Topic: Comparing pacing: L&H vs Stooges

[falsealarms]

Listening (again) to Moe's interview with Tom Bergeron... it raised an interesting comparison. Moe praised Laurel and Hardy for their "great, great, setup" but said at times they would look at one another for a minute and a quarter, suggesting a slow pace. In that time frame, Moe said the Stooges would do six things and that their pace was "terrifically fast."

Watching a few L&H films, I'd have to agree. Even L&H's better films can be plagued by excessive standing around or just staring into the camera. Stan Laurel might agree. In Skretvedt's book on the team, it was noted that Laurel wanted to re-edit the shorts when they were released to television. He wanted to axe the long pauses originally designed to accommodate audience laughter. Laurel is quoted as saying, "On TV, the films seem so slow. Sometimes you think they'll never end."

I wouldn't go that far, but it seems like the Stooges generally had a much better pace to their shorts than L&H did. What do you think?

[FineBari3]

In Skretvedt's book on the team, it was noted that Laurel wanted to re-edit the shorts when they were released to television. He wanted to axe the long pauses originally designed to accommodate audience laughter. Laurel is quoted as saying, "On TV, the films seem so slow. Sometimes you think they'll never end."

I am reading that book right now, but have not got to that part yet!

Stan has explained a mystery to me! I have always wondered why they seem so slow. 

[metaldams]

Laurel and Hardy are definitely slower than The Three Stooges, and that's kind of why I like them.  As a matter of fact, most of the comedians I like are slower than The Three Stooges.  There's nothing wrong with a milking a single gag and letting it breath for a character reaction.  It's actually a testament to The Three Stooges that they can work such a fast pace and retain their characters.  Most other knockabout comedians in the Sennett vain do the fast paced stuff to the point where the gag overcomes the character. 

So yes, Laurel and Hardy are slower than The Three Stooges, and that's a good thing.

[luke795]

Do you think that Abbott and Costello's pacing is the same as the Three Stooges?
Is the pacing of the Three Stooges VS. the Marx Brothers or the Ritz Brothers faster or slower?

[falsealarms]

The biggest problem the Marx Bros had with pacing were those often horrendous musical numbers (mostly from the post Duck Soup era) that just absolutely ruined the momentum of the film. Some of the earlier musical numbers, like Groucho's "I'm Against It!" are actually fun.

[metaldams]

Do you think that Abbott and Costello's pacing is the same as the Three Stooges?
Is the pacing of the Three Stooges VS. the Marx Brothers or the Ritz Brothers faster or slower?

What do you think?

As for me, The Ritz Brothers are too fast paced and indistinguishable when they're not doing musical numbers.  I'm not a fan.

The Marx Brothers Paramount films are faster paced than even the Stooges, but again, their characters shine in spite of this.

Abbott and Costello are generally slower than The Three Stooges, but they obviously can go on some fast paced dialogue sprees. 

The slower than Stooges comedians I'm more of a fan of are Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, W.C. Fields, Laurel and Hardy, and the slowest of them all, Harry Langdon.  Most of these comedians have fast moments, but in general, a much slower pace than The Three Stooges. 

[falsealarms]

I've never seen anything with the Ritz Brothers, though if music is a big part of their act then I probably wouldn't like them. Though I've been a Stooge fan practically all my life (nearly two and a half decades), it's only in the last year or two that I've seriously explored/studied other comedians of that era. I've taken well to Keaton's talkies, the Marxes, and Laurel and Hardy's talkies. I've found Skretvedt's book on L&H and Mitchell's Marx Bros Encyclopedia to be indispensable. I've also liked what I've seen from people like Clyde and Herbert. Speaking of Harold Lloyd, who I have no exposure to, I've been tempted by MOVIE CRAZY.

[Seamus]

With regard to the Marx Brothers, it's interesting to see how live performance played a factor in the pacing of their respective movies.  Coconuts and Animal Crackers were lifted directly from their stage shows, and both have a much slower and stagier pace than their other movies (especially the other Paramount films).  Their performances seem to be timed to accommodate the the audience reaction they got used to dealing with night after night.  Monkey Business through Duck Soup, which were never performed live, were the Marx's most rapid-fire movies - lightening-quick performances and direction, nobody giving a damn if the audience was keeping up with the gags they were throwing out like candy at a parade.  Since they never performed that material live, and never had to tweak their timing to accommodate the viewers, it's as though they felt free to perform at the pace they felt comfortable with without being fettered by the audience.

Then came the MGM years, when Thalburg convinced the boys go on the road to test run the material slated for filming.  Not surprisingly, the resulting films are peppered with "audience reaction" pauses (Groucho trying to bring the contract info focus, Groucho ordering food from the porter, Chico selling Groucho racing tips, etc.), and everything slows down a bit as a result.

Kind of interesting to see how performers key into a certain pace based on learned audience reaction even when the audience isn't there.

[falsealarms]

I agree with a lot of that. The stagy feel to Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers really showed and neither have really grown on me. But Monkey Business, Horse Feathers and Duck Soup are all no doubt classics. At least for me, those three films represent them at their best and the films I'd suggest to anyone who has never seen them. I broke into the Marx Brothers with the two Broadway adaptations and it wasn't the best idea. It's funny you mention the racing tips scene from A Day At The Races -- much like the rest of that film, which was their longest at 111 minutes, that scene overstays its welcome.

I wonder what the Marxes would have been like in two reelers.

[Seamus]

Totally agree that Monkey Business, Horsefeathers, and Duck Soup are the Marx Brothers at their purest and best, at least as far as their movies go.  Coconuts and Animal Crackers must have been an absolute blast to see live, especially given the Brothers' reputation as wild improvisers on stage.  But those productions obviously made for flawed movies.  In the MGM flicks, you get the Marx Brothers with an artificial coating of Thalburg whitewash, which never feels right to me.

Have to admit though, I love the "racing tips" scene (though not much else) in Day at the Races.  Predictable premise and probably too long (like you say), but it's performed beautifully by Grouch and Chic, and I still lose it toward the end during those loooong silences when Groucho finally twigs what's going on, and they're both just staring at each other waiting for the inevitable next move.

[archiezappa]

I personally think that the Marx Brothers would have been great in two-reelers.  Especially, if they were The Four Marx Brothers.  Their first 5 movies (the ones at Paramount) are them at their very best.  They're extremely fast-paced and that works for them.  The slower pace of the later films doesn't really work as well.  Granted, they're good movies.  I love 'em!  But they were at their best at Paramount.

Their pacing at Paramount was as fast as The Three Stooges, I would say. 

Laurel & Hardy have a slower pace.  Their two-reelers are okay most of the time.  However, I've found it difficult to watch some of their features.  They're slow paced and they always end abruptly.  It makes them hard to watch sometimes.  But, if I'm in the right mood, it works.

Abbott & Costello worked well on dialog humor.  They could do fast-paced dialog better than anybody else.  Which is why they were at their best with their radio show.  That's them in their best format.  The feature films are okay, but it took them a while to get their footing in those movies.  It was pretty much hit and miss until they got into the "Abbott & Costello Meet" series. 

But The Three Stooges are the best, no doubt.

[stooge1029]

The stooges had to be fast paced since they had to cram their material into a 15-17 minute time frame. I like the stooges better than the other comedy teams because of this. The major problem I have with early Laurel and Hardy movies is the musical numbers and the fact that for the most part there was a "lead" cast in those movies which took time away from Stan and Ollie.

[metaldams]

I agree the first two Marx Brothers movies are stage bound, but so was all Hollywood in 1929 and 1930.  The studios were just learning to make talking films.

[FineBari3]

I agree the first two Marx Brothers movies are stage bound, but so was all Hollywood in 1929 and 1930.  The studios were just learning to make talking films.

Quite an interesting and fascinating time in Hollywood.

I think of all of the great examples of the theater that made it to film, that probably would never have! Wheeler and Woolsey come to my mind.  Look at "Soup to Nuts". That stunk!

[falsealarms]

Laurel and Hardy seemed to have a seamless transition from silent to sound. Their first sound short, Unaccustomed As We Are, was pretty damn solid.