Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Another Fine Mess (1930) - Laurel and Hardy

metaldams · 27 · 15866

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_115_Another-Fine-Mess
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/anotherf.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020643/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2j3le6

Watch ANOTHER FINE MESS in the link above



      Some weeks, I feel like I have so much more to say than the guys at Laurel and Hardy Central and other weeks I feel like they say it better than I ever could.  Let's chalk this week up to the latter scenario, and hey, it makes sense.  Some films inspire certain people to say more than it would for others, and for me, personally, I don't have much to say about this one.  I'll try anyway.

      What it boils down to is the main premise of this film is Laurel and Hardy pretending to be someone they're not, and they just don't do much with it.  Lots of Ollie showing a guy around a house a bunch of rooms he's unaware of.  I mean, that billiard room gag gets old after a while.  So does the butchering of Plumtree's name. Lots of Stan dressing up as a butler or maid, it just lacks wit.  I will say, while I've made it known I'm not a fan of men dressing in drag as comedy, I like it a little better here.  I guess the idea of Stan engaging in girl talk is a little more entertaining than a guy hitting on him, which would happen with so many of these comedies.  It's just that half the time, it's so unbelievable a guy would find half of these comedians in drag attractive, and Stan here is no exception.  Thelma Todd is lovely here, as usual, and her and Stan do their best with what I consider to be tired material.

      This is a remake of what I consider to be the first Laurel and Hardy film, DUCK SOUP.  It is more refreshing seeing some of this acted out through dialogue as opposed to title cards, so this wins out on that front, though it lacks the excitement of seeing history unfold before your eyes. 

      Ultimately, again we have a film where I give this a respectable rating because the comedians involved are fun to watch, and if you threw in lesser comedians, this film would be a real chore.  I do enjoy the histrionics of James Finlayson in this one, think the soundtrack is quite good (the musical scores are getting better and this one syncs up well with the film), and the intro where the twin girls speak the credits was fun.  This way of doing the credits was done in a few other Roach films at the time.

     A lot of people like this film, it even got some audio commentaries on the DVD set.  I'll just chalk this up to not my kind of Laurel and Hardy film, and again, click on the Laurel and Hardy Central link above.  Those guys do a great job.

7/10
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Tony Bensley

http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_115_Another-Fine-Mess
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/anotherf.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020643/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2j3le6

Watch ANOTHER FINE MESS in the link above



      Some weeks, I feel like I have so much more to say than the guys at Laurel and Hardy Central and other weeks I feel like they say it better than I ever could.  Let's chalk this week up to the latter scenario, and hey, it makes sense.  Some films inspire certain people to say more than it would for others, and for me, personally, I don't have much to say about this one.  I'll try anyway.

      What it boils down to is the main premise of this film is Laurel and Hardy pretending to be someone they're not, and they just don't do much with it.  Lots of Ollie showing a guy around a house a bunch of rooms he's unaware of.  I mean, that billiard room gag gets old after a while.  So does the butchering of Plumtree's name. Lots of Stan dressing up as a butler or maid, it just lacks wit.  I will say, while I've made it known I'm not a fan of men dressing in drag as comedy, I like it a little better here.  I guess the idea of Stan engaging in girl talk is a little more entertaining than a guy hitting on him, which would happen with so many of these comedies.  It's just that half the time, it's so unbelievable a guy would find half of these comedians in drag attractive, and Stan here is no exception.  Thelma Todd is lovely here, as usual, and her and Stan do their best with what I consider to be tired material.

      This is a remake of what I consider to be the first Laurel and Hardy film, DUCK SOUP.  It is more refreshing seeing some of this acted out through dialogue as opposed to title cards, so this wins out on that front, though it lacks the excitement of seeing history unfold before your eyes. 

      Ultimately, again we have a film where I give this a respectable rating because the comedians involved are fun to watch, and if you threw in lesser comedians, this film would be a real chore.  I do enjoy the histrionics of James Finlayson in this one, think the soundtrack is quite good (the musical scores are getting better and this one syncs up well with the film), and the intro where the twin girls speak the credits was fun.  This way of doing the credits was done in a few other Roach films at the time.

     A lot of people like this film, it even got some audio commentaries on the DVD set.  I'll just chalk this up to not my kind of Laurel and Hardy film, and again, click on the Laurel and Hardy Central link above.  Those guys do a great job.

7/10
ANOTHER FINE MESS is a Laurel & Hardy short that I rather enjoy, not least for the bright sounding music that can be heard throughout!

You've brought up a fine point regarding the usual hoary plot device of a man being attracted to even the most unconvincing specimen of a "Man Dressed in Drag," and I'm thankful that usual route isn't taken here!  Listen carefully to "Agnes's" banter with Lady Plumtree (Thelma Todd), and you'll also pick up on some rather risque (For 1930) dialogue!

For those who may be unaware, the original story was written by Stan Laurel's father, Arthur Jefferson, or A.J, as he was often referred.

I find it interesting that part of a then so recently coined L&H catchphrase (Albeit slightly misquoted!) became the title of this, Laurel & Hardy's second three reel comedy, which in my opinion, was much better than the first (THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE), in which "Well, Here's Another Nice Mess" was uttered by Ollie.  It was also their only film to get "The Crane Sisters" Talking Titles (An experiment at Hal Roach Studios during the 1930-31 cinematic season.) treatment!

Besides the other memorable bits that you mentioned, I find Ollie's Piano rendition of Chopsticks to be most memorable, also.

************SPOILER ALERT!!!!************

The final shot, in which Stan & Ollie (Actually, their stunt doubles!) get chased out of the tunnel by the train is reminiscent of a similar scene in TWO TARS, a Laurel & Hardy silent short from 1928.

The one strange element in this short, is Lady Plumtree's disappearance towards the end!  Otherwise, this is a most delightful gem, in my opinion!

8.5/10

CHEERS! :)

Tony


Offline Big Chief Apumtagribonitz

If I'm not mistaken, the caricatures on the poster are by Al Hirschfeld, the greatest caricaturist of all time, who specialized in caricatures on the covers of Broadway Playbills, and who died not so very long ago at age 100.  Want proof of how great a caricaturist he was?  Catch the twinkle here in Ollie's eyes, those could not be anybody's eyes but Ollie's, and then realize that they are only two little curves of ink, with no real delineation of eyes at all.  Sheer genius.  Watch: with my luck it will turn out that these were drawn by Salvador Dali, and I'll be exposed before the world as a you-you.


Offline metaldams

      Tony, I can completely understand how you and others can find this film delightful.  I did at first too but I agree with The Laurel and Hardy Central review that ANOTHER FINE MESS doesn't hold up well on repeat viewings.  Again, they did a better job expressing my feelings on this short than I did!  This isn't really a bad film for what it is and is far from a turkey, it's just one of those films that's not to my taste as much as others.

      Big Chief, I've heard the name Al Hirschfeld before and I'll research both him and this poster later on, but I do want to say this is no doubt one of the better movie posters I've posted on these threads, both in terms of shape and color.
 
      Saying more about the music in this one, the first audio commentary is great and about this subject.  Leroy Shield composed this music.  Apparently, this music was made specifically for this short, as it was for a lot of 1930 and 1931 films.  After this, in spite of Shield's protests, Roach would use the music Shield composed for the 1930 and 1931 films, chop it up, and randomly use it in later films, stock music, if you will.  Financially, a smart move by Roach, artistically, not as much.  Films like ANOTHER FINE MESS have special little musical cues, check it out after Stan and Ollie get locked in the basement.  Great stuff!
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline metaldams

Big Chief, pop in the second audio commentary when you get the chance, the poster, and indeed Al Hirschfeld, the artist you correctly identified, get a mention.
- Doug Sarnecky



Offline Tony Bensley

I find the pair of audio commentary tracks for each of the four selected titles for LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION, to be a treasure trove of information!  The other L&H Films that have these are HOG WILD (1930); SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) and WAY OUT WEST (1937).  Perhaps surprisingly, THE MUSIC BOX (1932) doesn't have any commentary provided!

Another nice bit of commentary from ANOTHER FINE MESS refers to how the version that's on the Essential Collection was stitched together from various sources.  A rather fine job was made of this, in my opinion!

CHEERS! :)


Offline Paul Pain

  • Moronika's resident meteorologist
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
  • The heartthrob of millions!
This was a fairly enjoyable short.  It is leaps and bounds over DUCK SOUP with the actors more than adjusted to sound and more used to their roles.  One must like that all the trouble is caused by Stan saying "Ma'am" to the cop.  But overall, this film would be much better if had been condensed into two reels.  As a three-reeler, it gets tiresome after a while and loses its charm.  The actors do fine, but tired is tired no matter the quality of the actors.

SPOILER ALERT Complaint: cops on foot would never, EVER keep up with a bicycle.

8/10
#1 fire kibitzer


Offline Tony Bensley

SPOILER ALERT Complaint: cops on foot would never, EVER keep up with a bicycle.
Fair point, though a lot of impossible things seem to happen in movies!  ;)

CHEERS!  [3stooges]

P.S. I'm really glad this site is finally back up and running!  Three days down was too long for me!  [pie]


Offline Umbrella Sam

  • Toastmaster General
  • Knothead
  • *****
    • Talk About Cinema
Compared to DUCK SOUP, I will say that I find ANOTHER NICE FINE MESS to be slightly better mostly due to the stronger supporting cast, though I do have to side with metaldams in that I think that the film really does not lead to much comedic possibility. A lot of it is more about conversations than any real visual spectacles, outside of the ending of course. The couple renting the room are good for the most part, though they do have this annoying laugh that they try to make as a recurring joke in this short and, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t work. Other than that, the rest of the scenes in the house did not make me laugh, but I also can’t really say they were bad either. The short did keep my attention in that I wanted to see how it turned out, unlike THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE, which has such an interesting premise yet did nothing with it at all. The short basically just consists of a bunch of talking that never really goes anywhere, something apparent from the beginning when they have the title cards spoken aloud rather than appear on screen.

Still, there are some positives. Anything that’s outside of the house is really fun to watch, particularly with the exchanges with the cops and when Laurel and Hardy are riding the bicycle towards the end, leading to some pretty funny visual gags. In addition, James Finlayson’s presence also automatically helps the short somewhat. Overall, a decent enough effort, but Laurel and Hardy have done better.

7 out of 10
“I’ll take a milkshake...with sour milk!” -Shemp (Punchy Cowpunchers, 1950)

My blog: https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com


Offline HomokHarcos

This short is very talkie, but I think that has to do with it being a stage adaptation. Like The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy did a few remakes. In my opinion the Laurel and Hardy remakes made more sense, since they were making sound movies out of what were originally silent. The Three Stooges on the other hand remade movies with Shemp that they already did with him and no new technology that necessitated a new film. Another Fine Mess is an improvement over Duck Soup because it has two very good supporting players: Jimmy Finlayson and Thelma Todd. I've listened to the Laurel and Hardy Blogcast and they noted a difference between Finlayson in Another Fine Mess and Marcus in Duck Soup. In Duck Soup Marcus is played straight and as a intimidating man, in Another Fine Mess Finlayson is played comedically.


Offline ChrisBungoStudios

From my recently remastered then and now filming locations video documentary on Another Fine Mess. One of the then and now photo comparisons (attached).


Offline NoahYoung

Nice! Too bad that Burger King kills the mood (and many people's stomachs!)
 [pie]
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline ChrisBungoStudios

Nice! Too bad that Burger King kills the mood (and many people's stomachs!)
 [pie]

You know, this was the first time I spotted the Burger King in the background. It really drives home the "progress' we've made since 1930 (not!).


Offline NoahYoung


      Some weeks, I feel like I have so much more to say than the guys at Laurel and Hardy Central and other weeks I feel like they say it better than I ever could.

It's too bad that site is now kaput.
If I remember correctly, they said this short is great the first time you see it, but grows tiresome on repeated viewings. I agree.

     Thelma Todd is lovely here, as usual, and her and Stan do their best with what I consider to be tired material.

This is the highlight of the short for me. I don't find this scene tired at all, since as you imply it is much better than having someone like Lord Plumtree hit on Stan.

           Ultimately, again we have a film where I give this a respectable rating because the comedians involved are fun to watch, and if you threw in lesser comedians, this film would be a real chore.  I do enjoy the histrionics of James Finlayson in this one, think the soundtrack is quite good (the musical scores are getting better and this one syncs up well with the film), and the intro where the twin girls speak the credits was fun.  This way of doing the credits was done in a few other Roach films at the time.
This is the first L&H film with the familiar LeRoy Shield background music. One of the themes is actually titled "Colonel Buckshot", so yes at this time they did put thought into having the music fit the actions and/or characters. Later they would be what I call "needle drops."

This is the only L&H film with the credits spoken. Not sure why they didn't do more. Our Gang had 3. I'm pretty sure Charley Chase had more than 1.

     A lot of people like this film, it even got some audio commentaries on the DVD set.  I'll just chalk this up to not my kind of Laurel and Hardy film, and again, click on the Laurel and Hardy Central link above.  Those guys do a great job.

7/10

It's hard to not like this film, its weakness being it doesn't hold up on repeated viewings, as I've mentioned. But for a L&H aficionado like myself, "repeated viewings" is relative. I've only seen this one a thousand times, whereas other films of there's that I like better it's more like 2 thousand!

There's a lot of good stuff during the set-up right until the Plumtrees arrive, and the whole business Ollie dreams up of making Stan play 2 roles is very clever and funny. Ollie showing Plumtree around the house is a bit dragged out, though, I agree.

The boys running away from the cop at the beginning, hiding in a cellar, then in the house, is all very funny stuff, and well up to their standards. A full 8 minutes of the film goes by until Stan let's the Plumtrees in. Then it still very amusing and funny as Ollie comes down in his tight fitting Col. Buckshot clothes (Finlayson was much thinner!) Then Ollie forcing a bewildered Stan to go get Agnes the maid! A full 12 minutes have gone by until we get Ollie talking with the Plumtrees, and for some reason the writers decided to have Ollie attempt to play the piano. That "gag" was uneccesary and slows the film down. Then we get Ollie showing Lord Plumtree around, but actually not knowing his way around. Mixed in with this scene is Stan dressing up as Agnes, and meeting the Lord.

At the 16 minute mark give or take, we get the highlight of Stan and Thelma having their risque conversation. That's priceless stuff in my book. It lasts approx 2 and a half minutes.

We then get about another minute of Ollie and Plumtree exploring the house. Then all 4 actors are back together.  Then Thelma leaves with about 8 minutes left in the short. For about 3 minutes we get a dragged out conversation between Ollie and the Lord about rent and pay for the maid and butler. The only funny part is having Stan get dressed back as Hives the butler, but leaving his wig on.

Then with about 5 minutes to go, Finlayson (the real Col. Buckshot) shows up. The film really starts to move, but unfortunately the chase scene finale has 2 stunt doubles in a goat suit(!) riding a tandem bike chased by cops -- the real L&H nowhere to be seen, in a decidely weak ending that could have been much better and funnier.

I go into that kind of detail with the timing since I find that about 8 of the films 28 minutes are dull and somewhat unfunny. That's mostly just the scenes with Ollie and the couple, or with Ollie and Lord Plumtree alone (both without Stan). Take those out, and you would have a very funny, fast-moving and well-paced two-reeler, rather than a dragged out three-reeler that weakens the short.

I still stand by my view that I have professed before, that if you can cut a film down to improve it, that's much better than a film where there's nothing much good in it at all. This scenario happens with a few of their three-reelers, such as BE BIG. Many of those old-time book writers on L&H have similarly expressed their dissatisfaction with lengths beyond two reels for L&H shorts, with BEAU HUNKS being the extreme example with a full four reels!

THE L-H MURDER CASE has absolutely nothing going for it, and as I said before, BE BIG should have been a two-reeler. I do feel that their other 2+ reel shorts work very well as is, including BEAU HUNKS, which I consider more as a "streamliner," as Roach would call it when he produced the original version of A CHUMP AT OXFORD.

BTW, I do find it odd, or perhaps coincidental, that this is one of two films (that I know of) from 1930 where one of the main comedians is an African explorer/game hunter, and the films starts with a close-up of a newspaper ad telling us so, and providing exposition for the rest of the film. The other film is of course ANIMAL CRACKERS with the Marx Brothers.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

You know, this was the first time I spotted the Burger King in the background. It really drives home the "progress' we've made since 1930 (not!).

Funny, because to me it sticks out like a sore thumb, and I noticed it right away!
The best thing I can say about Burger King is that it does not make me as sick as MacDonalds, which in turn does not make me as sick as White Castle!
 [3stooges]

What really makes me sick is when I travel to a foreign country and see a MacDonalds or Burger King. That really kills the mood, too!

BTW, you wanna super-size that?
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline ChrisBungoStudios

And... here's my new quick preview of my filming locations documentary on the locations used in the film:



Offline NoahYoung

When Fin gets pushed out the door, I guess they cut from the soundstage set to the real outside of that home.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline ChrisBungoStudios


Offline metaldams

It's too bad that site is now kaput.
If I remember correctly, they said this short is great the first time you see it, but grows tiresome on repeated viewings. I agree.

This is the highlight of the short for me. I don't find this scene tired at all, since as you imply it is much better than having someone like Lord Plumtree hit on Stan.
This is the first L&H film with the familiar LeRoy Shield background music. One of the themes is actually titled "Colonel Buckshot", so yes at this time they did put thought into having the music fit the actions and/or characters. Later they would be what I call "needle drops."

This is the only L&H film with the credits spoken. Not sure why they didn't do more. Our Gang had 3. I'm pretty sure Charley Chase had more than 1.

It's hard to not like this film, its weakness being it doesn't hold up on repeated viewings, as I've mentioned. But for a L&H aficionado like myself, "repeated viewings" is relative. I've only seen this one a thousand times, whereas other films of there's that I like better it's more like 2 thousand!

There's a lot of good stuff during the set-up right until the Plumtrees arrive, and the whole business Ollie dreams up of making Stan play 2 roles is very clever and funny. Ollie showing Plumtree around the house is a bit dragged out, though, I agree.

The boys running away from the cop at the beginning, hiding in a cellar, then in the house, is all very funny stuff, and well up to their standards. A full 8 minutes of the film goes by until Stan let's the Plumtrees in. Then it still very amusing and funny as Ollie comes down in his tight fitting Col. Buckshot clothes (Finlayson was much thinner!) Then Ollie forcing a bewildered Stan to go get Agnes the maid! A full 12 minutes have gone by until we get Ollie talking with the Plumtrees, and for some reason the writers decided to have Ollie attempt to play the piano. That "gag" was uneccesary and slows the film down. Then we get Ollie showing Lord Plumtree around, but actually not knowing his way around. Mixed in with this scene is Stan dressing up as Agnes, and meeting the Lord.

At the 16 minute mark give or take, we get the highlight of Stan and Thelma having their risque conversation. That's priceless stuff in my book. It lasts approx 2 and a half minutes.

We then get about another minute of Ollie and Plumtree exploring the house. Then all 4 actors are back together.  Then Thelma leaves with about 8 minutes left in the short. For about 3 minutes we get a dragged out conversation between Ollie and the Lord about rent and pay for the maid and butler. The only funny part is having Stan get dressed back as Hives the butler, but leaving his wig on.

Then with about 5 minutes to go, Finlayson (the real Col. Buckshot) shows up. The film really starts to move, but unfortunately the chase scene finale has 2 stunt doubles in a goat suit(!) riding a tandem bike chased by cops -- the real L&H nowhere to be seen, in a decidely weak ending that could have been much better and funnier.

I go into that kind of detail with the timing since I find that about 8 of the films 28 minutes are dull and somewhat unfunny. That's mostly just the scenes with Ollie and the couple, or with Ollie and Lord Plumtree alone (both without Stan). Take those out, and you would have a very funny, fast-moving and well-paced two-reeler, rather than a dragged out three-reeler that weakens the short.

I still stand by my view that I have professed before, that if you can cut a film down to improve it, that's much better than a film where there's nothing much good in it at all. This scenario happens with a few of their three-reelers, such as BE BIG. Many of those old-time book writers on L&H have similarly expressed their dissatisfaction with lengths beyond two reels for L&H shorts, with BEAU HUNKS being the extreme example with a full four reels!

THE L-H MURDER CASE has absolutely nothing going for it, and as I said before, BE BIG should have been a two-reeler. I do feel that their other 2+ reel shorts work very well as is, including BEAU HUNKS, which I consider more as a "streamliner," as Roach would call it when he produced the original version of A CHUMP AT OXFORD.

BTW, I do find it odd, or perhaps coincidental, that this is one of two films (that I know of) from 1930 where one of the main comedians is an African explorer/game hunter, and the films starts with a close-up of a newspaper ad telling us so, and providing exposition for the rest of the film. The other film is of course ANIMAL CRACKERS with the Marx Brothers.


I was going to respond to this in more detail, but then I read my initial review and think most of it still holds true.  You know, the billiard room hunt, men in drag, etc.  I will say agreed this is a film where editing can improve it - and that indeed better than a film where there is nothing good in the first place.

Also to piggyback on another thing you said, there is indeed a case of relativity involved here.  Yours is you’ve only seen this 1,000 times vs 2,000.  I’ve probably seen this short at least a couple of dozen of times, maybe more.  But my less than 100% fawning on this one is relative to the other Laurel and Hardy films.  Stan, Ollie, Thelma and Fin really take this to another level where if this were a El Brendel and Ben Blue film, we’d be talking torture.  You put Ben Blue and El Brendel in something like HOG WILD, it’s more watchable for me because I find the material funnier.  Not euphoric like when Stan and Ollie are involved - but watchable.

At the end of the day - I like ANOTHER FINE MESS.  It’s an excuse to watch Stan and Ollie in their prime.  I just like a lot of the other examples of them in their prime better.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Tony Bensley


I was going to respond to this in more detail, but then I read my initial review and think most of it still holds true.  You know, the billiard room hunt, men in drag, etc.  I will say agreed this is a film where editing can improve it - and that indeed better than a film where there is nothing good in the first place.

Also to piggyback on another thing you said, there is indeed a case of relativity involved here.  Yours is you’ve only seen this 1,000 times vs 2,000.  I’ve probably seen this short at least a couple of dozen of times, maybe more.  But my less than 100% fawning on this one is relative to the other Laurel and Hardy films.  Stan, Ollie, Thelma and Fin really take this to another level where if this were a El Brendel and Ben Blue film, we’d be talking torture.  You put Ben Blue and El Brendel in something like HOG WILD, it’s more watchable for me because I find the material funnier.  Not euphoric like when Stan and Ollie are involved - but watchable.

At the end of the day - I like ANOTHER FINE MESS.  It’s an excuse to watch Stan and Ollie in their prime.  I just like a lot of the other examples of them in their prime better.
Did El Brendel & Ben Blue ever appear in a film together? That definitely could be tortuous!  :P

If we compare ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930) to its silent comedy ancestor, DUCK SOUP (1927), the one aspect in which the silent is superior is its bicycle riding sequence, in which we can see some closeups of Stan & Oliver as they narrowly dodge streetcars and other LA traffic. This of course, occurs much earlier in the film, as that scene ends with them approaching the Buckshot Mansion, as opposed to the end of AFM, in which we don't get to see Stan & Ollie. The one thing that saves this closing scene a little bit (As opposed to the ending of their 1938 feature, BLOCK-HEADS!) is the sight gag with the approaching train, which is a much less elaborate variation of the traffic backing out of the tunnel bit in TWO TARS (1928), which is pure comedy gold!

There is also no getting around the fact that the last several minutes of AFM is somewhat messy, especially with Thelma Todd's sudden inexplicable absence! Perhaps, another conflicting commitment overrode her ability to be present?

Yes, there are definitely other better examples of Laurel & Hardy in their prime. On the other hand, there is also the LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930) that just preceded AFM's original cinematic release, and is creaky and dreary by comparison!

CHEERS!  :police: [pie]


Offline NoahYoung


I was going to respond to this in more detail, but then I read my initial review and think most of it still holds true.  You know, the billiard room hunt, men in drag, etc.  I will say agreed this is a film where editing can improve it - and that indeed better than a film where there is nothing good in the first place.
...

At the end of the day - I like ANOTHER FINE MESS.  It’s an excuse to watch Stan and Ollie in their prime.  I just like a lot of the other examples of them in their prime better.

Well, Stan masquerading as a woman was something they repeated a few times in their careers, so it apparently was popular with audiences. They didn't over-do it, and I always find it enjoyable. Anytime Stan dresses up like that, it is always to dupe a 3rd party.

One of the best things about L&H is the variety of their comedies. Their 2 best features (agreed to by many, but not all), SONS OF THE DESERT and WAY OUT WEST are very dis-similar in structure and execution. Both are equally funny, however.

As I've mentioned recently, the best L&Hs can usually be described in a single, short sentence. That being said, every single one couldn't be them trying to complete a physical task and then failing. They did a good job of weaving in and out of different types of comedies, and there are wonderful examples of each type.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung


There is also no getting around the fact that the last several minutes of AFM is somewhat messy, especially with Thelma Todd's sudden inexplicable absence! Perhaps, another conflicting commitment overrode her ability to be present?

Well, it wasn't really inexplicable -- Lord Plumtree asks her to return to the depot to attend to their trunks. She's says good-bye and heads out. 


Yes, there are definitely other better examples of Laurel & Hardy in their prime. On the other hand, there is also the LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930) that just preceded AFM's original cinematic release, and is creaky and dreary by comparison!

CHEERS!  :police: [pie]

From what I've read, at the Hal Roach Studio, there was always a summer break, and you may notice in all of the various series (Our Gang, L&H, Charley Chase) there is a subtle change in "feeling," for lack of a better word, from one season to the next. Similar to the break between seasons of modern sitcoms.

For L&H, it is very noticeable in this film, because as Tony mentions, MURDER CASE preceded it, but was the last film of the 1929/30 season. The 1930/31 season of all the series now featured the LeRoy Shield music in the background. For Our Gang, the difference was even more apparent, since PUPS IS PUPS is leaps and bounds better than any of their talkies from the 1929/1930 season.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

Well, it wasn't really inexplicable -- Lord Plumtree asks her to return to the depot to attend to their trunks. She's says good-bye and heads out.
Now that you mention it, I do remember catching that bit of explanatory dialogue in one of my more recent viewings! Whatever flaws ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930) may possess, the alleged (But not actual!) continuity issue regarding Lady Plumtree's sudden absence ain't among them!

From what I've read, at the Hal Roach Studio, there was always a summer break, and you may notice in all of the various series (Our Gang, L&H, Charley Chase) there is a subtle change in "feeling," for lack of a better word, from one season to the next. Similar to the break between seasons of modern sitcoms.

For L&H, it is very noticeable in this film, because as Tony mentions, MURDER CASE preceded it, but was the last film of the 1929/30 season. The 1930/31 season of all the series now featured the LeRoy Shield music in the background. For Our Gang, the difference was even more apparent, since PUPS IS PUPS is leaps and bounds better than any of their talkies from the 1929/1930 season.
Although PUPS IS PUPS (1930) was the final film of the 1929/30 season, it is certainly leaps and bounds above any 'Our Gang' talkie that preceded it, especially the previous slog fest, aka A TOUGH WINTER (Also, tough to watch!)! Then came the opening short of the 1930/31 season, TEACHER'S PET, and the 'Our Gang' series truly hit its stride!!

CHEERS!  [pie]


Offline Freddie Sanborn

It makes sense that during the summer breaks the creative crew would take the opportunity to assess what was working and where improvements could be made. It’s hard to do that under the crush of a heavy production schedule.
“If it’s not comedy, I fall asleep.” Harpo Marx


Offline NoahYoung

Although PUPS IS PUPS (1930) was the final film of the 1929/30 season, ...

The Maltin book states that PUPS IS PUPS was the first release of the 1930/31 season.

When I met Dorothy DeBorba, she was quick to point out how much she liked PUPS IS PUPS. I think I or someone else mentioned how DOGS IS DOGS was one of the best, and she said something like, "Don't forget PUPS IS PUPS!"

I have to dig it out, but the autographed photo she signed for me was from PUPS IS PUPS I believe.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

It makes sense that during the summer breaks the creative crew would take the opportunity to assess what was working and where improvements could be made.

Yup, that has always been my theory. I find it hard to sit through any Our Gang short from the 1929/30 season. L&H fared much better during that season.

The Our Gang comedies must have required much more work behind the scenes at the Roach Studio than those of L&H for the simple reason that the Our Gang cast was always changing; they had to remain on the lookout for new kids all the time. Plus, they had to arrange and manage schooling at the studio, since the kids could not attend a traditional school. Add to that the fact that the kids usually had zero training as actors/actresses. The latter fact was probably a good thing, and why their performances were so natural.

It was either Tommy Bond or Jerry Tucker who told me the problem with those Little Rascals "remakes" in the 90s was the fact that they were forcing the kids to imitate the real Our Gang characters from the 30s. The Roach studio, namely Robert McGowan, wisely allowed the kids to be themsleves, and their characters evolved. I've never sat thru any of those "remakes", but I do remember that the kid actor they got for Spanky actually looked like Butch! Just take a close look at his face. Suffice it to say that they did not know what they were doing. Plus they forever made it hard to google "The Little Rascals" without getting hits for that darn 1994 movie! (I just did it -- first result!) Same for eBay!

It is pretty amazing how they kept the quality at a very high level from late 1930 until 1938, when Roach sold the whole unit to M-G-M. Equally amazing was the fact that they were able to keep Spanky on-board, unlike Jackie Cooper and Dickie Moore. They did lend out Spanky a few times to other studios, however.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz