020, 15 mins): appreciation of The Mad Magician and the 3D filmmaking boom of the 1950s by cinematographer Frank Passingham (Kubo and the Two Strings) and archivist Tom Vincent, presented in 3D and 2D
Super 8 versions (16 mins, sound; and 7 mins, silent): two cut-down home cinema presentations in anaglyphic 3D
Two short films starring the Three Stooges: Spooks! (1953) and Pardon My Backfire (1953), presented in 3D and 2D
Image gallery: on-set and promotional photography . ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN scared the yell out of me as a 6 year old. Love it. When I brought Shamus Culhane to Toronto for a week in the 1980s I set up a photo meet at Toronto's Sick Kids Hospital as is often done. Then I realized how scummy it is to use those kids. We did the meet. No press was involved. Years later SICK KIDS sent me a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFa6vtJ-Rqo . Shamus was a very special person as was his wife, Juana. Love them. Great post.

3:26 PM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

Added comment. I have a true 3D copy of THE STRANGER WORE A GUN (the complete film). It's Andre DeToth directing and on the money. I am using OWL3D to convert 2D copies of 3D films from the 1950s yet to get a release (like MELODY). It does a wonderful job. OWL3D costs $10 a month. So far I have done FORT TI. DRUMS OF TAHITI, JESSE JAMES VS THE DALTONS, THE MOONLIGHTER, PHANTON OF THE RUE MORGUE, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) which looks awesome in 3D and more. MOTOR RHYTHM (1953) from 3D RARITIES is my favourite to show folks for a 3D Demo.

3:42 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

On inconvenient romantic rivals / mates: Making them unworthy or outright villainous is a reliable fallback but can play as Too Easy, whether that is heavily telegraphed throughout ("Once we're married, I trust you'll make a better class of friends.") or implausibly exploded from left field (see "A Walk in the Clouds"). Likewise the handy death (In "Captain Horatio Hornblower", the conflicted hero comes home to find his wife had died after thoughtfully writing a letter encouraging him to Move On). More agreeable is something like "His Girl Friday", where you have a sense that dull but decent Ralph Bellamy was saved from a doomed marriage to tough and restless Rosalind Russell. The rival making a Noble Sacrifice is risky, since such moral high ground is generally reserved for the star ("Casablanca"), although I faintly recall Ralph Richardson in "The Four Feathers" releasing the heroine from their engagement with an elegant lie, graciously concealing how noble he was being.

In rating classic comedies, there may be a bias in favor of "real" stories over pure laughter. "For Heaven's Sakes" has some plot mechanics, but it's there to tee up the gags, and as you note they're straining to make us fret about the ending. I find myself thinking of "Hot Water", which boils down (ha) to Harold being tormented by wife's visiting family. Interestingly the film begins with a very brief scene of bachelor Harold meeting his future bride, as if they're trying to sell this as a romcom instead of a domestic comedy. "Blockheads" is likewise mostly Ollie bringing Stan home for dinner, a typical slapstick-filled day for the boys. It takes on scale by opening with WWI and the boys being reunited after decades, thereby turning pure Laurel and Hardy foolery into a Story.

When Columbia released the Stooge shorts in nice chronological sets, Volume Seven (copyright 2009) included the two shorts in 3D plus two pair of cardboard specs. Didn't look very impressive in my home setup. Just revisited "Spooks" on shiny new laptop. On scenes of people standing around the effect is very strong. On all the money shots (stuff advancing on or thrown at the camera) the 3D is lousy.

4:37 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Richard M. Roberts casts his vote for Harold Lloyd and FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE:

John,

I have to disagree with you about FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE as well, it's always been one of my favorite Harold Lloyd features. I always thought Lloyd worked better as a spoiled rich guy, because sometimes the general callousness inherent in his comedy makes his go-getter character a bit unappealing, like in his three-reeler NOW OR NEVER where he basically destroys a stranger's farm for no explicable reason except gags, or frankly, the finale of GIRL SHY where Harold destroys a lot of property and other peoples livelihoods racing through the city just because he couldn't call the girl on the phone and tell her not to marry the guy (he could have had someone else pass on the message if he stuttered so damn much). I've always thought GIRL SHY should end with Lloyd arriving at the church, stopping the wedding, and then being dragged off for a lynching by the police and the hordes of angry people whose property he destroyed. Even in SPEEDY, his character manages to destroy the streetcar just by his own incompetence and self-absorption.

At least as the spoiled rich guy (a character that may be more in keeping with Lloyd's actual personality), he gets laughs out of his self-absorption and get come-uppance, so I do find Lloyd features like WHY WORRY and FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE rather more enjoyable than some of his others. Also, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE is a gorgeous-looking picture, beautifully shot (as is THE KID BROTHER) and perhaps having a bit of Paramount gloss added to it, and the character actors playing the derelicts are rather good. Finally, any of Lloyd's features that have Jobyna Ralston as leading lady has definite extra-high points on the charm scale, because she's adorable and has great chemistry with Lloyd.
So sorry John, I rate the film more highly than you do, it was a big financial and critical hit at the time, and as far as I know, Lloyd had no problems with it personally.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

5:47 AM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

Anaglyph 3D with the colored glasses pales next to digital 3D with passive or active glasses. With digital the stuff thrown at the camera is wonderful.

5:58 PM  
Blogger Tommie Hicks said...

"Two rollicking hours" for FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE? My research seems to indicate a one hour length. Perhaps the theater was including the shorts.
Lloyd's silent features were very formulaic. Race through many obstacles to save a wronged woman. Fortunately for Lloyd, his formula was peppered with superior sight gags.

8:23 AM  
Blogger Dave K said...

Wow, great post, four interesting topics! I think all of Lloyd's silent features hold up amazingly well but, of course, some weather better than others. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE has always been oddly polarizing. Richard Schickle said it was the weakest of Lloyd's silent features. Period. Leonard Maltin rated it four stars... that's a star higher than GRANDMA'S BOY, GIRL SHY or SPEEDY! I've screened some of Lloyd's shorts and features for small audiences (usually around 65 to 90) and can attest FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE received a spectacular response - bigger laughs than WHY WORRY? for instance. Personally, I've never thought the hilarious chase finale as a tacked-on contrivance but rather a valid indication of the major character's growth. He hasn't just fallen in love with the sweet mission girl, he's adopted some of her concerns. He has to get to his own wedding on time, yes, but he also feels a responsibility for the mission's congregation, his new friends, and has to deliver these unruly pugs to safety!

As to SECOND HONEYMOON, I'm ALWAYS rooting for Lyle Talbot! Every time, every film, he's my guy! Let me, once again, recommend the 2012 book THE ENTERTAINER by Margaret Talbot, Lyle's daughter. Terrific stuff!

You noted an aged Moe Howard interacting with young fans. The 60's era cartoon series THE NEW 3 STOOGES employed live action wrap arounds featuring Moe, Larry Fine and Joe DeRita. Cartoon producer Dick Brown used his wife, Margaret Kerry, and their kids as actors in some of these scenes. I had a casual conversation with one of Brown's daughters some years back and she said her memories were of Moe usually being distracted, wrangling with Brown and Co-producer Norman Mauer (Moe's son-in-law.) Larry and Joe, she said, were pleasant, but they always seemed to have health issues. Her fondest memories were of the Stooges' stooge, perennial supporting player Emil Sitka. He was dependably attentive to all kids on set, talked to them while adults were preoccupied and was just plain charming.

As to those posed 'candid' on-set glossies, I imagine everybody had their eyes open when they signed those seven year contracts. it was probably a relief when these things at least had some connection to reality (somebody's birthday) as opposed to yet another contrived 'gag' shot.



5:55 PM  
Blogger Lamar said...

Saw “The Mad Magician” and “Spooks” at the Davis in Chicago circa 1983 or so. Big yawn. Even in 3-D. The least interesting 3-D presentation I can imagine. Have seen many others in 3-D, much better. “Second Chance” in original Technicolor print at the Sandburg in Chicago was great. Now blind in one eye, so that is over. Thanks for the memories.

7:06 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

I envy that 3-D screening of SECOND CHANCE, a film I've seen but only flat and full-frame.

Like what you said, Dave K, about Harold adopting some of the mission girl's concern for others, and as you infer, this does lend shading, character, and yes, urgency, to Lloyd's race toward the ceremony on time.

To Lyle Talbot, I felt those unsympathetic aspects were rather imposed upon his character in order to smooth way for Power and Loretta Young to get together. I hesitate to call froth like SECOND HONEYMOON dishonest, but ... there it is.

I'd have to assume the Stooges wraps for their cartoon series were done pretty much in a rush, so can appreciate stress Moe and the others were under. With regard the 3-D Stooge shorts on syndicated TV, it must indeed have been a drag seeing them flat with objects thrust continually toward the camera. How many youngsters do you imagine put two-and-two together to realize those shorts originally used the process?

I'd emphasize that despite mild criticism of FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, I still regard it an outstanding comedy feature. With Lloyd of course we have degrees of excellence amidst output that was ALL excellent, some simply more than others, but none less than well worth time of watching and continued visits thereafter.

8:30 PM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

You either liked/loved the Stooges (as did I) or you didn't (as most teachers, grown-ups, and females did not).

1:05 PM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

THE THREE STOOGES, more than anything else, built Columbia Pictures. A Stooges short would pack a theatre that sat thousands. Credit might go to the feature film but it was The Stooges. Harry Cohn knew this. If Sony put THE STOOGES into theatres today I suspect that would be repeated. I watched THE THREE STOOGES MEET HERCULES in a grind cinema which ran four films. The place was nearly empty for three of the four. It was packed for THE STOOGES. When Cohn died THE THREE STOOGES were dropped. It worked out for the best as when their Columbia Shorts hit TV they became HUGE. Columbia needed them back. They made, I believe, more money in the last few years of their lives than in all the years before that as one. I grew up with Shemp in the theatres. When I saw them on TV I wondered who Curly was. Always liked Shemp. Those 2 3D shorts had to be filmed all new. To keep costs done Columbia cannibalized their earlier films.

6:29 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Revisted "For Heaven's Sake" last night. It's very funny and well constructed, but it almost goes out of its way to avoid suspense or plot complications. The romance is settled with the meet-cute; then it's all about Harold swiftly filling the mission and winning over the local thugs. Even the finale is defused: Harold's "kidnapping" is swiftly dealt with, and then it's simply Harold trying to wrangle his well-meaning but drunken pals back to the wedding -- where Jobyna and the rest already know he's going to be late and why. In many of his other features Harold has to grow, or prove himself, or conquer some obstacle, often faced with an unforgiving ticking clock. Here, he's the cocky winner throughout -- meeting Jobyna simply causes him to turn his cleverness from self-indulgence to pleasing her, and he does so with the same seemingly effortless success.

Afterwards watched his 1920 short "Get Out and Get Under". That was actually more suspenseful: It opens with him arriving too late to stop his girl's wedding to another man. That turns out to be a dream, but now he IS an hour late to perform in the girl's amateur theatrical. So Harold is on his way, afflicted by engine trouble, and there are cutaways to the worried girl and the rival ready to take Harold's part. Yes, it's more silly than logical, and here and there he's a little too unhurried, but you ARE concerned that Harold is going to lose his girl for real. In "For Heaven's Sake", you just relax and laugh.

6:38 PM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

Shemp was an original Stooge before the Columbia days. Following Curly in the shorts was thankless but Shemp took over without missing a beat.

12:14 PM  
Blogger Scott MacGillivray said...

PARDON MY BACKFIRE isn't the Stooges' fault. We can thank Columbia's King of Blunt, Jules White, for the Larry Fine wire-out-the-nose gag and other grotesqueries. I contend that White's style was etched in stone from his directing silents for Educational. Turn off the sound on one of his Stooge shorts and you'll see what I mean.

Case in point: in FOR CRIMIN' OUT LOUD (1956), a glass test tube is sitting in a chair. Moe pushes Larry into the chair, and Larry reacts painfully. With the sound off, it's a simple silent-comedy gag. But with the sound, the bluntness and the violence ramp up considerably with White's overkill: first the tube, then the push, then a close-up of Larry sitting on the glass (with sound effect), and then Larry in agonized close-up, howling in pain. Four shots to sell a gag that could have been done in one. Guilty as charged, Mr. White.

1:51 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