Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Choo-Choo! (1932) - Our Gang/Little Rascals

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams



      Finally, after all these years, getting around to an Our Gang short.  A series that lasted from 1922 - 1944 and due to the nature of its subject matter - children - combined with how long the series lasted, couldn’t help but go through consistent change.  The kids leave the series because they all grow, necessitating for new children to come in.  Even the same kids who stay in the series a while have to be used differently at age three than at age nine - with the short we’re discussing here, CHOO-CHOO!, being a great example.  In addition to different kids coming, growing and going in the series, the tone of Our Gang shorts were also never consistent.  There are the school shorts, the musical shorts, the moral story shorts, the battle of the sexes shorts and the slapstick shorts.  You people who read my reviews shouldn’t be surprised it’s the latter I like best, one of the main reasons why I chose CHOO-CHOO! as my first Our Gang review.

      Made in 1932, this was made during the phase where Hal Roach was trying to build Spanky as the new star of the series.  Other than getting his own picture in the credits, it’s also obvious of all the kids, Spanky gets most of the laughs and screen time.  At this point Spanky is a really cute kid, age three, who is just old enough to direct to do simple commands.  Here, one simple command is asked of Spanky and asked of him a lot - punch people, and punch them like a three year old.  He utters not a single line of dialogue and manages to look cute and about and nonchalant as a three year old can get.  It’s simple humor, but it works, Spanky steals the show here.  Spanky would stay in the series for several years and would not remain age three forever.  He would grow into a leader amongst the gang and be a mainstay and cultural icon, but even though I like older Spanky, it’s mischievous toddler Spanky I like best and he was arguably never better than here.  As for the other kids, only really Stymie stands out in this one, being especially funny when acting hungry when all those foods are being mentioned to him.

      Dell Henderson is another stand out in CHOO-CHOO!  Though he appeared occasionally with The Three Stooges, it’s these early thirties Roach shorts where I’ve really grown an appreciation for him.  He really does a nice job acting disgusted at the idea of having to care for all the children and plays the perfect punching bag for Spanky.

      Ultimately, CHOO-CHOO! is a fine combination of giving just enough screen time to the kids, letting the adults carry some laughs, and giving us some great sight gag comedy.  Another in a long line of train shorts, I always find this a great setting for twenties and thirties comedies, the boxed in setting being perfect for the barrage of animals and explosives that take over the train at the end of this short.  A monkey who lights a match and sets off explosives leading to some wonderful shots of firecrackers exploding all over the place and climaxing being shown out of the train on the train tracks.  Great stuff.

      I would not call myself a fan of the entire Our Gang series, but being there were so many shorts made and this was done by Hal Roach, I can’t help but liking several individual efforts.  CHOO-CHOO! is definitely one I will always cherish.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline NoahYoung

Well, I was still 11 when you were born, metaldams, but I guess 11 years makes a difference with respect to Our Gang/The Little Rascals, since when I was growing up in the 70s this was must-see TV that everyone I knew watched. My generation has all 80 Roach talkie shorts pretty much memorized, but shortly after I started watching, they started editing out offensive content and pulled a few shorts out of the rotation. I believe RAILROADIN' was the only short not shown in the original syndication package on TV, since the sound discs were not found until about 1979. I do remember seeing the shorts before King World got the rights -- it was that company that got the scissors out.

Regarding CHOO-CHOO!, I never considered this anywhere near one of the best, those it does have its fans. It is not a bad short, but I think it milks the situation far too much. IMHO, there is a low % of stinkers among the Roach Our Gang Talkies, and most are from the first season: 1929-1930. Starting with the first film of the 1930-1931 season, PUPS IS PUPS, the series really took off.

Other than the change in cast members, there is such a different feel to the shorts as the years went by. This change was pretty much constant -- a short from 1933 has a completely different feel from one in 1931, and different than 1935, etc. Except for that first season, all the different feels/styles have their own unique charms.

As you mentioned, CHOO-CHOO! was the start of the transition to making Spanky the star of the series, but until he got a bit older, Stymie was the anchor that really held everything together. Stymie is quite possibly my favorite Our Gang kid. IMHO, he was certainly the funniest. As a kid, I would have said Alfalfa was the best, but my opinion changed over the years.

BTW, I had the good fortune to actually meet Spanky at a video store in Manhattan when Republic Home Video re-released some of the shorts on VHS. (Unfortunately, some of the shorts were slightly edited, even though they used Blackhawk prints that were complete.) I have his autograph on the VHS box as well as on a picture. (You of course had to buy a tape to meet him and get an autograph.) This was about 3 years before he passed away.



Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline metaldams

Our Gang/Little Rascals was still on television when I was a kid, I definitely watched them at times.  I was more a Three Stooges kid, but Our Gang was on TV, no doubt.  More than Laurel and Hardy.

You’re right in that different years have different feels, very true.  I’m going through the shorts again slowly these past few months.  It’s the earlier talking stuff and I remember the series gets better as it goes on.  I do have a love for BOXING GLOVES, though.

If I went through the entire Our Gang series and determined my favorite fifteen shorts, they’d probably be as good as anyone else’s best.  It’s just those varied flavors of shorts you mentioned, and some I like better than others.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline NoahYoung

Yes, that's why I try to say "my favorite" rather than "best". For many films, not just Our Gang, I realize that "my favorite" might not be the same as what I think is "the best". When you grow up watching these films, a lot has to do with the circumstances around when you first saw them, or who you watched them with at any time, particularly loved ones who have passed on. So there is a lot of emotion involved. Sometimes I feel I start to dislike a L&H film for example, because the person who I enjoyed it with is no longer with us, so it makes me sad.

I'm awaiting delivery of BOXING GLOVES and SHIVER MY TIMBERS on Super 8 any day now. I never really liked BOXING GLOVES, but I've decided that I would like to attempt to complete my collection of having all 80 shorts on film. CHOO-CHOO! I received about a month ago.

Even in my lifetime, until American Movie Classics started showing them regularly for many years, L&H TV airings were sporadic. Even those Saturday morning 8:30am airings I mentioned only lasted about a year. For a while, I used to watch them on a Spanish UHF channel! I doubt anyone today knows what the heck UHF was.  :) It was broadcast on the air, not cable, and there was a separate dial (yes, dial!) on the TV for those channels. L&H were on channel 47. I don't remember how the dial got to channels that high, since it was the same size as the VHF dial. I think maybe you just kept turning it like winding a watch (yes, we used to wind watches, too). Gosh I'm feeling old.  It's scary to realize that for many movies we have been talking about, more time has passed since I first saw them than the time that had passed when they were filmed and I first saw them!

BOXING GLOVES (1930) was less than 40 years old when I first saw it over 50 years ago!


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Freddie Sanborn

And the UHF stations never quite came in as crisply as the VHF channels. Boxing Gloves is a fascinating short because it looks like it was released before the sound effects were finished. Thus there are these weird scenes were kids are cheering and the soundtrack is mute. And it wasn’t just an artifact of early sound technology. You never see that sort of thing in Laurel & Hardy shorts released around the same time.
“If it’s not comedy, I fall asleep.” Harpo Marx


Offline metaldams

BOXING GLOVES is basically Joe Cobb passing the torch to Chubby.  You’re right about the silent scenes, Freddie, it gives the short a surreal feel.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Tony Bensley

And the UHF stations never quite came in as crisply as the VHF channels. Boxing Gloves is a fascinating short because it looks like it was released before the sound effects were finished. Thus there are these weird scenes were kids are cheering and the soundtrack is mute. And it wasn’t just an artifact of early sound technology. You never see that sort of thing in Laurel & Hardy shorts released around the same time.
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I recall reading in regard to BOXING GLOVES (1929) that the lack of sound in certain scenes was due to all existing copies having been derived from a work print, which I understand to mean that background music and sound effects hadn't been yet added. BOUNCING BABIES (1929) similarly has no music or sound effects added.

CHEERS! :)


Offline NoahYoung

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I recall reading in regard to BOXING GLOVES (1929) that the lack of sound in certain scenes was due to all existing copies having been derived from a work print, which I understand to mean that background music and sound effects hadn't been yet added. BOUNCING BABIES (1929) similarly has no music or sound effects added.

CHEERS! :)

I'm almost certain that what you read was inaccurate. The sound for BOXING GLOVES was recorded on disc. The work print would have nothing to do with the sound that was recorded on disc. I doubt that they had a "work disc" with incomplete sound.

According to Leonard Maltin (in his book OUR GANG: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE LITTLE RASCALS), most of the footage for this short was shot silent.


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz