Film Review: The Passenger - 50th Anniversary

 "The Passenger"

 **** (out of ****)

"The Passenger" (1975), Michelangelo Antonioni's masterful study on identity, alienation, isolation and desolation celebrates its 50th anniversary, remaining as relevant as ever.

When film critic Roger Ebert originally reviewed the Italian filmmaker's English language effort, he questioned the film's title. "Passenger" he thought referred to a nameless female character played by Maria Schneider. But if Schneider is the passenger does that make Jack Nicholson's David Locke character "the driver"? That can't be because a driver always has a destination in mind. David Locke does not. While this may sound like the ramblings of a Hungarian mad-man, it's actually a key insight into Antonioni's film. "The Passenger" is about many things. One of them is about people with no destination. Life is the driver and we are all merely passengers aimlessly traveling along on its journey.

Antonioni's work may be a challenge for some viewers. His style and pacing reflect a different era of moviemaking. The films of Antonioni are about tone and moods. They are as much about our experience watching them as they are about plot. In fact, Antonioni often made the audience confront their expectations of narrative film. His most famous example would be "L'Avventura" (1961), a film seemingly about the disappearance of a woman and the recovery search for her but it never comes to a resolution. "The Passenger" is also about a disappearance of sorts, that doesn't come to a resolution (some) movie goers may find satisfactory.

The film speaks to the disillusionment and uncertainty of its time period, coming after President Nixon's resignation and the U.S. ending its involvement in Vietnam. People lost trust in their government and its institutions. This correlates to one of the great contributions Antonioni had on cinema, as pointed out in Peter Bondanella's rewarding book Italian Cinema From Neorealism to the Present. Bondanella writes of Antonioni's "ability to portray modern neurotic, alienated, and guilt-ridden characters whose emotional lives are sterile - or at least poorly developed - and who seem to be out of place in their environments."

It is precisely because of the themes of alienation and detachment from one's environment, it would seem "The Passenger" would be able to resonate with modern viewers. Living in a world with an increasing and alarming reliance upon "social" "media", we are alienating and detaching ourselves from reality and human contact. We can "disappear" and become whomever we want to be on-line. I like what The New Yorker critic Richard Brody, who reviewed a DVD release of the film, wrote when discussing the theme of alienation in Antonioni's work stating "the particular kind of alienation he devoted his career to is the one that was most crucial to his times, the kind resulting from the rise of mass media."

It is no coincidence than that the protagonist in Antonioni's film is in the media business. David Locke is an English reporter sent to North Africa to make a documentary on a developing political situation in the country. He is attempting to interview the rebellious guerrillas. 

Through David's profession, "The Passenger" is able to make a larger commentary on the idea of truth and more specifically truth in the media. At various times in the film we are shown clips of the documentary being worked on. Each time we see the footage, it brings up the different ways media is used and how it can manipulate us. The first time we see the documentary, David is interviewing to the President, after which his wife (Jenny Runacre) confronts David about for not standing up to the President's lies. David calmly tells her it's all part of the game. And so our first lesson is the media is a tool for propaganda. The second time we see the documentary it is footage of a political execution, blurring a line between sensationalism and objective reporting. The third and final time is of another interview David was conducting but this time with a witch doctor. The doctor turns the tables on David and instead of providing direct answers to his questions, decides to film David instead. The shift in point-of-view is meant to signify our own inherent bias in our search for truth. David's preconceived notions about the doctor obstruct an objective desire for truth.

These sequences showing the documentary material may blend into another theme we see at the beginning of the film, communication. Being in a different country David is unable to communicate with the villagers he encounters. He is hoping someone can take him to the guerrillas, hiding out somewhere in the desert. David is never able to get the help he is looking for leading him to have three negative experiences in a row. One person flat out leaves him stranded at the first sign of trouble. It is followed by a scene of sheer desperation as David breaks down, yelling to the Gods and begins to sob. How can such a situation not leave a person to feel isolated? 

With the documentary seemingly not going as David had planned, he has hit a dead end. It may be what inspires his impulsive action to switch identities with a deceased man staying in the same hotel, in the room next to him. What may be most revealing about these actions is his utter lack of interest in how this will affect the lives of those that know him such as his wife and their adopted child who strangely is never shown on-screen and is only mentioned briefly in passing. 

If David was expecting the grass to be greener on the other side, that is not what happens. Changing identity does not give him a carefree life where he can shirk all responsibilities. David discovers the deceased man was a gun runner and decides to keep up with his appointments and drop offs. Does David think this will fill a void in his life and provide it with a deeper meaning? Probably not.

It is on this new journey in his life he encounters a younger woman (Schneider). She offers companionship and makes the rounds with David, after he confesses everything to her. She is the one that wants to read a deeper meaning into David's actions and encourages him to keep all of the appointments. It leads to a larger question however, what is she getting out of this? It is a question David repeatedly asks the woman, "what the f*ck are you doing with me?"

And so essentially we have the story of two drifters escaping the realities of their lives pretending they are different people. Will their new identities give them a new outlook on life and change their perspectives? Is the message of the film revealed within a story David tells the woman of a man who was blind and regained his sight after a surgery. He now could see how poor and dirty the world was. The world became an ugly and violent place. His fear of violence lead him to never leave his home where he eventually killed himself. 

Antonioni ends his film on a note that personally filled me with sadness. The last line of the film is the one that stung me. A character says she doesn't recognize someone, while another character confirms she does. For me it suggested what is the purpose of life? And what does our life amount to if no one is there to validate our existence? If it were possible, life seems a bit more shapeless by the end of the film. What happens to some of these characters? They just travel on, finding new roads, new paths, aimless passengers seeking a destination.

I suppose for some viewers the sight of Jack Nicholson in an Antonioni art house film may seem out of place. But bear in the mind this is the Jack Nicholson of the 1970s, the Nicholson of films such as "Five Easy Pieces" (1970), which thematically isn't that far removed from "The Passenger". On its surface though the marriage of these two artists coming together does appear to be a contrast. The late and great movie critic Michael Wilmington described it this way in his Chicago Tribune review of the film's 30th anniversary re-release, "There's something almost hypnotic about the way these two very different film artists, with their utterly dissimilar styles, meld together here - like a couple who seem all wrong for each other but still strike off incandescent sparks." 

While Nicholson may absorb the lion's share of attention, lets not forget Schneider's contribution to the film. She was a few years removed from her most iconic role in Bernardo Bertolucci's "Last Tango in Paris" (1972), another film about grief and trying to numb the pain from the realities of life. There is a similar vulnerability to her role here and in a way she serve's as the film's eyes. She is our witness of these events. In Roger Ebert's 30th anniversary review of the film in the Chicago Sun-Times he wrote of Schneider's performance calling it "a performance of breathtaking spontaneity. She is without calculation, manner or affect."

In the 50 years since the release of "The Passenger", it seems to have fallen into obscurity. Other films from the time period have achieved a "classic" status and stayed in the public's conscious such as Robert Altman's "Nashville" (1975), Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), and Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" (1975). But "The Passenger" feels the most like a 1970s film and yet as I initially explained it doesn't age the film in such a way that we cannot find it relatable in today's world.

One reason to explain the film's lack of popularity was due to Jack Nicholson owning the rights to the film and keeping it out of circulation. It wasn't until the 30th anniversary theatrical re-lease in 2005 and DVD release that followed that a majority of people saw this work for the first time.

This is not to suggest the film didn't have its defenders in 1975. Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel called it one of the best films of the year, placing it in the number two spot.  Andrew Sarris at the Village Voice also placed it in the number two spot of his year end list. In his New York Times review, critic Vincent Canby celebrated the film as a "poetic vision".

For the past 17 years of this movie blog, I've committed the cinematic sin of not reviewing enough of Antonioni's work. It's the same horrific realization I came to about  American filmmaker Sidney Lumet a few years ago, which I have rectified since. The last time I wrote a review for an Antonio film was in 2009 when I reviewed "Il Grido" (1957). This is most unfortunate as at one time I was deeply under  Antonioni's spell. I will vow to make a greater effort to discuss his work and hopefully introduce him to readers.

"The Passenger" is the kind of work some viewers will describe as slow moving but I would call it a meditative personal film with many layers that could be interpreted in multiple ways. Going back to Michael Wilmington's review, I like how he concluded it, highlighting the ways in which its charms reveal itself over time. He writes, "Decades later, its riddles seem less puzzling, more poetic - even endearing. It's a movie from the past that still points ahead to the future: a cinematic rite of passage that raptly recalls a time when the world may have been as uncertain as now, but the movies were often lovelier and more daring."

Film Reviews: You Nazty Spy! & A Plumbing We Will Go

 "You Nazty Spy!"

*** (out of ****)

After  Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1930s Germany, there was a genuine concern among some that Fascism could come to America, in large part as a reaction to the economic crisis brought on by the Great Depression. Famous Americans such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh made complimentary remarks about Hitler and the Nazis, and what was going on in  Europe. So-called "Liberal Hollywood"  and the entertainment  world seemed to be egging it on as  well. Several films were made in the early 1930s that had a sympathetic view of dictatorship. The best remembered example of this is "Gabriel Over The White House" (1933) with Walter Houston as a president who wakes up from a coma and suspends Congress so he can get things done. Democracy takes too long and the Depression needs solutions. A non-film example of this would be the George S. Kaufman Broadway musical comedy - with a score by George and Ira Gershwin - called Let 'Em Eat Cake from 1933 about a president who loses re-election and refuses to concede, going as far as to the Supreme Court. When that fails, he decides to go into the shirt business to stir the people up to overthrow the government. 

I mention this jumbled and admittedly simplistic outline of history to paint a picture of the times and America's reaction to Hitler and the ideals of Fascism and the possible need for a dictator in the U.S. Many Americans didn't think there would be a second World War and when that thinking proved to be wrong, many Americans didn't think the United States should get involved. With the exception of "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" (1939) Hollywood was rather silent on the issue. Enter, of all things, the Three Stooges (!) with their comedy, "You Nazty Spy!" (1940), recognized as the first Hollywood film to spoof Hitler. It gives this comedy short a historical significance that made me want to review it during this year's blog theme, Life is Short, my year long look at short films.

While there is no denying the anti-Fascist, anti-Hitler, anti-dictatorship intentions of "You Nazty Spy!", oddly enough there are moments when this comedy also seems to have a satirical look at capitalism and corporate greed. The short begins with three business men complaining about the profits at the munition factory which has amounted to five million buckaroos in the first quarter. This leads one of the businessmen to proclaim with a profit such as that, they are practically starving. This was not a reflection of the economic situation in Germany in the 1930s. Hyperinflation is believed to have lead to Hitler's rise. Due to that, I can only interpret these exaggerated remarks to be a commentary on corporate greed as well as a criticism of weapon manufacturers in their role to perpetuate war. Who knew the Three Stooges could be so astute! 

It is these three businessmen that agree on a plan to overthrow the current government. They must find a puppet who will bend to their business needs and start a war thus increasing their profits. This is most likely a reference to a definition of Fascism as being a merger between corporate interest and the government. It is a quote often credited to Mussolini. The business men select three wallpaper hangers for the job. Of course the three men are Moe Hailstone (Moe Howard) who will become the new dictator, Curly Gallstone (Curly Howard) is made a General, in a character based on Mussolini, and Larry Pebble (Larry Fine) is in charge of propaganda, a reference to Joseph Goebbels.

The film is peppered with puns and sight gags more so than I am accustom to in a Stooge comedy. For example the country in which this all takes place is called Moronika. In order to have a roundtable meeting, they cut the corners of their square table. The comedy even begins with a disclaimer stating "Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle." The story and script came from Clyde Bruckman and Felix Adler. These names may not mean anything to most movie fans but they were great gag writers. Between the two of them, they worked with Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott & Costello.

Still it is unfortunate that "You Nazty Spy!" should have the honor of being the first comedy to spoof Hitler instead of the much more ambitious "The Great Dictator" (1940) by Charlie Chaplin, his first complete sound film. At the end of the day "You Nazty Spy!" is a Stooge comedy and all that it implies. It takes some nice shots and insinuates certain things but it doesn't really make a strong social and political commentary. Chaplin was the man for that. Although Chaplin had said, had he known of the true horrors of the Nazi regime he never would have made "The Great Dictator".

Speaking of the horrors, there is a moment when Moe sends someone to what he calls a "concentrated camp". I wonder if Moe Howard, the other Stooges, and the American public knew what was going on at those camps if that line would have remained in the short. If the Stooges knew of the full extent of what was occurring, would they have also decline to make such a comedy as this? Even Mel Brooks once said he thought the film "Life Is Beautiful" (1998) crossed a line.

Nevertheless the Stooges would return to similar material, making a direct sequel called "I'll Never Heil Again" (1941) as well as "Higher Than A Kite" (1943). Again, the purpose of these comedies and "You Nazty Spy!" in particular is to make fun of the presence of Hitler and take pot shots to knock him down a peg. While I suppose that within itself is a political commentary, it doesn't go much deeper than that.

"A Plumbing We Will Go"

*** (out of ****)

"A Plumbing We Will Go" (1940) finds the Stooges in a much more familiar light. While released in the 1940s, its premise resembles a 1930s Depression comedy, with the Stooges unemployed and destitute, standing trial for chicken theft.

When we first see the Stooges they are in court on the witness stand. Curly and Larry are both sitting on Moe's lap as they are being questioned by an attorney. The position of the boys is meant to imitate a ventriloquist act with Curly and Larry as a couple of dummies. 

It is an interesting way to introduce the characters and establish their relationship. They are three individuals but should be thought of as one, hence why they are all questioned at the same time. If you had never seen a Stooge comedy before, you could immediately assess that Moe is the leader of the trio. He is the one actually sitting in the chair and plays the role of the "ventriloquist" to Curly and Larry's "puppets".

The judge in their case dismisses the charges although the audience suspects whatever crime the boys have been charged with, they are most likely guilty of. Naturally once they are free to leave Curly puts his hat on which causes feathers to fly around. Figuring the jig is up they make a dash for it. Luckily escaping the long arm of the law however doesn't deter the trio as they try to steal fish from an aquarium tank. The persistent cop (Bud Jamison) catches the boys in the act but once again they escape by jumping into a plumber's truck. As fate would have it, they stop driving in front of a house that called plumbers an hour ago. The boys pretend to be the plumbers after spotting the cop in he neighborhood.

As far as comedic premises go, this one is acceptable. Running away and hiding from the police proved to be a familiar situation for the Three Stooges and even Laurel and Hardy. The business with the court room and the chickens though was unnecessary.

The comedy begins to pick up now as the boys are able to put their incompetence on full display. They have no idea how to stop the leak the real plumber was called for. It lends itself to perhaps the best known bit in the short, Curly breaking a shower faucet and trying to stop the running water by connecting pipe after piper together.

Perhaps because I was never much of a Stooge fan, my favorite sequence in the short doesn't involve the Stooges. It centers on Dudley Dickerson as a cook, trying to prepare a meal when the kitchen appliances start to act up, as a result of the Stooges' plumbing work. At one point water starts coming out of the stove top burner. Dickerson's reaction to these going-ons had me laughing out loud. More so than anything the Stooges did.

"A Plumbing We Will Go", like so many other Stooge comedies is just about the jokes and doesn't try to make a social commentary. Some have tried to suggest the Stooges often addressed the topic of class division but with the exception of "Hoi Polloi" (1935) very few of their comedies touch upon this and really had nothing to say on the issue. It is because their comedy was seen to lack any importance they weren't critical darlings and placed in the same class as with Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields or even the Marx Brothers, who did a much better job on the topic of class division.

So many Stooge comedies were remade or had material reused from prior shorts, "A Plumbing We Will Go" is no exception. The comedy was remade with Shemp Howard as the third stooge in "Vagabond Loafers" (1949). In some ways it is a better short with more of a plot. The Dudley Dickerson material was reused from "A Plumbing We Will Go" with some new scenes added. Then the material from "Vagabond" was reused and called "Scheming Schemers" (1956). Stooge fans might consider "Plumbing" the best of the three if for no other reason than it has everyone's favorite line-up - Moe, Larry and Curly. It is a harmless diversion that encapsulates the Stooge brand of humor as well as any other comedy short.

Film Reviews: The Barber Shop & The Pharmacist

 "The Barber Shop"

*** (out of ****)

The very first image we see is of a banner hanging informing us of the town's name - Felton City - and its population - 873. A man's voice is heard saying it's a nice town. Another man responds in the affirmative stating they have a public library and the largest insane asylum in the state.

A library and an insane asylum. It's a contradiction but that's what defines a city - good and bad. Safety and violence. Wealth and poverty. Culture and decadence. It's something the comedy of W.C. Fields had always hinted at. Just beneath the laughs there was a commentary on American values and its way of life. The comedy shorts "The Barber Shop" (1933) and "The Pharmacist" (1933), accomplish much of this at a level near that of the feature-length comedies starring Fields. It's one of the reasons I wanted to review them during the year of Life is Short, my year long theme looking at short films.

While "The Barber Shop" takes place in a small town, a year isn't specified. We see dirt roads, kids playing baseball in the streets and people traveling by horse and carriage. They aren't dressed in turn-of-the-century clothing but little resembles  American city life of the 1930s. In its opening scene however, Fields and director Arthur Ripley immediately set up the tone of the comedy, its themes and establish Fields' character. Fields is Cornelius O' Hare, a local barber who sits outside of his shop, sharpening his razor blade. He seems rather congenial, smiling at people passing by and engages in small chit chat. It's the kind of thing you'd expect in a small town. Everyone knows each other and appears friendly. But that's not exactly who Cornelius is. He almost begrudgingly puts up this charade of pleasantries. After people pass him, Cornelius bad mouths everyone under his breath. For example a woman passes Cornelius saying her husband hasn't been feeling well this morning. Cornelius offers his sympathies saying he is sorry to hear that and then mutters the man must have been out on another bender last night. Cornelius does this repeatedly with each passerby. Supposedly Fields based this on his mother who he would hear do this when he was a child, as his mother would sit outside the stoop of their apartment building. It's funny but suggest something deeper - the small town isn't as quaint as it appears, hitting on the duality I referenced previously and the phoniness of people (itself a duality). American life is as much about appearances than anything else.

The false appearances continue when Cornelius enters the barber shop and his apartment above it. Cornelius is a married man (Elise Cavanna plays is wife) with a young son (played by Harry Watson) but domestic life isn't bliss - is it ever in a Fields comedy? - as Cornelius attempts to give his wife a kiss on the cheek, she pulls away, indicating a loveless marriage. Unlike other Fields comedies, Cornelius has a good relationship with his son, who enjoys telling him riddles, much to the wife's annoyance. In the shop itself, Cornelius has a sole co-worker, a manicurist (Dagmar Oakland) who he flirts with and for whatever reason, seems infatuated with him. Perhaps this is explained by all of the wild tales he tells her of great and heroic feats he performed in his youth - he was a boxer, a detective and once killed an animal with his bare hands. This is prevalent since a bandit is on the loose. There is a $2,000 reward for his capture. Naturally Cornelius  would be out there on the hunt for him but sadly his presence is required at the shop, despite limited customers.

It might have been better in fact if Cornelius had gone out on a hunt for the bandit because every encounter he has with a customer is negative. Cornelius knows how to talk a good game but his every action reveals an ineptitude. In one scene a returning customer comes in for a shave. Why the man has chosen to come back is never explained. When Cornelius tells the man he didn't recognize him, the man replies that's because his facial wounds healed (!). Some people are a glutton for punishment. Cornelius proceeds to give the man a very close and very rough shave. He nearly cuts the man when he becomes distracted by the sight of a woman's legs. What he does to a mole is unspeakable. 

Fields gets to have a little more fun with his screen persona when his next customer enters, a little girl (Gloria Velarde) with her mother (Fay Holderness). The mother has brought the girl in for a haircut and here Fields is able to display his distain for children. Fields famously once said he never wanted to share a scene with animals, children and women since they will steal your attention in a scene. The girl does not want a haircut and Cornelius does his best to bite his tongue.

By now some readers may get the feeling where does this comedy go? It doesn't seem to be about much. That is partially true. There isn't a strong narrative plot line being followed through. Comedies like "The Barber Shop" and "The Pharmacist" would take up a few scenes in a feature-length comedy. "The Barber Shop" is kind of a blue print of what was to come in films such as "It's A Gift" (1934), which I feel is Fields best comedy. Much of what was in that film can be seen here though not examined as fully as in the feature-length format.

One aspect of "The Barber Shop" that doesn't get the full treatment and commentary I felt it deserved was the theme of masculinity. Masculinity had regularly been a theme in comedies of the 1920s and 30s usually insinuating masculinity is tied to physicality meaning brute strength. This can be seen in one of Fields' own silent comedies, "Running Wild" (1927). In "The Barber Shop" Fields possesses some of the same timid qualities as in that silent movie, as seen in his relationship with his wife, but there is no resolution to that problem this time around. Somehow Fields actually finds a way to emasculate his character further by the end of the movie. 

The purpose of "The Barber Shop" and the Mack Sennett shorts he appeared in was to showcase Fields comedic talents and add a new dimension to his persona as he came out of the silent era. Fields is in a select group of actors and actresses that benefitted from sound. Fields was a verbal comedian and that explains why his sound comedies are better remembered than his silent comedies. "The Barber Shop" was also the last comedy short he would appear in to focus on feature-length movies.

 "The Pharmacist"

 *** (out of ****)

"The Pharmacist" (1933) was the second to last comedy short W.C. Fields appeared in and like "The Barber Shop" is credited as being directed by Arthur Ripley from a story by Fields.

There is a lot in "The Pharmacist" that doesn't feel like your typical Fields comedy. It seems Fields was still working through the character and figuring out where the funny would come from. There are elements here that wouldn't be found in the feature-length comedies Fields appeared in. The average viewer may not notice them on first glance but take a closer second look. The Fields here is a rough draft of the characters he would play in "The Bank Dick" (1940) or "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" (1939). 

The most glaring thing I first noticed is his character's relationship with his children. Fields plays Mr. Dilweg, the owner of a general store - despite the title of this comedy, Fields is not a pharmacist. The closest he gets to medicine is taking a order over the phone for cough drops - he has two daughters the youngest of which is played by "Babe" Kane, a grown woman playing a precocious child perhaps a la Baby Snooks (look it up). Fields is practically cruel to the child. He engages in a joke I've seen him do before where he implies he is going to hit a child after they ask if he loves them. Even the wife / mother character (Elise Cavanna) gets in on the act and roughs up the child. This leads to my second observation, she even defends Fields when the child talks back. What world is this?! Fields' character was usually the black sheep of the family due to his drinking and general laziness. Like Rodney Dangerfield he got no respect at home. Then there is a truly bizarre moment where the child is caught eating a canary and coughs up feathers! This is very dark humor for a W.C. Fields comedy and quite frankly feels out of place. Situations such as these would never be repeated again in a Fields comedy.

Another short coming of "The Pharmacist" is it doesn't do enough (or anything) to make Mr. Dilweg a lovable scoundrel. Despite the bad habits of any Fields character we, the audience, always rooted for him. A lot of this was due to the treatment he received from other characters like his family. Here though Mr. Dilweg seems to be a bully. I understand this is a pre-code comedy but you can't have a grown man threaten to hit children in a movie when we haven't had time to like the character first. Don't believe me? The proof is in the pudding. Fields would never do this again with one of his characters before making sure we like and in some way identify with his character.

If you can get past these moments, there is something to enjoy when watching "The Pharmacist", which is an episodic comedy like "The Barber Shop". Aside from these domestic moments the rest of the comedy short centers on Mr. Dilweg's interactions with various customers. In one interaction, which feels a little forced and more of an attempt to make a political commentary then create a laugh, a man is browsing in the store when Mr. Dilweg watches him like an hawk, desperate to make a sale. Finally the man says he'll buy a stamp but wants a purple one. Mr. Dilweg doesn't have a purple one which causes the man to make a remark no one has rights anymore but that's what you get with the Democratic Party.

It's not a particularly funny line and given the time period is a minority opinion when you consider the popularity of FDR, who had just come into office after winning in a landslide election. Today it would just serve as an opportunity for Republican trolls on the internet to make "original" and "insightful" comments about how this is true even today. Notice how Fields would stay away from lines like this in future comedies, despite a fake presidential run in 1940. 

It is through these customer interactions however that this comedy begins to shine. Fields, perhaps taking a cue from Jack Benny, uses a similar approach where Mr. Dilweg is a kind of everyman that encounters nothing but eccentrics. The humor is in Dilweg's attempts to meet the demands of these various individuals. Of course, nothing prior in "The Pharmacist" firmly situates Mr. Dilwig as an everyman but when compared to his daughter, who is eating canaries, I guess he'll do.

With no strong narrative plot there is no place for "The Pharmacist" to go that would feel satisfactory for the audience. It ends on a forced cops and robbers shoot out in the store. Maybe due to poor editing, how this shoot out begins is never explained. The sequence however proceeds to demonstrate Dilwig is a coward and continues to further embarrass him by being "saved" by a character he had earlier called a sissy played by Grady Sutton, who usually proved to be a good foil for Fields in later movies. It is rare though to see a comedian from this era fail the way Fields does in these two comedy shorts. Laurel & Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Bob Hope all had moments where they succeeded on some level - they get the girl, they beat up the brute, they deliver the piano...etc. But Fields just flat out fails. Again, in the feature-length comedies this would change. "The Bank Dick" is an excellent example of this.

These Mack Sennett shorts signaled a new direction for Fields and his persona. Films and various directors weren't taking full advantage of his talents. See him in D.W. Griffith's "Sally of the Sawdust" (1925). It is a role practically any comedic actor of the era could have played. It didn't require W.C. Fields. On that basis the comedy shorts have value. We are able to see the development of his character, working out the rough edges.

I'd like to also take a brief moment and say something about the director of these shorts, Arthur Ripley. He was a gag writer for Sennett and wrote a few of Harry Langdon's comedies along with Frank Capra. I'm personally more familiar with his work as a writer than a director. Outside of these W.C. Fields shorts, his only other directorial efforts I have seen are a pair of Robert Benchley shorts. His strength appears to have been in his writing.

"The Barber Shop" and "The Pharmacist" fall short of what feature-length W.C. Fields comedies would achieve but there are funny moments in each of these comedies. It is fun to see Fields figure out what worked for the character and what didn't.