Slapsticon 2010

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:39 am

I'm sort of recovered from Slapsticon -- although right now if I ever see another plumber, carpenter or taxi driver passing himself off as European nobility -- well, I've had enough for the moment.

First things first: my gratitude to Linda Shah, who sat outside and manned the desk throughout the entire operation like a good hostess who never gets to sit down and enjoy the meal. Applause were offered to the programmers, the introducers, the accompanyists and the folks in the projection room, all well deserved, but poor Linda did the right thing and missed out on the fun. Even missing Ham & Bud can't make up for that.

Before beginning my general praise, let me get my usual grumpy complaint out of the way. Fellows, I know we can't hope for perfect prints -- although the quality of some of this stuff is amazing -- but please, please, get a proofreader to go over the program book. Confusion of "its" and "it's" sticks in my craw, not to mention typos. If you can't find someone who can do the work, get the sheets to me a week before they print and I'll do the job myself.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way -- I wouldn't want to disappoint Richard Roberts -- let's get on to the good stuff.

As a general overview, the programming was brilliant. Yes, there were large amounts of physical comedy -- that's what we come for -- but there were enough outliers to mean it took me three days to overdose. Not only did we get the polite comedy of the Drews, but we got a musical that Hitchcock stole from for THE 39 STEPS -- YOU MADE ME LOVE YOU, a straight western starring Roscoe Arbuckle -- THE ROUND-UP and the first item on the program was a PBS documentary on radio comics!

For me the people are worth as much as the movies. It's a great pleasure to eavesdrop on their conversations. I purchased Brent Walker's Sennett book and have been reading it and find it well worth the price. In the first fifteen pages he tosses off two observations that clarified some obscure issues for me, and it just kept getting better.

Despite the 'redecoration' the Spectrum looked much the same as it did a couple of years ago -- apparently they used the time to fix the air conditioning, which they thought hadn't been strong enough.

The big media event was, of course, the re-premiere of A THIEF CATCHER and they flipped a coin to decide whether Ben Model, Phil Carli or Andrew Simpson would play for it -- somehow no one heard my suggestion that they give each a broom and see who was left standing. Phil won and I guess he did a fine job -- I was too busy watching the film which had nothing to do with Chaplin -- it's a solid Ford Sterling one-reeler.

For me the highlight of the weekend, as in previous years, was Rob Stone's rarities and the second reel of Stan Laurel's WHEN KNIGHTS WERE COLD was just as big a deal as the Chaplin -- more important because it was ten minutes of Stanley instead of 90 seconds of Charlie. There was also a great little Edison from 1913 -- A RELUCTANT CINDERELLA with Arthur Housman too young to drink anything stronger than root beer and a couple of dynamite Jimmy Adams clips.

MODERN LOVE was presented in all its glory but while the first half was what one hoped it would be, it ended poorly, with the lead actress awful in her line readings and the plot interfering with the fun.

I found the most hateful film of the weekend to be THE CAVEMAN. It's a fine movie, and Matt Moore does a wonderful job of not being able to wear his clothes, but Marie Prevost nails her role, and, alas, I've known people like that, who think they own the world and that nothing can touch them. -- most managed to kill themselves and the survivors now complain about their clueless children. Also I wonder why anyone cares about Miss Prevost with Myrna Loy walking around in a tight maid's outfit.

I had a great time, and thanks to everyone there. I look forward to next summer, but could we have two fewer Ham & Buds?

Bob

MikeH0714 · Post by **MikeH0714** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:10 am

Re: MODERN LOVE. I have a theory that this film provides a solid clue as to why Hal Roach had no faith in Charley Chase's ability to carry a feature film. Certainly he had it all over his leading lady, both in talent and charisma. Certainly he rose above most of the contrivances within the story. But in one hysterical scene, Anita Garvin absolutely stole the picture. I posited this opinion to a few attendees, all of whom concurred.

Michael

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:45 pm

Charley was too good a director not to use the talent he had available. And, yes, Anita is great. Do you think Charley didn't know that before the scene began?

Still, that's the best scene in the entire picture and everyone's reaction is perfect.

Bob

Chris Snowden · Post by **Chris Snowden** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:16 pm

I'm not Charley Chase's biggest fan by a long shot. I usually find him more likeable than funny. But I was impressed with Modern Love, and doubly impressed by his performance in it.

1930s cinema is full of comic character actors who play real-world people whose befuddlement or naivete drive their comedy: Stu Erwin, Charlie Ruggles, El Brendel, Hugh Herbert, etc. etc. It makes no sense to me that these guys got so much work in big-studio features (often playing leads), while Chase was mainly confined to two-reelers. He was every bit as talented as they were, probably more so than any of them. And his persona was perfect. Why wasn't he in demand for leading roles?

It makes me wonder if there wasn't concern in Hollywood's executive suites about Chase's drinking. I can't think of any other explanation that makes sense.

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:51 pm

I think that's it, Chris. He almost died several times during the 30s, and I'm sure no studio wanted to risk big money on him.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Chase would have been a fine character comedian in features but I don't think he'd have worked as a leading man. He was excellent in silents and adapted well to sound but (at least to me) in the talkie era his character became something of an irritating nuisance- very funny but not someone you'd like to be with very long.

BenModel · Post by **BenModel** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:09 pm

Here's a very nice post from Travis Stewart, a/k/a Trav S.D., author of "No Applause, Just Throw Money: the Book that Made Vaudeville Famous". This was Travis's first Slapsticon, but he is a pal, and a frequent attendee of the "Silent Clowns" shows in NYC.

http://travsd.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/ ... debriefing

YS · Post by YS » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:36 pm

Anita Garvin was absolutely perfect in that scene, but her (or Chase's) performance in MODERN LOVE has little to do with his aborted feature film career. As others have suggested, more than anything else, Chase's drinking/health issues kept him from making the leap to features. In fact, his first major health crisis occurred immediately after production wrapped on MODERN LOVE, incapacitating him for several months and working against any kind of momentum he may have gained from that film.

It was great to see the restored MODERN LOVE at Slapsticon - it was enjoyable and rather fascinating - certainly unlike any other film Chase had appeared in (even aside from the extended length). He handled the more dramatic scenes quite well, and brought a few amusing comic scenes to the proceedings, of which the dinner sequence was a highlight.

Major kudos to all those who made this year's Slapsticon a great success - it was wonderful to see many old and new friends there, all partaking in early film comedy euphoria.

Yair

kndy · Post by **kndy** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:41 pm

Thanks for the report Bob! Looks like there was a solid lineup of films!!!

Was there a good turn out for the event?

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:03 am

I thought the turnout was pretty good. Pre-registration was up and the theater was about 85-90% full Saturday evening -- but it was similarly filled in 2008 when they offered Laurel & Hardy in WAY OUT WEST.

Bob

Brooksie · Post by **Brooksie** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:56 am

MikeH0714 wrote:Re: MODERN LOVE. I have a theory that this film provides a solid clue as to why Hal Roach had no faith in Charley Chase's ability to carry a feature film. Certainly he had it all over his leading lady, both in talent and charisma. Certainly he rose above most of the contrivances within the story. But in one hysterical scene, Anita Garvin absolutely stole the picture. I posited this opinion to a few attendees, all of whom concurred.

Anita Garvin has to be one of the all-time underrated figures in slapstick. That sense of dignity she has just slays me. If the Garvin/Marion Byron partnership had lasted longer, the world would be a far funnier place.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:59 am

I wonder why Anita Garvin didn't move into features.

Gerry Orlando · Post by **Gerry Orlando** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:01 am

I love Anita Garvin's cutaway shots in "Blotto", as she's sitting at the side table in the nightclub, watching Stan and Ollie make complete fools of themselves because they think that they're drunk.

Her "look to kill" icy glare is priceless, as are her teeth-gritting and clawing of her fingers, as if she's ready to strangle the life out of both guys!

Those cutaway shots are quick, but great!

gjohnson · Post by **gjohnson** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:18 am

Garvin seemed to of had a "Louise Brooks" type of attitude towards a film career. She could take it or leave it. She got married as sound came in and she distanced herself from working even more. The one person she could rarely say no to was Laurel. When he found a part or a bit that he felt only she could do justice to Anita would re-enter the Roach studio.

Gary J.

Gerry Orlando · Post by **Gerry Orlando** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:49 am

gjohnson wrote:Garvin seemed to of had a "Louise Brooks" type of attitude towards a film career. She could take it or leave it. She got married as sound came in and she distanced herself from working even more. The one person she could rarely say no to was Laurel. When he found a part or a bit that he felt only she could do justice to Anita would re-enter the Roach studio.

Gary J.

Well, Anita was certainly the perfect "shrewish wife" for "Blotto".....

Mae Busch was great at throwing dishes and beating up her husband, but Anita had a certain "murderess" quality about her.....I always felt that she could actually KILL the guy!

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:56 am

boblipton wrote:I thought the turnout was pretty good. Pre-registration was up and the theater was about 85-90% full Saturday evening -- but it was similarly filled in 2008 when they offered Laurel & Hardy in WAY OUT WEST.

Bob

But the theater was also filled about this amount in the afternoon when they ran "Modern Love" (1929), "South of the Boudoir" (1940), and "You Made Me Love You" (1934).

Richard M Roberts · Post by **Richard M Roberts** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:02 am

LouieD wrote:
boblipton wrote:I thought the turnout was pretty good. Pre-registration was up and the theater was about 85-90% full Saturday evening -- but it was similarly filled in 2008 when they offered Laurel & Hardy in WAY OUT WEST.

Bob
But the theater was also filled about this amount in the afternoon when they ran "Modern Love" (1929), "South of the Boudoir" (1940), and "You Made Me Love You" (1934).

What was indeed interesting on Saturday was that the mainswell arrived in the late morning/early afternoon, filling the Spectrum to near capacity, then a large number remained through till the late evening. The actual number who arrived just before the Chaplin Rarities show was few, and our numbers were way up the other three days as well. Our pre-registrations were up even before we announced the Chaplin thing. We did just fine this year thanks.

RICHARD M ROBERTS (red-eyed back to Phoenix this morning and definitely heading back to bed)