PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES is a film that I enjoy very much, although I’ll admit that it is not perfect. Still, it is sad for me knowing that this is often considered to be one of their lesser efforts, at least judging by the Laurel and Hardy Central reviews and hinted at in the book, The Magic Behind the Movies.
Now, there is one point with which I must agree with the Laurel and Hardy Central reviewers and metaldams: the Richard Craymer scene. Now, to be fair, I do understand the reason for including it in the first place. It gives Laurel and Hardy more of a motivation to find the grandparents as quickly as possible, especially since Craymer not only is abusive but also sends a welfare worker after them. However, like ANY OLD PORT, it is way too serious of a problem to be included in a Laurel and Hardy film, to the point where it’s horrifying to watch the child’s reactions to her dilemma. A better way to handle this plot point would have been to put her in an orphanage and have her not fit in with the other kids or prospective parents. It still would have given Laurel and Hardy motivation to take her away while at the same time avoiding a subject that Laurel and Hardy were clearly not qualified to address. However, unlike ANY OLD PORT, this only takes up a small portion of the film and the girl does not appear to be traumatized by the experience afterwards, so maybe she got out before anything bad could actually happen to her. I suppose that’s open up to interpretation.
Now as for the whole hodgepodge aspect, it is true that there are many different plot points thrown in like with the diner. However, unlike PARDON US, where they kind of settle for staying in prison half the time, the goal of this film is much more clear: to protect the child. Also, although the plot points could have been explained a bit better, I think there are ways to account for each point that John Larrabee lists:
1. Keeping the child away from the parents wasn’t exactly out of spite, but rather due to the fact that they weren’t on good terms and Eddie didn’t think it even was a possible option. He was probably trying to come up with a better solution at the time of his death, maybe hiring another nanny, though he didn’t get a chance to.
2. The first woman is clearly not a relative and is supposed to be the nanny. The idea was for her to continue watching the child but, as Hardy explains, something happens to her (presumably she dies) and the welfare workers must have decided on the kid going into foster care. As for the other woman, it’s clear that they hired her on the pretenses that they are actually related to the child, since she refers to them as her uncles, and they can’t hide the child with her out of fear that she might give up the child.
3. It’s Laurel and Hardy. Plus, they do try to get the parents’ address earlier in the film, but Eddie catches on. He may have somehow avoided giving the parents’ address in the army records as well, considering he wasn’t living with them when he enlisted.
4. Laurel mentions that they bought it as a way to raise money, presumably for their apartment and for paying the nanny. They clearly bought it after the war as their way of making (not so good) business.
5. Keep in mind that the girl does not talk at all at the beginning and is clearly made up much more differently than later on in an attempt to make her seem a bit older when they show her again later in the film.
I’m sorry, I know it seems like I’m hating on the Laurel and Hardy Central reviewers, but I’m really not. They’ve done a good job with other reviews, it just happens that I really disagree with them on this film.
I think the army scenes are really funny, especially with Finlayson, the chef, and the solution with the tank later on. As for the scenes afterwards with the child, I can see people arguing that because there is someone else’s life at stake, the comedy scenes are not as effective. However, keep in mind that the child actually likes being with Laurel and Hardy. Heck, she even states at one point that she’d rather be with them than the grandparents she has never met. Despite their clumsiness, it’s clear that they do actually take good care of this child, so I still find the comedy scenes to be really good. I love Hardy’s failures at housework as well as the child getting Stan to sleep by reading him a bedtime story. There’s also a great dialogue routine with James C. Morton as well as the scene with Grady Sutton and Billy Gilbert as mentioned by metaldams. There is also a questionable moment involving an African American man, though to their credit, unlike most films of the time, the man seems to be portrayed as a very civilized person and does not seem to be anyone’s servant.
I love the way that they handled the comedy and drama in this film outside of the Craymer scene. Sure, it’s not Chaplin quality, but it doesn’t need to be. The ending is coincidental, though, honestly, after all the effort Laurel and Hardy went through, it is nice to see that they finally were able to achieve their goal in the end, even if it was by accident.
Yeah, I know I wrote probably too much, but honestly I feel like I’m in a minority in just how much I like this film. You did a good job explaining your thoughts, metaldams, and I can see why you don’t think as highly of this one. It just happens that I see this film in an entirely different way.
9 out of 10 (would be a 10 if they went the orphanage route rather than using the scenes with Craymer)
P.S: This is something I never noticed before, but when Finlayson’s butler answers questions, rather than answering “no!”, he instead answers “d’oh!”, a slight jab at Finlayson’s famous expression.
