LAUREL AND HARDY: THEM THAR HILLS

 

"Pom-Pom!" 

It is a remarkable thing how a film from 1934 has not aged a day. It is doubly so, considering this is a comedy. Comedy ages so much faster than other genres, because it is so often tied into the specifics of the time when it was produced. Them Thar Hills was released in July of 1934, just over seven months after the Prohibition of Alcohol was repealed, following a decade plus of thirsty people suffering through with bathtub gin and moonshine. Them Thar Hills is topical in the sense that extra comedy is derived from the illicit nature of this short, but it retains every laugh because the meat of the comedy isn't dependent on having lived through Prohibition. Not for the first time, Laurel and Hardy get another man's wife drunk, and it is the innocence of it all that raise the biggest chuckles for me. "It's the iron in it!"  

Ollie has gout and the doctor recommends that he takes to the country for a break to relax and recover. From the opening bit of elite tier physical comedy that ends with Ollie falling into a bath, to the ridiculously hilarious misunderstanding of quickly dumped moonshine into a well leading to our heroes getting very, very drunk, this is arguably the best short that Laurel and Hardy ever produced. So much so in fact that it led to a sequel - Tit For Tat - some months later. To me, what makes Them Thar Hills so special is the way in which it exemplifies the secret magic of Stan and Ollie; that at heart they love each other and are the best of friends. When they fight it is very funny, but when they join forces in their confusion and misunderstanding of basic human behaviour, it is even funnier. As Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein -  showrunners of The Simpsons in seasons seven and eight - have said: when you are emotionally invested in the characters, you will like the jokes better. 

Them Thar Hills is equal parts an hilarious and a joyous kind of comedy that does not have an ounce of cynicism to it. It is this, I think, that is the secret to their enduring success. We root for Stan and Ollie, because at heart they are good people. Confused? Yes. At odds with basic human social functioning? Absolutely. But we want them to succeed because at one time or another, we have felt that kind of disconnect with the world around us. There is another interesting thread to many of their best shorts, as it concerns their social status. They are hard done by and down on their luck with no safety net. This too, I think, gives their comedy a resonance through the nearly century long period since they began working together. They deserve a better place in life, and that makes the chaos that comes from their being together, all the more impactful and hilarious. They mean well, they really do.  

Laurel and Hardy would play with alcohol again in another wonderful short - Blotto - which is a kind of inverted concept, where they think they are getting drunk but are really stone cold sober. Laurel and Hardy's genius was in crafting comedies that weren't reliant on specific references that would date their humour. Yes, this short takes place during the Prohibition era of the United States, but it is not at all reliant on one having more than a very cursory understanding of what that entailed. This too was a strategy employed by The Simpsons, that mostly kept their core humour outside of time. They probably won't remember in 50 years who Pauly Shore was, but a man pouring molasses over a jerk's face and sticking his own hair on his chin as a makeshift beard will always be funny.    

THE RARE GENIUS OF ORSON WELLES PART ONE: THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS

 

It is an easier story to tell, that after Orson Welles' debut feature film, Citizen Kane, it was all downhill from there. Orson himself joked, "I started at the top and worked my way down." The truth is however far more difficult to square with the myth of a great artist undone by, as David Fincher described, "delusional hubris". That is, that the apparent decline of Welles' career was caused by his own arrogance. This is however, while appearing to be a statement of discernment and unvarnished truth telling, a profound misunderstanding of the filmography of Orson Welles, post Citizen Kane. Did Welles achieve Kane all by himself? No, of course not. No film is accomplished without a dedicated and talented team of artists. From the work of (uncredited) screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz to the cinematography of Gregg Toland, Citizen Kane was brought to life by many hard working and talented people. The driving force behind Kane, as with any great Director, was undeniably however, Orson Welles. 

To sustain the argument that Welles' subsequent years of being on the outside and being unable to achieve anything that matched up to his debut, is however most difficult to achieve when one actually examines his work post Kane. Even while assaulted by uncaring studio interference, with micro-budgets and all manner of bad luck, this series will examine how and why Orson Welles artistic genius still burned bright. From The Magnificent Ambersons to F For Fake, there is not a film directed by Welles that fails to entrance and beguile with its elite level artistry. Each film is a work of genius, compromised or not. 

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942)

It is a challenge to follow up the film that countless people now consider to be in the very shortlist of greatest motion pictures ever made, with many declaring it the greatest, period. Orson Welles was up to the challenge. The Magnificent Ambersons is an exceptionally nuanced exploration of love and the capricious nature of life. What usually accompanies talk about Welles' second feature is how, unlike Citizen Kane, he did not possess complete creative control, and as such an incongruous happy ending was attached and the running time cut with little care or sensitivity to the nature of the work. It is a very sad thing indeed that Welles' cut is most likely lost or destroyed. Even so, The Magnificent Ambersons remains a work of considerable genius. That Welles' vision was maintained, even when it was compromised by those at the studio, is a point in favor for the argument I am outlining here; that Orson Welles did not have an artistic decline. 

The Magnificent Ambersons however is the story of a family's decline. It carries an emotional weight to it that is arguably not found in Citizen Kane (which was intentionally cold and detached), and as such it allows Welles to stretch his artistic legs and display his range. Even with the reduced running time and a most inappropriate ending that leaves things far too clean - this is a story of how life's paths and unexpected tragedies can leave even "great" people with nothing, after all - The Magnificent Ambersons is an exceptional film. Joseph Cotten's subtle, heartbreaking performance as a man whose true love was forever just out of reach, is among his very best. Agnes Moorehead likewise gives a career high performance as a woman who is watching life go by from the sidelines. It is the precise and overpowering way in which Welles crafts this story of unrequited love and the almost mundane tragedies that can come to us all, no matter the power and wealth one possesses, that gives this picture its almost magical quality. In this way, The Magnificent Ambersons has a lot in common with Citizen Kane. Both express the uncaring way in which life can leave a person in ruins, no matter their ostensible privilege or position in society.

Arguably the most important character in The Magnificent Ambersons is George, played with obnoxious flair by Tim Holt. Welles sets him up early as one needing to receive "his comeuppance". George's journey in the film, from an arrogant belief that the world is there to meet every one of his desires, to a man left decimated by the uncaring nature of life, is the center around which the entire film rotates. The unfortunate happy ending is at odds with the solipsism of George, and the just desserts that come to him, it is true. It would be unkind and untrue however to say that it ruins the film. The ending's happy note is brief and cannot extinguish the mastery with which Welles and his team craft the rise and downfall of this man. 

If The Magnificent Ambersons is meant to be a sign of Welles', near immediate, decline, then it is a remarkably strange one to hold up as evidence. This is a great film. It reaches artistic highs that few ever even approach. Even with that tacked on ending, it is still undeniably a work of genius. It is quiet, and nuanced, and not as obviously as new or shocking as Kane, but it is quite clearly from the same vision of a genius. To be able to examine the everyday tragedy, and the everyday joy that come from simply putting one foot after the other and making our way through life, in such beautiful clarity and with such unusual insight, is something that only a great film maker could do. If Citizen Kane was evidence of Orson Welles' daring invention, then The Magnificent Ambersons is evidence of his unusual eye for the human story. There is a heart here that is mostly absent from Kane, and proof of how Welles was incapable of doing any story in anything other than an unusual and compelling way.  

 

My Declaration of Principles

 

                                                                                I.

I WILL PROVIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD WITH A DAILY BLOG THAT WILL EXAMINE ALL ART HONESTLY.

                                                                                II.

I WILL ALSO PROVIDE THEM WITH A FIGHTING AND TIRELESS CHAMPION OF THEIR ARTISTIC RIGHTS AS CITIZENS AND AS HUMAN BEINGS.