Topic: Mexican Hayride (1948) - Abbott and Costello

[metaldams]

      After the masterpiece that is ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, the next film is MEXICAN HAYRIDE, which gets my vote so far as the weakest Abbott and Costello feature we’ve discussed so far and possibly ever.  The plot in this thing is all over the place.  Lou is running away from the law in Mexico because he somehow got framed selling fake oil bonds by Bud in a way that is not satisfactorily explained.  Lou and his friends also got ripped off in the process.  It is in Bud’s interest that Lou does not get arrested because Lou will rat on Bud, so Bud keeps Lou close.  Bud also hires Lou’s ex girlfriend as a bullfighter in a swindle that’s not really explained and Bud overall is a pretty unlikable character.  If any of the talking points I mentioned were ever explained, I have to admit I never noticed as I eventually lost interest in the plot.  The combination of things getting confusing and the characters being pretty unlikable made this hard for me to be emotionally invested or to even care.

      So how does one survive a movie when the plot and characters get away about a quarter of the way through?  Well, in the case of a Bud and Lou comedy, just take in the routines on a superficial level and look for some entertainment there.  There is nothing all time classic as far as routines go, but there is is some pretty decent stuff.  We do get Sid Fields for the second time in an Abbott and Costello feature doing a great job with Lou as the interviewer who would never shut up.  It’s very easy to see how he would eventually be an asset on the television show.  As far as verbal routines go, the “iron ore” bit is pretty good and Bud and Lou do get a funny routine together where Bud makes sure all of Lou’s articles of clothing with “JB” on it get torn off so Lou can keep his alias.  Really just an excuse to watch Bud get mad and Lou get frustrated in a well timed build up, always a good thing.  My favorite bit would be Lou pretending to be an old Mexican woman selling Mexican food at a stand to the police officers and trying to make them sick by adding extra spice to their food.  Bud and Lou at least get some good interactions together, Lou is funny when burning his hand on the stove and honestly, I really like Mexican food.  The bullring stuff at the end is OK and better than the aimless chases of the other films.  As far as running gags go, anytime Lou hears salsa music he is compelled to dance against his will, so there’s another fun little bit.

      From a trivia perspective, Lou’s brother Pat plays one of the police officers and there is a resemblance.  They even make a joke of it when they describe suspect Lou and determine the police officer looks the same.  Makes sense for real life brothers.  So yeah, the key to this one is to find the fleeting moments, because if you invest in the characters or plot and are anything like me, your brain will be mush.  Filming of MEXICAN HAYRIDE started a few days before ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN was released, so it wasn’t known yet what a cash cow they had with the monsters.  Thankfully the cash cow happened and gave the team and Universal  a little inspiration going forward because judging by MEXICAN HAYRIDE, they needed it.

[Umbrella Sam]

https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com/2019/04/mexican-hayride-1948.html

Well, it’s not exactly the worst Abbott and Costello film I’ve seen so far, but it definitely is near the bottom. The story is just so awful that it’s hard to ignore, and what’s funny isn’t all that funny. I did forget to mention the JB scene, which is indeed a funny routine like you mention. And, yeah, it is cool to see Lou actually get to act along his real life brother (Pat did some stunts for Lou, but as far as I know this is the only acting role he did in one of his brother’s films). Otherwise, it’s a pretty bad film.

[luke795]

I like the part between Lou and Fritz Feld .

[Shemp_Diesel]

Yeah, I can't get too deep or wordy about this one, but it's definitely a huge letdown after Meet Frankenstein. Hell, it would be a flop period, no matter. The only bits I remember liking are what Metal already covered; Salsa Lou & the bit at the tamale stand with extra latin spice...

 

4/10...

[NoahYoung]

I have an entirely different view of the movie, which to me is similar to THE BULLFIGHTERS with Laurel and Hardy.

At the surface, the similarities are trivial and fairly obvious. They both take place in Mexico
with plot devices revolving around bullfights. However, to find the real similarities between
THE BULLFIGHTERS and MEXICAN HAYRIDE, we must examine things happening at the subtext.

Both directors, Mal St. Clair and Charles Barton, were auteurs who were at the peak of the
careers, with these films generally considered to be their masterworks. In both films, their
mastery over mise-en-scène are readily apparent, particularly in the scenes where the main
characters are shown in conflict.

Both films carefully examine common themes such as good vs. evil, man's inhumanity to man, inner conflict, transference of guilt, disillusionment and dreams, companionship as salvation, and the emptiness of attaining false dreams. Some have pointed out that  loneliness as a destructive force is evident, but I find no evidence of that.

Both directors also make exquisite use of light and shadow to emphasize the dangers of ignorance as it relates to
the temporary nature of physical beauty. The influence that these films had can be seen in the works of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, and François Truffaut.

[metaldams]

I have an entirely different view of the movie, which to me is similar to THE BULLFIGHTERS with Laurel and Hardy.

At the surface, the similarities are trivial and fairly obvious. They both take place in Mexico
with plot devices revolving around bullfights. However, to find the real similarities between
THE BULLFIGHTERS and MEXICAN HAYRIDE, we must examine things happening at the subtext.

Both directors, Mal St. Clair and Charles Barton, were auteurs who were at the peak of the
careers, with these films generally considered to be their masterworks. In both films, their
mastery over mise-en-scène are readily apparent, particularly in the scenes where the main
characters are shown in conflict.

Both films carefully examine common themes such as good vs. evil, man's inhumanity to man, inner conflict, transference of guilt, disillusionment and dreams, companionship as salvation, and the emptiness of attaining false dreams. Some have pointed out that  loneliness as a destructive force is evident, but I find no evidence of that.

Both directors also make exquisite use of light and shadow to emphasize the dangers of ignorance as it relates to
the temporary nature of physical beauty. The influence that these films had can be seen in the works of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, and François Truffaut.

I did not remotely get that impression watching Mexican Hayride, but then again, I have only seen it twice, and years apart.  I usually read these threads before rewatching stuff and I will definitely think of these comments my next go around on this film.  Interesting commentary which I’ll consider as this is a film I admit for the most part, to date, I don’t get.

[NoahYoung]

 
You took me seriously?!?!?!?!?!
 

Translation: The film sucks.

[metaldams]

You took me seriously?!?!?!?!?!
 

Translation: The film sucks.

Eh, part of my condition, I guess.     You fooled me.  Yeah, I was thinking, Mexican Hayride and Fellini?  I’ll keep an open mind. 

[NoahYoung]

Thanks for being a sport about it. I shouldn't have given up so early...should have waited until someone called me out for my nonsense review.

I think we have all read that type of review in "film" books, written by hi-falutin' crtics who look for things that aren't there.
Even Chaplin said people find things in his films that aren't there.

I have a book on Buster Keaton's short silent solo films that I bought when it was first published in 1996. I think I have read about 2 pages since I bought it. It's a whopping 396 pages. A chapter is devoted to each short. When it takes longer to read the chapter than to actually watch the short, you know something's wrong.

Back to MEXICAN HAYRIDE ---

It's a filmed version of a Broadway musical, with most of the music written by Cole Porter, one of the top 3 American composers of the 20th century, IMHO. Not one Cole Porter song is in the film. Yet there is other music in the film. That makes no sense. (They filmed someone singing "I Love You" -- very original title, btw, -- which can be heard on the Sinatra album SINATRA AND SWINGIN' BRASS. It was cut out of the final film.) Universal was thinking of filming it in Technicolor, but it was too expensive.

There are a few good routines in the film, but overall I do think it sucks for an A&C film. I don't like it when the boys are pitted against each other. The only films I'd rank below it are DANCE WITH ME HENRY and LITTLE GIANT. Some my argue that a few of their 50s films were worse, but the atmosphere of this one just doesn't do it for me.

[metaldams]

Your input on the musical aspect on these films is needed.  It’s a weakness of mine as admittedly, this era of music is not my level of expertise.  I definitely remember thinking the music in LOST IN A HAREM stood out a bit more than the other films.

….and yeah, perhaps one of the reasons I find some, if not all, of those fifties entries better than most other fans is for this very reason, it’s simple Bud and Lou and sometimes horror.

[NoahYoung]

I haven't watched it in awhile, but the only song I can remember, other than background music,  is "Is it Yes, or Is It No?" Not a good song, but the more upbeat instrumental version played that makes Lou start to dance in the bullring is good.

As a kid, I hated the music parts of their films -- but in retrospect, that probably influenced me as an adult. I now like the early 40s swing music in their films.  I will comment on other music in the appropriate thread.