They dont make 'em like they used to...
steve
to see "Never Give a Sucker and Even Break" (I've seen it at least 10
times).
At least 4 times I was laughing so hard that I had tears running down my
face, and that was in addition to the virtually constant, normal human
laughter that the film brings forth. That a film could even be so funny is
simply amazing. After having suffered through "Rat Race" Saturday night, I
begin to wonder if anyone can make such a purely funny film these days.
Thinking hard, the only modern day films I could recall ("modern" by loose
definition) that come close are "Caddyshack" and "Man with two Brains". The
other films of comparable quality that come to mind are also WC Fields
films, like "It's a Gift" and "The Bank Dick". Fields was such a twisted
genius.
Where is his equal today?
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Jeffrey Davis
steve wrote:
The Simpsons
Nimrod``
>WC Fields films, like "It's a Gift" and "The Bank Dick". Fields was such a twisted
>genius.
>
>Where is his equal today?
>
It ain't here. I dearly love Fields and think he holds up best of the
early talkie comics...his stuff only gets better and better with each
viewing to me. THE BANK DICK is my most favorite, with IT'S A GIFT
running close second....
N``
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Harkness
Where was his equal then?
John Harkness
W. Lydecker
steve
On 20-Aug-2001, Nimrod`` <nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
> It ain't here. I dearly love Fields and think he holds up best of the
> early talkie comics...his stuff only gets better and better with each
> viewing to me. THE BANK DICK is my most favorite, with IT'S A GIFT
> running close second....
Just ordered The Bank Dick on DVD.
My favorite line? As the car with no windshield, wheels falling off, and
with steering wheel detached goes kareening from dangerouse turn to cliff
hanger, Fields says: "We're going to get into an accident if we're not
careful."
Pure genius. He creates the most outrageous chase scene frought with absurd
danger...and mutters that deadpan line. Talk about mixing contexts!
Incidentally my wife cant watch WCF for 5 minutes. She says the pace is
frustrating and the jokes just dont work for her.
James L. Neibaur
> genius.
>
> Where is his equal today?
The Simpsons
-----
The Simpsons is absoultely nothing like W.C. Fields. Both are funny but in
really very different areas of comedy.
JN
Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:
my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html
and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html
James L. Neibaur
The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold
Lloyd, et al.
All dealt with dry humor as well as slapstick, comic surrealism, and parodies
of stereotypes. And did so brilliantly.
Jeffrey Davis
"James L. Neibaur" wrote:
> Fields was such a twisted
> > genius.
> >
> > Where is his equal today?
>
> The Simpsons
> -----
>
> The Simpsons is absoultely nothing like W.C. Fields. Both are funny but in
> really very different areas of comedy.
I don't know how many ways there are to laugh. The Simpsons make me laugh.
They're funny. They're outrageously funny. They're adventurously funny. They do
tongue-in-cheek. They do surrealism. They do warm and fuzzy. They do deadly
accurate satire. There is no the-hell-that-is-domesticity in Fields that isn't
in The Simpsons. Except The Simpsons transcends it while Fields wallows in it.
(Wallows hilariously, but wallows. It's what make his Micawber such a
surprise.) The Simpsons do non-sequitur. They do parody. Truth is, there is no
one artist who is The Simpsons. The producers glommed onto the best comedy
writers in TV (Letterman's old writers) and gave them carte blanche. The only
comedy recently even vaguely approaching the abundance that was The Simpsons at
its best was Seinfeld, and Seinfeld wasn't even in the same state. When we were
talking about Fields and its equal who thought someone would think that meant
congruency? Fields is non pareil. Ditto The Simpsons.
Chris Pierson
James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
>>Where was his equal then?
>
>The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold
>Lloyd, et al.
>
>All dealt with dry humor as well as slapstick, comic surrealism, and parodies
>of stereotypes. And did so brilliantly.
If you're going to be that broad in your definitions, then I'll hold up
Christopher Guest, Rowan Atkinson (though not lately), the Coen Brothers'
comedies, and Roberto Benigni.
--
Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
Game Designer ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
Author ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
David Matthews
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote :
<snip>
> Just ordered The Bank Dick on DVD.
>
> My favorite line? As the car with no windshield, wheels falling off, and
> with steering wheel detached goes kareening from dangerouse turn to cliff
> hanger, Fields says: "We're going to get into an accident if we're not
> careful."
>
> Pure genius. He creates the most outrageous chase scene frought with
absurd
> danger...and mutters that deadpan line. Talk about mixing contexts!
>
<snip>
> steve
I seem to remember another muttered aside from the same scene as parts fall
off his car "...re-sale value of this car is going to be practically nil".
Dave
Nimrod``
Pierson) wrote:
>In article <20010820162742...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
>James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
>>>Where was his equal then?
>>
>>The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold
>>Lloyd, et al.
>>
>>All dealt with dry humor as well as slapstick, comic surrealism, and parodies
>>of stereotypes. And did so brilliantly.
>
>
>If you're going to be that broad in your definitions, then I'll hold up
>Christopher Guest, Rowan Atkinson (though not lately), the Coen Brothers'
>comedies, and Roberto Benigni.
Christopher Guest often, Rowen Atkinson in fits and spurts though I
loved him, the Coen Brothers and Roberto Benigni never.....
N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>>Where was his equal then?
>
>The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold
>Lloyd, et al.
>
Of that bunch, only Keaton is in Fields' league in my book....
N``
Genesis
decade. There are several reasons for this I think.
1) More and more people are tuning into tv, and thus producing many
more 'comedy' shows, and as it will happen, the comedy ideas are
spread so thinly across an array of shows, a lot of ideas are taken
that might have normally made good film. Plus, for a writer of
comedy, there is more security in writing for a tv series than a
movie, and so many of the best comedic writers only write for tv. If
they were to write movies more, we might see a change in comedy films.
2) There was a huge surge in comedic actors in the late 70's and
1980's. You had everyone from Mel Brooks, Richard Pryor, Bill Murray,
to Eddie Murphy, John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, etc. They were all in their
prime. Robin Williams was turning out funny films, along with Steve
Martin, Chevy Chase, Martin Short, etc,. If you look at what they
have done in the 90's once they have gotten older, had familes,
settled down, it gets pretty thin.
So we are forced to watch many films on the same comedic level as
Porky's, while we wait for another bastion of talent to emerge as
effective on the big screen. As we've seen, going from tv series to
movies, isn't easy for many. But I look at a few actors and actresses
who may lead the next comedic film wave, such as: Steve Zahn, Owen
Wilson, Chris Tucker, Orlando Jones, Jack Black, and others.
- Genesis
---------------------------------
Film Reviews, Commentaries, Asides
http://www.GenesisNight.com/
---------------------------------
John Harkness
wrote:
>>Where was his equal then?
>
>The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold
>Lloyd, et al.
>
Except, of course, that by the time Fields was working, Chaplin was
making a picture every five years, and Keaton and Lloyd weren't
working at all.
John Harkness
James L. Neibaur
Except, of course, that by the time Fields was working, Chaplin was
making a picture every five years, and Keaton and Lloyd weren't
working at all.
------
Fields first film was 1915 when Chaplin was quite prolific. But Chaplin making
a film every few years was happening as early as the mid twenties, when his
perfectionism was tolerated because he pretty much owned the store (his own
studio United Artists was in charge of production and distribution). Fields
was appearing in some very popular comedies during the 20s (Fools For Luck,
Running Wild, So's Your Old Man, It's The Old Army Game, et al), and this is
while Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton were at their creative height. Many of the
Fields silents are lost films. Several do survive.
Even if you thought Fields began with Million Dollar Legs (1931), it is
surprising that you thought neither Lloyd nor Keaton were working after the
silent era. During the thirties, Lloyd maintained strong popularity with films
like the classic Movie Crazy and the delightfully surreal The Cat's Paw. He
was active until the mid forties (his 1946 teaming with Preston Sturges did not
offer the interesting collaborative effort that one would think). Keaton was
at MGM, then Educational, then Columbia, then freelanced. He was active until
his death in 1966. His MGM talking features of the thirties made more money
than his classic silents (though they were not as good, of course). His short
films were very popular with exhibitors. There is a new book examining the
Keaton sound films from 1929-1945 being published by McFarland.
Comedy was at its absolute strongest in the twenties and thirties while Fields
was active. W.C. Fields is an extraordinarily creative screen comedian, but he
was one of many during that time. I can certainly understand liking him best,
but to state that there were no other really strong creative comedians during
the richest era for cinematic comedy is rather misinformed.
Unfortunately, not all of these older films are as accessible as they were in
the seventies, when film buffs bothered to venture earlier than the fifties for
their cinematic knowledge.
JN
(who remembers when the Keaton and Lloyd talkies were televised quite
regularly)
James L. Neibaur
>If you're going to be that broad in your definitions, then I'll hold up
>Christopher Guest, Rowan Atkinson (though not lately), the Coen Brothers'
>comedies, and Roberto Benigni.
All of whom are indeed very clever, and every bit as good as Wheeler and
Woolsey, Larry Semon, The Ritz Brothers, Mitchell and Durant, Lupino Lane,
Lloyd Hamilton, Snub Pollard, Clark and McCollugh, etc.
All of the above were very funny, talented, creative people. But none were the
caliber of Fields, Chaplin, Keaton, Marx Brothers, or Laurel and Hardy.
Atkinson and Benigni have cheerfully admitted their own respect for these
comedians (and much of their best work is derivative of those original styles
-- which is fine in that they do it so well).
Shakespeare is better than John Grisham too.
JN
James L. Neibaur
I love Fields as much as you do, but I certainly believe The Marx Brothers,
Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, and Lloyd were his (and Keaton's) creative equal.
I probably laugh most at Laurel and Hardy and Fields. I am truly glad TCM is
running his films and prompting discussions about him again. He was very
popular during the seventies, but his popularity unfairly faded since.
steve
On 21-Aug-2001, jimn...@aol.combatant (James L. Neibaur) wrote:
> I love Fields as much as you do, but I certainly believe The Marx
> Brothers,
> Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, and Lloyd were his (and Keaton's) creative
> equal.
I've seen L&H Mentioned several times here, and I must confess I never found
these guys even remotely funny. WCF managed to be quite endearing as the
persecuted everyman, yet he had a razor sharp edge that I can't live
without. L&H, on the other hand, seem childish and simple minded. Even
their comic timing, to me, seems to be aimed at the slowest man in the
theater. Never understood the adulation.
The Marx Bros. are always great, often edgy, though their films have
significant comic downtime (romance devlopment, musical numbers, etc.).
When they are working, they are screamingly funny.
What I have seen from Keaton (usually clips in documentaries) had me
absolutely howling and wanting more. To my frustration, never found
anything in the local vid stores.
CC is funny, but for some personal reason not my cup of tea. I respect him.
Ruth
> Sat down with my cup of coffee this morning and turned on TCM just in
> time
> to see "Never Give a Sucker and Even Break" (I've seen it at least 10
> times).
>
> At least 4 times I was laughing so hard that I had tears running down my
> face, and that was in addition to the virtually constant, normal human
> laughter that the film brings forth. That a film could even be so funny
> is
> simply amazing. After having suffered through "Rat Race" Saturday night,
> I
> begin to wonder if anyone can make such a purely funny film these days.
All Of Me
Back in the bowl....
Ruth
Ruth
>
> I've seen L&H Mentioned several times here, and I must confess I never
> found
> these guys even remotely funny. WCF managed to be quite endearing as the
> persecuted everyman, yet he had a razor sharp edge that I can't live
> without. L&H, on the other hand, seem childish and simple minded. Even
> their comic timing, to me, seems to be aimed at the slowest man in the
> theater. Never understood the adulation.
Me either. I just assumed it was a guy thing. Like the Three Stooges.
Nice to hear I might be wrong.
> The Marx Bros. are always great, often edgy, though their films have
> significant comic downtime (romance devlopment, musical numbers, etc.).
Yes, but when one's goal in life is to *be* Margaret Dumont, as is mine,
those moments can become instructive..
Fields was terrific.
Ruth , is she standing in a hole?
Jeffrey Davis
Ruth wrote:
Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
ever.
Ruth
The Simpsons do non-sequitur. They do parody. Truth is, there
> is no
> one artist who is The Simpsons. The producers glommed onto the best
> comedy
> writers in TV (Letterman's old writers) and gave them carte blanche. The
> only
> comedy recently even vaguely approaching the abundance that was The
> Simpsons at
> its best was Seinfeld, and Seinfeld wasn't even in the same state. When
> we were
> talking about Fields and its equal who thought someone would think that
> meant
> congruency? Fields is non pareil. Ditto The Simpsons.
>
The Simpsons is wonderful. In fact I would go so far as to say ( as I
have said many times before actually) that there are funnier people
writing for TV than writing for films. Shows like the Simpsons, Fraiser
( at times) Will and Grace ( ditto) make me laugh more than any two
hour filmed "comedy " these days. With the exception of the Cohens and
possibly Woody Allen.
Jeffrey Davis
Ruth wrote:
Myron and George M?
Ruth
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Myron and George M?
>
>
<giggle> Whooops.
steve
On 21-Aug-2001, Ruth <not...@still.nothere> wrote:
> > I
> > begin to wonder if anyone can make such a purely funny film these days.
>
> All Of Me
Ruth,
Are you suggesting that the 1984 Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin film is in some
way comparable in quality to WC FIelds? If so, I must say...not even close.
Not even close to close!
Ruth
> On 21-Aug-2001, Ruth <not...@still.nothere> wrote:
>
> > > I
> > > begin to wonder if anyone can make such a purely funny film these
> > > days.
> >
> > All Of Me
>
> Ruth,
>
> Are you suggesting that the 1984 Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin film is in some
> way comparable in quality to WC FIelds? If so, I must say...not even
> close.
> Not even close to close!
>
> steve
well, no, I was just suggesting that it is purely funny.
steve
On 21-Aug-2001, Ruth <not...@still.nothere> wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the 1984 Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin film is in
> > some
> > way comparable in quality to WC FIelds? If so, I must say...not even
> > close.
> > Not even close to close!
> >
> > steve
>
>
> well, no, I was just suggesting that it is purely funny.
Sorry, guess I overreacted (I've always hated that film, and seeing it
mentioned in this context set me off).
Carry on...
Nimrod``
Steve...me thinks you must be a man after my own heart in this area.
I completely agree with your analysis here. My only addendum might be
that I actually have seen quite a lot of Keaton and your reaction to
your small taste of him is entirely justified, I assure you. If you
haven't seen THE GENERAL in particular, by all means make the effort
to.
And I much prefer Keaton to Chaplin. Chaplin has always left me
strangely untouched and uninvolved....
N``
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Harkness
wrote:
>John stated:
>
>Except, of course, that by the time Fields was working, Chaplin was
>making a picture every five years, and Keaton and Lloyd weren't
>working at all.
>------
>
>Fields first film was 1915 when Chaplin was quite prolific. But Chaplin making
>a film every few years was happening as early as the mid twenties, when his
>perfectionism was tolerated because he pretty much owned the store (his own
>studio United Artists was in charge of production and distribution). Fields
>was appearing in some very popular comedies during the 20s (Fools For Luck,
>Running Wild, So's Your Old Man, It's The Old Army Game, et al), and this is
>while Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton were at their creative height. Many of the
>Fields silents are lost films. Several do survive.
>
>Even if you thought Fields began with Million Dollar Legs (1931), it is
>surprising that you thought neither Lloyd nor Keaton were working after the
>silent era.
I'm well aware that both were working in the 30s, as I'm aware that
Fields worked in silents -- I've seen Sally of the Sawdust, at least
-- but Fields prime, which I don't think anyone would disagree was the
30s, does coincide with a rather remarkable decline in quality in the
work of both Keaton and Lloyd -- and I've seen The Milky Way and Movie
Crazy, though not The Cat's Paw, and to be honest, I'm not a great
Lloyd fan.
John Harkness
W. Lydecker
Warner said, "Jack, it's Coh*an* not Cohen. You're not going to play
him!"
Mpoconnor7
>> significant comic downtime (romance devlopment, musical numbers, etc.).
>
>Yes, but when one's goal in life is to *be* Margaret Dumont, as is mine,
>those moments can become instructive..
She was IMO the greatest female comic foil of them all. And I still think
Groucho was the greatest comic wit I've ever seen.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Jeffrey Davis
Mpoconnor7 wrote:
> >> The Marx Bros. are always great, often edgy, though their films have
> >> significant comic downtime (romance devlopment, musical numbers, etc.).
> >
> >Yes, but when one's goal in life is to *be* Margaret Dumont, as is mine,
> >those moments can become instructive..
>
> She was IMO the greatest female comic foil of them all. And I still think
> Groucho was the greatest comic wit I've ever seen.
>
"The trouble with Groucho is that he thinks he's Groucho" -- George S. Kaufman
(variously attributed)
James L. Neibaur
>their comic timing, to me, seems to be aimed at the slowest man in the
>theater. Never understood the adulation.
They were my idea of comic perfection. Films like Big Business, Helpmates, The
Music Box, Sons of the Desert, and Way Out West are, I believe, among the
greatest films ever made in any genre.
But what is funny to some is not to others. There are plenty of lauded
comedians who don't do much for me (I have often mentioned my disdain for the
entire series run of SNL).
JN
James L. Neibaur
Me either. I just assumed it was a guy thing. Like the Three Stooges.
Nice to hear I might be wrong.
------
Nah, there are many, many women who like Laurel and Hardy or The Three Stooges,
and don't care for Lilith Fair or Nora Ephron's screenplays.
James L. Neibaur
>strangely untouched and uninvolved....
Buster Keaton is one of the most creative comic minds ever to make a film. The
General, Sherlock Jr, Our Hospitality, The Navigator and Steamboat Bill Jr are
among the most brilliantly conceived comedies in film history. Even misfires
like Go West and Battling Butler are brimming with comic invention. His work
reamins incredible.
But Chaplin was better.
James L. Neibaur
Shows like the Simpsons, Fraiser
> ( at times) Will and Grace ( ditto) make me laugh more than any two
> hour filmed "comedy " these days.
------
You like Will and Grace, but don't like Laurel and Hardy??
Get off my swingset and you may not play in my yard anymore!
James L. Neibaur
>Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
ever.
Email me your address and I will send you some silent comedies on VHS no
charge.
James L. Neibaur
Sorry, guess I overreacted (I've always hated that film, and seeing it
mentioned in this context set me off).
-------
It is still pretty amazing to see it mentioned in a post that began with
something as brilliant as Never Give a Sucker an Even Break. But then I have
heard people insist Backstreet Boys are as good as The Beatles.
James L. Neibaur
I'm well aware that both were working in the 30s, as I'm aware that
Fields worked in silents -- I've seen Sally of the Sawdust, at least
-- but Fields prime, which I don't think anyone would disagree was the
30s, does coincide with a rather remarkable decline in quality in the
work of both Keaton and Lloyd
------
That's all true -- but it isn't what you originally said. Communication
breakdown.
Sally of the Sawdust is probably Fields' weakest surviving feature, but
unfortunately the most accessible.
JN
Jeffrey Davis
"James L. Neibaur" wrote:
> Jeff stated:
>
> >Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
> ever.
>
> Email me your address and I will send you some silent comedies on VHS no
> charge.
Trust me. It would be wasted. I have a friend like you. I praise, say, Ravel's
string quartet. He'll mime a yawn and call Ravel a film composer. It daunted me
when I was younger, but it eventually got old. What's the point of NOT enjoying
what you enjoy? I think Martin's mime in All of Me was great. Chaplin, Keaton,
Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy...all being great...none of that is mutually exclusive with
Martin also being great. Mt. Olympus isn't an exclusive club. Wodehouse and Proust.
Brian Nolan and Keats. Whoever I enjoy. A great big "All Aboard!" seems to help. I
don't wind up thinking I should be doing something else when, in fact, by trusting
my own sensibilities I'm currently having a very good time.
Chris Pierson
James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
>Jeff stated:
>
>>Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
>ever.
>
>Email me your address and I will send you some silent comedies on VHS no
>charge.
Ooh. What button of yours do i need to push to get you to send me free
film noir?
--
Chris Pierson ** 12 favorite films of 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
** Traffic, Blood Simple (dir. cut), Chuck & Buck, Best in
Game Designer ** Show, You Can Count On Me, High Fidelity, Almost Famous,
Author ** Quills, Ghost Dog, Mr. Death, Requiem for a Dream
Ruth
> Steve stated:
>
> Sorry, guess I overreacted (I've always hated that film, and seeing it
> mentioned in this context set me off).
> -------
>
> It is still pretty amazing to see it mentioned in a post that began with
> something as brilliant as Never Give a Sucker an Even Break. But then I
> have
> heard people insist Backstreet Boys are as good as The Beatles.
>
> JN
my 12 year old for example....
We try to show her the error of her ways, but hey, she likes what she
likes.
Ruth
> Ruth stated:
>
> Shows like the Simpsons, Fraiser
> > ( at times) Will and Grace ( ditto) make me laugh more than any two
> > hour filmed "comedy " these days.
> ------
>
> You like Will and Grace, but don't like Laurel and Hardy??
>
> Get off my swingset and you may not play in my yard anymore!
>
> JN
not even if I bring over cookies and milk?
Ruth
> Ruth stated:
>
> Me either. I just assumed it was a guy thing. Like the Three Stooges.
> Nice to hear I might be wrong.
> ------
>
> Nah, there are many, many women who like Laurel and Hardy or The Three
> Stooges,
> and don't care for Lilith Fair or Nora Ephron's screenplays.
>
> JN
I believe the Laurel and Hardy part, but I have yet to meet a woman who
loves the Stooges.
James L. Neibaur
>not even if I bring over cookies and milk?
Well --- er---- what kind of cookies?
James L. Neibaur
my 12 year old for example....
We try to show her the error of her ways, but hey, she likes what she
likes.
-------
She's fine. She'll grow out of it -- or at least relegate them to a guilty
pleasure.
JN
(who, at 12, thought pro wrestling was for real! But has now relegated to a
guilty pleasure, but didnt grow out of it)
James L. Neibaur
loves the Stooges.
I honestly have met very few women who don't. I always thought that stating
women dont like the Stooges was sort of a sexist thing (women don't like
slapstick, can't perform slapstick, etc). There are some who do, some who
dont. Same with guys.
JN
James L. Neibaur
>Trust me. It would be wasted.
That's really too bad. I would welcome your offer to send me Steve Martin
films, but I have already seen them.
>I have a friend like you. I praise, say, Ravel's
>string quartet. He'll mime a yawn and call Ravel a film composer. It daunted
me
>when I was younger, but it eventually got old.
I disagree with your friend.
>I think Martin's mime in All of Me was great. Chaplin, Keaton,
>Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy...all being great...none of that is mutually exclusive
with
>Martin also being great.
I agree with that part. But you seemed to indicate that Steve Martin in all of
me somehow belonged alongside Chaplin, et al. That would be like me putting
Styx alongside Ravel because they were really good at playing wimpy power pop
just as Ravel was great at his superior style of music.
>Mt. Olympus isn't an exclusive club. Wodehouse and Proust.
>Brian Nolan and Keats. Whoever I enjoy. A great big "All Aboard!" seems to
help. I
>don't wind up thinking I should be doing something else when, in fact, by
trusting
>my own sensibilities I'm currently having a very good time.
Just as I have a good time watching the Elvis movies (as I have stated one or a
thousand times). But I don't say his performance in Jailhouse Rock is among
the best acting in all prison dramas ever.
JN
offer still stands
Bill Anderson
Nimrod`` wrote:
>
>
> And I much prefer Keaton to Chaplin. Chaplin has always left me
> strangely untouched and uninvolved....
I used to feel that way too. I've never been a fan of "The Gold Rush." And I
have a DVD of a number of his short films from around 1914, and I just don't care
for them much at all. But back in 1979 I saw "City Lights" and "Modern Times"
and while I was watching them, I began to understand his appeal. Surely you felt
touched and involved in "City Lights" when the blind girl said, "Yes, I can
see?" And surely you laughed when Charlie set out after the woman in the dress
with the oddly placed buttons in "Modern Times?" I saw "The Circus" for the
first time just a few weeks ago, and I immediately added it to my list of
favorite films. He really was a talented fellow.
Bill Anderson
The Avocado Avenger
>Jeff stated:
>>I think Martin's mime in All of Me was great. Chaplin, Keaton,
>>Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy...all being great...none of that is mutually
>>exclusive with Martin also being great.
>I agree with that part. But you seemed to indicate that Steve Martin in all of
>me somehow belonged alongside Chaplin, et al. That would be like me putting
>Styx alongside Ravel because they were really good at playing wimpy power pop
>just as Ravel was great at his superior style of music.
Yes, but it's your *opinion* that Martin doesn't belong in your personal
pantheon of greatness. It's not a fact; opinions cannot be "right" or
"wrong". I cannot help but conclude this thread is just a text-based
pissing contest, and neither of you are very good at dotting the i's.
So of course, I had to join in.
Stacia * The Avocado Avenger * Life is a tale told by an idiot;
http://world.std.com/~stacia/ * Full of sound and fury,
There is no guacamole anywhere. * Signifying nothing.
James L. Neibaur
Yes, but it's your *opinion* that Martin doesn't belong in your personal
pantheon of greatness. It's not a fact; opinions cannot be "right" or
"wrong"
-----
Of course Jeff liking Steve Martin as much isn't the argument, I certainly
respect his opinions (and always have, whether we disagree on a topic or not).
But I think enough assessment has been made on the cinematic contributions of
all three men to warrant an understanding that Chaplin and Keaton were superior
contributors to comedy film.
I always enjoy my posts with Jeffery because he is one of the posters on here I
respect most of all, especially on topics upon which we disagree. And once
again you're merely in the way, snooks.
JN
Will
<sta...@world.std.com> wrote:
> opinions cannot be "right" or "wrong"
That is a crock. Just my opinion.
Nimrod``
Nimrod``
Pierson) wrote:
>In article <20010821145825...@mb-cf.aol.com>,
>James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
>>Jeff stated:
>>
>>>Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
>>ever.
>>
>>Email me your address and I will send you some silent comedies on VHS no
>>charge.
>
>
>Ooh. What button of yours do i need to push to get you to send me free
>film noir?
Let's kiss and make up, Chris. I'll send you free film
noir....there's not much of it I don't have.....
Chris Pierson
Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:36:02 +0000 (UTC), cpie...@tiac.net (Chris
>Pierson) wrote:
>
>>In article <20010821145825...@mb-cf.aol.com>,
>>James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
>>>Jeff stated:
>>>
>>>>Absolutely. Martin being pulled in two directions is some of the funniest mime
>>>ever.
>>>
>>>Email me your address and I will send you some silent comedies on VHS no
>>>charge.
>>
>>
>>Ooh. What button of yours do i need to push to get you to send me free
>>film noir?
>
>
>Let's kiss and make up, Chris.
Good God, man. How am I supposed to know where you've been?
>I'll send you free film
>noir....there's not much of it I don't have.....
Send me a list of your favorites.
Nimrod``
Pierson) wrote:
>In article <bSuDO7vGOzvP2e...@4ax.com>,
>Nimrod`` <nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote:
>>
>>Let's kiss and make up, Chris.
>
>Good God, man. How am I supposed to know where you've been?
Hell, I dunno...can't remember where I've been meself half the time.
But I've had my booster shots.
>
>>I'll send you free film
>>noir....there's not much of it I don't have.....
>
>Send me a list of your favorites.
Sheesh...I don't know where to begin; there's so many favorites and
I've got so many. But I'll take a stab at it. Gimme a day or two to
pull a list together between the opium and the bowl.
Brent McKee
James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote in message
news:20010820162742...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> >Where was his equal then?
>
> The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton,
Harold
> Lloyd, et al.
>
> All dealt with dry humor as well as slapstick, comic surrealism, and
parodies
> of stereotypes. And did so brilliantly.
Well of course you can argue that while Fields may well have been at his
greatest in the sound era, Lloyd, Keaton and to a great extent Chaplin
didn't make the transition to sound very well. Of course Keaton eventually
became effective but mostly in a supporting role. Certainly his early sound
films with Durante were nothing to write home about. Based on the examples
you cite who were at their top in the sound period, you needed two or three
(or four) people to equal one W.C. Fields -- and I tend to agree!
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from the
email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly, in
one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
James L. Neibaur
>Ooh. What button of yours do i need to push to get you to send me free
>>film noir?
That's funny, but if there is something you are particularly looking for, I
could see if I have it.
And no I won't charge you.
James L. Neibaur
>Well of course you can argue that while Fields may well have been at his
>greatest in the sound era, Lloyd, Keaton and to a great extent Chaplin
>didn't make the transition to sound very well.
Lloyd and Chaplin did, although both did their best work during the silent era.
Keaton's MGM talkie features were more popular than his silents, but that was
certainly an abberation on the part of the moviegoing public.
Ruth
> Ruth asked:
>
> >not even if I bring over cookies and milk?
>
> Well --- er---- what kind of cookies?
>
> JN
Tollhouse. Is there any other kind?
Ruth
> >I believe the Laurel and Hardy part, but I have yet to meet a woman who
> loves the Stooges.
>
> I honestly have met very few women who don't. I always thought that
> stating
> women dont like the Stooges was sort of a sexist thing (women don't like
> slapstick, can't perform slapstick, etc). There are some who do, some
> who
> dont. Same with guys.
>
> JN
Really? I was just speaking from experience. I didn't even like them
when I was a little kid and none of my female friends did, or do now,
either. I guess I should try 'em out on my girls. Or, maybe I will let
my husband (who of course loves them) try them out . Yes, I like that
idea better. ( I'll go in the other room and watch Groucho et. al. )
Nimrod``
wrote:
I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
and tedious. And I think they secretly appeal to a predominately male
inner-desire to just bop anything that annoys or doesn't suit them.
I quit liking them after the age of seven or so......
Ruth
<nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote:
>
> I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
> and tedious. And I think they secretly appeal to a predominately male
> inner-desire to just bop anything that annoys or doesn't suit them.
>
> I quit liking them after the age of seven or so......
>
> N``
I agree....except that I sometimes have an inner desire to bop something
that annoys me.
( interesting sentence. Hmmmm).
James L. Neibaur
> I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
> and tedious.
Of course it doesn't bother me when someone doesnt like the Stooges, but when
the same person turns around and proclaims how hard they laughed at Home Alone
or Animal House, then it seems rather strange (and no I don't mean you
specifically, Nim) that they would laugh at the most basic 3 stooge gags done
by the likes of Macauley Culkin or John Belushi.
Sort of liking the local Elvis impersonator better than Elvis.
Jeffrey Davis
"James L. Neibaur" wrote:
> Sort of liking the local Elvis impersonator better than Elvis.
>
After 1956, Elvis WAS an Elvis impersonator.
Helen & Bob
Nimrod`` wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:31:04 -0400, Ruth <not...@still.nothere>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <20010821173959...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
> >jimn...@aol.combatant (James L. Neibaur) wrote:
> >
> >> >I believe the Laurel and Hardy part, but I have yet to meet a woman who
> >> loves the Stooges.
> >>
> >> I honestly have met very few women who don't. I always thought that
> >> stating
> >> women dont like the Stooges was sort of a sexist thing (women don't like
> >> slapstick, can't perform slapstick, etc). There are some who do, some
> >> who
> >> dont. Same with guys.
> >>
> >> JN
> >
> >Really? I was just speaking from experience. I didn't even like them
> >when I was a little kid and none of my female friends did, or do now,
> >either. I guess I should try 'em out on my girls. Or, maybe I will let
> >my husband (who of course loves them) try them out . Yes, I like that
> >idea better. ( I'll go in the other room and watch Groucho et. al. )
>
> I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
> and tedious. And I think they secretly appeal to a predominately male
> inner-desire to just bop anything that annoys or doesn't suit them.
>
> I quit liking them after the age of seven or so......
>
> N``
Yep. But Babe and Stan are immortal. I laugh as hard at them today as I did
when I was 10. Only now, its for different reasons.
Bob
MadiHolmes
Simpsons. Now, I'm not saying that all of the Loony Tunes is in the same vein
as The Simpsons, but some of it did parallel, like in the parodying of movie
stars and whatnot.
Mel Blanc was a genius with his voicings.
MadiHolmes
Nimrod``
wrote:
>the nimster stated:
>
>> I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
>> and tedious.
>
>Of course it doesn't bother me when someone doesnt like the Stooges, but when
>the same person turns around and proclaims how hard they laughed at Home Alone
>or Animal House, then it seems rather strange (and no I don't mean you
>specifically, Nim) that they would laugh at the most basic 3 stooge gags done
>by the likes of Macauley Culkin or John Belushi.
I won't make a case for Culkin...HOME ALONE is crap as far as I'm
concerned. But Belushi in ANIMAL HOUSE is another matter (and I'm not
the biggest Belushi fan).
There is a rhythm and artistry in good slapstick that is completely
missing in The Stooges; with them it's just BOP-BOP-BOP and that's
supposed to be funny. There's nothing inherently funny structurally
about their set-ups, no subversive undercurrent.
In the case of ANIMAL HOUSE (a film I actually like now more than I
used to), there is an overall tone of cheerful anarchy and it is not
non-stop Belushi; in fact, the entire film is structured around
Belushi's carefully spaced entrances and exits....he's used like a
spice with his largely-silent bufoonish sequences; Belushi being the
outer extreme of what the rest of the cast is involved in. It only
works and is only funny without tedium because it's not endless crude
Belushi moments.
The Stooges have only one note and they just keep humping it over and
over and over....
Will
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
Personally I always thought he was one of the better ones.
James L. Neibaur
The following songs were done after 1956:
Too Much, All Shook Up, Teddy Bear, Loving You, Jailhouse Rock, Hard Headed
Woman, Don't, I Beg of You, Treat Me Nice, One Night, I Got Stung, A Fool Such
As I, I Need Your Love Tonight, A Big Hunk O' Love.
and that is just the rest of the fifties.
James L. Neibaur
There is a rhythm and artistry in good slapstick that is completely
missing in The Stooges; with them it's just BOP-BOP-BOP and that's
supposed to be funny. There's nothing inherently funny structurally
about their set-ups, no subversive undercurrent
----
Not true. Their attack of the upper class in films like An Ache in Every
Stake, Three Sappy People, Half Wits Holiday, and In The Sweet Pie and Pie was
filled with subversive undercurrent. Their wartime satires included such dead
on things as You Nazty Spy, Higher Than A Kite, and No Dough Boys.
It was not all just BOP BOP BOP any more than rock and roll was just a bunch of
racket (yeah, sticking with that analogy). They had an edgy slapstick
presentation that extended far beyond their use of violence to punctuate gags.
Their skewering of the upper class exhibited far more subversive undercurrent
than John Belushi spitting food into a pretty coed's face.
James L. Neibaur
I'm surprised NOBODY mentioned Loony Tunes, especially in conjunction to the
Simpsons. Now, I'm not saying that all of the Loony Tunes is in the same vein
as The Simpsons, but some of it did parallel, like in the parodying of movie
stars and whatnot.
------
If we got on the subject of cartoons, we can certainly see how the likes of
Tashlin, Avery, et al, were instrumental in inspiring things like The Simpsons
and Family Guy.
Nimrod``
wrote:
>Nim stated:
>
>There is a rhythm and artistry in good slapstick that is completely
>missing in The Stooges; with them it's just BOP-BOP-BOP and that's
>supposed to be funny. There's nothing inherently funny structurally
>about their set-ups, no subversive undercurrent
>----
>
>Not true. Their attack of the upper class in films like An Ache in Every
>Stake, Three Sappy People, Half Wits Holiday, and In The Sweet Pie and Pie was
>filled with subversive undercurrent. Their wartime satires included such dead
>on things as You Nazty Spy, Higher Than A Kite, and No Dough Boys.
>
>It was not all just BOP BOP BOP any more than rock and roll was just a bunch of
>racket (yeah, sticking with that analogy). They had an edgy slapstick
>presentation that extended far beyond their use of violence to punctuate gags.
Argh...I ain't buying it, Jim. I've seen too many of their dumb
movies. And you completely fail to address the fact that The Stooges
movies are an ongoing barrage of abuse, in contrast to what I said
about how it was parcelled out in well-spaced interludes in ANIMAL
HOUSE. For every scene of Belushi blowing mashed potatoes out of his
mouth....there was a scene of Tom Hulce debating whether to jump the
drunk coed's bones, a scene of the evil Fraternity's hazing...the
twisted little smirk on Mark Metcalf's lips as he weilds the paddle, a
scene of Tim Matheson seducing the Dean's wife; scenes that breathed.
There were easily three such scenes to every one of Belushi smashing
things....maybe more.
However, I'm not sure I'll ever again hear someone use the adjective
"edgy" to describe The Stooges humor....so for that alone, you've made
it into my pantheon of indelible memory.
As with Jerry Lewis...to me, this kind of pontificating about the
nuances of The Stooges "body of work" comes off as a lot of
retroactive justification, trying to elevate them to a level of
artistry that they simply did not possess in order to legitimize one's
childhood embrace of such things.
(sorry)
James L. Neibaur
>I've seen too many of their dumb
>movies.
I heard Elvis sing "No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car" and have heard him as a
laughingstock parody by a lot of younger people, but that doesn't make his Sun
Sessions any less competent
> And you completely fail to address the fact that The Stooges
>movies are an ongoing barrage of abuse, in contrast to what I said
about how it was parcelled out in well-spaced interludes in ANIMAL
HOUSE.
It is indeed parcelled in well spaced interludes in the better Stooges shorts.
I can indicate instances, but am assuming you haven't seen the films. To me,
Animal House is the portent for the mindless comedies of today, and is no
better for being the first in line. There is a very short path from Animal
House to Dude Where's My Car. The Stooges most certainly paved the way for
Animal House's even heavier use of boorish crudity. But there is a somewhat
longer journey from a film like Hoi Polloi. The journey is downhill.
>However, I'm not sure I'll ever again hear someone use the adjective
>"edgy" to describe The Stooges humor....so for that alone, you've made
>it into my pantheon of indelible memory.
It is frequently used to describe their humor in most books on sceen comedy. I
wasn't being at all original.
>As with Jerry Lewis...to me, this kind of pontificating about the
>nuances of The Stooges "body of work" comes off as a lot of
>retroactive justification, trying to elevate them to a level of
>artistry that they simply did not possess in order to legitimize one's
>childhood embrace of such things.
You have explained exactly why Animal House and Caddyshack are popular. They
are not so much winning new generations of fans, but still embraced by folks
who saw them while teenagers and were still able to chortle merrily at drunk
guys getting even with the preppy guys, while using the word Party as a verb.
Nothing wrong with that, but to argue that these are anything but cultural
artifacts is silly.
The Stooges I would not place upon the "artistic" pedestal, but to dismiss them
as merely a series of slaps and pokes is to indicate an almost total
unfamiliarity with their work. (I can't resist this one Nim --- but it is like
saying the Beatles are "unkempt lunatic noisemakers" which is exactly how they
were described by The Milwaukee Journal in 1964. Of course the reviewer was
clueless).
Lewis's films with Frank Tashlin offered a level of comic surrealism that was
innovative for its time, and filled with clever and interesting cinematic
touches. When Lewis began to direct his own films, he indulged further. Not
liking his uninhibited style (which is Noel Coward compared to things like
Anima House), is certainly a matter of taste. I wrote a book on the Lewis
films (which you probably already knew, however it was the perfect opportunity
for yet another shameless plug).
>(sorry)
for what?? we're having a very civil discussion.
W. Lydecker
Check out Del Lord's "All the World's a Stooge", or "An Ache in Every
Stake". Try Jules White's pie throwing
extravaganzas, "In the Sweet Pie and Pie"; "Half-Wits' Holiday", with
the pie on the ceiling bit.
All with Curly!
Brent McKee
James L. Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote in message
> Brent stated:
>
> >Well of course you can argue that while Fields may well have been at his
> >greatest in the sound era, Lloyd, Keaton and to a great extent Chaplin
> >didn't make the transition to sound very well.
>
> Lloyd and Chaplin did, although both did their best work during the silent
era.
> Keaton's MGM talkie features were more popular than his silents, but that
was
> certainly an abberation on the part of the moviegoing public.
The trouble is that the sound output of both Chaplin and Lloyd is
comparatively small compared to their silent production, although at the
best of times Chaplin as a feature players wasn't as prolific as others
including Lloyd and Keaton. This is particularly true if you don't count
"City Lights" and "Modern Times" as sound films (arguable since Chaplin
deliberately didn't use sound for speech which literally everyone else was
doing at this time). As well, in Lloyd's case revenue was decreasing.
As far as Keaton goes, his MGM talkies might very well have been more
popular but they weren't artistic successes. Of course Keaton's personal
life was taking a precipitous downward slide in the 1930s which contributed
his eventual departure from MGM and probably to the decline in the quality
of the films he was making there before he left.
Ruth
.
> >
> > N``
>
> Yep. But Babe and Stan are immortal. I laugh as hard at them today as I
> did
> when I was 10. Only now, its for different reasons.
> Bob
I asked my husband yesterday if he liked L& H much as a kid. He said no.
I guess that is why our marriage has lasted so long. ( he does love The
Stooges however...but no one is perfect).
Ruth
> the nimster stated:
>
> > I can't watch The Stooges anymore; they just seem mind-numbingly dumb
> > and tedious.
>
> Of course it doesn't bother me when someone doesnt like the Stooges, but
> when
> the same person turns around and proclaims how hard they laughed at Home
> Alone
> or Animal House, then it seems rather strange (and no I don't mean you
> specifically, Nim) that they would laugh at the most basic 3 stooge gags
> done
> by the likes of Macauley Culkin or John Belushi.
>
> Sort of liking the local Elvis impersonator better than Elvis.
Wait a minute!!! Animal House is funny! Home Alone wasn't.
Ruth, thinking that she oughta give the Stooges a second chance.
Ruth
<nimrod...@go-c.com> wrote:
> HOUSE. For every scene of Belushi blowing mashed potatoes out of his
> mouth....there was a scene of Tom Hulce debating whether to jump the
> drunk coed's bones,
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Whatever happened to Tom Hulce anyhow? I liked him.
James L. Neibaur
And in twenty years, when current teens are in their thirties, they will be in
this very NG proclaiming the American Pie films as comedy classics. Just as
younger people of the seventies are now embracing Animal House.
I, however, will carefully refrain from insisting Bikini Beach and Fun in
Acapulco are cinematic gems.
>Ruth, thinking that she oughta give the Stooges a second chance.
I can certainly respect that the Stooges are a style of comedy that simply
doesn't make you laugh --- but then Animal House is exactly that same type of
comedy, but with an annoying smugness and hipness thrown in. It seems
incongruous that a cruder, more boorish style of Stooges humor would be amusing
to you. I like the Stooges (and will admit much of it stems from
sentimentality, as Nim accurately assumed), but Animal House is actually a
little too messy and adolescent for my tastes. And the world goes round and
round....
Laurel and Hardy are genuinely great comic artists and their films are among
the true classics of screen comedy. Their tempo is often too relaxed for some
tastes, which is understandable. Just as I feel a genuine emotional
attatchment to Chaplin but am surprisingly detatched when it comes to Keaton.
But it takes little to realize that each is among the most important figures in
film history.
James L. Neibaur
>popular but they weren't artistic successes.
Some are not bad, but none are on par with his silents. It is surprising that
The General was a box office failure, and What! No Beer? was a big hit.
James L. Neibaur
Mickey Rooney once stated that Hulce is a good example of a competent, likeable
actor who gets little significant screen work despite his supposed star-making
turn in Amadeus.
That, Animal House, and Parenthood are the only films that I can think of. I
know there are more.
Nimrod``
wrote:
Precisely....
>
>Ruth, thinking that she oughta give the Stooges a second chance.
Don't expect it to make much of a difference, Ruth.....
N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>I can certainly respect that the Stooges are a style of comedy that simply
>doesn't make you laugh --- but then Animal House is exactly that same type of
>comedy, but with an annoying smugness and hipness thrown in.
No, it is not exactly that same type of comedy....it is smarter and
hipper by a long shot than The Stooges ever dreamed of; even Belushi
who you equate with them performs with more subtlety and charm than
any Stooge ever did.
You may be annoyed by the smugness of the characters in ANIMAL HOUSE,
but it is part of the very point of the picture and quite in keeping
with those kind of frat rats and the National Lampoon humor which is a
distinct mixture of high brow and low brow. With The Stooges it's
just low brow, with very few exceptions.
And once again I will state: The crude humor IS NOT NON-STOP like in
The Stooges pictures. There is plenty of observational humor
throughout ANIMAL HOUSE, including real character work, great music,
more realistic performances, even social commentary (the black
roadhouse). Belushi and his crude antics are merely used like spice
tossed in at certain points and spaced well apart, which keeps it from
becoming tedious for those of us who find the relentless abuse in The
Stooges flicks to be ultimately dumb and boring because it wears out
its welcome real fast due to overkill.
N``
James L. Neibaur
No, it is not exactly that same type of comedy....it is smarter and
hipper by a long shot than The Stooges ever dreamed of; even Belushi
who you equate with them performs with more subtlety and charm than
any Stooge ever did. Belushi and his crude antics are merely used like spice
tossed in at certain points and spaced well apart, which keeps it from
becoming tedious for those of us who find the relentless abuse in The
Stooges flicks to be ultimately dumb and boring because it wears out
its welcome real fast due to overkill.
------
There is far more cleverness in the better Stooge films than in the best
sequences in Animal House. I really don't think you have bothered watching the
Stooges enough so that you can recall specific films by title, etc.
Conversely, I have seen Animal House a number of times and am as familiar with
it as I am with the Stooge shorts. And rarely any of the Stooge shorts is a
non-stop succession of violent slapstick. It is indeed parcelled out for
emphasis within the realm of pointed humor about class systems during the
Depression era, wartime sensibilities, et al.
We won't agree, of course, which is fine. But I think Animal House is merely
the ugly portent to the comedies of today we both condemn. And it is really no
better.
Will
> Belushi and his crude antics are merely used like spice
> tossed in at certain points and spaced well apart, which keeps it from
> becoming tedious
I remember thinking when I first saw Animal House that it was pretty
much a waste of Belushi's talent. I clearly recall his as a throw-away
minor role. He has a couple of good looks, and the German Pearl Harbor
thing, but in total ... ehh. Only years later did I find out that he
was actually the big kahuna in terms of status and salary among the
actors.
Now you watch it and the BELUSI THING takes over and the film becomes
lopsided in impact.
Nimrod``
wrote:
>Nim stated:
>
>No, it is not exactly that same type of comedy....it is smarter and
>hipper by a long shot than The Stooges ever dreamed of; even Belushi
>who you equate with them performs with more subtlety and charm than
>any Stooge ever did. Belushi and his crude antics are merely used like spice
>tossed in at certain points and spaced well apart, which keeps it from
>becoming tedious for those of us who find the relentless abuse in The
>Stooges flicks to be ultimately dumb and boring because it wears out
>its welcome real fast due to overkill.
>
>------
>
>There is far more cleverness in the better Stooge films than in the best
>sequences in Animal House. I really don't think you have bothered watching the
>Stooges enough so that you can recall specific films by title, etc.
>Conversely, I have seen Animal House a number of times and am as familiar with
>it as I am with the Stooge shorts. And rarely any of the Stooge shorts is a
>non-stop succession of violent slapstick. It is indeed parcelled out for
>emphasis within the realm of pointed humor about class systems during the
>Depression era, wartime sensibilities, et al.
Tell you what, Jim....I'm tired of this assertion without a tangible
example that I can examine for myself.
So here's your mission, should you decide to accept it:
Since I have watched literally scores of Stooges films over my
lifetime (whose titles my mind has tried to espunge through that
wonderful healing and adaptive reflex that preserves the sanity of the
human psyche), yet you are so sure I haven't bothered to watch enough
to adequately assess them as you have (even though my most recent
screenings of Stooges fare was only about four months ago at a North
Hollywood cook-out and outdoor Stooge movie fest, lasting almost three
hours), I am asking you to get very specific about this and stop
talking in generalities, by giving me a Stooges film by title that
actually fits the description you refer to.
In other words...since ANIMAL HOUSE is merely one film that rises or
falls on what it accomplishes from it's solitary fade up to fade out,
I want you to name one Stooges film that I can make a point of seeing
in the next week or so (I won't have any trouble getting it no matter
what you name, so don't worry) that contains the pointed humor you
describe about class systems, wartime sensibilities, the Depression,
yaddayadda, and that parcels out it's moments of Stooge crudity
against counterbalancing scenes that outweigh the number of Stooge
scenes of violent humor, more cleverly than the best sequences (egad,
the BEST sequences) in ANIMAL HOUSE.
It's the least you can do if you must continue to allude to this breed
of Stooges cinema that seems largely mythical to me, and I'm sure to
certain others in the peanut gallery.
It's the least you can do to enlighten me. I ask this sincerely. If
I have honestly missed so many of the "better" Stooge outings that you
allude to, which outrank ANIMAL HOUSE in humor and a sense of balance,
then I implore you to give me one and only one Stooge title which I
may screen to further my education and finally qualify myself for
informed comment in this area. Remember, ANIMAL HOUSE is just one
movie; so show me just one Stooge movie you consider to be on a par
with it or moreso.
I submit my humble request....
N``
tomhulce.net
Thanks for that great comment from Mickey Rooney!
If you'd like to know Tom's movie, tv and stage works, along with his bio and many
great photos, check out: http://tomhulce.net
Jane
James L. Neibaur
>Remember, ANIMAL HOUSE is just one
>movie; so show me just one Stooge movie you consider to be on a par
>with it or moreso.
Imagine being asked to pick one Elvis song to turn a nay sayer into someone who
at least understands that the E man made a contribution. Um, Mystery Train, no
wait, Heartbreak Hotel, no.....
Also, I think Animal House is the same type of movie as any teen gross-out
flick of the present. Viscerally amusing, but ultimately useless. So my
opinion is that even the really shitty Stooge films are superior. But stepping
back and being objective, with the understanding that you believe Animal House
is a good movie, I do have some suggestions of titles that comedically address
the same basic issues.
You can pick from the following:
An Ache in Every Stake
In the Sweet Pie and Pie
Three Sappy People
Each are pretty solid examples of where the wealthy upper class are skewered
while the Stooges represent a base working class, yet are stupid enough for the
audience to feel superior. This had something of an impact during the
Depression. Ache also makes something of a comment on the upper class' servant
problem during this period.
Of course I am not expecting you to *like* these movies, any more than I would
like Porky's if that was the film you were championing (to pick an Animal
House-esque comedy I've never seen). But I do ask that you try to approach the
films open-mindedly and not with the attitude that I would approach the latest
rap CD.
I will certainly admit my own stubborness --- I have thought, since 1978, that
Animal House was amusing, but really just a smug, pseudo-hipster melange of
adolescent shenanigans and boorish slapstick made essentially for the frat boy
mentality. Exactly the same as American Pie (which was also amusing in the
same way). We all have a certain attraction to this lowest-common-denomonator
type of comedy. And I laughed at both films (believe it or not, I am a good
audience for comedy). However I wouldn't call either Pie or House particularly
good movies, any more than I would put the Stooges on par with the better
comedians.
But it isn't hard for me to put them ahead of Animal House or American Pie.
While I assume we are boring the others in the NG, all of whom were likely
smart enough to stop reading this thread several days ago, I've been rather
enjoying our little discussion. I always have a lot of respect for people who
seem to genuinely love movies, whether they like the same ones as I do or not.
Disagreeing with someone who is smart enough to back up their own opinions
while respectfully listening to mine is always enlightening and fun.
JN
(If after this is over you begin arguing the merits of the Police Academy
series as being better than Chaplin's Essanay period, I don't want to play
anymore! So no fair comparing the comic stylings of Steve Guttenberg to any
number of silent screen performers)
Nimrod``
wrote:
> Nimster stated:
>
>>Remember, ANIMAL HOUSE is just one
>>movie; so show me just one Stooge movie you consider to be on a par
>>with it or moreso.
>
>Imagine being asked to pick one Elvis song to turn a nay sayer into someone who
>at least understands that the E man made a contribution. Um, Mystery Train, no
>wait, Heartbreak Hotel, no.....
>
Uh....you keep scaring me, Jim, with those folks you mention in the
same breath with the Stooges....
>Also, I think Animal House is the same type of movie as any teen gross-out
>flick of the present. Viscerally amusing, but ultimately useless. So my
>opinion is that even the really shitty Stooge films are superior.
You mean, you honestly think that at their best the Stooges films are
anything more than viscerally amusing? What could they possibly be
beyond that----great social commentary??? Beyond their ability to
induce a gutlaugh from certain quarters, The Stooges pictures are
ultimately usless also. That much I am sure of.
There's nothing to be ashamed of in that; what more do we ask of a
comedy, be it high or lowbrow? A good laugh is nothing to sneer at;
even if The Stooges don't give me many.
Furthermore, when you say that you think future generations will
regard the most-recent gross-out comedies the same way myself or
others may regard ANIMAL HOUSE....which you equate with your attitude
about The Stooges fare, I feel the need to point out a thing or two.
I was not much of an ANIMAL HOUSE fan during its original release and
heyday; but I've found it increasingly endearing in recent years. I
don't find REVENGE OF THE NERDS or PORKY'S or any comparable films of
that era particularly amusing; they haven't grown funnier with time to
me. You imply that one's affection for ANIMAL HOUSE is related to
having been exposed to it in one's youth, yet I was exposed to miles
of Stooges footage, which I actually actively enjoyed as a
child....yet they do not make me laugh anymore. So the formula of
your equation breaks down, to my thinking.
Also, ANIMAL HOUSE's target audience was a different audience than The
Stooges. Speaking purely in demographics here, The Stooges greatest
appeal was to children with a demographic that also skewed upward to
certain adults with a taste for such things. ANIMAL HOUSE, in
contrast, was never targeted even remotely at children....it's
demographic began at a mid-teen level and skewed upward from there.
This is a critical difference, because, for all its crudity it meant
that ANIMAL HOUSE was catering to an audience able to deal
(theoretically) with more adult subject matter on every level; from
highbrow to lowbrow.
>But stepping
>back and being objective, with the understanding that you believe Animal House
>is a good movie, I do have some suggestions of titles that comedically address
>the same basic issues.
>
>You can pick from the following:
>
>An Ache in Every Stake
>In the Sweet Pie and Pie
>Three Sappy People
I don't mean to be stubborn here myself, but ANIMAL HOUSE really is
only one movie. It's not fair to give me three Stooges films which
are somehow supposed to cover the bases as something superior to AH.
>
><snip>.
>
>I will certainly admit my own stubborness --- I have thought, since 1978, that
>Animal House was amusing, but really just a smug, pseudo-hipster melange of
>adolescent shenanigans and boorish slapstick made essentially for the frat boy
>mentality.
Well, I'm not a frat boy and most of the humor I like runs more toward
the gentle Ealing comedies out of England ....but I like ANIMAL HOUSE
to surprising degree these days, for what it's worth. Go figure. I
like it because of the balance it strikes and because I think most of
its humor, high and low, hits its mark. And I say this as someone who
otherwise thinks John Landis is a yuppie cretin.
>Exactly the same as American Pie (which was also amusing in the
>same way). We all have a certain attraction to this lowest-common-denomonator
>type of comedy. And I laughed at both films (believe it or not, I am a good
>audience for comedy). However I wouldn't call either Pie or House particularly
>good movies, any more than I would put the Stooges on par with the better
>comedians.
Whew, well...you just gotta stop mentioning folks like Elvis when you
speak of Larry, Moe, and Curly....
>
>But it isn't hard for me to put them ahead of Animal House or American Pie.
I've never seen AMERICAN PIE...so I can only speak of ANIMAL HOUSE,
which I obviously put ahead of the entire Stooges catalog, because it
realizes that a little nyuk-nyuk goes a long way.
>
>While I assume we are boring the others in the NG, all of whom were likely
>smart enough to stop reading this thread several days ago, I've been rather
>enjoying our little discussion. I always have a lot of respect for people who
>seem to genuinely love movies, whether they like the same ones as I do or not.
>Disagreeing with someone who is smart enough to back up their own opinions
>while respectfully listening to mine is always enlightening and fun.
I agree wholeheartedly. Always a pleasure to straighten you out, Jim.
N``
(nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)
ali assa seen
Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
> >As far as Keaton goes, his MGM talkies might very well have been more
> >popular but they weren't artistic successes.
>
> Some are not bad, but none are on par with his silents. It is surprising that
> The General was a box office failure, and What! No Beer? was a big hit.
>
> JN
You're Telling Me!
(That was a response, not a film title, since we've gone from Fields to
Keaton.)
- The Alley Assassin
ali assa seen
Neibaur <jimn...@aol.combatant> wrote:
> Unfortunately, not all of these older films are as accessible as they were in
> the seventies, when film buffs bothered to venture earlier than the fifties
> for
> their cinematic knowledge.
>
> JN
> (who remembers when the Keaton and Lloyd talkies were televised quite
> regularly)
That is odd - you're right about the Keaton and Lloyd stuff as far as I
know, yet the Fields books from the 70s I have list around half his
films as "lost" yet now we can see pristine prints of them on TV or
rent/buy most of them. Are we on the brink of a Fields resurgence? The
Firesign Theatre are back, so perhaps it could be so...
- The Alley Assassin
ali assa seen
<nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
>
> >But stepping
> >back and being objective, with the understanding that you believe Animal
> >House
> >is a good movie, I do have some suggestions of titles that comedically
> >address
> >the same basic issues.
> >
> >You can pick from the following:
> >
> >An Ache in Every Stake
> >In the Sweet Pie and Pie
> >Three Sappy People
>
> I don't mean to be stubborn here myself, but ANIMAL HOUSE really is
> only one movie. It's not fair to give me three Stooges films which
> are somehow supposed to cover the bases as something superior to AH.
>
He said you could *pick from* those three. So get to it - and anyway,
all together they're still shorter than Animal House, being "shorts"
after all). The fact that you keep talking about Stooges "movies" makes
me wonder, though it's not necessarily a totally incorrect usage. As
far as their feature films, I don't think "Soup To Nuts" or "The
Outlaws Is Coming" are going to boost any argument towards the Stooges'
brilliance (though I think both are reasonably funny).
- The Alley Assassin
Dean Eaton
so the time might be ripe for a revival. His nihilistic, I-hate-everyone
attitude would seem to be a perfect match for the era of the Farrellys and
MTV humor. (He's also one of John Cleese's favorite comics, too. Fields as
Basil Fawlty?)
A drunk, a cheat, a liar, a racist ("Who's the chief Ubangi around here?"),
a sexist and a child abuser - hell, he'd fit right in.
dean
Detective: "Did your wife have any distinguishing marks, any birthmarks?"
Fields: "Yes, yes she did, I must confess. She had...(pause)... sideburns."
Nimrod``
To have a "resurgence" he would first have to have waned significantly
in popularity....which to my knowledge Fields never really has. For
years I've dealt with an ongoing parade of W.C. Fields lovers, myself
among them....
N``
Nimrod``
<dan...@ausNOTTHISchron.com> wrote:
>In article <kp+IOwWJc6r1na...@4ax.com>, Nimrod``
><nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >But stepping
>> >back and being objective, with the understanding that you believe Animal
>> >House
>> >is a good movie, I do have some suggestions of titles that comedically
>> >address
>> >the same basic issues.
>> >
>> >You can pick from the following:
>> >
>> >An Ache in Every Stake
>> >In the Sweet Pie and Pie
>> >Three Sappy People
>>
>> I don't mean to be stubborn here myself, but ANIMAL HOUSE really is
>> only one movie. It's not fair to give me three Stooges films which
>> are somehow supposed to cover the bases as something superior to AH.
>>
>
>He said you could *pick from* those three. So get to it -
My very point was that I don't want it to be my pick....I want it to
be Jim's. One single Stooges film that he would match against the one
single film that is ANIMAL HOUSE; not a representative group, i.e....a
crosssection of Stooges films.
But seeing that he, not surprisingly, has failed to take up the
challenge fully and has fudged on the issue...I suppose I'll just have
to default to the first title on the list.
>and anyway,
>all together they're still shorter than Animal House, being "shorts"
>after all).
I am HIGHLY aware of that fact, Jack....having been subjected to more
of them than I care to recall since infancy. Which is a big part of
my point....since those films rarely had time to develop much more
than the obligatory cartoon-like Stooge boink-match.
>The fact that you keep talking about Stooges "movies" makes
>me wonder, though it's not necessarily a totally incorrect usage.
With all due respect....the fact that you're putting words in me mouth
makes me wonder. As a rule, with but one exception I have pointedly
not referred to Stooges "movies".
I have instead repeatedly referred to Stooges films (which they most
definitely are.), Stooges fare, Stooges pictures and even to the
Stooges catalog. This I did quite consciously because of my awareness
that most were shorts and that most of their feature films were even
subpar by the Stooges' dubious standards.
N``
steve
On 30-Aug-2001, Nimrod`` <nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
> >Are we on the brink of a Fields resurgence? The
> >Firesign Theatre are back, so perhaps it could be so...
>
>
> To have a "resurgence" he would first have to have waned significantly
> in popularity....which to my knowledge Fields never really has. For
> years I've dealt with an ongoing parade of W.C. Fields lovers, myself
> among them....
You both probably realize that niether the FT nor WC Fields are mainstream
entertainment. The number of people who will even watch a film from the 30s
is probably a tiny fraction of the public. Shit, I know people who wont even
watch a black and white film!
WC Fields has probably maintained the same level of popularity over the last
4 or 5 decades, so the term "resurgence" would have to incorporate his
popularity level from his days of currency as a base.
There will always be those people who love and recognize quality from any
era. I just hope digital technology will preserve the great old stuff so
the future hipsters can find it and love it.
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Nimrod``
>
>
>On 30-Aug-2001, Nimrod`` <nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
>
>> >Are we on the brink of a Fields resurgence? The
>> >Firesign Theatre are back, so perhaps it could be so...
>>
>>
>> To have a "resurgence" he would first have to have waned significantly
>> in popularity....which to my knowledge Fields never really has. For
>> years I've dealt with an ongoing parade of W.C. Fields lovers, myself
>> among them....
>
>You both probably realize that niether the FT nor WC Fields are mainstream
>entertainment. The number of people who will even watch a film from the 30s
>is probably a tiny fraction of the public. Shit, I know people who wont even
>watch a black and white film!
>
A-yup.
N``
Jeffrey Davis
Several months ago, I tried to listen to one of Firesign Theater's albums and
was embarrassed by how un-funny it was.