Chumps at Oxford

[Jim Beaver]

Just watched the Hal Roach production of OF MICE AND MEN (1939) and noticed
that when Betty Field holds up a flyer for a movie theatre, the three titles
are CAPTAIN FURY, ZENOBIA, and CHUMPS AT OXFORD (all Hal Roach films). The
odd thing is that OF MICE AND MEN came out before A CHUMP AT OXFORD, so I
can onlyguess that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was either a working title for the film
then in production, or the prop department made a mistake. I've never read
anything to suggest that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was an alternate title, and it
kind of messes with the play on words with the previous year's title A YANK
AT OXFORD. I'm leaning toward the prop department making an error. Anyone
ever hear of this as a working title?

Jim Beaver

[MJ]

Jim-

I suspect that you are correct, but that's not why I'm writing. I
recently finished reading "Hollywood Kryptonite," a highly
entertaining and (perhaps) informative volume. I really enjoyed your
comments specifically. But a question lingers. Did anyone buy the
ashes that you were offered? And if so, did they believe they were
George's ashes?

I found it both amazing and humorous that you knew about the dog. Only
showbiz nutcases like you and I would have put that together in such a
Sherlockholmesian elementary fashion.

Do you have any irons in the not too distant fire? Sorry to say I saw
very few "Deadwood" episodes, but I liked what I did see. I did catch
your attempt at stand up comedy. Now, that takes balls, and you came
off pretty good.

What I'd really like to see are a few books from you. You seem to have
enough show business stories to fill several. Given the continued
popularity of your late father-in-law, a book of anticdotes on him
would be a good start. Doesn't have to be a full-blown bio; just a
collection of the tidbits I always enjoy hearing from you.

Anyway, continued success and best wishes!

-MJ

[Jim Beaver]

Post by MJ
Jim-
I suspect that you are correct, but that's not why I'm writing. I
recently finished reading "Hollywood Kryptonite," a highly
entertaining and (perhaps) informative volume. I really enjoyed your
comments specifically. But a question lingers. Did anyone buy the
ashes that you were offered? And if so, did they believe they were
George's ashes?
I found it both amazing and humorous that you knew about the dog. Only
showbiz nutcases like you and I would have put that together in such a
Sherlockholmesian elementary fashion.
Do you have any irons in the not too distant fire? Sorry to say I saw
very few "Deadwood" episodes, but I liked what I did see. I did catch
your attempt at stand up comedy. Now, that takes balls, and you came
off pretty good.
What I'd really like to see are a few books from you. You seem to have
enough show business stories to fill several. Given the continued
popularity of your late father-in-law, a book of anticdotes on him
would be a good start. Doesn't have to be a full-blown bio; just a
collection of the tidbits I always enjoy hearing from you.
Anyway, continued success and best wishes!

I don't know if anyone ever fell for the ashes thing or whether the seller
found a buyer. I thought it was pretty funny, too funny to ruin by telling
him the truth.

That said, I utterly repudiate the book "Hollywood Kryptonite," despite the
assistance I gave the writers and the fact that they dedicated the hardcover
edition to me (among others). It's a work of fiction, imho, masquerading as
fact. The authors misled me and quite a number of other people in gaining
our help and insights, and apparently created huge chunks of the book out of
whole cloth or distorted versions of what they were told. I have nor have I
ever had a financial connection to the book's success or failure. I simply
was astonished with what they did with what they were told. Don't believe
any of it. Some of it's true, but so little as to make it easier to just
disbelieve the whole thing.

"Deadwood" is over, but the DVDs sell well, so there's a few hundred bucks a
year. Meantime, I console myself with a running part on "Supernatural", a
show on the CW network. I'm in my third season and we just got picked up
for a fourth.

The stand-up act on YouTube was something I did at a private party, that was
captured unbeknownst to me by someone's camera. I had no idea it had been
recorded till it showed up on YouTube. The party, in 2006, was more than 20
years after the last time I'd done stand-up, so I was winging it from an
increasingly creaky memory. It came out all right, I suppose, for what it
was and when it was.

I have a book coming out next year, though it's not quite the sort you
suggested. It's a memoir of the year following my wife's cancer diagnosis
and my daughter's autism diagnosis. Putnam's publishing it, probably in
spring, 2009. It's called "Life's That Way."

My father-in-law actually wrote an autobiography, and my agent is shopping
it even as we speak. Keep your fingers crossed.

Jim Beaver

[MJ]

Well, I thought I was seeing holes in the story, which is why I added
that it was "possibly" informative. It was very entertaining and well
written, however. I suppose that if it were me being led down a
certain path only to find the destination not at all what was
expected, I would feel the way you do toward it. Since it wasn't me, I
could just sit back and enjoy it. You, however, are well within your
rights to be pissed off.

I doubt that anyone thinks you had a stake in the book, financial or
otherwise. You were sort of an, "expert witness." Personally, I really
enjoyed your insights. But the presentation of everything as fact did
bother me. A hundred years from now, this book may be the source for
often retold stories, by then being accepted as fact. We've seen it
happen time and time again.

I look forward to "Life's That Way" and the Adams autobiography. I'm
not familiar with "Supernatural," but I'll keep and eye out for it.

-MJ

[Matt Barry]

Post by Jim Beaver
Just watched the Hal Roach production of OF MICE AND MEN (1939) and
noticed that when Betty Field holds up a flyer for a movie theatre, the
three titles are CAPTAIN FURY, ZENOBIA, and CHUMPS AT OXFORD (all Hal
Roach films). The odd thing is that OF MICE AND MEN came out before A
CHUMP AT OXFORD, so I can onlyguess that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was either a
working title for the film then in production, or the prop department made
a mistake. I've never read anything to suggest that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was
an alternate title, and it kind of messes with the play on words with the
previous year's title A YANK AT OXFORD. I'm leaning toward the prop
department making an error. Anyone ever hear of this as a working title?
Jim Beaver

"Chumps at Oxford" was/is a sort of "unofficial" alternate title, and I've
heard the film casually referred to many times under that title before (it
makes more sense, really, but as you point out, the film's title is a play
on "A Yank at Oxford"). I'd chalk it up to prop department error,
ultimately.

As far as it being included in "Of Mice and Men", "A Chump at Oxford" was
actually completed earlier in 1939, but was withheld from release until 1940
(so much time elapsed, in fact, that Laurel and Hardy had time to shoot and
release another feature in the interim-"The Flying Deuces", independently
produced by Boris Morros and released by RKO). Part of the reason for the
delay was that Roach ordered about two additonal reels of footage to be shot
(the dinner party sequence in the beginning) so that the film could play as
a feature in the European market (the original US version only ran 42
minutes, but all circulating copies seem to derive from the 63 minute
European version).

Incidentally, if you get a chance to see the original trailer, you can see
some alternate shots from the US version that aren't in the available
European cut.

[Hal Erickson]

Post by Matt Barry

Post by Jim Beaver
Just watched the Hal Roach production of OF MICE AND MEN (1939) and
noticed that when Betty Field holds up a flyer for a movie theatre, the
three titles are CAPTAIN FURY, ZENOBIA, and CHUMPS AT OXFORD (all Hal
Roach films). The odd thing is that OF MICE AND MEN came out before A
CHUMP AT OXFORD, so I can onlyguess that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was either a
working title for the film then in production, or the prop department
made a mistake. I've never read anything to suggest that CHUMPS AT
OXFORD was an alternate title, and it kind of messes with the play on
words with the previous year's title A YANK AT OXFORD. I'm leaning
toward the prop department making an error. Anyone ever hear of this as
a working title?
Jim Beaver

"Chumps at Oxford" was/is a sort of "unofficial" alternate title, and I've
heard the film casually referred to many times under that title before (it
makes more sense, really, but as you point out, the film's title is a play
on "A Yank at Oxford"). I'd chalk it up to prop department error,
ultimately.
As far as it being included in "Of Mice and Men", "A Chump at Oxford" was
actually completed earlier in 1939, but was withheld from release until
1940 (so much time elapsed, in fact, that Laurel and Hardy had time to
shoot and release another feature in the interim-"The Flying Deuces",
independently produced by Boris Morros and released by RKO). Part of the
reason for the delay was that Roach ordered about two additonal reels of
footage to be shot (the dinner party sequence in the beginning) so that
the film could play as a feature in the European market (the original US
version only ran 42 minutes, but all circulating copies seem to derive
from the 63 minute European version).
Incidentally, if you get a chance to see the original trailer, you can see
some alternate shots from the US version that aren't in the available
European cut.
--
Matt Barry

There's some question over how long the 42-minute version was in
circulation. Some
historians now suggest that the 63-minute version was available in the US by
mid-1940, and that the shorter cut was withdrawn. Scott MacGillivray's
LAUREL AND HARDY: FROM THE FORTIES FORWARD
goes into detail about the two different versions.

--Hal E

[Matt Barry]

Post by Hal Erickson

Post by Matt Barry

Post by Jim Beaver
Just watched the Hal Roach production of OF MICE AND MEN (1939) and
noticed that when Betty Field holds up a flyer for a movie theatre, the
three titles are CAPTAIN FURY, ZENOBIA, and CHUMPS AT OXFORD (all Hal
Roach films). The odd thing is that OF MICE AND MEN came out before A
CHUMP AT OXFORD, so I can onlyguess that CHUMPS AT OXFORD was either a
working title for the film then in production, or the prop department
made a mistake. I've never read anything to suggest that CHUMPS AT
OXFORD was an alternate title, and it kind of messes with the play on
words with the previous year's title A YANK AT OXFORD. I'm leaning
toward the prop department making an error. Anyone ever hear of this as
a working title?
Jim Beaver

"Chumps at Oxford" was/is a sort of "unofficial" alternate title, and
I've heard the film casually referred to many times under that title
before (it makes more sense, really, but as you point out, the film's
title is a play on "A Yank at Oxford"). I'd chalk it up to prop
department error, ultimately.
As far as it being included in "Of Mice and Men", "A Chump at Oxford" was
actually completed earlier in 1939, but was withheld from release until
1940 (so much time elapsed, in fact, that Laurel and Hardy had time to
shoot and release another feature in the interim-"The Flying Deuces",
independently produced by Boris Morros and released by RKO). Part of the
reason for the delay was that Roach ordered about two additonal reels of
footage to be shot (the dinner party sequence in the beginning) so that
the film could play as a feature in the European market (the original US
version only ran 42 minutes, but all circulating copies seem to derive
from the 63 minute European version).
Incidentally, if you get a chance to see the original trailer, you can
see some alternate shots from the US version that aren't in the available
European cut.
--
Matt Barry

There's some question over how long the 42-minute version was in
circulation. Some
historians now suggest that the 63-minute version was available in the US
by mid-1940, and that the shorter cut was withdrawn. Scott MacGillivray's
LAUREL AND HARDY: FROM THE FORTIES FORWARD
goes into detail about the two different versions.
--Hal E

The extra 20 minutes are some of the funniest stuff in the film, IMO.

On a side note, I'm always surprised by dismissive attitude Roach took
toward Laurel and Hardy at that point in their careers. I've seen a number
of the other "streamliners" he produced around that time, featuring the
likes of William Bendix, Patsy Kelly, Zasu Pitts and Slim Summerville, and
frankly, they can't even begin to approach the quality of the Laurel and
Hardy films.

[MJ]

Post by Matt Barry
Incidentally, if you get a chance to see the original trailer, you can
see some alternate shots from the US version that aren't in the available
European cut.

I noticed that in the "March of the Wooden Soldiers" trailer, also.
However, I'm not sure they were alternates takes; they look like they
may have been discarded takes from another camera.One was the dunking
scene. As I recall, the shot I'm thinking of was done as a longshot in
the trailer, but looks like the same take that was shown considerably
closer in the final print.

It's pretty cool to still pick up on stuff like that about 3/4 of a
century after the fact, isn't it?

-MJ

[Matt Barry]

Post by MJ

Post by Matt Barry
Incidentally, if you get a chance to see the original trailer, you can
see some alternate shots from the US version that aren't in the available
European cut.

I noticed that in the "March of the Wooden Soldiers" trailer, also.
However, I'm not sure they were alternates takes; they look like they
may have been discarded takes from another camera.One was the dunking
scene. As I recall, the shot I'm thinking of was done as a longshot in
the trailer, but looks like the same take that was shown considerably
closer in the final print.
It's pretty cool to still pick up on stuff like that about 3/4 of a
century after the fact, isn't it?
-MJ

It is. It would be really interesting to have had access to all those
outtakes when they still existed. Of course, we're talking about hundreds of
hours of footage that would been completely unfeasible to store, but it's
still fun to imagine what bits didn't make it in to the final cuts.

[j***@joelibby.net]

As has been pointed out in From the Forties Forward, the 42-minute
"Chump at Oxford" is a different cut of the film than the 63-minute
European release. While it's probably just a dream on my part, it
would be great to have a DVD containing both versions for comparison.

Speaking of alternate shots in the trailers, that's one of the very
interesting things on DVDs of the Fox films. One that stands out in my
mind is the end of the Jitterbugs trailer: Stan and Ollie, in the
desert, react to an offscreen auto horn. This shot is the same take
used in the film, but it continues a few seconds longer in the trailer
and you can see Babe start to relax (apparently as Mal St. Clair
called "cut").

See ya!
Joe L.
www.joelibby.net

[Eric Perlin]

"Matt Barry" wrote:

} The extra 20 minutes are some of the funniest stuff
} in the film, IMO.

I enjoyed it also, but I thought it seemed tacked on (which of course it was).
The 63-minute "A Chump At Oxford" looks like two separate films pasted together.

[Matt Barry]

Post by Eric Perlin
} The extra 20 minutes are some of the funniest stuff
} in the film, IMO.
I enjoyed it also, but I thought it seemed tacked on (which of course it was).
The 63-minute "A Chump At Oxford" looks like two separate films pasted together.

Yeah, it's definitely uneven. I used to actually find the opening dinner
party scenes somewhat forced, and found myself wanting to get forward to the
"Oxford" scenes. Watching the film now, I've come to love that dinner party
scene, which is one of Hardy's best performances in my opinion and his
moments in this sequence reduce me to tears with laughter (when he sounds
that little bell for dinner with typical Hardy flourish, then announces
"we've got everything from soup to nuts", I lose it).

My absolute favorite scene from the film, however, is the hedge maze scene.
It's hard to think of a funnier sequence ever put on film.