Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Misbehaving Husbands (1940) - Harry Langdon

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul Pain

  • Moronika's resident meteorologist
  • Moderator
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
  • The heartthrob of millions!




IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032799/

MISBEHAVING HUSBANDS was Harry Langdon's first starring role in a talkie feature film since SEE AMERICA THIRST in 1930 and first where he was solo top billing since HEART TROUBLE.  This was a big step for him to return to top billing even if in a poverty row film directed by William "One Shot" Beaudine.

Neither terrible nor great is where I would place this one.  From a plot standpoint, it's Swiss cheese.  In a rarity, the cast all does a fine job.  It does all it's supposed to do, but it's not right.

This film is so typical of what happens to Harry: he is the comic relief in a drama.  In this film, he's the star, but he is still mostly relegated to being comic relief.  The good part is that Harry is given the time and the situations to do what he does best: be in his own little world.  More than that, his character actually shows the capability to be doing what he does, in this film the owner of an independent department store.  Henry Butler is the kind of role for which Harry is well suited, and he works just as well as the childless middle-aged man as he did as the skirt chaser in the 1920s.  Harry and a mannequin: which one's the dummy?

Now let's get to the bad stuff... the plot.  I will ignore the obvious part about how Harry acts dumb even for his character and that everything could have been resolved in 15 minutes tops.  We have two characters who are integral to the plot but don't get introduced until over half the film is over, and these two are the ones who save the day so that we get a happy ending!  Who is this Bob Grant, and why is he in the Butler's spare bedroom?

Now we talk cast.  I will only mention Fred Kelsey by his real name because he is always a treat no matter the situation, and this is no different with him playing a stereotypical irate Irish cop.  A lot of people pan the characters of Memphis and Opal as being "blatantly racist," but I just see two black actors playing the kinds of roles to which black actors were still limited in 1940 (W.C. Fields reference here).  The rest of the cast plays their predictable roles perfectly well.

It was an interesting film, but I won't be seeking it out again anytime soon.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2023, 02:18:59 PM by Paul Pain »
#1 fire kibitzer


Offline Umbrella Sam

  • Toastmaster General
  • Knothead
  • *****
    • Talk About Cinema
I really like this movie. Yes, it is a Poverty Row film with a basic plot that’s easy to resolve, but I don’t think that’s always a bad thing. In the case of this movie especially, it gives good actors an opportunity to show off their acting skills. As Paul mentioned, the characters who solve the case aren’t introduced until halfway through the film, though I actually kind of like that twist. After spending an amount of time seeing Henry being falsely accused and dealing with Effie’s lawyer, it is nice seeing these two signs of hope suddenly show up, especially when you consider that Luana Walters’s character is the third party that Effie’s lawyer insisted on having in the house, which means that he ended up screwing himself over in the process. I also find it funny that she ends up showing herself off as a much better detective than Ralph Byrd’s character when you consider that Ralph Byrd was known for being Dick Tracy in the movies. Regardless, they’re both charming characters played by very charming actors. I also like that while they do hint at a romance between the two, it still takes a major backseat to the Henry and Effie storyline.

Gayne Whitman is great at making you really hate the lawyer, and Fred Kelsey as always is a delight, even getting a nice comic moment with Langdon causing him much frustration and confusion. But the real standouts are Betty Blythe and Langdon himself. The two are very convincing as an older couple; Blythe’s character is of course caught in the middle of a scheme by a divorce lawyer while deep down really wanting to believe her husband is innocent. I know you could argue that her character is impulsive and never gives her husband a chance to properly explain himself, but that is something that happens sometimes, and it makes sense that she would leap to that conclusion given the circumstances. It’s not like she’s portrayed as completely irrational from the beginning, either. Normally you see these kinds of plots with a husband forgetting their anniversary and the wife gets super angry. However, in this case she doesn’t get angry because she knows her husband is attached to his job, and it’s only when rumors begin to circulate at her party that those thoughts change. Blythe does a really good job as this character.

And then you have Harry himself. I once said that I thought Harry could have had a great career as a character actor, and to me, this is the movie that proves it. You do get some classic Langdon moments like when he’s wandering around drunk and telling his story to a random bystander. Heck, he even briefly reuses the gag from TRAMP, TRAMP, TRAMP where he gets a gun in his hand without realizing it. And yet, this character is different. For one thing, he wears glasses, which Langdon actually did need in real life as far back as the silent era, and as a matter of fact, for all of his supporting roles following this film (except for SWINGIN’ ON A RAINBOW), he would continue to wear them. But much like Blythe as Effie, there’s a certain realism as this character that he really sells as an actor. When Effie’s lawyer is basically threatening to throw him out of his own home, he gets legitimately angry. There’s a joke at the very end of it that causes him to go suddenly quiet, but before then, it’s not really played for laughs; it’s a normally meek man suddenly letting all his anger build up and it’s completely realistic. There’s even a part when Effie leaves for a party by herself where Langdon seems like he’s almost on the verge of tears, but not in a comical way. He legitimately feels like a very heartbroken man seeing his life fall apart before him. We talk a lot here about how Langdon often seemed like he’s in his own world, but this film proves that he very much can be a part of our world when Harry Langdon the actor chooses to be so.

So yeah, I think this is a good movie. This was not my first time watching it, nor will it be the last. I will admit that the portrayal of the servant characters here is a bit uncomfortable, but their roles do diminish as the film goes on and it’s not nearly as bad as in something like ZENOBIA. Beyond that, though, I actually do find this movie entertaining and would definitely recommend it.
“I’ll take a milkshake...with sour milk!” -Shemp (Punchy Cowpunchers, 1950)

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


Offline metaldams

I plan on getting to this one sometime this week, but just clicking on the video, I see the infamous PRC logo.  As an old horror fan, they made the lowest of poverty row films in the 40’s - and I say that affectionately.  Should be interesting to see Langdon in this environment.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline metaldams

Probably should add, there’s a 64 minute print available on Tubi.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline metaldams

      So I watched this tonight instead.  Nice reviews from the both of you, the characters and plot points were all covered well and in better detail than I could muster.  Just some observations about Langdon.

      For the most part, he wasn’t the surreal character we see in the silent films.  Let’s just say here he is closer to being off the spectrum, if not 100%.  More forgetful of anniversaries and perhaps not best at explaining himself.  However, old Harry does show up, but like with Popeye and his spinach, it takes alcohol to unleash him.  Once Harry is drunk towards the end of the film, he’s incoherent and talking aimlessly, plus he’s with a dummy.  The dummy being the great Langdon prop.  So they’re able to keep Langdon in a somewhat realistic world and character and used alcohol to make it more believable he’s actingthe way he does in the silent films towards the end.  I also want to add the few scenes where Harry was yelling, if you turn the volume down, his body movements are in a similar vain to his silent character.  Think when he’s aimlessly yelling in SATURDAY AFTERNOON with him unknowingly having his wife look on.

      Stooge wise, nice seeing Fred Kelsey doing his cop schtick and Ethelreda Leopold, who I have seen in other poverty row films, doing her pretty girl schtick.  Maybe not schtick, she was supposedly pretty in real life too.  Anyway, she gets a small but important role and I love the way they use shadows with her and Harry to give the onlookers the impression more intimate things were going on than they were in reality.

      William “One Shot” Beaudine, well past his W.C. Fields and Mary Pickford days, definitely lives up to his nickname in this one, as the camera was pretty static and the sets small.  But hey, the script didn’t call for big film technique unlike perhaps some horror films he did, so it’s all good.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline metaldams

Happy 30th Birthday, Paul.  Only two decades to go before AARP.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Paul Pain

  • Moronika's resident meteorologist
  • Moderator
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
  • The heartthrob of millions!
Happy 30th Birthday, Paul.  Only two decades to go before AARP.

Thanks, I'm aging along indeed.

I really like what I see in the other reviews on this one.  After reading those, I now have a laundry list of wishes for this film, but I will be satisfied with what we got from what really was a decent effort out of poverty row.
#1 fire kibitzer