1930s most popular comedians
Matt Barry
Marx Bros., W.C. Fields, etc. are enjoyed today and loved by audiences
around the world, the most popular (in terms of box office comedians)
of the 1930s were Joe E. Brown, Eddie Cantor and Will Rogers. It would
be interesting to know why their films did not stand the test of time
in quite the same way as the other comedians we always hear of from the
same period. This is not to criticize their films in any way, but it's
interesting that there have been no major attempts to release the work
of these comedians, and not as much has been written on them. With the
re-discovery of comedians such as Wheeler and Woolsey in the last 30
years or so, it would be interesting to see a revival of interest in
the work of other 30s comedians. I've seen Brown's comedies pop on on
TCM once in a while, and I know Samuel Goldwyn Studios owns all the
best Eddie Cantor vehicles. I doubt Fox has any plans to ever release
any of their Will Rogers films, unfortunately.
In the opinions of everyone here, what are perhaps some reasons that
Laurel and Hardy, Fields, and the Marxes still hold up as cultural
icons (at least to people who are aware of movies created before 1985),
while other, more popular (in their day) comedians have become
virtually forgotten by the majority of people and are even frequently
ignored in studies of screen comedy?
Matt
Hal Erickson
"Matt Barry" <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141306916.2...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Wheeler and Woolsey were also bigger box-office than Laurel and Hardy in
their heyday.
Here's my two cents worth about why people don't appreciate Brown, Cantor
and Rogers as they once did.
In Brown's case, it was probably because it is hard for the casual
contemporary fan to tell his movies apart. Most are enjoyable, but they lack
the uniqueness of the Fields, Marx and L&H films. To me the Brown vehicles
always looked a bit conformist and studio-controlled. His personality is
seldom allowed to "take over" like the Marxes did. While many of Brown's
films are tailor-made for his talents (I'm thinking of the baseball trilogy,
YOU SAID A MOUTHFUL, SON OF A SAILOR and CIRCUS CLOWN) many of them could
have been done by any competent comic actor (see GOING WILD, A VERY
HONORABLE GUY and SONS O' GUNS).
The films of Cantor and Rogers were popular in the 1930s mainly because both
had a built-in following thanks to the comedians' radio appearances.
Cantor's films for Goldwyn were meticulously crafted, and came out once a
year as "special events", avoiding the oversaturation that plagued Joe E.
Brown and Wheeler and Woolsey. But for the most part, Eddie Cantor
character isn't really a character at all, but more of a "joke machine" a la
Henny Youngman or Bob Hope (whom I greatly prefer because he built his
character around his jokes, rather than letting the jokes stand on their
own). Also, it's hard to "pull" for a character who is a sympathetic
schlemiel in one scene, and then a very savvy, sophisticated musical
entertainer in the next. Look at ROMAN SCANDALS:Eddie lurches from "comic
victim" in the food-poisoning scene to the polished Follies headliner in the
"Keep Young and Beautiful" number. It's fun to watch on the level of
spectacle, but it doesn't help the audience "pull" for Cantor. (Goldwyn
fashioned his Danny Kaye vehicles in the same manner, which be why Kaye's
best pictures, such as THE COURT JESTER, were made for other studios).
Much as I love Will Rogers as a satirist and social commentator, it must be
admitted that many of his films are very sloppily constructed--which is both
their charm and their curse. Rogers' habit of adlibbing throughout his
scenes generally works, but when it doesn't he becomes a bit precious and
boring. Curiously, in many of his films his timing seems way off and he
seems to be groping his way through each scene, and this doesn't play too
well with modern audiences who are unfamiliar with Rogers' folksy,
spontaneous technique.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm stuck in it. . .with it.
--Hal E
Jim Reid
I had a chance years ago to see nearly all the existing Will Rogers
films in a very short time. I was transfering them to video for the
Will Rogers Memorial in Oklahoma. There's quite a bit of dated
political lines that know one would understand today. There's some of
that in the Cantor films too, although not political like the Rogers
films.
Larc
Will Rogers' best stuff was always impromptu. I still recall a remark he made
about a state that seemed to stay as dry as possible even after Prohibition was
repealed (NC, IIRC, since it was a big bootlegging state at the time). Rogers
said its citizens would "vote dry as long as they can stagger to the polls."
Larc
งงง - Change planet to earth to reply by email - งงง
Laughing...@hotmail.com
he seems to have just wandered onto the set and decided to stick around
and take part in the movie.
mla...@yahoo.com
quite popular and respected today is because their films are very
timeless. Their humor is not so dated. You don't have to understand
30's pop cultural very much to get the jokes, and their movies also
aren't as full of forgettalbe musical numbers as some other comedies.
A lot of the songs in the Marx Brothers films are funny and sometimes
even relevant to the plot. Most L & H or Fields films don't have any
songs.
Matt Barry
Hal Erickson wrote:
>
> Wheeler and Woolsey were also bigger box-office than Laurel and Hardy in
> their heyday.
>
I enjoy Wheeler and Woolsey quite alot, but there are some films they
made that I just don't enjoy at all. I can't think of a single L&H,
Fields or Marx film I wouldn't care to sit through again.
>
> Here's my two cents worth about why people don't appreciate Brown, Cantor
> and Rogers as they once did.
>
> In Brown's case, it was probably because it is hard for the casual
> contemporary fan to tell his movies apart. Most are enjoyable, but they lack
> the uniqueness of the Fields, Marx and L&H films. To me the Brown vehicles
> always looked a bit conformist and studio-controlled. His personality is
> seldom allowed to "take over" like the Marxes did. While many of Brown's
> films are tailor-made for his talents (I'm thinking of the baseball trilogy,
> YOU SAID A MOUTHFUL, SON OF A SAILOR and CIRCUS CLOWN) many of them could
> have been done by any competent comic actor (see GOING WILD, A VERY
> HONORABLE GUY and SONS O' GUNS).
>
This was very much my impression when I saw a bunch of his films on TCM
several years ago. Also, there is not one of his films that stands out
as a classic in the entire cinematic medium, the way that the films of
the others do.
> The films of Cantor and Rogers were popular in the 1930s mainly because both
> had a built-in following thanks to the comedians' radio appearances.
> Cantor's films for Goldwyn were meticulously crafted, and came out once a
> year as "special events", avoiding the oversaturation that plagued Joe E.
> Brown and Wheeler and Woolsey.
It is amazing when you look at the rate the comedians were turning out
films in those years. Wheeler and Woolsey made some 5 films in 1930
alone.
>But for the most part, Eddie Cantor
> character isn't really a character at all, but more of a "joke machine" a la
> Henny Youngman or Bob Hope (whom I greatly prefer because he built his
> character around his jokes, rather than letting the jokes stand on their
> own). Also, it's hard to "pull" for a character who is a sympathetic
> schlemiel in one scene, and then a very savvy, sophisticated musical
> entertainer in the next. Look at ROMAN SCANDALS:Eddie lurches from "comic
> victim" in the food-poisoning scene to the polished Follies headliner in the
> "Keep Young and Beautiful" number. It's fun to watch on the level of
> spectacle, but it doesn't help the audience "pull" for Cantor. (Goldwyn
> fashioned his Danny Kaye vehicles in the same manner, which be why Kaye's
> best pictures, such as THE COURT JESTER, were made for other studios).
>
Danny Kaye is one of those comedians where I enjoy him for the time
he's on screen (especially COURT JESTER and WALTER MITTY) but afterward
I don't feel the need to hunt down any more of his films to watch, or
to see more of him (same goes for Red Skelton). I very much respect and
appreciate both as performers, but my interest in their work pretty
much ends when the "end" credits roll on the screen. On the other hand,
I love Bob Hope, and just can't get enough of his cowardly braggart
character. I was recently in Borders trying to find a good comedy,
preferably a Bob Hope film, and I found MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE on DVD! I
had no idea this one was on DVD yet. I had seen it once on AMC 13 years
ago and never forgot it. It's just as funny as I remembered. I actually
think that had Bob Hope deserves a very high reputation among movie
comedians-especially working in the studio era, when there were certain
formulas and conventions that had to be taken for granted by everyone
in the medium-for his ability to bring his unique and hilarious persona
to the front of his films, and not just rely solely on the material.
> Much as I love Will Rogers as a satirist and social commentator, it must be
> admitted that many of his films are very sloppily constructed--which is both
> their charm and their curse. Rogers' habit of adlibbing throughout his
> scenes generally works, but when it doesn't he becomes a bit precious and
> boring. Curiously, in many of his films his timing seems way off and he
> seems to be groping his way through each scene, and this doesn't play too
> well with modern audiences who are unfamiliar with Rogers' folksy,
> spontaneous technique.
>
> Anyway, that's my story and I'm stuck in it. . .with it.
>
>
> --Hal E
I've only seen a handful of Rogers films, and I have to admit I've
always found him funnier in print (a lot of great Mark Twain-esque
quotes) or in his standup act (of which I have heard a number of
recordings). His folksy humor must have appealed very much to the
country at a time when some 93% (that number seems to stick in my mind)
of the population was in rural areas, and also offered a neat contrast
to the more urban comics on the New York stage at the same time.
I wish the studios that own the films of these comedians would make
their work more available for re-evaluation.
Then there are some really talented comedians who just never clicked in
the movies. Jack Benny, for instance, one of the most brilliant
comedians, never really achieved any of the kind of success in film
that he had on the radio (although his performance in TO BE OR NOT TO
BE is never to be forgotten).
It's fun to speculate about how future audiences will be talking about
today's comedians in 50-70 years. Personally, looking at some of
today's most popular comedians, I would say that Steve Martin has a
decent chance of being well-remembered, mainly for his earlier films
made with Carl Reiner, that are both very funny and innovative. I have
a feeling that Adam Sandler will be remembered perhaps the same way
that some older audiences remember Abbott and Costello-funny when they
were in high school, but watching them again years later, it's a little
different. For instance, my grandfather tells me about the absolute
Abbott and Costello craze that hit after they first appeared, how they
even came around to the theaters on tour (he remembers meeting them at
one of their appearances), and he remembers finding their films funnier
than anything else. Today, while some of their films hold up quite
well, it's harder to appreciate how big they once were. Jim Carrey was
another popular talent, who really peaked in the mid-90s, whose
popularity might seem somewhat hard to understand in 40-50 years. I
recently saw one of his big films from the 90s (one of the ACE VENTURA
movies), which I was in the target audience for when it was released,
but I was surprised how the whole thing had the feel of a Disney
Channel Original Movie-really for much younger audiences. This is a
similar reaction that some people have watching Jerry Lewis' films,
which they loved as kids but don't find as funny later on. However,
with Jerry Lewis, there was that incredible technical brilliance
(especially in THE LADIES MAN and THE PATSY) and skill as a performer
that always makes his work interesting.
It's pretty much certain that Woody Allen will still be very highly
regarded. He's been around long enough that his reputation is pretty
much well-cemented in film history. Of course, he's also directed many
brilliant dramatic films which add to his versatility. Mel Brooks'
still seems to have quite a following with some of his films, but he
really did his best work in the late 60s-early 70s. For sheer talent, I
would think Rowan Atkinson's comedy will hold up well, but mainly his
TV work, as he's been generally wasted in films (although they have
their moments). Unfortunately, since film is no longer the predominant
entertainment medium that it was in the 20s and early 30s, up through
the end of the war, there aren't as many performers honing their craft
or developing their characters on films.
Matt
paul.ca...@verizon.net
>my grandfather tells me about the absolute
> Abbott and Costello craze that hit after they first appeared, how they
> even came around to the theaters on tour (he remembers meeting them at
> one of their appearances), and he remembers finding their films funnier
> than anything else. Today, while some of their films hold up quite
> well, it's harder to appreciate how big they once were. Jim Carrey was
> another popular talent, who really peaked in the mid-90s, whose
> popularity might seem somewhat hard to understand in 40-50 years.
It might be harder for some to understand how big Abbott & Costello
were based on their comedy alone (I know reaction among L&H fans is all
over the map... I grew up in New Jersey with A&C constantly on TV so
I've always had a soft spot for A&C, even though L&H were always and
will always be my absolute favorites). However, if you look at it in a
historical context, it's very easy tp see why. They were the right
tonic at the right time. Much like the Beatles opened up a world of
optimism for young America after JFK was assasinated, seeming to step
in at just the right time, the brashness and can-do attitude of A&C
right after the depression and kicking off the new decade (the '40s) in
those service comedies like "Buck Privates" was quite the jolt of
encouragement audiences were looking for. And interestingly enough,
while this was all happening in peacetime (with FDR even annoucning the
peacetime draft at the beginning of "Buck Privates"), the attitude both
foreshadowed and carried over into the "wartime era" patriotism that
was only really months away. In fact, if you want some interesting
reading, Larry Epstein's book "Mixed Nuts" has really good chapters on
both Abbott & Costello (focusing on how Costello's character was so
right for those post-depression, pre-WW2 days) and The Three Stooges
(focusing on their bravery in satiring Hitler early on).
James Neibaur
> In fact, if you want some interesting
> reading, Larry Epstein's book "Mixed Nuts" has really good chapters on
> both Abbott & Costello (focusing on how Costello's character was so
> right for those post-depression, pre-WW2 days) and The Three Stooges
> (focusing on their bravery in satiring Hitler early on).
I second Paul's plug for Larry's book.
Although The Great Dictator was already completed before You Nazty Spy went
into production, Columbia got their Hitler satire out there first.
Bud and Lou's fast-paced rat-a-tat style fit the war years perfectly (as did
the similar Bob Hope style) and I really think it remains just as enjoyable
today.
JN
Brad Filippone
: I agree with Hal.
I've seen no Will Rogers myself, and I've been wondering how accurate the
portrayal we see briefly in "The Great Ziegfeld" is. I realize it's not
really him. Is it a good imitation?
Brad