"At the Circus"
*** (out of ****)
One of the first Marx Brothers comedies I saw growing up was a later effort, "The Big Store" (1941). My grandmother bought it for me on VHS. Even in the hands of a lesser endeavor such as "The Big Store" there was a frenetic silliness that delighted me. I may not have been able to understand anything Groucho was saying - his barbs about wanting to marry Margaret Dumont for her money went well over my head - but the screwy antics of Harpo and Chico kept me entertained.
During the momentous "year of me" - a year long celebration of my favorite artists, in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - I would have to take time and review a Marx Brothers comedy. "The Big Store" would have been an obvious sentimental choice but quite frankly, it isn't particularly good. I have already reviewed my two favorite Marx comedies - "Duck Soup" (1933) and "Horse Feathers" (1932). Forced to take a look at some minor excursions, this leads us to the M-G-M comedy production of "At the Circus" (1939) - a middle tier exercise that plays out like a retread of prior M-G-M Marx Brothers comedies - "A Night at the Opera" (1935) and "A Day at the Races" (1937). "At the Circus" was the fourth M-G-M comedy for the boys, after leaving Paramount and the disappointing box-office of "Duck Soup". M-G-M did a makeover of the Marx Brothers comedy, interjecting romantic sub-plots and music. Unfortunately (?) the revamp worked and comedies like "A Night at the Opera" and "A Day at the Races" were financially successful. You can only go to the well so many times however before the formula starts to become a bit stale. It's not just because I'm a cranky old Hungarian I feel that way, others have expressed a disappointment with "At the Circus" too. In the original New York Times review written by Frank Nugent, he wrote "For, in all charity and with a very real twinge of regret, we must report that their new frolic is not exactly frolicsome; that it is, in cruel fact, a rather dispirited imitation of former Marx successes" as he continues to state, "a matter more of perspiration than inspiration and not at all up to the Marx standard of daffy comedy."
Why waste time and review the movie at all? Well, it's not a complete dud and has moments to cheer. Namely Groucho's musical rendition of the tune, "Lydia, the Tattooed Lady", a song dedicated to an old flame of Groucho's character. He sings about the various tattoos that cover her body with suggestive lyrics like "She has eyes / That folks adore so / And a torso / Even more so". The songs in the movie were composed by Harold Arlen with lyrics by E.Y. Harburg, the same team behind the score to another movie released in 1939, "The Wizard of Oz". Then there is some wonderful word play between Chico and Groucho, a sequence involving a train is a standout, and most exciting for me, audiences get to see a young Eve Arden, one of the truly great comediennes of all-time. She even gets to verbally spar with the great Groucho himself in one sequence.
Kenny Baker - a well known singer - stars as Jeff Wilson. He comes from a family of great wealth but has decided to give it all up just so he can run a circus. During the course of events Jeff has fallen in love with one of the circus performers, Julie (Florence Rice), she is a singer with a horse act. Jeff would like to marry Julie but she is reluctant, fearing the allure of the circus will wear off and Jeff will soon regret relinquishing his wealth. Mr. Carter (James Burke) may make Jeff question his decision when he demands a $10,000 loan payment sooner than expected. If Jeff can make the payment it will mean he owns the circus but for reasons never explained in the movie, Mr. Carter doesn't want Jeff to be able to make the payment. To his surprise, Jeff informs Mr. Carter he will be able to pay him later that night.
This scenario has hints of Great Depression era comedies revolving around women placed in romantic triangles and must choose if they should marry for love or money. It also recalls "A Day at the Races". In that movie the owner of a sanitarium faces financial hardship and the prospect of losing it. Sadly in "At the Circus" the audience never comes to understand the appeal of the circus for Jeff. What was so terrible about his old life that he doesn't mind being disinherited from his aunt's (Margaret Dumont) fortune?
On the night Jeff is going to pay Mr. Carter, his money is stolen, after two other circus performers working with Mr. Carter - the strongman Goliath (Nat Pendleton) and midget Professor Atom (Jerry Maren, best known as one of the Lollipop Guild members in "The Wizard of Oz") - attack Jeff. Before this incident occurs, Jeff's friend, Antonio (Chico) hires his best friend, a lawyer named Loophole (Groucho) to help Jeff with his troubles. After the money is stolen however, Antonio, Loophole, and Punchy (Harpo) agree to help recover the money.
Why isn't Jeff more actively involved in the hunt for his money? Why isn't there a scene with Jeff confronting Mr. Carter? Why isn't there a scene with Mr. Carter demanding his money from Jeff after Jeff's promise to pay? Why is a lawyer playing detective? These are all good questions that the movie never addresses. My hunch is there was a lot edited out of this movie to keep it at a 90 minute running time. A more logical and consistent narration would have made "At the Circus" a very delightful Marx Brothers comedy.
"At the Circus" doesn't turn into a comedy / mystery. There is never any doubt who is responsible for stealing Jeff's money. There is only a question of finding where it is hidden, which Loophole, Antonio, and Punchy prove to be completely inept at. One of the funnier comedy sequences nonetheless has the trio interrogate the Professor in his tiny house. Loophole would like to trick the Professor into giving him a cigar, which can then be compare to one found near where Jeff was hit. Unfortunately, every time Loophole asks the Professor for a cigar, Antonio repeatedly offers one of his own. It results in one of the more humorous quips from Loophole after the Professor and Antonio light their cigars. Loophole declines their light stating it would be bad luck, "three on a midget". Younger audiences may not catch the joke but the expression is three on a match. It is believed to be bad luck if three people use the same light for their cigarette.
After all else has seemed to fail, Loophole gets an idea. Once he learns Jeff has a wealthy windowed aunt, Mrs. Dukesbury, Loophole travels to meet her. One way or another he believes he can get the $10,000 from her to give to Jeff. Even if it means he has to romance Mrs. Dukesbury. This plays into some of the movie's lightly pressed upon themes concerning wealth and social class and its relationship to love. Not only is there a difference in social class between Jeff and Julie but between Loophole and Mrs. Dukesbury. In true comedic fashion the movie will position Loophole among others in high society to further exploit this contrast.
This leads to another issue I have with "At the Circus". Eventually Jeff finds out about Loophole's plan and seems to accept it. Why would a man, who had such a strong conviction, agree to accept the help of an aunt who disinherited him? If Jeff wanted nothing to do with his old life, why agree to take his aunt's money? And why isn't there a scene between Jeff and his aunt discussing this? More inconsistencies in the movie's logic.
Although the movie's screenplay was written by Academy Award nominated writer Irving Brecher he was not a comedy heavyweight. His Academy Award nomination was for "Meet Me in St. Louis" (1945). To make matters worst uncredited writers included Laurence Stallings, who wrote westerns like "Northwest Passage" (1940) and "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" (1949). Who would expect these men to know how to write comedy? It may be why Buster Keaton was also brought in uncredited as well. This was during a very low point in his career. His humor did not mesh well with the Marx Brothers style of comedy. Even the movie's director, Edward Buzzell, was an uninspired choice. Groucho publicly didn't care much for the directors at M-G-M, most notably Sam Wood, who directed "A Night at the Opera".
One of the great joys of any Marx Brothers comedy is watching Chico at the piano and Harpo play the harp. This time around Chico plays the Beer Barrel Polka, which seemed like an unusual choice. Sometimes Chico would play a song that corresponded to the subject of the movie. For example in "Horse Feathers", which had a college setting, Chico plays Collegiate. Because of the circus theme why didn't Chico play "The Man on the Flying Trapeze"? Harpo also makes a bizarre musical choice, "Blue Moon" and participates in a musical number called Swingali.
For me the greatest Marx Brothers comedies were the ones at Paramount - "Animal Crackers" (1930), "Monkey Business" (1931), "Duck Soup". These were zany, cock-eyed, anti-authoritarian comedies solely focused on the four brothers (Zeppo was part of the act). The M-G-M comedies brought class and refinement. But who wants class and refinement? There are moments when "At the Circus" has sparkles of brilliance but the movie never amounts to a comedy masterpiece.
Despite a Harold Arlen score, I didn't care much for the music in "At the Circus" either, except for the "Lydia" number. I am familiar with Kenny Baker and his singing but younger audiences may not see the appeal. By no means was he as good an actor as other singers of the era like Dick Powell or Bing Crosby. The best moments in "At the Circus" involve the Marx Brothers and one scene between Eve Arden and Groucho. Fans of the comedy team I am sure consider this a lesser effort. Perhaps only if you are not familiar with the Brothers would "At the Circus" be a more entertaining and rewarding experience. On the Marx Brothers scale I place this above "Love Happy" (1949) - their final movie, "The Big Store", "Go West" (1940) and maybe "Room Service" (1938). But well below the Paramount comedies, "A Night at the Opera", "A Day at the Races", and even "A Night in Casablanca" (1946).
Posts
