Topic: Scram! (1932) - Laurel and Hardy

[metaldams]

http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_59.html
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/scram.html

      Not really too much to say about this one.  The Lord Heath page above is interesting in that it mentions this was shot after the feature PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES but released before it and it even uses the same housing exterior set piece.  Maybe there was feature film fatigue because this film seems to be a combination of other films.  The drunk guy inviting homeless guys into his home after they do a good deed is from CITY LIGHTS, the Chaplin feature released a year before SCRAM!  The confusion with the doors and windows when breaking into the home is NIGHT OWLS, and the contagious laughter towards the end is BLOTTO.  This feels very much like a compilation, and all the above mentioned things were better developed in their previous films.

      That's not to say this is a bad film, as middle of the road Laurel and Hardy is perfectly acceptable as I'm a fan.  The highlight to me is getting the key out of the sewer, which is original and well done.  Vivien Oakland, Arthur Housman, and Richard Cramer all put in fine performances.  Heck, you can almost call this a Hal Roach All-Star film versus a Laurel and Hardy film, as the ensemble cast is just as memorable as the main comics here.  Gotta love Housman slurring, "My Bonnie" in a drunken state and the camera pulling Richard Cramer's angry face forward.

      About as middle of the road as it gets for Laurel and Hardy, and next time we discuss a feature.  Fine entertainment, nice to watch on a Sunday morning.

[metaldams]

By the way, the butler, played by Wilson Benge, the same Butler in PARDON MY SCOTCH and A PLUMBING WE WILL GO. 

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

I wondered what the butler's name was, thanks.  Arthur Housman is even more awesome than usual here.

[Umbrella Sam]

This one is pretty good for the most part. Arthur Housman is that rare comical drunk who I actually think is funny and even in his first performance with the duo he does a great job, exaggerating his performance a lot and doing quite a bit of physical comedy with Laurel and Hardy. It’s a shame that he apparently did actually suffer from alcoholism in real life.

The scene with the sewer is the highlight for me as well. Again, Housman’s physical capabilities are really shown off here and I also really like the bit where Housman does a razzberry and unintentionally tricks the officer into thinking it was Hardy.

Yeah, it would be nice to see more new material than retreading, though for the most part Laurel and Hardy do the reused gags with as much energy as they did in the originals. The NIGHT OWLS gags, in particular, work pretty well and unlike in NIGHT OWLS, there’s never any point where they feel they drag, probably because they’re shorter and also have a soundtrack of Leroy Shield melodies playing in the background.

I would consider this better than NIGHT OWLS, except for the fact that after Housman leaves, the short becomes kind of disappointing. The whole laughing fit, in particular, is pretty underwhelming due to the lack of payoff. In BLOTTO, we actually see Anita Garvin chase out Laurel and Hardy with her gun. Here, the lights go out...and that’s pretty much it. You hear some stuff breaking and some screaming, but it’s not as effective since there’s no on screen reactions to watch like in UNACCUSTOMED AS WE ARE. However, Cramer’s angered reaction is pretty good and echoes both Garvin and Vivien Oakland In WE FAW DOWN (ironic considering that Oakland plays the wife here).

Basically, I consider myself in a minority here in the same way I feel with BACON GRABBERS. In both cases, I can definitely see why fans consider this to not be a Laurel and Hardy classic given that the routines are done elsewhere in their widely regarded classics, but Laurel and Hardy give such energetic performances in both that I don’t mind. I still really enjoy this short for the most part, even if the last few minutes are a bit disappointing.

9 out of 10

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

As far as I have ever found, Stan Laurel is the only one who ever told of Housman of being buzzed on set, and his implication was very veiled.  I took it more as Stan saying that Housman might do a shooter every so often before a take to sort of put an edge on the performance.  I've also read that Housman and his wife, also an actress, were diligent about answering their phone and showing up on time, etc., both of them notably reliable behind the scenes and in front of the camera.  No actor, especially a freelancer, is going to last long who's not meticulous and dependable, not to mention the fact that a drunk can't play a drunk.  I'm willing to believe that Housman, like W C Fields and Dean Martin, for examples, may have started hitting it pretty good as his career ran down, but he had been on screen for twenty years by that point, and that is a long time.  In any case, he is certainly in his prime in Scram.  And in The Fixer-uppers and in The Live Ghost and in Our Relations, which were years later.  I also remember him as the bell-ringer in Punch Drunks, which character was sober and Houseman certainly played it that way, no less funny than ever.

[metaldams]

PUNCH DRUNKS is the only time I've ever seen Housman play a sober role that I can recall - ironic considering the title of the film.  Outside of comedy, he was even in SUNRISE, so he could even land a prestige film.

Jack Norton was the other Hollywood stock drunk actor, and he was in RHYTHM AND WEEP.  Gotta wonder if Housman would of had the role had he been alive.

Housman may or may not have been an alcoholic, but yeah, obviously there has to be some reliability to get all those roles.  Charley Chase, professionally, at least, had no problems.

[GreenCanaries]

Jack Norton was the other Hollywood stock drunk actor, and he was in RHYTHM AND WEEP.  Gotta wonder if Housman would of had the role had he been alive.

From what I recall, Norton's character in R&W was more of a "looney" than a drunk though.

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

Re: Charley Chase, and his brother Paul:  Clinically, it's really hard to drink yourself to death at their ages.  It's possible, but the level of achievement these men reached could not have been reached by hopeless alcoholics.  One might be inclined to blame their early deaths on bootleg prohibition whiskey, but they were wealthy Hollywood players - like Buster Keaton, they had the finest liquors available for a phone call.  The great jazz cornetist Bix Beiderbecke died of booze in 1931, age 28, but he'd been drinking bootleg swill for a decade.  Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, thirty years later, died of legit booze, but they were junkies as well, and their acts consisted at least in part of their incapacity.  Paul Parrott hid his addictions ( booze and drugs, one presumes hard drugs ) from the movie public at least for a while by moving behind the camera.  My point being it's fairly amazing that Charley Chase was so productive, especially in front of the camera, for so long if his addiction was so severe.  I can think of three possible explanations: one, that he, like his brother Paul, had a drug problem as well, and finally OD'ed, though this is an unsubstantiated guess; and two, equally unsubstantiated, that he was a binge drinker, able to stay sober and productive for a while, and then would be helpless against liquor until it came close to killing him, or indeed finally did.  Third is that they were both genetically predisposed to early heart attacks and would have died in their forties no matter what their lifestyles were.  I admit I know of no evidence for or against any of the three theories.

[Umbrella Sam]

Re: Charley Chase, and his brother Paul:  Clinically, it's really hard to drink yourself to death at their ages.  It's possible, but the level of achievement these men reached could not have been reached by hopeless alcoholics.  One might be inclined to blame their early deaths on bootleg prohibition whiskey, but they were wealthy Hollywood players - like Buster Keaton, they had the finest liquors available for a phone call.  The great jazz cornetist Bix Beiderbecke died of booze in 1931, age 28, but he'd been drinking bootleg swill for a decade.  Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, thirty years later, died of legit booze, but they were junkies as well, and their acts consisted at least in part of their incapacity.  Paul Parrott hid his addictions ( booze and drugs, one presumes hard drugs ) from the movie public at least for a while by moving behind the camera.  My point being it's fairly amazing that Charley Chase was so productive, especially in front of the camera, for so long if his addiction was so severe.  I can think of three possible explanations: one, that he, like his brother Paul, had a drug problem as well, and finally OD'ed, though this is an unsubstantiated guess; and two, equally unsubstantiated, that he was a binge drinker, able to stay sober and productive for a while, and then would be helpless against liquor until it came close to killing him, or indeed finally did.  Third is that they were both genetically predisposed to early heart attacks and would have died in their forties no matter what their lifestyles were.  I admit I know of no evidence for or against any of the three theories.

From what it sounds like, even though Chase had somewhat of an alcohol problem throughout his career, after his brother died, his drinking got a lot heavier. I noticed that even though he was still starring in shorts at the time of his death, his last directing job was in 1939, the year his brother died, so maybe it began to affect his productivity towards the end. I know he had to drop out of a major part in a Fred Astaire film due to illness, though that was a few years earlier and I don’t know for sure if the illness was a result of alcohol dependency or not.

Now, I’ve never seen any of Chase’s Columbia shorts, although I do remember reading that he did have more creative control than most comedians in the short subjects department there. However, I’m wondering, for anyone who has seen his Columbia shorts, was the slapstick heavier in them than they were in the Hal Roach ones? I ask this because I remember when looking up information on Harry Langdon that I read that the much faster pace of the Columbia shorts wore him out and may have contributed to his death while they were still in production. I’m wondering if this may have been a factor in Chase’s death as well?

[metaldams]

From what it sounds like, even though Chase had somewhat of an alcohol problem throughout his career, after his brother died, his drinking got a lot heavier. I noticed that even though he was still starring in shorts at the time of his death, his last directing job was in 1939, the year his brother died, so maybe it began to affect his productivity towards the end. I know he had to drop out of a major part in a Fred Astaire film due to illness, though that was a few years earlier and I don’t know for sure if the illness was a result of alcohol dependency or not.

Now, I’ve never seen any of Chase’s Columbia shorts, although I do remember reading that he did have more creative control than most comedians in the short subjects department there. However, I’m wondering, for anyone who has seen his Columbia shorts, was the slapstick heavier in them than they were in the Hal Roach ones? I ask this because I remember when looking up information on Harry Langdon that I read that the much faster pace of the Columbia shorts wore him out and may have contributed to his death while they were still in production. I’m wondering if this may have been a factor in Chase’s death as well?

There are more Columbia touches in Chase's shorts than Roach, but his films seem to be closer to what he was doing previously than other Columbia stars. 

[metaldams]

Re: Charley Chase, and his brother Paul:  Clinically, it's really hard to drink yourself to death at their ages.  It's possible, but the level of achievement these men reached could not have been reached by hopeless alcoholics.  One might be inclined to blame their early deaths on bootleg prohibition whiskey, but they were wealthy Hollywood players - like Buster Keaton, they had the finest liquors available for a phone call.  The great jazz cornetist Bix Beiderbecke died of booze in 1931, age 28, but he'd been drinking bootleg swill for a decade.  Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, thirty years later, died of legit booze, but they were junkies as well, and their acts consisted at least in part of their incapacity.  Paul Parrott hid his addictions ( booze and drugs, one presumes hard drugs ) from the movie public at least for a while by moving behind the camera.  My point being it's fairly amazing that Charley Chase was so productive, especially in front of the camera, for so long if his addiction was so severe.  I can think of three possible explanations: one, that he, like his brother Paul, had a drug problem as well, and finally OD'ed, though this is an unsubstantiated guess; and two, equally unsubstantiated, that he was a binge drinker, able to stay sober and productive for a while, and then would be helpless against liquor until it came close to killing him, or indeed finally did.  Third is that they were both genetically predisposed to early heart attacks and would have died in their forties no matter what their lifestyles were.  I admit I know of no evidence for or against any of the three theories.

Talking a totally different world and era, but Jeff Hanneman of Slayer died of cirrhosis of the liver aged 49...only a few years older than Chase, and it was only the last few years he wasn't working (and even that was partly due to other circumstances). I'm far from an expert on alcoholism, but perhaps some people are more functional alcoholics than others and are able to work, even if their internal organs say otherwise.  There is a bio or two about Chase out there, I should pick one up.  I'm sure it would answer some questions.

[metaldams]

Oh...and I'm digging the new Todd/Kelly DVD set.  BABES IN THE GOODS is mandatory Arthur Housman.

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

I just dug a little deeper and found that at his death in 1942, Housman had been in the movies for thirty years, not twenty.  His first reviews for his film work came out in 1912.  He died of pneumonia, which was a lot easier to die of in 1942.

[metaldams]

Re: Charley Chase, and his brother Paul:  Clinically, it's really hard to drink yourself to death at their ages.  It's possible, but the level of achievement these men reached could not have been reached by hopeless alcoholics.  One might be inclined to blame their early deaths on bootleg prohibition whiskey, but they were wealthy Hollywood players - like Buster Keaton, they had the finest liquors available for a phone call.  The great jazz cornetist Bix Beiderbecke died of booze in 1931, age 28, but he'd been drinking bootleg swill for a decade.  Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, thirty years later, died of legit booze, but they were junkies as well, and their acts consisted at least in part of their incapacity.  Paul Parrott hid his addictions ( booze and drugs, one presumes hard drugs ) from the movie public at least for a while by moving behind the camera.  My point being it's fairly amazing that Charley Chase was so productive, especially in front of the camera, for so long if his addiction was so severe.  I can think of three possible explanations: one, that he, like his brother Paul, had a drug problem as well, and finally OD'ed, though this is an unsubstantiated guess; and two, equally unsubstantiated, that he was a binge drinker, able to stay sober and productive for a while, and then would be helpless against liquor until it came close to killing him, or indeed finally did.  Third is that they were both genetically predisposed to early heart attacks and would have died in their forties no matter what their lifestyles were.  I admit I know of no evidence for or against any of the three theories.

Bringing back an old discussion, I heard an interesting tidbit in a Richard Roberts audio commentary on the latest Charley Chase DVD set.  A quote from Hal Roach, which I’ll paraphrase, “I never saw Chase drunk on the set.  I never saw him sober off of it.”  Work may have been the only thing to get him to a healthy place.

[HomokHarcos]

Stan and Ollie get into trouble with the law, and are told to Scram. They meet a drunk trying to get into his home, and then meet a jovial woman. This one does reuse a lot of their older skits, so my guess is that since they just produced a feature film, they went a little easier on the production for this short to get out it to distributors on time. But Laurel and Hardy are so great that they make good comedies even when they could be releasing a film out quickly.

[Paul Pain]

I just finally watched this today and enjoyed myself.  Yes, the old bits have all been done better elsewhere, but here they make a nice compilation mixed in with some funny new devices.  Everyone is at their best, so that helps toward making this short quite enjoyable.   For me, the ultimate LMAO moment was watching Richard Cramer simmer at the end.  I wouldn't show this to a rookie, but it's a nice piece for the seasoned L&H fan to enjoy in and of itself.

9/10

[Dr. Mabuse]

"Scram!" may not be Laurel and Hardy's most inspired short, but it's still damn funny. The supporting cast definitely helps, with Arthur Housman, Vivien Oakland and Richard Cramer rising to the occasion. Stan and Ollie's bedroom hysterics and Cramer's final close-up are worth the price of admission.

8.5/10

[NoahYoung]

I find this to be one of their greatest starring sound short films (40 in all). I agree with Charles Barr, in his 1967 book, "Laurel and Hardy",  that "Scram" is "one of the three or four best shorts of the thirties, with no weakness." (I assume he meant  "L&H" shorts, but that is implied, given the subject of the book).

Being a huge L&H fan, I will still admit that their bag of tricks was relatively small, so of course they repeated bits (with variations) over the years. I do find, however, that the tempo of this short is perfect and nothing is overly-milked. I would have preferred a better ending, but it is only the last 10 seconds or so of the film.