A Startling New Theory Regarding 'Shrimps For A Day'

[myhomeo]

Just watched it again and noticed a couple minor but bizarre details which, if allowed to fester, will drive you mad. And I'm not going down alone.

No, I don't mean dumb little half-jokey nitpicks like why Dick and Mary would want to be at the end of the line being forcibly dosed with castor oil. Castor oil, if I understand correctly, is a laxative. If you're going to be force-fed something that makes you urgently need to visit the bathroom RIGHT NOW, wouldn't you prefer being at the FRONT of the line? (Real world answer: They're using the slapstick approach to castor oil, which means they ignore its actual purpose and focus solely on the fact it tastes nasty. Thus, of course they'd want to put off the agony as long as possible. Besides, as one of them notes, maybe the castor oil will run out before it gets to them.)

Nor do I mean odd little inconsistencies like Leonard Kubrick apparently switching sides. For most of Dick's stay in the orphanage, Leonard functions as sort of a prison guard or trustee, forcing Dick to go along with the routine. At the end, though, Leonard's among the kids trying to keep Mister Crutch away from Mary and Spanky. (There are a couple of reasonable 'in-story' answers for this, the most likely being that Leonard's earlier behavior to Dick is because he doesn't want the smart aleck who's just turned up antagonizing Mister Crutch and getting them ALL in trouble-- but he's willing to help out in a "prison break." And I'm not going to bother wondering why nobody seems to care there are suddenly two extra kids who apparently dropped out of nowhere, why the orphanage apparently has extra nightshirts but no beds, why none of the other kids react at all to Dick SMOKING A CIGAR --The only one who cares is Leonard and all he's worried about is ordering Dick to stop pacing and get to bed-- and such.

No, there are two little things that stick in my head. First: When Dick refuses to undress with all the other kids, Leonard and a few other kids jump on him, the implication being that they forcibly strip him and make him put on a nightshirt. Fine and dandy, but the weird part is that at least in the version I've seen, the scene abruptly cuts just as they go after him, actually cutting George off in mid-word. (He says something like, "Wait a min...") It doesn't seem like it was planned that way; it feels like it was rather clumsily edited. Was it? Anyone know?

The other's a little weirder and more fun. When Leonard delivers his rebuke to Dick about giving him a good spanking, he flicks Dick's nose, triggering a "What the HELL..." reaction from Dick. A second or so later when Mary persuades him to go sit elsewhere, he pats her cheek and Dick, or George, has to suppress a grin. No, really. It doesn't seem to be intentional; George's face changes from annoyed to amused, then quickly back to annoyed, as if he inadvertently broke character for a second. Now we know Gus Meins preferred to keep the films loose and let the kids find their parts. Did Leonard add-lib the cheek-pat and/or nose-flick and spring them on the midget couple without warning? Actually, this suggests a possible rereading of the text along the lines that Leonard's character KNOWS WHO DICK AND MARY ARE but isn't letting on he knows.

I expect a plethora of doctoral theses to result from this speculation. Either that or a change in medication...

[myhomeo]

Dug this out because new information has surfaced...

Someone on a Rascals Facebook page found an old still and suggested it might be from a deleted scene. The still shows Dick sitting on Mrs. Crutch's lap in the boys' bedroom reluctantly fiddling with his shirt while Mary in her party dress and all the other boys look on.

I dunno. The implication is that Dick is being forced to strip off in front of everybody and the notion is excruciatingly embarrassing enough to work as a comedy bit. Presumably, Mrs. Crutch heard the scuffle when Leonard and the other boys went after Dick, barged in, and took charge. What Mary's doing there is unknown but they could have just added her for the still.

That said, there isn't any real evidence this is indeed a dropped scene and there is an important matter to consider: George Brasno. Even if we assume he was okay with showing a bit of skin on camera (and honestly, at most he probably just would have removed his shirt), he was NOT actually a child and presumably did not have a child's body.

Maybe that's why the scene was dropped. Or maybe George objected. Or maybe it was just considered a little too beyond the pale. Or maybe it was that ol' bugaboo pacing. Whatever. It's worth considering.

[mtw12055]

What I want to know is how Alvin Buckelew managed to exit the truck carrying the orphans twice. Maybe he realized a missed opportunity to step on Mr. Crutch's foot, and voluntarily went back in.

One more thing - I think most of us can agree that there isn't much of a point in trying to connect one Our Gang film to another. Continuity was not a priority with short subjects series. After all, the average wait for the next Our Gang short back then was one month. And there's no guarantee someone would have even seen the previous short.

That said, I wonder how many of us who were discovering Our Gang with a "TV show" mindset were confused by the orphanage setting. I don't recall what questions 10-year-old me had, but I would imagine they were along the lines of, "Did their parents all die? Are these kids such big brats that they've been put up for adoption repeatedly?"

But I think I just accepted it for what it was rather quickly.

[myhomeo]

Jul 30, 2022 16:25:50 GMT -5 mtw12055 said:

What I want to know is how Alvin Buckelew managed to exit the truck carrying the orphans twice. Maybe he realized a missed opportunity to step on Mr. Crutch's foot, and voluntarily went back in.

The first Alvin wasn't Alvin. It was Dickie Jones in an Alvin suit.

[imnotallenhoskins]

Mar 15, 2014 14:43:32 GMT -5 myhomeo said:

No, there are two little things that stick in my head. First: When Dick refuses to undress with all the other kids, Leonard and a few other kids jump on him, the implication being that they forcibly strip him and make him put on a nightshirt. Fine and dandy, but the weird part is that at least in the version I've seen, the scene abruptly cuts just as they go after him, actually cutting George off in mid-word. (He says something like, "Wait a min...") It doesn't seem like it was planned that way; it feels like it was rather clumsily edited. Was it? Anyone know?

Probably to give the audience the minimal amount of assurance that nothing inappropriate or uncomfortable was to be implied by the action while simultaneously implying it, for a subconscious comic effect.

The other's a little weirder and more fun. When Leonard delivers his rebuke to Dick about giving him a good spanking, he flicks Dick's nose, triggering a "What the HELL..." reaction from Dick. A second or so later when Mary persuades him to go sit elsewhere, he pats her cheek and Dick, or George, has to suppress a grin. No, really. It doesn't seem to be intentional; George's face changes from annoyed to amused, then quickly back to annoyed, as if he inadvertently broke character for a second. Now we know Gus Meins preferred to keep the films loose and let the kids find their parts. Did Leonard add-lib the cheek-pat and/or nose-flick and spring them on the midget couple without warning? Actually, this suggests a possible rereading of the text along the lines that Leonard's character KNOWS WHO DICK AND MARY ARE but isn't letting on he knows.

I expect a plethora of doctoral theses to result from this speculation. Either that or a change in medication...

I certainly believe that the part underlined is correct and this fact is relevant to the earlier discussed scene.