"
Why Worry?"*** (out of ****)
You have nothing to "worry" about while watching a Harold Lloyd comedy!
Having mentioned a while ago I liked the concept of looking back on films celebrating their 100th anniversary - during the "year of me" on this blog - I reviewed Cecil B. DeMille's religious epic, "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and used it as a way to springboard into a broader discussion about the current preservation (or lack of) silent cinema. I further mused, will anyone care if movies of this age are no longer accessible?
It was my position "The Ten Commandments" stood up rather well these pass 100 years. Since that was a drama I thought we should take a look at how well a 100 year old comedy would hold up and what would be a better example than watching a Harold Lloyd comedy?
I would think for modern viewers drama of this era would be easier to accept than comedy. Drama deals with the same basic human emotions that motivate dramas of today. Emotions and human nature has not progressed as much as some may like to believe. A sad story from 1923 will be a sad story in 2023. But the nature of comedy has evolved. What a society chooses to laugh at has changed. In modern times, looking at the world through a political lens - as the media and activists will have us do - I would argue it is the comedies that come under fire more so than drama. The change in comedy doesn't have to reference anything political or racial either. Once upon a time people laughed at someone getting hit in the face with a pie or slipping on a banana peel. On a societal level I believe this style of humor is considered dated. On a personal level, it still works for me! While a film of any genre dated 100 years ago will "show its age", it seems the comedies may provide a better insight into a society and thus may have a harder time transcending time. Again, I am very specifically expressing if we choose to view films through a very strict and narrow political lens. Funny is funny to me personally.
By the time Harold Lloyd appeared in "Why Worry?" (1923) he had already developed his most famous screen character, commonly known as "Glasses". Charlie Chaplin had "The Tramp". Buster Keaton had "The Great Stoneface". And Lloyd developed a character that would represent "the everyman". Lloyd wasn't interested in politics or making any great social commentary. But Lloyd helped establish the groundwork for the modern day romantic comedy. "Glasses" was a typical American male who possessed what are often considered amiable traits. He was a "go-getter" who desperately wanted to achieve the "American Dream". He didn't challenge modern day moral convention the way W.C. Fields did. Lloyd wanted to get married and start a family. He wanted financial success and was willing to work hard. He was supposed to be your next door neighbor.
"Why Worry?" was Lloyd's fifth feature-length comedy after appearing in literally hundreds of two-reelers including classics like "Never Weaken" (1921) and "Now or Never" (1921). What makes "Why Worry?" such an oddity is its betrayal of the successful formula Lloyd and his surrounding creative team - Hal Roach, Sam Taylor, Fred C. Newmeyer - had created. All one need do to watch the genius of Harold Lloyd is see comedies like "Grandma's Boy" (1922), "Girl Shy" (1924) and "The Kid Brother" (1927). These were instrumental in creating the now standard clichés of the romantic comedy. "Why Worry?" wants to change the formula up a bit and the result isn't as successful as it should have been.
In the film Lloyd plays Harold Van Pelham, a wealthy and privileged hypochondriac who travels to the South American island of Paradiso along with his Nurse (Jobyna Ralston) and valet (Wally Howe). In reality nothing is wrong with Harold and he almost seems to take pleasure in the idea of being sick. When he notices another, visibly sick individual, Harold ecstatically proclaims "I have a great doctor. He says I have everything but small pox.". Harold's "concern" for his health is mocked when he arrives in Paradiso in a hospital gurney, puffing away at a cigarette. While views on smoking have dramatically changed, I assume even in 1923 it was a joke to see a man so concerned about his health to be smoking a cigarette.
Being so wrapped up in his various illnesses, he fails to recognize the feelings of his Nurse, whom we are told via intertitles, is putting her heart in her work. She however doesn't seem to believe Harold is ill and all of his pill taking is a waste of time. Her attitude of Harold does provide the movie with one of its commentaries - masculinity. Viewers may not realize this but a significant number of screen comedies are about masculinity. With Harold constantly being worried about his health, it presents him as a "weakling". He isn't a young and virile male. If Harold were to ever have any conception of winning his Nurse's hand, he will have to "man up".
So far this plot while seemingly predictable is conventionally for the era and could have the making of a good Harold Lloyd comedy with Harold first slowly coming to realize his Nurse has feelings for him and that he has feelings for her. He would then have to prove his worth by showing he is no longer sick and can be "manly" - meaning assertive, aggressive behavior. Perhaps there would be a potential male rival competing for the Nurse's affection.
Unfortunately, "Why Worry?" doesn't quite take this route and makes some fundamental mistakes in its interpretation of the Harold character. Lloyd should play characters that are essentially likeable. We should be rooting for him and the female lead to get together. That's the way romantic comedies work. You create two likeable characters the audience wants to see get together by the end of the movie. "Why Worry?" doesn't create a likeable character for Lloyd. The Harold character comes across as snobbish. The movie doesn't have enough fun with the hypochondriac behavior by exaggerating it enough. A better example of this would be Eddie Cantor in
"Whoopee!" (1930) or Woody Allen in anything.
Furthermore "Why Worry?" doesn't establish enough of a connection between Harold and his Nurse. There isn't a slow build to Harold's affection and the movie keeps the two characters apart from each other way too long. The idea that Harold has feelings for his Nurse doesn't seem to be a driving force of the plot. As such, we never really care if these characters end up together because it doesn't seem to be on Harold's mind.
This proves to be a waste of Jobyna Ralston and the chemistry she shared with Lloyd. Ralston was one of Lloyd's great co-stars, appearing in some of Lloyd's best like "Girl Shy", "The Kid Brother" - Lloyd's favorite of his own comedies - and
"The Freshman" (1925).
Instead Harold spends a majority of his screen time paired with real life giant, John Aasen - making his screen debut - who plays a misunderstood and feared hermit, Colosso. The sight of the average height Lloyd standing next to the 7'2 Aasen is a visual joke that can be seen in more modern times as in the Billy Crystal comedy, "My Giant" (1998) with ex-basketball player Gheorghe Muresan.
While at first Harold tries to assist his giant yank out a tooth, the two men suddenly find themselves caught in the middle of a revolution as they fight off an army headed by another American named Blake (Jim Mason), whose presence wasn't made entirely clear to me. Described as an "American renegade" he resides on he island "to further his own financial interest" and "has lashed the riffraff of the Republic into an outlaw force". It is never explained what these "financial interest" are and exactly how they will be "furthered" by staying in Paradiso.
The revolution abruptly begins when Blake receives a notice from the World Allied Bankers, who are upset with Blake and are concerned he is upsetting their "commercial interest" in Paradiso. They inform Blake they will be sending a representative to "curb" his activities. Again, the "commercial interest" of the bankers is never revealed nor is how Blake is interfering with their interest. However, when Harold arrives on the island, Blake mistakes him for the representative and believes now would be a good time to start his revolution. Once again it is unfortunate but "Why Worry?" doesn't capitalize on this "mistaken identity" plot with Blake almost fearing him and Harold's actions being misinterpreted. For a better example of this, watch Danny Kaye in "The Inspector General" (1949).
Probably without meaning to do so, "Why Worry?" is inadvertently making some type political and social commentary just by the very nature that Americans - and not just regular Americans but the World Allied Bankers have "commercial interest" in a South American island! Blake's plan - whatever it may be - could be a commentary on American corporations and bankers interfering in the economy of foreign countries.
I wonder if this movie had any influence on Woody Allen's comedy, "Bananas" (1971) - where Allen gets involved in a Latin American revolution and ends up a country's leader.
In the end "Why Worry?" doesn't add up to enough to make a great Harold Lloyd comedy but it does have some funny sequences. I suppose one of the better ones involves Harold first walking around the town completely oblivious to the danger around him, as the townspeople are fighting. And yet his oblivious nature I feel speaks to the snobbishness I mention earlier about the character.
Though "Why Worry?" is a 100 year old comedy, I think the comedy largely works. The failure of the movie to more fully succeed has nothing to do with the jokes but rather the development of the characters. A modern audience can find something to laugh at.
Posts
