Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GREAT GUNS & DANCING MASTERS

20 views
Skip to first unread message

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 4:58:30 AM7/1/01
to
If these movies would have been products of the "Hal Roach Studio" then you
guys would be singing thier praises right along with Flying Deuces.

Alternately, if "Bohemian Girl" would have been done by Fox, you guys would
probably have nothing but bad things to say about it.

Either there are a lot of "bandwagon jumpers" here (and indeed, you'd be
jumping on Stan and Ollies OWN bandwagon, or one that was portrayed anyway by
McCabe....) - or else there are people who sadly allow what they read to affect
the way they experience a film. A common phenomenon experienced by anyone who
reads a review, then sees a film.

I say see the film first, THEN read the review!!

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:35:25 AM7/1/01
to
drsmith stated:

>If these movies would have been products of the "Hal Roach Studio" then you
>guys would be singing thier praises right along with Flying Deuces.

Flying Deuces wasn't Roach, and it is generally considered a fairly weak
feature.

>Alternately, if "Bohemian Girl" would have been done by Fox, you guys would
>probably have nothing but bad things to say about it.

Had it been done by Fox, it would have been far different. Stan's entire scene
bottling the wine would not have been allowed, for instance

>Either there are a lot of "bandwagon jumpers" here (and indeed, you'd be
>jumping on Stan and Ollies OWN bandwagon, or one that was portrayed anyway >by
>McCabe....) - or else there are people who sadly allow what they read to
affect
>the way they experience a film. A common phenomenon experienced by anyone >who
>reads a review, then sees a film.

That does happen, but not so much around here. It is fairly common knowledge
that McCabe had not seen the post-Roach features when he wrote Mr. Laurel and
Mr Hardy. He was just going by what Stan said. And because this is a NG
filled with people who love Stan, they are naturally disdainful towards films
which hurt him.

But there is a VERY strong revisionist spirit in here regarding the Fox and MGM
films. Scott MacGillivray wrote an outstanding book, From The Forties Forward,
which argues that these films do indeed have their moments. He has posted in
this NG as to the tremendous response Great Guns received at a Sons of the
Desert showing that was open to the public. The Big Noise, long dismissed as
their very worst film, has been embraced as one of their best from this period.

I think the only films that still get knocked are A-Haunting We Will Go and
Nothing But Trouble. And even those of us who have some affection for the
post-Roach era realize those are pretty bad.

>I say see the film first, THEN read the review!!

And I say read all the posts first and THEN lash out.

JN

Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:

my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html

and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html

Markshark989

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:40:12 AM7/1/01
to

Amen! Although I don't usually hear "The Flying Deuces" praised like that. It
is one of my favorites, but it seems like most of the L&H books cite it as
being the only non-Roach L&H over which Stan had some creative control, and
therefore the only non-Roach L&H that is worthy of viewing today. Usually it is
characterised as being a lesser L&H, and a rip off of "Beau Hunks." Like in
"The Films Of Laurel & Hardy" by William K. Everson. I know Everson was a film
scholar, and provided fans with a lot of valuable research, but as a critic, he
was extremely pompous and arrogant. His view seems to be that if you didn't
work with Roach or Sennett in their heyday, then you are not to be taken
seriously as a performer. I remember a series of articles he wrote on "great
comedians" whose films were available on home video. One entry was on the Three
Stooges (who I like as much as L&H, and you are allowed to disagree with me if
you like) but the whole article pointed out their supposed shortcomings. It was
filled with back-handed compliments, dismissed the post-1942 (1942?) Stooge
shorts as inferior, and was very unkind to Shemp Howard. The classic 1947 short
"Brideless Groom" is referred to as "another rock-bottom Shemp Howard vehicle."
And so on. My question: Why have an article on a comedy team written by someone
who obviously does not like them? But anyway, I agree with you in principle, in
that I have never understood why some supposed fans have dismissed the later
L&H films solely on the basis of criticism from authors, without ever seeing
the films themselves and having a basis to make up their own minds. I don't
think they're the greatest films L&H did, but some are quite enjoyable. Just
don't go into it expecting "Sons Of The Desert."

Markshark989

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:44:27 AM7/1/01
to
>It is fairly common knowledge
>that McCabe had not seen the post-Roach features when he wrote Mr. Laurel and
>Mr Hardy. He was just going by what Stan said.

I did not know that! That certainly affects how I take his words...although I
do remember in his "Mr. Laurel & Mr. Hardy" book, I think he makes some
critical remarks on the shorts "Duck Soup," "Hats Off" and "The Battle Of The
Century." Difficult films to assess, considering that "Duck Soup" was
considered a lost film until the mid-1970s, only clips of the pie fight
sequence in "Battle" were viewable at the time, and "Hats Off" remains missing
today! Also, he quotes a supposed contemporary newspaper reviewer who wrote
about L&H appearing in "Let George Do It" (?).

Considering his reputation, I would have expected more from McCabe. Although
L&H fans are indebted to him for all his research.

Qa Wagstaff

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 2:49:12 PM7/1/01
to
I agree. Great Guns isn't a bad film. It's not one of their best, but it
does have its' moments. It's worth a look, so you can at least say,
"Yeah, I have seen it." Whether you like it or not should be your own
decision. I felt that way until I saw it.

Elmer Pintar

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 5:00:49 PM7/1/01
to
He was the one that started the barrier between Roach films and the the
"forties forward" movies. He denounced every movie made in the forties
except "Jitterbugs". But the boys were in fact growing old, being fifty
at the youngest and having done pratfalls for twenty-five years as solo
and team comedians.

I DO think that Stan, if allowed, could have created new gags and
improve old ones IF they let him...suited to middle age Laurel and
Hardy. So the films would have been better. But after thinking it over
I would prefer NOT to see Laurel and Hardy in their mid-50's with
pancake make-up and Hardy doing a five-minute "whoaaaaaaaa".....I WOULD
have preferred to see more "wives" routines and situation comedy formats
rather than wartime propoganda...but such were the times....But after
thinking it over I would have preferred NOT to see Stan and Ollie
involved in an insurance fraud scheme, which in the thirties such a
scheme could never be comprehended by the then "Babes in the woods"..

Elmer Pintar

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:54:09 PM7/1/01
to

I would say these films were poor only compared to L&H`s other
films. And I can think of a few Roach films that I would say were
on the poor side compared to their better ones.
They beat the hell out of almost anything done today.

Personally, I think reviews are not important. They are simply
opinions, and everyone has one. (I`m sure you recall the old
saying about opinions and everyone having one)

Your comments made me think about McCabe`s ratings
of the films, so I went through them and assigned my own.
Results were that I agreed with him (more or less) on
about half of them.
McCabe thought "The Laurel & Hardy Murder Case" was
one of their best and "Twice Two" one of their worst.
I would have put Murder Case near the bottom and Twice Two
somewhere in the middle. Everyone has different taste.
Few people have much good to say about the later films. And
compared to their better films, I would agree that they were,
as a group, not up to snuff.
The Roach films had some weak ones mixed in with average
ones and some really outstanding ones. The later films, weak
ones mixed with average.
I`d call A Haunting We Will Go and The Big Noise average L&H
quality. In the Roach years they would not have stood out. But amoung
the later films, they do.

You can nit pick this or that film apart over and over. But I think
that in judging a comedy, only 3 questions need to be asked.
1. Did it make you laugh?
2. How hard?
3. How often?
And you may well gets as many different anwsers as people you ask
without getting into timing, pacing, ect.

"DRSMITH666" <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010701045830...@ng-mg1.aol.com...

Joe Libby

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:30:03 PM7/1/01
to
You're making a lot of unfair and inaccurate assumptions about the
posters here, doc. Have you bothered to actually read the posts here
about the Fox films (for instance, my own posts about THE DANCING
MASTERS)? I'm guessing not.

And, as Jim pointed out, THE FLYING DEUCES is not a Roach film. Please
know what you're talking about next time.

Best wishes,
Joe Libby

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 9:58:51 PM7/1/01
to
Elmer Pintar:

>He was the one that started the barrier between Roach films and the the
>"forties forward" movies. He denounced every movie made in the forties
>except "Jitterbugs". But the boys were in fact growing old, being fifty
>at the youngest and having done pratfalls for twenty-five years as solo
>and team comedians.
>

While I have grown fond of THE BULLFIGHTERS, JITTERBUGS and parts of THE BIG
NOISE, and thought Scott MacGillivray's book was brilliant (Hi, Scott!), recent
viewings of all the later films except for A HAUNTING WE WILL GO have confirmed
my original opinions of GREAT GUNS (very poor), AIR RAIR WARDENS (somebody
please smother me with a pillow), THE DANCING MASTERS (pretty bad but I have a
childhood fondness for it) and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (I'd rather bite through a
live electrical wire than sit through that again).

I would like agree with Professor Jim (Hi, Jim!) that all the films are worth
viewing and that Laurel and Hardy are good in all of them, but I can't.
Historically, I find a film like NOTHING BUT TROUBLE fascinating in a "How did
they ever let themselves get to this point?" kind of way. But the entertainment
value of the film is about on the same scale as watching the fat lady at the
circus cut her toenails with a nosehair clipper.

THE BULLFIGHTERS and THE BIG NOISE give me a few moments of pleasure and are
not as wrongheaded as some of the other films, and THE BULLFIGHTERS especially
hangs together better than any film since SAPS AT SEA. I like the plot of
JITTERBUGS and enjoy The Boys in it, though it is not a film I watch often.

I think John McCabe's MR. LAUREL AND MR. HARDY does a bigger disservice to the
final films than Everson. It is clear that Everson watched the films and is
giving his honest opinion of them. Everson merely says that each one was worse
than the next, which is not true at all.

The above is merely the opinion of one man (me), so, in the spirit of the First
Amendment, feel free to disagree.

By the way, Laurel and Hardy Central is in the process of re-reviewing each of
the Roach era features (but not the Fox era films) , so soon each film will
have brand new extensive commentary. For those of you who enjoy our site, stay
tuned for further news. For those of you that don't enjoy our site, stop
making those faces!

John B.

Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder)
http://members.aol.com/lhcentral
Black and White Movies
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/black_and_white_movies

To email me, don't be a fool.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 1, 2001, 11:21:14 PM7/1/01
to
Joe Libby wrote:

>And, as Jim pointed out, THE FLYING DEUCES is not a Roach film. Please
>know what you're talking about next time.

Without jumping into the argument, I have to say that although DEUCES is NOT a
Roach film, I suspect most fans include it in the category "Roach Films" as
opposed to "Later Films" or "Fox Films" (another misnomer as two of the films
included in the "Fox Films" years were done at MGM.

THE FLYING DEUCES was filmed during the Roach years, has some of the Roach
players in it including Finn, and, as far as I know from reading about it, Stan
Laurel was allowed a goodly amount of freedom to rewrite and reform the
original script. It feels like a Roach film, and so, when people speak of
Roach films in general, THE FLYING DEUCES is usually included. Think of it as
a "Roach Era" film.

BigStar303

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:28:11 AM7/2/01
to
Mike Shepherd wrote:

<< Your comments made me think about McCabe`s ratings
of the films, so I went through them and assigned my own.
Results were that I agreed with him (more or less) on
about half of them.
McCabe thought "The Laurel & Hardy Murder Case" was
one of their best and "Twice Two" one of their worst. >>

Actually, the four-derby rating assigned to "Murder Case" in the first editions
of McCabe and Bann's book was a misprint. I believe it was corrected in
subsequent printings.


<< I would have put Murder Case near the bottom and Twice Two somewhere in the
middle. >>

Most people do put Murder Case near the bottom. I have a fondness for "Twice
Two," based on the business at the office before they even get home to the
"wives," and Babe's incomparable performance as "Mrs. Laurel." The film could
badly use a musical score, though.


<< You can nit pick this or that film apart over and over. But I think
that in judging a comedy, only 3 questions need to be asked.
1. Did it make you laugh?
2. How hard?
3. How often? >>

I disagree. While certainly laughter is the biggest part of our enjoyment of
Laurel and Hardy, it's not the only part. We love the boys because...well,
because we love the boys -- we care about what happens to them because their
characters have endeared themselves to us. There are moments of drama and
pathos in many Laurel and Hardy films that bring us "enjoyment" in a larger
sense that has nothing to do with laughter.

I'm perhaps the wrong person to talk about the post-40s films, as I've not seen
all of them, and most of the viewings I have had were quite long ago.

But I remember seeing a clip from "The Big Noise" (I think) in which Ollie gets
an enormously long camera bellows stuck on his head and flails about like a
wounded elephant.

That scene made me laugh -- but it would have made me laugh had any other
comedian been put in that same situation (after all, you couldn't even see
Ollie's face when this was going on).

From all I have read, in far too many of the post-40s films, Stan and Ollie are
placed in situations inappropriate for their "world" -- and worse, are given
lines of dialog that clash severely with their characters.

A few cheap laughs along the way is not enough to remove the bitter taste left
by a film that would do that to the boys.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 9:50:02 AM7/2/01
to
bigstar stated:

>From all I have read, in far too many of the post-40s films, Stan and Ollie
are
>placed in situations inappropriate for their "world" -- and worse, are given
>lines of dialog that clash severely with their characters.

They are different in that respect, and they are not as good as the Roach
films. But they do show that Stan and Oliver were capable enough actors and
comedians to work in these re-adapted circumstances. Oliver, I think, is every
bit as good in these films as he is in the Roach ones. Stan appears less
enthused, but when you strip creative control away from a genius, you don't get
his best work.

Note to Bigstar because he will understand the analogy:
John's first solo album is certainly a lot angrier and more cathartic than the
utopian (pun intended) Imagine or Mind Games, but it works.

BigStar303

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 10:38:30 AM7/2/01
to
Jim wrote:

<< bigstar stated:

>From all I have read, in far too many of the post-40s films, Stan and Ollie
are
>placed in situations inappropriate for their "world" -- and worse, are given
>lines of dialog that clash severely with their characters.

They are different in that respect, and they are not as good as the Roach
films. But they do show that Stan and Oliver were capable enough actors and
comedians to work in these re-adapted circumstances. Oliver, I think, is every
bit as good in these films as he is in the Roach ones. Stan appears less
enthused, but when you strip creative control away from a genius, you don't get
his best work. >>

Yes, and I think beyond the content of the films themselves, I have a hard time
warming up to any of the post-40 work precisely because I KNOW Babe and
especially Stan were not having a particularly good time working in them.

I agree that Babe is nearly always a delight to watch, even doing the tiniest
bits of business, but I would rather watch him in a context that is more suited
to the character. It's painful for me to see him struggling against a "world"
that he is obviously not really a part of.

<< Note to Bigstar because he will understand the analogy:
John's first solo album is certainly a lot angrier and more cathartic than the
utopian (pun intended) Imagine or Mind Games, but it works. >>

I understand what you're trying to say here, but your analogy works only if you
think the peace-seeking, utopian side of John Lennon was his *only* side. In
fact, John was also a conflicted, ascerbic and angry person as well -- owing
primarily to his abandonment by his father and the death of his mother when he
was in his teens.

All in all, I've always considered "Plastic Ono Band" to be far and away the
greatest work of his solo career.


Being prejudiced owing to when I grew up, the musical analogy I would make is
between 60s rock 'n' roll -- so much of which was boundlessly creative, fresh
and inovative -- and most of what rock became in the 70s...that is to say,
bloated, pretentious, and sometimes downright ugly sludge (at least until The
Ramones came along to save it...R.I.P., Joey!).

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:40:28 PM7/2/01
to
>
> << You can nit pick this or that film apart over and over. But I think
> that in judging a comedy, only 3 questions need to be asked.
> 1. Did it make you laugh?
> 2. How hard?
> 3. How often? >>
>
> I disagree. While certainly laughter is the biggest part of our enjoyment of
> Laurel and Hardy, it's not the only part. We love the boys because...well,
> because we love the boys -- we care about what happens to them because their
> characters have endeared themselves to us. There are moments of drama and
> pathos in many Laurel and Hardy films that bring us "enjoyment" in a larger
> sense that has nothing to do with laughter.

I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
Yes, I love their characters. But if I didn`t, I wouldn`t find them
them all that funny. (back to my 3 questions above)
When that movie "Dumb and Dumber" came out a few years ago
some people were comparing it to Laurel & Hardy. I couldn`t have
agreed less. The characters in that film were kind of irritating and I
didn`t think they were very funny, just stupid. At one point I was
actually rooting for the bad guys to kill them off and shut them up.

>
> I'm perhaps the wrong person to talk about the post-40s films, as I've not seen
> all of them, and most of the viewings I have had were quite long ago.
>
> But I remember seeing a clip from "The Big Noise" (I think) in which Ollie gets
> an enormously long camera bellows stuck on his head and flails about like a
> wounded elephant.

It was the big noise.
They were supposed to be documenting a test of the new explosive. And in
true L&H form, they mucked it up.


>
> From all I have read, in far too many of the post-40s films, Stan and Ollie are
> placed in situations inappropriate for their "world" -- and worse, are given
> lines of dialog that clash severely with their characters.
>
> A few cheap laughs along the way is not enough to remove the bitter taste left
> by a film that would do that to the boys.

In some cases that was true. Air Raid Wardens is one that comes to mind.
But it doesn`t happen all that often in most of the later films.
I think what hurt the later films the most was that it was often like the boys were
not central to the film, but injected as comic relief. And it just didn`t come off
as well as it did when they were just allowed to be the clowns they were.
Same thing happened with Red Skelton in some films.

What I`m trying to say in a round about way, is that I don`t think we really
disagree. Just looking at it from different perspectives. You are looking at
the fine points and I`m not. In other words, if the fine points don`t come together,
it`s just not that funny. But that`s covered by my original 3 questions.

Markshark989

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:35:18 PM7/2/01
to
>Note to Bigstar because he will understand the analogy:
>John's first solo album is certainly a lot angrier and more cathartic than
>the
>utopian (pun intended) Imagine or Mind Games, but it works.

It was John Lennon who also said, I'm paraphrasing, referring to his albums:
"There's not a damn one of them I wouldn't remake, and that includes all the
Beatles records and all my individual ones." So an artist isn't always the best
judge of their own material. But I understand Stan Laurel's point and his
frustration at the lack of creative control...and I agree with him to a point.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 2:00:19 PM7/2/01
to
>
> While I have grown fond of THE BULLFIGHTERS, JITTERBUGS and parts of THE BIG
> NOISE, and thought Scott MacGillivray's book was brilliant (Hi, Scott!), recent
> viewings of all the later films except for A HAUNTING WE WILL GO have confirmed
> my original opinions of GREAT GUNS (very poor), AIR RAIR WARDENS (somebody
> please smother me with a pillow), THE DANCING MASTERS (pretty bad but I have a
> childhood fondness for it) and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (I'd rather bite through a
> live electrical wire than sit through that again).

Well, I wouldn`t go quite that far. But I have to admit Nothing But Trouble
ranks as my least favorite L&H film. But even that one has at least one good
belly laugh when they are trying to cut the steak and Stan drags out a crosscut saw.

>
> THE BULLFIGHTERS and THE BIG NOISE give me a few moments of pleasure and are
> not as wrongheaded as some of the other films, and THE BULLFIGHTERS especially
> hangs together better than any film since SAPS AT SEA. I like the plot of
> JITTERBUGS and enjoy The Boys in it, though it is not a film I watch often.

Jitterbugs is one that I never liked very much, but if pressed, I could say why.
It just didn`t come off as very funny.
I like Saps At Sea. But it`s almost like 2 shorts that were stuck together as an
afterthought. With them getting to the boat as the end/start.
If they had made the 1st part of Saps At Sea a short film, I`d say it would rank as one
of their very best. But (to me anyway) the last part goes down hill and has a lot
less laughs.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 2:08:32 PM7/2/01
to
>
> Without jumping into the argument, I have to say that although DEUCES is NOT a
> Roach film, I suspect most fans include it in the category "Roach Films" as
> opposed to "Later Films" or "Fox Films" (another misnomer as two of the films
> included in the "Fox Films" years were done at MGM.
>
> THE FLYING DEUCES was filmed during the Roach years, has some of the Roach
> players in it including Finn, and, as far as I know from reading about it, Stan
> Laurel was allowed a goodly amount of freedom to rewrite and reform the
> original script. It feels like a Roach film, and so, when people speak of
> Roach films in general, THE FLYING DEUCES is usually included. Think of it as
> a "Roach Era" film.

I always liked Flying Deuces myself. It has a few dry spots, but for the most
part, It is one of their funniest.
I always thought there was a lot of comic potental for the boys in the military,
and it worked well in Deuces. But it came off kind of lame in Great Guns.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 6:14:22 PM7/2/01
to
I wrote:

>NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (I'd rather bite through a
>> live electrical wire than sit through that again).

and Mike wrote:

>Well, I wouldn`t go quite that far. But I have to admit Nothing But Trouble
>ranks as my least favorite L&H film. But even that one has at least one good
>belly laugh when they are trying to cut the steak and Stan drags out a
>crosscut saw.
>

I admit my reaction is a bit extreme, but I think NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is a
horrible, horrible movie. Not even The Boys can save it. I'd rather watch a
video loop of all the production numbers from the Marx Brothers' LOVE HAPPY,
dubbed into Klingon and played backwards, than to ever have to watch NOTHING
BUT TROUBLE again.

>Jitterbugs is one that I never liked very much, but if pressed, I could say
>why.
>It just didn`t come off as very funny.

I like JITTERBUGS simply because it tells a semi-interesting story, rather than
the usual "some knucklehead invents a death ray that will wipe out Nazis and
Laurel and Hardy are his ultra-stupid assistants" story that can be found in
some of these later films. JITTERBUGS is at least a variation, something
different. It's not one of my favorites, but I don't think it is terrible.
It's not a great Laurel and Hardy movie, but it is a decent little movie.

>If they had made the 1st part of Saps At Sea a short film, I`d say it would
>rank as one
>of their very best.

My favorite moment from SAPS AT SEA is when Stan is in the closet (don't ask me
why), Ollie goes to the window to make a phone call, Stan hears him and opens
the closet door and knocks Ollie out the window. A classic and well-timed bit,
pure Laurel and Hardy. Those are the kinds of moments that are missing from
their later films.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 6:29:45 PM7/2/01
to
bigstar stated:

>All in all, I've always considered "Plastic Ono Band" to be far and away the
>greatest work of his solo career.

It is everything I have always understood rock and roll to be.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 6:32:17 PM7/2/01
to
John stated:

I think NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is a
horrible, horrible movie. Not even The Boys can save it. I'd rather watch a
video loop of all the production numbers from the Marx Brothers' LOVE HAPPY,
dubbed into Klingon and played backwards, than to ever have to watch NOTHING
BUT TROUBLE again.

---------

But would you watch The Producers?

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 9:48:58 PM7/2/01
to
I wrote:

>I think NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is a
>horrible, horrible movie. Not even The Boys can save it. I'd rather watch a
>video loop of all the production numbers from the Marx Brothers' LOVE HAPPY,
>dubbed into Klingon and played backwards, than to ever have to watch NOTHING
>BUT TROUBLE again.

Jim wrote:

>But would you watch The Producers?

Yes, but I would need my little blue blanky.

Bobster123

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 11:40:38 PM7/2/01
to
Everson's book THE FILMS OF LAUREL AND HARDY was a favorite of mine when I was
young. It was my first real venture into studying the team.

But- in looking back- it did have some big flaws. For example, I believe it
listed Stan's birth year wrong. In the COME CLEAN review, Everson goes into
detail about a scene involving ice cream, which actually occurred in TWICE TWO.

And- I believe he predicts in his preface that when OUR RELATIONS celebrates
it's 100th anniversary in 2036, the prints will look horrible. In fact, I
believe the prints will look better than ever, thanks to new restoration
techniques.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:36:58 AM7/3/01
to
>there are people who sadly allow what they read to
>affect
>>the way they experience a film.

>That does happen, but not so much around here.

I would say very much so around here!

>And because this is a NG
>filled with people who love Stan, they are naturally disdainful towards films
>which hurt him.

What you have to understand sir, is that peoples opinions change, sometimes
from day to day. Just because Stan felt a certain way one day, and gave a big
interview with a vehement denunciation of Fox, doesn't mean that some time
during his life he didn't turn on Dancing Masters at 3:am and say to himself
"My God, this was actually a good film!"

I think Stan's beef was more directed at the way the films were made, and less
at the final result.

>But there is a VERY strong revisionist spirit in here regarding the Fox and
>MGM
>films.

And it's about damn time. I got nothing against McCabe - and indeed, we all
grew up reading "The films of Laurel and Hardy", but I think he was
irresponsable in the way he wrote the book, featuring the 40's films as almost
an afterthought.

>Scott MacGillivray wrote an outstanding book, From The Forties Forward,
>which argues that these films do indeed have their moments.

I have known about this book for quite some time, and I am going to pick it up
next time I'm at Barnes and Noble. It sounds like a GREAT book to say the very,
very least!!!!

>
>And I say read all the posts first and THEN lash out.
>

I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of course) since 1997 sir. And
it's basically the same things over and over.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:40:16 AM7/3/01
to
>
>Considering his reputation, I would have expected more from McCabe.

McCabe wrote a great book with a bad ending. And he got away with not being
questioned for a long, long time.

Indeed, many L&H fans may have gone to thier graves not knowing the joys of the
40's films because of thier herd mentality after reading his book.

I've got nothing against McCabe, but at long last his embarassment is coming
back to haunt him in the eyes of those who have seen these great films and
judged for ourselves!!!!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:50:15 AM7/3/01
to
>
>He was the one that started the barrier between Roach films and the the
>"forties forward" movies. He denounced every movie made in the forties
>except "Jitterbugs".

Which I think is disgusting. Allow me to tell a little story if you will:

When I was growing up, I loved nothing better than to watch a good Laurel and
Hardy film. Let me tell you, at 10 years old, I would drink a pot of coffee and
stay up till 4:AM just for a brush of greatness...

One such time was New Years Eve 1977 or so. The film: DANCING MASTERS!!!! This
was one of the very BEST Laurel and Hardy films I'd seen!! There was something
very SURREALISTIC about watching this film when the rest of the world around me
was asleep... This night is still remembered as one of the greatest of my life.

See, back then, I hadn't really read any books, so I DIDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
between a ROACH film, a FOX film, or an MGM film, OR ANY OF THAT NONSENSE!!!! I
enjoyed "Great Guns" just as much when I saw it a year or 2 later!! I was in
love with these films!!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:55:19 AM7/3/01
to
>I like Saps At Sea. But it`s almost like 2 shorts that were stuck together as
>an
>afterthought.

LOL!!! Haven't you ever noticed: NEARLY ALL Roach-era feature films were
basically 3 "shorts" strung together (which could stand on thier own if
separated)?? - That is whey Janus films was so successful in creating all of
those L&H chop-jobs in the 70's and passing them off as new films!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:05:07 AM7/3/01
to
>
>And- I believe he predicts in his preface that when OUR RELATIONS celebrates
>it's 100th anniversary in 2036, the prints will look horrible.

I guess he was lucky he didn't quit his writing job to become the next
Nostradamus... With digital technology, there IS NO MORE degradation... and the
degredation that has occured thus far can be fixed with super-high tech
restoration techniques that would make Stan and Ollie PROUD!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:07:55 AM7/3/01
to
>
>Personally, I think reviews are not important.

They are important in the same way that the Swine Flu is important: in the
sense that they are dangerous and should be avoided until you have experienced
what is being reviewed for yourself.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:13:18 AM7/3/01
to
>
>From all I have read,

STOP RIGHT THERE. Those first words make everything else you say after it
completely irrelevant. I suggest that you track down these films for yourself
(there are a great many people here on the internet with real big hearts that
will help you out as they did me many years ago). And for God sakes, watch them
without any preconceptions. Because it's these very preconceptions that are
robbing you of enjoyment, causeing you to look for this or that instead of just
enjoying the bloody film!!!!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:17:00 AM7/3/01
to
>
>They are different in that respect, and they are not as good as the Roach
>films.

I would say they are neither better nor worse: BUT DIFFERENT. And different in
a good way on many occasions.

One of the things I like best about the FOX films is the way the boys are
photographed. In the Roach films, they always seemed to have been filmed from a
distance. In the FOX films, you get a lot of CLOSE-UPS, large head shots and
from the waist up shots, and in my humble opinion, this is a welcome
improvement!! And the quality (grade) of the film was quite OBVISOULY superior
also.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:18:47 AM7/3/01
to
> I have a hard time
>warming up to any of the post-40 work precisely because I KNOW Babe and
>especially Stan were not having a particularly good time working in them.

Ummmm... Some of the greatest films in history were made under abhorant
conditions.

>It's painful for me to see him struggling against a "world"
>that he is obviously not really a part of.

This is pain that you are creating yourself. There are others who do not see
this.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:20:40 AM7/3/01
to
>So an artist isn't always the best
>judge of their own material.

I think you just summed up the essense of this thread in the above statement.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:23:17 AM7/3/01
to
>I think what hurt the later films the most was that it was often like the
>boys were
>not central to the film, but injected as comic relief.

Oh, you mean like in SWISS MISS, or MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS?

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:54:17 AM7/3/01
to
>
> I admit my reaction is a bit extreme, but I think NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is a
> horrible, horrible movie. Not even The Boys can save it. I'd rather watch a
> video loop of all the production numbers from the Marx Brothers' LOVE HAPPY,
> dubbed into Klingon and played backwards, than to ever have to watch NOTHING
> BUT TROUBLE again.

That`s sort of the reaction I had to Hollywood Review of 1929. The boys
turned in a respectable little comic bit there, but even an outstanding perforance
couldn`t save that turkey. I figure the reason it`s never shown on tv is that
they are afraid that rating would drop like a shotgunned pigeon.

>
> My favorite moment from SAPS AT SEA is when Stan is in the closet (don't ask me
> why), Ollie goes to the window to make a phone call, Stan hears him and opens
> the closet door and knocks Ollie out the window. A classic and well-timed bit,
> pure Laurel and Hardy. Those are the kinds of moments that are missing from
> their later films.

Mine is Stan driving off after putting the engine of his Model T Ford
in the back seat But I always liked the car gags they did. The end shots
of Hog Wild and County Hospital are a couple more that never fail to
get a good laugh from me.
For that matter, I always got a kick out of Stan`s "if you`re dumb enough
you can do anything" stunts from lighting his thumb to packing around a
glass of water and ice in his pocket.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 3:04:55 AM7/3/01
to

I never really looked at it that way on most of them. L&H were really good
at milking a single situation for all the comedy it was worth. But in films
longer than 20 minutes or so, they needed more than one situation.
Most of the time I thought they did a decent job of stringing them
together. But the 1st and 2nd parts of Saps At Sea was a real change
of gears.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 3:14:09 AM7/3/01
to
Sometimes they can be good. I figure that modern film critics do
have their uses. If they love a film, you can count on it stinking like
a dead skunk.
If they all hate it, it might be worth watching.

Come to think of it, I recall that nearly all of the profesional
film critics of the day rarely had a good word for Laurel & Hardy.
Or as I recall someone saying "Nobody liked them except the people".

"DRSMITH666" <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010703020755...@ng-ca1.aol.com...

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 3:22:59 AM7/3/01
to

You just named 2 more that I`m not that fond of. But the skit in
Swiss Miss where Stan cons the dog out of the brandy is classic
even if most of the rest of the film is a little ho-hum.

Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:56:55 AM7/3/01
to
DRSMITH666 <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote...

> I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of
> course) since 1997 sir. And it's basically the
> same things over and over.

That is not true at all.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:56:42 AM7/3/01
to
DRSMITH666 <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote...

> I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of
> course) since 1997 sir. And it's basically the
> same things over and over.

That is not true at all.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:57:02 AM7/3/01
to
DRSMITH666 <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote...

> I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of
> course) since 1997 sir. And it's basically the
> same things over and over.

That is not true at all.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:56:26 AM7/3/01
to
Elmer Pintar <Pin...@webtv.net> wrote...
> ...But after thinking it over I would have
> preferred NOT to see Stan and Ollie involved
> in an insurance fraud scheme, which in the
> thirties such a scheme could never be
> comprehended by the then "Babes in the
> woods"..

Are you alluding to the "insurance fraud scheme" in "The Dancing Masters"? That
was a re-working of a very similar insurance fraud scheme from "The Battle of
the Century" (1927).

L&H also participated in con games in both Fra Diavolo and The Bohemian Girl.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:58:15 AM7/3/01
to
DRSMITH666 <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote...

> I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of
> course) since 1997 sir. And it's basically the
> same things over and over.

That is not true at all.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 5:58:35 AM7/3/01
to
DRSMITH666 <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote...

> I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of
> course) since 1997 sir. And it's basically the
> same things over and over.

That is not true at all.


James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 6:21:11 AM7/3/01
to
>I have been reading this newsgroup (off and on of course) since 1997 sir. And
>it's basically the same things over and over.

Then you have apparently been reading the same post over and over (off and on
of course) since 1997, son. Because one of the strongest statements made here
in that time is the fact that the 1940s Laurel and Hardy films are far better
than their reputations have allowed. None of us puts them at the level of Way
Out West, but there are very few members of this newsgroup willing to casually
dismiss all of them.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 6:26:42 AM7/3/01
to
drsmith stated:

See, back then, I hadn't really read any books, so I DIDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
between a ROACH film, a FOX film, or an MGM film, OR ANY OF THAT NONSENSE!!!! I
enjoyed "Great Guns" just as much when I saw it a year or 2 later!! I was in
love with these films!!

-------

You also were too young to have developed any critical thinking skills or a
stronger frame of reference. Now you are attatched to those films because of
the circumstances during which you first saw them. I have a sentimental
attatchment to the Elvis Presley movies, as they were incredibly popular things
to see at the theater when I was a kid, but I realize, of course, that they are
not good movies. And I have never read anything telling me to think this way.

That said, I think both Great Guns and The Dancing Masters have some very
strong moments. Laurel and Hardy were outstanding comedians, and their
performances were good enough to overcome a few slow spots in the material.
Comparitively speaking, Laurel and Hardy never made a bad movie.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 6:32:04 AM7/3/01
to
Mike stated re: criticism:

If they love a film, you can count on it stinking like
a dead skunk.
If they all hate it, it might be worth watching.

------

Of course you know that isn't true. If you read the better film critics like
Armond White, Michael Wilmington, Pauline Kael, Jonathan Rosenbaum, or Dave
Kehr, you will find some well-written, sharply objective criticism that will
help you better appreciate cinema as an art form. You may not always agree
with these people, but then nobody can expect that.

Objectivity is a challenge, but we all have it. I absolutely HATE the Star
Wars films -- every damn one of them. Just hate them. But if called upon to
review them, I would be able to state that they are good films, my not liking
them notwithstanding. As I stated in a previous post, I really enjoy the Elvis
movies, but it doesn't take much to realize "Fun in Acapulco" is not a good

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:31:38 AM7/3/01
to
>When I was growing up, I loved nothing better than to watch a good Laurel and
>Hardy film. Let me tell you, at 10 years old, I would drink a pot of coffee
>and
>stay up till 4:AM just for a brush of greatness...
>

A pot of coffee at 10 years old! Wow. Would you believe I never had a cup of
coffee until I hit college?

>DANCING MASTERS!!!! This
>was one of the very BEST Laurel and Hardy films I'd seen!! There was
>something
>very SURREALISTIC about watching this film when the rest of the world around
>me
>was asleep... This night is still remembered as one of the greatest of my
>life.

This is similar to the experiences I had with Laurel and Hardy and Marx
Brothers films, only I would listen to Black Sabbath albums through headphones
to keep awake through the night. (Try falling asleep with Ozzie Osbourne
screeching "My name is Lucifer, please take my hand!" in your ears - it can't
be done.)

THE DANCING MASTERS is a movie that is intertwined with special memories of
when I was a kid (too mundane to bother to relate), so even though I am not
thrilled with it as a Laurel and Hardy film, I generally don't say mean, nasty
things about it as is my wont.


John B.

Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder)
http://members.aol.com/lhcentral
Black and White Movies
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/black_and_white_movies

To email me, don't be a fool.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:42:03 AM7/3/01
to
Mike wrote:

>That`s sort of the reaction I had to Hollywood Review of 1929. The boys
>turned in a respectable little comic bit there, but even an outstanding
>perforance
>couldn`t save that turkey. I figure the reason it`s never shown on tv is that
>they are afraid that rating would drop like a shotgunned pigeon.

Ah, yes, HOLLYWOOD REVIEW OF 1929, a film that should have been Exhibit A in
the argument against "talkies". I remember being excited when I saw this was
going to play on Turner Classics a while back. Then I saw the film, and my
excitement faded very quickly. One of the slowest and dullest movies I have
ever seen. Even Laurel and Hardy's bit didn't come off too well. It would
have been better if they did their bit at Hal Roach and then mailed the footage
in - at least it would have been shot, edited and framed in the typical L&H
style.

Jay Anthony

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:49:23 AM7/3/01
to
Sorry, he's right. Except for about 75% thats not Laurel and Hardy.

--
Jay Anthony
http://clownsnthings.com
"Eric Perlin" <ericp...@SPAMSUCKSprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9hs51e$b540$2...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...

Jay Anthony

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:50:14 AM7/3/01
to
I wish I could say this is a cute use of this news group, but it's not so I
won't.

--
Jay Anthony
http://clownsnthings.com
"Eric Perlin" <ericp...@SPAMSUCKSprodigy.net> wrote in message

news:9hs51f$b540$3...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...

BigStar303

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 11:20:27 AM7/3/01
to
John B. wrote:

<< Ah, yes, HOLLYWOOD REVIEW OF 1929, a film that should have been Exhibit A in
the argument against "talkies". I remember being excited when I saw this was
going to play on Turner Classics a while back. Then I saw the film, and my
excitement faded very quickly. One of the slowest and dullest movies I have
ever seen. Even Laurel and Hardy's bit didn't come off too well. >>


Ain't that the truth! Like you, I had never seen this film until it aired on
Turner Classics a couple of years back. I was looking forward to the Laurel and
Hardy magicians bit (I already knew that the rest of it was gonna be horrible).

But also like you, I was severely disappointed. I can remember reading a
description of the routine (Everson, perhaps?) and laughing out loud as I
imagined it in my mind. Alas, my imagination was a lot funnier than the
reality. I don't know if it was the pacing or what, but it really fell flat.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 11:40:02 AM7/3/01
to

Bigstar wrote of HOLLYWOOD REVIEW OF 1929

>Ain't that the truth! Like you, I had never seen this film until it aired on
>Turner Classics a couple of years back. I was looking forward to the Laurel
>and
>Hardy magicians bit (I already knew that the rest of it was gonna be
>horrible).
>
>But also like you, I was severely disappointed. I can remember reading a
>description of the routine (Everson, perhaps?) and laughing out loud as I
>imagined it in my mind. Alas, my imagination was a lot funnier than the
>reality. I don't know if it was the pacing or what, but it really fell flat.
>

Just compare the musician sketch to the two bits L&H did for PICK A STAR, both
of which are short, sweet and funny. Sympathetic direction, camerawork and
editing is everything.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 12:47:58 PM7/3/01
to
> If they love a film, you can count on it stinking like
> a dead skunk.
> If they all hate it, it might be worth watching.
> ------
>
> Of course you know that isn't true. If you read the better film critics like
> Armond White, Michael Wilmington, Pauline Kael, Jonathan Rosenbaum, or Dave
> Kehr, you will find some well-written, sharply objective criticism that will
> help you better appreciate cinema as an art form. You may not always agree
> with these people, but then nobody can expect that.
>
> Objectivity is a challenge, but we all have it. I absolutely HATE the Star
> Wars films -- every damn one of them. Just hate them. But if called upon to
> review them, I would be able to state that they are good films, my not liking
> them notwithstanding. As I stated in a previous post, I really enjoy the Elvis
> movies, but it doesn't take much to realize "Fun in Acapulco" is not a good
> movie.
>

At the risk of being politically incorrect (i try to be whenever possible) I never
really gave a rat`s tail end for any form of art. To me, a film is simply entertainment.
And I can almost always count on it that if the critics like it, I probably won`t.
And I never cared much for the Star Wars films either. I do like sci-fi, but prefer
more hard science fiction than the fantasy type stuff. Which is why for sci-fi
I tend to go for books more than films.
And I would take a totally different view than you do. I`ve never seen "Fun In
Acapulco" but I would say (about any film) that if I liked it, it was a good movie.
If I didn`t like it, it was a bad movie.
Entertainment value. Like it, it has some. Don`t like it, it has none.
Someone else might have exactly the opposite opinion from mine on this or that
film, but if we were all the same it would be an exceptionally dull world.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:47:23 PM7/3/01
to
John stated:

(Try falling asleep with Ozzie Osbourne
screeching "My name is Lucifer, please take my hand!" in your ears - it can't
be done.)

----

He never screeched, he bellowed. Especially on the song you quote (N.I.B.)
Hey, Sabbath was awesome, dude.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:03:54 PM7/3/01
to
>(Try falling asleep with Ozzie Osbourne
>screeching "My name is Lucifer, please take my hand!" in your ears - it can't
>be done.)
>
>----
>
>He never screeched, he bellowed. Especially on the song you quote (N.I.B.)
>Hey, Sabbath was awesome, dude.
>

Jim,

You're right - "bellowed" is a better word for Osbourne's singing. "N.I.B." is
my favorite hardrock song of all time (and believe me, that's a very tiny list
of songs.)

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:03:56 PM7/3/01
to
Mike stated:

And I would take a totally different view than you do. I`ve never seen "Fun In
Acapulco" but I would say (about any film) that if I liked it, it was a good
movie.
If I didn`t like it, it was a bad movie.
Entertainment value. Like it, it has some. Don`t like it, it has none.

-------

Subjectively, yes. But a critic can't do that. He or she has to be objective
and try to leave personal opinion out of it. There is solid, objective
criteria that can safely prove the Laurel and Hardy films (yeah, including the
forties stuff) has merit. If someone doesn't like it, it still has merit.

If someone is not entertained by Shakespeare -- that does not make it bad work.
It is still good work that he or she does not like.

Critically, aesthetically, etc., a film (book, play) is either good or bad.
Whether you like it or not is your own opinion. There are plenty of great
films that I just hate (Sound of Music, Star Wars) and plenty of bad movies
that I like (Elvis films, Billy Jack, S*P*Y*S, Empire Records).

I can understand if none of this matters to you. Hell, I am the type who
thinks a cheap used economy car is as good as an expensive brand new sports
car. But I have written about film as an art form for a long time, and I see
well past the limitations of my humble opinion.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:07:29 PM7/3/01
to
I wrote:

>Just compare the musician sketch to the two bits L&H did for PICK A STAR,
>both
>of which are short, sweet and funny. Sympathetic direction, camerawork and
>editing is everything.

Correcting my own post here. Strike "musician" and replace it with "magician".
That is all.

Oh, and to all my American friends here - Happy Fourth of July! A day to
contemplate and enjoy the limited freedoms we have left!

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 2:12:43 PM7/3/01
to
John stated:

You're right - "bellowed" is a better word for Osbourne's singing. "N.I.B." is
my favorite hardrock song of all time (and believe me, that's a very tiny list
of songs.)

-------

While an old fart like me still attends Ozzfest every year (I don't seem to
have that thick head of hair I used to have -- the thick head is still
there....)

Elmer Pintar

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 3:39:46 PM7/3/01
to
Don't knock "The Producers"..

Elmer Pintar

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 8:13:40 PM7/3/01
to
Elmer stated:

>Don't knock "The Producers"..

oh John is just a big ol' meanie!

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 8:59:00 PM7/3/01
to
Jim wrote:

>oh John is just a big ol' meanie!
>

Hey, I strongly resemble that remark!

Actually, I'm a softie. THE WIZARD OF OZ is my second favorite movie of all
time. It makes me cry in the same place every time... when they throw that
water on the witch. (sniff)

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:05:01 PM7/3/01
to
John stated:

Actually, I'm a softie. THE WIZARD OF OZ is my second favorite movie of all
time. It makes me cry in the same place every time... when they throw that
water on the witch.

------

I get choked up when Ollie says to Stan, "I'll be back" and then a trumphant
"We'll ALL be back!" in Blockheads.

Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 9:08:38 PM7/3/01
to
Mike Shepherd <shep...@netins.net> wrote...

> I`ve never seen "Fun In Acapulco" but I would
> say (about any film) that if I liked it, it
> was a good movie. If I didn`t like it, it was
> a bad movie. Entertainment value. Like it, it
> has some. Don`t like it, it has none.

I disagree. Have you ever seen any of Ed Wood's films, such as "Plan 9 From
Outer Space" or "Glen Or Glenda"? These films are very entertaining BECAUSE
they're terrible! (That might not sound like it makes sense, but if you saw one,
you would understand.)

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 11:14:29 PM7/3/01
to
Jim wrote:

>I get choked up when Ollie says to Stan, "I'll be back" and then a trumphant
>"We'll ALL be back!" in Blockheads.

The one moment in movies that really does bring a tear to my eye is when the
little mouse brings Dumbo to see his mother, who is locked up and in chains,
and she cradles him in her trunk. Man, just thinking about it brings a lump to
my throat.

When Bogey gets drunk in CASABLANCA and starts babbling about Ilsa ("of all the
gin joints in all the world...") I don't cry but, boy, do I commiserate.

And I don't really cry when they throw water on the witch. That was a poor
joke. Poor jokes are the only ones I can afford these days.

Sam Finn

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 12:01:51 AM7/4/01
to
Plan 9 is hilarious ... but Glen or Glenda is astonishing ... It's Ed Wood's
autobiographical, heartfelt plea for society to understand transvestites ...
written and filmed at a third grade level ... and weirdly edited to include
irrelevant World War 2 stock footage and clips of Bela Lugosi bellowing
gibberish like "Pull the string! Dance to that! Snips and snails!" The
dream sequence (with Satan) will put a dent in your brain forever.

Brian P

visit "The Ruts" at...
www.brianpinkerton.com

Eric Perlin <ericp...@SPAMSUCKSprodigy.net> wrote in message

news:9htq8g$92m0$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 2:02:41 AM7/4/01
to
>
> I disagree. Have you ever seen any of Ed Wood's films, such as "Plan 9 From
> Outer Space" or "Glen Or Glenda"? These films are very entertaining BECAUSE
> they're terrible! (That might not sound like it makes sense, but if you saw one,
> you would understand.)

I can think of serveral films that were not intended to be
comic that were so bad they were funny. I`d still call
them good films for that reason, but I expect the people
that made those films would, not be at all happy with my
reasons for calling them a good film.<grin>
If it`s entertaining, it`s still a good film. Even if it is entertaining in
a way that was not intended.
I also find tv news and animal rights people endlessly entertaining
for their comic value, but for some reason they always get nasty
whenever I compliment them on their comedy skits.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 2:35:03 AM7/4/01
to
>
> Subjectively, yes. But a critic can't do that. He or she has to be objective
> and try to leave personal opinion out of it. There is solid, objective
> criteria that can safely prove the Laurel and Hardy films (yeah, including the
> forties stuff) has merit. If someone doesn't like it, it still has merit.
>
> If someone is not entertained by Shakespeare -- that does not make it bad work.
> It is still good work that he or she does not like.

Thankfully I`m not a film critic. I`d be run out of town on a rail if I were.
I`d rub too much fur the wrong way. <g>
But I never said that I didn`t like Laurel & Hardy`s later films, just that
they were (as a batch) not as good as most of their earlier ones.
One a scale of 1 to 10, I`d give "Nothing But Trouble" a 1 compared
to other L&H films. But compared to the comedies that have come
out the last few years (the ones I`ve seen anyway) I`d give it a 5.
Compare it to current tv comedy, I might even give it a 9.

Maybe I`m just getting to be an old fart, but what they put out
today (with a few exceptions) just isn`t funny.
I finally got around to watching one a couple of weeks ago that
I`m glad to say was one of the exceptions, Gone Fishin. To my
surprise, that one had me rolling on the floor a couple of times.

>
> I can understand if none of this matters to you. Hell, I am the type who
> thinks a cheap used economy car is as good as an expensive brand new sports
> car. But I have written about film as an art form for a long time, and I see
> well past the limitations of my humble opinion.

Hey, If it gets you where you want to go and does what you want it to do,
it`s a good car.
The one that I have right now, I may use for target practice
in the near future.

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 3:09:13 AM7/4/01
to
>Then you have apparently been reading the same post over and over (off and on
>of course) since 1997, son. Because one of the strongest statements made
>here
>in that time is the fact that the 1940s Laurel and Hardy films are far better
>than their reputations have allowed.

AND IT WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ME SAYING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 3:12:24 AM7/4/01
to
>You also were too young to have developed any critical thinking skills or a
>stronger frame of reference.

Well, perhaps your right on the first count, but I had PLENTY OF OTHER
REFERENCES based upon seeing scores of Roach films already.

>
>stronger frame of reference. Now you are attatched to those films because of
>the circumstances during which you first saw them.

This could be true. It's probably only partially true though.


DRSMITH666

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 3:19:36 AM7/4/01
to
>I disagree. Have you ever seen any of Ed Wood's films, such as "Plan 9 From
>Outer Space" or "Glen Or Glenda"? These films are very entertaining BECAUSE
>they're terrible!

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It's just like back in 1994 when they did a
review of the Rolling Stones' "Voodoo Lounge" album, where the reviewer says,
"Jagger should be EMBERRASSED to sing such lyrics as 'Love is strong, and
you're so sweet' - the fact that he ISN'T somehow makes it WORK!!"


JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 9:53:20 AM7/4/01
to
Mike Shepherd wrote:

>I also find tv news and animal rights people endlessly entertaining
>for their comic value, but for some reason they always get nasty
>whenever I compliment them on their comedy skits.
>

Local news in NY is horrible and often unintentionally funny. The promos
leading up to the news are often funnier (since brevity is the soul of wit and
bad news promos). Two recent ones that come to mind, described as best I can:

An anchor comes on and is visibly agitated, so much so that he squiggles around
in his chair as he speaks: "A runaway train in Ohio...AND IT'S LOADED WITH
DANGEROUS CHEMICALS!"

What was really funny about this is that the anchor seemed to imply that the
train was about to plow through the studio at any second and explode when, in
reality, the train had been stopped six hours earlier, no explosions, nobody
hurt, no harm, no foul.

Another more recent promo went like this:

ANCHOR: (putting on her "tragedy" face) A tragedy as a woman drowns her five
children.... (switches to "happy" face) PLUS WE CAUGHT A MAN STEALING COOKIES
FROM A COOKIE FACTORY!"

But my favorite news promo goes like this:

"Something you're eating right now can kill you! We'll tell you what at 11!"

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 11:03:54 AM7/4/01
to
>AND IT WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ME SAYING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and the other times it was me.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 11:05:17 AM7/4/01
to
Mike Shepherd wrote:

>I also find tv news and animal rights people endlessly entertaining
>for their comic value, but for some reason they always get nasty
>whenever I compliment them on their comedy skits.

I once saw a bumper sticker that stated: PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

oh god.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 9:36:00 PM7/4/01
to
>
> I once saw a bumper sticker that stated: PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.
>

I used to have one of those. Also another that stated
"If god didn`t intend for people to eat animals, why
did he make them out of meat?"

Eric Perlin

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 7:22:58 AM7/7/01
to
JVBGUY <jvb...@aol.comfool> wrote...

> Actually, I'm a softie. THE WIZARD OF OZ is
> my second favorite movie of all time. It
> makes me cry in the same place every time...
> when they throw that water on the witch.
> (sniff)

I cry when the shark dies at the end of Jaws. I was also moved to tears when the
demon in The Exorcist left Linda Blair's body. It was also very sad when poor
Norman Bates gets committed to a mental institution at the end of Psycho.

However, I don't think I'll shed any tears when Dick Chaney has a fatal heart
attack. Some people are just too evil to elicit any empathy from me.


Frank J. Lhota

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 8:31:43 AM7/7/01
to

"Eric Perlin" <ericp...@SPAMSUCKSprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9i6rc8$dj02$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...

> However, I don't think I'll shed any tears when Dick Chaney has a fatal
heart
> attack. Some people are just too evil to elicit any empathy from me.

For the record, I did not vote for Bush/Cheney either, but I believe it is
possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Wishing a heart attack on
the vice president is in poor taste, is completely O.T., and only serves to
make your side look bad.


James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 9:20:06 AM7/7/01
to
Frank stated:

>Wishing a heart attack on
>the vice president is in poor taste

You're old enough to remember Spiro Agnew, right?

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 11:37:35 AM7/7/01
to
Eric wrote:

>> However, I don't think I'll shed any tears when Dick Chaney has a fatal
>heart
>> attack. Some people are just too evil to elicit any empathy from me.

Living in New York, I have my own set of local politicians to gripe about, and
gripe I do,in private, about my two Democratic Senators, my Republican Mayor
and my Republican Governor, all of whom often seem hellbent on declaring
everything I like to do illegal, immoral or fattening. But I have somehow
managed to complain and rant about them amongst my friends and colleagues
without once wishing them a violent and painful meeting with The Grim Reaper.

But when somebody posts frequent public messages hoping for the painful deaths
of The President and Vice-President, in a newsgroup devoted to the most gentle
and human of all film comedians, forgive me if I no longer feel comfortable
discussing the finer points of Hog Wild, The Big Noise or even Scooby-Doo with
such a person.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 4:54:22 PM7/7/01
to
John stated (regarding Eric's post):

But when somebody posts frequent public messages hoping for the painful deaths
of The President and Vice-President, in a newsgroup devoted to the most gentle
and human of all film comedians, forgive me if I no longer feel comfortable
discussing the finer points of Hog Wild, The Big Noise or even Scooby-Doo with
such a person.

-------

He didn't go so far as to hope for anyone's death, but instead just stated that
he would not shed any tears when that does happen. I can see where it would be
off-putting to some, but Eric has that kind of a sense of humor, and I guess I
have gotten used to it. Fortunately we have all managed to avoid heavy duty
political arguments in here. He stated something, some were offended, now
let's move on. I don't know that such a statement was so strong as to get Eric
ostracized (I always wanted to use that word).

Maybe next time Eric should say, "I hope the people that made For Love or Mummy
all die painful deaths and rot in hell forever -- muaaahahahahaha!" in order to
stay on topic.

JN
old fashioned liberal peacenik

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 8:06:36 PM7/7/01
to
Jim wrote:

>He didn't go so far as to hope for anyone's death, but instead just stated
>that
>he would not shed any tears when that does happen. I can see where it would
>be
>off-putting to some, but Eric has that kind of a sense of humor, and I guess
>I
>have gotten used to it. Fortunately we have all managed to avoid heavy duty
>political arguments in here. He stated something, some were offended, now
>let's move on. I don't know that such a statement was so strong as to get
>Eric
>ostracized (I always wanted to use that word).
>
>Maybe next time Eric should say, "I hope the people that made For Love or
>Mummy
>all die painful deaths and rot in hell forever -- muaaahahahahaha!" in order
>to
>stay on topic.

Jim,

I am sorry I even had to bring up the matter in the first place, but somebody
just can't post something like the post in question and not expect to get some
feedback on it. I have certainly had issues with politicians past and present,
but I expressed my views in the appropriate places, as well as in letters to
the editor (The Daily News is probably getting sick of my three-times-a-week
rants.) And I usually come up with something a little more intelligent than
"Gee, I wouldn't shed a tear if so and so died of a painful heart attack."

I would certainly not call for the ostracization of anybody in this newsgroup,
mainly out of fear that I would be the first to be voted off the island. But
it would be nice if we could keep witless and inflammatory political discussion
a thousand miles away from the L&H newsgroup.

Having said that, I wash my hands and my neck of the entire matter. I am quite
ready to move on. Up. To the East Side. To a deluxe apartment in the sky...

MJ Emigh

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 12:01:45 AM7/8/01
to
jvb...@aol.comfool wrote:

<my two Democratic Senators, my Republican Mayor and my Republican Governor,
all of whom often seem hellbent on declaring everything I like to do illegal,
immoral or fattening.>

Are NY political figures Flo & Eddie fans by any chance?

<when somebody posts frequent public messages hoping for the painful deaths of

The President and Vice-President,>>>>yadda, yadda, yadda>>> forgive me if I no
longer feel comfortable>

The worst part is that the poster isn't an, "alleged comedian" as was the FBI
description of Groucho after his comment about the asassination of Nixon. I
think we should fine this guy $50 and make him pick up the garbage in the snow.

Oh, by the way, the convention wrapped up tonight, JVB. I'll get around to
answering your emails within the next month or two I PROMISE!!

-MJ


"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah.."

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 12:11:22 AM7/8/01
to
><my two Democratic Senators, my Republican Mayor and my Republican Governor,
>all of whom often seem hellbent on declaring everything I like to do illegal,
>immoral or fattening.>
>
>Are NY political figures Flo & Eddie fans by any chance?
>

No, but I'm a W.C. Fields fan who just finished watching 12 hours of his films,
so the "illegal, immoral or fattening line" was on the tip of my tongue. If
there is a Flo and Eddie reference in the above, it is lost on me. You might
as well be quoting Greatful Dead lines.

>The worst part is that the poster isn't an, "alleged comedian" as was the FBI
>description of Groucho after his comment about the asassination of Nixon. I
>think we should fine this guy $50 and make him pick up the garbage in the
>snow.

Ah, I was pissed off this morning because it was the first thing I read before
I had my morning mocha java with cream. Now I'm as happy as a little girl.
Still, I can be as obstinant as any person, even if I'm not sure how to spell
obstinant.

>Oh, by the way, the convention wrapped up tonight, JVB. I'll get around to
>answering your emails within the next month or two I PROMISE!!
>
>-MJ

Huh? Just who are you and why are you bothering me? Anyway, don't worry about
being late with email. It gave me time to pick out all that stuff underneath
my toenails. Besides, you know my emails are mostly pointless.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 9:45:47 AM7/8/01
to
John stated:

>No, but I'm a W.C. Fields fan who just finished watching 12 hours of his
films,
>so the "illegal, immoral or fattening line" was on the tip of my tongue. If
>there is a Flo and Eddie reference in the above, it is lost on me. You might
>as well be quoting Greatful Dead lines.

I think Alexander Woolcott used it before Fields, and certainly before Flo and
Eddie.

>Ah, I was pissed off this morning because it was the first thing I read before
>I had my morning mocha java with cream.

Milk!!

>Still, I can be as obstinant as any person, even if I'm not sure how to spell
>obstinant.

or Grateful.


JN

Thomas Stillabower

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 10:24:32 AM7/8/01
to
At least Ed Wood's films have a beginning, middle, and ending. You want
to see a film that make's Ed's look like Citizen Kane in comparison,
track down a copy of Manos, Hands of Fate. Luckily, the only time I saw
it was on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 11:42:33 AM7/8/01
to
rtfirefly wrote:

It may be one of the most terrible movies of all time, but it is a classic
Mystery Science Theater episode! And I still have nightmares about Torgo. My
God, those knees, those evil knees...

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 11:44:04 AM7/8/01
to
>>Ah, I was pissed off this morning because it was the first thing I read
>before
>>I had my morning mocha java with cream.
>
>Milk!!

uh,yes... milk. I don't know why I come in here. The flies get the best of
everything.

>Grateful.

Darn it, I knew it was Grateful and I still spelled it wrong! I knew something
didn't look right about it.

MJ Emigh

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 11:21:18 PM7/8/01
to
jvb...@aol.comfool wrote:

>I'm a W.C. Fields fan who just finished watching 12 hours of his films,
so the "illegal, immoral or fattening line" was on the tip of my tongue.<

Oh, man..... see what happens when you don't know history? As you know, I'm not
a big WC fan. Volman and Kaylan had an album called, "Illegal, Immoral And
Fattening" that was a big hit when I was a kid. I foolishly thought it was an
original thing with them. Another nice mess I've gotten myself into, huh?

Donna M. Davis

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 8:59:15 AM7/9/01
to
*dancing* Fish don' burn in da kitchen!!!!! A bean don't burn on the grill!!!!!
WHOOPS! :$ *blush* Sorry.... *slinking back over to corner*

Donna
Bartender, LMTA

JVBGUY wrote:

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 10:07:57 AM7/9/01
to
MJ wrote:

>Oh, man..... see what happens when you don't know history? As you know, I'm
>not
>a big WC fan. Volman and Kaylan had an album called, "Illegal, Immoral And
>Fattening" that was a big hit when I was a kid. I foolishly thought it was an
>original thing with them. Another nice mess I've gotten myself into, huh?
>

Well, if you are not a W.C. fan, you wouldn't be required to know where the
line came from. I am a Fields fan and I don't even know where the line
originated. As was stated in another post, it may have actually come from
Alexander Woolcott. I can't say if Fields "borrowed" the line or outright paid
for it, as he did with the bird phrases like "my little chickadee", which he
bought for fifty bucks from Joe Mankiewicz and used the rest of his career.

Anyway, Flo and Eddie probably got the line from Fields, or maybe it was one of
those things that they had heard from somewhere and liked.

As long as you don't think that Queen originated A NIGHT AT THE OPERA and A DAY
AT THE RACES, I'll still have respect for you.

MJ Emigh

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 3:01:31 PM7/9/01
to
jvb...@aol.comfool wrote:

>As long as you don't think that Queen originated A NIGHT AT THE OPERA and A
DAY AT THE RACES, I'll still have respect for you.<

Pretty soon you'll be telling me that the Marx boys didn't steal the title
MONKEY BUSINESS from the Gary Hart/ Donna Rice boating incident.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 1:52:44 AM7/8/01
to
>
> However, I don't think I'll shed any tears when Dick Chaney has a fatal heart
> attack. Some people are just too evil to elicit any empathy from me.

You mean like Clinton and his nazicrat goons?

Frank J. Lhota

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 5:01:26 PM7/9/01
to

"Mike Shepherd" <shep...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:9i8rr3$sc2$1...@ins21.netins.net...

How did a conversation about L&H degenerate into nasty political rants?


James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 8:03:25 PM7/9/01
to
> You mean like Clinton and his nazicrat goons?

Both parties are pretty ridiculous and neither is better than the other. And
no I won't get involved in a political discussion. My general dislike of both
parties makes me rather poor at such arguments. I will state that nazi is
right, not left. I think commie is the insult you were looking for. Of course
calling Clinton a commie makes Reagan a nazi, but let's not go there.

The only on-topic thing here is that either political party is quite capable of
making faux pas in Laurel and Hardy fashion -- unfortunately neither is very
amusing.

JN
who wants nobody to die

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 10:24:43 PM7/9/01
to
Jim wrote:

>The only on-topic thing here is that either political party is quite capable
>of
>making faux pas in Laurel and Hardy fashion -- unfortunately neither is very
>amusing.

It's like Will Rogers said, everytime Congress makes a joke, it's a law, and
every time they make a law, it's a joke.

In other words, when Laurel and Hardy make a mistake, they wind up paying for
it. When politicians make a mistake, *we* wind up paying for it.

Couldn't resist jumping into a discussion that I told myself I wouldn't, but at
least I'm being party-neutral (I'm a dues-lapsed Libertarian anyway), and
mentioning Laurel and Hardy to boot. Plus this "Zero Mostel" thread has gone
into so many different areas, it would be a shame to let it die.

So who's the prettiest Spice Girl? Posh, Sporty or Curly Joe DeRita?

MJ Emigh

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 11:19:16 PM7/9/01
to
jvb...@aol.comfool wrote:

>So who's the prettiest Spice Girl?<

I've reached the age where I have an affection for Old Spice.

James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:41:58 AM7/10/01
to
>So who's the prettiest Spice Girl? Posh, Sporty or Curly Joe DeRita?

I like Angela Cartwright.

Oh, I thought you said Space Girl!

JN
liberal, dammit, and nobody to vote for.

JVBGUY

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:26:03 AM7/10/01
to
MJ wrote:

>I've reached the age where I have an affection for Old Spice.
>

Ah, yes, the one with no teeth.

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 2:35:18 PM7/10/01
to

"James L. Neibaur" <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote in message news:20010709200325...@ng-fn1.aol.com...

> > You mean like Clinton and his nazicrat goons?
>
> Both parties are pretty ridiculous and neither is better than the other. And
> no I won't get involved in a political discussion. My general dislike of both
> parties makes me rather poor at such arguments. I will state that nazi is
> right, not left. I think commie is the insult you were looking for. Of course
> calling Clinton a commie makes Reagan a nazi, but let's not go there.

From a libertarian point of view there is no real difference between
a nazi and a commie, or better discribed as fascists and socialists.
They are both authoritarian. A tyrant is a tyrant. Whatever ideas they
try to use to excuse or justify their actions isn`t relivent.
Nazi, commie, authoritarian, ect. are interchangeable when you strip away
all the BS. For our own major parties, I call em the stupid party and the evil
party. If the dems proposed burning the library of congress, the gop would probably
propose burning it a little at a time over 5 years.
At this point in time, the right is slightly less dangerous than the left. So I
tend to cut the stupid party a little more slack than the evil party, but not
very much.
Power corrupts. Leave the gop in power a few more years and they will become
just as bad as the dems are now. The only lasting solution is limited government
with limited power. Right now, the right seeks to slow the growth of government
over what the left wants. That makes the right better than the left at this point
in time, but it`s still like asking if you would rather have a broken leg or two
brolen legs.


James L. Neibaur

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 5:47:21 PM7/10/01
to
shepherd stated:

From a libertarian point of view there is no real difference between
a nazi and a commie, or better discribed as fascists and socialists.
They are both authoritarian. A tyrant is a tyrant

-----

True. Saying Hitler was terrible does not mean that Stalin was ok. Saying
Clinton was terrible does not mean Reagan was. Of course Bill and Ron were not
as bad as Adolph and Joseph -- but you know what I mean.

JN
(if you don't like it, change the channel)

Mike Shepherd

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 2:06:25 AM7/11/01
to
>
> From a libertarian point of view there is no real difference between
> a nazi and a commie, or better discribed as fascists and socialists.
> They are both authoritarian. A tyrant is a tyrant
> -----
>
> True. Saying Hitler was terrible does not mean that Stalin was ok. Saying
> Clinton was terrible does not mean Reagan was. Of course Bill and Ron were not
> as bad as Adolph and Joseph -- but you know what I mean.

Old Ronnie talked a good game about reducing government power,
but he never actually did anything to that effect except talk.
At best I`d call him well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.
Bill would have made a great president of a banana republic. The only reason
he was not as bad as Adolph and ol Joe is that he didn`t have the near
absolute power they did.
But both are gone. There are still members of both parties in office in
a postion to do harm. Government rarely attracts the best, but it is a
magnet for the worst. Anyone who is crazy enough to want power
over other peoples lives is far too crazy to be allowed to have it.
Or as the old saying goes "The only thing wrong with voting a
politician out of office is that to do it, you have to vote another
one in".

Ten million bureaucrats
Marching in a row
Causing confusion
Wherever they go

Leftests, Rightists, and
Middle of the roaders
All busier than flies on s**t
To prove they`re not freeloaders

Ten million strong
And marching in a row
Playing games and scheming schemes
To tax away our dow


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages