A Salute to Stan Laurel
Brian
and thought I'd let loose with a number of questions that have been
tormenting myself (and my fellow Sons) for years....
This may sound familiar,but if I want expert advice,I have to ask
experts (and a pencil has to be lead):
** There was a tv special "A Salute to Stan Laurel" broadcast late in
1965 hosted by Dick Van Dyke with a huge lineup of stars--I know the
Museum of Broadcasting has a copy available for viewing,but does
anyone out there have a copy? I know the show was considered a
disappointment (and that's putting it mildly compared to how it has
been recorded in the history books),but it did have a huge cast and
was the last performance of Stan's great friend Buster Keaton (in a
sketch with Lucille Ball)--I suspect that thousands of network
specials have never seen the light of day since their original airdate
and many have been either wiped or has been lost to the ravages of
time,but this one would have a lot of significance to many,despite it
being a misfire.
Anyone out there have any theories?
Rob Farr
of them has the "Salute" skit with Ball (in color). So I'm guessing that
A-1 has or had access to the entire program. A-1's website is at
www.a-1video.com/
Rob Farr
Completely Revamped Slapsticon Website:
www.slapsticon.org
"Brian" <brim...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c7f68812.0410...@posting.google.com...
Hal Erickson
A private collector named Bruce Simon sells a full copy of SALUTE TO
STAN LAUREL; it's advertised on his KineVideo site. I used to buy a
lot from him but have cut down in the past two years. His prints were
variable but watchable (I purchased a very good kine of the legendary
1953 2-hour "Ford 50th Anniversary Special" with Ethel Merman and Mary
Martin. Picture jumps occasionally but generally pretty good). He can
be reached at http://gwenharlow.com/client/kinevideo (I don't know if
he's still selling; he was moving out of tapes and into paper
nostalgia items last time I talked to him).
Not that I want to spoil any future sales for Bruce, but I haven't
bought SALUTE because I remember what a dismal experience it was
watching it back in 1965--especially since I spent a week in
breathless anticipation before it came on. Just another hokey
60-minute special with dumb musical numbers and largely irrelevant
guest stars (with the exceptions of host Dick Van Dyke and guest
Buster Keaton), most of whom just go through their old self-serving
bits (Bob Newhart does "The Uncle Freddy Show", Phil Silvers
narrates the story of his OWN life, etc.) The low point was a dull
"Perils of Pauline" spoof featuring Audrey Meadows. When Audrey ain't
funny, you're in deep doo-doo.
For me, the only "bonus" on the show was that it featured pristine
clips from LAUREL AND HARDY'S LAUGHING 20S--and it was the first time
I ever saw that home movie of Stan posing with his Oscar.
Another clip from the special, a routine in which Dick Van Dyke
endures great pain while trying to deliver a "safety report", appears
in black and white in a one-hour highlight reel of great TV comedy
scenes titled FUNNIEST MOMENTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY (I lent this tape
out a while back, so I can't give you any more info).
SALUTE TO STAN LAUREL may be worth seeing once, but it's a dog.
--Hal E
Brian
all there is available to the public at this time and was the only
scene that was praised when the show went to air.(And I've never heard
of the website you refered to and it is quite a revelation! Some of
this will be on high rotation down here soon!)
Brian
well--yes,I suspect I would have to prepare for the worst,but it is
such a true curio as well as a product of it's time that it would be
interesting for the Sons down here to say they have at least seen
it--and I even suspect it will be the show's Australian premiere!
Elmer Pintar
seemed more of a plug for "Laurel & Hardy's Laughing 20's", a
compilation of the silents that was just about to be released. There
were NO clips of talkies, which is why the show was a dissapointment to
me as a 9-year-old. I loved their voices, and it STILL doesn't make
sense to me that their characters first became popular with no talking.
The best parts of the show were the home movies of Stan as a
septugenerian.
Elmer Pintar
George
> I loved their voices, and it STILL doesn't make
> sense to me that their characters first became popular with no talking.
Because Laurel & Hardy had great chemistry together, which is in evidence
even in their scenes together before their official team-up.
They had those great camera looks, which I think is an important part of
their humor.
Also, they simply had funny gags. They must have gotten a good response from
audiences in the silent era, because they recycled quite a few of those gags
for their sound films.
Finally, context is important. It sounds like you grew up enjoying their
sound shorts and must have found it kind of weird when you first saw one of
their silent films. Unlike you or I, audiences at the time could not make
the comparison that you're making.
Like you, I love their voices, too. It added a wonderful dimension to their
comedy. However, a lot of what I enjoy about Laurel & Hardy were already
established in their silent films, so I like watching them as well.
George
BigStar303
<< It sounds like you grew up enjoying their
sound shorts and must have found it kind of weird when you first saw one of
their silent films. Unlike you or I, audiences at the time could not make
the comparison that you're making.
Like you, I love their voices, too. It added a wonderful dimension to their
comedy. However, a lot of what I enjoy about Laurel & Hardy were already
established in their silent films, so I like watching them as well. >>
Critic Walter Kerr, in his great book "The Silent Clowns," makes the point that
out of all the great silent comedy stars, only Laurel and Hardy successfully
made the transition to sound films (if you don't count Chaplin, who, as Kerr
says, "simply ignored" sound and kept on making silents until 1941).
As Kerr brilliantly points out, there are two reasons for this. First, Stan and
Ollie's voices seemed to "fit" their already established characters. And also,
in contrast to most comedy films, which moved along at a breakneck pace (due to
routine undercranking by the camera operators), Laurel and Hardy deliberately
slowed things down until the flow of the action more closely matched "real
life." Thus, it wasn't jarring to see them moving at normal speed, as of course
they had to, once sound came in.
James Neibaur
bigst...@aol.comma wrote on 10/31/04 2:59 PM:
> Critic Walter Kerr, in his great book "The Silent Clowns," makes the point
> that
> out of all the great silent comedy stars, only Laurel and Hardy successfully
> made the transition to sound films
Because Walter Kerr, in his overrated book The Silent Clowns, apparently
never saw a Charley Chase talkie.
JN
Rob Farr
either. The only Roach star whose fortunes fell during the transition
period was Max Davidson, and that probably had to do with factors other than
his voice. You can hear him in the Gang's Moan & Groan Inc. and in Harry
Langdon's The Shrimp.
Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
"James Neibaur" <jnei...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BDAACE78.4416E%jnei...@wi.rr.com...
BigStar303
I can't speak for Kerr, of course, but I wonder if he didn't make this
statement because he was considering only the top-echelon comics in terms of
their relative star/box office power.
I think Charley Chase is great, too, but rightly or wrongly, he's not normally
spoken of in the same breath as Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd/Langdon/Laurel and Hardy.
That is, while it's true both his silent and sound comedies were successful,
Chase wasn't quite in the same league as Laurel and Hardy in terms of
popularity. So I'm speculating that's why he didn't include Chase when speaking
of successful transitions from silents to sound.
Beyond this, I still think Kerr's point about pacing is a good one. I'm curious
as to why, as a whole, you think "The Silent Clowns" is overrated.
James Neibaur
bigst...@aol.comma wrote on 11/1/04 12:08 AM:
> I'm curious
> as to why, as a whole, you think "The Silent Clowns" is overrated.
Probably a reaction to everyone considering it a veritable Bible about
screen comedians.
I do not think it is bad. I think it is overrated. I honestly think any
Leonard Maltin book dealing with comedy (teams, comedians, shorts) is
better.
JN
BigStar303
> I'm curious
> as to why, as a whole, you think "The Silent Clowns" is overrated.
Jim:
<< Probably a reaction to everyone considering it a veritable Bible about
screen comedians.
I do not think it is bad. I think it is overrated. I honestly think any
Leonard Maltin book dealing with comedy (teams, comedians, shorts) is
better. >>
In a way, it's sort of apples and oranges. Maltin's books tend to be more on
facts and less on analysis. Kerr's goes a little deeper in its criticism. Both
approaches are valid, though I think we probably agree that it's possible to go
a bit too far with the latter approach.
I still think Charles Barr got closest to the mark in talking about what really
makes Laurel and Hardy "work."
James Neibaur
bigst...@aol.comma wrote on 11/2/04 10:15 PM:
> In a way, it's sort of apples and oranges. Maltin's books tend to be more on
> facts and less on analysis. Kerr's goes a little deeper in its criticism. Both
> approaches are valid, though I think we probably agree that it's possible to
> go
> a bit too far with the latter approach.
Raymond Griffith? Yeah, right.
> I still think Charles Barr got closest to the mark in talking about what
> really
> makes Laurel and Hardy "work."
agree
JN
Bill Coleman
Laurel and Hardy, but I also think that Raymond Griffith is wonderful,
and was underrated until Kerr wrote about him. Also I think that Kerr
rated Laurel and Hardy very highly. I do think he underestimated Charley
Chase.
Bill
James Neibaur
mond...@ludwig.net wrote on 11/2/04 10:42 PM:
> I hope you're not saying that Kerr overrated Griffith.
Based only on my familiarity with Hands Up and Paths to Paradise, I do not
think Griffith is at the lofty level where Kerr appears to be placing him.
He fits quite comfortably alongside, say, Larry Semon. And there is nothing
wrong with that company. I don't think he is as good as Chase or Arbuckle,
never mind Chaplin, Keaton, Langdon, Lloyd, or L&H.
> I do think he underestimated Charley
> Chase.
agree
JN
Bill Coleman
I have to disagree with you totally on that. It's true there are not a
quantity of films starring Griffith in his prime. But the quality is
high. I like Larry Semon, but Griffith is more original in his humor,
and also a much better actor, than him. He definitely belong in the
position Kerr put him. It's a shame that more of his 25-27 features
do not exist.
Bill Coleman
============
Bill Coleman
that many films!
Mister Levity
I agree with you here, Griffith doesn't impress me at all but Larry
Semon sure does! Now Semon, there is an underrated comic genious. His
comedies are hilarious.
Mister Levity
James Neibaur
mister...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/3/04 5:57 PM:
> I agree with you here, Griffith doesn't impress me at all but Larry
> Semon sure does! Now Semon, there is an underrated comic genious. His
> comedies are hilarious
I thought Semon did some outrageously inventive things and really challenged
the visuals of cinema within the realm of slapstick comedy.
JN
Brad Filippone
: George wrote:
Actually, a few "Our Gang" members successfully went from silent to sound.
Farina comes to mind right away.
Brad
BigStar303
<< Actually, a few "Our Gang" members successfully went from silent to sound.
Farina comes to mind right away. >>
Good point! Farina, Mary Ann Jackson and "Wheezer" Hutchins -- all very good
actors whose voices "matched" their silent personalities and who sounded like
"naturals."
Joe Cobb's transition was rather less successful; his acting in the few sound
shorts he was in before retiring as a "senior" Our Gang member is a little bit
on the stiff side. Harry Spear and Jean Darling also didn't fare very well.
But after the first few sound shorts, Jackie Cooper and Chubby Chaney came
along to take up the slack.
lookAli...@webtv.net
Did Dorothy DeBorba, Jerry Tucker and Gordon "Porky" Lee of the "OUR
GANG" talkie fame appear in any silent films ?
Dorothy and Mildred Korman of the "OUR GANG" talkie series were Honored
Guests at this years Sons of the Desert International Convention at
Columbus, Oh. Jerry was in attendance at the SOD Convention in 2002 at
Nashville, Tn.
Laurel and Hardily yours
Dennis Moriarty
aka/dba: SPARKIE & LOOK-A-LIKE'S
B.S.
I will also re-read Steve Brown's three booklet series: Hi-Neighbor ! ,
ECHO and OTAY! and Leonard Maltin & Richard Bann The LITTLE RASCALS
The Life and Times of Our Gang, ISBN 0-517-58325-9.
BigStar303
<< Did Dorothy DeBorba, Jerry Tucker and Gordon "Porky" Lee of the "OUR
GANG" talkie fame appear in any silent films ? >>
No. All made their Our Gang debut in talkie shorts. I don't have my reference
material at hand, but I think Dorothy's first short was "Pups Is Pups." Jerry's
was "Shiver Me Timbers," and Porky's came much later (1935?).
<< B.S.
I will also re-read Steve Brown's three booklet series: Hi-Neighbor ! ,
ECHO and OTAY! >>
I'm not familiar with this series. Could you give us some detail on it?
lookAli...@webtv.net
( I got it correct this time)
In the words of our hero; Oliver N. Hardy:
"Tell me that again"
Ok, Steve Brown Grand Sheik of the SCRAM TENT of Nashville, Tn. Has
published three GREAT bookletts to date, as follows:
ECHO The Official Filmography of Our Gang's Dorothy DeBorba
1997, 16 pages for $8.00 (USD)
HI-NEIGHBOR The Official Filmography of OUR GANG's Jerry Tucker
2nd in a seies by Steven K. Brown
20 pages for $8.00 (USD)
OTAY The Official Filmography of OUR GANG's Gordon "PORKY" Lee
3rd in a series by Steven K. Brown
23 pages for $8.00 (USD)
Laurel and Hardily yours
Dennis Moriarty
aka/dba: SPARKIE & LOOK-A-LIKE'S
B.S.
Contact Steve Brown at P.O. Box 110657 Nashville, Tn 37222-0657
615-331-1949
sbr...@comcast.net
Steve and Mrs. Brown provide the day long L&H Film program during the
Annual Oliver Hardy Festival in BABE'S BIJOU at the LAUREL & HARDY
MUSEUM of Harlem, Ga. USA.
Always the first Saturday in October.
James Neibaur
lookAli...@webtv.net at lookAli...@webtv.net wrote on 11/8/04 7:46
PM:
> ECHO The Official Filmography of Our Gang's Dorothy DeBorba
> 1997, 16 pages for $8.00 (USD)
>
> HI-NEIGHBOR The Official Filmography of OUR GANG's Jerry Tucker
> 2nd in a seies by Steven K. Brown
> 20 pages for $8.00 (USD)
>
> OTAY The Official Filmography of OUR GANG's Gordon "PORKY" Lee
> 3rd in a series by Steven K. Brown
> 23 pages for $8.00 (USD)
Did you leave a zero off the end of the page counts for those books?
JN
BigStar303
Dennis did say they were booklets, not books. And if they're mainly
filmographies, one wouldn't expect them to be very long for these three.
Larc
I imagine JN was thinking $8 per is a bit steep for publications that
are only 16, 20 and 23 pages. And I'd certainly agree with that!
Larc
งงง - Change planet to earth to reply by email - งงง