Topic: Bonnie Scotland (1935) - Laurel and Hardy

[metaldams]

http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/bonnie.html
http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_245.html

No You Tube link as Warner Brothers owns this film.  Buy it here.

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Brother-Bonnie-Scotland-Laurel/dp/B07D55HV9Q/ref=sr_1_1?crid=XR7M1R2OPCJP&keywords=laurel+and+hardy+bonnie+scotland&qid=1553550072&s=movies-tv&sprefix=Bonnie%27s+scotland%2Caps%2C177&sr=1-1-catcorr

      The shorts are now over and we are officially in strict feature film territory from this point forward.  The results of these features do vary and this week's film, BONNIE SCOTLAND unfortunately is on the lower end of the spectrum.  I agree with the Laurel and Hardy Central guys that the first half hour or so has some good Laurel and Hardy in it while the rest of the film slows down to a crawl.  I'll get to the good stuff first.

      The introduction of Laurel and Hardy is fantastic.  We get a couple of blacksmiths banging on an anvil Stan and Ollie's theme song as the two star comedians walk down the road.  Excellent start.  There are two really fantastic gag scenes.  The first involves sneezing as a result of some snuff Stan has inherited.  Ollie is sitting on a bridge, sneezes hard and falls into the water below.  We then get a shot of Ollie underwater sneezing away causing the water to go on land, followed by another shot of the water now dried up and Ollie still sneezing, a few flopping fish beside him.  Great production values and very funny gag that got a big laugh out of me.

      The second great gag in involves Stan and Ollie frying a fish using the springed foundation of the bed as a grill with a candle underneath.  Very creative and I love the way Stan gleefully takes the grease from the candle and pours it on the fish.  Of course they forget to take the candle out from under the bed and poor Ollie gets burned while lying in the bed.  These two gags are worthy of any great Laurel and Hardy short and make BONNIE SCOTLAND worth watching.

      As far as story, really not very focused.  The first half hour is based on Stan and Ollie with a romantic couple as a background while the latter part features the romantic couple as the big focus and the comedians almost as a background.  The comedian's story rarely meet the couple's except for a few times making it seem like two movies in one feature.

      The couple themselves are pretty bad, especially the leading man.  Doesn't get more juvenile, he's either extremely hunched over and defeated when sad or overly excited when happy.  When the supreme moment of tension comes, he rages at her without giving her a chance to explain a thing.  Dude, grow up, you ain't worthy of her.  The military man fighting for her affection is too white knightish making for a really bad outside plot.  The irony is for all the time they spend on this, in the end, we don't actually see the couple get back together, though we assume they do.

      Second half has a few OK Laurel and Hardy moments, the only real stand out being the dance scene as they are cleaning up rubbish, kind of a precursor to WAY OUT WEST.  Jimmy Finlayson does a fantastic job as the foil here.  The mirage scene and blowing the thumb to bring the hat off the head are good yet minor scenes.

      Also need to point out the line at the beginning about Stan's Dad committing suicide looking at his baby son and Ollje thinking it's deserved is the most distasteful line in all of Laurel and Hardy.  Fortunately the comic scenes following mostly overcame it, but really bad taste there.

      BONNIE SCOTLAND is an interesting film for any seasoned Laurel and Hardy fan, but not for beginners. The romantic subplot is bad even for romantic subplots and we fo get a mix going forward of films like this and straighter comedy films.  It's interesting how Roach and the boys could never settle on a formula.

[metaldams]

Watching the audio commentary, which is done splendidly by Richard Bann and Leonard Maltin.  Yes, they make fun of the leading man character better than I do.  Anyway, as they point out, a couple of Stooge character actor cameos.  The scene I mention with the blacksmiths banging the theme song - the young one on the left is Dick Wessel, more than a decade before FRIGHT NIGHT.  Once they get to India, there's a scene where there are three women are gossiping at a table.  The young attractive one in white who speaks a few lines is Phyllis Barry from THREE LITTLE SEW AND SEWS.

I do hope you guys get to check this one out.  Unfortunate it's not online.

[metaldams]

Note to self - if future film I review has an audio commentary, listen to it before reviewing.

It was revealed by Leonard Martin that leading lady June Lang said that throughout the entire filming, she never once met Laurel and Hardy.  When I say this is two films, I mean it.  This is the top billed person outside of the comedians and she never met the comedians.  Let that sink in.  This may be the worst case of leading romantic couple I have seen, and I want to see how well that statement holds up when we get to these Abbott and Costello films.

[Umbrella Sam]

Hoping to get around to reviewing this later this week, though one note ahead of time. From what I've heard, a lot of story footage was cut out during the editing process, which may account for some of the film's problems. THE DEVIL'S BROTHER sort of had this problem too, but it's apparently a lot worse in BONNIE SCOTLAND.

[metaldams]

Hoping to get around to reviewing this later this week, though one note ahead of time. From what I've heard, a lot of story footage was cut out during the editing process, which may account for some of the film's problems. THE DEVIL'S BROTHER sort of had this problem too, but it's apparently a lot worse in BONNIE SCOTLAND.

Half hour romantic couple footage cut, ten minutes of Laurel and Hardy added back in.  I couldn't begin to imagine how dreadful that preview was.

[Tony Bensley]

Half hour romantic couple footage cut, ten minutes of Laurel and Hardy added back in.  I couldn't begin to imagine how dreadful that preview was.

To paraphrase a quote by John Lennon regarding The Beatles relatively limited appearance in HELP! (1965), "Extras in their own fookin' movie!"

What also always strikes me about BONNIE SCOTLAND (1935) is the normally hyperbolic/exaggerated promos of the day billing this as 60 minutes of fun for an 80 minute feature, that would have been around 100 minutes in its precut state!

CHEERS! 

[Tony Bensley]

I see that the previous 2 DVD set has now gone out of print.  What a shame, as the second disc includes a full length Hollywood shorts story documentary, along with Laurel and Hardy guest appearance excerpts from three all-star features.  I'll be hanging onto that 2006 TCM Archives set!

CHEERS! 

[metaldams]

I see that the previous 2 DVD set has now gone out of print.  What a shame, as the second disc includes a full length Hollywood shorts story documentary, along with Laurel and Hardy guest appearance excerpts from three all-star features.  I'll be hanging onto that 2006 TCM Archives set!

CHEERS! 

I own the old set too, with commentaries and extras.  You can still get it if you're willing to fork over $65.  I bought that set when it was new, readily in print and cheaper but considering the price difference with the condensed version, I figure best to link to the much cheaper deal.

[Tony Bensley]

I own the old set too, with commentaries and extras.  You can still get it if you're willing to fork over $65.  I bought that set when it was new, readily in print and cheaper but considering the price difference with the condensed version, I figure best to link to the much cheaper deal.

Oh, absolutely!  For those looking to buy, would the commentary tracks still be included on the Warner Archive DVD-R, or no?  Both are indeed, extremely informative!  Hard to believe it's coming up to 13 years since getting the TCM Archives set as a birthday present from the Mrs!

CHEERS! 

[Umbrella Sam]

Well, I finally got around to seeing BONNIE SCOTLAND and it basically met my expectations. Far from their best, but by no means a bad feature.

The romance wasn’t quite as bad as I expected. Honestly, I still find the romantic leads in BUCK PRIVATES to be a lot more annoying than the ones here. Though, yes, Janney’s performance is kind of annoying and the fact that the romance is never fully resolved at the end seems to have been a result of the editing process. The story does feel very unfocused, especially considering the fact that the majority of the film takes place in India rather than the title country.

Still, there are plenty of nice things to be said about BONNIE SCOTLAND. For one thing, I really do like the set design in this film. Though it is annoying that the film can’t bother to stay in one place, it does allow for some variety in the set design at least. I also like the two different arrangements of the theme song used throughout the film.

Laurel and Hardy also remain funny throughout, though they’re more prominent in the first 30 minutes. I like the gags that they do with their hats towards the beginning and the scenes at the hotel are pretty good, especially the scene with them attempting to fry the fish.

Even after the first 30 minutes, though, there are still highlights. The scene with Laurel getting all the soldiers to step out of time is pretty funny and even the ending gag with the bees is pretty good, despite the fact that nothing really is resolved correctly. My personal favorite scene is the dance scene. Yeah, Laurel and Hardy did it in at least two other films as well, but it’s always great no matter what.

Admittedly, I’m not all that fond of the mirage scene, mainly because it never goes anywhere beyond just some guys making fun of Laurel and Hardy. Yeah, they do reference it again during Laurel’s hat trick, but that’s about it. In Abbott and Costello’s LITTLE GIANT, for example, they’re able to work a gag in of people making fun of Costello, but actually make it an important plot element. Here, it’s just a scene with an accordion that goes on too long. This is really the only bit of comedy that I wasn’t too fond of in this film.

BONNIE SCOTLAND does have quite a few plot problems, but the fact that Laurel and Hardy are still in character does make it worthwhile even if it may not be as good as their other films. Decent enough, but of their Roach features, I’d say this is probably in their bottom two (there is one that, at the moment, I still consider to be worse).

7 out of 10

[metaldams]

The romance wasn’t quite as bad as I expected. Honestly, I still find the romantic leads in BUCK PRIVATES to be a lot more annoying than the ones here.

It's been a while since I've seen BUCK PRIVATES and I will be getting to it soon.  That said, it would be a Herculean task for the leading man to be a....trying to word this maturely.....bigger weenie than the guy here.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Despite the box-office success of "Sons of the Desert," Hal Roach somehow believed that Laurel and Hardy could not sustain a full-length comedy without a secondary plot. As a result, "Bonnie Scotland" squandered an opportunity to effectively lampoon "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer." Submerged in a schizophrenic storyline, Stan and Ollie manage to provide several classic moments. The Boys' impromptu dance number remains a highlight.

6/10

[HomokHarcos]

A tale of two stories basically. I really like the Laurel and Hardy scenes, from them going to Scotland and falling in the water and the bit in the home when cooking. I thought it was really funny when they were asked for ID to prove inheritance and Ollie gave them his mugshot by accident. They then end up in India which also has some great parts. My favorite is the dancing scene when they are picking up garbage, and the ending with the bees. The downside is the romantic subplot, which was entirely pointless. I don't know if Hal Roach thought a feature just centered around Stan and Ollie would be too much, or if this was just padding to extend to feature length. They don't belong there, and the whole plot is actually never resolved, and they ask us to care for these people that are not interesting. I'm grateful that The Three Stooges stayed in short films, because they were much better than the padded Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello films coming out during these years.

[Dr. Mabuse]

In the early 1970s, Moe told an interviewer that the two-reel format was ideal for the Stooges and it would have been difficult to sustain their comic energy in a feature — an evident fact in their 1959-65 starring vehicles.

[Tony Bensley]

In the early 1970s, Moe told an interviewer that the two-reel format was ideal for the Stooges and it would have been difficult to sustain their comic energy in a feature — an evident fact in their 1959-65 starring vehicles.

Even Stan Laurel was quoted as saying he wished that they could have just stuck with shooting two and three reelers. However, for Laurel & Hardy, the Feature Length comedies were simply too lucrative to ignore.

CHEERS! 

[Umbrella Sam]

I still stand by my belief that GOLD RAIDERS is the best of the Stooges’ feature films. Judging from that, I think they could sustain their comic energy in features, but there needed to be a proper balance as far as their comedy and story went. GOLD RAIDERS does focus a bit more on plot towards the end, but it’s not the standard “romantic subplot” stuff and actually does have kind of a neat twist. And by doing that, it does build up our excitement for when the Stooges do return. As weird as it might sound, I think the Stooges actually could have pulled off feature film work quite well had they stuck to making cheaper films like GOLD RAIDERS.

[Tony Bensley]

I still stand by my belief that GOLD RAIDERS is the best of the Stooges’ feature films. Judging from that, I think they could sustain their comic energy in features, but there needed to be a proper balance as far as their comedy and story went. GOLD RAIDERS does focus a bit more on plot towards the end, but it’s not the standard “romantic subplot” stuff and actually does have kind of a neat twist. And by doing that, it does build up our excitement for when the Stooges do return. As weird as it might sound, I think the Stooges actually could have pulled off feature film work quite well had they stuck to making cheaper films like GOLD RAIDERS.

GOLD RAIDERS (1951) was very well made, and I'm inclined to agree with you, regarding it being the Stooges best Feature.  In response to a previous post, I also think it's important to note that Moe and Larry were getting quite elderly by the Feature Length Curly Joe era, so the energy would have been more limited even if the Stooges had stuck to making two reelers, and without using a ton of recycled footage in a less imperfect world.

CHEERS! 

[metaldams]

I really need to watch GOLD RAiDERS again.  I’ve made my belief known about The Stooges in the late Shemp era and features in my Bowery Boys review.  In that era - yes.

In the Curly era, Hollywood wasn’t making great feature for comedy teams like The Three Stooges, so they were better off in shorts, IMO.  That said, if they had to make features with Curly, maybe, and I mean maybe, it may have worked at a cheap studio like Monogram or PRC. The budgets would be low in the thirties and early forties so they almost would have no choice but to focus on meat and potatoes comedy. The Three Stooges making a film with Bela Lugosi at Monogram - the mind boggles.

[Umbrella Sam]

In the Curly era, Hollywood wasn’t making great feature for comedy teams like The Three Stooges, so they were better off in shorts, IMO.  That said, if they had to make features with Curly, maybe, and I mean maybe, it may have worked at a cheap studio like Monogram or PRC. The budgets would be low in the thirties and early forties so they almost would have no choice but to focus on meat and potatoes comedy. The Three Stooges making a film with Bela Lugosi at Monogram - the mind boggles.

I personally do think the Stooges could have worked well in features at Monogram and I based that off of the films that Shemp did with Billy Gilbert and Maxie Rosenbloom there. I’ve seen two of them: CRAZY KNIGHTS and TROUBLE CHASERS, and both felt like they had clear Stooges influences (I believe CRAZY KNIGHTS even reused some gags by the Stooges as well). Both films had problems in terms of how the pairings were put together; in CRAZY KNIGHTS, Shemp and Billy are really a duo for more of it, while in TROUBLE CHASERS, Shemp and Maxie are really a duo for more of it. But I think that’s just because they weren’t sure how that pairing would work. If it were the Stooges, they’d know what would work and be able to properly account for it.

GOLD RAIDERS (1951) was very well made, and I'm inclined to agree with you, regarding it being the Stooges best Feature.  In response to a previous post, I also think it's important to note that Moe and Larry were getting quite elderly by the Feature Length Curly Joe era, so the energy would have been more limited even if the Stooges had stuck to making two reelers, and without using a ton of recycled footage in a less imperfect world.

CHEERS! 

Also true. I remember in a previous post, I had suggested that the Stooges could have attempted a more verbal comedy approach had Shemp lived, but I’m still not sure how audiences would have responded to that, especially since it was common knowledge that Curly was the favorite of the general public.

[NoahYoung]

I'll comment more later, but I actually think the second half of the film that takes place in India is better that the first half in Scotland. In fact (according to the McCabe, Kilgore, and Bann book), LAUREL AND HARDY IN INDIA was one of the film's working titles.

Regarding cuts from the preview print, I always found it strange that in the film as we have it now, the boys say goodbye to Alan in the lawyer's office as if they know him, but there is no scene in the film that shows them talking to him before this.

I rank this above SWISS MISS, and possibly even PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, and definitely above THE FLYING DEUCES (which repeats the concept of the boys joining a foreign armed force.)

How many people here get the "It's Mae West" line by Stan?

Governor Films released 4 cut-downs for TV from this film. Together, they make up about 71 minutes. I have 3 of them, and as far as I know, they contain all the scenes with L&H.


Regarding THE GOLD RAIDERS, I agree that it is their best feature film. But given the competition, that's not really saying much.
It is still a worthwhile film to watch, and not an endurance test like the Curl Joe DeRita films.

[Tony Bensley]

I'll comment more later, but I actually think the second half of the film that takes place in India is better that the first half in Scotland. In fact (according to the McCabe, Kilgore, and Bann book), LAUREL AND HARDY IN INDIA was one of the film's working titles.

Regarding cuts from the preview print, I always found it strange that in the film as we have it now, the boys say goodbye to Alan in the lawyer's office as if they know him, but there is no scene in the film that shows them talking to him before this.

I rank this above SWISS MISS, and possibly even PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, and definitely above THE FLYING DEUCES (which repeats the concept of the boys joining a foreign armed force.)

How many people here get the "It's Mae West" line by Stan?

Governor Films released 4 cut-downs for TV from this film. Together, they make up about 71 minutes. I have 3 of them, and as far as I know, they contain all the scenes with L&H.


Regarding THE GOLD RAIDERS, I agree that it is their best feature film. But given the competition, that's not really saying much.
It is still a worthwhile film to watch, and not an endurance test like the Curl Joe DeRita films.

Continuity and unresolved subplot are really Bonnie Scotland's two main nemesis's. Stan and Ollie are otherwise in peak form, routine wise!

SWISS MISS (1938), on the other hand, features a more obese than usual Oliver Hardy, whose pining for the much much younger female lead borders on the embarrassing. There is also an at times rather ill looking Stan Laurel. For me, this lowly Hal Roach Studios Feature simply lacks a certain genuine energy that was usually there in spades in their previous films. Everything feels forced.

BONNIE SCOTLAND (1935) definitely comes out on top in the above comparison. Regarding PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932) and THE FLYING DEUCES (1939), I'm not sure I agree that they are worse films than BONNIE SCOTLAND (1935). I've certainly seen "Deuces" far more often, and although far from perfect, I still derive much enjoyment from this Non-Roach feature, despite its own shortcomings, and similar to "Swiss Miss" Ollie pining for much much younger lady story line. It just occurred to me this is probably because Jean Parker comes across to me as more mature than Della Lind (Despite the latter being almost 10 years older than Jean!). The main issue with PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932) for me is the timeline which we're supposed to accept a prompt transition from 1918 to 1932 (!), but is otherwise coherent in its story line resolution. Both of these features still rank higher than BONNIE SCOTLAND (1935) for me.

SWISS MISS (1938) comes up as the ultimate loser, unsurprisingly. Or "Swiss Missed!" as I sometimes call it!

CHEERS!

P.S. Yes, I did get Stan's "It's Mae West" reference!

[Dr. Mabuse]

I've certainly seen "The Flying Deuces" far more often, and although far from perfect, I still derive much enjoyment from this non-Roach feature, despite its own shortcomings.

In terms of plot, "The Flying Deuces" is undiluted Laurel and Hardy — the way it should be.

[Tony Bensley]

In terms of plot, "The Flying Deuces" is undiluted Laurel and Hardy — the way it should be.

Precisely!

[NoahYoung]

Tony, I think you mean Jean Parker, not Arthur.  I'm glad you got the Mae West line. I haven't looked to see if any Mae West films have been reviewed here. I STILL have not seen all her films. TCM only seems to show SHE DONE HIM WRONG and I'M NO ANGEL, which I think everyone pretty much agrees were her 2 best films. She only appeared in 12 her entire life, and only 9 in what I would consider her prime. I consider THE HEAT'S ON, since it was made 3 years after her last film, a post-prime film -- although I haven't seen it. From what I've read, I haven't missed much. Her first role in NIGHT AFTER NIGHT was a supporting role. I have seen 2 others that I bought on VHS when they first came out in the 90s.

Yes, I commented in the THE FLYING DEUCES thread about the similarities to SWISS MISS regarding Ollie pining for a much younger girl.
Regarding PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932), I had always thought about the year in which the post-war scenes take place. In reality, it takes place immediately after the war, due to the age of the girl. It's obviously not supposed to be 1932, although it looks like 1932. (I have never spotted any obvious anachronisms, however. It looks like 1932 because the boys look like they do in other films around this time.) This is unlike BLOCK-HEADS, where there was no attempt to show that the boys had aged 20 years. For TROUBLES, they haven't aged because only a few weeks have passed by.

THE FLYING DEUCES is certainly undiluted L&H, but so is WAY OUT WEST, SONS OF THE DESERT, PARDON US, OUR RELATIONS, A CHUMP AT OXFORD, PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, BLOCK-HEADS, and SAPS AT SEA. That's pretty stiff competition, so IMHO, THE FLYING DEUCES ranks below those. So at the end of the day, it's really where you rank THE FLYING DEUCES among FRA DIAVOLO, BABES IN TOYLAND, THE BOHEMIAN GIRL, SWISS MISS, and BONNIE SCOTLAND, though some of these films possibly may rank in between some of the undiluted ones. To be honest, my opinion on the ranking of the features changes constantly -- except for the top few -- and I have been watching these for a good 50 years!

[Tony Bensley]

Tony, I think you mean Jean Parker, not Arthur.  I'm glad you got the Mae West line. I haven't looked to see if any Mae West films have been reviewed here. I STILL have not seen all her films. TCM only seems to show SHE DONE HIM WRONG and I'M NO ANGEL, which I think everyone pretty much agrees were her 2 best films. She only appeared in 12 her entire life, and only 9 in what I would consider her prime. I consider THE HEAT'S ON, since it was made 3 years after her last film, a post-prime film -- although I haven't seen it. From what I've read, I haven't missed much. Her first role in NIGHT AFTER NIGHT was a supporting role. I have seen 2 others that I bought on VHS when they first came out in the 90s.

Yes, I commented in the THE FLYING DEUCES thread about the similarities to SWISS MISS regarding Ollie pining for a much younger girl.
Regarding PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932), I had always thought about the year in which the post-war scenes take place. In reality, it takes place immediately after the war, due to the age of the girl. It's obviously not supposed to be 1932, although it looks like 1932. (I have never spotted any obvious anachronisms, however. It looks like 1932 because the boys look like they do in other films around this time.) This is unlike BLOCK-HEADS, where there was no attempt to show that the boys had aged 20 years. For TROUBLES, they haven't aged because only a few weeks have passed by.

THE FLYING DEUCES is certainly undiluted L&H, but so is WAY OUT WEST, SONS OF THE DESERT, PARDON US, OUR RELATIONS, A CHUMP AT OXFORD, PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, BLOCK-HEADS, and SAPS AT SEA. That's pretty stiff competition, so IMHO, THE FLYING DEUCES ranks below those. So at the end of the day, it's really where you rank THE FLYING DEUCES among FRA DIAVOLO, BABES IN TOYLAND, THE BOHEMIAN GIRL, SWISS MISS, and BONNIE SCOTLAND, though some of these films possibly may rank in between some of the undiluted ones. To be honest, my opinion on the ranking of the features changes constantly -- except for the top few -- and I have been watching these for a good 50 years!

Thank you for that spot, and I have made the correction from Jean Arthur to Jean Parker in that post! Their two surnames are so damn similar, I sometimes get them mixed up!

Now that you mention it, the year 1932 is never actually referenced in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (1932), though the postwar scenes, for obvious reasons, certainly look of that period.

THE FLYING DEUCES (1939) certainly isn't at the top of my list for best Laurel & Hardy Features, undiluted or otherwise. I merely consider it better than their other Features listed in my previous post. Also, yes, their rankings can be a bit fluid!

CHEERS!