Becoming Mr. Laurel

Interact with your favorite SCM authors, producers, directors, historians, archivists and silent comedy savants. Or just read along. Whatever.
Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Gary Johnson » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:43 am

It's amazing that "Babes In Toyland", of all films, became the touchstone for the rift between Roach and Laurel since that work became one of the most enchanting of all the Boys films.

What is interesting about that movie is that it seems to harken back to the old English tradition of the Christmas Pantomime - the yearly yuletime extravaganza performed in the English Music Halls. Anyone
growing up in the British Isles through the first half of the 20th century was exposed to this annual tradition and many wrote about the experience glowingly. Even Chaplin mentioned the joy of seeing it as a child but even though he borrowed liberally from the Music Hall tradition that he was exposed to as a lad he never found a way to incorporate this tradition with his screen character. I think Stan did.

When the Victor Herbert Broadway production originally premiered at the turn of the century it was an attempt to capitalize on the success of "The Wizard of Oz" and thus was filled with fantastic imagery and storybook characters. What had angered Roach through the years was the fact that when he bought the rights to the play he himself wrote a typical "Fra Diavalo" type storyline as a hook to leave spots for the Boys to appear and perform their comedy. And why not? It had worked fine in "Fra Diavalo" with no complaints from Laurel then. But we all know that Laurel vigoriously rejected his bosses treatment and insisted on creating his own - even to the detriment of his working relationship with his boss. What would cause such a suicidal career move from Laurel when he hadn't shown such an inclination as this before? I think Stan saw in the original storyline an American version of his beloved Christmas Pantomime. The seasonal show rarely concentrated on christmas itself and instead was a vamped up version of popular fairy tales. The 'Cinderella' production was an audience favorite. The Music Hall shows always included actors in 'animal skins' and jokes for the adults that would go over the heads of the children and along with the song and dance they always included a big slapstick scene.

So Laurel pushed ahead and ended up creating a film that his native country would adore (it has played on English TV for decades on), that his adopted country would turn into an audience favorite and that his former boss would despise to the point that he would declare the film a critical and box office failure.

It wasn't. Happy Christmas Stan!

Gary J

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:32 am

Gary Johnson wrote:It's amazing that "Babes In Toyland", of all films, became the touchstone for the rift between Roach and Laurel since that work became one of the most enchanting of all the Boys films.

What is interesting about that movie is that it seems to harken back to the old English tradition of the Christmas Pantomime - the yearly yuletime extravaganza performed in the English Music Halls. Anyone
growing up in the British Isles through the first half of the 20th century was exposed to this annual tradition and many wrote about the experience glowingly. Even Chaplin mentioned the joy of seeing it as a child but even though he borrowed liberally from the Music Hall tradition that he was exposed to as a lad he never found a way to incorporate this tradition with his screen character. I think Stan did.

When the Victor Herbert Broadway production originally premiered at the turn of the century it was an attempt to capitalize on the success of "The Wizard of Oz" and thus was filled with fantastic imagery and storybook characters. What had angered Roach through the years was the fact that when he bought the rights to the play he himself wrote a typical "Fra Diavalo" type storyline as a hook to leave spots for the Boys to appear and perform their comedy. And why not? It had worked fine in "Fra Diavalo" with no complaints from Laurel then. But we all know that Laurel vigoriously rejected his bosses treatment and insisted on creating his own - even to the detriment of his working relationship with his boss. What would cause such a suicidal career move from Laurel when he hadn't shown such an inclination as this before? I think Stan saw in the original storyline an American version of his beloved Christmas Pantomime. The seasonal show rarely concentrated on christmas itself and instead was a vamped up version of popular fairy tales. The 'Cinderella' production was an audience favorite. The Music Hall shows always included actors in 'animal skins' and jokes for the adults that would go over the heads of the children and along with the song and dance they always included a big slapstick scene.

So Laurel pushed ahead and ended up creating a film that his native country would adore (it has played on English TV for decades on), that his adopted country would turn into an audience favorite and that his former boss would despise to the point that he would declare the film a critical and box office failure.

It wasn't. Happy Christmas Stan!

Gary J


Indeed, Roach had felt that this was going to be his breakthrough film that would cement himself as a major Producer, he had paid big for the rights to the Victor Herbert show, and he wanted to use it. But the real problem is that is that Herbert's BABES IN TOYLAND is not really a book show, it was a series of numbers presented somewhat tableaux style strung together with a thin plot and lots of characters. Laurel simplified this and yet strung it more tightly, giving he and Ollie prominence to the plot, but keeping all that anyone would have remembered and held dear about BABES IN TOYLAND included. It really is a very astute way to make the Operetta palatable to a regular 1930's audience and keeping true to the original source at the same time. I think if Roach had managed to make the film he had wanted to make, he would have lost a ton of money.

This whole concept of Laurel and Hardy opera films was really a bizarre concept to begin with, and i'm amazed that it worked as well as it did. It was all because THE ROGUE SONG had done so well, and Roach decided to copy it. But ROGUE SONG's success was really luck, if the surviving clips and soundtrack are anything to go by, and all the later Laurel and Hardy operettas are much better in comparison. The other bit of luck was that this concept really hit big in Europe, where these operettas were far better known to the general populace than they were here. As commercial hot concepts go, it was not one of the hottest.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Andrew Sholl
Associate
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:22 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Andrew Sholl » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:43 am

Gary - The English tradition of the Christmas pantomime is alive and well in the 21st century and retains a connection to world of silent film: http://www.ambassadortickets.com/news_d ... spx?id=458

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Gary Johnson » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:37 am

I thought it died out after the war, Andrew. It's nice to know that some traditions survive.

Richard, I don't find the concept of L&H finding success with the operetta's all that strange.
It seems that many of the original stage productions had comedy relief in them in one form
or another.

Gary J.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:07 pm

Gary Johnson wrote:I thought it died out after the war, Andrew. It's nice to know that some traditions survive.

Richard, I don't find the concept of L&H finding success with the operetta's all that strange.
It seems that many of the original stage productions had comedy relief in them in one form
or another.

Gary J.


Yes, but what was strange was thinking operetta was going to be a money-making concept to a 1930's movie audience, especially after Warner Brothers had nearly gone bankrupt making operettas in the first couple years of the talkies. Even musicals that didn't star Maurice Chevalier had dried up by 1933 until 42ND STREET and the Astaire-Rogers films revived the musical film, and operetta never again hit big as a film form with the exceptions of Jeannette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy and Deanna Durbin (and Universal kept Durbin in modern-day stuff rather than period pieces). So when Roach put THE DEVILS BROTHER into production, he was really taking a chance on what was really an odd-ball idea, it wasn't like Laurel and Hardy were even opera singers themselves!

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Gary Johnson » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:00 pm

Whadda ya mean??
Stan had a lovely soprano trained voice until he ran a nail through it!

Gary J.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests