Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

I Do (1921) - Harold Lloyd

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams




      The second from last Harold Lloyd short, 1921’s I DO feels like more of an experiment than what Lloyd was normally doing at this time.  In most shorts, Lloyd is trying to woo the girl, but here?  He marries Mildred in the first few minutes, displayed by a very nice little animation sequence.  The focus here is more on the settled, adult domestic situation.  A year later, Harold’s brother in law, played by, who else - William Gillespie - gets Harold and Mildred to babysit his four year son old and infant for the night.  A trial for parenthood ensues for Harold and Mildred and as you can imagine in a comedy, things go wrong.

      There is a great opening reveal gag in this short which I will not give away.  From a gag creativity perspective, this is the highlight of the short.  There are no real drawn out genius gags here like Harold losing his pants and trying to cover himself, Harold getting rid of a wallet, Harold under a train, etc.  This is straight, situational domestic comedy that turns into a scare comedy towards the end.  Gags like Harold struggling trying to get a nipple on a milk bottle and having a balloon with a scary face attached to him from behind following him around the room are actually very much future Curly Howard type gags.  So a lot of fun, simple stuff like this which gives Harold a great chance to react to things - something he does very well.  The man was definitely a good comic actor.

     We get some destruction from the kids that involves spills and sawing things and Harold waking the baby a few times.  The latter gives the usually little girlish Mildred a chance to go into womanhood on us and yell at Harold like she’s Mae Busch.  Mildred, you go girl!

      Not too much else to say about this one, it really is a pleasant twenty five minutes that shows Harold flirting with being a domestic character more than a go getter.  I DO would make a fantastic short to watch before Harold’s similar feature, HOT WATER.  Another domestic film that has some scare comedy in the end.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Paul Pain

  • Moronika's resident meteorologist
  • Moderator
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
  • The heartthrob of millions!
It was interesting to say the best I can.  The two children and all the chaos they caused (along with Mildred's reactions) was about as unfunny as could possibly be, but at least it built up to the scene with Harold trying to fill the bottle.  It was fun reading lips as what Harold and Mildred were saying actually made sense in the moment.

The highlight was that opening gag.  One thing I couldn't figure out though... was it supposed to be a bottle of booze in the closet or what?
#1 fire kibitzer


Offline HomokHarcos

It was pleasant to actually see Harold and Mildred as a married couple for once, it kind of went into later sitcom territory like I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners where you have one spouse that gets into trouble, and the more serious half. The animation was surprising, I wonder who handled that part of the film.

The first section of the film is the man deals with annoying family members section, as the kids try to make life a living hell for Harold. Thankfully, since this is a silent film, we don't have to deal with Harold trying to shut up a crying baby. My favorite part was when he tripped down the stairs and Mildred scolding him for it. After that we get the scare comedy bit, which seemed kind of random, but it was fun so I'll take it anyway. The night watchman gets mistaken for a burglar, but to be fair to Harold, why would the night watchman go right into somebody's home? The balloon gag is seeming to be quite common, as Harry Langdon has also used it.


Offline Umbrella Sam

I agree with Paul about the chaos in the middle being unfunny, but I’d go so far as to say that I think the scene with Harold and the milk bottle actually goes on way too long. That middle part in general makes it far from being among my favorite Lloyd comedies, but this is still Harold Lloyd in 1921, and he still is able to deliver some clever gags in the first and last third. The opening with him and Mildred pushing the carriage was hilarious; I like the reaction from the guy when he notices the bottle and how afterwards everyone else seems to be following the trend. The last third is also great, a chance for Harold and Mildred to do scare reactions. The balloon part was funny, especially with how awkward the design looked on it, at the same time silly, yet also creepy enough that I can understand Harold’s fear of it. Definitely good stuff here, but I don’t find the whole domestic angle really works that well for Harold; it’s funny how you mention HOT WATER, metaldams, because that’s actually my least favorite Lloyd feature by a long shot. In general, I only find these domestic comedies funny in certain scenarios and with a few select actors (including Harry Langdon) who can truly pull it off. For me, Lloyd is too jolly and boisterous for it to work. He can pull off frustration, but that’s usually when it’s involving something he’s determined to accomplish. Here, he just kind of gets roped into something he didn’t want to do in the first place. It just doesn’t work for me; again, there’s good stuff here, but I’m not that fond of the setup and think the middle especially drags.
“I’ll take a milkshake...with sour milk!” -Shemp (Punchy Cowpunchers, 1950)

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


Offline metaldams

I’m not so bothered by the set up in I DO as Harold getting roped along into something he doesn’t want to do is fine by me - but your mileage varies.  It’s just that relatively speaking, the great gags die out after the opening and we’re simply left with decent gags and reactions.  It’s bizarre because this is almost a one off for Harold - NEVER WEAKEN is definitely more gag structured.

…,.and indeed, HOT WATER also has that similar one off feel.  I can understand it being someone’s least favorite Lloyd feature, though now I like it.  More on that in a future date.
- Doug Sarnecky