I’m just getting into the era, but the 1930s is
reputed to be a Golden age of Hollywood cinema. In comedy, giants including the
Marx Brothers and Charlie Chaplin lit up the screen, prompting much bursting of
sides and so forth. In addition, Laurel and Hardy are of course listed alongside
these legends. But for me at least, judging from Sons of the Desert, this is an ill-deserved reputation. I realise this is probably
not a popular opinion: the Laurel and Hardy appreciation society is named after
this film for instance. Nonetheless, for me at least, it features nothing that
the aforementioned Chaplin and Marx Bros. didn’t do better.
Take for instance the entire Laurel shtick. He
plays a hapless figure, someone unable to influence his environment, and so
subject to the calamities that circumstances impose on him. He is to be pitied
because of this. In Sons of the Desert for instance, he tells
us he can’t attend the convention of the titular group, without permission from
his wife. Fine fine fine. But how is this altogether different from the Tramp
figure in Chaplin? The Tramp too is a hapless loser, tossed too and fro
according to circumstances. Moreover, the Tramp is arguably more pitiable,
because he is silent. He gains our sympathy because he is unable to
defend himself or retort, even in words. This is something Chaplin himself
recognised: the introduction of sound spelled the end for the Tramp, because his
being likeable depended on him not speaking. No such luck for Laurel though. He
rarely retorts in Sons of the Desert, instead misspeaking words
and seeming to misunderstand all that is said to him. But this is tame stuff,
and does nothing to enamour us to him.
In addition, the slapstick in Sons of the Desert comes up short compared to that in Chaplin and the Marx Bros.
Here, perhaps the biggest visual jokes come from Hardy repeatedly hitting his
head, be that against support beams or china plates tossed in his direction, and
Laurel proving incapable of pressing the correct front door bell. Ho-hum. Do you
suppose these guys saw the mirror scene in Duck Soup, or the boxing scene in
City Lights? Judging from what they came up with here, I sure hope not. Otherwise
the failure to aspire to those same heights is inexcusable.
Like I mentioned at the start, I realise this
probably isn’t likely to be a popular opinion. Criticising a
long-established classic is about as close as you can come to pissing in the
wind. For all that, I must admit I’m probably going to watch another Laurel and
Hardy film. The towering reputation of the pair means I’m inclined to give them
another go. Moreover, I’d like to find out whether Sons of the Desert is representative of their efforts, or just a one-off flop.
[Get it here: Laurel and Hardy - Sons of the Desert (1933)]
