Skip to main content

Another Nice Mess They've Gotten Into


Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy made one hundred and seven movies together during their iconic comedy partnership between 1921 and 1950. Though originally paired together by studio head Hal Roach, working together as much and as long as they did had to allow for a genuine friendship to flourish. That’s what Stan & Ollie is all about as it recounts the duo’s last tour in the U.K. in 1953 to help secure funding for a film project. And it’s quite a sweet relationship to explore.
In their sixties, Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) have come together for a series of vaudeville shows across the U.K. while writing and waiting for funding to come through on a film project: a Robin Hood parody. But dwindling audience interest and a mostly incompetent producer (Rufus Jones) takes a toll as Ollie struggles with health issues and Stan continues to hold a slight grudge against his partner for making a film without him on contractual obligation sixteen years earlier.
Stan & Ollie is not entirely inaccurate, though it’s a classic example of altering the presentation of a true story to fit a particular kind of movie formula. The film mostly ignores Laurel & Hardy’s long working relationship after 1937 so the narrative of Stan still feeling bitter and the tour as a kind of reunion comes across more sensibly. Indeed the whole issue around Zenobia (referred to as “the elephant movie” in film) and the feeling of betrayal on Stan’s part is mostly an invention. While Stan did leave Hal Roach (Danny Huston) over control and compensation disputes leading to Ollie having to do Zenobia with Harry Langdon instead, despite its implication to the contrary, Ollie did sign that Fox contract after his with Roach expired. And there’s little evidence this affected their friendship. But it could have, Zenobia existing as essentially the only Laurel & Hardy movie without Laurel, which is what the film extrapolates on for conflict. It’s a banal conflict, one that’s been played frequently going back to the days of Laurel & Hardy themselves. But the movie is at least smart enough not to dwell on it too long. And even in these tiresome spells, the actors succeed at endearing their performances to us.
In the hands of Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly the classic comedians come alive and feel remarkably genuine. Both emanate a passion for their work as well as a tiredness which speaks to their age and their faltering star status. There’s something sad in how worn the old age make-up (and prosthetics in the case of Reilly) make them look. But when they recreate signature routines, musical numbers, and sketches complete with the duos’ unique comic timing, that falls away instantly and they’re some of the best scenes in the movie. The two actors’ utter investment rubs off and the becomes much like seeing an actual Laurel & Hardy scene. Coogan and Reilly’s chemistry also translates well to their off-stage lives and personas and the drama, with Reilly in particular shining as an infectiously warm Ollie. There’s an awkwardness to their interaction but also genial comradery, very much like two old friends spending time with each other after years apart. Both actors in one film manage to redeem their terrible parts in Holmes & Watson. The relationship between Ollie and his wife Lucille (a delightful Shirley Henderson) is also loveable, and though not as affectionate, Stan’s marriage to Ida Kitaeva (Nina Arianda) is sweet in its own way.
Not only does this film recreate specific scenes and routines of the pair but as they workshop their Robin Hood idea we occasionally see in Stans’ minds’ eye how it would be executed. And I like how in so doing, given the quality of the jokes and a very Errol Flynn-looking Robin Hood, the film shows how they’re a little behind the times. Everything about the movie idea seems like it wouldn’t work given what audiences were looking for out of movies in the 1950s. Notably, Laurel & Hardy are contrasted with successors Abbott & Costello, and the film makes a point to remind us how out of fashion they are by way of their star status not being apparent to most people they meet.
There are some pretty neat technical aspects to this movie as well. It opens in 1937 with one long take that follows Stan and Ollie from their dressing room through the studio lot to the sound-stage of Way Out West as they converse about their issues with Roach and where they are in their lives. Later we get some pretty nice cinematography on their last show, especially the final dance act.
Stan & Ollie is a sweet movie, paying tribute to the classic double act that went on to inspire so many others in cinema history. It’s not at all original and elements of the plot are mostly manufactured, but the dedicated performances and feel-good spirit carry it through. In an industry where real friendships between performers, especially in the early Hollywood days, were uncommon, this film is a testament to one of the best outliers.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more