Topic: Flat Foot Stooges Question

[metaldams]

I'm researching the Charley Chase Stooge era a bit, and while nothing is officially credited as far as writing credits go, Charley Chase, on threestooges.net, wikipedia, and imdb, is credited as the uncredited writer for FLAT FOOT STOOGES.  I certainly can believe this, but is this a written in stone fact, or is there still debate about this?  Any info from the Stooge experts here would be appreciated.  I just find it strange that no writer was officially credited for this short.

[Shemp_Diesel]

I'm no expert, but I always assumed that the writers for Flat Foot Stooges were Al Giebler & Elwood Ullman since they wrote all the other Chase shorts.

[metaldams]

I'm no expert, but I always assumed that the writers for Flat Foot Stooges were Al Giebler & Elwood Ullman since they wrote all the other Chase shorts.

I think most of the shorts Al Giebler and Elwood Ullman wrote together were brilliant and also have very similar structures.  FLAT FOOT STOOGES is very different and I actually wouldn't be surprised if Chase wrote that one, because as good as he can write, I'm not sure if he was meant to be a Stooge writer.

FLAT FOOT STOOGES has always been a very different Stooge short to me, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Chase wrote it.  I'm just wondering if anybody has any proof, perhaps through Columbia's files, about Chase actually writing the short since no one is credited.  Al Geibler and Elwood Ullman writing FLAT FOOT STOOGES would shock me.

[MR77100]

I think most of the shorts Al Giebler and Elwood Ullman wrote together were brilliant and also have very similar structures.  FLAT FOOT STOOGES is very different and I actually wouldn't be surprised if Chase wrote that one, because as good as he can write, I'm not sure if he was meant to be a Stooge writer.

FLAT FOOT STOOGES has always been a very different Stooge short to me, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Chase wrote it.  I'm just wondering if anybody has any proof, perhaps through Columbia's files, about Chase actually writing the short since no one is credited.  Al Geibler and Elwood Ullman writing FLAT FOOT STOOGES would shock me.

In addition, why does this short have the "Three Blind Mice" theme, while the rest of the shorts for 1938 go back to the "Listen To The Mockingbird" theme?

[FineBari3]

In addition, why does this short have the "Three Blind Mice" theme, while the rest of the shorts for 1938 go back to the "Listen To The Mockingbird" theme?

From the Filmogrophy on threestooges.net:

The first short to use "Three Blind Mice" as the Stooges' theme music, this first composition/arrangement version is by Leigh Harline and Ben Oakland; see The Three Stooges Journal # 90 (Summer 1999).

[Rich Finegan]

Why does this short have the "Three Blind Mice" theme, while the rest of the shorts for 1938 go back to the "Listen To The Mockingbird" theme?

We must remember that the shorts were not always released in the order they were filmed.
Looking at shooting dates we see that MUTTS TO YOU, filmed in late March / early April 1938 was the last to use the "Listen to the Mockingbird" theme. The next Stooge short filmed, FLAT FOOT STOOGES, shot in late October 1938 was the first to use "Three Blind Mice" for the theme music.

Filming dates can be a very interesting thing to study. For example, we see right there that The Stooges had quite a bit of time off between filming there in mid-1938.

[Lefty]

I just watched FFS last night, and one thing that has baffled me was not the "Three Blind Mice" music starting, or even the white background in the opening credits, but the end of the short.  Why would Dick Curtis come back after the Stooges chased him off, and why would the show end when they're trying to get out of the hole?  Maybe it was "Sorry, your 18 minutes are up."

[metaldams]

I just watched FFS last night, and one thing that has baffled me was not the "Three Blind Mice" music starting, or even the white background in the opening credits, but the end of the short.  Why would Dick Curtis come back after the Stooges chased him off, and why would the show end when they're trying to get out of the hole?  Maybe it was "Sorry, your 18 minutes are up."

I agree 100%.  I think this short is almost technically incompetent.  I know the COLUMBIA COMEDY SHORTS book states Chase worked fast as a director, but man, there are even flubbed lines in this short!

With the story itself, you hit the nail on the head concerning the ending, and let's also not forget that while The Stooges are simply themselves, the other characters are all incredibly unlikeable.  The Chester Conklin character would rather gush over the beauty of horses than to have his fire department save lives quicker with new technology while the salesman is just plain dishonest.  The gags are for the most part not funny, and I seriously wonder if Charley Chase was drunk when directing this.  I feel awful saying that because it may not be true, but I genuinely feel that this short is techinically incompetent, badly written, and unfunny.  Chase also did die two years later from drink and I know he was also capable of so much better, so I don't think it's too far fetched to wonder about his state of mind and health during FLAT FOOT STOOGES.

[Bum]

I agree 100%.  I think this short is almost technically incompetent.  I know the COLUMBIA COMEDY SHORTS book states Chase worked fast as a director, but man, there are even flubbed lines in this short!

I swear, I must be the ONLY one who thinks that the "flubbed" lines ["firemouse/firehouse mouse"; "the horses fall on the harness"] were 100% intentional and written that way. I agree that this is a weird short for many of the reasons already mentioned, and to me one of the things that makes it weird is these lines. I'm convinced that they thought it would be funny to include some intentional slips of the tongue [it isn't!]. In recent decades we've been bombarded with "blooper" reels from movies and TV shows [including vintage Warner movies from the 30's and 40's] and you can see every single time when someone screws up there's either immediate laughter or anger from the person who messed up [or the other people in the scene]. In both instances in FLAT FOOT STOOGES, when Moe/Curly screw up, the scene proceeds along like nothing happened, and there's not even a hint of reaction from anyone indicating "whoops, we messed up!". The Stooges were pros, but nobody's THAT professional! No one will ever convince me that those lines were anything but scripted.

[metaldams]

I swear, I must be the ONLY one who thinks that the "flubbed" lines ["firemouse/firehouse mouse"; "the horses fall on the harness"] were 100% intentional and written that way. I agree that this is a weird short for many of the reasons already mentioned, and to me one of the things that makes it weird is these lines. I'm convinced that they thought it would be funny to include some intentional slips of the tongue [it isn't!]. In recent decades we've been bombarded with "blooper" reels from movies and TV shows [including vintage Warner movies from the 30's and 40's] and you can see every single time when someone screws up there's either immediate laughter or anger from the person who messed up [or the other people in the scene]. In both instances in FLAT FOOT STOOGES, when Moe/Curly screw up, the scene proceeds along like nothing happened, and there's not even a hint of reaction from anyone indicating "whoops, we messed up!". The Stooges were pros, but nobody's THAT professional! No one will ever convince me that those lines were anything but scripted.

I'll post a quote from a "co-worker" of Charley Chase's from THE COLUMBIA COMEDY SHORTS book (by Ted Okuda and Edward Watz, and since I'm directly quoting their book, I'll post a link to it below).

http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Comedy-Shorts-Hollywood-1933-1958/dp/0786405775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312858309&sr=1-1

"The comedy shorts were shot on a schedule of four eight-hour days.  With Charley, it was four six- or seven hour days.  I could never fully understand his method;he always seemed to be in a big rush, although no one was pressuring him.  He'd shoot many of the scenes in a single take, even though he had the time for another one.  Sometimes actors didn't get the feel of a scene on the first take, regardless of how many times they've rehearsed, so it's up to the director to decide whether another take is necessary.  Because of his rapid manner of direction, when you worked for Charley you knew you'd be going home early, but it was a sloppy way to make a picture."

The flubbed lines in FLAT FOOT STOOGES gel with the above quote.  I think there may be a flubbed line in SAVED BY THE BELLE if memory serves me correct, but I'll have to re watch that one.  Does anybody remember this, or am I imagining things?

[Bum]

I think there may be a flubbed line in SAVED BY THE BELLE if memory serves me correct, but I'll have to re watch that one.  Does anybody remember this, or am I imagining things?

I just watched SAVED BY THE BELLE  [and FLAT FOOT STOOGES] and yep, there's a flubbed line in it as well........ if you want to call it that. Curly says to Moe [regarding his bird], "Don't you dare harm a feather in his bed.......I mean head!" To me,  that cements my opinion even further; the line is obviously rooted in wordplay, as are the other two [horses/harness and mouse/house]. If those lines were unplanned, then they were the three happiest accidents in the history of cinema. And, watching close this time, I can see not a single hint of reaction from anyone like you see 100% of the time when someone blows their lines. I'm still not convinced!

[BeAStooge]

No one will ever convince me that those lines were anything but scripted.

They were flubs.  They do not appear in the script, specifically the final shooting script in Jules White's files at the Motion Picture Academy's Herrick Library.

[metaldams]

I just watched SAVED BY THE BELLE  [and FLAT FOOT STOOGES] and yep, there's a flubbed line in it as well........ if you want to call it that. Curly says to Moe [regarding his bird], "Don't you dare harm a feather in his bed.......I mean head!" To me,  that cements my opinion even further; the line is obviously rooted in wordplay, as are the other two [horses/harness and mouse/house]. If those lines were unplanned, then they were the three happiest accidents in the history of cinema. And, watching close this time, I can see not a single hint of reaction from anyone like you see 100% of the time when someone blows their lines. I'm still not convinced!

Could be a stylistic choice of Chase's, I suppose.

The fact Chase also shot quick would also be a good explanation and still makes more sense to me.  Seeing the scripts would be interesting and may possibly support one side.  Either way, Charley Chase is responsible, and I say that as a fan of his earlier stuff, including earlier STOOGE stuff, which I think is brilliant.

[Bum]

They were flubs.  They do not appear in the script, specifically the final shooting script in Jules White's files at the Motion Picture Academy's Herrick Library.

Could they possibly have been ad-libbed or added at the last minute during filming? Like I said, they all have a common trait, but none of the characteristics of a typical "flub"........ not to MY eyes and ears, anyway.

[metaldams]

They were flubs.  They do not appear in the script, specifically the final shooting script in Jules White's files at the Motion Picture Academy's Herrick Library.

Well, never mind, I guess Chase's one take style was the reason.  I wouldn't argue with Brent, especially if he saw the scripts.

[metaldams]

Could they possibly have been ad-libbed or added at the last minute during filming? Like I said, they all have a common trait, but none of the characteristics of a typical "flub"........ not to MY eyes and ears, anyway.

When they're not in the script, only show up in Chase directed shorts (the last two, I think the earlier shorts are much better overall), and Chase has a quote about him from a co-worker stating he shot quickly and a lot of times in one take, then they are probably flubs.

I would really like to see more of Chase's Columbia work, both behind and in front of the camera, as it would give me a better idea about his work towards the end of his life.  Those first three shorts he directed are brilliant and then there is a very quick decline, my opinion, of course.

[Bruckman]

I think what could be said for Clyde Bruckman could be equally applied to Charley Chase at Columbia: he was forced, by the rapid production and shooting schedules, to minimize his creativity and inventiveness, and basically repeat sure-fire premises that had worked in earlier films he'd done. Not that this is always a bad thing: I enjoy most of Chase's own Columbia shorts
(the half dozen I've seen anyway). However there is a lack of spontaneity in them, and you sometimes get the sense Chase is rushing through his own films so he could cash in a paycheck. That's not to say he doesn't give a good performance (I really enjoy MANY SAPPY RETURNS where he mistakes a very glib and dapper escaped lunatic for his girlfriend's father, then later meets the real father and treats him as if HE'S the escaped lunatic).  But both Chase and Clyde B. had their own personal issues with the bottle too, and that had definitely begun to catch up with both of them around this period.

Given that he directed not only his own films but several of the Stooges', Smith and Dale, etc. while at Columbia, Columbia obviously kept him busy.

As for FLAT FOOT STOOGES, I always presumed Chase worked on the script. The latter part of the film is very much like the Keaton/Arbuckle THE GARAGE, and the horse-harnessing mechanics are very Keatonlike too, so I could well argue someone familiar with Keaton's work did some gagwriting on this film too (e.g. Clyde Bruckman). The gag with the misplaced net in the fire sequence also occurs in the Spanish version of Laurel and Hardy's PARDON US (DE BOTE EN BOTE), which Chase would have known about, no doubt. On the other hand, all the gags involving animals (the explosive egg-laying duck, the mouse vs. bulldog, the horses in the steam room) argue for some definite Jules White influence.

[metaldams]

Bobby, seriously, post here more often, you add a lot to this board.

I agree Chase, and Bruckman as well, were definitely limited by the budgets and time at Columbia as opposed to where they previously worked, but with Chase, especially on the last two directed shorts for the boys, it's painfully obvious.  The previous Chase shorts were great shorts with rushed endings (like the majority of Stooge shorts, Chase or not), but FLAT FOOT STOOGES is almost amateur like at times, and I really wonder if his alcoholism had an effect.  Basically, the limitations of FLAT FOOT STOOGES are more so apparant than an average Jules White short, and I know Chase is capable of MUCH better.  I think seeing more of Chase's later Columbia work would help me solve the puzzle a bit better.  THE GRAND HOOTER is great, but that's the first thing he did for Columbia, while he was also directing classics like TASSELS IN THE AIR and VIOLENT IS THE WORD FOR CURLY around that time.  I'd love to see his shorts that were around the same time as FLAT FOOT STOOGES.

[Bruckman]

I haven't seen all that much of Chase's own Columbia shorts, but MANY SAPPY RETURNS was filmed in spring of 1938, the same time he was working on FFS, and it's good in its own right. The highlights for me were (1) Charley thinking he's been given the taxi he's driving by his girlfriend's father (the mistakenly identified escaped loony) and driving around taunting Fred Kelsey, the dispatcher at the cab co. he works for, and (2) Charley and the lunatic going to a posh restaurant - the lunatic orders something under a covered dish, and when it gets to their table, it's a big box of saltines - which Charley and the lunatic then stuff into their mouths, all the while trying to keep up polite dinner conversation. This leads to cracker spit-takes. None of this is particularly original - it's what Chase can do with the material that counts.

FFS seems to me a case where Chase just couldn't get all the disparate material to jell, and wasn't too concerned. He was getting paid by the week, not the hour. I have the sense that by this point in his career Chase was less interested in refining character (in both his films and others') than in just getting the working day done. His energies were limited (although he was still a comparatively young man of 44 at the time we're talking about) and I think he needed to conserve what creative and physical energy he had. He could turn out some really great directorial efforts (such as TASSELS IN THE AIR, maybe because he based the film on one of his own), but he could just as easily at the time "phone in" his directorial responsibilities (e.g. Andy Clyde's very dull THE OLD RAID MULE). As with Clyde Bruckman, when Chase was reworking material he'd done earlier, he seemed capable of a fine job, pacing and re-inventing the material, but when given material less interesting to him personally, he seemed to just rush through in order to get to the next project, or to husband his energy for something more worthwhile from a creative standpoint. Chase had some long-standing ulcers, plus incipient heart problems, and no doubt those contributed to his rushing shooting at times.

His situation in 1939-40 reminds me of Curly's in 1946 - an overtired man pushed (or pushing himself) too hard for a variety of factors, the main one in Chase's being that he'd been unemployed almost a year from mid-1936 to early 1937 and didn't want to lose what was a very viable work situation, by admitting he was ill at times.

I don't think the shooting schedules at Columbia were too restrictive to Chase - most of his post-1931 Roach work was filmed in 4 or 5 shooting days.

[metaldams]

I haven't seen all that much of Chase's own Columbia shorts, but MANY SAPPY RETURNS was filmed in spring of 1938, the same time he was working on FFS, and it's good in its own right. The highlights for me were (1) Charley thinking he's been given the taxi he's driving by his girlfriend's father (the mistakenly identified escaped loony) and driving around taunting Fred Kelsey, the dispatcher at the cab co. he works for, and (2) Charley and the lunatic going to a posh restaurant - the lunatic orders something under a covered dish, and when it gets to their table, it's a big box of saltines - which Charley and the lunatic then stuff into their mouths, all the while trying to keep up polite dinner conversation. This leads to cracker spit-takes. None of this is particularly original - it's what Chase can do with the material that counts.

To support what you said about doing good reworking old material, MANY SAPPY RETURNS is a reworking of his silent short, CRAZY LIKE A FOX.  I think I saw MANY SAPPY RETURNS on youtube, I imagine you did too.

EDIT:  Scratch what I said above, I was thinking THE WRONG MISS WRIGHT, which also has a lunatic premise, this time with Charley pretending he's insane.  I was getting the shorts confused.