As for elitist Stooge haters, I had a film professor once describe The Three Stoges as "universally hated." I know they're not academic darlings like Chaplin and Groucho, but sheesh!
That’s one thing I have always HATED too! And I’ve never understood it, to be honest. I even wrote an article in our college paper about it last fall. Something like “Stooges: The Dumb Version Of The Marx Brothers? I think Not!”
Even Marty Feldman – who is about my biggest idol – I read a quote he had one time, about how the Stooges were “two dimensional”, and that was the difference between him and Mel Brooks: that Brooks admired the Stooges whereas Feldman was more into the “multi-dimensional” Keaton and Laurel & Hardy.
Granted, I LOVE Feldman. But I respectfully disagree!
![[pie]](https://threestooges.net/forums/Smileys/default/throwingapie.gif "Throw Pie")
At least with Laurel & Hardy, I never understood why they are considered more “high art” than the Stooges. To me, there’s not that much of a huge difference between them. I can see people making a HUGE distinction between people like Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin and The Three Stooges, that makes some sense because those two were regarded more as “arty” and as real “auteurs” and all this, but with Stan and Ollie, I never really saw the great difference. Sure, there’s a difference because THEY are different groups, but I don’t see why Laurel and Hardy are “smarter” in some way than the boys are.
In the end, my theory is that it all boils down to the “aura” of the comics. Keaton, Chaplin, and so forth…they all have this aura because they wrote, they directed, their stuff was considered to have more obvious depth in terms of comedy, etc. Perhaps Laurel & Hardy had more of this going for them as well, and the Marx Brothers too.
With the Stooges though, when you think of how they entered into films and such, I guess it was always like they were these ruffians who someone found off the street, and they were thrown into a classy dinner party, and they wrecked the place. They evoked the really olden days of the feast of fools and such…when these untamed clowns just made a mess of everything, and that was the end of it. I think they just always maintained that kind of thought process with people. No one ever wants to consider them “art", in the ways they would consider the above stated comics “art”, you know?
It has a lot to do with the pretentiousness that surrounds the others too. I’m not saying the comics themselves were pretentious…because I do not think they were – Keaton in particular seemed a down to earth genius – but the outside pretension surrounding their work…that’s what makes the sort of stereotype that one is high brow and one is low brow proliferate. The mentality just transcends into the generations…so people come to think that the Stooges can only be appreciated by red neck guys with beer bellies, and not by intelligent, perceptive people as well. Oh and by women? Forget it!
Though there may be people I admire more than the Stooges (though they are certainly up there) I must admit, honestly, if I had to just go by comics who have made me physically LAUGH more than anything else…the Stooges would win every time! Though I’ve never been one to say that laughing in hysterics is necessarily the true mark of good comedy – I personally feel some humor is meant to tickle your funny bone and others are meant to penetrate the humorous part of your brain – the Stooges, are the ones I’d turn on if I really just wanted an honest, pure laugh.
But the difference in “high culture” and “low culture”, in terms of the Stooges and others, I liken it to the difference between Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. Mel Brooks is my choice. I always love to say that Brooks is “the unpretentious person’s answer to Allen.” I think it’s true. Brooks, like the Stooges, proves by the work…not by all the crap surrounding it. He doesn’t try to say to people “Oh look! This has meaning! Look how deep I am. Look look!” If anything, I feel he doesn’t give himself enough deep credit…just sort of says, “Yeah…well that’s funny”, and hence why an astute viewer can see the intelligence and the depth in it, if that makes sense. Brooks’ work can speak for itself. And Brooks himself is certainly an extremely bright man.
So really, it isn’t that one comic’s work is more intelligent than the other’s…generally it’s just the whole mystique that surrounds them. To quote Marty Feldman again (because he’d win a quote contest against anyone) – and I’m paraphrasing here – most people who do any sort of job, are simply competent…they’re not geniuses. I think he said it about directors…really there’s not that many GREAT ones…just some have more of a mystique than others do, but really they’re just competent at it. Then there are a few geniuses too. It just seems that some comedians of the Stooges era got to have the “intelligent” mystique while they were branded with a more “there’s nothing more to it than meets the eye” type of tag.
I admit, that I’ve even bought into the stereotype at times, of not seeing them as intelligent in real life as some other comics were, but really this is a failing of mine that I’ve realized. Larry, as everyone knows, is my favorite, and the more I read about him the more I see he was certainly a smart, perceptive guy. But again, much like with his acting – and whether people want to say he was lazy or just easy going – it seemed that when being funny was just about as natural to him as breathing, he really saw no need to talk, or theorize much about it. To me that’s not being lazy, that’s being modest. He seemed to have this sort of “it’s no talent…because I just do it naturally” approach. But I’d still say…smart.
Moe, obviously, seemed the more intellectual of the group, from any interviews I’ve seen. He seemed more consciously aware of the craft, of the work put in, etc…and more willing to talk about that. And that’s fine too. You need someone like that as well. Moe always seemed a very bright man to me.
And even though Curly isn’t my favorite Stooge, I remember reading something once that just made me want to defend him to the end. I think it was some passage in a biography regarding his ex-wives and such. One of them – or perhaps most of them – said something to the effect of how he was a let down in real life because when he was off the screen there was NOTHING to him…he was boring, and dull and such. I just thought this was terribly cruel. Then someone, it may have been his daughter, defended that when someone is called dull, that implies a lack of intelligence, and that Curly certainly did not have that. And I was like “thank you!”. I’m not praising Curly because I have to (we all know I love Larry best haha) I’m praising him from an objective, experienced Stooge viewer position. The more I watch him specifically, the more I see the man’s genius. I feel for people like him – and sometimes at times, feel LIKE people like him – because some of us really are very shy in life, and yet when there’s the few things we really do well with…we shine, we feel comfortable. And clearly it seems he had that. He was so highly inventive as a comic and was a natural. Regarding him and the rest of the lot, it has always been my view that anyone who is TRULY funny (not just some goofy idiot) must be very smart. That’s just the way it is. True humor comes from true intelligence, though often people forget this.
Long and short of it, I’ve always hated when the Stooges and comedy in general really, are not given the respect deserved. It’s always made me mad that it’s just some given that a comedy would never be on top of the “AFI’s greatest film list” or some such thing. When done correctly, comedy is more powerful, more intelligent than a lot of over the top clichéd sap crap drama…and that’s all there is to it.
Manifesto over.
~Angela
