Film & Shorts Discussions > Random Comedy Reviews

Loose in London (1953) - The Bowery Boys, Edward Bernds

(1/2) > >>

metaldams:
      It’s December, 1951.  Edward Bernds is directing his final Stooge short, GENTS IN A JAM.  After this, he leaves Columbia’s shorts unit, making Jules White the only director left.  This coincides about the same time that old scripts got reworked and then finally, the stock footage jobs that bored us to tears took over.  The Three Stooges made a few really good shorts after Bernds left, but they were the exception to the rule.  The glory days of The Three Stooges were over.  We’ve discussed this on this board plenty of times.  However, there’s a second part to this story that’s much less discussed involving what became of Edward Bernds.  This week, we discuss that.  Bernds went to Allied Artists and worked with The Bowery Boys, taking writer Elwood Ullman with him.  Eight Bowery Boys films Bernds directed were released between 1953 - 1955 and I think it’s safe to say The Three Stooges would have been better off following Bernds.

      The Bowery Boys were a veteran comedy team by this point.  LOOSE IN LONDON, though Bernds’s first effort with them, was film number thirty in a forty eight film series! The feature film series with the most movies ever, beating forty seven film series Charlie Chan by a hair.  If you include when they were The East Side Kids, Dead End Kids and whatever else they were billed as before being The Bowery Boys, the number of films?  I simply can’t count that high.  Though a lot of actors were in the team over the years, by this point is was the Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall show.  The two other Bowery Boys in this film, played Leo’s brother David and Benny Bartlett are there for decoration, having less to do in this film than Zeppo Marx ever had, and I’m not exaggerating.  But Leo Gorcey as Terrence Aloysius “Slip” Mahoney and Huntz Hall as Horace Debussy “Sach” Jones take up the bulk of the comedy in LOOSE IN LONDON along with non Bowery Boy and series regular Louie Dumbriwski, played by Leo’s real life Dad, Bernard Gorcey.

      Stooge fans, I say The Bowery Boys are worth checking out partially because the two principle actors are very Stooge influenced.  Leo Gorcey is the boss and has the anger and need to mangle very much like Moe Howard.  I always say he is the bastard child of Moe and James Cagney, if you can imagine that.  In LOOSE IN LONDON, he definitely lives up to this description and of course, like in any Bowery Boys film, has a brilliant way of mispronouncing words and generally mangling the English language.  Nobody does this better than Leo Gorcey.

      As for Huntz Hall, picture the child like innocence of Curly, a similar delivery to Shemp and look wise, the bastard child of Marty Feldman and Cheap Trick’s Rick Nielsen.  A really funny, energetic comic who was not only influenced by Shemp, but from what I hear, real life friends with him.  Huntz is a pleasure to watch here, easily getting suckered by the girl, playing with swords in the dungeon like a little kid, building a nice relationship with his long lost uncle in again, childlike wonder - just a fun simpleton of a character.

      Bernard Gorcey as Louie, all 4’11” of him, was the heart and soul of the series as far as I’m concerned.  He gets angered by the boys antics yet check out how sad he is on the ship when they are going to leave for England.  He loves them in spite of it all.  Classic bit of him being shanghaied on the boat drunk and clonked on the head in a closet and equally awesome bit of him being hidden in the trunk while holding a cigar, smoke bellowing out of said trunk burning him up.  Also a hoot watching him get an attitude with the much, much larger butler later in the film.

      As far as the plot, totally cliched stuff and therein lies its genius.  Sach is an heir (or “hair,” as Slip would say it) to a rich long lost uncle in England, has to act high society to fit in (or so they think, at first), and there are a slew of other jealous relatives in a haunted looking house that want the uncle to die to inherit the fortune and would murder to do so.  Yeah, heard that plot a zillion times.  The uncle takes a liking to Sach because of his innocent, funny and trusting nature, so the other relatives plot to kill.  We get the boys messing up a high society party failing to act well mannered in spite their best effort, we get murder and fright stuff at night leading to some HOT SCOTS like chases, we get The Bowery Boys fighting the bad guys in the end in a slapstick sword and gun fight, very cliche and Stooge like and it works brilliantly.  The comic highlight for me would be Huntz Hall’s confrontation with that biting stuffed fox head on the wall.  It manages to stay perfectly still whenever Leo Gorcey is around.  A very funny Abbott and Costello like bit there.

      Bernds and Ullman knew what the they were doing by this point and The Bowery Boys knew who they were at this point.  B comedians having b comedy plots written for them and I find that lack of pretense totally refreshing and to my taste.  The irony is as much as Bud and Lou films were higher prestige and budgeted compared to The Bowery Boys, the plot in LOOSE IN LONDON is way more lucid and intelligible than the majority of those Bud and Lou films, which overreach a lot.  When do I find Bud and Lou at their best?  Working with monsters and on their TV show - b level stuff.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  Bernds and The Bowery Boys were a magical combination whose films have a definite Stooge influence and knew exactly who they were.  Any Shemp era Stooge fan who has never seen the Bernds Bowery Boys films need to make them the next films they watch, pronto.  The entire series is available in a four volume set, seek it out.  We’ll discuss more Bowery Boys for sure, next time another Edward Bernds effort - in October.

Umbrella Sam:
I remember seeing a few Bowery Boys films last year and instantly thought of how much they reminded me of The Three Stooges. They were all later films, and I believe one of them was JAIL BUSTERS, though sadly I don’t recall seeing LOOSE IN LONDON.

Overall, they did a pretty good job doing a Stooges-like act, though it’s really only Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall that stand out; the other Bowery Boys just kind of felt like extra Zeppos; just along for the ride with very little to do. Still, Gorcey and Hall were a good combo. Gorcey was a good Moe-type leader and Hall especially reminded me of Shemp, which makes sense considering they were friends in real life. I’ll try to remember to catch a Bowery Boys film the next time TCM shows one, because they are one of those acts I’ve been meaning to check out more of.

metaldams:

--- Quote from: Umbrella Sam on April 12, 2020, 10:55:27 PM ---I remember seeing a few Bowery Boys films last year and instantly thought of how much they reminded me of The Three Stooges. They were all later films, and I believe one of them was JAIL BUSTERS, though sadly I don’t recall seeing LOOSE IN LONDON.

Overall, they did a pretty good job doing a Stooges-like act, though it’s really only Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall that stand out; the other Bowery Boys just kind of felt like extra Zeppos; just along for the ride with very little to do. Still, Gorcey and Hall were a good combo. Gorcey was a good Moe-type leader and Hall especially reminded me of Shemp, which makes sense considering they were friends in real life. I’ll try to remember to catch a Bowery Boys film the next time TCM shows one, because they are one of those acts I’ve been meaning to check out more of.

--- End quote ---

JAIL BUSTERS, though not directed by Bernds, was written by him and Elwood Ullman.  As far as the other Bowery Boys being like Zappos, later on for sure.  Earlier on they were more prominent.  Glad you like what you saw, at the very least, the latter ones in the series seem like naturals for Stooge fans.

7stooges:
Bernds and/or Ullman later said that they tried to come up with funny things for David Gorcey and Benny Bartlett, but added that “it just didn’t work.” They were supposed to be a continuation of the gang Leo and Huntz had in the East Side Kids days, but were excess baggage a lot of the time. David even joked that they could paint him on the scenery and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

How much they did in the films depended on what the script called for. Sometimes they were just thrown in because of, presumably, contractual reasons. If you think they get the shaft here, wait until you see “Paris Playboys.” In David’s case, there was also probably some loyalty from brother Leo. David seemed surprisingly okay with this setup - after all, he was basically getting paid to just show up - though I’ve heard Benny wasn’t so much. My guess is he was in it for the paycheck. Shame, too. He’d been a talented musician in his youth, and never got a chance to show that off in any of the BB films.

“Jail Busters” is probably the ‘50s era BB film where they’re most prominent. The “background Bennies” (as Huntz dubbed the extra Boys) had a bit more to do in the Stanley Clements films, but by then, Benny had jumped ship for a quiet job as an insurance salesman. Though he also fronted a six piece swing band.

Billy Benedict (Whitey) was somewhat of a bridge between Leo & Huntz and the other Boys. I wonder what Bernds and Ullman would have given him had he stuck around long enough.

P.S. In “Jungle Gents” Leo literally calls Benny “No Lines.”

metaldams:

--- Quote from: 7stooges on October 25, 2020, 10:02:22 AM ---Bernds and/or Ullman later said that they tried to come up with funny things for David Gorcey and Benny Bartlett, but added that “it just didn’t work.” They were supposed to be a continuation of the gang Leo and Huntz had in the East Side Kids days, but were excess baggage a lot of the time. David even joked that they could paint him on the scenery and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

How much they did in the films depended on what the script called for. Sometimes they were just thrown in because of, presumably, contractual reasons. If you think they get the shaft here, wait until you see “Paris Playboys.” In David’s case, there was also probably some loyalty from brother Leo. David seemed surprisingly okay with this setup - after all, he was basically getting paid to just show up - though I’ve heard Benny wasn’t so much. My guess is he was in it for the paycheck. Shame, too. He’d been a talented musician in his youth, and never got a chance to show that off in any of the BB films.

“Jail Busters” is probably the ‘50s era BB film where they’re most prominent. The “background Bennies” (as Huntz dubbed the extra Boys) had a bit more to do in the Stanley Clements films, but by then, Benny had jumped ship for a quiet job as an insurance salesman. Though he also fronted a six piece swing band.

Billy Benedict (Whitey) was somewhat of a bridge between Leo & Huntz and the other Boys. I wonder what Bernds and Ullman would have given him had he stuck around long enough.

P.S. In “Jungle Gents” Leo literally calls Benny “No Lines.”

--- End quote ---

Thanks for the info about Bernds mentioning it’s hard to write for the others and their respective attitudes on it.

Whitey for sure was the bridge guy, I agree with that.  He was never a main guy, but always stood out and had a surreal presence.  Always liked him.

I have pretty fresh viewings of earlier East Side Kids films.  Sunshine Sammy was certainly a big part of the team at the time and the other kids, like you hinted at, were there to advance plot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page