|
Faults
Feb 26, 2018 16:09:13 GMT -5
Post by Buppster on Feb 26, 2018 16:09:13 GMT -5
Nothing is perfect, certainly not Our Gang. There were a number of mistakes made with the basic plot lines and a number of missed opportunities too. I know a lot of people don't like the MGM produced shorts, and in the main I'd agree with them, but one of the things that I personally dislike was the whole idea of injecting 'romance' into the series. Basically kids of that age tend to stick together with groups of friends of their own sex and they avoid the opposite sex like a bad case of cooties. Seven and eight year olds aren't romantic, they're curious, practical and firmly rooted in reality. The whole idea of Alfalfa, Butch and Waldo continually competing for the hand of Darla or of anyone else was just so contrived. It may have provided a few story lines but I think that it also distanced Our Gang from it's audience members of a similar age to the characters, kids who probably played marbles, rode roller skates and bicycles but avoided girls like the plague. That's my gripe with Our Gang but what's yours, or do you think that it was perfect as it was?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Faults
Feb 26, 2018 19:02:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 19:02:33 GMT -5
There were many shorts in which the girls were involved in the adventures with the boys, like Mary Ann Jackson, Dorothy DeBorba, Mary Kornman (who was a romantic interest of Mickey Daniels), and even Darla herself took part in a few things. Also, kids do indeed have crushes on other kids or even fall in love with other kids. Either way, they never avoided girls "like the plague".
|
|
|
Faults
Feb 26, 2018 19:52:40 GMT -5
Post by Buppster on Feb 26, 2018 19:52:40 GMT -5
I know that they didn't avoid girls like the plaque, that was entirely my point, that ordinary kids in the street of that age would have done so. For ordinary groups of boys having maybe one tom boy who hung around with them might have happened with some groups of boys but the whole romance side of things, that was over employed in Our Gang, is simply unrealistic for kids of those ages, especially way back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. Maybe social media and exposure to the Internet and media have changed kids behaviour nowadays but it hadn't done so back then. Back then gender roles were pretty firmly embedded in society, boys and girls played different games and had different interests.
By the way I'm not asking anyone else to agree with me, as I said in the initial post, it's my personal opinion, nobody else is obliged to share it. To repeat what I said in my initial post.
That's my gripe with Our Gang but what's yours, or do you think that it was perfect as it was?
|
|
|
Faults
Feb 26, 2018 23:41:13 GMT -5
Post by mtw12055 on Feb 26, 2018 23:41:13 GMT -5
I can see your point. I'd say Mickey Daniels' affections for Mary Kornman was the most believable when it came to Gang romances - especially in "July Days." By the time the Alfalfa-Darla-Butch (or Alfalfa-Darla-Waldo) stuff showed up, the Our Gang concept had changed a bit. Yes, for the most part they were still kids doing realistic kid things, but there was also a clear attempt at aping adult situations at times. The "romance" is a prime example of this.
But that being said, kids at that age do have crushes. I sure did. Was I romantic about it? Certainly not. I'd tease the girls I had a thing for. Or just ignore them and hope they could read my mind. But yeah, nothing romantic at that age.
Still, I find the parodying of adult romance amusing if done right. Carl Switzer had the ability to pull it off. It may not be totally believable, but it can work for a laugh. But again, it has to be done right. A film like "Wiggle Your Ears" went a little too far into parody world, while "Football Romeo" came off more like an Andy Hardy story.
|
|
|
Faults
Feb 27, 2018 6:53:35 GMT -5
Post by Buppster on Feb 27, 2018 6:53:35 GMT -5
But what is your personal gripe with Our Gang or don't you have one?
|
|
|
Faults
Feb 27, 2018 12:59:58 GMT -5
Post by imnotallenhoskins on Feb 27, 2018 12:59:58 GMT -5
The earliest talkies have very poor sound quality and sluggish pacing but quickly improved. I think overall the series declined in quality after Robert McGowan's departure. The later shorts are fun but conventional compared to the best of the 1920s-early 1930s.
|
|
|
Faults
Feb 27, 2018 13:26:25 GMT -5
Post by Buppster on Feb 27, 2018 13:26:25 GMT -5
I think that it's understandable that the sound quality was poor in the early talkies. It was a new technology at the time, which was improving all of the time, and initially they didn't fully appreciate the possibilities and used sound for sound effects rather than for dialogue. In a similar vein take a look at the CGI in some 1990s movies and by today's standards it looks positively primitive but it was cutting edge stuff at the time.
The pace was sluggish in some of the earlier shorts but that's probably because they were two reelers and the studio often needed to pad out the action in order to make the story last for the full two reels. The pacing certainly improved when the series changed to one reelers,and they had to make the best use of the shorter time that was available to tell the story in. Humor did seem a bit lacking in some of the early 1930s shorts but as you said things improved, until they then nose dived to the bottom of the toilet in the 1940s.
|
|