Topic: Pack Up Your Troubles (1932) - Laurel and Hardy

[metaldams]

http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/packup.html
http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_252.html

      Before I say a word about this one, I want to state the guys at www.laurelandhardycentral.com did a fantastic job reviewing this one in the link above.  I'm not even going to pretend to top them or think I have much more to add, just me stating my opinion, which for the most part I agree with them.

      Hodgepodge is the word.  A fairly entertaining hodgepodge because Stan and Ollie are in it, but a hodgepodge nonetheless.  There's some drama and story but it's never fully developed.  For example, much later in the film, Stan and Ollie have a little portable street diner they own that never gets mentioned anywhere else in the film...it just suddenly appears.  The ending, which I will not give away, is about as sudden and coincidental as it gets.

      As far as the comedy goes, there is one fantastic scene (where the Laurel and Hardy Central guys disagree with me), that involves Grady Sutton being mistaken as the little girl's father.  Just the idea of Grady Sutton's screen character fathering a child out of wedlock in the 30's is enough to make me laugh, and the commotion it causes breaking up the wedding is great stuff.  By far the biggest laugh I got in the film. Oh, and the bride's reaction to Stan and Stan trying to chase her before Ollie stops him is also good for a laugh. For a sight gag, I suppose the tank catching the barb wire and capturing all the soldiers works, but it's too brief.

      I didn't know until reading reviews the scene with an abusive Richard Craymer was cut from the film and not restored until the 90's, and it's a good thing....a bit too disturbing for a Stan and Ollie film.  Really, with the drama of caring for a lost child, only Chaplin could pull that off.  I do think they went to THE KID as inspiration. Taking a lost child and running away from the law is a theme in both films, but there's standard chase through a house scene involving a dumwaiter in this film while Chaplin is able to make me cry (hard to do), by playing pure drama when necessary.  Finding the right balance in comedy and drama with features can be very difficult, andin Stan and Ollie's case, it wasn't really done.  Nor does it need to be, they would go on to make some fantastic features in the future that involves great comedy with minimal drama, a perfect mix for their screen characters.  Here, they were getting their feet wet in the feature film game.

      Starts out an army comedy, drags on looking for a Smith, they suddenly own a business, run away from the law, and the dramatic ending feels too coincidental.  There is a nice comic touch at the end, though, involving a character earlier in the film.  I won't give it away.

[Umbrella Sam]

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.

[metaldams]

Sam, really nice and thoughtful write up.  I appreciate your passion and energy in writing it all.  However, I think your review, my review, and most other reviews, sum up nicely what I really think the issue with PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES is....we spend 80% of the time talking plot and character and 20% talking comedy.

I just watched SAFETY LAST this past weekend and I could genuinely write an in depth review of that film completely bypassing the comedy.  The themes of a man having to work extremely hard to the point of near death (he literally almost died needing to "climb to the top") and putting on a charade to impress his girl are more fascinating themes than anything in this week's film, yet Harold still manages to pack in funny gag after funny gag while still keeping the plot going.  Here, the story is just OK and what I perceive to be the funniest gag in the film involves the mere presence of Grady Sutton.  This is an OK film on its own, but I know Laurel and Hardy are capable of much better.  I really can't name a single classic comedy scene here, just a few OK ones.

[7stooges]

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 think they hired a different kid to play the little girl in that first scene.

[Umbrella Sam]

I think they hired a different kid to play the little girl in that first scene.

Now that you mention it, it does look like it might be a different actress in that first scene, though I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere else.

Sam, really nice and thoughtful write up.  I appreciate your passion and energy in writing it all.  However, I think your review, my review, and most other reviews, sum up nicely what I really think the issue with PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES is....we spend 80% of the time talking plot and character and 20% talking comedy.

I just watched SAFETY LAST this past weekend and I could genuinely write an in depth review of that film completely bypassing the comedy.  The themes of a man having to work extremely hard to the point of near death (he literally almost died needing to "climb to the top") and putting on a charade to impress his girl are more fascinating themes than anything in this week's film, yet Harold still manages to pack in funny gag after funny gag while still keeping the plot going.  Here, the story is just OK and what I perceive to be the funniest gag in the film involves the mere presence of Grady Sutton.  This is an OK film on its own, but I know Laurel and Hardy are capable of much better.  I really can't name a single classic comedy scene here, just a few OK ones.

Thanks. Honestly, I didn’t expect for it to end up as long as it did.

I think it is important for these more story-focused features to judge how the films hold up as a whole rather than just how funny it is (especially when we get to the operettas). Of course, there definitely are Laurel and Hardy films that are better at combining the two, though for a feature like this, I think the emotional moments are handled really well besides for one moment and the comedy, though sporadic, is done at just the right points to fit the structure of this feature. I know that’s not a popular opinion, but like I said earlier, I just happen to see this in an entirely different way than the general consensus.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Fully restored to its original 68-minute length, Laurel and Hardy's second starring feature holds up surprisingly well. "Pack Up Your Troubles"  remains among the team's most enjoyable efforts, with several classic routines and an excellent supporting cast. Stan and Ollie are a pleasure to watch in this offbeat World War I comedy-drama. Look for a cameo by co-director George Marshall.

8/10

[HomokHarcos]

See, this is how you do a Laurel and Hardy feature, by making them the focus of the feature. Later movies had romantic subplots that didn't revolve around Stan and Ollie, in this movie at least they are the ones trying to help the little girl find her home. A perfectly enjoyable film. From what I've read in a book about the history of the Hal Roach studios, already at this point Roach wanted to move them exclusively into features, but MGM basically demanded that they produce more short films. They didn't care too much for Roach making features. The main reason MGM made the deal with Roach is because it was cheaper than producing their own shorts, and Laurel and Hardy were massive stars that could make them money (keep in mind that most of the comedy shorts were handled by independents. Educational produced comedies for Fox and Mack Sennett did so for Paramount).

[Dr. Mabuse]

I revisited "Pack Up Your Troubles" on TCM and realized that director Raymond McCarey reused the dumbwaiter gag in — you guessed it — "Three Little Pigskins."

[metaldams]

I revisited "Pack Up Your Troubles" on TCM and realized that director Raymond McCarey reused the dumbwaiter gag in — you guessed it — "Three Little Pigskins."

Good catch.  He is involved in both now that you mention it.

[NoahYoung]

It's a shame that Laurel and Hardy Central has now been decomissioned, since it was created way back in 1998. When it first launched, I actually exchanged a few emails with those guys, and they once actually included one of my emails on their "letters" page for a short while.

For a 68 minute film, it sure packs a lot of plots and sub-plots in it. I remember on that website that they said something about it being like they passed around a piece of paper on the table, and each person added a plot point to the movie!

When you read a synopsis, you would think that it was a 4-hour epic, yet it's not. For some reason, however, I find the movie kind of slow-paced. There are scenes before they are in the Army, showing how they were "drafted," scenes adjusting to Army life, a battle scene, and scenes in different settings after the war when they leave the Army.  How they crammed this all into 68 minutes, yet still managed a slow-paced film, is a feat in and of itself!

I agree with some comments above that there are no real classic comedy scenes. Perhaps the closest, and one could argue that it is classic, is Stan falling asleep when reading the bedtime story to the little girl -- although the little girl takes over. The beginning of the scene is missing from the edited version mentioned above, which makes the scene very puzzling.

Regarding the edits, they were done for theatrical re-issues and TV. I believe the first theatrical re-issue was by Film Classics in the '40s. It makes no sense why the beginning of the scene mentioned above was removed (the bedtime story), unless it was due to decomposition in the Film Classics negative. My Blackhawk print is missing all these scenes, too. The removal of most of Cramer's scenes make L&H look a bit like bad guys. (It's basically taken out of context.)  In the unedited version, it makes you want to stand up and applaud that L&H are saving the girl from harm.

"Plot-heavy" L&H films can work -- but not this one. SONS OF THE DESERT and OUR RELATIONS are 2 great examples -- and these movies are 100% L&H. It's a crying shame that although they give great performances here, as usual, their talents were wasted in this rather dreary film.