Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Sons of the Desert (1933) - Laurel and Hardy

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/sons.html
http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_239.html



      I am typing this review from my I-Pod-uh.  Also, just to get it out of the way, at the very beginning, in the crowd of seated Sons of the Desert members, you will see Al Thompson.  I henceforth declare him the official Weekly Episodes Discussion patron Saint.

      Finally, we have a perfectly satisfying Laurel and Hardy feature, and depending who you ask, some would say the best.  PARDON US became a feature on the fly and felt like an experiment.  PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES was very episodic and lacking in memorable Stan and Ollie moments, THE DEVIL'S BROTHER is a wonderful overall film but feels like Stan and Ollie are comic relief in their own film, but here?  We get a real Laurel and Hardy feature, pure without any artificial flavors or preservatives.  Now this is more in the tradition of their domestic shorts than their slapstick filled ones, so if you prefer the latter, that's what BLOCK-HEADS is for.  Still, whether you think this is the best or simply good, I can imagine very few fans being dissatisfied. 

      The director of this one is William Seiter.  The man had experience in comedy features coming off a string of Wheeler and Woolsey comedies at RKO.  They were a big draw in their day and I have no doubt influenced Roach tabbing him for this.  The pace of this thing is fantastic, there is never a moment that feels slow.  Even the obligatory musical number works.  "Honolulu Baby" is right in the middle of the film, yet it never feels tacked on.  They're at a guy's convention where a guy with a ukelele sings and a bunch of Hawaiian garbed pretty girls dance with him.  Makes sense in the context unlike so many other musical numbers in other films, and the number is also catchy and laced with irony since Honolulu is where the boys told their wives they'd be.

      Speaking of the wives, they are brilliant, especially Mae Busch.  She flies off the handle on more than one occasion - dig the way she pokes Ollie with a knife during her first rant early in the film.  This may be her best performance and that's really saying something, as she had a lot of good ones.  Dorothy Christy is also great as the standard duck hunting, rifle toting pretty wife in her 30's with a domineering streak.  Dig the way she casually grabs that rifle in the end and walks home while Stan panics as he follows her, doing his classic crying bit.  Ms. Christy only had this one Laurel and Hardy role and was also one of the many rich and less domesticated than here female characters in Buster Keaton's PARLOR, BEDROOM AND BATH.  Charley Chase, you know, the future Stooge director, amongst other things, also has an acting role at the convention scene and acts more drunk and obnoxious here than any starring role I've ever seen him in.  He's great too.

      My favorite Stan bits are him eating the wax fruit like he's a Pavlov dog.  No matter how bad it tastes, he goes back to it and the gag gets punctuated when Mae Busch later mentions this is the third missing apple of the week!  The sight of Stan in the end in that overstuffed bathrobe sporting a massive self satisfied grin as he scratches his head never fails to get a laugh out of me.  Ollie's bad acting moans as he fakes a nervous breakdown always make me smile and just hearing him get stuff thrown at him while all we see is neighbor Stan's room shake from the impact is all the sensory stimuli we need.  Ollie's screams at this point have become such a welcome trademark.  I also love the reactions they share together in the attic, the way Ollie gets frustrated at Stan for not helping with the bed and the whole peas in the pod bit.

      Really a great film overall. Usually Stan and Ollie carrying every scene they're in, and when they're not on screen, Mae Busch and Dorothy Christy are almost just as good.  I don't have a favorite Laurel and Hardy feature, but of the handful that could possibly fit the bill, SONS OF THE DESERT is one of them.


- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Big Chief Apumtagribonitz

Great film, great comedy, everybody's great, but the movie belongs to Oliver Hardy.  I've heard it said that he should have been nominated for the Oscar for this one, and probably should have won.  I would not disagree.


Offline Umbrella Sam

  • Toastmaster General
  • Knothead
  • *****
    • Talk About Cinema
Yes, SONS OF THE DESERT is the first Laurel and Hardy feature to feel like a natural Laurel and Hardy feature, and the best of their first four features (yes, I even prefer it to PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, even though I still think that film is very underrated). It’s interesting, though, because SONS OF THE DESERT actually reuses a lot more material than the previous three features, with the story itself essentially being a reworking of WE FAW DOWN, with elements of BE BIG! thrown in there. The reason it works so well is because SONS OF THE DESERT is the rare film that reuses material and actually attempts to improve on it.

Take for example the sickness scene. Yeah, it was pretty funny in BE BIG!, but it was so rushed that it makes you question how easily the wives fall for it. Here, it’s clearly moved to another day and is more elaborate, with Laurel and Hardy going as far as hiring a medical professional to help in their scheme (even if Laurel hired the wrong one). So not only does it make more sense, but because of the longer running time, Laurel and Hardy get to take as much advantage of the concept as possible, with Hardy and Mae Busch doing quite a lot of physical comedy.

Mae Busch and Dorothy Christy are great in this too. Yeah, they can get violent, and Dorothy Christy’s “I hate to think what would happen” in response to the idea of Laurel lying to her is actually kind of chilling, especially when watching for the first time and not knowing what’s going to happen. What I especially like about them, though, is that they actually seem to be caring wives. This was an idea I’d briefly talked about in the past and looking at the laurelandhardycentral.com review, it seems at least one of them agrees with me. While they can come across as cold when they need to, it’s clear that they actually do care about their husbands, and not just when they think they’re dead. When Mrs. Hardy thinks her husband is sick, she does her best to make him comfortable, and even when we’re first introduced to her, she and Ollie act genuinely nice to each other. Heck, considering Hardy’s nature of trying to sneak things by her all the time, her anger is understandable. I know this may not seem that important to Laurel and Hardy fans, but I think it says a lot when you can see a sometimes happy couple in a domestic comedy like this.

I’ve read that William Seiter had more control than most Laurel and Hardy directors, which might be why the story actually flows so well. Of course, though, it’s the comedy that Laurel and Hardy fans most expect and this film really delivers. Laurel has a lot of funny cases of word misusage (“Betty said that honesty was the best politics”) and him eating the wax fruit works very well too. It’s strange, because like the egg scene in COUNTY HOSPITAL, it goes on for quite a while and shouldn’t be as funny as it is, but Laurel’s movements and expressions somehow make it work.

A similar thing can be said about Charley Chase. Normally I hate these kinds of characters, but Chase is so energetic and happy that, honestly, I can’t help feeling the same way just watching him. Everything he does is in good fun and there’s never a time where any of his actions actually seem malicious. It’s a shame that he didn’t have more supporting roles in features.

It is Hardy, though, who really deserves the most praise of any actor in this film. The reactions he has in this film are perfect. There’s one I love in particular, when Stan is ratting him out and he’s just sitting on the table, staring into the camera as though he’s regretting every life choice he’s ever made. That one reaction shot alone, in my opinion, makes the film worth watching.

SONS OF THE DESERT isn’t my favorite Laurel and Hardy film, but it is definitely up there and I see zero reason to argue against the classic status it has received through all these years.

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

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


Offline metaldams



Watch this Mack Sennett comedy with Mack Swain, AMBROSE'S FIRST FALSEHOOD.  Funny film, definite SONS OF THE DESERT influence.  The girl in this one is Minta Dufree, Roscoe Arbuckle's real life wife.

Oh yeah, and the guy leading Mack Swain into debauchery, a young....Charley Chase!  Not to mention Edgar Kennedy as the moustached cafe owner - with hair!
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Tony Bensley



Watch this Mack Sennett comedy with Mack Swain, AMBROSE'S FIRST FALSEHOOD.  Funny film, definite SONS OF THE DESERT influence.  The girl in this one is Minta Dufree, Roscoe Arbuckle's real life wife.

Oh yeah, and the guy leading Mack Swain into debauchery, a young....Charley Chase!  Not to mention Edgar Kennedy as the moustached cafe owner - with hair!
Wow, that's a lot of twists packed into a one reeler!   I wonder how much reminiscing Charley Chase did while shooting SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) with Stan and Babe?  Probably passed on some ideas, also.  Very enjoyable, at any rate!

Edgar Kennedy with hair!  At 24 when he appeared in this film, he was just about the age I was when I began losing mine.  :-\

CHEERS!  [pie]


Offline metaldams

Wow, that's a lot of twists packed into a one reeler!   I wonder how much reminiscing Charley Chase did while shooting SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) with Stan and Babe?  Probably passed on some ideas, also.  Very enjoyable, at any rate!

Edgar Kennedy with hair!  At 24 when he appeared in this film, he was just about the age I was when I began losing mine.  :-\

CHEERS!  [pie]

It's a 19 year difference, but yeah, gotta wonder if this felt familiar at all to Charley.
- Doug Sarnecky


Online Dr. Mabuse

"Sons of the Desert" remains a classic by any standard. Even non-Laurel and Hardy fans have admired this 64-minute gem, with the team's domestic mishaps augmented by hilarious dialogue. Director William A. Seiter proved an ideal match for Stan and Ollie, yet it was their only collaboration. A memorable supporting cast includes the "ever-popular" Mae Busch (as the crockery-throwing Mrs. Hardy) plus a splendid turn by Charley Chase as a relentless practical joker.  The best L&H feature.

10/10
« Last Edit: August 29, 2022, 04:53:59 PM by Dr. Mabuse »


Offline HomokHarcos

A great Laurel and Hardy feature, one of their best as it feels natural without any padding. The premise is one that was used by Mack Sennett before and even Laurel and Hardy themselves. They lie to their wives, get found out and have to come up with a fake story. The difference here though is that Stan and Ollie are aware that the ship sunk, so they have to come up with another lie of how they survived. I do think it's funny that their wives' first reactions are anger that they lied instead of relief that they are alive.

Mae Busch is excellent here. She has a blonde hair so she looks a little different. Out of the major comedy acts I think Laurel and Hardy had the best supporting women. Only Margaret Dumont can compete with Thelma Todd, Anita Garvin and Mae Busch. Also there is Charley Chase. This is still my only Chase exposure, I do plan on watching his work though when I finish getting through Harry Langdon. He's very obnoxious here and supposedly playing against type. William Seiter directing Wheeler and Woolsey previously was of great help to Laurel and Hardy here. Maybe Roach should have given him more opportunities.


Offline metaldams

A great Laurel and Hardy feature, one of their best as it feels natural without any padding. The premise is one that was used by Mack Sennett before and even Laurel and Hardy themselves. They lie to their wives, get found out and have to come up with a fake story. The difference here though is that Stan and Ollie are aware that the ship sunk, so they have to come up with another lie of how they survived. I do think it's funny that their wives' first reactions are anger that they lied instead of relief that they are alive.

Mae Busch is excellent here. She has a blonde hair so she looks a little different. Out of the major comedy acts I think Laurel and Hardy had the best supporting women. Only Margaret Dumont can compete with Thelma Todd, Anita Garvin and Mae Busch. Also there is Charley Chase. This is still my only Chase exposure, I do plan on watching his work though when I finish getting through Harry Langdon. He's very obnoxious here and supposedly playing against type. William Seiter directing Wheeler and Woolsey previously was of great help to Laurel and Hardy here. Maybe Roach should have given him more opportunities.

Those comic ladies are great, but I consider Symona Boniface and Christine McIntyre to be the same class, as well as Kathleen Howard in her W.C. Fields roles.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline HomokHarcos

Those comic ladies are great, but I consider Symona Boniface and Christine McIntyre to be the same class, as well as Kathleen Howard in her W.C. Fields roles.
Right, you can definitely add Christine McIntyre there.


Online NoahYoung

This is a no-brainer for me. My favorite L&H feature film, hands down.
Tied for first for my favorite L&H film of all-time ( with HELPMATES).
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Online NoahYoung

I normally watch this on a film print I have, but when I saw it on the Definitive Restorations DVD,  it barely ran 65 minutes, not 68, as documented in every book I have. Nothing was missing, and it definitely was not sped-up from a PAL conversion. I never timed my film print.
What gives?
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

I normally watch this on a film print I have, but when I saw it on the Definitive Restorations DVD,  it barely ran 65 minutes, not 68, as documented in every book I have. Nothing was missing, and it definitely was not sped-up from a PAL conversion. I never timed my film print.
What gives?
68 minutes is not the correct running time for SONS OF THE DESERT (1933). It never has been. The version on "The Definitive Restorations" does have a few extra frames in comparison to previous home video releases, though.

64 to 65 minutes is more accurate, based on 24 fps.

CHEERS!  [pie]


Online NoahYoung

Yes, the few seconds at the start when the boys are being seated at the lodge meeting -- Babe says, "Excuse me". That's missing from my Super 8 Blackhawk print. I'm not sure why Richard W. Bann always listed it as 68 minutes in the various books he co-authored.

IMDB lists it as 68 minutes as well: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024601/

The first edition of the Skredvedt book, which is the only one I have, lists it as 68 minutes, too. The L&H ENCYCLOPEDIA omits the runtime for this particular film.

I just find it strange since this is one of their most famous films -- can't believe the runtime mistake has been propagated for so long.
I should have known, though, since I was able to fit my Super 8 print on a 1200 foot reel, which holds a little over an hour of film when filled to the brim.


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

Yes, the few seconds at the start when the boys are being seated at the lodge meeting -- Babe says, "Excuse me". That's missing from my Super 8 Blackhawk print. I'm not sure why Richard W. Bann always listed it as 68 minutes in the various books he co-authored.

IMDB lists it as 68 minutes as well: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024601/

The first edition of the Skredvedt book, which is the only one I have, lists it as 68 minutes, too. The L&H ENCYCLOPEDIA omits the runtime for this particular film.

I just find it strange since this is one of their most famous films -- can't believe the runtime mistake has been propagated for so long.
I should have known, though, since I was able to fit my Super 8 print on a 1200 foot reel, which holds a little over an hour of film when filled to the brim.
Randy Skretvedt does have the SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) running time correctly listed as 65 minutes for his latest edition.

CHEERS!  [pie]


Online NoahYoung

Cool. Some on-line reviews of DEFINITIVE refer to it as being 68 minutes. Given Richard W.  Bann's rep for being so detail oriented when it comes to L&H, I'm surprised that this run-time inaccuracy wasn't called out on either the DEFINITIVE or ESSENTIAL sets. He was involved with both sets. (Though I haven't listened to his commentary tracks in full.)
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Online NoahYoung

I checked an old Blackhawk catalog that I have --  they list it as 66 minutes.
 :)

This isn't SUPERMAN (1978), for crying out loud. No extended version, director's cut, international cut, end credits that go on for 10 minutes, etc. The original VHS release of SUPERMAN sped up non-dialogue scenes and the end credits to fit on a 2 hour VHS tape, which was the limit at the time.

Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

Cool. Some on-line reviews of DEFINITIVE refer to it as being 68 minutes. Given Richard W.  Bann's rep for being so detail oriented when it comes to L&H, I'm surprised that this run-time inaccuracy wasn't called out on either the DEFINITIVE or ESSENTIAL sets. He was involved with both sets. (Though I haven't listened to his commentary tracks in full.)
The correct 65 Minute run time for SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) is listed on my Essential Collection DVD set that I ordered from Amazon.ca just weeks after its release in the fall of 2011.  Online reviews are a whole other beast entirely.

CHEERS!  [pie]


Offline Tony Bensley

I checked an old Blackhawk catalog that I have --  they list it as 66 minutes.
 :)

This isn't SUPERMAN (1978), for crying out loud. No extended version, director's cut, international cut, end credits that go on for 10 minutes, etc. The original VHS release of SUPERMAN sped up non-dialogue scenes and the end credits to fit on a 2 hour VHS tape, which was the limit at the time.
Running times in general often seem more like a suggestion, if that makes any sense?

CHEERS!  [pie]


Offline Tony Bensley

2 Laurel & Hardy features with actual 68 minute running times:

PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932) - 68 minutes
THE FLYING DEUCES (1939) - 68 minutes

CHEERS!  [pie]


Online NoahYoung

The correct 65 Minute run time for SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) is listed on my Essential Collection DVD set that I ordered from Amazon.ca just weeks after its release in the fall of 2011.  Online reviews are a whole other beast entirely.

CHEERS!  [pie]
I just checked the booklet -- yes I see it.
I guess what I mean is that considering the errors in so many sources, you would think that Bann would have made a point of it, since he has a penchant for correcting errors -- like he did saying that the boot scene in BE BIG! is nowhere near the 20 minutes Skredtvedt says in his book.

Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Online NoahYoung

2 Laurel & Hardy features with actual 68 minute running times:

PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932) - 68 minutes
THE FLYING DEUCES (1939) - 68 minutes

CHEERS!  [pie]

PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES is a bit akin to SUPERMAN in that a shorter version had been circulating for years once cuts were made for it's re-issue. My Blackhawk print is cut -- the Richard Cramer scene of course shortened. Not sure why they cut the Goldilocks scene short, though. Cutting the Cramer scene short, however, makes L&H look like the bad guys.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES is a bit akin to SUPERMAN in that a shorter version had been circulating for years once cuts were made for it's re-issue. My Blackhawk print is cut -- the Richard Cramer scene of course shortened. Not sure why they cut the Goldilocks scene short, though. Cutting the Cramer scene short, however, makes L&H look like the bad guys.
I believe the Richard Cramer scene cut derived from a cut made in 1946 by Film Classics to comply with the Hays Office Censorship Board. Cutting the Goldilocks scene short does seem like a bizarre choice, unless they were also editing for time.

CHEERS!  [pie]


Online NoahYoung

Yes, at first I was going to mention the Hays office, but I wasn't sure if they were still in operation by the time of the TROUBLES re-issue.
They also cut out the long-shot of the boys sitting on the park bench at the beginning, as well as the printing press scene.

I'd vote for simple sloppiness, a lab mishap, or perhaps nitrate film decomposition as to why they cut Goldilocks and the opening scenes mentioned above from the re-issue. It is, however, purely conjecture on my part. At least we have the complete movie today.


 
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

Yes, at first I was going to mention the Hays office, but I wasn't sure if they were still in operation by the time of the TROUBLES re-issue.
They also cut out the long-shot of the boys sitting on the park bench at the beginning, as well as the printing press scene.

I'd vote for simple sloppiness, a lab mishap, or perhaps nitrate film decomposition as to why they cut Goldilocks and the opening scenes mentioned above from the re-issue. It is, however, purely conjecture on my part. At least we have the complete movie today.
The Hays Office was very much in operation in the mid 1940s. They were even stricter by that time, if anything. I believe it was in the late '50s - early '60s when they finally began fading out, with the late 1960s implementation of the "R" and "XXX" Movie ratings system rendering the last vestiges of the Hays Office blanket censorship code irrelevant.

In Randy Skretvedt's latest "Laurel & Hardy: The Magic Behind The Movies Edition" it is simply noted that the Richard Cramer scene was cut from all reissue and television prints because of violence, with no specific Hays Office references, regarding the former. Yes, thank goodness, we have the complete feature today, in any case!

Steering this thread back to SONS OF THE DESERT (1933), The Definitive Restorations transfer appears to be the most complete among its numerous home video releases, with a bit in which Stan tosses his hat at the beginning of the second reel being more complete. Also, while some have commented about the night time scene being too bright, I find the "Movie" setting on my TV does a decent job of rectifying that, whereas the muddy mess in some scenes on The Essential Collection edition of SOTD cannot be fixed with any setting!

I just remembered your mentioning the strand of hair that appears on THE MUSIC BOX title card in The Definitive set. The reason for that is the image framing for this iconic film on that set is wider on all 4 sides than on The Essential Collection release. The hair strand is entirely on the part of the right hand side that is cut off on the latter set! Speaking of hair strands, we don't see the one that's normally present on the SOTD title card for Definitive, as freeze framing was used.

CHEERS!  [pie]