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:

Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Gary Johnson » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:00 am

What a clever title………….this should be used for a DVD release or something….

There has been so much "Atoll K' talk on all of these threads I thought it would be nice to drop in on The Boys during their salad days since that particular film makes me sad beyond belief and quite depressed to the point that I am only able to revisit it every 20 years or so.

One of the joys of constantly re-watching the films of the great comedians are the historical and biographical clues that appear in their works that helped shape their comic visions. The movies of Keaton, Fields, and the Marx Bros are rife with glimpses into their vaudeville days as they re-enact bits on film. Chaplin loved to fill his films with references to his idealized but emotionally stunting Victorian childhood.

And then there are Laurel & Hardy. On the surface it would seem that their gag-ridden, slapstick strewn, wife-hating comedies wouldn’t tell us an awful lot about the team (well…..except maybe the wife-hating part). All that they offer are gags.....very funny gags. And those gags are in full flower in the 80 some silent shorts made by Laurel as both a solo performer and a writer/director before teaming with Babe. Since Laurel was the unofficial official driving force behind the team’s success it is in those gags that we can chart the pre-history of Laurel & Hardy and along the way observe a comic genius in search of a comic personae.

Laurel's earliest film appearances show a definite comic influence by his English Music Hall training with the Fred Karno Troupe and by their most famous alumni - Charles Chaplin. Even though Laurel's earliest success on the American vaudeville stage was as an outright Chaplin imitator he is too cagey to make his film debut as such. Alright, we don't exactly know how he looked in his film debut since that film is now lost but in all of his existing films he is always dressed in the style of the day, albeit in a shabby comic style. His hats would vary from film to film, sometimes a straw hat, sometimes a derby. He was always clean shaven. But even though he didn't copy Chaplin's look there were still certain mannerism that looked awfully familiar. Such as the crocodile smile Laurel employed where the upper lip was raised and he gave off a look as if he had just smelled a bad piece of Roquefort, or his early inclination to break into dances or silly body movements whenever he is confronted by a higher authority. "Just Rambling Along" (18) features a funny scene as Stan enters a cafeteria with only a dime on him but nonetheless grabs a tray and goes through the buffet trying to decide what he should purchase. With the assist from a very overly helpful line cook Stan begins sampling what is being offered to him and after scarfing down half of every portion he fastidiously checks his palate, pauses and then shakes his head, "No thank you. That didn't agree with me.", and then moves down to the next entree. By the time he gets to the end of the line he so full all he has room for is a cup of coffee. The whole routine is played very Chaplin-like with all of the humour emitting from Stan's facial expressions.

There are more overt examples such as "Hustling For Health" (19) when Stan must replace a missing mule and pull a cart full of luggage and a couple of riders which is a direct steal from Chaplin's "Work" (15) including the signature shot of pulling the cart up a ninety degrees incline, or when Stan and Larry Semon challenge each other in "Frauds and Frenzies" (18) and Stan stretches his arms and legs out like a sumo wrestler with his palms level and face up just as Chaplin did in "The Cure" (17) but as a rule Laurel's aping of his one-time roommate is mostly in body control and not in actual gags. Stan's character in "The Noon Whistle" (23) is a brainless goof who for some reason wears a sailors cap and appears to exist just to make James Finlayson's life miserable in the lumber yard he works at. In between the chases and repetitive conks on the head with boards of two by fours Stan takes a moment out to measure some plywood - Look! He's actually doing his job! As he measures out a section of the board he marks it with a pencil and as he does so his rear end shakes and poses in a cocked angle. He then moves down to the next section and repeats the same ritual. It's a small moment but with all of these little quirks and tics it seems Laurel was trying to create a character of attitude. That character already existed. Chaplin's Tramp was renown for being playful and impish and making a game out of ordinary mundane work. Laurel had no such character as yet so all of these mannerisms merely look like mimicking. Or am I being too hard on Laurel? Maybe these 'mannerisms' were part of the training everyone received at Karno and Laurel had just as much right to them as Chaplin or Billie Ritchie or Syd Chaplin? Either way Laurel would abandon these sorts of traits once he settled on the 'Stanlie' character since they wouldn't fit in as well with the slow-witted fella.

Another interesting phase was the three films he made with star comedian Larry Semon early in his career. It has been noted that in each subsequent film Laurel was given more and more to do on screen and because of that his first appearance in a Semon film is generally dismissed as typical Semon with no opportunities for Laurel. It is this very reason that I find "Huns and Hyphens" (18) so interesting. All of the action takes place at a seedy cafe where waiter Larry battles German spies trying to steal war plans from his sweetie's father. Stan is cast as one of a myriad of henchmen after Larry. Stan wears a tall bulky-looking derby and chomps on an ever present cigar. He is very stoic - almost Keaton-like. He is given a couple of comic scenes with Larry before all hell breaks loose, one involving eggs that Stan hides in his pants as Larry watches (shades of "Hollywood Party" (34)) and the other with a seltzer bottle that Larry absently keeps leaning on soaking Stan. But for me the pivotal scene is when the villain, Frank Alexander, is grilling the captive heroine and her father surrounded by his entire gang. Stan stands over the left of Alexander's shoulder and while everyone else grimaces and threatens and mugs Stan stands stoically doing.......nothing. He is practically expressionless except for when Frank pulls out a new cigar as he continues his threats. Stan’s eyes go directly to the cigar and never leaves it. I kept waiting for him to pull some slight of hand and purloin the new stogie but all he does is stare. Was this his attempt at creating something different in basically a nondescript role? Because once the action picks up Stan draws his gun on Larry just like everyone else but as the cast frantically runs from room to room and begin toppling over walls and such Stan is always a half-beat off from the crowd. What ever his mindset was I found his acting choice charmingly surreal.

By the time he made “Fraud and Frenzies” (18) with Semon he had definitely earned his stripes as Laurel is elevated to Larry’s co-star in it. The film is funny and enjoyable as the pair play a couple of rock pile convicts who eventually escape only to go home with the warden’s daughter. The by play between the two is a series of clever little choreographed dances that makes one wonder if Stan was allowed to contribute gags and ideas. Since Semon had a reputation of being generous with screen time it seems quite plausible. But the film is also a fascinating hybrid of different gag styles. There are gags involving large hollow logs that roll down the hill that are certainly part of Semon’s joke book. The two perform a hat switching routine similar to what Chaplin and Arbuckle executed together in “The Rounders” (14) and then there is the visual showing all of the convicts being lined up, one hand on the shoulder of the prisoner ahead of them, and everyone marching in lockstep. Now I have no evidence that this was Laurel’s idea but it is a funny image and would appear repeatedly in all of L&H’s prison comedies, most notably in “The Second Hundred Years” (27) where the Boys would march away from the guards still in their lockstep formation just as Larry & Stan do here. To drive the point home even more after the boys escape a title card transitions us with a jaw opening statement, “Two Souls With But A Single Thought.” Now I know Laurel didn’t contribute by writing the title cards but it must had caught his fancy later on. Finally there is the moment when they don civilian clothes and Larry is directing Stan in what direction to head by placing his hand on Stan’s shoulder. Stan instantly stretches out his arm and begins marching in lockstep. Absentmindedness seems to of struck early in Mr. Laurel’s brains.

Gary J.

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

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:05 am

Nice essay Gary, thanks for posting it, and a couple of comments.

Since the semi-mystery Stan Laurel short MIXED NUTS may indeed (and I, Rob Stone, and a few others think it is) be at least partially made up of Laurel's first film NUTS IN MAY, we can actually see what his first appearance on film looks like, and he still reeks of "attitude" which I do think was Karno training, since every former Karno comic from Chaplins (Charlie and Syd), Laurel, Billie Ritchie, Jimmy Aubrey, Billie Reeves, etc. all do it, as well as making the visual puns. And both Charles Chaplin and Laurel got away from it as their work matured. Presenting attitude physically is a great way to develop stage presence, and grab the focus on stage, but it does work slightly less on film because it is all surface, and the better comics figured it out it looked too arch. So although Laurel was definitely a Chaplin impersonator in Vaudeville, I think he's borrowing less from Chaplin and more from Karno when he gets to film, probably because he's very self-consiously trying not to imitate Chaplin.

That said, I've always found it ironic that in order to find his "Stanley "character, Laurel had to borrow far more from Harry Langdon's passive style than he had ever borrowed from Chaplin. I'm convinced that the Stanley we know and love would never have existed if Langdon hadn't come on the scene. And at the same time, when I was seriously researching and studying Larry Semon, I found it fascinating that the whole concept of copping to and deconstructing the gag which became Laurel and Hardy's standard modus operandi was there in Semon comedies like THE GROCERY CLERK in 1920, but done with Semon's usual speed rather than Langdon or Laurel's methodical pacing. Nothing in comedy is new, but it is always interesting to see what is picked up and modified by others.

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 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:01 pm

Unlike the majority of you folks on this site I am not a researcher. I can only observe everything I watch and try to put it all in some reasonable sense of history. Thanks for confirming the 'Karno training' aspect, Richard. I don't like making blanket statements about things that I feel are right and end up making an ass of myself.

I was going to extend this piece and get to Langdon's influence but I got tired and wandered off to bed. (By the way, do you suffer from insomnia? You always post in the wee hours of the morning) If I were to watch all of Laurel's solo's in order from, say mid 1924 on, would there be a noticiable slowing down in gags and characterization as Langdon's popularity soared or would it be more in dribs and drabs as little moments occur?

I find Laurel's progression from films like "Oranges & Lemons" (which feels like a standard bearer of his solo's for anyone who grew up on Blackhawk films) to his teaming with Hardy quite fascinating but for years the standard history was that Laurel made typical slapstick comedies as a B comedian and then was magically transformed by the teaming. It has only been the past 20 years or so that the Langdon influence has been brought to the forefront by people like the Silent Mafia. I don't recall McCabe rarely mentioning Langdon. What with all of the new researching going on about Langdon does anyone have anything new concerning his connection with Laurel? For instance, I keep reading that they were friends but has anyone nailed down when this friendship started? Was it when Laurel hired him to be a gagwriter or did it happen earlier during Langdon's brief stop at Roach to make talkies? Or even earlier when Langdon was on top?

Gary J.

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

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:35 pm

Gary Johnson wrote:Unlike the majority of you folks on this site I am not a researcher. I can only observe everything I watch and try to put it all in some reasonable sense of history. Thanks for confirming the 'Karno training' aspect, Richard. I don't like making blanket statements about things that I feel are right and end up making an ass of myself.

I was going to extend this piece and get to Langdon's influence but I got tired and wandered off to bed. (By the way, do you suffer from insomnia? You always post in the wee hours of the morning) If I were to watch all of Laurel's solo's in order from, say mid 1924 on, would there be a noticiable slowing down in gags and characterization as Langdon's popularity soared or would it be more in dribs and drabs as little moments occur?

I find Laurel's progression from films like "Oranges & Lemons" (which feels like a standard bearer of his solo's for anyone who grew up on Blackhawk films) to his teaming with Hardy quite fascinating but for years the standard history was that Laurel made typical slapstick comedies as a B comedian and then was magically transformed by the teaming. It has only been the past 20 years or so that the Langdon influence has been brought to the forefront by people like the Silent Mafia. I don't recall McCabe rarely mentioning Langdon. What with all of the new researching going on about Langdon does anyone have anything new concerning his connection with Laurel? For instance, I keep reading that they were friends but has anyone nailed down when this friendship started? Was it when Laurel hired him to be a gagwriter or did it happen earlier during Langdon's brief stop at Roach to make talkies? Or even earlier when Langdon was on top?

Gary J.


Laurel had to be aware of Langdon as a headliner in vaudeville when he was working in America, but you definitely see the change in his own comedy style come during the Joe Rock comedies, and it's rather sudden, and those shorts were made in 1924-25 when Langdon's Sennett shorts were coming on the scene and hitting big with audiences. You start to see the change in WEST OF HOT DOG(1924) , but the real breakthrough short is SOMEWHERE IN WRONG (1925) which is the first short where you can see glimpses of the Stanley character in embryo. Then the Rock comedies really begin to click, and in most of the 1925 ones, Laurel is obviously experimenting with all sorts of new ideas, but whatever he's playing, from the drunk in PIE-EYED to DR PYCKLE AND MR PRYDE, his whole performance style has slowed down and become more nuanced. It would become even more deliberate thanks to Oliver Hardy's own personal style, but the first big changes come at Joe Rock.

Laurel acknowledged Langdon in several interviews, and certainly was happy to use him as a writer in the late 30's, and was far from the only comic to feel his influence. Langdon really turned the whole Comedy Film Industry on it's head, you can see his influence to the other film comics from Chaplin on down after he came into pictures, but Laurel probably was the most profound in terms of drastically changing his whole comedy style.

Yep, I'm a night owl, especially in Phoenix Summers when it's 116 degrees in the daylight.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Chris Seguin

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Chris Seguin » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:06 pm

I wrote a piece on Langdon's influence on Laurel for Bram Reijnhoudt's BLOTTO magazine. You're right, you simply can't deny Langdon's impact. Once I dig up the PDF I'll try to post it here.
Chris

Chris Seguin

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Chris Seguin » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:40 pm

This is an essay on Langdon & Laurel I wrote for Blotto, downloadable from yousendit.com https://download.yousendit.com/dVlyV0oxaTFBNkVLSkE9PQ

The idea that it's the Karno influence, rather than the "Chaplin" influence is an interesting one; while watching Syd Chaplin in "Caught in the Park" the other day I was taken not only by the similarities to his brother's work, but early Stan as well (specifically Stan's work in his 1923-24 Roach series).

I'll have to take another look at "Huns & Hyphens", but I recall noticing Stan's underplaying setting him apart. That's what's interesting about his very early film work. He's far more stoic, almost a cross between Chaplin and Keaton. The matter-of-factness in is performances in "Just Ramblin' Along", "Hustling For Health" and "Do You Love Your Wife" work far better for me than things like "Gas & Air", "Oranges & Lemons", etc. A lot of subtlety is found in 1918 that you don't see five years later.

Chris

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

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Gary Johnson » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:51 am

Very informative Chris. This piece filled in quite a few questions I had concerning the 'Langdon influence.'
I need to see all of his shorts he made at Roach. I've only caught "The Head Guy" and the whole thing is a head scratcher, although I still giggle when he blurts out the apple line.

Gary J.

Steve Massa
Capo
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Steve Massa » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:49 am

Hi Gary
Here's a short essay I wrote about Langdon's influence on Stan Laurel that's in the booklet of David Kalat's "Harry Langdon: Lost and Found" DVD set.

Steve

Laurel and Harry
by Steve Massa

Harry Langdon was the silent comedy comet that shot across the motion picture skies in the mid 1920s. Although his trajectory was brief and he crashed before the end of the silent era, while he blazed brightly his influence echoed throughout the genre. Around 1925 a wave of pasty-faced innocents sprang up everywhere – Billy Dooley cavorted for Christie comedies, Arthur Stone was on the Hal Roach lot, and Mack Sennett soon tried to fill the gap caused by Langdon leaving him by putting Eddie Quillan and Johnny Burke through suspiciously similar paces. Even an old timer like Larry Semon, whose films were known for their wild gags, frenetic speed, crashes and explosions, suddenly began standing still in indecision and blinking slowly. Langdon was in the air, but his most important and fruitful effect was on a transplanted British comic who was struggling to find the right screen persona.

In 1924 Stan Laurel had been in films for seven years but hadn’t met with exactly wild success. Popular enough to have had starring series for producers such as Hal Roach and G.M. Anderson, his film career to this point had been a search to find the right comic character, as it changed from film to film. Sometimes he’d be a brash go-getter, another time a mama’s boy, then the next time he’d combine the two into sort of an aggressive milquetoast. He also worked too hard, laughing at his own antics as if to nudge the audience to laugh along. Since his persona hadn’t gelled the pace was kept breakneck, and the shorts were built around occupations, locations, or movie parodies.

When Harry’s initial surge of popularity hit the film industry Stan was making a series of two-reelers for producer Joe Rock. By the end of 1924, in shorts such as WEST OF HOT DOG and SOMEWHERE IN WRONG, you can see his style start to change. The pace of the films is less frenetic, and Stan develops slower, more hesitant body rhythms and hand gestures. Much of his brashness has dissolved and he becomes wistful. He’s now shy with woman and people in authority, plus begins to make his crying routine more organic. Seeing Langdon’s work on the screen definitely seems to have prompted Stan to explore and exploit his own inner man-child, and made him realize that faster doesn’t always mean funnier. It was just a couple of years after absorbing and developing his own spin on these Langdon traits that the character which we know and love as “Stanley” would be born at the Hal Roach studio.

In the years that ensued Harry and Stan’s lives and careers would intersect. They became friends, and later full-fledged collaborators when Harry joined the writing staff on the L & H features from BLOCKHEADS (’38) to SAPS AT SEA (‘40), not forgetting that Hal Roach even used Langdon as a cudgel to get an errant Stan back in line during a contract dispute which resulted in ZENOBIA (’39). The final word belongs to Stan who had this to say about Harry to John McCabe for the publication of MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY:

“A great comedian who had it in him to be a great actor, like Chaplin.”

Chris Seguin

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Chris Seguin » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:29 pm

that particular film makes me sad beyond belief and quite depressed to the point that I am only able to revisit it every 20 years or so.


Hey Gary, don't be hatin' on ATOLL K... when's your next visit due? ;)

Below is a snippet of interview between Laurel and a French interviewer for L'Ecran Francais, Nov. 25, 1947. If I had a nickel for every post 1930 article about Langdon with the phrase "poor, poor Harry", I'd be a very rich man today. (And don't think Laurel isn't talking about himself when describing "poor, poor" Harry's situation...

'And when, in 1938, Hardy made Zenobia with Harry Langdon, it was not because of an argument. In joint agreement, they wanted to try and 'relaunch' their good friend Harry Langdon. Harry Langdon, the public probably hardly remembers him: from 1925 to 1930, he was a great, profoundly human comedian.

'He was a Chaplin,' Laurel tells me, 'a somewhat smaller Chaplin.'

Laurel looks down when he talks about Harry Langdon. Because his old friend was, from 1930 onwards, the victim of an internal tragedy. The horrible tragedy of a fallen clown. Producers didn't want this powdered mime anymore who, driven by his despair, never pursued his gags to the end.

'We let him work with us as screenwriter to relieve him a bit of his misery, because he was not earning much. But in fifteen years, I have never seen him smile once... He died in 1944... Paralysis. His heart stopped.'

Stan gets up, he waves his arms about, his little eyes cry out vengeance for Harry: 'Hollywood is the cruelest city in the world. People there don't have a heart. They are not honest to you. You are never respected for your past, but only for what you earn at the moment. The stars of yesterday are disdained... Poor Harry! Poor Harry!

I have evoked too many painful memories in Stan's soul. He sits down with his head in his hands.'

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

Re: Becoming Mr. Laurel

Postby Richard M Roberts » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Chris Seguin wrote:
that particular film makes me sad beyond belief and quite depressed to the point that I am only able to revisit it every 20 years or so.


Hey Gary, don't be hatin' on ATOLL K... when's your next visit due? ;)

Below is a snippet of interview between Laurel and a French interviewer for L'Ecran Francais, Nov. 25, 1947. If I had a nickel for every post 1930 article about Langdon with the phrase "poor, poor Harry", I'd be a very rich man today. (And don't think Laurel isn't talking about himself when describing "poor, poor" Harry's situation...

'And when, in 1938, Hardy made Zenobia with Harry Langdon, it was not because of an argument. In joint agreement, they wanted to try and 'relaunch' their good friend Harry Langdon. Harry Langdon, the public probably hardly remembers him: from 1925 to 1930, he was a great, profoundly human comedian.

'He was a Chaplin,' Laurel tells me, 'a somewhat smaller Chaplin.'

Laurel looks down when he talks about Harry Langdon. Because his old friend was, from 1930 onwards, the victim of an internal tragedy. The horrible tragedy of a fallen clown. Producers didn't want this powdered mime anymore who, driven by his despair, never pursued his gags to the end.

'We let him work with us as screenwriter to relieve him a bit of his misery, because he was not earning much. But in fifteen years, I have never seen him smile once... He died in 1944... Paralysis. His heart stopped.'

Stan gets up, he waves his arms about, his little eyes cry out vengeance for Harry: 'Hollywood is the cruelest city in the world. People there don't have a heart. They are not honest to you. You are never respected for your past, but only for what you earn at the moment. The stars of yesterday are disdained... Poor Harry! Poor Harry!

I have evoked too many painful memories in Stan's soul. He sits down with his head in his hands.'


Well, that does read a bit like your average french overdramatic and overdramaticized interview. I have a hard time believing the very-reserved-especially-in-front-of-the-press Stan Laurel getting that worked up in any public situation. But Harry was indeed in a pretty strapped for cash situation when he and his Family returned from his Australian and British Isles tour in 1938, and Laurel was a great help to him then, even letting the Langdon's live at Fort Laurel until they could get a place of their own.

But even with that said, Harry Langdon was about the busiest "has-been" I've ever seen. Each time he started out on a new short comedy series, there's some newspaper piece about his new "come-back", as if he hadn't had a film released in years. It is always interesting to remember that Harry Langdon made more talkies than he did silent films, or more films as a "has-been" than a star.

RICHARD M ROBERTS


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests