Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Babes in Toyland (1934) - Laurel and Hardy

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams



http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_240.html
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/babes.html

      A film that is impossible for me to review without any emotional attachment.  As a kid in the 80's, I used to watch The Three Stooges all the time, their shorts were on constant rotation.  Laurel and Hardy, on the other hand, were not on TV so much.  BABES IN TOYLAND, or as I knew it, MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS, is the exception.  Every holiday season WPIX11 out of New York would air this one and I would watch this over my grandma's, or as I called her, being half Greek, Yiayia.  She passed in 2011, so this review is for her.  Actually, she was born in 1929, so I can imagine the 5 year old version of her seeing this in the theaters upon initial release.  Make no mistake about it, this is a kid's film.

       Since this is a kid's film, I'm actually really glad I saw it as a kid, because it probably would not have made the same impression if I came into this in my twenties the way I did the other Laurel and Hardy films.  With FRA DIAVALO, I mentioned that's a great movie, but not a prime example of Laurel and Hardy.  The same could be said for BABES IN TOYLAND.  To bring extra emphasis on that point, as a kid, I did not think of this as a Laurel and Hardy film.  I actually almost forgot they were in this when I discovered their films later on in life.  If anything, them being in it gave me an excuse to revisit some old childhood memories.

      So what did make an impression?  The sets for sure.  The Toyland village is great, an assortment of wells, shoe houses, toy workshops and towards the end, a creepy, Bogeyland cave that would fit in any horror movie of the era.  There are tons of fairy tale and Disney characters.  Mickey Mouse in a flying balloon dropping stuff on bogeymen definitely made an impression.  The Three Little Pigs and their assorted houses.  Back to the horror element, the bogeymen themselves were scary as a kid.  With adult eyes and greater horror film geekdom in me, I know know their look was probably inspired by ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.  The costumes not as creepy as the manimals in that film, but then again, ISLAND OF LOST SOULS is not a kid's film.  That Silas Barnaby character also made an impression.  That's the kind of role Lugosi or Karloff would have been great in, but Henry Kleinbach does an amazing job.  You would never guess, but he just in his early twenties here, he acts much older.  Hell, he was still alive those years I was watching this at Yaiyia's.  Oh, and those mechanical soldiers?  I loved that as a kid, a visual that never left my noggin.

      Charlotte Henry, who plays Little Bo Beep was in Paramount's ALICE IN WONDERLAND as the title character the year prior to this.  Would not be surprised if that is how she got this part.  I just saw that movie the first time a few months ago, totally a unique experience which would make a good double feature with BABES IN TOYLAND.

      As for Stan and Ollie, there is nothing here that is all time classic, but nothing bad either.  Again, despite top billing, this isn't really a Laurel and Hardy film, it's a fairy tale where they are comic relief.  They fill the role wonderfully.  I do love the way they give a slight nod to "earsy-kneesy-nosey" and the finger wiggle from FRA DIAVOLO at the beginning.  The dunking scene is great stuff and the way they use the watch makes for a great kicker at the end.  I also love the way Stan builds 100 six foot tall soldiers versus 600 one foot tall soldiers per Santa's orders.  That size confusion may have inspired THIS IS SPINAL TAP'S Stonehenge scene fifty years later.

      A film that will always have a special meaning for me.  Laurel and Hardy novices over the age of 11 should start elsewhere, but as a kids film, hard to beat.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Umbrella Sam

BABES IN TOYLAND was not a film I grew up with. I do remember seeing the title occasionally on TV listings, but with a name like BABES IN TOYLAND, I didn’t know what to expect, nor did I care (although I suppose it also could have been one of the other apparently bad versions of the operetta). That being said, even as an adult, I respect this film very much for what it is: the Laurel and Hardy film for kids.

As far as the humor goes, there aren’t a whole lot of standout bits. That’s not to say the film is devoid of laughs, but not many gags really stand out. In a way I think you could actually argue that it works in the film’s favor. Randy Skretvedt mentioned in his entry on OLIVER THE EIGHTH in The Magic Behind the Movies that it was easier to notice Laurel and Hardy’s performances in weaker films like OLIVER THE EIGHTH, and while BABES IN TOYLAND is far from being a weak film, I think the same principle could apply here. Since there aren’t as many interesting gags to hold our attention, their personalities ironically stand out much more.

Although it was filmed in a similar fashion to FRA DIAVOLO, in that it had two separate units directing different scenes, this film connects them a lot better than FRA DIAVOLO. Laurel and Hardy are more like Diavolo’s bungling henchman in that film and besides the ending don’t leave much of an impact on the story. Here, they feel a lot more important. For example, when Bo-Peep decides to marry Barnaby, it’s not just because her mother’s home might be foreclosed, but also because she doesn’t want Laurel and Hardy to be banished to Bogeyland, and they’re also the ones who get her out of the marriage later. Heck, they’re the ones who rescue her and Tom-Tom from Bogeyland later in the film. I also like the fact that they actually use some of the gags to their advantage throughout the story, such as using the peewees and their mixup with the toy soldiers to take down the bogeymen.

The sets and costume design are definitely very fitting, and really unique for a Laurel and Hardy film. You’ve got the bogeymen giving the film more variety with its creepy elements, while the fairy tale designs are also very well done. Like Stan Laurel once said, it’s a shame that this wasn’t filmed in color, because it would have been nice to see how they actually did look. Even without the color, though, you can definitely see why Disney chose to remake this over 20 years later. Actually, now that I think about it, this film has quite a few Disney connections. Besides Mickey Mouse and the Three Little Pigs’ theme being “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?”, some of the supporting actors in this film were involved in Disney productions.

Speaking of the supporting cast, that’s another thing that’s unique about this film. No James Finlayson or Charlie Hall, but rather a unique cast that’s able to sell their performances as these fantasy characters. Charlotte Henry captures the childlike innocence of Bo-Peep, and yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised either if her performance as Alice in ALICE IN WONDERLAND influenced the decision to cast her. She was very good in that role as well, the only good part of an otherwise horribly miscast movie. Henry Brandon’s makeup job and performance are also surprisingly convincing, especially considering that he was actually younger than Felix Knight, the actor who played Tom-Tom.

Even if it’s not their funniest film by a long shot, it is clear that this is the film that someone would want to use to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy, especially because of the fantasy elements. Honestly, I wish this had been the film to introduce me to Laurel and Hardy rather than ATOLL K. I’ve been debating on the rating since, again, it’s not a particularly funny film, but it’s also clear that it’s not supposed to be. This is meant to be a fantasy film and the elements tie together very well, so in the end, it definitely gets its job done and there’s nothing really to dislike about it. Though yes, if you’re an adult who wants to start watching Laurel and Hardy, you’d want to start with something else.

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 Dr. Mabuse

During the 1960s and ’70s, it was not uncommon for families to sit in front of their TV sets after Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner to watch Stannie Dum and Ollie Dee defeat the evil Barnaby and his gruesome army of Bogeymen  . . . with a little help from 100 giant wooden soldiers.

The film was "Babes in Toyland" (1934), which became a holiday perennial and predated the television revivals of "It’s a Wonderful Life" (1946) and "A Christmas Story" (1983). Hal Roach’s production of the Victor Herbert operetta remains the ideal holiday movie — an engaging musical fantasy with Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in splendid comic form. Abetted by elaborate sets and ingenious visual effects, the movie has a timeless quality that far surpasses its remakes.

Ironically, the only individual who did not enjoy "Babes in Toyland" was Roach.  By all accounts, it was a troubled and lengthy production marked by scripting clashes between Roach and Laurel. Though Laurel won the battle, it caused a permanent rift in his relations with Roach, who denigrated the project until the day he died.

Amazingly enough, these behind-the-screen conflicts never show in the finished product. Directed by Charles Rogers and Gus Meins, "Babes in Toyland" is a perfect vehicle for the unique talents of Stan and Ollie, whose childlike personas are seamlessly woven into the film’s fairytale fabric. The film also provides a bravura showcase for actor Henry Brandon with his memorable portrayal of Barnaby, “the meanest man in Toyland.” Roach’s low opinion of "Babes in Toyland" was not reflected in his generous budget. The production values remain top-notch — the most lavish of any Laurel and Hardy feature. Shot entirely in the Roach studio, the film creates an enchanting storybook world.

Hailed as a holiday treasure since its premiere on November 30, 1934, "Babes in Toyland" endures as one of Laurel and Hardy’s finest efforts. Regardless of the season, the film will continue to be shown long after more contemporary “family entertainment” has fallen from view.

10/10


Offline metaldams

Interesting, I had no clue Roach felt the way he did about this film.  I will look up more interviews with the man, he fortunately lived long enough.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline HomokHarcos

There are two ways to rate this movie. 1)as a Laurel and Hardy film and 2)as a children's holiday film. I wish I had seen this when I was a kid, because I might have a different view of it. As it is this was the only time when watching Laurel and Hardy that I felt like I was watching a kid's movie, similar to the Curly Joe movies. Which means... I still enjoy it! It did a great job at what it was intending to accomplish. Like Fra Diavolo it aimed to be a lavish movie that used Laurel and Hardy as comic relief for box office appeal. Stan and Ollie definitely feel like they belong and have a close relationship with the storyline characters. Interestingly, a horrendous looking Mickey Mouse appears in this film. Walt Disney was a fan of Laurel and Hardy. The set design is magical, and they clearly put a lot of care into it. It feels like a fantasy setting. This would be a great Holiday movie to watch with your children, and from what Metaldams and Dr. Mabuse say, at one point it was a Holiday staple.


Offline metaldams

I am watching the 1940 serial DRUMS OF FU MANCHU and wouldn’t you know it, Henry Brandon plays the title role!  I always thought he’d be good in a Lugosi or Karloff type role and here he is.  Olaf Hytten, the butler in ALL THE WORLD’S A STOOGE, also has a substantial role.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Dr. Mabuse

I am watching the 1940 serial DRUMS OF FU MANCHU and wouldn’t you know it, Henry Brandon plays the title role!  I always thought he’d be good in a Lugosi or Karloff type role and here he is.

"Drums of Fu Manchu" remains among the great serials — definitely in my Top 10. Henry Brandon gained cinematic immortality for "Babes in Toyland," "Drums of Fu Manchu" and "The Searchers."