OT: Olsen & Johnson's "Hellzapoppin"
paul.ca...@verizon.net
of a 1941 audience watching this for the first time... must have been
quite an experience!
garyjoh...@hotmail.com
I wonder how receptive Universal would of been
at giving this production the go-ahead if Fields'
hadn't been on the lot the past couple of years.
His movies had been getting wilder, culminating
in "Never Give A Sucker An Even Break" or was
the major influence Abbott & Costello being on
the lot? I suspect it's the later. Olson & Johnson
had very bland personalities but at least they were
a duo and they enjoyed resurrecting hoary old vaudeville gags.
Ironically "Hellzapoppin" doesn't hold up as
it gets bogged down by the very plot mechanics
that it purports to satirize at the very beginning.
Fields' "...Sucker" is actually a truer realization
of what they were trying to accomplish with "Hellzapoppin."
Gary
paul.ca...@verizon.net
> I wonder how receptive Universal would of been
> at giving this production the go-ahead if Fields'
> hadn't been on the lot the past couple of years.
It's true what you say about Fields, but I think it came down to what
it always comes down to: money. Universal saw how many record-breaking
weeks the "Hellzapoppin'" Broadway revue lasted (and consequently how
much money it brought in), and hoped to replicate the same at the
motion picture box office.
I know Wheeler & Woolsey, the Marx Brothers, Clark & McCullough, Fields
and others were also doing wild, "out there," surreal gags before
"Hellzapoppin'," (even Stan & Ollie had the ocassional black
humor/white magic/shock ending/surreal bits) but not the same SUSTAINED
lunacy as Olsen & Johnson in my opinion. I have to think that scenes
of human beings being canned and roasted on a spit in hell was
jaw-dropping to 1941 audiences. If anything, O&J were more comparable
to theatrical animated cartoons than to any of their live-action
comedic contempories, again, in my opinion.
Matt Barry
<paul.ca...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163260877....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
warning: off-topic post:
Universal was doing some really interesting things in screen comedy at that
time. They seem to have sort of picked up the torch from Paramount, who was
really the reigning studio for comedian comedies of the early 30s (they had
Fields, West, the Marxes, Burns & Allen, they even distributed the films of
Harold Lloyd).
The Universal brand seemed to be a bit more cartoonish. I'm not sure whether
or not anyone would agree with me, but I think Fields was largely
responsible for the shift in comedy that eventually included Abbott and
Costello and Olsen and Johnson. THE BANK DICK is a wildly freewheeling film,
free from the conventions of the time, and plays out as pure unabashed
zaniness and slapstick. Even at the time of its release, it was hailed as
something special and one critic suggested it should go straight to the
Museum of Modern Art so it could be appreciated and studied by serious
comedy fans.
At the center of all of Fields' zaniness and craziness was Fields himself,
with a strong character. The analogy of Olsen and Johnson as being more like
cartoon characters is a good one.
--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
paul.ca...@verizon.net
article about as well as a link to an audio recording of the first 10
minutes of Olsen & Johnson's 1932 radio show. It has all their "nut
humor" hallmarks, but it is interesting that Hollywood didn't really
let them do a movie reflecting this style of humor until 9 years later
with "Hellzapoppin." Their films prior to that, while having some
wacky things in them, were more mainstream in terms of having linear
structures.
paul.ca...@verizon.net
http://thirdbanana.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-fun-more-laughs-and-more-crushed.html#links
Bill Vermillion
I remember projecting at 16MM print when in HS at the local youth
center. In the part where the picture goes off screen I jumped for
the projector before I realized it was part of the print.
I still enjoy that film - got a region 4 DVD of it from the land of
OZ a couple of years ago when it was in print there.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
And Hellzapoppin was made after their Broadway show of the same
name. So they were most used to playing to stage audiences at that
time.
I have about 5 of their films. I like the off-the-wall approach.
paul.ca...@verizon.net
> And Hellzapoppin was made after their Broadway show of the same
> name. So they were most used to playing to stage audiences at that
> time.
>
> I have about 5 of their films. I like the off-the-wall approach.
Yep, and they were also doing that off-the-wall stuff on radio, as
early as 1932, if not earlier, which you can read about (and listen to)
here:
http://thirdbanana.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-fun-more-laughs-and-more-crushed.html#links
rpfa...@aol.com
the gap between the celestially-inspired BANK DICK and the wonderful
bread-and-butter Hugh Herbert et al features that the B unit was
turning out.
I have long been extremely suspicious as to whether or not H. C. Potter
actually directed this picture. Or at least whether or not he had
help. The pacing and cutting have Eddie Cline's fingerprints all over
them. Potter directed witties. He was defnitely not a burlesque and
baggy pants guy.
The Universal B comedies were directed either by Cline, Charles Lamont
or Harold Young. If Young directed you were in for a pretty dreary
experience. With Lamont you got speed if not inspiration. With a
Cline feature you had the assurance that he went over whatever mediocre
script he was handed and punched it up as best he could and then gave
it the A+ performance treatment.
Eddie Cline as a feature director is due for some serious examination
and exhaltation.
Bill Vermillion
>http://thirdbanana.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-fun-more-laughs-and-more-crushed.html#links
>
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out later.
What was the broadway booklet that was put out in that era.
Playbill?? I have the copy with Hellzapopin in it. [My mind
temporarily forgot the title of the mag.]
Bill
Blll