Film Review: A View To A Kill - 40th Anniversary

"A View To A Kill"

*** (out of ****)

There is a scene early in the James Bond action / adventure film, "A View To A Kill" (1985) - which is celebrating its 40th anniversary - where Bond (Roger Moore) is trying to escape the threat of the Soviet bad guys in Siberia. He jumps on a snow board when the film's soundtrack switches from the familiar Bond theme to California Girls by the Beach Boys, offering a visual gag as if to imply Bond is surfing.

Its because of  scenes like this some movie fans criticized Roger Moore's Bond movies and some "movie critics" (sheep) didn't approve of this era either. In her New York Times review the great critic Janet Maslin started off her review of the film stating, "As lavishly escapist as they are, the latest James Bond films have become strenuous to watch, now that the business of maintaining Bond's casual savoir-faire looks like such a monumental choir." But for many of these "critics" "A View To A Kill" was a disappointment even by Roger Moore standards. In her New Yorker review, critic Pauline Kael wrote of  "A View To A Kill", "The James Bond series has had its bummers, but nothing before in the class of A View to a Kill."  Neal Gabler, co-host of the post Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews show declared this the worst Bond movie, up to that time.

These forty years later, the question to ask is, is "A View To A Kill" as bad as the "critics" argued? Of course it isn't. As is always the case with the American public, they over do it in their assessment on the quality of well...anything. "A View To A Kill" isn't the worst Bond movie or a terrible movie in general and Roger Moore wasn't the worst actor to play James Bond. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, Moore was my favorite Bond, although I freely admit, the Sean Connery Bond movies had better plots. 

One of the most interesting things about "A View To A Kill" is the movie's politics. All Bond movies released at this point in time dealt with the realities of a Cold War world. In many Bond films, especially Moore's, Russians were the villains setting up an East versus West mentality. While there are  Russian characters in "A View To A Kill" it is Silicon Valley that is under threat (In Gene Siskel's Chicago Tribune review he refers to it as the "so-called Silicon Valley". Perhaps the term wasn't quite mainstream yet). We were entering a new world in the 80s. No longer was the villain merely an egomaniac hell bent on world domination by using missiles. Now we are dealing with the tech industry, computers and microchips. Remember it was only a year prior that the Macintosh personal computer was introduced by Apple. Computers were still relatively new to John and Jane Doe.

The villain here is Max Zorin (Christopher Walken), a wealthy industrialist, whose company has created a microchip made to withstand an electromagnetic pulse. He wants to destroy Silicon Valley so he can have a monopoly on the microchip market. Seemingly just for the hell of it, Zorin is also a racehorse owner and the film's writers - Richard Maibaum (who wrote a majority of the pre-Daniel Craig Bond films) and Michael G. Wilson (also the film's producer) - have created a needless background story involving Nazis. Zorin was born as the result of  Nazi experiments (!).  

Just as Goldfinger (Gert Frobe) had a deadly servant - Oddjob (Harold Sakata) - so too is Zorin given a menacing partner, May Day (Grace Jones). While she is something of Zorin's "muscle man", it is inferred they are lovers as well. Something Zorin's Nazi creators surely wouldn't have approved of!

Bond on the other hand is paired with Stacey Sutton (Tanya Roberts), perhaps the most boring Bond girl name ever. What happened to names like Pussy Galore? Holly Goodhead? Plenty O' Toole? Zorin has been trying to buy Stacey out of her family's oil business. Stacey may be able to possibly provide Bond with information concerning the location of an oil mine Zorin is expected to cause an explosion at.

The biggest problem with "A View To A Kill" is not the actors but the screenplay and John Glen's directing. Glen has directed the most films in the Bond franchise with a total of five. His first directing effort was "For Your Eyes Only" (1981) and his last was "License to Kill" (1989) which featured Timothy Dalton as Bond. As evident by "License to Kill" and "Octopussy" (1983), Glen could be a good director and bring out some excitement in this material. "A View To A Kill" is on autopilot. There's no fluctuation in tone. The action scenes aren't displayed as thrilling. There's nothing here to really jolt the audience. Something is off key.

The script feels too jumbled. There is a lot much going on and yet nothing seems developed. There is no real sense of who these characters are. Christopher Walken is a beloved actor and a tremendous talent but the script here doesn't give him much to do. Walken doesn't make a splash in any of his scenes. Grace Jones actually becomes the more memorable villain and that's largely due to her physical appearance.

All that leaves audiences left to enjoy is Roger Moore's performance. For me Moore is doing what he had done in his six previous movies. He always remained a suave and witty figure with a terrific screen presence. To me he looked like what I imagined a James Bond should have looked like. However the majority of  "critics" at the time complained Moore was too old at this point to play the character. Dave Kehr, writing for the Chicago Reader  wrote of Moore, he's "all but checked into a nursing home". Don't you just love the depth of American film criticism? Leonard Maltin in his Entertainment Tonight review also commented on Moore's age as well.

As for complaints about Roger Moore and humor, gosh, I wish there was more of it. Maybe it would have liven up the movie but I didn't find anything humorous about "A View To A Kill". Comedy wise two things stand out. One involves a sequence at the race track which absolutely must have been a reference to "My Fair Lady" (1964) as there is a moment when Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell, in her final performance playing the character), caught in the excitement of the race, stops herself from yelling for a horse to move his ass. It is similar to a famous scene from "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn's character. The next sequence has Bond dangling from a fire engine ladder as Stacey is driving away from police in a chase scene. It recalls a scene from the Bob Hope comedy "My Favorite Spy" (1951) with Hope in a similar situation.

Despite some "humorous" moments however "A View To A Kill" is played for action and does have some good action set pieces including an earlier car chase, where Bond's vehicle is destroyed and another sequence inside the oil mining tunnel near the end of the movie. I never came away feeling the movie was being weighed down by comedy as others have stated.

What is lacking in the movie is any chemistry between Bond and Stacey. She is not a strong female character in the sense she is not resourceful and is often placed in damsel in distress situations. In one scene involving a burning elevator she and Bond are stuck in, she repeatedly screams for Bond not to leave her as he tries to find a way to escape. And she was one of Charlie's Angels?! To try and spice things up a useless KGB character is introduced (Fiona Fullerton) only to disappear after two scenes.

This all makes it seem as if I don't like "A View To A Kill". I do enjoy moments of it and feel of all the Roger Moore Bond movies, this one relies the most on his charm to succeed. It is though the weakest of all the Moore Bond movies. But I would rather watch this movie over all the Daniel Craig Bond movies with the exception of  "Spectre" (2015). At least "A View To A Kill" somewhat follows the Bond formula I recognize unlike those Craig movies which tried to pierce into the soul of Bond.

Another positive for "A View To A Kill" is I like some of the supporting characters in particular Tibbett (Patrick Macnee, best known to American audiences for his role on 1960s TV show "The Avengers"). I don't know if audiences were supposed to make this connection but I got a kick seeing Moore and Macnee together. Two of the most famous British TV spies of the 60s - Simon Templar from "The Saint" and John Steed.

The story goes Roger Moore was ready to walk away from the Bond franchise after starring in "For Your Eyes Only"  but eventually agreed to appear in Octopussy, which some honestly believed would be Moore's final outing as the character. Moore was aware of the grumblings about his age and being too old to play the character. However Moore would return one more time in "A View To A Kill" before making his official announcement that he was retiring from playing the role. Could this have contributed to a mood on set? Did everyone know this was the end?

Looking back 40 years later "A View To A Kill" does feel like an end. With Timothy Dalton cast in the role, the Bond persona changed a bit. In "License to Kill", Dalton's interpretation was a precursor to Craig's rough around the edges Bond. Bond is a killer not a suave lady's name. After a six year hiatus and Pierce Brosnan being brought into the role, he wasn't involved in sequences that recalled Bob Hope movies. 

"A View To A Kill" also seems to have had a finger on the changes coming to the spy genre and how technology would play a new role. All spy villains nowadays seem to want to control the world through cyber warfare. This wasn't the case in 1985 as Gene Siskel wrote in his review, "It's one thing to try and control the planet by setting the Russians against the United States, or by owning all of its precious metals, but microchips? Yes, they're important, but in movie terms they're so visually boring." Who would offer that criticism today? "A View To A Kill" was on to something.

Roger Moore's Bond swan-song doesn't end with the bang it should have. All these years later I hope audiences are able to appreciate the impact Moore had on the spy genre and our expectations of what a secret agent character should be in a movie. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Moore's interpretation of a secret agent has seeped into pop culture more so than Connery's. Who do you think Mike Myers was channeling for   Austin Powers? "A View To A Kill" isn't the best Bond movie but it does signify the end of an era and for that it deserves a special place in the cannon of Bond movies. 

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.