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 this was all done to keep the 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.