Discussion:
Autographed Hal Roach Book
(too old to reply)
s***@yahoo.com
2005-04-15 00:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Just to let everyone know, The History Of Hal Roach Studios is now
available with Dr. Ward's own signature. Go to
www.passchristianbooks.com to place your order.

The books is selling well. If it does well enough, Dr. Ward plans a
second print with additional information and photos not originally
allowed by SIU Press. Why they limited the material for the initial
run, I don't know.

Hope everyone enjoys.

---Beau
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-15 05:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Anyone here in the group have this book yet? I called a local Los
Angeles book shop specializing in books on cinema, theater and the arts
and they said their shipment hasn't arrived yet.

Maybe I should wait for the second printing with additional photos and
info.

Curious on how it is.

Mister Levity
cseguin
2005-04-15 10:56:16 UTC
Permalink
The book is quite fascinating; not a lot of details about the films or art
of comedy, but more of a business treatise of the rise and downfall of a
Hollywood independent during the big studio era. It explains a lot about
what happened to the studio, and I'd highly recommend it.
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Anyone here in the group have this book yet? I called a local Los
Angeles book shop specializing in books on cinema, theater and the arts
and they said their shipment hasn't arrived yet.
Maybe I should wait for the second printing with additional photos and
info.
Curious on how it is.
Mister Levity
cseguin
2005-04-15 11:00:55 UTC
Permalink
The book is quite fascinating; not a lot of details about the films or art
of comedy, but more of a business treatise of the rise and downfall of a
Hollywood independent during the big studio era. It explains a lot about
what happened to the studio, and I'd highly recommend it.
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Anyone here in the group have this book yet? I called a local Los
Angeles book shop specializing in books on cinema, theater and the arts
and they said their shipment hasn't arrived yet.
Maybe I should wait for the second printing with additional photos and
info.
Curious on how it is.
Mister Levity
YS
2005-04-19 23:52:20 UTC
Permalink
I agree Chris, an interesting book about the studio although devoid of
much film analysis. Definitely worth it for the die-hard Roach fan.
I've got a review of the book up on my Charley Chase website for those
interested (see link below).

Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
Rob Farr
2005-04-22 11:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Very insightful review Yair. I too was a little surprised with Ward's
criticism of the Chase talkies and the use of "A Pip From Pittsburg" as an
example of a falling off. If I were to pick a straw film to knock down, I
would have chosen "You Said a Hatful". Awful. But the book is quite
interesting and takes an unique apprach primarily because it is a corporate
history rather than a biographical one. But I know of at least one and
probably more forthcoming Roach tomes that will deal with the Roach team's
artistic contributions to comedy. And as long as we're on the subject of
Charley Chase, I'll stick in an unabashed plug for the Slapsticon, which
will screen two silent Chase subjects that are new to me: Charley My Boy
(1926) and Assistant Wives (1927).

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by YS
I agree Chris, an interesting book about the studio although devoid of
much film analysis. Definitely worth it for the die-hard Roach fan.
I've got a review of the book up on my Charley Chase website for those
interested (see link below).
Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
L***@hotmail.com
2005-04-24 16:35:43 UTC
Permalink
I'm still relatively early in the book, but it's upsetting to me that a
$45 tome wasn't fact-checked better. The OUR GANG series wasn't the
longest-running theatrical series of short comedies (Stooges fans
must've done a spit-take when they read that), and the author seems to
have confused Monogram and Mascot. I hope the rest of the book is a
little more exact.

Gravy
James Neibaur
2005-04-24 20:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@hotmail.com
I'm still relatively early in the book, but it's upsetting to me that a
$45 tome wasn't fact-checked better. The OUR GANG series wasn't the
longest-running theatrical series of short comedies (Stooges fans
must've done a spit-take when they read that), and the author seems to
have confused Monogram and Mascot. I hope the rest of the book is a
little more exact.
Whoa, you just did it for me. Thanks for the heads up.

passing---

JN
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-24 20:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@hotmail.com
I'm still relatively early in the book, but it's upsetting to me that a
$45 tome wasn't fact-checked better. The OUR GANG series wasn't the
longest-running theatrical series of short comedies (Stooges fans
must've done a spit-take when they read that), and the author seems to
have confused Monogram and Mascot. I hope the rest of the book is a
little more exact.
Gravy
Thanks for the thoughts. Glad I didn't get this book yet. Let us know
more after you read the rest. Generally I stay away from books with an
academic slant cuz big fancy words confuse me. So I want to make sure
if it's worth getting it.

Mister Levity
James Neibaur
2005-04-24 21:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Generally I stay away from books with an
academic slant cuz big fancy words confuse me.
They challenge my perspicacity too!

JN
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-25 19:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Generally I stay away from books with an
academic slant cuz big fancy words confuse me.
They challenge my perspicacity too!
JN
Under arm deorderant will help with that perspiration problem.

Mister Levity
James Neibaur
2005-04-25 21:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by James Neibaur
They challenge my perspicacity too!
JN
Under arm deorderant will help with that perspiration problem.
I just wait till it rains.

JN
L***@hotmail.com
2005-04-26 04:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Other than what I've already mentioned, nothing jumps out at me as a
glaring error, although there are some omissions: for example, the
author writes that Roach's agreement with MGM precluded him from
reissuing the old Our Gang shorts without MGM's written approval, but
the next mention of them is Roach selling them to TV in 1951. Did MGM
give its approval, gratis? Did the TV sale not count as a reissue? Did
the rights revert to Roach, or did he purchase them back? You won't
find out from reading this particular book. I also gave up trying to
follow the "financial information" provided in the back of the book.
Excel spreadsheet, anybody?

I also disagree with the disparaging remarks the author makes about
Charley Chase's 1930s Roach films.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-26 06:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@hotmail.com
Other than what I've already mentioned, nothing jumps out at me as a
glaring error, although there are some omissions: for example, the
author writes that Roach's agreement with MGM precluded him from
reissuing the old Our Gang shorts without MGM's written approval, but
the next mention of them is Roach selling them to TV in 1951. Did MGM
give its approval, gratis? Did the TV sale not count as a reissue? Did
the rights revert to Roach, or did he purchase them back? You won't
find out from reading this particular book.
MGM owned the name Our Gang when they bought the series from Roach.
Isn't that why Hal Roach's Our Gang was remaned The Little rascals for
the TV sale? Maybe this was the legal loophole. I agree, the author
should explain all this.

Mister Levity
L***@hotmail.com
2005-04-26 17:55:10 UTC
Permalink
MGM bought the rights to the "Our Gang" name, and thus the shorts were
renamed. But Roach also signed a "non-compete" contract preventing him
from doing Our Gang-type films -- so how does the author explain Curley
and His Gang? He doesn't.

The pictures were excellent, although there should've been more of
them. Various views of the Roach offices, one as it was being built,
another during the heyday of the 1930s, and then finally as it was
about to be demolished, are just about the most interesting things in
the book, along with the complete checklist of films in the back of the
book. The author, by the way, exonerates Hal Roach, Jr. from the
studio's demise, and blames general economic woes brought about by the
debt incurred by the studio in the early 1940s.
r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
2005-04-26 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
As a lifelong fan of the Roach studio generally and Laurel and Hardy
specifically, to say nothing of having worked very hard on this book
for the last 16 years, I take the concerns and errors/omissions stated
here very seriously. In the unlikely event that I am ever permitted to
make any changes for future printings, I want to be sure I have my
facts straight.

I have reviewed the complaints thus far and would like to make the
following observations.

If I ever state that Our Gang was THE longest-running short comedy
series, I am clearly wrong. However, I cannot find that particular
claim in the book. On page 48, I do say that Our Gang was "ONE of the
longest short comedy series in film history." In the context of the
paragraph, it should be clear that length refers to production span and
not film running time.

It is asserted that I confuse Mascot and Monogram. This is possible,
since I don't claim to be an expert in the history of either studio.
However, looking at the one Mascot and three Monogram entries cited in
the index, I cannot find where the supposed confusion arises. My single
reference to Mascot is to its acquiring the old Sennett studio in 1935.
To quote my source, the Motion Picture Herald of January 26, 1935, "The
property was bought by Nat Levine, lessor of the studio, for whose
Mascot Pictures a Tom Mix serial will be produced." Two of the
Monogram references refer to it generically as a producer of low-budget
pictures. The third refers to Republic Pictures and Monogram as
producers of low-budget westerns and serials. I believe this is
correct.

As to "Curley," "Who Killed Doc Robbin?," and the no-compete clause in
the contract under which MGM acquired Our Gang, I devote most of the
last paragraph on page 133 to that very situation. The last sentence in
this section says, "Ultimately, MGM reluctantly gave Roach permission
to produce a new 'Kid' series, so long as the name 'Our Gang' was not
used and no comparison was drawn in studio publicity between Roach's
new pictures and his old 'Gangs.' "

Despite the above, MGM seems to have lost much of their interest in the
non-compete contract after they ceased production on the series in
1944, with the exception of not allowing the Our Gang name to be used
(something I go into in great and loving detail). This is why they had
no problem with the release of the old Gangs to television. This was
more explicitly stated in an earlier, longer version of the book.

As to my "disparaging" remarks about Charley Chase, most are merely my
quoting Roach studio documents. Regarding my feeling that Chase's sound
films are a real disappointment after the brilliance of his late silent
work, I clearly state that this is a subjective opinion of my own.
Perhaps I should not have advanced any opinion, good or bad, about any
of the films.

I agree that more text and pictures would have been nice. I was working
under strict limits set by the publisher.

I welcome this type of dialogue with the fanbase for whom the book was
intended. As I said upfront, I want to be sure I correct any errors if
ever given the opportunity to do so in future printings. I just hope
that those criticizing my work will realize that I really put a lot of
my life into this book and I really love these films. I guess the
silver lining is that I will try to be kinder in my own future comments
on the various web boards. I'll never say an unkind word about the
Alloy Orchestra again, I promise.

Richard Ward
James Neibaur
2005-04-27 02:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
I'll never say an unkind word about the
Alloy Orchestra again, I promise.
I wasn't too nice to Alloy in my Cineaste review of the Arbuckle-Keaton
films on the Kino DVD, but I saw Alloy accompany Nosferatu live a couple of
years ago and it was a great experience. So it can go either way with them.

JN
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-27 14:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Alloy makes the most awful sounding crap I ever heard. Diarrhea for the
ears.
Rob Farr
2005-04-27 03:59:53 UTC
Permalink
I found the book fascinating and hope you won't take well-meant criticism
personally. We kvetch because we love. I hope that in your second edition
you'll be able to incorporate the research of Annette D'Agostino, who wrote
Harold Lloyd: A Bio-Bibliography (1994) and The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia
(2003). She too has spent her life researching her favorite topic, and came
up with proof that the original "Lonesome Luke" one-reeler did *not* star
Harold Lloyd. Also, watch for Richard Roberts and Joe Moore's forthcoming
book on the forgotten Roach series which will contain a book-length Hal
Roach filmography (full disclosure: I contributed to this project).

I would like to assure anyone who feels scared off by the fact that Dr.
Ward's book was published by a university press that it is most accessible
reading. In fact it is an antidote to the kinds of structuralist narratives
that that gets published in high-falutin' academic tomes. It is very
well-grounded in historical fact with a minimum of analysis of the films. In
fact, I feel the series synopses in Appendix 2 could have been expanded with
more series and key films discussed. Stan Laurel's series for Roach in the
mid-1920s the other forgotten series deserved at least a few sentences.

But again I hasten to say that most in this group would have liked a 500
page epic and would still have clamored for more. Hopefully Dr. Ward's book
will be the first among many on the Hal Roach bookshelf.

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
As a lifelong fan of the Roach studio generally and Laurel and Hardy
specifically, to say nothing of having worked very hard on this book
for the last 16 years, I take the concerns and errors/omissions stated
here very seriously. In the unlikely event that I am ever permitted to
make any changes for future printings, I want to be sure I have my
facts straight.
I have reviewed the complaints thus far and would like to make the
following observations.
If I ever state that Our Gang was THE longest-running short comedy
series, I am clearly wrong. However, I cannot find that particular
claim in the book. On page 48, I do say that Our Gang was "ONE of the
longest short comedy series in film history." In the context of the
paragraph, it should be clear that length refers to production span and
not film running time.
It is asserted that I confuse Mascot and Monogram. This is possible,
since I don't claim to be an expert in the history of either studio.
However, looking at the one Mascot and three Monogram entries cited in
the index, I cannot find where the supposed confusion arises. My single
reference to Mascot is to its acquiring the old Sennett studio in 1935.
To quote my source, the Motion Picture Herald of January 26, 1935, "The
property was bought by Nat Levine, lessor of the studio, for whose
Mascot Pictures a Tom Mix serial will be produced." Two of the
Monogram references refer to it generically as a producer of low-budget
pictures. The third refers to Republic Pictures and Monogram as
producers of low-budget westerns and serials. I believe this is
correct.
As to "Curley," "Who Killed Doc Robbin?," and the no-compete clause in
the contract under which MGM acquired Our Gang, I devote most of the
last paragraph on page 133 to that very situation. The last sentence in
this section says, "Ultimately, MGM reluctantly gave Roach permission
to produce a new 'Kid' series, so long as the name 'Our Gang' was not
used and no comparison was drawn in studio publicity between Roach's
new pictures and his old 'Gangs.' "
Despite the above, MGM seems to have lost much of their interest in the
non-compete contract after they ceased production on the series in
1944, with the exception of not allowing the Our Gang name to be used
(something I go into in great and loving detail). This is why they had
no problem with the release of the old Gangs to television. This was
more explicitly stated in an earlier, longer version of the book.
As to my "disparaging" remarks about Charley Chase, most are merely my
quoting Roach studio documents. Regarding my feeling that Chase's sound
films are a real disappointment after the brilliance of his late silent
work, I clearly state that this is a subjective opinion of my own.
Perhaps I should not have advanced any opinion, good or bad, about any
of the films.
I agree that more text and pictures would have been nice. I was working
under strict limits set by the publisher.
I welcome this type of dialogue with the fanbase for whom the book was
intended. As I said upfront, I want to be sure I correct any errors if
ever given the opportunity to do so in future printings. I just hope
that those criticizing my work will realize that I really put a lot of
my life into this book and I really love these films. I guess the
silver lining is that I will try to be kinder in my own future comments
on the various web boards. I'll never say an unkind word about the
Alloy Orchestra again, I promise.
Richard Ward
r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
2005-04-27 15:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Hopefully Dr. Ward's book will be the first among many on the Hal Roach
bookshelf.
Thanks for the kind words, Rob, and I'd like to second the above
sentiment. We need more books on Hal Roach and his studio, and I am
really looking forward to the Roberts, Moore, Farr book.

Richard Ward
e***@aol.com
2005-05-03 04:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Any criticism towards this book is purely superficial, there is so much
newly gathered information on the Hal Roach studios of real interest
that any comedy buff will be delighted. So what if the films
themselves are not discussed in any great detail, there's books and
in-depth articles already available discussing significant Hal Roach
series (Laurel & Hardy, Harold Lloyd, Our Gang, Charley Chase, Max
Davidson), and the forthcoming Roberts & Moore volume will fill in any
missing gaps. Compared to the published volumes on Mack Sennett, Mr.
Ward's book is singularly more wothwhile than the Louvish, Lahue,
Fowler and Shipp tomes combined. In short, buy Richard Ward's Roach
book, it is an illuminating read and a highly enjoyable one as well.

Ed Watz
steverino
2005-05-08 21:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@hotmail.com
Other than what I've already mentioned, nothing jumps out at me as a
glaring error, although there are some omissions: for example, the
author writes that Roach's agreement with MGM precluded him from
reissuing the old Our Gang shorts without MGM's written approval, but
the next mention of them is Roach selling them to TV in 1951. Did MGM
give its approval, gratis? Did the TV sale not count as a reissue? Did
the rights revert to Roach, or did he purchase them back? Roach
bought them back.

e***@aol.com
2005-05-07 01:01:07 UTC
Permalink
I thought Richard Ward's book was populated with fewer errors than,
say, any one of Simon Louvish's recent comedy-oriented biographies.
The author states correctly that Our Gang was one of the longest
running short subject series but I do not see anywhere that he states
Our Gang was *the* longest-running series. Yes, I agree there are a
lot worse Chase talkies than PIP FROM PITTSBURGH, which is actually
quite good by any standards. On the negative side of Chase talkies
there's things like WHAT A BOZO, THE TABASCO KID, THE NICKLE NURSER,
I'LL TAKE VANILLA, THE CRACKED ICEMAN...after 1931 there seem to be
more turkeys than good shorts each year until 1935, when the overall
tone of the films improves remarkably. I could never understand how a
tepid short like CHASES OF PIMPLE STREET receives high water marks when
a genuine classic like FATE'S FATHEAD is pointedly ignored...but then
somebody needs to do a real evaluation of Charley's existing Roach
work, film by film.

Ed Watz
Rob Farr
2005-05-07 01:33:04 UTC
Permalink
They don't get much worse than "You Said a Hatful"!
Post by e***@aol.com
I thought Richard Ward's book was populated with fewer errors than,
say, any one of Simon Louvish's recent comedy-oriented biographies.
The author states correctly that Our Gang was one of the longest
running short subject series but I do not see anywhere that he states
Our Gang was *the* longest-running series. Yes, I agree there are a
lot worse Chase talkies than PIP FROM PITTSBURGH, which is actually
quite good by any standards. On the negative side of Chase talkies
there's things like WHAT A BOZO, THE TABASCO KID, THE NICKLE NURSER,
I'LL TAKE VANILLA, THE CRACKED ICEMAN...after 1931 there seem to be
more turkeys than good shorts each year until 1935, when the overall
tone of the films improves remarkably. I could never understand how a
tepid short like CHASES OF PIMPLE STREET receives high water marks when
a genuine classic like FATE'S FATHEAD is pointedly ignored...but then
somebody needs to do a real evaluation of Charley's existing Roach
work, film by film.
Ed Watz
e***@aol.com
2005-05-07 13:59:43 UTC
Permalink
THE NICKLE NURSER in my opinion is even worse than HATFUL -- at least
YOU SAID A HATFUL has that giant locomotive as a prop for ONE solid
gag! And Charley's imitation of Oscar Apfel's brusque demeanor always
gets a good laugh. But any Chase film that manages to waste both Billy
Gilbert AND Thelma Todd as NICKLE does is simply unforgivable.

One of the most annoying aspects of the Chase talkies is the
reoccurence of Billy Gilbert, who could be a terrific support, playing
a pansy character -- it's funny the first time the gag is used (HASTY
MARRIAGE) but how many surprise fagulahs must the poor guy portray for
Chase? Keep flogging that dead horse, Charley, maybe somebody might
find it funny!

Ed Watz
m***@yahoo.com
2005-05-07 14:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Using the word 'fagulah' that post comes across with a Homophobic tone.
YS
2005-05-07 17:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@aol.com
Yes, I agree there are a
lot worse Chase talkies than PIP FROM PITTSBURGH, which is actually
quite good by any standards. On the negative side of Chase talkies
there's things like WHAT A BOZO, THE TABASCO KID, THE NICKLE NURSER,
I'LL TAKE VANILLA, THE CRACKED ICEMAN...after 1931 there seem to be
more turkeys than good shorts each year until 1935, when the overall
tone of the films improves remarkably. I could never understand how a
tepid short like CHASES OF PIMPLE STREET receives high water marks when
a genuine classic like FATE'S FATHEAD is pointedly ignored...but then
somebody needs to do a real evaluation of Charley's existing Roach
work, film by film.
His talkies ARE a mixed-bag, but I don't see a steady decline until the
end of his Roach period. I think his later Roach talkies (1935/36)
generally fare WORSE than his earlier shorts...his final shorts are
notably weak (THE COUNT TAKES THE COUNT, VAMP TILL READY). Considering
the best of the bunch is ON THE WRONG TREK, whose popularity is due
mainly to L&H being in the cast, thus making it more accessable than
other, harder-to-find-shorts, it says pretty poorly of the other
comedies he made during the period. In a way it's unfair to compare
the talkies to his best silents, but I would take something like FALLEN
ARCHES, HIS SILENT RACKET, or NATURE IN THE WRONG over SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE or OKAY TOOTS any day.

Yair Solan
James Neibaur
2005-05-07 18:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by YS
In a way it's unfair to compare
the talkies to his best silents, but I would take something like FALLEN
ARCHES, HIS SILENT RACKET, or NATURE IN THE WRONG over SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE or OKAY TOOTS any day.
Yair Solan
I agree Okay Toots is a very weak film, but I share Ed's disdain for The
Nickel Nurser. I remember buying that one years ago because Blackhawk's
description called it one of Chase's best. Imagine my disappointment.

I am also one of the few who likes Poker at Eight.

JN
YS
2005-05-07 20:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Post by YS
In a way it's unfair to compare
the talkies to his best silents, but I would take something like FALLEN
ARCHES, HIS SILENT RACKET, or NATURE IN THE WRONG over SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE or OKAY TOOTS any day.
Yair Solan
I agree Okay Toots is a very weak film, but I share Ed's disdain for The
Nickel Nurser. I remember buying that one years ago because
Blackhawk's
Post by James Neibaur
description called it one of Chase's best. Imagine my
disappointment.
Post by James Neibaur
I am also one of the few who likes Poker at Eight.
I'm with you, Jim, when it comes to POKER AT EIGHT ('35). It's a
particlarly good short from the period, which was a suprise when I
first saw it, as was NURSE TO YOU ('35). Neither quite get the acclaim
they deserve, though truthfully there is not much scholarship to go on.
PUBLIC GHOST NO. 1 ('35) is one that I think is a bit overrated...it
never really rises above the level of an average horror-comedy. And I
agree with Ed in preferring FATE'S FATHEAD ('34) over CHASES FROM
PIMPLE STREET ('34), not that I don't enjoy PIMPLE STREET, but it does
seem to not really go anywhere, although it's interesting to see Chase
in what would later become such a standard Sitcom plot.

Yair Solan
James Neibaur
2005-05-07 22:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by YS
I'm with you, Jim, when it comes to POKER AT EIGHT ('35). It's a
particlarly good short from the period, which was a suprise when I
first saw it, as was NURSE TO YOU ('35).
Yes, I agree Nurse To You is another good one.
Post by YS
Neither quite get the acclaim
they deserve, though truthfully there is not much scholarship to go on.
PUBLIC GHOST NO. 1 ('35) is one that I think is a bit overrated...it
never really rises above the level of an average horror-comedy.
That one goes over really well with an audience. Stock scare stuff always
works for some reason.
Post by YS
And I
agree with Ed in preferring FATE'S FATHEAD ('34) over CHASES FROM
PIMPLE STREET ('34), not that I don't enjoy PIMPLE STREET, but it does
seem to not really go anywhere, although it's interesting to see Chase
in what would later become such a standard Sitcom plot
I like both of those.

JN
Ed Watz
2005-05-08 02:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Jim, Yair, POKER AT EIGHT and NURSE TO YOU are two of my all-time
favorites of the 1935 group. Generally the later shorts are more
rounded storywise and for my taste more satisfying: FOUR PARTS, ANOTHER
WILD IDEA, FATE'S FATHEAD, POKER and NURSE are some of my very favorite
Chase Roach shorts, all from his 34-35 period. While I enjoy films
like NATURE IN THE WRONG, FALLEN ARCHES and MIDSUMMER MUSH, they feel
more like a succession of gags (even the excellent LUNCHEON AT TWELVE
meanders and fades out on a song without a clear finish -- cute, but
inconclusive). For me the mid-1930 through early '32 Chase talkies
represent the closest he came to capturing the magic of those 1925-28
silents with a fair level of consistency.
Ed Watz
Rob Farr
2005-05-07 22:11:52 UTC
Permalink
To me, Chase's hillbilly comedies absolutely ensure drab, predictable gags
(usually involving a spittoon and a "ding" sound effect). The musical
numbers are their only redeeming features. On the other hand, I enjoy the
science-fiction two reelers, which get added points for novelty value. It
would be interesting to see if Chase's weaker comedies coincide with his
periods of serious illness.

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by YS
at
Post by James Neibaur
Post by YS
In a way it's unfair to compare
the talkies to his best silents, but I would take something like
FALLEN
Post by James Neibaur
Post by YS
ARCHES, HIS SILENT RACKET, or NATURE IN THE WRONG over SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE or OKAY TOOTS any day.
Yair Solan
I agree Okay Toots is a very weak film, but I share Ed's disdain for
The
Post by James Neibaur
Nickel Nurser. I remember buying that one years ago because
Blackhawk's
Post by James Neibaur
description called it one of Chase's best. Imagine my
disappointment.
Post by James Neibaur
I am also one of the few who likes Poker at Eight.
I'm with you, Jim, when it comes to POKER AT EIGHT ('35). It's a
particlarly good short from the period, which was a suprise when I
first saw it, as was NURSE TO YOU ('35). Neither quite get the acclaim
they deserve, though truthfully there is not much scholarship to go on.
PUBLIC GHOST NO. 1 ('35) is one that I think is a bit overrated...it
never really rises above the level of an average horror-comedy. And I
agree with Ed in preferring FATE'S FATHEAD ('34) over CHASES FROM
PIMPLE STREET ('34), not that I don't enjoy PIMPLE STREET, but it does
seem to not really go anywhere, although it's interesting to see Chase
in what would later become such a standard Sitcom plot.
Yair Solan
YS
2005-05-08 01:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Farr
To me, Chase's hillbilly comedies absolutely ensure drab, predictable gags
(usually involving a spittoon and a "ding" sound effect). The
musical
Post by Rob Farr
numbers are their only redeeming features.
I agree, ONE OF THE SMITHS ('31) is pretty bad and so is SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE (save for that "Sun Sun Sunny South" song!). I'd have to say
that the best of the bunch is actually TEACHER'S PEST ('39), a Columbia
short. But otherwise, yeah, steer clear of his hillbilly comedies.
Post by Rob Farr
On the other hand, I enjoy the
science-fiction two reelers, which get added points for novelty
value.

That's true. Although gimmicky, NOW WE'LL TELL ONE ('32) is very fun,
mainly because of Chase assuming the identifies a dancer, a
prizefighter, etc. And LIFE HESTITATES AT 40 ('36) may not be great or
too funny, but interesting enough to rise above most of his last Roach
shorts. It is a sort of love-it or hate-it short for most Chase fans.
Post by Rob Farr
It would be interesting to see if Chase's weaker comedies coincide
with
Post by Rob Farr
his periods of serious illness.
That WOULD be interesting, research definitely needs to be done in that
area. From what I recall from the Chase bio, he was pretty ill in '29
and '34/'35, the latter of which could account for the poor quality of
some of his last Roach shorts (though I recall that the excellent NURSE
TO YOU was filmed immediately after his return to the studio.)

Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
Rob Farr
2005-05-08 02:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Well, 1929 has to be one of Chase's peak periods, if for no other reason
than Movie Night, Snappy Sneezer and Stepping Out (which I've only seen w/o
a soundtrack). Y'know Yair, have you ever considered adding * to ****
ratings to your filmography? (Instead of stars, you could have little
wire-frame glasses). Like Maltin's ratings, these would all be subject to
dispute, but it would be helpful for newcomers to know which shorts are
acknowledged masterpieces and which are duds. And it might stimulate
healthy discussions about Charley's work.

BTW, the first of Chase's hillbilly (I know, geographically incorrect)
comedies, The Real McCoy, also sucks.

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by Rob Farr
Post by Rob Farr
To me, Chase's hillbilly comedies absolutely ensure drab, predictable
gags
Post by Rob Farr
(usually involving a spittoon and a "ding" sound effect). The
musical
Post by Rob Farr
numbers are their only redeeming features.
I agree, ONE OF THE SMITHS ('31) is pretty bad and so is SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE (save for that "Sun Sun Sunny South" song!). I'd have to say
that the best of the bunch is actually TEACHER'S PEST ('39), a Columbia
short. But otherwise, yeah, steer clear of his hillbilly comedies.
Post by Rob Farr
On the other hand, I enjoy the
science-fiction two reelers, which get added points for novelty
value.
That's true. Although gimmicky, NOW WE'LL TELL ONE ('32) is very fun,
mainly because of Chase assuming the identifies a dancer, a
prizefighter, etc. And LIFE HESTITATES AT 40 ('36) may not be great or
too funny, but interesting enough to rise above most of his last Roach
shorts. It is a sort of love-it or hate-it short for most Chase fans.
Post by Rob Farr
It would be interesting to see if Chase's weaker comedies coincide
with
Post by Rob Farr
his periods of serious illness.
That WOULD be interesting, research definitely needs to be done in that
area. From what I recall from the Chase bio, he was pretty ill in '29
and '34/'35, the latter of which could account for the poor quality of
some of his last Roach shorts (though I recall that the excellent NURSE
TO YOU was filmed immediately after his return to the studio.)
Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
YS
2005-05-08 03:13:17 UTC
Permalink
The only Chase films I've seen from '29 are MOVIE NIGHT and the part of
SNAPPY SNEEZER (silent) that was in one of those Youngson compilations.
Those early Chase talkies are so hard to see.

I have considered adding ratings and/or little capsule reviews in the
filmography, or thought to create a separate page with the same. But
you're right, it would be a good idea, and especially helpful to the
uninitiated. (Not sure about the wire-framed glasses, I'm afraid Mr.
Lloyd holds the rights to those!) It is definitely something I am
considering to do, in addition to occasionally adding full-length
reviews and commentary on specific films.

Speaking of Chase early talkies, I forgot to mention THUNDERING TENORS,
WHAT A BOZO!, and SKIP THE MALOO (all '31)...which are all borefests if
I recall correctly. (If I can't really remember them too well, they
must've sucked.) I mentioned this in my article on the Chase talkies
on the site, and although it does seem that Chase was often producing
shorts similar to his silents in 1930/31, he did film some forgettable
and astoundingly misguided stuff during this period. It's hard to
reconcile the polished comic of the '20s with some of the weaker films
Chase produced in the sound era, but I think this has to do with 1) his
alcohol-related illnesses, which really started taking their toll
during the '30s; 2) occasional over-reliance on songs to put the films
over (e.g., LUNCHEON AT TWELVE, although I do enjoy "Oh, Desdemona!");
and, least importantly, in my opinion 3) Chase's change of screen
character.

Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
James Neibaur
2005-05-08 12:48:00 UTC
Permalink
I have seen Girl Shock, over thirty years ago on 16mm. A rental library in
a nearby town had most of the Chase films in a huge collection and I worked
there on weekends when I was maybe fourteen or so. He would let me bring
films home for the week. After he died, his collection was sold off by his
children and his place was torn down. I have no idea what happened to the
films.

Girl Shock was a really bizarre, interesting, funny movie. Two others I
remember from that collection are Fast Work and What a Bozo. Although Fast
Work was similar to his silents, I remember finding it slow and
uninteresting. I have only a vague memory of not caring for What a Bozo. I
don't think any of these were made available by Blackhawk.

JN
Ed Watz
2005-05-08 06:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Rob, I've been meaning to tell you this for a long time -- your review
of THE GRAND HOOTER on Yair's website is just about the best written
appreciation of a Chase film that I've ever read by anybody --
insightful, interesting, and fun to read. GRAND HOOTER being a guilty
pleasure of mine (sure it's cheap, sure it's rushed, sure Charley's
characterization is as arbitrary as a Comique comedian's, but I still
enjoy it, and "Cielito Lino" rocks!).

Ed Watz
Rob Farr
2005-05-08 11:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Your kind words are appreciated Ed, especially coming from the author of two
of the best books on classic film comedy! Y'know, for all our kvetching
about the Chase talkies, you'd never know we love this stuff and could watch
it all day! Of the Columbias, my fave is "The Sap Takes the Wrap". One can
imagine Chase had to lobby Jules White furiously to let him make a short in
the old Roach style, but he succeeds beautifully. It's a shame that much of
the stuff we are discussing is harder to find than hen's teeth. Most of the
rarer Chases I've seen were bought from Corky Savely's gray (OK, black!)
market video company some 15 years ago.

Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by Ed Watz
Rob, I've been meaning to tell you this for a long time -- your review
of THE GRAND HOOTER on Yair's website is just about the best written
appreciation of a Chase film that I've ever read by anybody --
insightful, interesting, and fun to read. GRAND HOOTER being a guilty
pleasure of mine (sure it's cheap, sure it's rushed, sure Charley's
characterization is as arbitrary as a Comique comedian's, but I still
enjoy it, and "Cielito Lino" rocks!).
Ed Watz
James Neibaur
2005-05-08 13:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Farr
Y'know, for all our kvetching
about the Chase talkies, you'd never know we love this stuff and could watch
it all day!
Yeah, but we're kvetching among ourselves, and each of us realizes the
others love Charley Chase films.

With my old friend Ed in the mix, I have been waiting for the conversation
to start evolving into a discussion of the Columbia two-reelers, which I
find very interesting. Even a misfire like Skinny The Moocher has a certain
weird charm.

JN
Ivan G. Shreve, Jr.
2005-05-08 13:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Farr
Your kind words are appreciated Ed, especially coming from the author of two
of the best books on classic film comedy! Y'know, for all our kvetching
about the Chase talkies, you'd never know we love this stuff and could watch
it all day! Of the Columbias, my fave is "The Sap Takes the Wrap". One can
imagine Chase had to lobby Jules White furiously to let him make a short in
the old Roach style, but he succeeds beautifully. It's a shame that much of
the stuff we are discussing is harder to find than hen's teeth. Most of the
rarer Chases I've seen were bought from Corky Savely's gray (OK, black!)
market video company some 15 years ago.
Rob Farr
www.slapsticon.org
That's how I ended up with my Columbia Chase two-reelers--through Corky
Savely's "Get Into My Shorts." Whatever happened to Corky, anyway?

Ivan
--
Classic movies, television and old-time radio at Thrilling Days of
Yesteryear! http://blogs.salon.com/0003139
r***@yahoo.com
2005-05-08 20:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Ithink he attracted the notice of Warner Brothers for selling Maverick
episodes around the time they were releasing their lousy remake. And
that, as they say, was that.

R. Farr
www.slapsticon.org
Post by Ivan G. Shreve, Jr.
That's how I ended up with my Columbia Chase two-reelers--through Corky
Savely's "Get Into My Shorts." Whatever happened to Corky, anyway?
Ivan
--
Classic movies, television and old-time radio at Thrilling Days of
Yesteryear! http://blogs.salon.com/0003139
Ed Watz
2005-05-08 02:39:00 UTC
Permalink
For me the saving grace of THE REAL McCOY is the feel of a silent and
the interplay with Edgar Kennedy as the cop who chases Charley into
hillbilly country. Some of the early 1930 shorts like DOLLAR DIZZY and
ALL TEED UP would have made very funny silents but either because of
excessive length (DIZZY is attenuated to the point of being unfunny) or
dialogue (TEED UP makes Charley a tad too obnoxious for his own good).
On the other hand, later 1930 shorts like GIRL SHOCK and LOOSER THAN
LOOSE compare favorably to the classic silent two reelers, in content
and sophistication...so what went wrong with the Chase series after
after 1931?

Ed Watz
YS
2005-05-08 02:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Watz
For me the saving grace of THE REAL McCOY is the feel of a silent and
the interplay with Edgar Kennedy as the cop who chases Charley into
hillbilly country. Some of the early 1930 shorts like DOLLAR DIZZY and
ALL TEED UP would have made very funny silents but either because of
excessive length (DIZZY is attenuated to the point of being unfunny) or
dialogue (TEED UP makes Charley a tad too obnoxious for his own good).
On the other hand, later 1930 shorts like GIRL SHOCK and LOOSER THAN
LOOSE compare favorably to the classic silent two reelers, in content
and sophistication...so what went wrong with the Chase series after
after 1931?
Ed Watz
Oh yes, THE REAL McCOY, I forgot about that one. In my opinion, it's a
dud, but at least not as long as the three-reel ONE OF THE SMITHS.
LOOSER THAN LOOSE and WHISPERING WHOOPEE are both good (some would say
great) shorts from 1930, and very similar to his silent work. I also
think that FIFTY MILLION HUSBANDS from the same year is pretty
overlooked...and similar to his silent work, no doubt because it's a
remake of his silent FORGOTTEN SWEETIES. I've never seen GIRL SHOCK,
but since you speak highly of it, Ed, I'm intrigued.

Chase made PIP FROM PITTSBURG(H), THE PANIC IS ON (also underrated),
and ROUGH SEAS in '31, so the quality was still relatively high. I
don't quite agree with Ed that the series went downhill after 1931 (I
love MR. BRIDE, NOW WE'LL TELL ONE (both '32), though yeah, IN WALKED
CHARLEY and NICKEL NURSER are pretty poor.) But maybe this is due to
that fact that at that time, Chase consciously altered his character to
be more of a nebbish guy than the dashing farceur he was in the early
'30s (carried over from his silent comedies) and perhaps that is not
your cup of tea, Ed.

Yair Solan
THE WORLD OF CHARLEY CHASE
http://www.geocities.com/ysolan82/chase.html
Ed Watz
2005-05-08 06:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Yair, for whatever reason the 1930 Charley Chase short GIRL SHOCK was
never released in the Hal Roach tv packages and so is rather scarce
today. In the late 1940s several 16mm printdowns from the 35mm Film
Classics reissue were made; I was fortunate enough to win one of these
prints on ebay, in beautiful shape. (I have to presume that some Chase
buffs may have confused the title with the slightly more common --
though equally terrific -- 1932 short GIRL GRIEF, and thus didn't bid
with the determination that I had). This comedy is vintage Chase, and
it closely resembles one of his silent shorts in structure, tempo, and
sight gags, with dialogue limited but very witty nonetheless.

In GIRL SHOCK we learn that Charley goes into hysterics every time a
woman touches him. His prospective father-in-law (Edgar Kennedy)
thinks that Charley is an idiot, until his fiance explains (via
flashback) that Charley was an American pilot during the World War who
crash-landed behind Russian lines. His rescuers are allied Russian
soldiers -- all of them hot-looking young women! -- who are sex-starved
and advance upon him! At this point the story fades back in on Edgar,
who reacts with grave solemnity: "He must've suffered terribly!"

At one point Charley listens to a quack doctor (Jerry Mandy) who
suggests that another sudden shock -- like the bite from a dog - may
cure Charley's phobia. Seeing a dog house, Charley stuffs his back
pockets with weiners, wiggles his butt near the dog house opening, and
calls the dog. A tiny fluffy pooch slowly creeps out. Charley is
disgusted until he hears a pack of barking neighborhood mutts racing
towards him ready to attack his trousers!

At the end of the film Charley and Edgar undergo a blood transfusion in
hopes of curing him. The effect of Kennedy's he-man blood immediately
turns Charley into a wild woman chaser as he goes after every nurse in
the hospital. Edgar's wife, however, now realizes her husband's true
inner nature as a flirt and goes after Kennedy with intent to kill!

GIRL SHOCK features a complete LeRoy Shield score but instead of an
orchestral arrangement, the familiar tunes are performed as an organ
solo (not unlike a late Columbia and another favorite of mine, PIE A LA
MAID).

Ed Watz
r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
2005-04-15 14:22:14 UTC
Permalink
To clarify, the second printing WILL NOT have additional photos or
text. It will be identical to the first printing. I am hoping that it
may come to a SECOND EDITION someday, in which SIU Press may allow me
to use more photos and text than they did on this go-round. A second
edition, if it ever happens, is some years in the future.

Many thanks to "cseguin" for your report on the book. Obviously, your
reaction is what I was hoping for, and it is extremely gratifying.

Richard Ward
JohnnyCat
2005-04-15 18:07:52 UTC
Permalink
I got mine yesterday in the mail from Amazon - can't wait to read it!
JohnnyCat
2005-04-15 18:08:07 UTC
Permalink
I got mine yesterday in the mail from Amazon - can't wait to read it!
cseguin
2005-04-16 13:37:35 UTC
Permalink
I thought you did a tremendous job with the book. Anyone expecting a book of
reminisces about "the lot of fun" will be disappointed (and we've heard much
of it before), but if you want to know exactly how Roach lost Laurel &
Hardy, the impact that his move into features had, how his studio was taken
over by the military, and the eventual demise of the studio under Roach Jr.,
you'll find all that info here. It also paints a different picture of Roach
the businessman. Great work - a must have till the Bann book(s) come out.

chris
Post by r***@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
To clarify, the second printing WILL NOT have additional photos or
text. It will be identical to the first printing. I am hoping that it
may come to a SECOND EDITION someday, in which SIU Press may allow me
to use more photos and text than they did on this go-round. A second
edition, if it ever happens, is some years in the future.
Many thanks to "cseguin" for your report on the book. Obviously, your
reaction is what I was hoping for, and it is extremely gratifying.
Richard Ward
m***@yahoo.com
2005-04-16 14:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Does it detail the Roach Studio Lot auction and demolishion in the
early 60's?

Mister Levity
cseguin
2005-04-16 14:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Not in great detail. Just the fact that it happened.
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Does it detail the Roach Studio Lot auction and demolishion in the
early 60's?
Mister Levity
steverino
2005-05-01 16:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Hmm.......O.K., maybe if Hal Roach and Laurel had reconciled It might
have reversed Roach's fortunes, but It's hard to see how.Roach was
clearly in a financial hole in 1940."Chumps" and "Saps" apparrently did
disappointing business,grossing lower than any of Roach's other 40-41
features.Theatres[It seems]considered them a "B" attraction now.What
kind of "leverage" could they have provided?And what if L&H had agreed
to make those wartime "streamliners"?Imagine Laurel trying to work
within 1/4th the budget of their earlier films.It would have been like
the later Malcom St. Clair films,[sort of]true to their established
characters but not classic comedy.Actually, if one looks at the
financial data, one suspects that L&H's break from Roach had more to do
with Roach's financial dilemma than Laurel and Roach's
disagreements.After all, Roach was a pragmatist.It looks more like
Roach couldn't afford L&H anymore.It made more sense for a studio like
Fox,who could afford a regular B program, to sign a property
increasingly seen as "B", than for Roach, who needed A's to break even,
but couldn't even make a B feature.We don't think of L&H as a B item
today, but this was 1940-41.
Loading...