|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jan 21, 2019 15:19:14 GMT
Saw it yesterday. It’s a biopic of sorts of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, focused at the very end of their illustrious career. I was not very familiar with their story and I had only a vague recollection of seeing them on TV when I was a child, but I am always interested in films about filmmaking, so off I went in the middle of the snow storm that hit Montreal yesterday.
It’s very competently made, with great production values and fine performances by Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel and an unrecognizable John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy, but somehow I felt like something was missing. I often have this impression with BBC Films productions (this was one of theirs) – well made, no obvious flaws, but very conventional and lacking, I don’t know, heart? Depth? Still, an enjoyable 97 minutes. I recommend it to those who have an interest in the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 21, 2019 17:32:48 GMT
Nice reminder that “Holmes&Watson” was not Reilly’s fault.
|
|
|
Post by staggerstag on Jan 28, 2019 23:55:08 GMT
Saw it tonight. I liked how Laurel stood up to Hal Roach. I nearly choked on my tongue when it was revealed that the pair got no royalties at all for re-runs and no royalties either for overseas broadcasts (L&H was dubbed into so many different languages and shown all around the world) I guess they just got paid a one-off fee for each production. Chaplin was paid far better and Harold Lloyd too, I think. That sucks, brah.
Mrs Laurel is comically portrayed with her no-nonsense and quite caustic demeanour getting a few laughs. Mrs Hardy is played well too, though is more reserved. It was great to see a brief glimpse of James Finlayson (he of the bulging eyes and double-takes?) I dunno who played him but he was a sure dead ringer.
No spoilers but favourite scene? The poignant and quite sad scene where the pair is dropped off in Newcastle at their "hotel". It isn't, it's a pub, an old run down pub. The sight of these two legends staring up in the rain at this back street pub is both bizarre and almost heartbreaking, at their time of lives.
Both lead actors did great jobs, although I thought the script was a bit slow at times. We enjoyed it overall.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 2, 2019 22:15:34 GMT
I finally saw this—it’s taken long enough, as I’m a big fan of the Boys, but there were only two theaters in Boston playing it for a while, and it finally moved to one closer to me. I’m not sure if I liked it or not. The beginning and end were very good—the end actually had the audience in the theater clapping, a nice sign—and the performances were fantastic, as everyone’s saying. But the middle has this fervent, very modern desire to demythologize them and their friendship, to the extent that it rewrites history to do it. Of course, I didn’t expect it to be perfectly accurate to their lives, but the writer’s goal is so mind-numbingly obvious here: we’re doing The Sunshine Boys, which, needless to say, is just not who or how Stan and Babe were. The biggest example is that in counterfactually keeping Stanley bitter and resentful about Zenobia, the script neglects the fact that Stan and Babe worked together for eight pictures for Fox and MGM, long after Zenobia! Or how about all of Babe’s other film appearances, including as John Wayne’s sidekick in The Fighting Kentuckian? How about Atoll K? None of this would be so bad if the obvious reason weren’t this horrible extended sequence in the middle of the movie in which Laurel and Hardy yell and curse at each other. The men might not have been saints (who is?), but they were friends, not resentful partners thrown together by fate, as the film portrays them (and then walks back on for the ending). It’s one sequence, admittedly, but it’s so bad and tonally off that it threatened to derail the film altogether. The picture also comes off as slight; as Jep Gambardella notes, it’s such a straightforward biopic that it’s missing something, a je ne sais quoi that makes it stand on its own as a good movie. Heart, yeah. It’s missing heart, somehow, until those last few minutes, beginning with that wonderful scene when they come off the boat in Ireland (which actually happened, by the way). It’s annoying, this movie. So much of it is so good, but it never fulfills its potential, and it makes that tragic mistake halfway through. (It’s also so predictable as to be insulting to the viewer’s intelligence.) Yet the performances are so good, and its heart is (that one sequence notwithstanding) so much in the right place, that I didn’t dislike it. But I also didn’t love it.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 2, 2019 22:35:39 GMT
I look forward to this lots.
|
|
darkshines
Sophomore
@darkshines
Posts: 516
Likes: 623
|
Post by darkshines on Feb 3, 2019 23:25:02 GMT
I watched this last week with staggerstag after looking forward to seeing it for months. In my opinion, it very competently encapsulated the latter years of the famous duo's comedy career and the casting was impeccable - both Coogan and Reilly were absolutely splendid as Laurel and Hardy respectively. I really enjoyed the performances of the leading ladies too, their spouses played by the ever reliable Shirley Henderson as Lucille Hardy and Nina Arianda (who I wasn't aware of before) as Ida Laurel. I was eager to discover just how closely the leads matched their counterpart's mannerisms and voices and am glad to say, it wasn't done in a overtly spoofy way. On a recent television interview, the two actors were asked about their preparations for the roles and Coogan, having been known to British audiences as a comedian and impressionist before getting into acting said he tried to tone down the urge to straight up mimic Stan. Reilly was happy to report that his own voice and that of Ollie's were not a million miles apart so it was quite easy for him to encompass the role. Of course, he also had the help of the prosthetics to render him a suitable shape for the scenes of the later years when Ollie had a few extra pounds on him. With him in particular, I found myself sometimes forgetting I wasn't actually watching Oliver Hardy on screen, which I think is testimony to a job well done. I'm one of those people who is extremely content watching films which meander along quietly with not very much occurring if the acting, subject matter and dialogue is appealing to me so I was slightly disheartened when my viewing companion staggerstag leaned over and quietly informed me that he was finding the film a little too slow. To be perfectly honest though, looking back, even I feel there wasn't enough real meat you could get your teeth into. I don't think this would have been much of a problem if it had been a made-for-TV production (the film's writer Jeff Pope has been involved in a few TV biopics over the years, which I have enjoyed), but perhaps the fact it is a cinematic release means that some people would have expected more bang for their buck, to put it coarsely. As such, the film mostly comprises of (spoilers if you haven't seen it yet): facsimiles of some of their famous comedy routines on stage, scenes where the duo lament about their decrease in popularity with the 1950's audiences, Stan trying in vain to hear back about a film project the pair were relying on, Ollie gradually falling ill, and in amongst all of that, awkward interactions between L&H and the theatre promoter/impresario Bernard Delfont, played rather amusingly by Rufus Jones. I read an article by a fellow named Tom Sandow which disagrees with how the film portrayed Belfont and also about various inaccuracies with the details of the tour: link
****** From Wikipedia; ‘revisiting his Music Hall days, Laurel returned to England in 1947 when he and Hardy went on a six week tour of the United Kingdom in Variety shows being mobbed wherever they went. The tour included the Royal Variety Performance. The success of the tour led them to spend the following seven years touring the U.K. and Europe. In 1952 they toured successfully and returned in 1953 for another tour of the U.K. and Europe, during this tour Stan Laurel fell ill and was unable to perform for some weeks. In May 1954 Hardy had a heart attack and cancelled the tour that year’.
My critique of the 2018 film script by Jeff Pope and Directed by Jon S. Baird, a rather dark tour presentation with unnecessary personal criticism of Lord Delfont and the Moss Empires.
Being of stage and circus I take an interest in biopics and books written on the subject and have placed a personal view for some on Artistes United. The film industry is a wonderful area for the reflection of life in art form. Unlike books it must include ‘artistic license’ and this is necessary to cover say, in two hours, a subject taking months or years. Artistic license is fine, provided the script and the direction is true to the integrity of the subject and not used to re-write history. A new film has just been released, a biopic of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy called Stan and Ollie, ‘inspired’ by the above book published in 1993. I would like a copy of that book. Like most people I know little about Stan and Ollie other than the brilliance of their slapstick partnership and that they were great Variety performers.
The film inspires many ‘why’ questions. Why would it be made might be one if not to elevate the great old period?.
I take the view that any personal comments or statement attributed to persons no longer with us may not be taken as fact unless the person is alive to verify it and also that the person spoken to is also alive to verify the conversation or letters exist making statements. So much is printed by third parties about persons deceased that one wonders what is or is not reliable. In this film portrayal of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy I feel this applies. Much of the 2018 film script is of the two talking together without a third party. Do we know they said certain sections of the script? Certain segments of the film are totally untrue and illogical but this may be referred to as artistic license. Somewhat overused in this film. It is clear that the two main actors playing the rolls Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly perform most well as the two characters.
One hopes that one day writers of books and film scripts will portray simple facts but the script for the film by Jeff Pope needs some comment. My national newspaper provided two (unfair) pre issues of large cover informing me that the new film was to be released on the 11th January called Stan and Ollie. I quote from the first press cover page; the writer says ‘Stan Laurel (the thin one) then 63, and Oliver Hardy (the fat one) then 61. The first ‘why’ question, surely the whole world knows the duos large and small dimensions? The article went on ‘They were desperate for cash. Their big screen career had ended in 1945 and were regarded as old men and old news in the U.S. where they had been replaced in the public affection by younger rivals in the art of slapstick, Abbott and Costello. (The first partnership for that famous double act was on radio in 1938. To make that duo well established in 1953 that according to the film and press releases was the year Stan and Ollie came to the United Kingdom. No mention of the Continental tour and no mention of 1947. Bud Abbott was aged 56 and Lou Costello was aged 47 that the press release referred to as younger rivals). (Further quote) ‘Unloved, broke, sick, hounded by ex-wives and forced to tour tiny UK venues.’ So the press release ignores the facts that Laurel and Hardy came to the United Kingdom in 1947 along with tours on the Continent and was ‘mobbed everywhere’ according to the published book by Marriott.
‘Tiny’ venues meaning Moss Empire theatres.
The ‘tiny’ venues were the main Moss Empire circuit with seating for two to three thousand; a few are still there including the London Palladium. The press writer Tom Leonard called them second rate provincial theatres.
The second press cover was by Brian Viner who says 1953 was the last time they worked together (not true at all, they worked together until 1955). ‘They weren’t exactly warmly embraced by a country itself in the embrace of post war austerity as they trudged from one half empty provincial theatre to another.’ This must be nonsense! In 1953 the U.K. was actually growing fast and in 1959 MacMillan said ‘you’ve never had it so good! The press release also said that TV was most negative, actually it was after 1955 when ITV started transmission.
In my view the film starts very well with the large scene within the Hal Roach studios of 1937, plenty of interplay with other actors and interesting activity, then it suddenly says ’16 years later’. No cover or explanation of the missing years so to make the first scene pointless to the next dark progress sequences apparently in 1953. Mr Viner then writes complete nonsense that the theatrical double act was (he writes or the newspaper prints ‘foundered or do they mean founded?) by 1953 (ignoring again 1947!) largely on the back of Laurel’s bust up with Hal Roach about money in 1937. (The duo had done much separate work within those sixteen years and also together for other film studios).
‘The duo must learn to work together again (!) says Mr Viner. The writer then drifts into lengthy dialogue of how the duo loved each other ‘Stan and Ollie is a love story.’ (!) (They were an excellent working partnership but ran very separate lifestyles, most unlikely a ‘love affair’ in whatever meaning).
He goes on; ‘I have seen the film twice, the first time with my 23 year old son, an aspiring comedy writer and performer himself, who brought along his writing partner. They left a little nonplussed, feeling that they have to work a whole lot harder for laughs than Laurel and Hardy did’ (I have read this passage several times and can’t quite get its meaning, does he mean comics must work harder for modern audiences who are harder to please? As for work, the actual physical effort put in by the duo was extraordinary with no stunt people. Surely his son and partner must have seen some of the duo’s comedy before this film? As for modern comedy I might agree, they do have to work much harder to get anywhere close to the great old talented stand-up comedians of the Variety era.
What routines exactly did Stan and Ollie perform on the tours?
He does admit that ‘the film’s only slight weakness is the staged hospital bed routines with the boiled eggs’. Ignoring the fact that the whole stage presentation according to this film script is totally wrong even the wrong year! What proof do we have of what routines Stan and Ollie performed on the Moss Empire circuit? There is also the logic that escapes the journalist that to emulate any comedian – especially two comedians – is asking a great deal of anyone to try and compare to the originals forty or so years of working together. This film has many weaknesses that pose many questions. Why? Why does the film include so many inaccuracies? One must assume that the book by A. J.Marriot is a first class accurate portrayal of the British tours so why not use that as a script base? The word ‘inspired’ means Mr Pope did not want to or did not want to be that accurate? So the ‘why make the film’ question must mean some odd agenda?
The press writer says that the film will be appreciated more by the older generations rather than the later ones all the more reason in my view to be honest with the script.
All the Moss Empire tours by Stan and Ollie contained a host of speciality acts, top liners all; see the example of the playbill. The duo would have occupied the second half of the show and this was the usual format of the old Variety, the top of the bill occupied the second half. It is my guess that minimum props would be used – easier to place and remove. Stage Managers do not like a lot of props! The idea of a large hospital scene would not gel to me. It is obvious that Stand and Ollie were exceptionally joyful characters, miseries would not be able to produce this fine comedy yet the whole film (why?) portrays them as miserable together and to be with, no joy at all! The script could have made it a joyful film full of happy people, some segments of drama and ‘down moments’ for balance. So many fine artistes on the bill to interact in dressing rooms and side stage – direction totally ignored. No contact with the stage manager, stage staff, hardly any contact at all with ordinary people. The few people they do talk with are either rude, indifferent ignorant or patronising. Why? The (fictional) American film musicals For Me and My Gal, and also Yankee Doodle Dandy shows how a Variety film should be made – all shades of colour drama script and characters. Plenty of artistic license that enhanced both films. They were fictional plots containing many truths!
So many odd ‘why’ questions to ask about this script; why’ was the first hotel in Newcastle so dismal? Why’ no welcome from the manager? Why’ a rather dismissive even ignorant welcome from Lord Delfont on the pavement? Why’ was the desk girl so impolite and cold? Why’ did Stan have to fall over a suitcase to make the scene look so pathetic? What evidence is there that Stan and Ollie performed to poor house numbers? If totally untrue Why? Why’ is it suggested that after much time is spent Lord Delfont approaches the duo to perform outside promotional activities for the tour when it is more than obvious this activity would be within their contract. Why; was it constantly implied that all audiences north of Watford were rather, to be polite, ‘non-theatrical’ and better days will arrive ‘once they are in London? Why’ is England shown as rather cold and unwelcoming yet their tour to Ireland is warm generous and fantastic? Why’ is the Irish ferry so small to compare to a trawler when in reality the ferries were roll-on roll-off lorry transports 400ft long?
Why’ did the Moss Empire in Glasgow have to have one main letter not functioning? Why’ did they have to do a hatchet job on the Grade theatrical agency and why was the brilliant promoter Lord Bernard Delfont called ‘oily’ by the press write up and treated totally insultingly by the script? Why’ do they say 1953 was their last tour when they toured in 1954? Why’ say that Ollie had a heart attack in 1953 when it was in 1954 and not disclose it was Stan who fell ill in 1953? Why’ invent another ‘Ollie’ to appear on stage to replace the apparently ill Ollie, prepared, seated on stage in this hospital bed fully costumed with leg in plaster for Stan to observe with disbelief from the wings for the first time? In reality anyone who knows logic and show-business that are countless including amateur dramatic groups would know that any first introduction would be in the offices of Grade or Lord Delfont or Stan Laurel would find a replacement himself. Most rehearsal would be done out of costume – (I might suggest to scriptwriter Mr Pope that the opportunity would be there for Stan to see how many people would not equal Ollie with interviews of various.)
Totally ridiculous to suggest that Stan Laurel having bad feelings about the whole idea would wait until the audience was seated to cancel the show minutes before the curtain rises. Totally unprofessional and totally insulting to Stan Laurel. My initial question was – why was the film made? Clearly it is an ‘arthouse’ venture and not for the masses, the design would not appeal to the masses in my view. The design could have been so much better. Persons under 30 would not have much draw to the film and the script is sad rather depressing and insular. The more people of vintage age would not be enough to show great interest or fill the cinemas – again they wish for cheer and not drabness. The first 15 minutes started well, if only the script writer and the director had kept it up! Personally I do feel that films that portray historical events should be educational and accurate. ******
Anyway, back to my thoughts, I think the mention of that scene where the duo have a row in front of everyone by Nalkarj made me realise that the film's Achilles heel is that it lacked any proper conflict within it. This aforementioned scene is the only vaguely dramatic moment in that respect but it came off as a desperate attempt to inject a sense of discord in a friendship which reportedly had very little of that. Most films need the peaks and troughs in tension between characters to keep it from being static and monotonal, but because all was generally pleasant between Stan and Ollie, the story as presented feels lightweight and pedestrian - unfairly really as it is a delightful film in so many other ways, namely the performances which are faultless. In the article I posted above, it criticises the film for changing too much and adding things that didn't happen but it is perhaps a blessing that the writer did use some artistic license or the film may have turned out even more slight than it already is! I would still rate the film highly, it's not quite the 'fine mess' you may imagine from the reviews on this thread. A very worthwhile watch if, like me, you are into biopics, and if you've ever enjoyed a Laurel and Hardy picture, I think you'll definitely get something out of this film. If you don't expect fireworks and you're happy to allow the scenes to wash over you, it's still quite a gem.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 3, 2019 23:37:38 GMT
darkshines said:I understand your point completely, but to be perfectly honest I think I would have liked it a bit more if it had been “slighter”—as much as I criticize that element in my comments above, it seems built into the material, in a way. (That is to say, if you’re making this kind of picture about them at this point in their lives, how dramatic can it be?) Maybe the very concept is flawed? But if it hadn’t included that out-of-nowhere (and, again, counterfactual) scene, it would have been a nice, sweet little picture that’s a tribute to two wonderful men who made and still make nearly everyone who’s seen their films smile, chuckle, and guffaw at all the right moments. As is, the scene comes across as (as you note) “…a desperate attempt to inject a sense of discord in a friendship which reportedly had very little of that.” The writer’s hand and goal are so obvious and the scene so mean-spirited that I was ultimately disappointed—though ask me another day and I could lean the other way.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 3, 2019 23:43:21 GMT
I also want to highlight something William K. Everson, the first film historian to do a detailed analysis of their movies, wrote. Everson was one of the greatest film-writers of them all, and his Laurel and Hardy book is superb.
|
|
darkshines
Sophomore
@darkshines
Posts: 516
Likes: 623
|
Post by darkshines on Feb 3, 2019 23:48:48 GMT
darkshines said:I understand your point completely, but to be perfectly honest I think I would have liked it a bit more if it had been “slighter”—as much as I criticize that element in my comments above, it seems built into the material, in a way. (That is to say, if you’re making this kind of picture about them at this point in their lives, how dramatic can it be?) Maybe the very concept is flawed? But if it hadn’t included that out-of-nowhere (and, again, counterfactual) scene, it would have been a nice, sweet little picture that’s a tribute to two wonderful men who made and still make nearly everyone who’s seen their films smile, chuckle, and guffaw at all the right moments. As is, the scene comes across as (as you note) “…a desperate attempt to inject a sense of discord in a friendship which reportedly had very little of that.” The writer’s hand and goal are so obvious and the scene so mean-spirited that I was ultimately disappointed—though ask me another day and I could lean the other way. True, they may as well have just kept the film totally accurate and if that meant a very nice and inoffensive production, so be it. In a way, that scene is a little jarring considering the friendship seemed so affable otherwise. It's hard to figure out if this film could have been made to feel more substantial. Probably not - as you say, they were not young men by then so maybe less material to work with for the drama points.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 6, 2019 8:40:01 GMT
I found Stan & Ollie to be a "good" film—not a major or outstanding movie, but one that I would recommend without reservation. It is quite intimate and engrossing, with finely calibrated performances from the four primary actors. What helps elevate the film a bit is the cinematography, which is impressive with regard to both composition and lighting. Indeed, the film uses lights within the actual shots—lights that are part of the mise-en-scène—to create contrasts and textures that prove both somber and beguiling. I am not sure that Stan & Ollie is quite one of the year's best visually, but it offers a cogent and compelling "look" and uses space effectively, rather than inundating the viewer with closeups. Overall, the movie is perhaps a tad too sentimental; it offers a revealing—but not penetrating—glimpse into these men's endeavors and relationship. Still, it is tonally consistent. I found the most remarkable and rewarding scene to be the one where Stan climbs into bed with Ollie, holding his showbiz partner's hand and pulling the blanket over them in order to warm his ailing friend. In some ways, it is a daring scene—in the abstract, the gesture smacks of homoeroticism. But in the context and the playing by the actors, it feels touching and authentic. In other words, the filmmakers take a risk (a mild one, at least) and it pays off. In terms of visual look, ambition, mood, subject matter, and sentimentality, I would analogize Stan & Ollie to Florence Foster Jenkins from 2016. That movie, too, was a BBC Film that intimately and sweetly focused on an entertainer (of sorts) while offering an impressive visual look and some commendable compositions. The difference is that Florence Foster Jenkins proved highly erratic in tone—veering from bawdy comedy to sentimental drama and rarely braiding the two seamlessly. Stan & Ollie, conversely, knows exactly what it wants to be: a slightly droll and bemused yet earnest and heartwarming film about two men who ultimately understood that their whole proved much greater than the sum of their parts.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 6, 2019 8:54:29 GMT
I finally saw this—it’s taken long enough, as I’m a big fan of the Boys, but there were only two theaters in Boston playing it for a while, and it finally moved to one closer to me. I’m not sure if I liked it or not. The beginning and end were very good—the end actually had the audience in the theater clapping, a nice sign—and the performances were fantastic, as everyone’s saying. But the middle has this fervent, very modern desire to demythologize them and their friendship, to the extent that it rewrites history to do it. Of course, I didn’t expect it to be perfectly accurate to their lives, but the writer’s goal is so mind-numbingly obvious here: we’re doing The Sunshine Boys, which, needless to say, is just not who or how Stan and Babe were. The biggest example is that in counterfactually keeping Stanley bitter and resentful about Zenobia, the script neglects the fact that Stan and Babe worked together for eight pictures for Fox and MGM, long after Zenobia! Or how about all of Babe’s other film appearances, including as John Wayne’s sidekick in The Fighting Kentuckian? How about Atoll K? None of this would be so bad if the obvious reason weren’t this horrible extended sequence in the middle of the movie in which Laurel and Hardy yell and curse at each other. The men might not have been saints (who is?), but they were friends, not resentful partners thrown together by fate, as the film portrays them (and then walks back on for the ending). It’s one sequence, admittedly, but it’s so bad and tonally off that it threatened to derail the film altogether. The picture also comes off as slight; as Jep Gambardella notes, it’s such a straightforward biopic that it’s missing something, a je ne sais quoi that makes it stand on its own as a good movie. Heart, yeah. It’s missing heart, somehow, until those last few minutes, beginning with that wonderful scene when they come off the boat in Ireland (which actually happened, by the way). It’s annoying, this movie. So much of it is so good, but it never fulfills its potential, and it makes that tragic mistake halfway through. (It’s also so predictable as to be insulting to the viewer’s intelligence.) Yet the performances are so good, and its heart is (that one sequence notwithstanding) so much in the right place, that I didn’t dislike it. But I also didn’t love it. Would you say that that scene is out of tone based on the rest of the film or your understanding of the history? I did not feel that it clashed with the film's tone, because until that point, Stan & Ollie had suggested tension or creeping disaffection between Stan and Ollie—albeit without much motivation for that suggestion. Even if the scene perhaps symbolizes some historical discontent in their relationship (after all, even friendships can suffer serious resentments and tensions), I concur that it is ultimately a contrivance. But given that Stan & Ollie—like most, if not all, BBC Films—does not strive for naturalism, I did not find the scene jarring or misplaced. By the way, in that scene, Ollie does tell Stan, "Yes, we're friends," although the overall notion is what you describe: that they are "resentful partners thrown together by fate."
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 6, 2019 12:33:22 GMT
joekiddlouischamaUnfortunately, I’d have to say I did feel it clashed with the film’s tone and, more especially, with their characters up to that point (as well as with history). So much of the film suggests a strong bond between the two, and they have real rapport and mutual admiration. Then, all of a sudden, in one scene, we suddenly get the notion that they’re “resentful partners thrown together by fate,” a notion that never returns—we’re back to warmth and friendship, and Stan and Babe doing anything for each other. Huh? I should note that I’m not saying their friendship didn’t suffer serious resentments and tensions; in fact, Stan was angry about Zenobia (though, if I’m remembering correctly, more at Hal Roach). The effort to change what actually happened because it’s in conflict with what the writer thinks their relationship was just seems extraordinary [and not in a good way] to me. I greatly enjoyed your review here, and you touched on aspects that I neglected to mention. I liked the cinematography as well, and your comments are spot-on. And I similarly liked the scene where Stanley climbs into bed—and I can’t help but think the filmmakers knew what they were doing. Though both men were obviously straight, there was always a gentle sub-current of homosexuality in their pictures (as Everson points out in his book). The “Stan” and “Ollie” characterizations themselves were pre-sexual, so perhaps homosexuality is not the right word, but then we get things like the extraordinary (and hilarious) short in which the two adopt a baby: Mrs. Hardy sues Ollie for divorce and Stan for their alienation of his affections, and later the dialogue comes right out of a romantic melodrama (“You wanted us to have this child, and now you’re going to leave me,” Ollie intones solemnly. To which Stan responds, “But I have my life to think of—my career!”). Many thanks for pointing these out and for an excellent review.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 9, 2019 8:09:47 GMT
joekiddlouischama Unfortunately, I’d have to say I did feel it clashed with the film’s tone and, more especially, with their characters up to that point (as well as with history). So much of the film suggests a strong bond between the two, and they have real rapport and mutual admiration. Then, all of a sudden, in one scene, we suddenly get the notion that they’re “resentful partners thrown together by fate,” a notion that never returns—we’re back to warmth and friendship, and Stan and Babe doing anything for each other. Huh? I should note that I’m not saying their friendship didn’t suffer serious resentments and tensions; in fact, Stan was angry about Zenobia (though, if I’m remembering correctly, more at Hal Roach). The effort to change what actually happened because it’s in conflict with what the writer thinks their relationship was just seems extraordinary [and not in a good way] to me. I greatly enjoyed your review here, and you touched on aspects that I neglected to mention. I liked the cinematography as well, and your comments are spot-on. And I similarly liked the scene where Stanley climbs into bed—and I can’t help but think the filmmakers knew what they were doing. Though both men were obviously straight, there was always a gentle sub-current of homosexuality in their pictures (as Everson points out in his book). The “Stan” and “Ollie” characterizations themselves were pre-sexual, so perhaps homosexuality is not the right word, but then we get things like the extraordinary (and hilarious) short in which the two adopt a baby: Mrs. Hardy sues Ollie for divorce and Stan for their alienation of his affections, and later the dialogue comes right out of a romantic melodrama (“You wanted us to have this child, and now you’re going to leave me,” Ollie intones solemnly. To which Stan responds, “But I have my life to think of—my career!”). Many thanks for pointing these out and for an excellent review. Thanks, and thanks for the information. I have not yet viewed an actual Laurel & Hardy picture, but I will try to do so soon. What you write about a potential toying of romantic conventions makes sense. Yes, contemporary critics might sometimes be overzealous in identifying alleged homosexual or homoerotic undertones in pre-sexual revolution American movies. But we can also now appreciate the fact that a sizable gay community existed in Hollywood's Golden Age, and poking a little fun at heterosexual expectations—what would eventually be known as "camp"—surely might have factored into the minds of some filmmakers and actors, even if they were straight. Returning to Stan & Ollie, I do feel that the film had been suggesting a state of modest tension—unease, at least—between the co-stars prior to the dramatic scene at the party. At one point, Mrs. Hardy asks her husband over the phone about Stan, and Ollie wearily responds by saying something like, "You know, it's Stan," indicating that his partner has long proved difficult to deal with. Perhaps where the film falters is its inability to show how that tension or unease developed over time. A picture that was twice as long and that covered the full arc of their career might have managed to do so, but this movie's budget and source material surely did not lend themselves to an epic.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 4, 2019 16:56:31 GMT
6/10 Nalkarj joekiddlouischamaHere's how I interpreted that scene: Off-screen, the title characters talked about ZENOBIA shortly after its release, but they held back some thoughts. They had a slight confrontation and then decided to drop the subject and keep going like nothing happened. The moment that movie was mentioned, they both immediately felt awkward, because it was something they had avoided discussing for years.
|
|