L&H Realism (was Visible Cord in CL)
Constance Kuriyama
In response to Stan:
The sets in L&H are sometimes real enough. The action
is another matter.
But when I think of their sound films, the first thing
that comes to mind is lame dialogue and pedestrian camera
work--and please, nobody can tell me that CC's camera work
is pedestrian. I know good camera work when I see it.
The fact that it isn't flashy doesn't mean that it isn't
good.
The fact is that I do care for L&H's silents, and dislike
all their sound films that I've seen, which includes the
AA-winning _Music Box_. Bored me to death.
Sorry, I can't be on the bus, but I'll be with you in thought
if not in body. Enjoy!
Connie K.
JimNeibaur
Connie stated:
The fact is that I do care for L&H's silents, and dislike
all their sound films that I've seen, which includes the
AA-winning _Music Box_. Bored me to death.
-----------
I laugh more at the dreaded Fox productions of Laurel and Hardy more than even
the finest Chaplins, because I do like L&H that much better (and everyone here
knows how I feel about Chaplin).
It does surprise me that the largely silent Music Box bored you, but then I
refuse to even sit through A Woman of Paris for the same reasons.
Opinions make the world go 'round.
Jim
George Shelps
May I second Jim Neibaur regarding Laurel and Hardy? I remember seeing
the silent "You're Darn Tootin'" and I have never before or since
laughed so hard at a movie. The sound films have a slower pace, of
course, though the vocal characterizations provide an additional
dimension of comedic richness. But I have seen audiences roar over
those, too.
"Laugh-getting" is surely not the only
criteria and Chaplin's movies obviously work on many other levels than
pure laughter. ( And, of course, they work plenty well there, too.)
But the unique combination of lovability and laughter with the foibles
of friendship
is what distinguishes L & H and provokes adoration from their many fans
and
loyal "Sons of the Desert."
George Shelps
Constance Kuriyama
Probably *not* for the same reasons, though it may bore you.
_Music Box_ struck me as an intolerable attenuation of a not-very-original
idea. Chaplin's _His Musical Career_ is both brisker and infinitely funnier
to me--and more pointed. And that's just a Keystone.
It's true that I don't have the deep affection for L&H that some people have,
but I like their films when they satisfy me aesthetically. When they don't,
watching them just for the interaction of L&H's personalities or to witness
their often incredible stupidity doesn't appeal to me. In addition to
weak photography and dialogue, the stories in their soundies are often highly
derivitive and third-rate.
> Opinions make the world go 'round.
True. If we all agreed we wouldn't need to post, since we'd already
know what everyone thought.
Connie K.
DSPB
Jim-
Remember that discussion a few weeks back on alt.comedy.laurel-hardy
about women and L & H ...?
-Unka Denny
"Excuse me a minute, my ear is full of milk..."
-Oliver Hardy
JimNeibaur
Connie stated:
Music Box_ struck me as an intolerable attenuation of a not-very-original
idea. Chaplin's _His Musical Career_ is both brisker and infinitely funnier
to me--and more pointed. And that's just a Keystone.
-----------
I like His Musical Career very much, but I believe it is little more than a
precursor to The Music Box if the two are related at all. And regarding it
being "just a Keystone," I think some Keystones ("Dough and Dynamite" for one)
are as interesting as even some of the Mutuals.
-----------
Connie:
I don't have the deep affection for L&H that some people have,
but I like their films when they satisfy me aesthetically. When they don't,
watching them just for the interaction of L&H's personalities or to witness
their often incredible stupidity doesn't appeal to me.
--------------
I don't know that it was as much "incredible stupidity" as it was a childlike
innocence or naivete that played out as more likably dumb than annoyingly
stupid. "Incredible stupidity" may be an apt description of Jim Carrey (or
even, I daresay, Jerry Lewis), but not Laurel and Hardy. But it is true that
liking the characters and their style is key to appreciating the aesthetic
value of their films (which I think, to some extent, are as good as Chaplin's).
------------
Connie:
In addition to
weak photography and dialogue, the stories in their soundies are often highly
derivitive and third-rate.
---------------
I can't agree with that any more than I could agree with dismissing Chaplin's
talkies as indulgent and sentimental.
Laurel and Hardy were not dialogue comedians, hence dialogue is at a minimum.
That the comedies are largely silent would, I think, appeal to one who
appreciates such comedy. It is the genuine comedy stemming from the
characterizations that is the essence of Laurel and Hardy, not things like
camera angles (although that quick shot of Oliver Hardy in SONS OF THE DESERT
as Stan tearfully confesses to the wives is my candidate for the single
funniest moment in movie history -- no hyperbole intended).
-------------
All in all, Connie's assessment of Laurel and Hardy being so opposite to mine
makes for (I think) an interesting discussion. But I still don't subscribe to
the "women don't laugh at Laurel and Hardy" theory, I think it is still an
individual thing.
Hey, I almost never laugh at Buster Keaton, but I have no problem appreciating
his own particular genius. Hence, I can see someone who does not laugh as much
at Laurel and Hardy, but I have trouble understanding how one can not fully
appreciate them.
oh well---
Jim
George Shelps
JimN:
>I can see someone who does not laugh
>as much at Laurel and Hardy but I have
>trouble understanding how someone
>cannot fully appreciate them.
So do I. And I agree it is not a "male/female taste" issue. But liking
Chaplin doesn't necessarily cross-over into a fondness for movie comics
in
general. Chaplin has always attracted plaudits from people who,
otherwise,
are not movie lovers in or fans of movie comedy.
When Chaplin was gaining his initial fame, cultural opinion-makers in
the other, more "respectable" arts, like literature and the theatre,
welcomed him as one of their own. But I don't think they embraced the
medium itself, except insofar as they
could read their own tastes, and predilections into it.
In my opinion, Chaplin, though he was the greatest movie comedy creator,
is also
liked by people who basically don't like movies, don't go to the movies
much, and don't care much for film culture in general.
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <19971222172...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) wrote:
> Laurel and Hardy were not dialogue comedians, hence dialogue is at a minimum.
> That the comedies are largely silent would, I think, appeal to one who
> appreciates such comedy. It is the genuine comedy stemming from the
> characterizations that is the essence of Laurel and Hardy, not things like
> camera angles (although that quick shot of Oliver Hardy in SONS OF THE DESERT
> as Stan tearfully confesses to the wives is my candidate for the single
> funniest moment in movie history -- no hyperbole intended).
I agree completely.
> Connie:
>
> In addition to
> weak photography and dialogue, the stories in their soundies are often highly
> derivitive and third-rate.
As opposed to that masterpiece of continuity, "Modern Times," and those
convincing process shots in "Dictator" and "Limelight" I suppose... ;-)
Doug
Hanhuck
>From: G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
>JimN:
>
>>I can see someone who does not laugh
>>as much at Laurel and Hardy but I have
>>trouble understanding how someone
>>cannot fully appreciate them.
>
>So do I. And I agree it is not a "male/female taste" issue. But liking
>Chaplin doesn't necessarily cross-over into a fondness for movie comics
>in
>general. ...
I am one of those whose adoration for Chaplin doesn't cross over into anything
much more than appreciation for movie comics in general. Apart from Chaplin's
films, there are some comedies on my list of favorite 100 movies, but they
don't star film comics like L&H, Keaton, or Fields but rather Wm Powell, Carole
Lombard, Walter Matthau, Woody Allen (his later movies), etc. My favorite
movies are dominated by particular actors/stars or directors who bowl me over,
and Chaplin is the only film comic who does this.
I *like* the other film comics, silent and talkie ones, but I *love* actors and
stars Chaplin, Cagney, Garbo, Pacino, Olivier, Gary Cooper, Wm. Powell, John
Wayne, and Diane Keaton.
Hannah
=============================
"Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense." -- Mark Twain
Hanhuck
>From: dsu...@concentric.net
>As opposed to that masterpiece of continuity, "Modern Times,"
Huh? If you're talking about its episodic nature, there's masterful method
behind that madness. If not, what are you talking about?
Constance Kuriyama
DSPB (dst...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> Jim-
> Remember that discussion a few weeks back on alt.comedy.laurel-hardy
> about women and L & H ...?
I may be a woman Unka D., but I don't think that has anything to do with
my preference for L&H's silents.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
(dsu...@concentric.net) writes:
> In article <19971222172...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) wrote:
>
>> Laurel and Hardy were not dialogue comedians, hence dialogue is at a minimum.
Not nearly minimal enough for me.
>> That the comedies are largely silent would, I think, appeal to one who
>> appreciates such comedy.
But they are no longer silent comedy. Being sound films, they are something
else--IMO, something overall less effective.
It is the genuine comedy stemming from the
>> characterizations that is the essence of Laurel and Hardy
What you are saying is that they are personality comedians. This is true.
If that is enough for you, then it is enough for you. But I don't see
any reason why it should be enough for me.
, not things like
>> camera angles
I'm not talking about "camera angles." Like Chaplin, I abhor emphasis
on technique for its own sake. But I do think that the camera should be
used intelligently to enhance the effect of the film (not to perform by itself).
Pedestrian use of the camera does not enhance the effect of the film,
but it can certainly detract from it.
(although that quick shot of Oliver Hardy in SONS OF THE DESERT
>> as Stan tearfully confesses to the wives is my candidate for the single
>> funniest moment in movie history -- no hyperbole intended).
>
> I agree completely.
Haven't seen it. Was too turned off by the ones I did see.
>> Connie:
>>
>> In addition to
>> weak photography and dialogue, the stories in their soundies are often highly
>> derivitive and third-rate.
>
> As opposed to that masterpiece of continuity, "Modern Times," and those
> convincing process shots in "Dictator" and "Limelight" I suppose... ;-)
I was talking about *stories* and *dialogue* and *photography*, not
special effects. But I'd like to know what grave lapses in continuity
you find in MT. And as for those process shots, they're pretty normal
for the time they were made. Check out the cheesy effects in _King
Kong_ some time. I agree with Richard that L&H soundies look generally
shabby, which is not the same as having an occasional run-of-the-mill
bp.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
George Shelps (G-H...@webtv.net) writes:
> JimN:
>
>>I can see someone who does not laugh
>>as much at Laurel and Hardy but I have
>>trouble understanding how someone
>>cannot fully appreciate them.
>
> So do I. And I agree it is not a "male/female taste" issue. But liking
> Chaplin doesn't necessarily cross-over into a fondness for movie comics
> in
> general. Chaplin has always attracted plaudits from people who,
> otherwise,
> are not movie lovers in or fans of movie comedy.
I am both a movie lover *and* a serious student of movie comedy, but I
like some movies and some comedies much better than others. Is this unusual?
I think not.
I don't see any special virtue in liking everything.
> When Chaplin was gaining his initial fame, cultural opinion-makers in
> the other, more "respectable" arts, like literature and the theatre,
> welcomed him as one of their own. But I don't think they embraced the
> medium itself, except insofar as they
> could read their own tastes, and predilections into it.
It was certainly true in some cases and it was also true that people who
loved film enthusiastically embraced Chaplin, and that Chaplin won over
people like Renoir, who were tinkering with more traditional arts, to
become filmmakers. Renoir called it "la revelation Charlot."
> In my opinion, Chaplin, though he was the greatest movie comedy creator,
> is also
> liked by people who basically don't like movies, don't go to the movies
> much, and don't care much for film culture in general.
Some, perhaps. But I know quite a few literary scholars who basicallly go
to movies to slum, and don't consider any filmmaker, including Chaplin,
worth studying.
Obviously I don't agree with them.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
JimNeibaur (jimne...@aol.com) writes:
> Connie stated:
>
> Music Box_ struck me as an intolerable attenuation of a not-very-original
> idea. Chaplin's _His Musical Career_ is both brisker and infinitely funnier
> to me--and more pointed. And that's just a Keystone.
> -----------
>
> I like His Musical Career very much, but I believe it is little more than a
> precursor to The Music Box if the two are related at all.
I didn't say they were related, though I suspect they are; but both are
certainly linked to generic gag situations of moving immovable objects.
And regarding it
> being "just a Keystone," I think some Keystones ("Dough and Dynamite" for one)
> are as interesting as even some of the Mutuals.
Chaplin in _MA_ calls one of his Keystones a "crude little film," and compared
to his later films they certainly are. But I didn't say that the Keystones
weren't interesting. They are very interesting.
> -----------
>
> Connie:
>
> I don't have the deep affection for L&H that some people have,
> but I like their films when they satisfy me aesthetically. When they don't,
> watching them just for the interaction of L&H's personalities or to witness
> their often incredible stupidity doesn't appeal to me.
> --------------
>
> I don't know that it was as much "incredible stupidity" as it was a childlike
> innocence or naivete that played out as more likably dumb than annoyingly
> stupid.
We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything childlike
(or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death, when
it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too long.
<snip?
But it is true that
> liking the characters and their style is key to appreciating the aesthetic
> value of their films (which I think, to some extent, are as good as
> Chaplin's)
I don't disagree that *some* of their films are as good as *some* of Chaplin's.
But I don't see how anyone could believe that most of their soundies are in
the same class as Chaplin's best films. To me, that would make no sense.
> Connie:
>
> In addition to
> weak photography and dialogue, the stories in their soundies are often highly
> derivitive and third-rate.
> ---------------
> I can't agree with that any more than I could agree with dismissing Chaplin's
> talkies as indulgent and sentimental.
There is a basis for both these responses to CC's talkies. But the basis for
them is relatively negligible. A weak story, pedestrian camera work, and
uninspired dialogue are rather fatal shortcomings, but it appears that for
some people, the charm of L&H can render even these negligible to them. I
am not one of those people. Nor is my husband, who likes their soundies
even less than I do.
This argument has a familiar ring. We went over similar ground in the
discussion of Fields--another personality comedian.
> Laurel and Hardy were not dialogue comedians, hence dialogue is at a minimum.
> That the comedies are largely silent would, I think, appeal to one who
> appreciates such comedy. It is the genuine comedy stemming from the
> characterizations that is the essence of Laurel and Hardy, not things like
> camera angles (although that quick shot of Oliver Hardy in SONS OF THE DESERT
> as Stan tearfully confesses to the wives is my candidate for the single
> funniest moment in movie history -- no hyperbole intended).
> -------------
Responded elsewhere.
> All in all, Connie's assessment of Laurel and Hardy being so opposite to mine
> makes for (I think) an interesting discussion. But I still don't subscribe to
> the "women don't laugh at Laurel and Hardy" theory, I think it is still an
> individual thing.
>
> Hey, I almost never laugh at Buster Keaton, but I have no problem appreciating
> his own particular genius. Hence, I can see someone who does not laugh as much
> at Laurel and Hardy, but I have trouble understanding how one can not fully
> appreciate them.
I do appreciate *them*. It's thier *sound films*--as films--that I don't
like! Clear?
Connie K.
DSPB
Connie-
Obviously, nothing is going to change your mind about L&H (and I
acknowledge your appreciation of their silent work ... it's an opinion
I've seen elsewhere, too-that their silents are superior to anything
else they did...I believe that's Gerald Mast's opinion in his "The
Comic Mind" book)...But, as far as the lame diaglogue goes, it's like
Jim stated, these fellows are not dialogue comics...And I could easily
rattle off half a dozen films with wonderful dialogue sequences...The
opening of "Helpmates", many of the exchanges in "Another Fine
Mess"...and that wonderful sequence in "Their First Mistake" where
Stan & Ollie do a burlesque of a potboiler tear-jerker stage play,
when Stan wants to abandon Ollie after Ollie's gone out to adopt a
baby...This is just right off the top of my head.
And as far as derivative plots are concerned, perhaps that's really
in the eye of the beholder, hm? Consider these synopses:
"The Gold Rush"-Down on his luck Tramp goes prospecting, falls in love
with salloon girl
"The Circus"-Down on his luck Tramp goes to work for circus, falls in
love with performer
"City Lights"-Down on his luck Tramp falls in love with blind flower
girl
"Modern Times'-Down on his luck Tramp can't keep a job, falls in love
with street urchin
....my, this Chaplin fellow seems to keep remaking the same movie!
I guess it really does boil down to an affection for the characters,
however...They either work for you or they don't. Anyway, we'll just
have to agree to disagree on this one, I suppose.
I will continue to forever marvel at the skill of Chaplin's
artistry..and I will continue to forever go to Stan & Ollie for a
laugh.
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <19971223023...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) wrote:
> >From: dsu...@concentric.net
>
> >As opposed to that masterpiece of continuity, "Modern Times,"
>
> Huh? If you're talking about its episodic nature, there's masterful method
> behind that madness. If not, what are you talking about?
Modern Times always just seemed like a number of two reelers stuck
together to me. Overall it seems to have far less of a plot than "Gold
Rush" or "City Lights".
Doug
David P. Hayes
Constance Kuriyama wrote in message <67nns8$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>JimNeibaur (jimne...@aol.com) writes:
>> Connie stated:
>>
>> Music Box_ struck me as an intolerable attenuation of a not-very-original
>> idea. Chaplin's _His Musical Career_ is both brisker and infinitely
funnier
>> to me--and more pointed. And that's just a Keystone.
>> -----------
>>
>> I like His Musical Career very much, but I believe it is little more than
a
>> precursor to The Music Box if the two are related at all.
>
>I didn't say they were related, though I suspect they are; but both are
>certainly linked to generic gag situations of moving immovable objects.
L&H's "Music Box" is certainly an intentional remake, but not of Chaplin's
"His Musical Career." The year that "Music Box" was made, the Hal Roach
studios was focused on remaking silent comedies as sound ones in order to
save money on scripting. (The Depression had led to cost-cutting.) Hal
recalled late in life having the idea of redoing L&H's 1927 "Hats Off" as a
1932 talkie. "Hats Off" had Stan and Ollie going up and down that flight of
131 steps, but it was a washing machine that was being transported in that
earlier L&H film. When the remake was done, the washing machine became a
piano crate, but the same long flight of stairs was returned to (on the 900
block of Vendome, a half-block from Sunset Blvd., in L.A.'s Silverlake
district).
What we have in "The Music Box" is the prop from "His Musical Career" (where
the piano was not in a crate and the flight was a mere one story high), but
the plot, stairs and characters from "Hats Off."
If "Hats Off" was copied from an earlier comedy, it may not have been "His
Musical Career."
And for the record, Billy Bevan and Andy Clyde carried blocks of ice up and
down a long flight of stairs (probably also in Silverlake, but off
Allesandro) in a 1926 Mack Sennett comedy, "Ice Cold Cocos." And the Three
Stooges would do likewise in "An Ache in Every Stake" (1941).
--
David Hayes
David Totheroh
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> George Shelps (G-H...@webtv.net) writes:
> > JimN:
> >
> >>I can see someone who does not laugh
> >>as much at Laurel and Hardy but I have
> >>trouble understanding how someone
> >>cannot fully appreciate them.
> >
> > So do I. And I agree it is not a "male/female taste" issue. But
> liking
> > Chaplin doesn't necessarily cross-over into a fondness for movie
> comics
> > in
> > general. Chaplin has always attracted plaudits from people who,
> > otherwise,
> > are not movie lovers in or fans of movie comedy.
>
> I am both a movie lover *and* a serious student of movie comedy, but I
>
> like some movies and some comedies much better than others. Is this
> unusual?
> I think not.
>
> I don't see any special virtue in liking everything.
>
> > When Chaplin was gaining his initial fame, cultural opinion-makers
> in
> > the other, more "respectable" arts, like literature and the theatre,
>
> > welcomed him as one of their own. But I don't think they embraced
> the
> > medium itself, except insofar as they
> > could read their own tastes, and predilections into it.
I think it's important to remember that a significant evolution took
place early, but certainly not *before*, CC was gaining his initial
filmic fame. Far from "always attract(ing) plaudits" or having "cultural
opinion-makers in the other, more "respectable" arts, like literature
and the theatre, welcome[d] him as one of their own," the record is
clear that early reviews and other reports often lump CC's work in with
other "popular" (read low-class) entertainment. Words like crude, crass
and vulgar appear often, even though his performance talents are usually
recognized.
What has always intrigued me is to what extent Chaplin's genius lay in
recognizing and responding to those criticisms or to what degree his
growth was the inevitable expression of more "internal" resources merely
waiting for more personal control over his work in order to express
themselves.
David
Yair Solan
Constance Kuriyama <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<67nns8$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> JimNeibaur (jimne...@aol.com) writes:
>
> > I like His Musical Career very much, but I believe it is little more
than a
> > precursor to The Music Box if the two are related at all.
>
> I didn't say they were related, though I suspect they are; but both are
> certainly linked to generic gag situations of moving immovable objects.
It can be debated whether "His Musical Career" and "The Music Box" are
related forever; I never saw "HMC", but I'm not sure if it involved someone
carrying a large piano up an endless flight of stairs. If it didn't, I
doubt that Stan and Babe were truly inspired by the film. The comedy isn't
as much in the piano as it is in the ridiculously large amount of steps.
As someone else stated, "Hats Off", the lost silent 1927 L&H film, was the
pre-cursor to "The Music Box". Coincidentally (or not), Charley Chase who
worked in the same lot at L&H at the same time had a gag in one of his
films, "Isn't Life Terrible?" from 1925, in which he had to sell fountain
pens to the houses on the same flight of steps that L&H used in "The Music
Box". It is more likely that Chase's idea inspired them than Chaplin's, as
strange as that may seem to some.
> > I don't know that it was as much "incredible stupidity" as it was a
childlike
> > innocence or naivete that played out as more likably dumb than
annoyingly
> > stupid.
>
> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
childlike
> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
when
> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
long.
Which films did you see, Connie? Perhaps if you can tell us the titles we
can find out exactly why you don't enjoy Laurel & Hardy's sound work.
> There is a basis for both these responses to CC's talkies. But the basis
for
> them is relatively negligible. A weak story, pedestrian camera work, and
> uninspired dialogue are rather fatal shortcomings, but it appears that
for
> some people, the charm of L&H can render even these negligible to them.
I
> am not one of those people. Nor is my husband, who likes their soundies
> even less than I do.
Keep in mind that you seem to be comparing L&H's sound shorts to Chaplin's
features; you don't have a lot of shorts that have the same kind of plot
that a feature would warrant. Laurel & Hardy and Chaplin were not exactly
the same kinds of comedians, if you break it down --
-- L&H didn't need much plot to make their comedy work. For instance,
"Busy Bodies" a 1933 two reel talkie, has a plot that goes like this: Stan
and Ollie go to work at a sawmill.
-- L&H could never have love interests in their films.
-- L&H never wanted much pathos or emotional reactions to their films, they
wanted laughs.
As for uninspired dialogue, see Unka Denny's recent post. And for
photography, can you tell me, Connie, how you would improve L&H's camera
work in their talkies??
> This argument has a familiar ring. We went over similar ground in the
> discussion of Fields--another personality comedian.
L&H were not exactly personality comedians, certainly not as much as Fields
was. Characterization was very important to them, but they were also quite
interested in gags.
All the best --
Yair S.
"The World of Charley Chase" --
http://home.att.net/~phenix/charley.htm
Crooner
Connie on Laurel & Hardy...
>But if you say they aren't
>dialogue comics, then in a way you're saying something similar to what
>I'm saying--silence suited their brand of comedy better than sound,
>though they did well enough in the sound era, and *sometimes* had
>good dialogue to work with. I just haven't heard any of it.
True, they were silent comedians in the world of sound. But they certainly
made the transition to sound quite effortlessly, unlike so many others.
Here's some of the zany dialogue that I remember...
O - You never met my wife, did you?
S - Yes, I never did.
O - I'm beginning to think you have a good idea.
S - You bet your life. You know, I'm not as dumb as you look.
O - I should say not. Anyone that can think...WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M
NOT AS DUMB AS "YOU" LOOK?!
O - I'm going to get married.
S - Who to?
O - Why to a woman, of course. Did you ever hear of anybody marrying a man?
S - Sure, my sister.
THE KING - I'll offer 10 million guineas for the capture of Barnaby -- dead
or alive!
S - Well, can't you make up your mind how you want him?
L&H are splitting a drink; Stan drinks it all
O - Now why did you do that?
S - I couldn't help it; My half was on the bottom.
Teacher Fin - Three goes into nine how many times?
S - Three times --
F - Correct.
S - -- and two left over.
Ollie laughs.
F - What are you laughing at?
O - There's only "one" left over.
F - How do you spell 'needle'?
O - N - E - I - D - L - E.
F - There's no "I" in needle!
S - Then it's a rotten needle!
Not to mention the many opening captions...
"Mr Hardy was married -- Mr Laurel was unhappy too."
They were classic comedians of the first order -- in sound or silent films.
And let us not forget what was related by an English author who saw Charlie
Chaplin, himself, doubled up with laughter watching them!
--
Crooner ~ says HAPPY HOLIDAYS!! anyway!
____________________________________________________________
The Video Archivist Web Page http://www.erols.com/crooner
ICQ Internet # 113571
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Constance Kuriyama
DSPB (dst...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> Connie-
> Obviously, nothing is going to change your mind about L&H (and I
> acknowledge your appreciation of their silent work ... it's an opinion
> I've seen elsewhere, too-that their silents are superior to anything
> else they did...I believe that's Gerald Mast's opinion in his "The
> Comic Mind" book).
You're probably right, but I don't remember reading that. It's
a reasonable opinion, though obviously not universally held. I
can live with that.
But, as far as the lame diaglogue goes, it's like
> Jim stated, these fellows are not dialogue comics...And I could easily
> rattle off half a dozen films with wonderful dialogue sequences...The
> opening of "Helpmates", many of the exchanges in "Another Fine
> Mess"...and that wonderful sequence in "Their First Mistake" where
> Stan & Ollie do a burlesque of a potboiler tear-jerker stage play,
> when Stan wants to abandon Ollie after Ollie's gone out to adopt a
> baby...This is just right off the top of my head.
OK, I'll get around to those eventually. But if you say they aren't
dialogue comics, then in a way you're saying something similar to what
I'm saying--silence suited their brand of comedy better than sound,
though they did well enough in the sound era, and *sometimes* had
good dialogue to work with. I just haven't heard any of it.
> And as far as derivative plots are concerned, perhaps that's really
> in the eye of the beholder, hm? Consider these synopses:
> "The Gold Rush"-Down on his luck Tramp goes prospecting, falls in love
> with salloon girl
> "The Circus"-Down on his luck Tramp goes to work for circus, falls in
> love with performer
> "City Lights"-Down on his luck Tramp falls in love with blind flower
> girl
> "Modern Times'-Down on his luck Tramp can't keep a job, falls in love
> with street urchin
> ....my, this Chaplin fellow seems to keep remaking the same movie!
Well, heck, Shakespeare used conventional plot elements and reworked
plots, but it's what you do with them that counts. Plots are derivative
when they don't improve on or add new twists to their models. Once again
I can only speak for the films I've seen. As the discussion of _The
Music Box_ shows, that film had quite a few precursors, some evidently
much closer to it than CC's piano-moving film, and I'm not convinced that
it surpasses the other films in this group--except for those who have a
special affection for L&H, and like the character touches they bring to
the situation.
But I don't think the Tramp is in love with the Gamin in MT. They're more
like sibs, or kids playing house together. No accident that they raid the
toy section in the department store. It's really a very unconventional and
not especially romantic relationship.
> I guess it really does boil down to an affection for the characters,
> however...They either work for you or they don't. Anyway, we'll just
> have to agree to disagree on this one, I suppose.
I don't think we disagree entirely. My appreciation for them is more
conditional than yours, but I like what I like.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
It's what Gerald Mast calls a "string of beads." It's a perfectly legitimate
and very old comic structure--works best if the beads add up to something,
which I think they certainly do in MT.
Connie K.
JimNeibaur
Connie stated:
I do appreciate *them*. It's thier *sound films*--as films--that I don't
like! Clear?
------------
No, not to someone like myself who believes their sound films are funnier than
many of Chaplin's silents (I think there are more solid laughs in half of WAY
OUT WEST than in all of THE GOLD RUSH and any short of your choosing).
I guess I know what I like too.
Jim
JimNeibaur
Connie stated:
> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
childlike
> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
when
> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
long.
-------------------
What movie was this? It isn't ringing a bell with me.
Jim
JimNeibaur
Doug stated:
Modern Times always just seemed like a number of two reelers stuck
> together to me. Overall it seems to have far less of a plot than "Gold
> Rush" or "City Lights".
---------
I was not the one who brought up the episodic nature of MODERN TIMES because I
think it is effective ---
just as effective as the episodic nature of Laurel and Hardy's PACK UP YOUR
TROUBLES.
Jim
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, phe...@worldnet.att.net ("Yair Solan") says:
>Constance Kuriyama <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
><67nns8$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>> JimNeibaur (jimne...@aol.com) writes:
>>
>> > I like His Musical Career very much, but I believe it is little more
>than a precursor to The Music Box if the two are related at all.
>>
>> I didn't say they were related, though I suspect they are; but both are
>> certainly linked to generic gag situations of moving immovable objects.
>
>It can be debated whether "His Musical Career" and "The Music Box" are
>related forever; I never saw "HMC", but I'm not sure if it involved someone
>carrying a large piano up an endless flight of stairs. If it didn't, I
>doubt that Stan and Babe were truly inspired by the film. The comedy isn't
>as much in the piano as it is in the ridiculously large amount of steps.
HMC does involve delivering a piano, and there is a flight of stairs,
though that's only a small part of the fun.
On the basis of the info about _Hats Off_ and other films, I'm now inclined
to believe that the two films are mainly (perhaps solely) related
generically. There's another series of "moving" gags in CC's _The Property
Man_, in that case involving a heavy trunk and a short flight of stairs.
But someone gets caught under the trunk, which is what happens to Ollie and
the piano in TMB. All of these films probably draw on a cluster of stock
"moving" gags.
>As someone else stated, "Hats Off", the lost silent 1927 L&H film, was the
>pre-cursor to "The Music Box". Coincidentally (or not), Charley Chase who
>worked in the same lot at L&H at the same time had a gag in one of his
>films, "Isn't Life Terrible?" from 1925, in which he had to sell fountain
>pens to the houses on the same flight of steps that L&H used in "The Music
>Box". It is more likely that Chase's idea inspired them than Chaplin's, as
>strange as that may seem to some.
Doesn't seem at all strange to me.
>> > I don't know that it was as much "incredible stupidity" as it was a
>childlike
>> > innocence or naivete that played out as more likably dumb than
>annoyingly stupid.
>>
>> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
>childlike
>> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
>when it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
>long.
>
>Which films did you see, Connie? Perhaps if you can tell us the titles we
>can find out exactly why you don't enjoy Laurel & Hardy's sound work.
I'm afraid I can't remember the titles. One involved Ollie getting locked
out on a cold night while brainless Stan slept in a warm bed. I think
Finlayson was their landlord, and was threatening to throw them both out.
Did they have an illicit dog? Not sure.
Another involved them getting into a strange house through the cellar,
trying to rent it, Stan in drag pretending to be a maid, Ollie taking
the perspective renter on an interminable tour of the house, etc.
A third involved Stan trying to help Ollie, and partially destroying his
house. Stovepipe knocked down. Lots of soot. Stan declaring he never
intended to marry.
I doubt if any of this is very helpful. After all, even McCabe, who loves
L&H, admits that their plot lines are generally thin. There's not much for the
memory to hang on to, and I saw them several years ago (at least).
>> There is a basis for both these responses to CC's talkies. But the basis
>for
>> them is relatively negligible. A weak story, pedestrian camera work, and
>
>> uninspired dialogue are rather fatal shortcomings, but it appears that
>for
>> some people, the charm of L&H can render even these negligible to them.
>I
>> am not one of those people. Nor is my husband, who likes their soundies
>> even less than I do.
>
>Keep in mind that you seem to be comparing L&H's sound shorts to Chaplin's
>features
I wasn't the one who brought Chaplin into the mix. I began by comparing
L&H's silents to what I've seen of their soundies. And here I am talking
about the relative weight of criticisms, not the relative value of the
films. I agree with most of what you say below.
; you don't have a lot of shorts that have the same kind of plot
>that a feature would warrant. Laurel & Hardy and Chaplin were not exactly
>the same kinds of comedians, if you break it down --
>
>-- L&H didn't need much plot to make their comedy work. For instance,
>"Busy Bodies" a 1933 two reel talkie, has a plot that goes like this: Stan
>and Ollie go to work at a sawmill.
>
>-- L&H could never have love interests in their films.
>
>-- L&H never wanted much pathos or emotional reactions to their films, they
>wanted laughs.
>
>As for uninspired dialogue, see Unka Denny's recent post. And for
>photography, can you tell me, Connie, how you would improve L&H's camera
>work in their talkies??
I can only speak for the ones I saw, and it is easier to point out what's
missing than how it could be improved. All I can say is that their silents
have what I recognize as visual grace, style, and rhythm, and the soundies
I saw were merely competent recordings of the action. The fact that they were
early sound films may have had something to do with that, but I don't think
this is a complete explanation.
>> This argument has a familiar ring. We went over similar ground in the
>> discussion of Fields--another personality comedian.
>
>L&H were not exactly personality comedians, certainly not as much as Fields
>was. Characterization was very important to them, but they were also quite
>interested in gags.
Oh, I think all the comedians who started in silents were quite interested
in gags.
Connie K.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--CBK--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Words can defeat the imagination." --Charlie Chaplin
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) says:
>Connie stated:
>
>> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
>childlike
>> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
>when
>> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
>long.
>-------------------
>
>What movie was this? It isn't ringing a bell with me.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the title. Saw it on AMC some time back,
when the Keatons were shown. Described it more fully (slightly) in another
post. Might be _Below Zero_.
But I note that in McCabe's book he describes L&H's characters alternately as
childlike and brainless, so I suppose to some the terms are synonymous.
In my defense I point to the "Sons of the Desert" motto, suggested by Stan
himself: "Two minds without a single thought."
Stan16mm
Connie, the film you are referring to is "Laughing Gravy", a 1931 effort that
you have mixed up a bit. The film did not have Ollie Locking out Stan. Stan,
by mistake, locked out Ollie and later Stan went out to get the dog, named
Laughing Gravy. The landlord was played by Charlie Hall not Jimmy Finlayson.
The film was a depression era classic. It was originally a three reel film but
trimmed down to two. The "lost" third reel was found ten years ago and was
inserted for, The Laurel and Hardy Show.
Stan16mm
Visit my new website at http://members.aol.com/Stan16mm/stantaffel
David P. Hayes
Constance Kuriyama wrote in message <67qdub$jim$1...@news.ysu.edu>...
>>> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
>>childlike
>>> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
>>when
>>> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
>>long.
Jim responded:
>>What movie was this? It isn't ringing a bell with me.
>
Connie:
>Unfortunately, I can't remember the title. Saw it on AMC some time back,
>when the Keatons were shown. Described it more fully (slightly) in another
>post. Might be _Below Zero_.
"Laughing Gravy" seems a likelier bet. In "Below Zero," when Stan is put
into the freezing barrel of water, Ollie gets him out as quickly as he can.
In "Laughing Gravy," as soon as Stan's dog has been retrieved from the snow,
Stan obliviously shuts out the very same Ollie who had gone to fetch the
dog.
Phil Posner
Constance Kuriyama (bq...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
:
:
: Unfortunately, I can't remember the title. Saw it on AMC some time back,
: when the Keatons were shown. Described it more fully (slightly) in another
: post. Might be _Below Zero_.
If it's the one with the "illicit dog" you described earlier, that's
"Laughing Gravy", more or less a sound remake of the silent "Angora Love".
I'm another one who loves Stan and Oliie's personalities and characters
enough to overlook any roughness in the filmmaking process. I suggest you
try the feature "Sons of the Desert" if you haven't already. I think it
defines L&H.
--
Phil
"Charlie is innocent courage, gallantry - the inquenchable in mankind -
taking on flesh and walking this earth to give us heart."
- Alexander Woollcott
DSPB
jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) wrote:
>Connie stated:
>> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
>childlike
>> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
>when
>> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
>long.
>-------------------
>What movie was this? It isn't ringing a bell with me.
>Jim
Jim- I think Connie might be describing "Laughing Gravy", here
DSPB
bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>I'm afraid I can't remember the titles. One involved Ollie getting locked
>out on a cold night while brainless Stan slept in a warm bed. I think
>Finlayson was their landlord, and was threatening to throw them both out.
>Did they have an illicit dog? Not sure.
>Another involved them getting into a strange house through the cellar,
>trying to rent it, Stan in drag pretending to be a maid, Ollie taking
>the perspective renter on an interminable tour of the house, etc.
>A third involved Stan trying to help Ollie, and partially destroying his
>house. Stovepipe knocked down. Lots of soot. Stan declaring he never
>intended to marry.
Connie- You are describing, at least a couple of times here, shorts I
was recommending in a previous thread! :)
So, I'm more convinced than ever now, we're just going to have to
agree to disagree about Laurel & Hardy...
C'est la vie...if everybody agreed about everything, how would they
get names for jury duty?
JimNeibaur
In Laughing Gravy when Stan retrieves the dog and starts petting it, forgetting
about Ollie still outside, it is perfectly childlike. The dog was enough of a
distraction for Stan to forget about Ollie in the cold. Sure, it is
exaggerated, but for comic effect. And it allows some great "takems" from
Ollie.
JimNeibaur
Stan's motto "Two minds without a single thought" was not meant to infer that
the characters he and Hardy created were merely stupid fools. They were
instead likeably dumb in a warm, childlike manner.
They were also two of the most talented, creative, and funniest comedians in
movie history.
Jim
Rob Farr & Kathy Lipp-Farr
David P. Hayes wrote:
>
> And for the record, Billy Bevan and Andy Clyde carried blocks of ice up and
> down a long flight of stairs (probably also in Silverlake, but off
> Allesandro) in a 1926 Mack Sennett comedy, "Ice Cold Cocos." And the Three
> Stooges would do likewise in "An Ache in Every Stake" (1941).
>
the top of the steps he has a whacky conversation with Maxine Semon, who
was Larry's daughter or niece (and the spittin' image of her famous
relative, poor thing).
Rob Farr
David Totheroh
Stan16mm wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote
>
> > Laurel and Hardy are still as funny to me at 52 as they were when I
> was
> >seven
>
> You will always be a kid. Your terrrriffic posts are filled with such
> youth
> and vitality. I enjoy 'em.
> Stan16mm
>
And just what the hell makes you think 52 is so old anyway, huh Stan?
;-)
RFCSAC627N
>From: jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur)
Laurel and Hardy are still as funny to me at 52 as they were when I was seven
(although the last scene in THE BOHEMIAN GIRL gave me nightmares as a kid!)
Richard Carnahan
Hal Erickson
>David P. Hayes wrote:
>Rob Farr
"It's Your Move" is a partial remake of "Hats Off". Both were directed
by Hal Yates.
--Hal E.
Stan16mm
Richard Carnahan wrote
> Laurel and Hardy are still as funny to me at 52 as they were when I was
>seven
You will always be a kid. Your terrrriffic posts are filled with such youth
and vitality. I enjoy 'em.
Stan16mm
RFCSAC627N
>From: David Totheroh <DTot...@aol.com>
>Stan16mm wrote:
>
>> Richard Carnahan wrote
>>
>> > Laurel and Hardy are still as funny to me at 52 as they were when I
>> was
>> >seven
>>
>> You will always be a kid. Your terrrriffic posts are filled with such
>> youth
>> and vitality. I enjoy 'em.
>> Stan16mm
>>
>
>And just what the hell makes you think 52 is so old anyway, huh Stan?
>;-)
>
LOL!
--Richard
RFCSAC627N
>You will always be a kid. Your terrrriffic posts are filled with such
>>> youth
>>> and vitality. I enjoy 'em.
>>> Stan16mm
Thanks for that, Stan
--Richard Carnahan
DzubeG
> David Totheroh wrote:
>What has always intrigued me is to what extent Chaplin's genius lay in
>recognizing and responding to those criticisms or to what degree his
>growth was the inevitable expression of more "internal" resources merely
>waiting for more personal control over his work in order to express
themselves.
I've had the same thought. It comes back to the old "nature vs. nurture"
argument. Was CC responding to his environment or was the inspiration coming
from within? Short of crawling into Charlie's mind, I don't think we can ever
know. Even he might not have been able to say. I've seen many talented people
unable to express the genesis of their art. True art is one of life's beautiful
mysteries. One knows that when one is touched by something beyond the ordinary,
a Higher Power is at work.
Deborah
Constance Kuriyama
JimNeibaur (jimne...@aol.com) writes:
> Stan's motto "Two minds without a single thought" was not meant to infer that
> the characters he and Hardy created were merely stupid fools. They were
> instead likeably dumb in a warm, childlike manner.
However you want to see it. But everyone won't see it the same way. How much
you tolerate it or find it funny may depend on how much you like the characters.
McCabe, who does like them, nevertheless says, "In the earliest films, Ollie
and Stan are simply dumbbells; sometime during the early thirties [the period
I'm talking about], slowly, complete and profound and delightful stupidity
gained ascendancy" (p. 115). In my experience, not everyone finds this brand
of stupidity equally delightful.
Connie K.
JimNeibaur
Connie stated (in part):
In my experience, not everyone finds this brand
of stupidity equally delightful.
---------
I still don't see it as stupidity any more than I see Chaplin as merely
sentimental and indulgent. Their performances, the way they so expertly play
off each other, is, to me, as artistic as Chaplin's oft-mentioned "ballet-like
grace."
In the current era, where comedy is pretty much limited to brash young upstarts
of the Saturday Night Live alumni who try harder to be hip and appear to think
themselves much funnier than we do, I would think that the humor which very
naturally stems from the characters of Laurel and Hardy would deserve a great
deal of respect.
As far as their talkies are concerned, they are among the few stars of silents
who are always cited as having made the transition to sound films so
effortlessly.
I certainly understand how one could not find their particular brand of humor
funny (matter of taste) -- but Connie seems to state that their talkies are
(for the most part) weak films, and therein lies my objection.
Jim
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, stan...@aol.com (Stan16mm) says:
>Connie, the film you are referring to is "Laughing Gravy", a 1931 effort that
>you have mixed up a bit. The film did not have Ollie Locking out Stan. Stan,
>by mistake, locked out Ollie
I believe that's what I said! Ollie was freezing outdoors, while
Stan was curled up in bed--with his pooch, I believe, whom he found in
the room.
>and later Stan went out to get the dog, named
>Laughing Gravy.
I thought it was Ollie who was out looking for the dog, which is how
he got locked out--but I saw it only once and have no authority whatsoever.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, david_...@msn.com ("David P. Hayes") says:
>Constance Kuriyama wrote in message <67qdub$jim$1...@news.ysu.edu>...
>>>> We must not be thinking about the same films. I don't see anything
>>>childlike
>>>> (or funny) about leaving your buddy out in the snow to freeze to death,
>>>when
>>>> it would be obvious even to a child that he had been outside far too
>>>long.
Might be _Below Zero_.
>"Laughing Gravy" seems a likelier bet. In "Below Zero," when Stan is put
>into the freezing barrel of water, Ollie gets him out as quickly as he can.
Now that makes sense. Maybe I'd like that one better.
>In "Laughing Gravy," as soon as Stan's dog has been retrieved from the snow,
>Stan obliviously shuts out the very same Ollie who had gone to fetch the
>dog.
Well, what can I say? If he were drunk, I might find this funny. And if
Ollie were drunk, there'd be less danger of him freezing to death!
Robert Birchard
This has been a long and interesting thread, and it is pretty clear
that no minds will be changed on this issue, but . . .
As far as the cruelty of leaving his friend out in the snow in
"Laughing Gravy" is concerned--it is a purely innocent act on Stan's
part, and really goes to the essence of an aspect of L&H's comedy--that
is reaction to the real and imagined indignities that face us in life.
As for cruelty, I would point to CC throwing bricks at the heads of
passers by to drum up some dental business in "Laughing Gas"--just plain
disgusting with no redeming humor whatsoever. If this is too early an
example then I would point out that CC is forever kicking people in the
ass--and with great deliberation. In fact it is CC's beligerence that
often gets his screen character into trouble.
One striking difference, I suppose, between CC and L&H is that if
CC is hungry he will go steal from a hot dog vendor or steal from a
kid--thereby deliberately inflicting at least a part of his own misery
on his victims. L&H, on the other hand, usually work (if only
half-heartedly) for their keep.
Chaplin's screen character is indeed a tramp--a hobo--a bum--a
layabout--who spends virtually every waking hour trying to avoid work.
This is not a reflection on CC in real life--he was obviously quite
industrious--merely a comment on his screen character.
As for L&H silent vs. sound--I would think that most L&H fans would
agree that their talkies are superior--though they sis some equally fine
work in the silent era. A number of their silents (The Finishing Touch
comes to mind) seem better in concept than execution--but Two Tars, Big
Business, Wrong Again, Liberty, Early To Bed and Putting Pants on
Phillip are about as good as any silent tw0-reelers ever made.
In the sound era several of my favorites have already been
mentioned--but Hog Wild, Busy Bodies, Sons of the Desert, and Way Out
West have to rank high on just about anybody's list of the great sound
comedies.
As for camera work, it is here that I see the greatest similarity
between CC and L&H--the camera work is serviceable--nothing more,
nothing less. This is not a slight to Rollie Totheroh or to Len Powers
and others--it is merely a statement of fact. The camera work in the
films of CC & L&H was designed to allow the performers to shine and not
call attention to the camera. CC and L&H liked to work relatively close
in more or less static mid-shots, and the lighting is naturalistic
without being flat (as is Elgin Lessley's work in most of the Keaton and
Langdon features) or modeled and expressive (as Walter Lundin's work is
in the Harold Lloyd pictures).
Ultimately the question of whether you care for or even prefer L&H
vs. Chaplin is a matter of taste--but the L&H fans are quite avid.
They are able to sustain their own active newsgroup just as the
Chaplin fans do--and The Sons of the Desert organization is a remarkable
fan movement unmatched by any fan club for any other star of that era).
In short, L&H must have done something right to inspire such loyalty
over such an extended period of time whatever one might think of their
work.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Hanhuck
>From: Robert Birchard <bbir...@earthlink.net>
<snip>
>As for cruelty, I would point to CC throwing bricks at the heads of
>passers by to drum up some dental business in "Laughing Gas"--just plain
>disgusting with no redeming humor whatsoever. If this is too early an
Yes, I think it is. I don't think it's all *that* disgusting either -- it's old
slapstick comedy for heaven's sake.
> then I would point out that CC is forever kicking people in the
>ass--and with great deliberation. In fact it is CC's beligerence that
>often gets his screen character into trouble.
I find most of his post-Keystone arse-kicking to be a way of flipping-the-bird
to certain groups (his arse-kick of the wealthy Mack Swain at the end of _The
Idle Class_, and especially to authority figures like bosses, cops, and
immigration officials) or giving back in return for all the arse-kicks, real or
symbolic, he's received. IMO it's not "belligerence" usually that gets him into
trouble; Charlie's getting into trouble is a statement on the human condition
(or just plain funny if you don't buy that statement stuff). Here are several
examples of his getting into trouble, and they're not his "belligerence": his
mistaken identity as a Communist leader in _Modern Times_, his Jewishness in
_The Great Dictator_, his mistaken identity as a pickpocket/thief in _The
Vagabond_, _The Circus_, _City Lights_, and _Idle Class_, his mistreated
laborer role in _Work_, _Sunnyside_, and _Behind the Screen_, his counterfeit
coin in _The Immigrant_, his stupidity or ineptitude in _The Fireman_, _The
Bank_, and _Sunnyside_, his low socioeconomic class in _The Kid_, his kindness
(or sap-dom for a pretty girl) in _Police_, _The Pilgrim_, _The Vagabond_,
_The Adventurer_, _Easy Street_, _A Dog's Life_, and _CL_.
> One striking difference, I suppose, between CC and L&H is that if
>CC is hungry he will go steal from a hot dog vendor or steal from a
>kid--thereby deliberately inflicting at least a part of his own misery
>on his victims.
Puhleeaase! I'm sure the child in _The Circus_ or the drummer in _A Dog's Life_
suffered greatly! You do have a case for Syd's vendor in _A Dog's Life, I'll
grant you. ;) I find Charlie more akin to Jean Valjean than a common criminal
or petty thief.
> L&H, on the other hand, usually work (if only
>half-heartedly) for their keep.
>
> Chaplin's screen character is indeed a tramp--a hobo--a bum--a
>layabout--who spends virtually every waking hour trying to avoid work.
>This is not a reflection on CC in real life--he was obviously quite
>industrious--merely a comment on his screen character.
>
><snip>
When CC *is* a tramp (which isn't all that often), I don't recall that many
instances of his avoiding work. He makes a mess of farm work in _The Tramp_. He
attempts many types of work in _City Lights_ and _Modern Times_. He shovels
snow and does a fairly good job housesitting Hank's cabin in _The Gold Rush_.
In _Easy Street_ he goes from derelict to top cop (with some help from dope).
In _A Dog's Life_ his timing was off or he'd have had a job in a brewery (he,
like the others, didn't want the other available job), but he becomes a
successful farmer <g>.
> Ultimately the question of whether you care for or even prefer L&H
>vs. Chaplin is a matter of taste--but the L&H fans are quite avid.
>They are able to sustain their own active newsgroup just as the
>Chaplin fans do--and The Sons of the Desert organization is a remarkable
>fan movement unmatched by any fan club for any other star of that era).
>In short, L&H must have done something right to inspire such loyalty
>over such an extended period of time whatever one might think of their
>work.
Inspiring intense loyalty does not always characterize *great* artists --
several mediocre ones have done the same -- but in the cases of CC and L&H, I
agree.
Hannah (who objectively knows what the L&H fans are saying is true but is still
waiting for the lightning bolt to hit her)
=============================
"Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense." -- Mark Twain
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) says:
>Connie stated (in part):
>
>In my experience, not everyone finds this brand
>of stupidity equally delightful.
>---------
>
>I still don't see it as stupidity any more than I see Chaplin as merely
>sentimental and indulgent. Their performances, the way they so expertly play
>off each other, is, to me, as artistic as Chaplin's oft-mentioned "ballet-like
>grace."
I don't deny that they have gifts, so I think we're really arguing past each
other rather than disputing a specific point. But there is a great deal
more to Chaplin's films than "ballet-like grace." And if that was all there
was to them, I would probably like them far less than I do. For that matter,
if they rested solely on CC's gifts as a comedian rather than his overall
ability to create an aesthetically pleasing film, I would probably be far less
enthusiastic about his work than I am.
>In the current era, where comedy is pretty much limited to brash young upstarts
>of the Saturday Night Live alumni who try harder to be hip and appear to think
>themselves much funnier than we do, I would think that the humor which very
>naturally stems from the characters of Laurel and Hardy would deserve a great
>deal of respect.
I don't recall saying that L&H were no more talented than the denizens of
SNL. Perish the thought!
But you seem to be saying that because L&H have a pleasing chemistry in
their comic interactions, we should consider their films as a whole
good. To me that's obviously false, though I can understand why some
people might like their personality/character comedy so much that they
wouldn't care about how well (in general) their films were done.
But I do care (pardon me). And since their silent films are overall
better turned than the sound shorts I've seen, I like them better.
I can't see why you have a problem with that.
<snip>
>I certainly understand how one could not find their particular brand of humor
>funny (matter of taste) -- but Connie seems to state that their talkies are
>(for the most part) weak films, and therein lies my objection.
I only express opinions on what I've seen. But in this case, what I've seen
was not encouraging--as a result of which I haven't been eager to spend
time on their sound features. Some of them, for all I know, might be
brilliant.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, bbir...@earthlink.net (Robert Birchard) says:
>This has been a long and interesting thread, and it is pretty clear
>that no minds will be changed on this issue, but . . .
>
> As far as the cruelty of leaving his friend out in the snow in
>"Laughing Gravy" is concerned--it is a purely innocent act on Stan's
>part, and really goes to the essence of an aspect of L&H's comedy--that
>is reaction to the real and imagined indignities that face us in life.
I think the issue there was stupidity and not cruelty--or innocence, as
Jim prefers to see it.
> As for cruelty, I would point to CC throwing bricks at the heads of
>passers by to drum up some dental business in "Laughing Gas"--just plain
>disgusting with no redeming humor whatsoever. If this is too early an
>example then I would point out that CC is forever kicking people in the
>ass--and with great deliberation. In fact it is CC's beligerence that
>often gets his screen character into trouble.
If you look closely at his films, I think you will find that this cruelty
is usually (but not always) a retaliation, even in the earliest films.
It took me a number of viewings of _A Dog's Life_ to notice that the
cop the Tramp kicks so viciously in the opening sequence of this film
kicks him first.
> One striking difference, I suppose, between CC and L&H is that if
>CC is hungry he will go steal from a hot dog vendor or steal from a
>kid--thereby deliberately inflicting at least a part of his own misery
>on his victims. L&H, on the other hand, usually work (if only
>half-heartedly) for their keep.
The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat all
that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves plenty for
the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
<snip>
> As for camera work, it is here that I see the greatest similarity
>between CC and L&H--the camera work is serviceable--nothing more,
>nothing less. This is not a slight to Rollie Totheroh or to Len Powers
>and others--it is merely a statement of fact. The camera work in the
>films of CC & L&H was designed to allow the performers to shine and not
>call attention to the camera. CC and L&H liked to work relatively close
>in more or less static mid-shots, and the lighting is naturalistic
>without being flat (as is Elgin Lessley's work in most of the Keaton and
>Langdon features) or modeled and expressive (as Walter Lundin's work is
>in the Harold Lloyd pictures).
I can accept this only up to a point. In fact much of the camera work
in most films is servicable--with obvious notable exceptions--because it
isn't desirable for the camera to compete with the actors for attention
if they have any talent or are making any contribution at all.
But the best camera work in Chaplin's films has a lyrical quality that I
haven't found in any L&H film I've seen, although I think the silents I've
seen are briskly and forcefully (and commendably) done. This quality is
hard to define, but it has a lot to do with framing and image sequence (and
little to do with rules of continuity, because it definitiely depends on
the eye following those objects of critical importance--not everything in
the frame).
Alistair Cook's comment in _Unknown Chaplin_ that the first sequence with
the Flower Girl in CL "flows like water" is IMO a reference to this quality,
which is probably only partly pictorial--but the use of the camera is a
crucial part of it. And it is also a rhythmic effect, because most of
Chaplin's films operate according to a quasi-musical principle.
Rollie undoubtedly should get much credit for this, but one can see variations
of it in CC's pre-Rollie films as well.
> Ultimately the question of whether you care for or even prefer L&H
>vs. Chaplin is a matter of taste--but the L&H fans are quite avid.
>They are able to sustain their own active newsgroup just as the
>Chaplin fans do--and The Sons of the Desert organization is a remarkable
>fan movement unmatched by any fan club for any other star of that era).
>In short, L&H must have done something right to inspire such loyalty
>over such an extended period of time whatever one might think of their
>work.
I think everyone agrees that they were doing something right.
Crooner
The hot dog scene from THE CIRCUS...
>The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat all
>that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves plenty for
>the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
The child will never eat that whole hot dog, true. But the humor is this
scene comes from the fact that Charlie is NOT above taking food from a
child. I don't think anyone in the audience is thinking "Oh, Charlie's
leaving some food for the kid." Uh-uh! We're laughing that Charlie would
stoop so low as to do that to a defenseless child -- and, yes, the kid is a
victim -- and THAT'S why it's funny.
--
Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
____________________________________________________________
The Video Archivist Web Page http://www.erols.com/crooner
ICQ Internet # 113571
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> The hot dog scene from THE CIRCUS...
>
> >The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat
> all
> >that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves
> plenty for
> >the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
>
> The child will never eat that whole hot dog, true. But the humor is
> this
> scene comes from the fact that Charlie is NOT above taking food from a
>
> child. I don't think anyone in the audience is thinking "Oh,
> Charlie's
> leaving some food for the kid." Uh-uh! We're laughing that Charlie
> would
> stoop so low as to do that to a defenseless child -- and, yes, the kid
> is a
> victim -- and THAT'S why it's funny.
For me, the humor comes from the fact that CC *is* that low (he doesn't
have to stoop) and yet is able to come up with ingenious solutions to
his dilemmas. It's also pretty clear from the father's attire, and the
kid's physiognomy, that the kid isn't gonna starve to death. The kid
isn't the victim here, he's a partner in crime. The reality of this
scene is that CC connects with the kid in an emotional way, whereas the
father is ignoring him.
Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the (later)
films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone really
vulnerable. I don't think *anyone* (in those days, anyway) would see
the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed in
any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
David
Crooner
David Totheroh on the hot dog scene...
>For me, the humor comes from the fact that CC *is* that low (he doesn't
>have to stoop) and yet is able to come up with ingenious solutions to
>his dilemmas. It's also pretty clear from the father's attire, and the
>kid's physiognomy, that the kid isn't gonna starve to death. The kid
>isn't the victim here, he's a partner in crime. The reality of this
>scene is that CC connects with the kid in an emotional way, whereas the
>father is ignoring him.
Alright, let's start from scratch. Here's what we agree on:
The routine is totally delightful & funny.
The kid isn't really going to starve.
It is evident that Charlie IS stealing bites of the
hot dog from the child.
But, I don't think the child has a developed-enough mind to
understand the implications of aiding & abetting Charlie
in this crime. Though, after a while, the child DOES position
the hot dog within Charlie's mouth. But I think it
boils down to a child's natural curiosity as opposed
to understanding that he will soon be deprived
of his food.
True, that Charlie develops this "emotional bond" with
the kid, but that is only to steal the hot dog from the kid.
And, again, that's why it's funny. Charlie mugs for the kid,
grimaces & all, but he only does that to distract the kid
from knowing Charlie's true objective. If the child was, indeed,
an aider in this crime, it wouldn't have the impact or humor
that it has.
>
>Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the (later)
>films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone really
>vulnerable. I don't think *anyone* (in those days, anyway) would see
>the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed in
>any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
>
>David
I don't necessarily either. But I think people are not
terribly offended by the scene because
Charlie does this scene with such innocence. The kid probably
eats better than Charlie! So we can identify with
Charlie. But even as Charlie himself describes his
on screen character: he is not above "stealing
candy from a baby." And this is one of those times.
JimNeibaur
Crooner stated re?The Circus where Charlie steal's baby's hot dog:
But I think people are not
terribly offended by the scene because
Charlie does this scene with such innocence.
-------
The same innocence of Stan Laurel who, after being distracted by a puppy,
childishly forgets that Ollie is still out in the cold.
The "vulgarity" of slapstick comedy and comedians is part of its charm,
especially if performed in so natural and innocent a way as Chaplin or Laurel
and Hardy. Slapstick only becomes offensive if forced and overplayed (although
I am willing to argue their is a creative finesse to Jerry Lewis, I don't see
one in Jim Carrey, etc.).
There is a reason why, as we approach the millenium, we still find the comedy
of 60 to 80 years ago preferable to that which is current.
Jim
Robert Birchard
David Totheroh wrote:
>
> Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the (later)
> films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone really
> vulnerable. I don't think *anyone* (in those days, anyway) would see
> the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed in
> any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
cigar butt in City Lights? True, there is a dimension to the scene
because, despite his appearance, CC is also a bum--but it is still an
indiscriminately malicious action in my book.
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <34A95303...@aol.com>, David Totheroh <DTot...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the (later)
> films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone really
> vulnerable...
I dunno, David. I keep thinking of that barbershop scene cut out of
"Sunnyside" where he tortures poor Albert Austin (of course, that's an
outtake, so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as an example, still...).
Hanhuck
>From: jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur)
>Crooner stated re?The Circus where Charlie steal's baby's hot dog:
>
>But I think people are not
>terribly offended by the scene because
>Charlie does this scene with such innocence.
>-------
>
>The same innocence of Stan Laurel who, after being distracted by a puppy,
>childishly forgets that Ollie is still out in the cold.
This is why describing the Tramp as a thief or dismissing L&H as cruel is not
"getting it" -- it short changes.
>The "vulgarity" of slapstick comedy and comedians is part of its charm,
>especially if performed in so natural and innocent a way as Chaplin or Laurel
>and Hardy. Slapstick only becomes offensive if forced and overplayed
>(although
>I am willing to argue their is a creative finesse to Jerry Lewis, I don't see
>one in Jim Carrey, etc.).
>
>There is a reason why, as we approach the millenium, we still find the comedy
>of 60 to 80 years ago preferable to that which is current.
>
>Jim
Wow! I agree with all the above! BTW, in his negative review of _The Mouse
Hunt_ (I think that's the title of it -- the new movie with Nathan Lane), Ebert
says pretty much the same thing regarding slapstick and why it works when CC,
BK, and L&H do it but fails when those in this new crappy movie attempt it.
Hannah
Hanhuck
David Totheroh
Robert Birchard wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the
> (later)
> > films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone
> really
> > vulnerable. I don't think *anyone* (in those days, anyway) would
> see
> > the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed
> in
> > any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
> > What about when he shoves the bum out of the way to pick up the
> cigar butt in City Lights? True, there is a dimension to the scene
> because, despite his appearance, CC is also a bum--but it is still an
> indiscriminately malicious action in my book.
> >
Point taken. But I guess I have to clarify somewhat my definition of
what's included in the meaning of "malicious." As I use the term, there
is a connotation of willful, intentional harm. As I see it, CC intends
no harm, he just wants to get that butt.
Time for me to visit Noah, I guess.
David
David Totheroh
dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
> In article <34A95303...@aol.com>, David Totheroh
> <DTot...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the
> (later)
> > films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone
> really
> > vulnerable...
>
> I dunno, David. I keep thinking of that barbershop scene cut out of
> "Sunnyside" where he tortures poor Albert Austin (of course, that's an
>
> outtake, so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as an example,
> still...).
I stand by my original perception. What's CC's intent there? I don't see
it as intentional harm, ineptitude yes. And who knows, maybe it was the
over-the-top harmfulness that got the scene cut.
David
RFCSAC627N
>From: dsu...@concentric.net
>I keep thinking of that barbershop scene cut out of
>"Sunnyside" where he tortures poor Albert Austin (of course, that's an
>outtake, so I'm not sure it's fair to use that as an example, still...).
I came across a newspsper article from 10-24-74 : the occasion was a party to
celebrate the publication of CC's "My Live in Pictures" and two of his silents
were shown. Chaplin watched SUNNYSIDE with little amusement and afterwards
said firmly, "I loathe it."
He also said: "I'll never retire. Perhaps I said I would, but I can't.
Things just keep popping up my mind." At 85 he was still thinking of making
THE FREAK.
Richard Carnahan
Crooner
RFCSAC627N (I'll call him RFC for short) wrote...
>I came across a newspsper article from 10-24-74 : the occasion was a party
to
>celebrate the publication of CC's "My Live in Pictures" and two of his
silents
>were shown. Chaplin watched SUNNYSIDE with little amusement and afterwards
>said firmly, "I loathe it."
> He also said: "I'll never retire. Perhaps I said I would, but I can't.
>Things just keep popping up my mind." At 85 he was still thinking of
making
>THE FREAK.
> Richard Carnahan
I can honestly agree with Chaplin about SUNNYSIDE &
I'll include A DAYS' PLEASURE & PAY DAY too from
the First National days.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>The hot dog scene from THE CIRCUS...
>
>>The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat all
>>that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves plenty for
>>the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
>
>The child will never eat that whole hot dog, true. But the humor is this
>scene comes from the fact that Charlie is NOT above taking food from a
>child. I don't think anyone in the audience is thinking "Oh, Charlie's
>leaving some food for the kid." Uh-uh! We're laughing that Charlie would
>stoop so low as to do that to a defenseless child -- and, yes, the kid is a
>victim -- and THAT'S why it's funny.
Nope, I don't agree. If the kid were starving, needed the entire hot dog,
and Charlie ruthlessly snatched it away, it wouldn't be funny at all--at least
not to me. I grant that some people today may find the infliction of real
pain funny.
Yes, we enjoy the cleverness with which he cons the child (and its father),
but the cheat must be relatively painless in order to work optimally as comedy.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>From: jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur)
>
>>Crooner stated re?The Circus where Charlie steal's baby's hot dog:
>>
>>But I think people are not
>>terribly offended by the scene because
>>Charlie does this scene with such innocence.
>>-------
>>
>>The same innocence of Stan Laurel who, after being distracted by a puppy,
>>childishly forgets that Ollie is still out in the cold.
I wouldn't see this as "the same innocence." Stan's innocence is born of,
shall we say, an amazingly short attention span. Charlie is very clever in
conning the baby, playing on the pleasure kids get in sharing their food
(when they're not terribly hungry), feeding adults, etc. His shrewd insight
into human nature, especially kid nature, is essential to the comedy. We
don't feel superior to him but applaud his resourcefulness.
>This is why describing the Tramp as a thief or dismissing L&H as cruel is not
>"getting it" -- it short changes.
Did anyone say L&H were cruel (except Bob)? I'm quite sure I didn't.
Stan's obliviousness causes Ollie acute discomfort, but he isn't being
cruel, any more than he's being cruel when he accidently flattens Ollie with
a board he's carrying.
Actually, I find cruel humor quite funny when the victim gets his just
deserts.
<snip>
>>There is a reason why, as we approach the millenium, we still find the comedy
>>of 60 to 80 years ago preferable to that which is current.
>Wow! I agree with all the above! BTW, in his negative review of _The Mouse
>Hunt_ (I think that's the title of it -- the new movie with Nathan Lane), Ebert
>says pretty much the same thing regarding slapstick and why it works when CC,
>BK, and L&H do it but fails when those in this new crappy movie attempt it.
Perhaps Mr. Lane has something to learn from a comic he thinks appeals only
to gays. Like finesse and charm.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>RFCSAC627N (I'll call him RFC for short) wrote...
>>I came across a newspsper article from 10-24-74 : the occasion was a party
>to
>>celebrate the publication of CC's "My Live in Pictures" and two of his
>silents
>>were shown. Chaplin watched SUNNYSIDE with little amusement and afterwards
>>said firmly, "I loathe it."
>> He also said: "I'll never retire. Perhaps I said I would, but I can't.
>>Things just keep popping up my mind." At 85 he was still thinking of
>making
>>THE FREAK.
>> Richard Carnahan
>
>I can honestly agree with Chaplin about SUNNYSIDE &
>I'll include A DAYS' PLEASURE & PAY DAY too from
>the First National days.
Some of us (at least Jodi and I) find _Pay Day_ an admirable film.
The other two (IMO) are clinkers, but _Sunnyside_ has its admirers.
HAN...@aol.com
In article <34AA4E17...@aol.com>,
> > >
> > > Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the
> > (later)
> > > films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone
> > really
> > see
> > > the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed
> > in
> > > any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
> > > What about when he shoves the bum out of the way to pick up the
> > cigar butt in City Lights? True, there is a dimension to the scene
> > because, despite his appearance, CC is also a bum--but it is still an
> > indiscriminately malicious action in my book.
> > >
>
> Point taken. But I guess I have to clarify somewhat my definition of
> what's included in the meaning of "malicious." As I use the term, there
> is a connotation of willful, intentional harm. As I see it, CC intends
> no harm, he just wants to get that butt.
>
> Time for me to visit Noah, I guess.
>
> David
I agree "malicious" is too harsh an adjective for his action, especially
when it's so funny. Besides, isn't he acting like a rich jerk now that
he's dressed like one and driving a Rolls?
Hannah
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Crooner
Stan16mm lampooned me with...
>Lou, who wishes you all a Happy and Healthy new Year said,
>>I can honestly agree with Chaplin about SUNNYSIDE &
>>I'll include A DAYS' PLEASURE & PAY DAY too from
>>the First National days.
>
>Lou, If you ever get out to LA, I want to show you Pay Day on my eleven
foot
>screen. It's a better film than you think. I do agree with you about the
>other two flicks, though.
Hmmmm. You're trying to tell me PAY DAY looks better on an 11 foot screen.
Maybe I'll like the other two films on a 48 foot screen!
--
Crooner ~ says I've had enough telling everyone
Crooner
On Charlie taking the hot dog from a kid & why it's funny...
Constance...
>>
>>>The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat all
>>>that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves plenty
for
>>>the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
Me...
>>The child will never eat that whole hot dog, true. But the humor is this
>>scene comes from the fact that Charlie is NOT above taking food from a
>>child. I don't think anyone in the audience is thinking "Oh, Charlie's
>>leaving some food for the kid." Uh-uh! We're laughing that Charlie would
>>stoop so low as to do that to a defenseless child -- and, yes, the kid is
a
>>victim -- and THAT'S why it's funny.
>
Connie...
>Nope, I don't agree. If the kid were starving, needed the entire hot dog,
>and Charlie ruthlessly snatched it away, it wouldn't be funny at all--at
least
>not to me. I grant that some people today may find the infliction of real
>pain funny.
Me with new reply...
No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog & that
Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him. Charlie is seen taking food
from a baby. He cons the kid out of his hot dog. But a victim the child
is!!! If you don't think so, remind me not to have you babysit my kid.
>Yes, we enjoy the cleverness with which he cons the child (and its father),
>but the cheat must be relatively painless in order to work optimally as
comedy.
If the child was seen to be screaming for his food back, it wouldn't be
funny. But since the child takes it in stride, it's funny. (But the kid is
too immature to realize he was conned & a victim.)
In a related incident with a child, W.C. Fields in one movie kicks little
Baby Leroy in the pants letting him sail at least a foot. His friend asked,
"Bill, why did you insist on having that scene in there?" Fields replied,
"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to do that to a kid at least once
in his life."
--
Crooner ~ who'll only be saying this one more day,
says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
Hanhuck
>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>
><snip>
>>This is why describing the Tramp as a thief or dismissing L&H as cruel is
>not
>>"getting it" -- it short changes.
>
>Did anyone say L&H were cruel (except Bob)? I'm quite sure I didn't.
Nope, Connie didn't say L&H were cruel; however, *I* have done so.
Stan16mm
Lou, who wishes you all a Happy and Healthy new Year said,
>I can honestly agree with Chaplin about SUNNYSIDE &
>I'll include A DAYS' PLEASURE & PAY DAY too from
>the First National days.
Lou, If you ever get out to LA, I want to show you Pay Day on my eleven foot
screen. It's a better film than you think. I do agree with you about the
other two flicks, though.
Stan 16mm says Have A Safe One Tonight!
Visit my website.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, bbir...@earthlink.net (Robert Birchard) says:
>David Totheroh wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I've never seen the Tramp's actions in any of the (later)
>> films as indiscriminately malicious or truly harmful to anyone really
>> vulnerable. I don't think *anyone* (in those days, anyway) would see
>> the scene as being funny if they saw the kid as really being harmed in
>> any significant way. I wouldn't, and I think it's hilarious.
What about when he shoves the bum out of the way to pick up the
>cigar butt in City Lights? True, there is a dimension to the scene
>because, despite his appearance, CC is also a bum--but it is still an
>indiscriminately malicious action in my book.
I suppose one *could* see it thus, but if so then I could also see it as
malicious everytime someone whips in front of me to take a parking space
I want.
If two people need and want the same thing, and it's up for grabs, it's
every (wo)man for her/him self.
That's the American Way, so we see how well acculturated CC was. In England,
it's "queue up"!
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>On Charlie taking the hot dog from a kid & why it's funny...
>
>Constance...
>>>
>>>>The baby whose hot dog he takes a bite of in _Circus_ will never eat all
>>>>that hot dog--as anyone who's ever fed a baby knows. He leaves plenty
>for
>>>>the kid, who looks well fed and is hardly a victim.
>
>Me...
>
>>>The child will never eat that whole hot dog, true. But the humor is this
>>>scene comes from the fact that Charlie is NOT above taking food from a
>>>child. I don't think anyone in the audience is thinking "Oh, Charlie's
>>>leaving some food for the kid." Uh-uh! We're laughing that Charlie would
>>>stoop so low as to do that to a defenseless child -- and, yes, the kid is
>a
>>>victim -- and THAT'S why it's funny.
>>
>Connie...
>
>>Nope, I don't agree. If the kid were starving, needed the entire hot dog,
>>and Charlie ruthlessly snatched it away, it wouldn't be funny at all--at
>least
>>not to me. I grant that some people today may find the infliction of real
>>pain funny.
>
>Me with new reply...
>
>No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog & that
>Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him.
No, of course not! The point of the statement is that this *doesn't*
happen, and therefore the baby isn't a victim.
Charlie is seen taking food
>from a baby. He cons the kid out of his hot dog. But a victim the child
>is!!! If you don't think so, remind me not to have you babysit my kid.
You're sounding a bit petulant. And this isn't an argument.
But not to worry. I have no interest in babysitting. Been there, done that.
And never ate a kid's food yet--because I'm not starving, as Charlie is.
As I see it, Charlie is just effecting a more equitable distribution of
foodstuffs--to each according to his needs.
>>Yes, we enjoy the cleverness with which he cons the child (and its father),
>>but the cheat must be relatively painless in order to work optimally as
>comedy.
>
>If the child was seen to be screaming for his food back, it wouldn't be
>funny. But since the child takes it in stride, it's funny. (But the kid is
>too immature to realize he was conned & a victim.)
The kid would realize he was being deprived of the hot dog if he really
wanted it. How much time have you spent around children?
>In a related incident with a child, W.C. Fields in one movie kicks little
>Baby Leroy in the pants letting him sail at least a foot. His friend asked,
>"Bill, why did you insist on having that scene in there?" Fields replied,
>"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to do that to a kid at least once
>in his life."
I haven't seen this and can't comment on it in detail, but if the Baby Leroy
deserved the kick, he was not a victim, and if he didn't, the two acts still
don't seem very similar to me. I don't think W.C.'s petty peeves against
children can be compared to Charlie's gnawing hunger.
Happy New Year!
Crooner
The hot dog ad infinitum...
Some snips...
Me...
>>No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog &
that
>>Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him.
Connie...
>No, of course not! The point of the statement is that this *doesn't*
>happen, and therefore the baby isn't a victim.
Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
If this was an Abbott & Costello routine,
and you were Abbott you'd say to me right now,
"Now you've got it!"
And I'd say, "I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT!!"
You'd make a fine defense attorney for Charlie.
"Your Honor, the kid has not been deprived.
Charlie just happened upon this hot dog...
....just sitting in the palm of the kid's hand.
It wasn't doing anything there.
So Charlie just made use of it, your Honor,
in his mouth."
>The kid would realize he was being deprived of the hot dog if he really
>wanted it. How much time have you spent around children?
Enough time to know that if I bought a hot dog for
my son; I'd expect him to eat it.
--
Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <68fhp5$78h$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Crooner"
<cro...@erols.com> wrote:
> The hot dog ad infinitum...
>
> Some snips...
>
> Me...
> >>No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog &
> that
> >>Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him.
>
>
> Connie...
> >No, of course not! The point of the statement is that this *doesn't*
> >happen, and therefore the baby isn't a victim.
>
> Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
> The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
> Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
> and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>
This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
moral wrong in stealing.
RFCSAC627N
>From: dsu...@concentric.net
> "Crooner"
><cro...@erols.com> wrote
>> Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>> The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>> Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>> and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>>
>
>This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
>NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
>moral wrong in stealing.
>
Yeah, we liberals are nothing but a bunch of Gypsies. (:
Richard Carnahan
Crooner
dsulpy, studying for a career in law, opines...
>This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
>NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
>moral wrong in stealing.
Let's use that same argument & substitute the well-fed
baby for a well-heeled rich man...
"Your Honor, the rich man was well off. He didn't
need the money like my client. The money my client
took from his wallet wasn't doing anything. The plaintiff
isn't hurt by this swindle. Your Honor, my client needed
that money & the rich man didn't. Therefore, there is no
moral wrong in stealing. I rest my case your Honor."
Next I'm gonna hear that Charlie isn't really a vandal
when he breaks windows in THE KID.
I only continue to make this point because that is the
essence of the gag. And I for think it's hilarious. But
to say that he isn't really stealing from the kid is
disingenuous.
I also, on a related point, remember the old nursury
rhyme (forget where I read it):
"Charlie Chaplin, meek & mild,
Stole a sausage from a child.
When the child began to cry,
Charlie socked him in the eye."
However, I AM NOT now charging Charlie with assault.
Robert Birchard
dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
> This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
> NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
> moral wrong in stealing.
This thread is taking on a surreal aspect, so I might as well
contribute once again to the insanity.
The kid may or may not be well-fed--it is pure speculation. We
know the kid is not starving from the visual evidence--but the
appearance of baby fat does not indicate positively that the kid is well
fed.
One could just as easily say that the kid was well fed until CC
stole his hot dog and then he went hungry (at least for a time).
My point in raising this issue initailly was not to unduly condemn
CC, but to suggest that there were some deliberate elements in his films
that might be interpreted by some to be heartless or cruel, and that in
that respect there were elements in CC's films and screen character that
were not all that dissimilar to elements in the L&H films and
characters.
What makes the scene in the Circus funny is precisely that Charlie
IS stealing cnady (or a hot dog) from a baby. What makes the sausage
scene with Syd Chaplin funny is that Syd knows what is going on but he
can't catch Charlie in the act of stealing.
There may be mitigating circumstances that give one the moral right to
steal (Les Miserables was built on this premise), but that is not the
issue I was raising. I was merely pointing out that CC's screen
character has a tendency to commit acts that may (to some) be
interpreted as cruel.
Even when CC works (as in The Pawn Shop) he tends to be a
freeloader who lets others do the work and/or take the blame for his own
lack of performance or mistakes. This is funny--we have all known
"teflon" types who stir the fire yet never seem to get burned. Comedy
is, after all, a slightly enhanced observation of the human condition.
One would expect any truly GREAT comic to include elements of the whole
human character in his/her screen persona.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>The hot dog ad infinitum...
>
>Some snips...
>
>Me...
>>>No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog &
>that
>>>Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him.
>
>Connie...
>>No, of course not! The point of the statement is that this *doesn't*
>>happen, and therefore the baby isn't a victim.
>
>Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
Yes, the father pays for the hot dog, but he doesn't show great interest
in whether the kid eats it or not. At the kid's age, he'll never eat more
than a few bites.
Charlie sees that the kid has a hot dog he isn't hungry enough to eat. Charlie
is very hungry. Charlie charms the kid into giving him *part* of the hot dog,
which the kid will never eat anyhow.
>If this was an Abbott & Costello routine,
>and you were Abbott you'd say to me right now,
>"Now you've got it!"
>
>And I'd say, "I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M
>TALKING ABOUT!!"
It is amazing that such a simple event can inspire such different
interpretations.
>You'd make a fine defense attorney for Charlie.
>"Your Honor, the kid has not been deprived.
>Charlie just happened upon this hot dog...
>....just sitting in the palm of the kid's hand.
>It wasn't doing anything there.
>So Charlie just made use of it, your Honor,
>in his mouth."
I don't think I need to be an attorney to see the reasonableness of what
Charlie does. I've occasionally asked my classes, who consist predominantly
of Main Street types, if they don't condemn Charlie in TK for feeding
the same quarter into the gas meter, or eating left-over food at the lunch
counter in MT. Their answer is invariably that his pressing need justifies
the act, even though from a strictly legal point of view he is victimizing
the gas company and the department store.
>>The kid would realize he was being deprived of the hot dog if he really
>>wanted it. How much time have you spent around children?
>
>Enough time to know that if I bought a hot dog for
>my son; I'd expect him to eat it.
If your son was as young as the kid in TC, you'd be expecting a lot. ;-)
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>
>>In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>
>><snip>
>
>>>This is why describing the Tramp as a thief or dismissing L&H as cruel is
>>not
>>>"getting it" -- it short changes.
>>
>>Did anyone say L&H were cruel (except Bob)? I'm quite sure I didn't.
>
>Nope, Connie didn't say L&H were cruel; however, *I* have done so.
>
>Hannah
Well, I'm glad we got that straight.
I'd be curious as to what you think they do that's cruel. In the silent
films they engage in a fair measure of vengeful destructiveness, but it's
always reciprocal. I don't know if that qualifies as cruel. Some people
might think so.
JimNeibaur
I don't know that slapstick is ever "cruel" -- even in a broader, more
exaggerated sense like The Three Stooges, in that it is usually so outrageous
as to qualify it only as comic effect.
The only cruel scenes I recall from early comedy are:
in Pardon My Sarong, Bud Abbott tries to talk Lou Costello into committing
suicide.
in one of the early Blondie features, Penny Singleton (as Blondie) states,
"sometimes I want to drown Baby Dumpling and drown myself too."
But cagily sneaking a few bites from a baby's hot dog does not strike me as
cruel (but it was funny).
Bob Birchard's point in bringing it up at all was not so much to state that
Charlie WAS cruel, but instead to point out that Stan and Ollie WEREN'T.
Jim
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, dsu...@concentric.net () says:
>In article <68fhp5$78h$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Crooner"
><cro...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>> The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>> Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>> and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>>
>
>This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
>NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
>moral wrong in stealing.
And Crooner is indulging in Easy Street think.
Check it out on Main Street, boys. The Mob will see nothing wrong with
Charlie's eating part of a hot dog that will only wind up in the trash.
It's known as the difference between law and morality.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N) says:
>>From: dsu...@concentric.net
>
>> "Crooner"
>><cro...@erols.com> wrote
>
>>> Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>>> The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>>> Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>>> and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>>
>>This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
>>NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
>>moral wrong in stealing.
>>
> Yeah, we liberals are nothing but a bunch of Gypsies. (:
> Richard Carnahan
Guess I'd better join that Gypsy caravan after all.
By the way, the film I mentioned, _Time of the Gypsies_, ends with the hero's
son stealing the pennies off his father's eyes as he lies in his coffin.
An unforgettable ending.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>dsulpy, studying for a career in law, opines...
>
>>This is liberal-think, Crooner. The kid's obviously well fed and doesn't
>>NEED the hot dog, and Charlie is obviously hungry and does... so THERE. No
>>moral wrong in stealing.
>
>Let's use that same argument & substitute the well-fed
>baby for a well-heeled rich man...
>
>"Your Honor, the rich man was well off. He didn't
>need the money like my client. The money my client
>took from his wallet wasn't doing anything. The plaintiff
>isn't hurt by this swindle. Your Honor, my client needed
>that money & the rich man didn't. Therefore, there is no
>moral wrong in stealing. I rest my case your Honor."
Well, Crooner, this is exactly what happens in CL. Do
we morally condemn Charlie for taking the Millionaire's
money? I don't think so. But he is sent to jail, and it
strikes us as unjust.
>Next I'm gonna hear that Charlie isn't really a vandal
>when he breaks windows in THE KID.
No, you aren't. But Main Street will tell you that the
make-work scheme, while illegal, is justified, because in
the context the film gives us, it appears to be the only way
the Tramp and the Kid can survive.
>I only continue to make this point because that is the
>essence of the gag. And I for think it's hilarious. But
>to say that he isn't really stealing from the kid is
>disingenuous.
I really do appreciate it when people refrain from putting
words in my mouth--particularly when it's in their argumentative
interest. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
I never said that eating the hot dog wasn't stealing. I said
the kid isn't being victimized.
Think about it.
It's the difference between law and morality.
And that's a very crucial distinction in Chaplin's films, which
the audience immediately grasps--in most cases.
>I also, on a related point, remember the old nursury
>rhyme (forget where I read it):
>
>"Charlie Chaplin, meek & mild,
>Stole a sausage from a child.
>When the child began to cry,
>Charlie socked him in the eye."
>
>However, I AM NOT now charging Charlie with assault.
I hope not, since nothing like this happens in the film. ;-)
DzubeG
>bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)wrote:
>By the way, the film I mentioned, _Time of the Gypsies_, ends with the hero's
>son stealing the pennies off his father's eyes as he lies in his coffin.
>
>An unforgettable ending.
Oh no! Now you've gone and ruined the ending for me. :(
Deborah
Crooner
Heyyyyyyyyyyy Abbbbbboooooottttttt!!!!!!!!!!
Connie Abbott & Lou Crooner are at it again...
Connie...
>Well, Crooner, this is exactly what happens in CL. Do
>we morally condemn Charlie for taking the Millionaire's
>money? I don't think so. But he is sent to jail, and it
>strikes us as unjust.
The only reason why we'd feel it was unjust
was that the rich man in his inebriation promised him
the money. Take that criteria out of the mix & it's
an entirely different matter. It would more surely
boil down simply to plain thievery, the point I was
trying to make.
>>Next I'm gonna hear that Charlie isn't really a vandal
>>when he breaks windows in THE KID.
>
>No, you aren't. But Main Street will tell you that the
>make-work scheme, while illegal, is justified, because in
>the context the film gives us, it appears to be the only way
>the Tramp and the Kid can survive.
>
I guess this is why I used the Abbott & Costello analogy.
This first line says I won't hear a defense of Charlie's
vandalism; then in the next line I hear a defense of it.
>>I only continue to make this point because that is the
>>essence of the gag. And I for think it's hilarious. But
>>to say that he isn't really stealing from the kid is
>>disingenuous.
>
>I really do appreciate it when people refrain from putting
>words in my mouth--particularly when it's in their argumentative
>interest. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Connie, no need to take this personally. I'm making the
point in a general way.
>
>I never said that eating the hot dog wasn't stealing. I said
>the kid isn't being victimized.
So again, Abbott, let me get this straight.
Charlie IS stealing the hot dog from the kid;
and the kid isn't being victimized.
Windows ARE being broken;
The tramp & the kid HAVE to do this to survive.
And the homeowners...well, they're NOT victimized!
Because the tramp & the kid are the REAL victims here
and this is merely business for business' sake;
sorta like killing women for their money, eh?
Your next line is, "Now you've got it!"
And then this is where I do my double & triple takes.
--
Crooner ~ says This is all in fun... though my point is still my belief
Crooner
Constance...
But first Crooner...
>>Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>>The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>>Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>>and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>
>Yes, the father pays for the hot dog, but he doesn't show great interest
>in whether the kid eats it or not.
Ooooooohhhhhhh!!! So THAT gives Charlie the right to steal it?
>At the kid's age, he'll never eat more
>than a few bites.
Why stop at hot dogs? Steal the kid's money too.
He won't be able to spend it all at one time anyway.
>
>Charlie sees that the kid has a hot dog he isn't hungry enough to eat.
There is absolutely NO indication showing that
Charlie is concerned about the kid at all.
>Charlie
>is very hungry.
How do we know? No indication of this.
But Charlie has made stealing food
an art form (remember Albert Austin's meat bone
in BEHIND THE SCREEN; Mack Swain at the diner in
HIS TRYSTING PLACE; Sydney's counter in A DOG'S LIFE).
>Charlie charms the kid into giving him *part* of the hot dog,
>which the kid will never eat anyhow.
The kid won't also spend time in every one of
of the rooms in his house either;
let's take away some of his house from him.
>>If this was an Abbott & Costello routine,
>>and you were Abbott you'd say to me right now,
>>"Now you've got it!"
>>
>>And I'd say, "I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M
>>TALKING ABOUT!!"
>
>It is amazing that such a simple event can inspire such different
>interpretations.
Only because I see the child as a victim, & you don't.
And again this is why it is funny. If the kid willingly
gave Charlie the food, all of the humor would be gone.
>
>>You'd make a fine defense attorney for Charlie.
>>"Your Honor, the kid has not been deprived.
>>Charlie just happened upon this hot dog...
>>....just sitting in the palm of the kid's hand.
>>It wasn't doing anything there.
>>So Charlie just made use of it, your Honor,
>>in his mouth."
>
>I don't think I need to be an attorney to see the reasonableness of what
>Charlie does. I've occasionally asked my classes, who consist
predominantly
>of Main Street types, if they don't condemn Charlie in TK for feeding
>the same quarter into the gas meter, or eating left-over food at the lunch
>counter in MT. Their answer is invariably that his pressing need justifies
>the act, even though from a strictly legal point of view he is victimizing
>the gas company and the department store.
...not to mention the weiner-less kid
(maybe I shouldn't put it just that way)...
>
>>>The kid would realize he was being deprived of the hot dog if he really
>>>wanted it. How much time have you spent around children?
>>
>>Enough time to know that if I bought a hot dog for
>>my son; I'd expect him to eat it.
>
>If your son was as young as the kid in TC, you'd be expecting a lot. ;-)
Bring the kid's father into this & see if he doesn't view
his son as a victim. But once again, I love the scene.
--
Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
Crooner
MRS QT
>Pay Day??? You find nothing ingenious about the brick throwing or find
nothing
>about Charlie and the other fellow both putting on the raincoats together -
>that you would think that Charlie would've "loathed" this picture too?
HOLD IT! Before I'm executed as charged.
I've never said Charlie loathed this picture.
"I" just don't care for it.
I don't remember it as being terribly funny.
I think his wife in the picture was more frightening
than humorous. Is this the way Charlie viewed his
first wife Mildred?
Crooner
MRS QT
>Of course the kid is a victim - duh - we all know this -
LORI!!!!.......I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!
Hanhuck
This is why I love the Chaplin NG. The threads take on a life of their own, and
it's fascinating to watch --
>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>>>In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>>>This is why describing the Tramp as a thief or dismissing L&H as cruel is
>>>not
>>>>"getting it" -- it short changes.
>>>
>>>Did anyone say L&H were cruel (except Bob)? I'm quite sure I didn't.
>>
>>Nope, Connie didn't say L&H were cruel; however, *I* have done so.
>>
>>Hannah
>
>Well, I'm glad we got that straight.
>
>I'd be curious as to what you think they do that's cruel. In the silent
>films they engage in a fair measure of vengeful destructiveness, but it's
>always reciprocal. I don't know if that qualifies as cruel. Some people
>might think so.
>
>Connie K.
When I was a child I didn't like L&H films because I didn't like the way Hardy
treated Laurel -- he seemed cruel. I no longer hold that opinion which is why I
stated that to describe L&H as cruel is not getting it.
ScotJohn96
Since the hot dog controversy has been well covered....
Charlie cheats Eric Campbell out of his tip in THE IMMIGRANT. What if Eric
desperately needed that tip?
Worse, CC uses a visible cord in CITY LIGHTS. Shame! :)
Scott
Hanhuck
>From: scotj...@aol.com (ScotJohn96)
>Since the hot dog controversy has been well covered....
>
>Charlie cheats Eric Campbell out of his tip in THE IMMIGRANT. What if Eric
>desperately needed that tip?
Oh gawd, you're right. That plus snitching bites of Albert Austin's meaty
drumstick in _Behind the Screen_. Charlie *is* a petty thief! Deport him!
>Worse, CC uses a visible cord in CITY LIGHTS. Shame! :)
LOL!
MRS QT
Robert Birchard wrote:
>As for cruelty, I would point to CC throwing bricks at the heads of
>passers by to drum up some dental business in "Laughing Gas"--just plain
>disgusting with no redeming humor whatsoever.
"Laughing Gas" is not one of my favorite Chaplin shorts, but that's just becz I
happen to hate going to the dentist. But I wouldn't go as far as saying there
was "no redeming humor whatsoever" - even I can find some humor in it. Here's
what Motion Picture News wrote about it in July 1914: "Besides getting into a
fight with two of his master's patients and getting generally in the way, he
[Chaplin] doesn't do anything except create roars of laughter."
>Chaplin's screen character is indeed a tramp--a hobo--a bum--a
>layabout--who spends virtually every waking hour trying to avoid work.
As others have responded to this - in the majority of the films, the Tramp does
have work or is despritely trying to find work. I think the character spends
the majority of time doing his job tasks incorrectly - but what would be funny
about him doing them the right way? <Snore>
I love Laurel & Hardy - but not like I Love Charlie Chaplin. True L&H had many
funny shorts, but Chaplin simply had more. His character developed and grew
over the years - L&H's mostly stayed the same.
Lori :)
MRS QT
Crooner (Lou) wrote in response to Richard Carnahan's post:
>>Chaplin watched SUNNYSIDE with little amusement and afterwards
>>said firmly, "I loathe it."
>I can honestly agree with Chaplin about SUNNYSIDE &
>I'll include A DAYS' PLEASURE & PAY DAY too from
>the First National days.
Pay Day??? You find nothing ingenious about the brick throwing or find nothing
about Charlie and the other fellow both putting on the raincoats together -
that you would think that Charlie would've "loathed" this picture too? I
disagree. I don't think Pay Day is his best work - but I don't he would've
ranked it with Sunnyside. **And I believe the reason he "loathed" Sunnyside
was becz his son was born and died while this film was being made, not to
mention he was having problems with Mildred. I personally don't think
Sunnside is all that bad of picture. I think it just reminded him of a sad time
in his life.
Lori :)
MRS QT
Bob wrote:
>What about when he shoves the bum out of the way to pick up the
>cigar butt in City Lights? True, there is a dimension to the scene
>because, despite his appearance, CC is also a bum--but it is still an
>indiscriminately malicious action in my book.
Malicious - oh please! It's hilarious, but not malicious. I don't think the
Tramp's intent was to harm or cause mischeif towards the other bum - his
intent was to get that cigar. How do you suppose the Tramp can do any type of
slapstick without shoving somebody or kicking them in the backside
periodically??? If you want a realism and drama - don't watch Chaplin
comedies.
Lori :)
CChplnfan
Re: Cruelty in Chaplin films:
I haven't seen them all, but the cruelest I've seen Charlie is in _The Property
Man_ and _Tillie_ where Chaplin is the villain. The Keystones as a whole don't
appeal to me except as Chaplin History. But I think, after Chaplin found his
stride, the character was more sympathetic, and the situations more ridiculous
than anything else. As in the case of _The Kid_, Charlie & Jackie obviously
don't get rich from their scheme, and eventually get caught by the policeman.
Leslie (hopefully still entrenched in the "Charlie Can Do No Wrong" crowd)
MRS QT
Lou wrote:
>Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
>The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
>Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
>and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>
everyone is trying to make, is that the reason this is funny and not cruel is
becz Charlie just doesn't snatch the food from the baby - he cleverly gains the
baby's confidence by making faces and even get's the kid to feed him the hot
dog. It would be cruel if Charlie simply grabbed the food and ran. Case
closed.
Lori :)
DSPB
han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) wrote:
>When I was a child I didn't like L&H films because I didn't like the way Hardy
>treated Laurel -- he seemed cruel. I no longer hold that opinion which is why I
>stated that to describe L&H as cruel is not getting it.
>Hannah
>=============================
>"Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense." -- Mark Twain
Interestigly enough, if you ever get a chance, watch a Laurel & Hardy
short from 1931 titled "One Good Turn"...the reason the short took on
the flavor that it has is because Stan's daughter Lois, who was 4 at
the time it was made, got to where she was frightened of Babe Hardy,
because of the way he always pushed her father around...So, in this
film, Stan turned the tables on Ollie like he never did before or
after, and whumped the daylights out of his larger partner ! :)
-Unka Denny
"Excuse me a minute, my ear is full of milk..."
-Oliver Hardy
ScotJohn96
Hey, Mack Swain was cruel to Charlie in GOLD RUSH--tried to eat him. Charlie
kicked people, but they kicked him, too.
Since the Great Hot Dog Controversy still has some surreal life left in it,
I'll add this thought: In December, the Alaskan king crabs start to migrate
along the ocean trenches to the shallow coastal areas of 300 feet or less, for
the purpose of hatching their young, molting and mating.
Something to think about.
Scott
George Shelps
Crooner:
>The first line says I won't hear a defense
>of Charlie's vandalism; then in the next
>line I hear a defense of it.
Crooner, you've nailed the mind-set:
smorgasbord empiricism.:-)
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <68h2j2$a64$1...@news.ysu.edu>, bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:
> In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>
> >The hot dog ad infinitum...
> >
> >Some snips...
> >
> >Me...
> >>>No one has said that the kid was starving, needed the entire hot dog &
> >that
> >>>Charlie had ruthlessly snatched it from him.
> >
> >Connie...
> >>No, of course not! The point of the statement is that this *doesn't*
> >>happen, and therefore the baby isn't a victim.
> >
> >Let me get this straight. The kid's father pays for the hot dog.
> >The father gives the hot dog to his son for him to eat.
> >Charlie snags the hot dog from the kid;
> >and the kid hasn't been victimized?!
>
> Yes, the father pays for the hot dog, but he doesn't show great interest
> in whether the kid eats it or not. At the kid's age, he'll never eat more
> than a few bites.
What a wonderfully subverted moral system!
This reminds of an experience I had a couple of years ago when I loaned a
compact disc to someone, who then refused to return it because: "I like it
a lot, and you've said you don't really care for it..."
> Charlie sees that the kid has a hot dog he isn't hungry enough to eat.
Charlie
> is very hungry. Charlie charms the kid into giving him *part* of the hot dog,
> which the kid will never eat anyhow.
How fascinating to see just how many hoops you'll jump through to justify
stealing!
> I don't think I need to be an attorney to see the reasonableness of what
> Charlie does. I've occasionally asked my classes, who consist predominantly
> of Main Street types, if they don't condemn Charlie in TK for feeding
> the same quarter into the gas meter, or eating left-over food at the lunch
> counter in MT. Their answer is invariably that his pressing need justifies
> the act, even though from a strictly legal point of view he is victimizing
> the gas company and the department store.
Well, I guess we should ask the Beavis and Butthead generation to
determine our morality now. Right-and-wrong by decree of our brain-dead
youth... ahhhh! Yes! Stealing is okay if you NEED it. Well, how about if I
need a new TV? Can I break into your house to get it? How truly sickening.