Film Reviews: The Butcher Boy & The Bell Boy

  "The Butcher Boy"

   *** (out of ****)

As revisionist history goes, in the silent film era several American comedians "rivaled" Charlie Chaplin in terms of popularity. I've read "critics" throw out names like Harold Lloyd, Larry Semon and even Buster Keaton. This is all poppycock and I've grown rather tired of reading it. No one matched Chaplin's popularity. But, if anyone could come close, it wouldn't be any of the names mentioned - Keaton for example was a modest box-office draw - it would have to be Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

The name "Fatty" Arbuckle doesn't mean much to today's movie going fans. History has all but erased his name from popular film culture except to the handful of weirdos like myself who still watch silent movies in the 21st Century. In his day however "Fatty" Arbuckle delighted the masses. He was so popular and considered so valuable to a studio that Paramount renewed him to a three year contract in 1920 for three million dollars, making him the highest paid actor in the world! Compare that to when Chaplin signed with Mutual in 1916 at $670,000 a year - making him the highest paid actor at the time. With this being the year of Life is Short - my year long look at short films, with an emphasis on comedy shorts - now was the best time to discuss this forgotten legend.

Of all the shorts  Arbuckle starred in "The Butcher Boy" (1917) may generate the most interest among silent comedy fans. This short marked the screen debut of Buster Keaton. Because of this historical fact most modern viewers will watch "The Butcher Boy" to see Keaton perform while disregarding Arbuckle, whom they probably don't recognize as being important. I won't do that here but I do plan to review Keaton's solo work at a later date.

After becoming a key player at comedy producer Mack Sennett's studio, where he worked along side Charlie Chaplin and Mabel Normand, Arbuckle started his own film company called Comique with Joseph Schenck. "The Boy Butcher" was their first film released.

Arbuckle stars as "Fatty", the butcher at a General Store and is in love with Amanda (Alice Lake), the daughter of the store's manager, Mr. Grouch (Arthur Earle). Competing for  Amanda's affection is another employee, Slim (Al St. John, Arbuckle's real life nephew). Their bickering culminates into a massive flour throwing fight with pies tossed in for good measure (an Arbuckle staple). This outburst causes the father to send Amanda away to an all-girls boarding school.

The way Arbuckle - who directed and co-wrote the story - structured "The Butcher Boy" resembles a two-act play. The first half of this 24 minute short revolves around the General Store. The second half takes place at the boarding school. "Fatty" and Slim each secretly visit  Amanda disguised as girls (another staple of Arbuckle's comedies). "Fatty" reveals his identity to Amanda but I don't believe either one of them is aware Slim is in drag.

The first half of "The Butcher Boy" focuses on physical comedy. There is a bad tendency for characters to do "funny" things for no reason at all except for the belief it is funny. In the very first sequence a young boy is with his mother. They are about to leave the store when he drops an item. The mother, clearly annoyed, kicks him in the ass. Why? What mother behaves this way? Arbuckle apparently thought a kick to the ass was funny. It could be if Chaplin, dressed as The Tramp, did it to a socialite. But a mother to her son? That's questionable. To go over the counter Slim jumps on top of it and while in a sitting position spins himself around like a top. Why? Silly behavior for the sake of being silly.

By the second half the humor is supposed to derive from "Fatty" and Slim being in drag. Arbuckle places the characters in risqué situations such as having Amanda, Slim and "Fatty" having to share a room at bedtime. How can they each undress in front of one another? Or when the school Mistress wants to reprimand "Fatty" for bad behavior by spanking him.

As a filmmaker Arbuckle has a rather rudimentary approach to his camera position. Much of the action, especially the jokes, are filmed in long shot. It reminds me of a Chaplin quote - comedy is in long shot, drama in close-up. The only time Arbuckle has his camera go in closer is to emphasize the needless silly facial expressions of Slim, such as when he is eating and his soup dribbles down his chin.

What makes "The Butcher Boy" enjoyable to watch is the performances. In particular Arbuckle has a likable screen presence and from all the characters on-screen, "Fatty" is the most enduring.

Contrary to what some may say of him, Arbuckle also proves to be a generous performer and director. He does not need to be the center of all the laughs. For me, the biggest laugh getters in "The Butcher Boy" are Keaton and Al St. John. Majorities of audiences will be unaware of Al but he should be able to win viewers over. His pratfalls look just as devastating as Keaton's and he proves to be just as nimble. It is a compliment to Arbuckle that he allowed these two men enough room to show off their abilities.

In his first screen appearance Keaton possesses many of the qualities that would come to be identified with the Great Stone Face. While he does make facial expressions here, his restraint creates a contrast to Al St. John. It feeds into the silly for the sake of being silly mentality. Al knows he is being silly and wants you to know it too. Keaton already seems to understand he is not on stage playing for an audience. In his limited screen time he makes an impression and is given a real opportunity to shine in a molasses routine with Arbuckle.

"The Butcher Boy" is a bit uneven - I'm not a fan of the two-act structure - but ultimately an enjoyable comedy. The three male leads - Arbuckle, St. John and Keaton - all have moments where their talents are highlighted. While most will flock to this to catch a glimpse of early Keaton, one hopes they will take notice of Arbuckle and St. John.

 "The Bell Boy"

  *** (out of ****)

"Fatty" Arbuckle delivers big laughs in the comedy "The Bell Boy" (1918).

The opening title cards inform us at the Elk's Head Hotel one can expect third class service for first class prices - some things never change - much of this is due to a pair of bellhops - "Fatty" and Buster. The hotel's desk clerk (Al St. John) however isn't any better. Together these three mishandle luggage, assault costumers, trap them in elevators, and find time to flirt with pretty ladies. 

Much like the better known Jerry Lewis comedy of the same title, this is an episodic plot built around a collection of great visual gags. Essentially the story revolves around an average day at the hotel and the usual goings-on until the arrival of a beautiful manicurist (Alice Lake) who steals the heart of "Fatty". 

The loose plot also gives way to loosely defined characters. Arbuckle, Keaton and St. John are basically playing a variation of the same kind of character. Nothing really distinguishes them from one another. Think if the Ritz Brothers were in a silent comedy. Arbuckle, Keaton and St. John are each goofy, prat falling fools going for the laugh. "The Bellboy" could have used a straight man, which should have been Al St. John, since he orders "Fatty" and Buster around. However the comedy gels nicely as the humor seems to naturally arise from the hotel surroundings instead of feeling like forced set pieces. Unfortunately, as in "The Butcher Boy" there is still a tendency to act silly for the sake of being silly but that is a staple of the era and not necessarily a reflection on Arbuckle.

As one can expect from a comedy made during this time period, political or social references may not translate to modern audiences, or they might find the material to be politically incorrect. Take for example a sequence involving what is supposed to be a tall, intimidating looking man who resembles Rasputin. When he enters the hotel "Fatty" and Buster are afraid of him. However after the man begins to speak he makes feminine hand movements implying he is a homosexual. This is a relief to "Fatty" and Buster, who now realize they have nothing to fear. "Fatty" and the man even start to play patty-cake briefly. Some viewers may find this to be insensitive.

In the most forced comedy sequence, "Fatty" learns the man actually wants a haircut and to have his beard trimmed. Serving as the hotel barber "Fatty" reveals he has a special talent. He is able to make people resemble famous figures. In this sequence "Fatty" styles the man to look like General Grant and President Lincoln.  As "Fatty" literally showcases the man for the camera the inter-titles inform us as well. Of course comedy comes in threes and by the third styling we get to the punchline, "Fatty" makes the man resemble Wilhelm II. After styling him this way, no title cards appear as "Fatty" slaps the man in the face with a handful of shaving cream. Without the inter-titles however some may not recognize him as Wilhelm II and may not be watching "The Bell Boy" in the context of being a World War 1 comedy.

These comedy sequences however are fun to watch because they provide us with a great glimpse into "contemporary" society and what made people laugh. I'm sure the Wilhelm joke was a scream for 1918 audiences as was the homosexual gag.

Another gag has Buster and guests in an elevator stuck between floors. Buster's head is stuck sticking out between the elevator floor and top of the elevator. Behind the scenes we learn the elevator is operated by the desk clerk. He heads outside where a tied up horse is waiting. When the horse walks forward the elevator rises. The horse has stopped moving however. "Fatty" tries to help Buster push his head back in but Arbuckle is building a lot of suspense because we don't know when the horse will move. It is all very clever and well filmed.

The pace ever so slightly slows down a bit once the love interest is introduced as "Fatty" and Buster each vie for her hand. In order to further impress the girl simply known as Cutie, "Fatty" asks his two friends if they will pretend to rob a bank so he can play the hero and capture them. Being the pals that they are, they agree but unknown to them, the bank is actually being robbed. Will "Fatty" be brave enough to turn into a real hero?

Between the two shorts reviewed, I'd say "The Bell Boy" is the funnier comedy. It is further interesting to see Buster's growth has a performer, moving up to a co-star here with Arbuckle equally sharing in the laughs. The two have a rapport with one another that reminds me of what Laurel and Hardy would possess a decade later. For his part, Arbuckle also seems in better form than in "The Butcher Boy". He shares more in the comedy here whereas I thought he gave Keaton and St. John a lot of the spotlight in that previous comedy.

Arbuckle unfortunately faded from the public limelight in 1921 after he was accused of the rape and murder of an actress named Virginia Rappe. It became the Hollywood sex scandal of the day with an  American public all too eager to consider him guilty - some have suggested his appearance, which lacked leading man features, was the cause for this. Two trials ended in a hung jury but a third trial acquitted him. It was however too late for his career to make a successful comeback though he did try in the 1930s appearing in a few "talkies" filmed at Vitaphone Studios. In-between that time he directed some comedies under the name William Goodrich.

As I have expressed the last 17 years on this blog, I hate for these great performers to be forgotten by the public. Arbuckle was a very good comedian who deserved better. Hopefully after watching "The Butcher Boy" and "The Bell Boy" audiences will be able to spot his talent and give his comedies a second (or first) look.

Film Reviews: The Gay Nighties & Odor in the Court

 "The Gay Nighties"

  *** (out of ****)

You've dived into the comedies of the Marx Brothers with gusto, and you've tackled the work of the Ritz Brothers with equal zest and yet your cinematic appetite for cockeyed, anti-authoritarian comedy lingers. Where to turn next? Perhaps into the waiting arms of Bobby Clark and Paul McCullough.

Forgotten today, the comedy team of Clark and McCullough starred in a number of comedy shorts at Fox - nearly all of which were destroyed in the infamous fire on the Fox lot in 1937 - and RKO between 1928 - 1935. With this being the year of Life is Short - my year long look at short films, with a heavy emphasis on comedy shorts - now was the perfect time to discuss the duo.

Of all the RKO Clark and McCullough shorts, "The Gay Nighties" (1933) may be one of my favorites, a political satire that implies politics is full of dirty tricks and dishonest politicians.

Clark is B. Oglethorpe Hives and McCullough is his associate Blodgett. They are a pair of campaign managers working for Oliver Beezley (John Sheehan). (Did you get the joke? The names Beezley and Hives. Bee hive.) Beezley is worried he may lose out to opponent Commodore Amos Pipp (James Finlayson), who claims to have a "spotless reputation". Hives and Blodgett believe the only way to turn the election around is by finding something indecent from Pipp's past. What they find is he has a weakness for the ladies. Now they must arrange for Pipp's to be discovered in a compromising situation with a woman. The grand plan is to have Blodgett dress as a woman to meet Pipp in a hotel room and Hives will snap a photo.

Unfortunately, Blodgett proves to be far too unattractive as a woman - he doesn't even shave off his moustache - causing Hives to abandon their plan. They are going to need to a find a real woman instead. As a last resort they ask Beezley's wife (Dorothy Granger). Before their plan can be implemented however the boys contend with a wild assortment of guests at the hotel - a sleepwalking countess (Sandra Shaw) - who enters in and out of rooms wearing a revealing nightie, a busy body detective (Monte Collins) - who makes sure to inform everyone there is no ukulele playing allowed - and a man (Charles Williams) looking for a place to sleep.

With a running time of nearly 20 minutes, this pre-code comedy, directed by Mark Sandrich, is as bawdy and zany as a burlesque act. Take for example a sequence that may recall the Marx Brothers or Olsen & Johnson. The boys are in their hotel room, devising their plan when all of a sudden, one by one strangers start entering and exiting the room. The detective is having a shootout with a burglar, a woman walks in, steals their blanket and leaves. All without saying a word. And then the sleep walking countess enters and lays on their bed. 

This may make Clark and McCullough too difficult to digest for some modern viewers. They wouldn't be able to verbalize it in this way but they wouldn't appreciate the "vaudeville on film" approach to the comedy. "The Gay Nighties" is a blizzard of sexual innuendos and puns that they'd consider too corny and dated. Of course, Clark and McCullough did come from the tradition of vaudeville and burlesque. And the "naughty" humor is part of the appeal watching their comedies. As individuals walk in and out of the room, all assume Blodgett is a woman and "she" and Hives are in the middle of a romantic tryst.

To the "movie critics" (AKA sheep) this all lacks the polished refinement of Abbott & Costello or the Marx Brothers - both of which is also vaudeville on film. The critics would say what was missing from Clark and McCullough was a lack of talent behind the camera. The boys didn't have a team of A list gag writers working on their material. They didn't have talented directors visually elevate their comedies either. "The Gay Nighties" however had Mark Sandrich as director. RKO would promote him to feature-length projects, most notably Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers musicals such as "Top Hat" (1935), "The Gay Divorcee" (1934) and "Shall We Dance" (1937). In addition to directing a few other Clark and McCullough comedies, Sandrich also directed Jack Benny - "Buck Benny Rides Again" (1940) and "Love Thy Neighbor" (1940) with Fred Allen - and the comedy team of Bert Wheeler and Robert Woolsey - "Hips, Hips, Hooray! (1934) and "Cockeyed Cavaliers" (1934). Wheeler and Woolsey's second film appearance was in the musical - comedy, "The Cuckoos" (1930) based on a Broadway show called The Ramblers which featured Clark and McCullough. Also worth noting is the cinematographer for "The Gay Nighties" was Nick Musuraca, who had a long career in film and television working on the classic film noir "Out of the Past" (1947) and the horror film "The Cat People" (1942)

What "The Gay Nighties" really suffers from is poor editing. A lot ended up on the cutting room floor. Some of which was critical to the plot. For example, we never see how Pipp was convinced to meet a lady in the hotel room. The audience can assume Hives and Pipp discussed it, because once the meeting between Pipp and the lady doesn't go over well, Pipp calls Hives. But does Pipp really not know that Hives is one of the managers on the Beezley campaign? How did Hives explain who he is? The meeting between these two had the potential for some humorous dialogue. Disappointingly editing this out was done to keep this comedy down to two reels.

There's enough madness in "The Gay Nighties" to keep audiences entertained but the story feels rushed. An additional ten minutes to more properly set up all the conflicts and character motivations would have gone a long way to establishing this as something of a comedy masterpiece.

"Odor in the Court"

*** (out of ****)

In "Odor in the Court" (1934), Clark and McCullough tear down another "respectable" institution, the legal system. Similar to "The Gay Nighties" in its antics, "Odor in the Court" is another prime candidate for the team's best comedy short.

Clark and McCullough are two lawyers with the slogan, "no case too small - no fee too large". Clark is named Blackstone this time and McCullough plays Blodgett again. In their comedies McCullough's character was usually named Blodgett while Clark's characters were often given names meant to correlate to his profession. The name Blackstone is probably a reference to the English legal scholar, Sir. William Blackstone.

June Bolt (Helen Collins) plans to divorce her husband Willie (Lorrin Raker) in order to marry professional boxer Plug Hardy (Tom Kennedy). Willie doesn't object to getting the divorce however he is adamant about not wanting to pay alimony. To achieve this he hires Blackstone and Blodgett, while June has acquired the legal services of Thackery D. Ward (Jack Rice), the best lawyer in the state. Despite his reputation, Ward plans on scheming his client out of the full amount of the settlement, and intends to split it with Hardy. Not to be outdone in the unethical department, Blackstone and Blodgett arrange to have their secretary photographed kissing Ward. Ward is engaged to a judge's daughter. The same judge that it just so happens will be presiding over the divorce case. 

Blackstone and Blodgett proceed to make a mockery of the courtroom by bringing a marching band with them and a soda and popcorn vendor. They needlessly shout out objections merely to irritate the judge and make accusations - which may not be entirely wrong - that the plaintiff has been coached by her lawyer when on the witness stand. As funny as these shenanigans are, it recalls much of what Wheeler and Woolsey did in their feature-length comedy, "Peach-O-Reno" (1931) which I found to be a much funnier and more biting commentary on marriage and divorce.

Much like in "The Gay Nighties" one gets the feeling there was a lot of editing done to "Odor in the Court" so as to keep it as a two reeler. Information is revealed in awkward ways, such as Ward being engaged - we never see his bride to be - and the relationship between the judge and Ward isn't played for any laughs. And what exactly is the relationship between Ward and Hardy? Why are they defrauding June? And does June really love Hardy? There seems to be so much more to these characters than what appears on-screen.

One issue first time audiences may have with Clark and McCullough is while technically they were a two man team, they don't follow the usual straight man / comic set-up. All of the comedy falls on the shoulders of Bobby Clark. This doesn't necessarily bother me as I understand what the Clark persona is meant to be - a phony authority on any given subject in the tradition of Groucho Marx and W.C. Fields. Clark is loud and obnoxious, confident and deceitful. You will notice his characters "wear" glasses. The glasses are in fact painted on. Surely those interacting with him know the glasses aren't real. It takes a lot of confidence to try to and deceive people into believing they are.

And yet there is an energetic silliness to "Odor in the Court" that I find infectious. This zany and broad style of comedy has always appealed to me. I laugh at the absurdity of it all and get a kick out of the pre-code nature of the humor such as when a woman's dress flies up as she stands over a manhole.

I can't pretend Clark and McCullough were as funny as Laurel and Hardy or the Marx Brothers but I hate to think of them as being forgotten. They were as fluent in comedy hijinks and anti-establishment sentiment as the best from their era. They turned chaos into comedy art.

"The Gay Nighties" and "Odor in the Court" are two very good comedies to use as an introduction into Clark and McCullough's mad comedy world.

Film Reviews: Mama Behave & Mighty Like A Moose

 "Mama Behave"

 *** 1/2 (out of ****)

Marital infidelity and mistaken identity rule the day in this pair of Hal Roach silent comedies spotlighting the comedic talents of Charley Chase.

One of the highlights of this year's theme, Life is Short - my year long look at comedy shorts - is it finally allows me the opportunity to review some of Charley Chase's comedies. Chase was unfortunately one of the great silent comedians that never transitioned to feature-length comedies. Because of my focus on feature-length movie reviews, it meant I had to ignore his body of work - despite appearing in hundreds of comedies.

Although not identified by modern movie fans as one of the significant figures of silent comedy, Charley Chase was a very popular comedian in the 1920s. While his comedies lacked the artistic vision of Chaplin's and he didn't perform dazzling stunts like Keaton, Chase's comedies don't have to take a back seat to anyone in the laugh's department.

The Chase persona wasn't much different than the Glasses character played by another great silent film comedian, Harold Lloyd. Both were presented as a kind of everyman, a next door neighbor type. Lloyd's character's were driven by a desire to succeed and achieve the American Dream. I'd argue his comedies were instrumental in the development of the romantic-comedy. As seen in this pair of comedies, Chase was more bedroom farce. Characterized by some as happy-go-lucky, several Chase comedies - "Isn't Life Terrible?" (1925), "What Price Goofy?" (1925) and "Innocent Husbands" (1925) - feature him as a helpless husband with either a jealous wife or an overbearing family. 

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Chase's two-reelers had a good sense of story. They followed a narrative and weren't merely a collection of gags strung together by a flimsy plot. I'll watch the Keystone Kops but often I have no idea what it going on in the story. Even some of Chaplin's earliest shorts had poor stories. Coincidentally these comedies were produced by Mack Sennett. I wanted to avoid that and not repeat myself with the same criticism review after review. I took careful consideration in selecting these two Charley Chase shorts.

"Mama Behave" (1926), directed by Leo McCarey, has Charley - his character is also named Charley - play a boring husband who hates to take is wife Lolita (Mildred Harris) out dancing. He even pretends not to know how to do the Charleston or otherwise, he fears, it would mean he would have to go out every night. Lolita however is looking for excitement and casually mentions to a friend (Vivien Oakland) that she wishes Charley was more like his twin brother Jim.

Charley finds out about his wife's comment and decides to go and surprise her by buying a suit his brother would wear and take her out dancing, just to show her he too has a wild side. But when Lolita sees Charley in the new suit, she immediately believes it is Jim and addresses him as such. Not wanting to pass up an opportunity to pull a good prank on his wife, Charley decides to let her go on thinking he is Jim.

Deep down though Charley would like to "test" his wife and find out if she is true to him. Just how disappointed is she that Charley is not the out going type? Is she really after adventure and romance? As far as comedic premises go, this one is pretty good. No one could accuse it of being entirely original but we see where the comedy could arise from this story.

"Mama Behave" does a good job of raising the stakes against Charley with the best of these predicaments involving Lolita inviting her friend to go out dancing with her and "Jim", for appearance sake - what would people say about a married woman going out with a man that wasn't her husband and not having a chaperone? To keep the ruse going Lolita even suggest "Jim" and her friend kiss. Charley eagerly obliges his wife's command. Contrary to this the comedy isn't risque even though this is a pre-code comedy. It basically adheres to conventional middle class morality. 

Despite my previous praise, "Mama Behave" makes a few mistakes. The revelation of Charley's twin brother comes out of left field. That should have been revealed during the opening title cards with Charley always feeling a little insecure and secretly wanting to be like his brother. Doubts about his wife's fidelity should have also been expressed at the beginning, making it the motivating factor in his trickery. When you only have twenty minutes to tell a story your conflicts need to be immediately established within the first scene. 

It would have also been nice if "Mama Behave" made some kind of social commentary. Why reference the Charleston and not have Charley criticize jazz and the fleeting values it represents? Why not make a greater commentary about how to keep fidelity alive within a marriage? As it stands now "Mama Behave" informs us the grass isn't always greener on the other side, adultery isn't so uncommon, no one followed prohibition laws concerning alcohol, sometimes deception in a marriage can be a good thing and its best not to have a twin brother. 

Given the storyline it is a compliment to Chase's talents and screen presence that he is able to make his character likable. There is even a scene where Charley takes out his anger on a punching bag he imagines is his wife. It doesn't hurt that the comedy is told from his point of view. There are even moments when Chase breaks the forth wall and stares at the audience a la Edgar Kennedy and Oliver Hardy. The female performances weren't as impressive to me but it is interesting to note the aggressive behavior of these characters, reversing gender stereotypes. Charley is the innocent lamb and it is the females looking for a good time. Vivien Oakland in particular reinforces the viewpoint that flappers were easy and man hungry. 

"Mama Behave" is a fast moving, funny comedy that gives Charley Chase plenty of room to show off his talent.

 "Mighty Like A Moose"

 *** 1/2 (out of ****)

To the extent there is any general consensus, film historians may rank "Mighty Like A Moose" (1926) as Charley Chase's best silent comedy short. It was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry in 2007.

Once again directed by Leo McCarey, the story follows Mr. & Mrs. Moose (Chase and Vivien Oakland) as a rather homely looking couple - the title cards inform us, her face could stop a clock and his could restart it. She has a large nose and he has large front teeth. Because of their looks they were made for each other. But secretly they each wish they were attractive.

While its easy to view our current times as shallow and beauty obsessed - mostly because it is - lets not forget popularity in plastic surgery rose in the 1920s. Some even believe it was the result of new found freedom for women. This makes "Mighty Like A Moose" a sharp contemporary satire.

Chase and Oakland both just happen to be in the same building undergoing their cosmetic transformations. They run into each other while waiting for an elevator and with their new found confidence begin to flirt with one another. We are supposed to believe because of his new teeth and her new nose, they are unrecognizable - hardly! Chase is even so bold as to ask Oakland if she would like to attend a party with him that evening, to which she agrees to. When initially confronted on the issue, they even deny being married!

A lot of well timed physical comedy ensues as the couple heads back home to sneak around and prepare for their date with each other. After finally changing into their evening clothes they arrive at the party but unknown to them, their host is being watched by the police for reasons no one could be bothered to share with the audience.

Unfortunately, this all results in the home being raided by the police as a photographer snaps a photo of Chase and Oakland together! Naturally it is this photo that appears on the front page of the evening paper, which suspiciously has been printed and delivered before they have even arrived home. Still not knowing their true identity, they both believe it will spell the end of their marriages. 

Lightening strikes for Charley however. He was given a false set of his old teeth for identification purposes. If he continues to walk around with his large front teeth, his wife won't know that is him in the photo. The wife isn't so lucky. She wasn't given a mold of her old nose for identification. She must reveal to Charley the work she had done and take responsibility for the fact that is her in the photo.

It feeds into a societal double standard as Charley admonishes his wife for her infidelity, never minding that he was the other man. We can forgive this messaging however as it culminates in a great visual gag with Charley playing both his ugly buck toothed self and his handsome rival as they fight for Oakland's hand. It eventually leads to a lets kiss and make up kind of ending.

Much like was accomplished in "Mama Behave", "Mighty Like A Moose" does a good job of presenting Chase in a likable fashion. A lot of historians like to give director Leo McCarey much of the credit for the success of these comedies however in Peter Bogdanovich's wonderful book Who the Devil Made It - a series of conversations with Hollywood's great filmmakers - McCarey says both men were instrumental in the development of these shorts. McCarey acknowledges how clever Chase was and further says he was fortunate to have Hal Roach pair the two of them together. I mention this because with the exception of Chaplin and Keaton, it seems difficult for "critics" to give too much artistic praise to silent movie comedians. It couldn't be Charley Chase that was the creative artist behind these comedies, it must have been Leo McCarey. Similar statements have been made concerning another forgotten comedian, Harry Langdon. Langdon, they say, only succeeded because of Frank Capra.

This isn't meant to take away from McCarey, who was often credited as being the man to pair Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy as a team. McCarey worked with nearly all of the great comedians from his era - in addition to Laurel & Hardy and Charley Chase there was Eddie Cantor, Mae West, W.C. Fields, and the Marx Brothers. He also directed my choice for the greatest screwball comedy of all time, "The Awful Truth" (1937).

Between "Mama Behave" and "Mighty Like A Moose" viewers should have a pretty good understanding of Charley Chase's style of comedy and his abilities. He was far too talented to be forgotten by today's audiences. These comedies are nearly 100 years old and yet they are still capable of making you laugh and hit on topics that are relatable even today. 

Film Reviews: Big Business & Liberty

  "Big Business"

  **** (out of ****)

Laurel and Hardy get down to the business of comedy in the silent comedy short, "Big Business" (1929).

With the beginning of a new year, we must also begin a new theme on the blog. For the past seventeen years my primary focus has been on feature length movies. In terms of comedy, this has created an issue for me. While I have reviewed several films starring comedy greats such as Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields, the Marx Brothers, Harold Lloyd, and Laurel and Hardy, it meant I had to ignore the work of comedians like Charley Chase, Clark & McCullough and "Fatty" Arbuckle, all of whom made their mark in comedy shorts. This has always bothered me and in 2025 I decided to address the situation head on with this year's theme, Life is Short - a year long look at classic comedy shorts. And what better way to start this endeavor than with a pair of Laurel and Hardy silent comedies!

Although Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy first appeared together on-screen in the 1921 comedy, "The Lucky Dog" and officially became a comedy team in 1927 at comedy producer Hal Roaches' studio, 1929 may actually be the more pivotal year in Laurel and Hardy's career. For me, this is the year everything started to gel. The boys were firmly establishing the personality traits of their individual personas and the dynamic between their characters. Because of this, of all the comedies Roach released with the boys in 1929 "Big Business" may be their best.

By 1929 Hardy is clearly the "leader" of the team with Laurel as his befuddled friend. Hardy's gentlemanly ways may fool Laurel into believing he is the more sophisticated of the two, it does not however fool the rest of society, which views them equally as dimwits. And while Hardy may consider himself the superior mental giant, it is often Laurel that comes up with the good ideas. In their prior comedies like "Putting Pants on Philip" (1927, their first comedy as an official team) and "The Second Hundred Years" (1927) the jokes came wherever they could find them. They didn't resemble the characters modern audiences have come to know. To be honest though Oliver Hardy appeared to have a better grasp on his character from the beginning.

In "Big Business" we get to see all of this on display. There are some kinks to still be worked out - Laurel has a bit more sass than expected and doesn't have his hair in the fright wig style - nevertheless the chemistry is there between them. Laurel and Hardy were the greatest comedy team in the history of cinema and "Big Business" helps demonstrates why. As you watch the comedy you will notice a fluidity to their movements. One's actions compliments the other's, as if they are a single person. Stan Laurel famously described it as "two minds without a single thought" 

The plot of "Big Business" is both simple and masterful, a case study in comedy structure. The boys are a couple of Christmas tree salesmen, going door-to-door on what appears to be a lovely, sunny California day. Dressed in warm overcoats and wearing gloves, they desperately try to make a sale. When they arrive at their third house, they run into James Finlayson. Like the other homeowners, he does not want to buy a tree but through a mishap a series of destruction begins resulting in the demolition of the boys' car and Finlayson's home.

It is a comedy routine known as "tit-for-tat" that fans of Laurel and Hardy will immediately recognize. One character engages in demolishing another character's personal property or wardrobe. The character being accosted passively looks on while the damage is being done only to retaliate while the previous aggressor looks on, waiting for their turn. And so it goes back and forth with the stakes consistently being raised.

This routine would usually account for a brief sequence within a larger comedy. In "Big Business" it is the focal point with the entire premise built around it. After Finlayson refuses to buy a Christmas tree, Laurel has the tree too close to the door, causing it to get stuck when the door closes. The boys have to disturb Finlayson four or five times until Laurel is finally able to remove the tree in time. Beyond fed up by this point Finlayson damages the Christmas tree as a form of revenge. And from there the situation escalates.

Humor is often found in exaggeration. "Big Business" takes what could be a somewhat relatable situation - being annoyed by a salesman - and stretches it out to its  furthest possible limits. The audience laughs at the absurdity of the scenario and yet within the world Laurel and Hardy have created their behavior follows a certain logic that brings us into the story. 

With a running time of less than twenty minutes "Big Business" doesn't wear out its welcome. While the plot has nowhere to go narratively, it still has an abrupt feeling end. This type of comedy short exist only for its laughs and by that measure it wildly succeeds.

 "Liberty"

 *** 1\2 (out of ****)

In the 1920s silent film comedians Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton became famous for their thrill comedies. Lloyd famously climbed atop the side of a building in "Safety Last!" (1923) where he iconically dangled while holding onto the hands of a clock. In any number of Keaton comedies you could see him perform spectacular stunts though his work in "The General" (1926) and "Sherlock, Jr." (1924) may be his most memorable. And so in uncharacteristic fashion, so too would Laurel and Hardy have to thrill the masses by being placed in life or death situations.

That may be the only way to explain the Laurel and Hardy silent comedy, "Liberty" (1929). As I previously mentioned 1929 was an important year in the development of the Laurel and Hardy characters but as "Liberty" shows, the formula for a quintessential Laurel and Hardy comedy was still being ironed out. We wouldn't see the boys in this type of comedy again. As with "Big Business" the objective of "Liberty" is simply to make an audience laugh, whatever the cost. Neither Hal Roach or director Leo McCarey were thinking about lofty ideas such as character consistency. Laurel and Hardy were popular actors by this time and the thinking was it would be fun for audiences to see them in various bizarre situations comedy after comedy.

The short begins with title cards appealing to our patriotic sense of pride for  American liberty. Various quotes from politicians appear on-screen about liberty and freedom. This is contrasted with the modern fight for liberty as we see Laurel and Hardy in a familiar scenario, being chased by a policeman. The boys are convicts making a prison escape. They reach their get-a-way car where they are handed some clothes. Unfortunately, they are never able to completely dress as they mistakenly put each others' pants on. This variation of their mixed-up derby routine - which they also perform - leads the boys into a somewhat suggestive homosexual predicament where they search for a secluded public space where they can switch pants. They are constantly discovered while in the compromising position of having their pants down.

After being noticed by a policeman, the boys run away and find themselves at a construction site and accidentally ride a lift to the top of the incomplete skyscraper. Unable to get the lift to take them back down the boys are put in one dangerous position after another.

Comedians like Lloyd and Keaton did this kind of comedy very well thanks in large part to their athleticism. The audience was thrilled by their stunts but also found time to laugh. When I first saw Lloyd climb that building in "Safety Last!" I was with him every step of the way. Laurel and Hardy can't operate at that same level, talented as they were. They can perform the humor but not the adventure.

This is not to deny the fact "Liberty" is funny. Laurel and Hardy perform this material as best they could. And because of that this comedy is worth watching. It can even be enjoyed as a curiosity piece.

"Liberty" is kind of two Laurel and Hardy comedies in one. The first half  recalls "Putting Pants on Philip" and feels, in some ways, like a more familiar comedy featuring the boys. Both men are playing their usual characters that we expect. I was interested to see where this set-up would ultimately lead to. The thrill portion of this two-reeler comes out of nowhere and completely changes the direction of this comedy.

Once again there is not a heavy emphasis on plot, which will most likely be a reoccurring theme among all of these comedy shorts to be reviewed. What would be a truly satisfactory ending to this set-up? I must admit though it does end on a great visual gag that modern audiences may find to be in either bad taste or politically incorrect. I thought it was genius. 

These pair of comedy shorts may serve as a wonderful introduction into Laurel and Hardy's silent work. Many may not have even known the boys starred in silent comedies together. Their "talking" comedies are better known to today's audiences and may have aged a bit better but its fun to watch how everything came together and witness what they would bring with them once they made sound comedies.

Both "Big Business" and "Liberty" are entertaining silent comedies featuring some great routines. "Big Business" rivals Laurel and Hardy's best comedies in terms of big laughs and is my favorite of all of their silent comedies. "Liberty" is an interesting curiosity taking the boys out of their element and into a thrill comedy. They do however get some big laughs. 

Film Review: The Dreamers - 20th Anniversary

 "The Dreamers"

  **** (out of ****)

 Sex, politics and cinema. Few filmmakers have devoted their careers to such themes in the way Italian maestro, the late Bernardo Bertolucci did. When "The Dreamers" (2004) - which is celebrating its 20th anniversary - was released in theaters it felt like a comeback for a director that never went away. It had a revitalized energy that had been missing in previous Bertolucci films such as "Stealing Beauty" (1996), which dealt with similar themes. 
 

Much like "Stealing Beauty", "The  Dreamers", based on a novel by Gilbert Adair - who also wrote the film's screenplay - is a story about youth, friction between the generations, sex, and art. But unlike "Beauty", Bertolucci had found the perfect setting for his story, to compliment its themes, Paris 1968. What begins as a cinematic protest over the firing of Cinematheque Francaise founder and director Henri Langlois, grows into larger political and social unrest, mirroring actions in the United States over Vietnam protests, which erupted at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago. For a moment in time, change seemed possible. Optimism and revolt were in the air, as illustrated by one of the lead characters display of Chairman Mao ornaments and posters. 

The film revolves around a college aged American tourist in Paris named Matthew (Michael Pitt) who forms a friendship with Parisian siblings Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel). The three often spot each other at the Cinematheque and one day during the protests over Langlois, Isabelle and Matthew finally exchange words. While they each share a passion for cinema - going beyond that of everyday film buffs - Matthew soon finds himself often the outsider of Isabelle and Theo's "games" and seemingly incestuous relationship. This allows Bertolucci to pay a kind of homage to Jean-Pierre Melville's "Les Enfants Terribles" (1950), while he peppers the rest of his film with various other cinematic references, ranging from Bertolucci's own films to Greta Garbo and the work of Jacques Demy.

This is all meant to not only comment on our connection and obsession with movies but also intended to illustrate the generational clash that existed between the counter-culture with the prior generation. Isabelle and Theo's father is a poet, who doesn't comprehend his children's rebellious spirit. In a rare moment of lucidity, the right-wing troll of film criticism, Armond White, described the generational split in his New York Press review as "Bertolucci muses on that epochal split where a philosophical generation faced a generation of romantics."

It is easy to understand why a project such as "The Dreamers" would appeal to Bertolucci. Being a great artist, he most likely believed art could (and perhaps should) make social and political commentaries and that art could change society. The film's trio of lead characters represent this belief. The wonderful movie critic Michael Wilmington stated in his positive Chicago Tribune review, "For better or sometimes worse, "The Dreamers" is quintessential Bertolucci." 

At its best "The Dreamers" takes us back to a time when society spoke and thought about art differently. When college students formed film clubs to debate and intellectualize about cinema with fierce passion. While I'm not on a college campus anymore, looking at today's   American cinema, there seems to be a dynamic shift from "artists" today as to what makes great art and its purpose. Even when Roger Ebert reviewed "The Dreamers" in the Chicago Sun-Times back in 2004 he was able to lament the differences occurring within society and film culture expressing the film "evokes a time when the movies - good movies, both classic and newborn - were at the center of youth culture."

Of course, youth and idealism is at the core of Bertolucci's film. How else do we interpret the title? But within a changing world idealism is soon challenged as the trio's conversations shift from the arts to politics. While the subject matter changes Theo and Matthew debate with the same heightened level of passion, as if the subject doesn't matter, only one's devotion does. As they debate Vietnam and the draft, Theo believes if you don't support the war, simply don't go and fight. Matthew explains what the consequences would be if someone didn't report after being drafted. The debate is as heated as when they discuss the merits of Jimi Hendrix vs Eric Clapton.

When "The Dreamers" was released in the United States, Bertolucci was 63 years old. And yet he was able to capture the essence of youth in a way that was seldom seen even by younger filmmakers. Bertolucci tapped into the emotional and sexual innocence of a youthful generation. The setting may be 1968 but nothing in the film feels necessarily nostalgic or old. Perhaps a point of the film. Life is a cyclical and the idealism of youth will repeat itself generation after generation for better or worse.

What managed to cause a stir with the public and critics was the sexuality of the film. It received an NC-17 rating which no doubt hurt its distribution and lead to misconceived notions from the public. Many equate an NC-17 rating to pornography. "The Dreamers" is not a pornographic film. While A.O. Scott at the New York Times described the film's sex scenes as "more explicit than even the most notorious scenes in "Last Tango." A reference to Bertolucci's often declared masterpiece, "Last Tango in Paris" (1972). I however didn't find the film to be shocking and / or explicit. The NC-17 rating comes from brief glimpses of both male and female frontal nudity. To disparage the film nevertheless as porn is to not appreciate the merit and significance of the film and speaks to this country's uncomfortable attitude towards sex. The "movie critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum correctly noted this in his Chicago Reader review stating, "If Adair and Bertolucci had sliced and diced their characters the way Quentin Tarantino chopped up his in Kill Bill - Vol. 1, The Dreamers might well have been given an R rating."

Sex in movies - and to an extent in life too - is never really just about sex. There is a power dynamic at play. By discovering his own sexual pleasure Matthew matures and begins to cause a rift between Isabelle and Theo. The games between them are foolish and naïve. Matthew has outgrown them and asserts his newly found masculine authority to make Isabelle choose between the two men in her life. Matthew also makes the two siblings confront what is beyond their games and movies - protesting in the streets. Yes, Theo may talk about Vietnam but he is not actively engaged. Instead this trio is confined to Isabelle and Theo's beautiful apartment. There is a great big world out there that is passing Isabelle and Theo by. Bertolucci suggest sex and movies may be a distraction from the outside world.

It's not a new concept for Bertolucci. The general public may think "Last Tango in Paris" was about sex but the film is actually about grief. Sex is how we alleviate the pain. In his equally controversial "La Luna" (1979), Bertolucci places a mother in the difficult position of trying to cure her teenage son of a heroine addiction. The only means available to her to handle this situation is through sex. 

By the end of "The Dreamers" I was left with a sad feeling. These characters and the world around them is being torn apart. The dividing lines are being set and the actions they take will have long lasting ramifications. The greatest divide may be between Theo and Matthew. Can their division be due to their emotional growth or lack thereof? Or is a due to each person's ideal of masculinity. Perhaps both. But I sensed a feeling of history will only repeat itself. The wrong decisions are being made. Such is youth and what it means to be a dreamer. 

Bernardo Bertolucci (3/16/1941 - 11/26/2018) was viewed as a political radical early in his career and heavily influenced by the French New Wave and Jean-Luc Godard in particular. These films spoke to a disillusioned generation not engaged in politics with his second feature-length film, "Before the Revolution" (1964) being a prime example. His first significant international success was "The Conformist" (1970), my own choice for Bertolucci's best film, about an assassin hired to kill one of his former professors, a known anti-Fascist. That was followed by his first English language film, "Last Tango in Paris", a film considered so sexual it initially earned an X rating in the United States but went on to receive Academy Award nominations for Marlon Brando's performance and Bertolucci's directing. It was slow going for Bertolucci with his films being greeted with mixed receptions, unable to achieve the critical acclaim he once did. It wasn't until "The Last Emperor" (1987) Bertolucci's talents were correctly recognized, with the film winning the Oscar for "Best Picture". But mixed reviews followed once again with the critical landscape only changing when "The Dreamers" was released. It became his second to last film. His final film, "Me and You" (2012) was released nearly a decade afterwards and not given wide distribution in the U.S.

In addition to acknowledging "The Dreamers" 20th anniversary, this is also the year of Was I Right? on this blog. My year long theme of looking back at back I placed on previous year end top ten lists to determine if I was right to select them. Viewing "The Dreamers" again leads me to believe I was correct in my decision to declare this film as one of the best movies of 2004. 

Ever since the pandemic there has been a lot of talk about art and politics resulting in some overreach in the name of political correctness and inclusion and diversity. That makes "The Dreamers" seem relevant by addressing these topics but Bertolucci doesn't reach the same conclusion today's activists have.

I suppose that's what spoke most to me while viewing the film again and I why I believe it holds up. Personally I delight in its romanticized view of cinema and its ability to consume our lives and distract us. I enjoyed hearing the discussion about film and how serious art is taken. And I was pleased with the social commentary and what this time period is supposed to represent.  

The question is can audiences in 2024 relate to the film? They didn't seem able to back in 2004. "The Dreamers" wasn't a box-office success and yet 2004 was a heated political year. Not only was there a presidential election but much debate about the Iraq War. You would think the political environment of the times would make "The Dreamers" relatable. In 2024 we have once again come off a political election with social unrest still in the air. Could "The Dreamers" not be political enough for today's audiences? Or are its views too simplistic for today's activist class?

While most of the positive reviews I read came from male critics - Roger Ebert, Michael Wilmington and A.O. Scott, I wondered does a film like "The Dreamers" allow them to wallow and bask in their own memories of youth? Is "The Dreamers" too male centric? I did read a couple of female critics review the film and their reaction to "The Dreamers" was negative. Both critics emphasized Isabelle's importance to the plot as Kimberly Jones in the Austin Chronicle put it, "The central dilemma is Isabelle's internal tug between mind and body". All of the male critics focused on Matthew. Something like this may prevent the film from finding an audience these twenty years later as the social environment has become "woke". It will provide activists the opportunity to dismissively label "The Dreamers" as too heterosexually male.   

Still despite good reviews the film unfortunately didn't receive any major American award nominations, being completely shut out at the Academy Award and Golden Globes. It did receive various European award nominations however - Goya Award, European Film Award, and David di Donatello Awards (the Italian Oscars).

"The Dreamers" is a beautiful, romanticized look at cinema and politics. A tale about youth and its folly. For me it stands as one of Bernardo Bertolucci's best films and one I found as entertaining as I did twenty years ago when first viewing it. 

Film Review: Game Change

 "Game Change"

  *** 1\2 (out of ****)

 For the last two years longtime readers, which I am willing to bet good money doesn't exist, may have noticed I no longer review current releases and primarily stay away from movies with a whiff of politics. At the same time though I don't want to seem completely irrelevant and not acknowledge the world around me. We are in the midst of a political election with voting day a mere three days away - not counting the millions of early votes already cast. The idea came to me, how about reviewing something related to politics? And for reasons I honestly can't explain, "Game Change" (2012) immediately came into my head.

"Game Change" was a made for television movie that premiered on HBO in March of 2012, which was also a presidential election year. As usual the right-wing media and political figures dismissed the movie - without seeing it in many cases mind you - as a "hit piece" on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. It was an example of left-wing biased in Hollywood in their view. 

I saw "Game Change" back in 2012 largely because of my tremendous admiration for actress Julianne Moore, whom I believe is one of our finest. I was a bit skeptical however about her playing Gov. Palin and actually felt Tina Fey - who had been impersonating the governor on Saturday Night Live - should have been offered the role. Upon first viewing "Game Change" I didn't like it very much. It glossed over too much during the historical 2008 presidential election that would come down to - after the primaries - Republican Arizona senator John McCain and freshman Illinois senator Barack Obama. The film focuses on the election exclusively from the perspective of the McCain campaign. And because of that limited scope I thought they minimized the story. The film, based on a book, of the same title, published in 2010 by reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, should have broaden up a bit. We didn't see enough from John McCain's point of view. We didn't get a sense of the historic nature of that election, in electing the first black man as the country's president.

However rewatching "Game Change" my interpretation of the film changed as the world has changed since the release of this film. It now belongs among a list of prescient films such as Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976) and Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) in predicting  the degenerate slide of the country and our politics namely thanks to the former reality television host turned politician Donald Trump. In fact it is difficult, nearly impossible, to watch "Game Change" today and not think of Trump. But the seeds for the eventual demise of the Republican party were all right before our eyes in "Game Change".

And that is how I now approach "Game Change". It isn't so much about Gov. Sarah Palin as it is a look into our political system and the type of figure it takes to reach the masses. Politics isn't about policy and ideas. It has morphed into cult of personalities. Ronald Reagan had a touch of that as did Bill Clinton but it almost seems quaint now. In typical Hollywood fashion, we took the classics and decided they needed to be updated for modern audiences. That usually means you sleaze it up and add gratuitous sex and violence. And voila you have Donald Trump. But don't kid yourself, followers of Barack Obama were equally part of a cult of devotion. Granted, those Obama supporters of 2008 were not near the unhinged violent nature of today's Trump supporters, but both figures have reached messiah levels of worship. Of course, Trump supporters took it ten steps further and made pronouncements that the ol' Donald is Heaven sent and the current election is the modern day equivalent of a holy war, as they make biblical references to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as a Jezebel - a power hungry, violent, promiscuous woman.  

As "Game Change" begins, John McCain (Ed Harris) is doing poorly in the Republican primaries. Not gaining much support McCain is told by strategist Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson) he needs to go back to his old maverick ways. McCain agrees and would like Schmidt to join his campaign as a top advisor. The film then immediately jumps to images of McCain winning various primary contests and securing the Republican nomination. Then the real struggle begins. How do they beat the phenomenon known as Barack Obama? The media, in particular CNN, practically salivate over Obama. McCain can't match Obama's popularity. Why is a senator, of no particular accomplishment, beating McCain in the polls? It frustratingly leads McCain to muse, does the country want a statesman or a celebrity? And thus the famous "Celeb" campaign ad is created. It is the first step the McCain campaign took to change the narrative of the election. It was a risky move however as it was widely interpreted as McCain going negative. 

This becomes a theme of the film. How does one create a balance in politics between being honorable and winning an election? McCain at one point says he lost himself because of his desire to win. But it wont be the last Faustian bargain McCain and his campaign will have to make in order to compete with Obama. McCain's choice for a vice-president will need to be a game changer. A buzz needs to be created around McCain and selecting any of the possible candidates - Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or even Democrat Joe Liberman - won't be beneficial to him. Not to mention there is a wide gender gap that must be closed. McCain is losing the female vote to Obama by as much as twenty percent. A female VP pick could potentially change that.

Blamed on a shortened vetting process of five days, and perhaps even subconsciously turning a blind eye to possible red flags, the campaign pushes for McCain to select a relatively unknown Alaskan Governor named Sarah Palin (Moore) as the VP nominee. The selection appears to give the McCain campaign the spark they were hoping for. Conservative media figures declare Palin could be the next Reagan. She speaks to voters in a way other politicians hadn't. But the cracks are soon on display. She doesn't know much about policy and history. It needs to be explained to her for example Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not head of government. The differences between the Iraq War and Afghanistan need to be explained as well as that Saddam Hussein was not behind the September 11th attacks. Not to mention the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This opens up the McCain campaign to criticism since it's slogan is Country First. Is Sarah Palin prepared to be president if something should happen to the then 72 year old McCain? Was this selection a country first decision?     

"Game Change" makes some comparisons between Palin's popularity and Obama's but not nearly enough and not forceful enough either to illustrate what this all means and the collapse of American politics. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Barack Obama or Donald Trump don't have to know anything or have experience - remember Trump is a man that infamously said, "nobody knew that health care could be so complicated" - because there will be a media apparatus behind them - right or left - that will do the spin for them to prop them up and legitimize them. The spectacle is what is important. All style and no substance.

For Schmidt and Nicole Wallace (Sarah Paulson) all they can do now is try to coach and guide Palin to a level of "acceptability" by preparing her for interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and her VP debate with Joe Biden through cram sessions. But Palin proves difficult to handle and succumbs to mood swings, leading some within the campaign to question her mental capabilities. Palin feels overwhelmed by the information being thrown at her and like earlier with McCain begins to feel she is losing herself. The best thing the campaign can do is let Sarah be Sarah.

Despite my initial apprehension of Julianne Moore in the role, Moore does deliver a very good performance. It never feels like a caricature of  the real Palin, the way Tina Fey would perform it. In Moore's hands Palin is an innocent woman dragged into the national political arena. An arena she was not prepared for. Soon however the media spin and the large crowds get to her. She believes the hype as illusions of grandeur set in. She is the one to crowds are coming to see. She is the reason fundraising has picked up. She is the reason there is excitement on the Republican side. She is more important than John McCain. It all plays out similar to "A Face in the Crowd" and turns Palin into something of a tragic figure. A woman who rose to the top quickly and crashed just as fast. In her New York Times review Alessandra Stanley called the performance, "a sharp-edged but not unsympathetic portrait of a flawed heroine, colored more in pity than in admiration."

Within that desire to achieve fame, Palin feeds on the simmering hate and hostility in the political crowds. As she blasts Obama, supporters lash out and snarl calling Obama a "socialist" and a "Muslim". The anger from the crowds doesn't phase her but it makes McCain uncomfortable. Schmidt even tells McCain they need to lay off  mentioning Obama's name, leading to the famous moment when McCain had to correct a woman in an audience that Obama was not a Muslim but a good man with whom he just had differences with. Today we couldn't even imagine Donald Trump speaking out if his supporters became unruly towards Harris. He's the one inciting the anger!

Through these moments "Game Change" focuses on a contrast between Palin and McCain. Unfortunately for Ed Harris, the film gives him little to do. The central character in this film is Sarah Palin not McCain. Look at the film's poster. It is Palin that is front and center not McCain. Therefore Harris slips into the background and while he gives an adequate performance he never made much of an impression on me. I didn't feel Harris really captured John McCain either. Performance wise the film belongs to Moore with Woody Harrelson coming in second. Harrelson's Schmidt I believe has more screen time than Harris' McCain.

The film was directed by an unusual choice, Jay Roach, a director probably best known for his comedies such as all three "Austin Powers" movies and "Meet the Parents" (2000). Perhaps like Sarah Palin, he too was ambitious and has tipped his toe into serious political films such as "Recount" (2008) which was also a made for television film airing on HBO, about the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush and the Florida recount that followed. He followed that up with "Trumbo" (2015) and "Bombshell" (2019). He tried to combine politics and comedy with the disastrous "The Campaign" (2015).  

"Game Change" did well critically earning twelve Daytime Emmy nominations, winning four, included among them one for Moore's performance, Roach's directing and Danny Strong's screenplay. Harrelson, Harris and Paulson were also nominated for their work. In addition "Game Change" went on to earn five Golden Globe nominations and once again Moore won for her performance as did Ed Harris. While also winning the award for best miniseries or motion picture made for television.

While the acting and directing is done well in "Game Change", I do want to point out the fact that this was a made for television movie is noticeable in the budget and technical quality of the film. In order to give the film a sense of authenticity "Game Change" does incorporate real footage into the film. For example in a sequence involving Palin's speech at the Republican Convention. The audience can instantly see the difference between the real footage and the film. This isn't done as seamlessly as in "Forrest Gump" (1994) for example. This most likely is due to it being a TV movie. This would have looked much better as a Hollywood motion picture. It leads one to wonder why wasn't it one? It could also explain the glossing over of events and limited scope.

Even though "Game Change" is in many way a product of its time, it lands a much harder punch watching it today. It hits on so many facets of today's politics it can be eerie. Palin is presented as a candidate that flat out lies with little regard for the truth. She cannot be handled by her advisors and repeatedly "goes rogue". McCain warns his staff in one scene about the "dark side of American populism" when his campaign wants him to attack Obama because of Rev. Wright. Palin is a creation of the right-wing media that had already exhibited ugly tendencies a la Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan, and the henchmen at Fox News. There is even a scene about presidential concession speeches and what it represents regarding the peaceful transfer for power!

For many of us that lived through the 2008 presidential election - it was my second time voting for president - we may not have realized it but it was the beginning of a turning point in Republican politics, that had already turned into a circus during the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. "Game Change" tells us in order to succeed in American politics you need movie star charisma and a lot of hate in the electorate that can be tapped into and exploited by the right politician.

Throughout the year on this blog the running theme has been Was I Right? - my look back at films I placed on various annual top ten lists to determine if I was right to choose them. I didn't place "Game Change" on my 2012 list which wasn't necessarily a mistake but I was wrong not to give this film more credit and see beyond its portrayal of Sarah Palin and view it as not only an indictment of U.S. politics but a warning of the type of politician that could emerge. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review of the film, he described Palin by writing, "She may have been a bad candidate but she was a brilliant campaigner, astonishing the staff by her ability to save situations that looked perilous to them." Time and the country's degenerate downward spiral has ultimately improved "Game Change" as a meaningful political film with a keen insight. 

Film Review: What Lies Beneath

  "What Lies Beneath"

   *** (out of ****)

Robert Zemeckis' Hitchcockian inspired supernatural / thriller / horror film, "What Lies Beneath" (2000) gives a lot of its secrets away in its title. Here is a film about how things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface and the secrets and lies people live with.

That of course was a trademark of Alfred Hitchcock's movies - "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943), "Suspicion" (1941) and "Psycho" (1960) - and Zemeckis and "Beneath" are more-or-less up to the challenge along with the terrific lead actors Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer. The late and great former Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Wilmington described it this way - "It's one of the more successful pieces of Hitch mimicry I've seen in recent years, right down to the spine-tingling slow pace, the signature stairway and bathroom scenes and an Alan Silvestri score that eerily echoes the moody, racy tension of Bernard Herrmann's soundtracks for "Vertigo" and "Psycho"." 

Zemeckis' films often invoke elements of the past. His "Back to the Future" (1985) was a nostalgic look at the 1950s. "Forrest Gump" (1994) brought back memories of the 1960s counter-culture. "Romancing the Stone" (1984) is kind of a throwback to Hollywood action movies and swashbucklers. "What Lies  Beneath" (2000) doesn't just pay homage to Hitchcock - it also throws in references to Henri-Georges Clouzot's "Diabolique" (1955) and "The Bad Seed" (1956) - but is a throwback to the suspense genre of the 1940s and 50s a la films like "Gaslight" (1944).

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer play middle-aged married couple Norman and Claire Spencer. Their only child (Katharine Towne) is heading off to college causing a bit of an emotional meltdown for Claire, whose daughter humorously reassures her, she can always call and school isn't too far away. With a lot more free time on her hands, Claire soon is consumed with the idea a murder has occurred next door between her newly arrived neighbors (James Remar and Miranda Otto). Spying through her bedroom window, Claire believes she has seen the husband murder his wife.

The question the audience and Norman has is, is it true? As in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954) - where a wheelchair bound Jimmy  Stewart spies on all of his apartment complex neighbors - we only see what the lead character sees and therefore jump to the same conclusions. However Norman remains a skeptic. Being a scientist we are supposed to believe he has a rational mind and can explain that all things happen for a logical reason. One explanation Zemeckis and "What Lies Beneath" suggest is Claire is letting her imagination get the best of her and is using this incident as a coping mechanism due to her daughter leaving home. 

But all the clues seem to add up. Norman and Claire see the couple arguing. One day Claire hears the wife crying, seemingly over come with fear. On a rainy night the husband dumps a large bag into the trunk of his car. The wife hasn't been seen for days. If not murder, what else can it be?

Claire begins to believe the spirit of the wife, Mary, is trying to communicate with her. Perhaps to tell her how she died. This is how the movie is able to get in some nice jump scares. Doors mysteriously swing open after being shut. Picture frames fall off shelves. Computer screens suddenly turn on in empty rooms.

Zemeckis and his screenwriter, Clark Gregg - better known as an actor for his roles in a number of Marvel Universe movies as Agent Coulson - are also able to find moments of humor in the story.

To the extent "What Lies Beneath" works, the credit goes to Zemeckis and Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer has the juicier role compared to Ford, is given more screen time, and goes through a greater emotional range, gaining our sympathy. For Zemeckis' part he sets a proper tone creating enough jump scares and slow build ups to keep the audience interested.

Ford and Pfeiffer do have a nice chemistry between them, making the audience believe they could be a wealthy Vermont couple. In their early scenes together the two feel like a comfortable old couple and their star power carries the film. Although former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert wrote a negative review of the film, he did write of Pfeiffer, "she is convincing and sympathetic and avoids the most common problem for actors in horror films - she doesn't overreact."

It was often remarked on Ford's part that he was playing against type. He is not the Indiana Jones hero of the film. Nor is he necessarily likeable, remaining skeptical of his wife's claims of supernatural visits. It doesn't endear him to the audiences by not being more sympathetic. Michael Wilmington saw it differently stating of Ford, "Ford is a perfect skeptical husband. gruff on top, anxious on the below, and he gives layers and depth to what initially seems a simple part." 

One of the elements in the film that has been routinely criticized is the supernatural aspect of the plot in regards to it's relationship to Hitchcock. Several critics noted Hitchcock's films weren't supernatural, which is where this homage goes wrong. Tracking back to Ebert, he expressed it this way, "Hitchcock would have insisted on rewrites to remove the supernatural  and explain the action in terms of human psychology, however abnormal." As I noted however "What Lies Beneath" isn't exclusively a tribute to Hitchcock. Viewing it primarily as such allowed an opening for "critics" to pounce on it and come up with one way to knock it down. If you didn't view the movie in Hitchcockian terms, how much sense would the supernatural analysis make? 

Unfortunately, "What Lies Beneath" wasn't a hit with "critics" (AKA sheep) when it was released. Elvis Mitchell, reviewing the film for the New York Times, said of Zemeckis, "his heart isn't in this kind of material" and added "His reflexes are a little slow". I saw this film in theaters back in 2000 and thought it was a good, watchable film. Oddly enough, the film had a lasting impact on me that I wasn't expecting. I bought it on DVD and watch it now and then. Twenty-four years later, I remember this film more vividly than some of the critically acclaimed films released in that most horrid of movie years. That says something about this little film. It has stood the test of time. That speaks to something in favor of it.

Audiences on the other hand approved of the film, reaching number one at the box-office, and going on to gross more than $150 million domestically. Of course, as I have always said, box-office appeal doesn't equate to quality but it does show enthusiasm for the film on the public's part, which was my only intention to illustrate.

"What Lies Beneath" may be a satisfying viewing experience this Halloween although I really never considered this a horror movie. Instead I have characterized it as a supernatural thriller. However one identifies the film it is a well made piece of filmmaking on Zemeckis' part. If you are looking for a non-scary, Hitchcockian imitation from Zemeckis, I prefer his "Allied" (2016), which  I declared as the year's best film. A prime candidate during this year's theme of Was I Right? - my year long look at movies I placed on previous top ten lists to determine if I was right about them. "What Lies Beneath" doesn't qualify since I didn't place it on my year end list in 2000.

Here is a well made, well acted film that does create genuine suspense and does offer some jump scares. Although there are definite overtures to Hitchcock's work, I view this as a homage to the thrillers of the 1940s and 50s more broadly. Pfeiffer is in many ways the heart of the film, pulling everything along. "What Lies Beneath" isn't great cinema but it is crowd pleasing cinema, for whatever that is worth.