Topic: The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case (1930) - Laurel and Hardy

[Dr. Mabuse]

An uneven short that promises more than it delivers. "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case" simply does not justify its three-reel length — there's plenty of "old dark house" atmosphere, but only sporadic laughs.  One of the reasons why the ending fails so miserably is that a dream framework was never established. Stan and Ollie would have been better off with a "67 cents" finish that the Stooges later used in "If a Body Meets a Body."

6/10

[HomokHarcos]

A lot of the comedy teams seemed to do at least one horror comedy that revolved around murder. Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff and If a Body Meets a Body are other examples. This is Laurel and Hardy's version. I'll admit, I love horror and horror comedies so I enjoyed this movie. My favorite part was the "you're wanted on the phone" sequence where people would answer the phone and then go disappearing. I don't think this needed to be three reels, the part of the fishing dock and at the spooky house could have been two different films. I don't like the ending completely scrapping the whole rest of the movie. This also feels a lot like Scooby-Doo. Stan and Ollie act almost exactly like Scooby and Shaggy.

[NoahYoung]

Insofar as my least favorite L&H sound short, while the boys' specialize in milking a scene and do it amazingly well most of the time, in my opinion, the 13 minutes and 22 seconds devoted to repeated attempts to remove Ollie's Boot is several minutes too long! 

BE BIG is a lot better than people give it credit for. I'm not saying it is one of their best, though. At least it passes the "if I trimmed it down it's a better movie" test. Can't say the same for other shorts such as BERTH MARKS, TWICE TWO, and THE L-H MURDER CASE.

Getting back to THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE, the background music that can be heard at the beginning of the opening scene at the Dockyard, has also been used in countless Laurel & Hardy silents!

It's from WRONG AGAIN. Those "Lost" DVDs repeated the music for other shorts that originally didn't have a music and effects disc.

[NoahYoung]

Nevertheless, likely owing at least somewhat to the comedy duo's instant name recognition within the title of this, their first Three Reeler, THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE would be their all time highest grossing short subject!

I'm not exactly sure how the financials worked with shorts, but I thought Roach got a fixed amount regardless of how many people saw it. And how did they know if people came to see a L&H short as opposed to the feature it played with?

[NoahYoung]

Absolutely right about the lame ass ending.  Nice to see you reviewing these.  One thing that struck me about these Laurel and Hardy films is they never got on a consistent run like The Stooges did for a few years in the late thirties and early forties.  Still, when Stan and Ollie were on, gut busting hysterical.  If you want to watch a feature, check out BLOCK-HEADS.

I'm hoping your opinion has changed since you wrote this!

For talkies, from late 1930 to 1938, their features and shorts were mostly excellent. A few clunkers in the features, and a few in the shorts. BERTH MARKS, TWICE TWO and THE L-H MURDER CASE are the only shorts I'd tell someone to avoid if they are just starting to watch L&H.

For their silents, almost all of their shorts once they were a team are generally at least above average (but by the mathematical definition they would be average -- right? -- back to the point I've made before about ratings.)

[NoahYoung]

I just watched this again a few nights ago. I've seen it a million times, but there was something I had never thought of before. This contains the longest stretch without the boys on the screen than any of their shorts -- the sequence in the house before they show up.

I've heard that Dorothy Granger owned a copy of this film in 8mm. (BTW, she was gorgeous!)

Also, Stan had just lost his only son (an infant) around the time this was made.

[Tony Bensley]

I'm not exactly sure how the financials worked with shorts, but I thought Roach got a fixed amount regardless of how many people saw it. And how did they know if people came to see a L&H short as opposed to the feature it played with?

I have no idea HOW the financial tallying for the short subjects worked. All I know is what I read or heard regarding THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930) being Laurel & Hardy's all time highest box office grossing short. Now that I think of it, I believe this was referenced on one of the two commentary tracks for the short that followed in theatrical release order, ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930), most likely from the commentary track with Richard W. Bann. This would be from the LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION 10 DVD set.

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

I have no idea HOW the financial tallying for the short subjects worked. All I know is what I read or heard regarding THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930) being Laurel & Hardy's all time highest box office grossing short. Now that I think of it, I believe this was referenced on one of the two commentary tracks for the short that followed in theatrical release order, ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930), most likely from the commentary track with Richard W. Bann. This would be from the LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION 10 DVD set.

CHEERS! 

I need to research how the financials were done for the shorts. I know that when they were at Fox, Laurel always nagged the producers about making better pictures, his theory being than if the "bad" pictures they were making made money,  then what would a "good" picture make? He was always told that it didn't matter, since the way the financials worked, they wouldn't make more money if more people went to see them. I've assumed that that's the way the shorts worked as well.

Apple states it was the highest grossing as well: https://tv.apple.com/us/movie/laurel--hardy-the-laurel-hardy-murder-case/umc.cmc.6j6nrardvljdrtkoz3sifpyrn

It's hard, however, to take seriously any info that Apple put on that page since they put a still from OLIVER THE EIGHTH there. But it does make sense that because of the longer foreign versions, it made more money than their other shorts. I assume that does not necessarily mean more fannies were in the seats to watch it. Since it was a "feature", Roach must have gotten more money from M-G-M for it overseas. BE BIG and LAUGHING GRAVY were stitched together to make a "feature" for foreign language versions as well. I wonder how much that one grossed?

All this just proves how one can "lie" with statistics.  (A book was written with that title: https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728)

I'm sure that when Roach switched them strictly to features in 1935, the intent was to make more money.

TBH, I've never paid much attention to which of their films made how much money, etc.

BTW, this was not their first three-reeler; that honor goes to BLOTTO, although older filmographies erroneously list it as a two-reeler.

[Tony Bensley]

It's probably also worth noting that unlike THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930), ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930) wasn't filmed in multiple phonetic foreign language versions for the overseas market. Thus, fewer opportunities for increased revenue.

Of course, to muddy the waters even further, "Murder Case" was combined with "Berth Marks" in the foreign language versions, making it feature length, so if revenues from that combo are included in the financial tally, can it still rightfully be called Laurel & Hardy's highest grossing short subject, assuming that's even a thing? So many questions!

CHEERS!

[metaldams]

I'm hoping your opinion has changed since you wrote this!

For talkies, from late 1930 to 1938, their features and shorts were mostly excellent. A few clunkers in the features, and a few in the shorts. BERTH MARKS, TWICE TWO and THE L-H MURDER CASE are the only shorts I'd tell someone to avoid if they are just starting to watch L&H.

For their silents, almost all of their shorts once they were a team are generally at least above average (but by the mathematical definition they would be average -- right? -- back to the point I've made before about ratings.)

I think there are certainly more good than bad Laurel and Hardy films and the best ones are extremely good - like among the all time best.  But there are some mediocre to bad films.  BONNIE SCOTLAND is saved by two scenes and I absolutely loathe TWICE TWO.  ANY OLD PORT isn’t so great either.  The Stooges had their uninspired eras for sure, but from say 1939 - 1942 or 1943, not even Laurel and Hardy had a run like that.  Basically when it was only Jules and Del directing.   The greatest run in my opinion is Buster Keaton - his silent independent run, which took up almost the entire decade of the twenties, was incredible.

All that said, while not a classic, I’m a little easier on THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE these days than I was when I wrote this review.

[NoahYoung]

It's probably also worth noting that unlike THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE (1930), ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930) wasn't filmed in multiple phonetic foreign language versions for the overseas market. Thus, fewer opportunities for increased revenue.

Of course, to muddy the waters even further, "Murder Case" was combined with "Berth Marks" in the foreign language versions, making it feature length, so if revenues from that combo are included in the financial tally, can it still rightfully be called Laurel & Hardy's highest grossing short subject, assuming that's even a thing? So many questions!

CHEERS!

Yup -- like I said -- you can make statistics (in this case financial ones) say anything you want!

[NoahYoung]

I think there are certainly more good than bad Laurel and Hardy films and the best ones are extremely good - like among the all time best.  But there are some mediocre to bad films.  BONNIE SCOTLAND is saved by two scenes and I absolutely loathe TWICE TWO.  ANY OLD PORT isn’t so great either.  The Stooges had their uninspired eras for sure, but from say 1939 - 1942 or 1943, not even Laurel and Hardy had a run like that.  Basically when it was only Jules and Del directing.   The greatest run in my opinion is Buster Keaton - his silent independent run, which took up almost the entire decade of the twenties, was incredible.

All that said, while not a classic, I’m a little easier on THE LAUREL-HARDY MURDER CASE these days than I was when I wrote this review.

I, too, am a little easier on MURDER CASE than I used to be.

We'll have to agree to disagree on L&H not having a great run. I'd say the run was from 1927 - 1938. You could say to 1940 as well, but I feel the last 2 Roach pictures in 1940 were a step or 2 down, and FLYING DEUCES wasn't that great either.

There's bound to be a few clunkers, but the ratio of good-very-good-great to clunkers is extremely high. TWICE TWO is a real outlier, and I'm not convinced that it ruins the great run (like a hit that destroys a no-hitter.) They did have some weak ones at the dawn of talkies -- but just about every comedian (and dramatic actor, for that matter) ran into the same problem.

Regarding TWICE TWO, I've long held the belief that had they not dubbed-in those annoying voices for the "wives" (especially for Laurel), it would have survived as one of their better shorts. I've also long wondered if the soundtrack exists of Stan and Babe's voices for the wives before they were dubbed-in. (Ever notice that when voices are dubbed, it sounds like someone sitting in a studio in front of a microphone? -- which it is. Why don't they try to simulate the surroundings and acoustics of where the movie was filmed?)

Funny you mention ANY OLD PORT, since Skretvedt, in his L&H:THE MAGIC BEHIND THE MOVIES, says it resembles a Stooges short directed by Jules White! It's not one of their best, but I wouldn't call it a clunker. It has a good pace, and doesn't suffer from that "deadness" of a few of their early talkies, and TWICE TWO. I've always enjoyed it.

BONNIE SCOTLAND is not one of their better features, but if you cut out the unnecessary plot footage, there's some first-rate L&H in there! (IMO, more than just 2 scenes. I do wish that they had tightened-up the rooming house scene, and given it a bit more "punch." As it stands, it looks as if they were fiming one of their weakest 1929 early talkies. ) It's certainly better than SWISS MISS and PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES. Also, L&H were sorta "forced" into features, and I think I read somewhere that Stan would have preferred that they stuck to shorts. Artistically, they were a victim of their own success.

I've never liked to have comedians "complete" with each other, and I avoid saying this comedian was better than that one, etc. Yes, the Stooges had a great run that was interrupted, unfortunatley, by ill health and death a few times. But so did L&H, Keaton (as you mentioned), Chaplin, Our Gang, and Abbott and Costello. I love Charley Chase, but now having seen most of his Roach talkies, he had lots of clunkers. I love W.C. Fields, but he unfortunately never had a good long uninterrupted run, and his number of really great must-see films is somewhat equivalent to those of The Marx Bros, whom I also love.

It's really great that both L&H and the Stooges have such a large body of work to enjoy -- and each had their fair share of clunkers!