"Stan & Ollie"*** (out of ****)
Will "Stan & Ollie" (2018) prove to be another nice mess Laurel & Hardy fans have gotten themselves into?
Growing up in the 1980s, I fell in love with the spectacular nature of movies after watching the best picture Oscar winner, "The Great Ziegfeld" (1936). Movies were woven into the fabric of my childhood, as I would watch them with my now deceased grandmother. Back in those days we would watch American Movie Classics (back when the channel stood behind its name) together, as she would tell me the Hollywood gossip on the movie stars of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.
One of the first things I remember making me laugh and putting a smile on my face was Laurel & Hardy in "Way Out West" (1937). To this day it remains my favorite of all the comedies the boys starred in. They were my childhood heroes. Because I watched, nearly exclusively, black & white movies growing up, I didn't realize these were "old" movies. I was heartbroken when I found out Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were dead and I would never get a chance to meet them. They would never know how funny I thought they were. How much they made me laugh. The impact they had on me.
Why am I telling you this? Because there will be a quiz on it later. No, I'm telling you this so you understand the "baggage" I brought in with me as I walked into the theater to see "Stan & Ollie".
Laurel & Hardy fans may react in one of two ways. They may be very disappointed with it, stating the movie doesn't do justice to the legacy of Laurel & Hardy. Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy could never bring to the screen what made Laurel & Hardy so memorable. They could never capture the chemistry the real Laurel & Hardy had. Or, they could declare the movie is an epic celebration of the comedy team. They will sing the movie's praises. Maybe not so much because the movie is good but because some are such devoted fans, they are appreciative of anything made about these legends of comedy. Somehow I fall in the middle.
There are some fans that have expressed apprehension about the movie. To those people, I can say "Stan & Ollie" is a well meaning, affectionate story meant to be a celebration of Laurel & Hardy. Yes, I can take the cheap shot and say Coogan and Reilly aren't as memorable as Laurel & Hardy but who is? Of course Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly don't have the chemistry of the real Stan & Ollie. Was anyone expecting that? Believe it or not, some fans are criticizing the movie on this basis. Opinions vary on all movies whether they are good or bad. But, this is not a valid complaint against the movie. There are however valid criticisms to point out.
Others dislike the time frame the movie focuses on. In "Stan & Ollie" director Jon S. Baird and screenwriter Jeff Pope set the movie during the twilight of Laurel & Hardy's career. It is the 1950s and the boys are on a UK tour. Stan Laurel, the brains of the team, hopes the tour, if a success, will help secure financing for a Robin Hood spoof Laurel is writing gags for. Unless the boys have been deluding themselves they quickly come to the realization the movie going public, whether in America or the UK, has moved past Laurel & Hardy comedies. For people of a certain age the boys are a distant memory.The height of their popularity was twenty years ago. Audiences don't seem willing to see Laurel & Hardy on stage performing popular routines from their movies and short subjects.
I have no objections to the movie showing us the boys in their later years. Thematically this structure offers the most dramatic impact and creates the most sympathy for Laurel & Hardy from the audience's perspective. It helps enforce the theme of an artist coming to terms with their time being up. In the case of Laurel & Hardy it could also allow for a commentary on the financial troubles the boys faced. As with "Our Gang", comedy producer Hal Roach didn't pay royalties to Laurel & Hardy.
As much as I wanted to love "Stan & Ollie" I must admit the story is lacking.What is missing in "Stan & Ollie" is conflict. To create this, Pope has devised a fictitious riff between the men, resulting in bad feelings and resentment that has carried on through the years and surfaces once again during their tour. While this does keep in line with some of the themes the movie wants to address, it really wasn't needed because there was actual drama in Laurel & Hardy's lives that could have been used.
You could have taken nearly the same approach, showing Laurel & Hardy in their later years, hit the idea of the boys realizing their star has faded, and touch on their financial trouble by focusing the movie on their transition from Hal Roach (played by Danny Houston) to 20th Century Fox. At Fox, Stan Laurel in particular, lost creative control. It was a similar story with Buster Keaton a decade earlier. For whatever reason the big studios weren't a good fit for comedians. Best of all, a false narrative wouldn't need to be created by the screenwriter.
In Pope's screenplay, Laurel & Hardy are signed to separate contracts. Laurel's is set to expire a year before Hardy's. To put pressure on Laurel, during contract negotiations, Roach stars Hardy in a movie without Laurel called "Zenobia" (1939), which is never referred to by name. The co-star of the movie would be silent screen comedian Harry Langdon (also never mentioned by name). "Stan & Ollie" implies Laurel was heartbroken over Hardy's decision to continue shooting the movie with Langdon.
These events are partially true. The contract dispute did happen. Oliver Hardy did film a movie called "Zenobia" with Harry Langdon (which honestly isn't a bad movie). What is false is the heartache Stan felt and his bitterness towards Hardy. Laurel was even friends with Harry Langdon.
Movie bios generally stray from the truth for artistic license. I can accept that. I'm not bothered by the bogus falling out between the boys but in movie terms, it isn't played out fully and as dramatically as possible. In a screenplay a conflict is established, characters work towards a resolution, and finally the conflict is resolved. Generally speaking that is a three act structure. In "Stan & Ollie" the "conflict" doesn't rear its ugly head until a hour into the movie. The conflict doesn't cause enough of a riff that a real resolution is needed to be worked through. The script goes to great lengths to establish Laurel & Hardy had a genuine love for each other. That is what made their partnership so special and the reason for the great chemistry they displayed on-screen.
There is nothing for us to root for or against. Imagine if we had 20th Century Fox executives to root against. Executives that didn't have a sense of humor or didn't care much for Laurel & Hardy and just thought their movies wouldn't bring a profit. Now as an audience we are more involved. The story we see on-screen is too goody two shoes.
The success of the movie rest on the shoulders of Coogan and Reilly. Neither man gives a Rich Little impersonation. These actors have taken their roles seriously and wanted to flesh out these men.Yes, they get vocal patterns and physical gestures correct, which will delight fans, as we see reenactments of famous routines, but these are two performances meant to capture some depth.The screenplay unfortunately betrays them. You get the feeling through their performances Coogan and Reilly have elevated this material.
Also worth praising is the make-up and the transformation of John C. Reilly. When I first heard Reilly was cast in the role I couldn't envision it. Reilly doesn't look like Oliver Hardy. And then I saw photos. Reilly is "lost" in the role. He looks as close to Oliver Hardy as one could expect. On the opposite end though I wasn't as impressed with Coogan's make-up. His younger Stan and older Stan look very similar. No distinction in age. Where are the wrinkles? Where is the visible aging process?
To put all my cards on the table, I hope a movie like "Stan & Ollie" will help younger audiences "discover" the boys and bring in a new generation of fans. That is why I don't like the factual errors presented in the movie. Maybe I am just being too protective of my heroes but I hate for new fans to have this false impression of the boys and bitterness between them.
I am reminded of a few years ago when the Farrelly Brothers directed "The Three Stooges" (2012), an attempt to revive the comedy team in a brand new story. It wasn't a very good movie but it did expose the team to a whole new audience that would seek out the real team. Will "Stan & Ollie" do the same? Underneath it all I believe that was the intention of Jon S. Baird and Jeff Pope.
"Stan & Ollie" isn't a failure and doesn't do damage to the legacy of the greatest comedy team in the history of cinema. To the degree the movie works it is because of the performances given by Coogan and Reilly. I can't help but feel however that the screenplay lacks central conflict. There is no meat on this story. It is well meaning and affectionately made which may be enough for long time fans.
Some may be interested to know, "Zenobia" was not the only movie Oliver Hardy appeared in without Laurel during the years of their partnership. Hardy had a role in the John Wayne western, "The Fighting Kentuckian" (1949). Can you imagine what Pope would have done with this information if he knew about it? He would have had Laurel challenge Wayne to a duel! Maybe Harry Langdon could have been Wayne's second.
Posts
