Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 12:30:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length

A Laurel and Hardy watch-along

Started by Replies From View, September 11, 2018, 06:09:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bad Ambassador

I saw a preview of Stan and Ollie this evening. Some clumsy dialogue, but made with undisguised warmth and affection. Coogan and Reilly are both excellent. Their on-stage work is so faithful, it's like you're watching new L&H material.

Replies From View

#121
An additional comment from that lordheath blog, comparing those DVD versions (note that Lost Films is the US version, while the Universal set is what we have in the UK):

Quote
DVD comparisons: Lost Films vs. Universal DVD

Both copies are similar sharpness-wise, but Lost is cleaner and better graded. However, Lost is missing 3 segments:

1) At around 8'10 in, it is missing 12 secs of Ollie rescuing Philip from the crowd;

2) In the tailor's shop, one of the attempts to take Philip's inside-leg measurement (lasting about 31 secs) is missing;

3) A short shot of a man raising his hat to Philip on the bus (at 15'46 in Kirch). There is also some difference in editing when the ladies faint after Philip's kilt blows up.

[observations courtesy Steve Phillips]
http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_155.html


So if you are a completist you may wish to watch both versions of this week's film.

My preference was to watch the US version all the way through (as my "main watch" as the quality is so much better), then seek out the missing segments that appear in the UK one.  In the UK version the additional segments can be found at 7:36 (for 11 seconds), 10:41 (for 30 seconds) and 15:47 (for 3 seconds).  The differently-edited fainting can be found at 8:33 in the UK version compared with 9:08 in the US one.

If you put the two videos side by side, you'll see the US version has more picture within the frame, compared to the UK one which is cropped much more tightly.  I'm still not sure why that should be.


another Mr. Lizard

Should any CaBbers fancy an in-person mini-version of this thread, I'm hosting a Laurel & Hardy day event in Derby on January 19th. It will run from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm (with breaks for lunch etc) and will feature plenty of classic clips and opportunity for discussion about the boys and their careers. It all takes place at Derby QUAD arts centre, on the Market Place. Tickets are £25 (£20 concessionary, £18 for QUAD members) and also include free entry to the 6.30 evening screening of STAN & OLLIE on the same day. There doesn't seem to be a direct link for the event yet but here's the link to the venue's website: https://www.derbyquad.co.uk


Ant Farm Keyboard

The Jewish stereotypes were quite prominent in the twenties and early thirties. Many big time comedians (Al Jolson, Eddy Cantor) were also Jewish and mentioned their origins, but smaller acts did also have fun with archetypes of the yiddish theater, like the shlemiel figure (something that the Marx Brothers and The Three Stooges later popularized, even if their characters weren't explicitly stated to be Jewish). They weren't always well received, but anti-Semitism in motion picture was mostly targeted at the studio heads, who were accused to ruin Christian values with immoral and lascivious subjects.
Everything changed around 1933 and 1934. As they didn't want to lose the valuable German market, all studios had to comply with the requests of the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't supposed to be depicted in a bad light, and Jews weren't supposed to be mentioned. And studios had to enforce the Production Code, after some intense lobbying from Catholic organizations, which made them even more reluctant to refer to judaism in the scripts. And the studio heads themselves wanted to be regarded as regular Americans, fully integrated into the (high) society, with little emphasis on their Jewish origins, which also carried to the stories they approved. That's how you get in a decade from Call of the Cuckoo andThe Jazz Singer to The Life of Emile Zola, where the script doesn't even state that Dreyfus is Jewish. And after that, it was almost shocking to hear actual Eastern European and Jewish surnames in a 1947 production such as Body and Soul, as Jewish references had been scrubbed away from many scripts during most of the sound film era at this point.

Replies From View

Really interesting, thanks for sharing that!

Quote from: Replies From View on December 18, 2018, 11:52:50 PMIf you put the two videos side by side, you'll see the US version has more picture within the frame, compared to the UK one which is cropped much more tightly.  I'm still not sure why that should be.

I'm no expert but would guess it might be an artefact of the UK copy being zoomed in whenever the master of it was made, or maybe it just originates from a zoomed-in copy?

Replies From View

Quote from: Alternative Carpark on December 21, 2018, 03:52:07 PM
I'm no expert but would guess it might be an artefact of the UK copy being zoomed in whenever the master of it was made, or maybe it just originates from a zoomed-in copy?

Quite possibly.  I wonder whether it was a deliberate choice.  It occurs with many of the UK prints compared to the US ones, including some of the films we have already watched.

We'll see when we start the 1928 films that the UK and US prints often derived from different camera angles of the same scenes, and that there are a few instances of both versions surviving for comparison today.  Those are therefore cropped differently but also feature different background details due to the different perspective.

So something like that could be happening with these 1927 films too, though these seem to be simply different 'zooms', as you say, rather than different angles.

Replies From View

From Everson's book:

 


From Skretvedt's book:

 

Spudgun

Catching up with the last couple, and it's a case of two steps forward, one step back. It's very interesting to compare them as they're about as different as two L&H shorts can be. Do Detectives Think? has so many of the little trademarks that we've come to associate with the boys - from their outfits to their wrong-hat mix-ups to sharing the same bed - that there's a case for saying that this is the beginning of the golden era of Laurel and Hardy. But then Putting Pants on Philip jettisons most of that, as if someone at the studio was actively resisting making the greatest double-act of all time into what they had to become.

I still enjoyed both films a lot, though. Do Detectives Think? is the better of the two, in my opinion - certainly, it's closer to the Laurel and Hardy we all love. The hat routine is a particular highlight. So this was made before the lost Hats Off? I wonder how much of a trademark it had already become by the time the latter was filmed, to the point that they were already prepared to take it to the nth degree. (These Pathé/MGM releases are confusing me no end.)

On a slightly more subtle note, the level of Stan's idiocy is approaching the correct pitch, as evidenced by the knock on the door and being left outside. It's like he's trying to give himself an effected gravitas, but obviously he's too oblivious to ever carry it off and then works himself into a confused panic the instant anything goes unexpectedly. The subsequent fall through the door rounds it off nicely. The final third or so of this one tends to drag a little, but otherwise it's a very worthy addition to the series, and all the supporting cast are excellent value.

Putting Pants on Philip is also very funny, but not in the same way. We're back to L&H not being themselves or a team, which isn't a great starting point, but ultimately it all develops into a memorable short with surprisingly risqué moments. It's got better pacing than the above, and the level of utter chaos that one person in a kilt can cause is a great running (and escalating) joke. I really liked the logic of the 'Marilyn Monroe' sequence with its snuff and the sneeze, which slowly builds to an obvious punchline but doesn't fail to deliver brilliantly. Babe's exasperation throughout is something to behold, but that's nothing on Stan's 'violated' face at the climax of the measuring scene.

So although this one is arguably the funnier of the two, it suffers in the sense that it could really have been anyone playing any part. The former stands up better as a bona fide Laurel and Hardy team-up. Still, two in a row that I really enjoyed, and if the next one's what i think it is, I'm really, really looking forward to that!

Ant Farm Keyboard

Quote from: Replies From View on December 21, 2018, 05:08:28 PM
Quite possibly.  I wonder whether it was a deliberate choice.  It occurs with many of the UK prints compared to the US ones, including some of the films we have already watched.

We'll see when we start the 1928 films that the UK and US prints often derived from different camera angles of the same scenes, and that there are a few instances of both versions surviving for comparison today.  Those are therefore cropped differently but also feature different background details due to the different perspective.

So something like that could be happening with these 1927 films too, though these seem to be simply different 'zooms', as you say, rather than different angles.

American silent films had two different negatives. They were using two cameras or would shoot two different takes, then get the best angle (or take) for use for the American negative, then use the "second best" footage for a parallel edit, and this negative would be shipped to Europe. This way, if some Spanish or German distributor wanted to get copies of the film, it wouldn't damage the American negative, which was still used domestically.

That's how they have been able to reconstruct a few films where part of the US footage is lost or damaged beyond repair. They splice in shots from the European version when it was better preserved. Sometimes, when the original footage resurfaces, you can understand why it is superior – better framing, better acting, etc.

The cropping is another issue. We have never been supposed to see the rounded corners from the film stock, at the cinema or on TV. Showing a film always requires some kind of cropping. But it can either be applied carefully or cheaply. I guess the European video versions tend to favor cheapness, as they loaded a bunch of shorts and kept the same setting for all the transfers.

Replies From View

Thank you Ant Farm Keyboard; all information like that is greatly appreciated!

Replies From View

#131
Quote from: Spudgun on December 22, 2018, 08:05:58 PM
(These Pathé/MGM releases are confusing me no end.)


It can be confusing.  This covers the films released by the end of 1927; I hope it helps:


Production order:
The Lucky Dog  (written and filmed circa 17th-29th November 1919)
Forty-Five Minutes From Hollywood  (written and filmed circa August 1926)
Duck Soup  (written and filmed mid to late September 1926)
Slipping Wives  (written and filmed late October 1926)
Love 'em and Weep  (written and filmed circa January 1927)
Why Girls Love Sailors  (written and filmed February 1927)
With Love and Hisses  (written and filmed circa March 1927)
Sailors, Beware! (written and filmed circa April 1927)
Now I'll Tell One (written and filmed April 1927)
Do Detectives Think?  (written and filmed circa May 1927)
Flying Elephants  (written and filmed circa mid-May 1927)  1
Sugar Daddies  (written and filmed circa June 1927)
The Second Hundred Years  (script finished 10th June 1927; filmed late June)
Call of the Cuckoo  (written and filmed circa late June 1927)
Hats Off  (written and filmed circa late July - early August 1927)
Putting Pants on Philip  (written and filmed August 1927)
The Battle of the Century (written and filmed late September - early October 1927)


Release order:
The Lucky Dog  (released circa 1922 by Metro)  2
Forty-Five Minutes From Hollywood  (released 26th December 1926 by Pathé Exchange)
Duck Soup  (released 13th March 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
Slipping Wives  (released 3rd April 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
Love 'em and Weep  (released 12th June 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
Why Girls Love Sailors  (released 17th July 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
With Love and Hisses  (released 28th August 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
Sugar Daddies  (released 10th September 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
Sailors, Beware!  (released 25th September 1927 by Pathé Exchange) 
Now I'll Tell One  (released 5th October 1927 by Pathé Exchange)  3
The Second Hundred Years  (released 8th October 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
Call of the Cuckoo  (released 15th October 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
Hats Off  (released 5th November 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
Do Detectives Think?  (released 20th November 1927 by Pathé Exchange)
Putting Pants on Philip  (released 3rd December 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
The Battle of the Century  (released 31st December 1927 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)


1  Pathé Exchange held back the release of Flying Elephants until 12th February 1928, so it does not appear in the 1927 'release' list.
2  This is the release date for The Lucky Dog as it appears in Skretvedt's book; you can find many alternatives.
3  Now I'll Tell One was rediscovered after my edition of Skretvedt's book was published, so its production and release dates are not covered in it.  Glenn Mitchell's Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia offers 9th October 1927 as the film's release date, but Wikipedia gives 5th October 1927, placing its release between Sailors, Beware! and The Second Hundred Years.  As a release date of 9th October would change this order I have decided to go with Wikipedia.

Replies From View

I have a question:  does anybody know why Laurel and Hardy films are presented with different running speeds in different countries, or which is the more "authentic" frame rate in terms of the producers' intentions?

I personally feel the more natural running speed of the US releases is more pleasing; the UK ones have a constantly over-cranked quality which often distracts from the more subtle humour by rendering everything more cartoony and slapstick.  I've checked and this continues into the sound era, with all the actor's voices consequently being slightly higher in pitch in the faster UK films.

But is the difference a consequence of conversion to PAL regions, or was it a historical preference to present Laurel and Hardy to European audiences with this faster pace?

Ant Farm Keyboard

Camera operators would manipulate a crank to shoot footage. They tried to keep the same pace during all the film, but it was never flawless and there are differences in speed between two films, usually between 16 and 24 fps. That was not an issue for screenings in the twenties, as the projectionist would also use a crank, so they would adjust the pace on their own. When the switch to sound happened, cameras and projectors became motorized and standardized on 24 fps. But it had never been the intended speed for silent films.

That's why it's important to study what was the intended shooting and projection speed before you create a video master. Early telecine in the US would just use 24fps to transfer a short, and everything looked as if it were in fast forward. And it would be 25fps in Europe, which was even worse. DVDs are still a little problematic for preserving the right speed, but it can work with a few duplicates frames (or half-frames). Blu-ray is an improvement, but these standards are not really designed with silent films as the top priority, as you can guess...

Regarding the pitch of the voices, there are tools for compensation. It's just that nobody bothered to use them there.

Replies From View

That's fantastic - thanks!  Is the extra frame per second responsible for the faster speed in Europe?

daf

Looking up Stanley Lupino's filmography just now, I noticed Thelma Todd is on Facebook - which is one better than me. Nice one, Todders!

Ant Farm Keyboard

Quote from: Replies From View on December 23, 2018, 01:29:52 PM
That's fantastic - thanks!  Is the extra frame per second responsible for the faster speed in Europe?

It is, because it's much easier to convert a film that plays at 24 frames per second to a TV that works with 50 Hz interlaced by speeding it around 4% at 25 fps (which also pushes the soundtrack half a tone higher if there's no correction).
In the US, they have to use something called 3:2 pull down for transfers, which has become something rather trivial. As the frequency is 59.94 Hz (not 60 Hz, as they couldn't prevent some issues at 60 Hz in the early days) interlaced, they have to repeat a few half-frames (interlaced) and to apply a very slight increase in speed. Normally, any slightly evolved video player or converter is able to handle the 3:2 pull down from a NTSC film DVD (or anything broadcast on TV that was shot at the same speed), and to generate a video file at 23.976 fps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

But for silent movies, as there were no standards for speed, they have to make choices for encoding. That's why you'll get stuff on 1080p or on 1080i, depending on the solution that's the most fitting to the supposed original speed. And sometimes, they just don't want to make the choice on their own, as there are some drawbacks with a more exotic, but more faithful, speed. That's why you have two options for Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc, a film that tastes better with barbecue sauce.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/passion_of_joan_arc_blu-ray.htm

I mention that film, because it basically checks all the boxes you mentioned. The original cut was considered lost for decades. First, Dreyer was asked to censor stuff, then the negative was lost in a fire. He put together a second version, using alternate takes, and this negative was also lost in a fire. A French critic, Joseph-Marie Lo Duca, put together a "restoration" in the fifties, based on copies of the second version, and made alterations (like selecting a soundtrack for his tastes and turning intertitles into subtitles), which Dreyer didn't enjoy, then a Danish historian made a more faithful effort, that required picking the best available material from many existing copies.

And all of this became useless, when they found in the eighties in the janitor's closet of an Oslo mental institution (I'm not kidding) a complete and pristine copy of Dreyer's original version, put together before the cuts he had to make due to censorship. That was at the time an event comparable to the discovery of the full version of Metropolis in Argentina a few years ago.

Both the British and the American Blu-ray discs offer the original cut in both 20 and 24 fps. Criterion has done a little cropping, so you don't see, and you have never been supposed to, the rounded corners of the film stock. Eureka has added as an extra the Lo Duca cut, that only plays at 24 fps, because of the pre-existing soundtrack, as it was for a while the way most people had been able to discover that film.

And that's the effort they put together for silent masterpieces. The Laurel and Hardy catalog didn't get the same kind of attention for decades, as TV networks or distributors would just use the copy they had at hand. The rights owner, Hal Roach, was also more concerned in the eighties about putting together colorized versions of the films than bankrolling a real preservation of the material.The US boxset for the sound years was the first time some of the shorts and feature films were handled in a decent way (but the American Film Institute has apparently made better efforts for some of the titles since), but the silent material hasn't been shown the same respect on video. There's no shorts collection similar to the stuff that has been done for Chaplin or Keaton.

Durance Vile

I'll go with the consensus. This was a step back: a very good film, but not a Laurel and Hardy. This was a return to the "feisty" Stan characters that we'd seen before (especially the medical inspection and the trouser fitting). He played it brilliantly, by the way. The "violated" scene - which would obviously have had them rolling in the aisles back in the day - was actually a bit uncomfortable to look at from today's perspective. It was also a bit strange to see Stan as a leaping sex maniac in the Harpo Marx mode.

It was another quite risqué film as well. I loved the "Marilyn Monroe" scenes, where Stan deliberately walked back over the grate to see what was going on, with the inevitable effect.

Also, for the first time I watched it twice, the second time with the American version as Replies recommended. It really does make a difference. You can properly see tham acting.

Replies From View

I'm really enjoying this thread at the moment; thanks everyone.  In particular thanks for the detailed answers to my questions, Ant Farm Keyboard.


Some additional entries from The Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia:


Dorothy Coburn:




Homosexuality:

 


Risqué humour:

 

Replies From View

Week 16

The Battle of the Century, released 31/12/1927

 


Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Century


Now, the situation with Battle of the Century is currently rather cruel.  As you will have read from the above wikipedia entry, the second reel of this film was discovered in June 2015.  It's been screened at a few festivals but has yet to be released more widely.  So even though about 90% of Battle of the Century is now out there somewhere to be seen, all we presently have for our watch-along is the incomplete footage below (comprising the first reel plus material from the closing pie fight) - less than 50% of the total film.


Regarding the version on the UK DVD boxset:
QuoteThe Battle Of The Century - 1927 (silent)- This film is partially lost, presently about 9 ½ minutes of original footage exist from a 20 minute film.  This film has explanatory cards to fill in the missing sequences.  Quality is superb.
(http://www.laurelandhardy.org/newDVDREV.html)

This article from November 2000 relates to the assembly of this version, I think:  http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/archive/articles/2000-11-battle.html


Sourced from the above boxset:  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x24uv6s

The US release uses a better print, and runs at a more natural speed, but here the gaps in the existing footage are less clearly marked:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23NPuJQ2v1E

Replies From View

Here are some stills from McCabe, Kilgore and Bann's book, which should give you a sense of the missing sequences:

   


This is a review of the recently rediscovered 'The Battle of the Century', from when it was screened at the Leeds International Film Festival in 2016 (I have already shared reviews from this blog of extended versions of 'Duck Soup' and 'The Second Hundred Years'):  https://thelostlaugh.com/2017/02/23/the-rediscovery-of-the-century/


And from the rediscovered film, this tantalising glimpse of new footage from the pie fight was released in May 2017 (you can see where it fits into the previously available material):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrbVZ1nfWkk


This post on Hal Roach loss and preservation is as relevant for 'The Battle of the Century' as it was about 'Hats Off':  https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,69067.msg3677547.html#msg3677547

QuoteFrom 1957 through 1970 filmmaker Robert Youngson mined the Roach library of silent comedies to produce a succession of wonderful compilation films, including THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY (1957) and WHEN COMEDY WAS KING (1960).  By then HATS OFF was already lost, and BATTLE OF THE CENTURY was decomposing.  Youngson wasn't intending to do so, nor was it his responsibility, but by converting, selectively, the deteriorating nitrate he wanted to use onto safety film stock, he presumably saved it.  Youngson only copied, however, what he wished to excerpt for the movie he was making.  So he only saved the footage from BATTLE OF THE CENTURY that he included in his anthology feature.  He had the opportunity to run a complete fine grain and preserve the entire film, but then so did his licensor, Hal Roach Studios, which did nothing.  Not long after Youngson pulled what he needed from reel two, which was an abridgement of the pie fight footage, the balance of the reel decomposed while in the custody of Bonded Storage in New York, was counted out, and then junked.


Here's an interview with film preservationist Jon Mirsalis about the rediscovery of 'The Battle of the Century':  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MxC4glhB5Y


This forum may also be of interest:  https://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20423

Konki

I've not read the whole thread so this may have been covered already but is any Laurel and Hardy stuff being streamed anywhere? There's nowt on Netflix or Sky Cinema and my dvd player is stuffed. Christmas isn't the same without Stan and Ollie.

Replies From View

Quote from: Konki on December 25, 2018, 11:18:16 AM
I've not read the whole thread so this may have been covered already but is any Laurel and Hardy stuff being streamed anywhere? There's nowt on Netflix or Sky Cinema and my dvd player is stuffed. Christmas isn't the same without Stan and Ollie.

I'm personally resisting the temptation to jump ahead in the Laurel and Hardy timeline, but if you're being less strict you may want to keep an eye on Talking Pictures TV, which had some Laurel and Hardy yesterday:




Durance Vile

Well there's something nice for Christmas. Even if important parts of it are missing, this one was clearly a classic.

I never realised before that the boxing match was a reference to the Dempsey-Tunney fight, so the counting makes a whole lot more sense now.

The pacing and the physical comedy were superb, culminating in the brilliantly constructed pie fight, and best of all Anita Garvin sitting on the pie. That little shake of the leg was absolutely beautiful.

Do let us know if the latest, more complete version ever turns up online.

Replies From View

Quote from: Durance Vile on December 25, 2018, 05:24:02 PM
Do let us know if the latest, more complete version ever turns up online.

I will!  This thread will be going for quite a while yet so there's a chance we'll revisit The Battle of the Century before we're done.

Replies From View

From Everson's book:

 


From Skretvedt's book:

   

SpiderChrist

Quote from: Bad Ambassador on December 18, 2018, 11:27:16 PM
I saw a preview of Stan and Ollie this evening. Some clumsy dialogue, but made with undisguised warmth and affection. Coogan and Reilly are both excellent. Their on-stage work is so faithful, it's like you're watching new L&H material.

I saw it on Saturday, and I concur.

Replies From View

A few relevant encyclopedia entries:


Names:




Slapstick:

 


Noah Young:


Spudgun

I wonder what people made of the title "The Battle of the Century" at the time - they likely assumed at the beginning that it's referring to the boxing match, but with hindsight we all know it's a bluff and they're actually alluding to the almighty pie fight at the end. Either way, it's got to be the first of the Laurel and Hardys that you can genuinely make a case for being a bona fide classic, and both halves stand up in different ways. I love everything I've ever seen of Battle of the Century, and it's so tantalising to think that there's even more of it out there somewhere that I haven't seen!

At the very outset, it's not a great sign that the boys have been given silly fictitious names for the film, but within a few seconds it becomes clear that they're actually the Stan and Ollie we all know and love, in the middle of a hare-brained money-making scheme. How are they expecting to beat the ever-terrifying Noah Young? The fight itself has some good physical comedy, the knockout punch being shot in first-person is a masterstroke, and the fact that he hits Stan so hard he basically takes out Babe as well all in one go is very funny. What I find particularly hilarious, though, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, is Stan lying there all cross-legged and peaceful. He's just been floored, but he looks so comfortable! No idea why that tickles me so much.

Something else I've been wondering is just how many topical jokes were slipped into these films at the time that we just don't even notice nowadays. Obviously the story of the "long count" is still known, but there must have been other gags down the years that were referencing something now long-forgotten...

As for the second half, besides the pie fight itself, there are some nice little visual jokes, such as Ollie handing himself the banana more that once, and the guy who falls into the dustbin. It's good to see Charlie Hall crop up playing the character type that he'll play again and again with L&H, and it's fitting in that sense that he's the one who starts the mayhem. I suppose this marks the start of the classic Laurel and Hardy turn-based battles - that is, the method of fighting where the first one to land a blow has the good grace to stand still and wait for their opponent to make their attempt at a hit, whereupon the the second stands around and allows the first to recompose themselves, and etc. etc. There have been hints at this before now, but this is possibly where it started to become a trademark (unless Hats Off will one day prove differently).

And what a pie fight it is! Something I think I praised in the last one is the internal logic of the gags making perfect sense, and that's even more true here. Whereas lesser comedians might still have started with a pie man slipping on a banana skin, I can imagine many of them going straight to the whole street getting involved without the gradual build-up of individuals of all sorts having their dignity robbed, one by one, in different situations. And dignity is something that plays an important role in why custard pies are funny (as Krusty the Clown once taught me), and that's why Anita Garvin deserves a very special mention for her short turn. We're now so deep into the era of people deliberately humiliating themselves and others for the sake of YouTube views that it's difficult to remember how society used to be, and Anita's subtle performance in the middle of such an unsubtle scene is too perfect for words. Best leg-shake ever.

Quote from: Replies From View on December 23, 2018, 03:27:32 AM
[Production order] can be confusing.  This covers the films released by the end of 1927; I hope it helps:

Thanks ever so much for that! Interesting to see that the last three made in a row were Hats Off, Putting Pants on Philip, and The Battle of the Century - it seems that the grand joke they were working with at the time was Stan and Ollie having the capability to start something small, and before you know it everything has escalated wildly out of control with the whole town involved. It looks like each time they were trying to outdo the previous one in terms of scale.

But on that note, The Battle of the Century finds a slightly new angle, with the boys sort of detaching themselves from the action, at first actively handing out the pies for others like they're somehow above the actual fighting, before trying to make themselves scarce all together. I'm really looking forward to the day I finally see Ollie's expression as he asks the policeman, "What pie fight?"

Absolute classic.