Post by mtw12055 on Apr 11, 2019 2:34:13 GMT -5
This is in response to a discussion that started on the "Pop Culture" thread in the General Discussions section. I figured it would be best to move it to a separate thread so as to keep things on track.
What is true, and not many people know this, is that there was a brief conflict between Laurel and Hardy, as evident from a letter Laurel wrote to someone during the late ‘40s. This was reported in the US Tours book on the team. What the basis of the argument was, I’m not sure. But it evidently cleared the air rather quickly, as if it never happened!
Of course, like I said, biopics like to add drama and create villains. They’re more narrative than documentary.Since I've not been able to find another place online to discuss the "Stan and Ollie" film, I'm glad it has been brought up here.
The couple of previews I've seen for this film seem to highlight scenes that show some fairly severe tensions between Stan and Babe.
I have probably read every book about Laurel and Hardy except the one about the 50s tours, so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment. But in none of the other books can I ever recall any account of these tensions.
So to your point above about adding drama, how accurate are these scenes in terms of anything we know happened in real life?
I'm not a fan of biopics in general, because — no matter how well-done they may be — they have the effect of implanting the actors' portrayals of real-life characters in people's minds, which may not be at all accurate. In other words, for all the praise heaped on the Johnny Cash movie, I've seen enough footage of the real Johnny Cash and June Carter. I don't want to have that supplanted by actors' conception of them. If I want to know more about them, I'll read books, not see a movie.
My concerns about "Stan and Ollie" that I outlined above have made me even more reluctant than usual to see this film, despite my love of The Boys. What's the deal?
I haven't read the tour books either - but someone did share this one excerpt.
The book includes a snippet from a 1949 issue of Associated Press.
US Tours author A.J. Marriot weighs in:
The letter, dated Feb. 14, 1949
A.J. Marriot again:
The conflicts presented in the film were more like this in reality:
- There was trouble during production on BLOCK-HEADS. According to Roach, Laurel had been going through difficulties with then-wife Illena, which led to Stan acting rather uncharacteristically off-camera. Stan would sometimes randomly leave production, and on one occasion, left town for several days. While about 90% of BLOCK-HEADS had been completed, the company had to finish the rest without Laurel. Hardy's fight with Jimmy Finlayson was lengthened, while the closing gag, utilizing the team's stunt doubles, was a last-minute replacement for another gag that would have required Laurel to be on set. Stan's salary had been docked in his absence, and he refused to return to the studio unless he was paid. His contract was soon terminated.
- With Hardy still needing to finish out his contract, Roach cast him as the lead in ZENOBIA ("the elephant picture"). This was originally a short story that Roach purchased the film rights to, and intended as a vehicle for Roland Young. It was announced that Hardy and Harry Langdon were going to be a new comedy team, but this really seemed to be a temporary situation until Roach finished his current season of movies with United Artists. Langdon had no desire to be an accomplice in the splitting up of Laurel and Hardy, which is the exact opposite of the all too eager Harry that we see in STAN & OLLIE. He even said to a reporter, "I honestly hope they'll patch things up, even if it means Hardy and I won't play in a picture together. [Stan] knows that if I hadn't taken it, someone else would have - and he's glad I got the break. Great fellow, Stan."
- Stan fully understood the situation as business. Oliver Hardy had contractual obligations to fulfill - and alimony to pay - so there was no pain over his partner doing a film without him. In fact, when Oliver was set to appear on Jack Haley's radio program to promote ZENOBIA, Stan sent his longtime collaborator a telegram of encouragement.
- The issue between Stan and Hal was soon patched up, and a new one-year deal was made with both Laurel and Hardy. Once that was up, the duo left Roach in hopes of becoming independent producers, like Chaplin and Lloyd. While financial backing was being sought after, 20th Century Fox contacted Laurel and Hardy's representative Ben Shipman in signing the team for a one-picture deal, which later extended to an additional five films. Both Laurel and Hardy were in on the deal, so Stan signing a contract without Hardy's knowledge is nonsense. Laurel and Hardy's 1940s film career is another story, one that Stan didn't especially look back on with fondness. I'd suggest checking out Randy Skredtvedt's THE MAGIC BEHIND THE MOVIES and Scott MacGillvray's FROM THE FORTIES FORWARDS for more info.
- Now onto the meat of STAN & OLLIE - the '50s tours. Like I said, I haven't had the opportunity to check out any of the books on that era, so my knowledge of it is pretty minimal. What I do know is that the ROBIN HOOD deal took place before the events in STAN & OLLIE. In fact, that movie was in talks even before the team was asked to do ATOLL K. The Miffin person attached to the project that Stan keeps alluding to is a character dreamed up by the screenwriter. Hardy was well aware of the goings-on, and wasn't kept in the dark like he is in the movie. A script was completed, and casting was discussed, but for whatever reason, little more happened beyond that.
- Laurel considering carrying on without Hardy also doesn't appear to be true. The Knobby Cooke guy that briefly becomes his new partner is most definitely another fictional person.
- While I find Bernard Delfont and Ida Laurel quite entertaining in STAN & OLLIE (both actors are fantastic), like Roach, they're depicted differently from who they really were. Ida was said to have been a much warmer person, and she and Lucille Hardy got along much better than what is seen in the movie. Delfont wasn't the sketchy guy we see either. Still, it makes for some entertaining moments.
- There are other little things that are a tad far-fetched, notably Hardy agreeing to do the "At the Ball" dance one last time despite being in so much physical pain. But once again, that's the movies for you. For the sake of telling a sweet story, I can accept most of these changes. Certainly the honest truth should be presented to the uninitiated, as biopic fans do sometimes take these things at face value. I heard from people insisting that the camera quickly cuts away from the opening scene of The Three Stooges' HALF-WITS HOLIDAY just as Curly is about to have his stroke because that's how the event was presented in the Stooges biopic. The reality is the stroke happened much later into production, and when the cameras weren't rolling. You'd have to be off your rocker to keep the events leading up to a stroke on film. But that's movies for you.
Of course, like I said, biopics like to add drama and create villains. They’re more narrative than documentary.
The couple of previews I've seen for this film seem to highlight scenes that show some fairly severe tensions between Stan and Babe.
I have probably read every book about Laurel and Hardy except the one about the 50s tours, so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment. But in none of the other books can I ever recall any account of these tensions.
So to your point above about adding drama, how accurate are these scenes in terms of anything we know happened in real life?
I'm not a fan of biopics in general, because — no matter how well-done they may be — they have the effect of implanting the actors' portrayals of real-life characters in people's minds, which may not be at all accurate. In other words, for all the praise heaped on the Johnny Cash movie, I've seen enough footage of the real Johnny Cash and June Carter. I don't want to have that supplanted by actors' conception of them. If I want to know more about them, I'll read books, not see a movie.
My concerns about "Stan and Ollie" that I outlined above have made me even more reluctant than usual to see this film, despite my love of The Boys. What's the deal?
I haven't read the tour books either - but someone did share this one excerpt.
The book includes a snippet from a 1949 issue of Associated Press.
Oliver Hardy May Get New Comedy Partner
Oliver Hardy, associated almost inseparably with Stan Laurel on the screen for twenty-two years, may have a new comedy partner soon. Hardy is reopened to be discussing a deal with a producer who wants him to star with Charles Coburn as a comedy team - again without Laurel.
Oliver Hardy, associated almost inseparably with Stan Laurel on the screen for twenty-two years, may have a new comedy partner soon. Hardy is reopened to be discussing a deal with a producer who wants him to star with Charles Coburn as a comedy team - again without Laurel.
US Tours author A.J. Marriot weighs in:
With hindsight, the rumor that Laurel and Hardy were about to separate seems absolutely ludicrous. Right up to his last days, Laurel always claimed that he and Hardy had never had a falling out - not even a cross word. But a contemporary letter, written by Laurel to Chicago attorney Lauritz P. Hwass, is proof that the rumor was actually true, and that Laurel had done a cover-up.
The letter, dated Feb. 14, 1949
My Dear Larry:
Am sorry that Benny Benefico disclosed a near fact before it was definite. However, I am trying my utmost to avoid a separation of the team regardless of our personal grievences [sic]. Anyway, it is entirely up to Mr. Hardy. I expect to get a showdown this week. Will advice you of the result.
Am sorry that Benny Benefico disclosed a near fact before it was definite. However, I am trying my utmost to avoid a separation of the team regardless of our personal grievences [sic]. Anyway, it is entirely up to Mr. Hardy. I expect to get a showdown this week. Will advice you of the result.
A.J. Marriot again:
With phrases like "I am trying my utmost to avoid a separation," and "I expect to get a showdown," this was obviously a real rift, and one that had the potential to become a permanent split between the comedy couple
The conflicts presented in the film were more like this in reality:
- There was trouble during production on BLOCK-HEADS. According to Roach, Laurel had been going through difficulties with then-wife Illena, which led to Stan acting rather uncharacteristically off-camera. Stan would sometimes randomly leave production, and on one occasion, left town for several days. While about 90% of BLOCK-HEADS had been completed, the company had to finish the rest without Laurel. Hardy's fight with Jimmy Finlayson was lengthened, while the closing gag, utilizing the team's stunt doubles, was a last-minute replacement for another gag that would have required Laurel to be on set. Stan's salary had been docked in his absence, and he refused to return to the studio unless he was paid. His contract was soon terminated.
- With Hardy still needing to finish out his contract, Roach cast him as the lead in ZENOBIA ("the elephant picture"). This was originally a short story that Roach purchased the film rights to, and intended as a vehicle for Roland Young. It was announced that Hardy and Harry Langdon were going to be a new comedy team, but this really seemed to be a temporary situation until Roach finished his current season of movies with United Artists. Langdon had no desire to be an accomplice in the splitting up of Laurel and Hardy, which is the exact opposite of the all too eager Harry that we see in STAN & OLLIE. He even said to a reporter, "I honestly hope they'll patch things up, even if it means Hardy and I won't play in a picture together. [Stan] knows that if I hadn't taken it, someone else would have - and he's glad I got the break. Great fellow, Stan."
- Stan fully understood the situation as business. Oliver Hardy had contractual obligations to fulfill - and alimony to pay - so there was no pain over his partner doing a film without him. In fact, when Oliver was set to appear on Jack Haley's radio program to promote ZENOBIA, Stan sent his longtime collaborator a telegram of encouragement.
- The issue between Stan and Hal was soon patched up, and a new one-year deal was made with both Laurel and Hardy. Once that was up, the duo left Roach in hopes of becoming independent producers, like Chaplin and Lloyd. While financial backing was being sought after, 20th Century Fox contacted Laurel and Hardy's representative Ben Shipman in signing the team for a one-picture deal, which later extended to an additional five films. Both Laurel and Hardy were in on the deal, so Stan signing a contract without Hardy's knowledge is nonsense. Laurel and Hardy's 1940s film career is another story, one that Stan didn't especially look back on with fondness. I'd suggest checking out Randy Skredtvedt's THE MAGIC BEHIND THE MOVIES and Scott MacGillvray's FROM THE FORTIES FORWARDS for more info.
- Now onto the meat of STAN & OLLIE - the '50s tours. Like I said, I haven't had the opportunity to check out any of the books on that era, so my knowledge of it is pretty minimal. What I do know is that the ROBIN HOOD deal took place before the events in STAN & OLLIE. In fact, that movie was in talks even before the team was asked to do ATOLL K. The Miffin person attached to the project that Stan keeps alluding to is a character dreamed up by the screenwriter. Hardy was well aware of the goings-on, and wasn't kept in the dark like he is in the movie. A script was completed, and casting was discussed, but for whatever reason, little more happened beyond that.
- Laurel considering carrying on without Hardy also doesn't appear to be true. The Knobby Cooke guy that briefly becomes his new partner is most definitely another fictional person.
- While I find Bernard Delfont and Ida Laurel quite entertaining in STAN & OLLIE (both actors are fantastic), like Roach, they're depicted differently from who they really were. Ida was said to have been a much warmer person, and she and Lucille Hardy got along much better than what is seen in the movie. Delfont wasn't the sketchy guy we see either. Still, it makes for some entertaining moments.
- There are other little things that are a tad far-fetched, notably Hardy agreeing to do the "At the Ball" dance one last time despite being in so much physical pain. But once again, that's the movies for you. For the sake of telling a sweet story, I can accept most of these changes. Certainly the honest truth should be presented to the uninitiated, as biopic fans do sometimes take these things at face value. I heard from people insisting that the camera quickly cuts away from the opening scene of The Three Stooges' HALF-WITS HOLIDAY just as Curly is about to have his stroke because that's how the event was presented in the Stooges biopic. The reality is the stroke happened much later into production, and when the cameras weren't rolling. You'd have to be off your rocker to keep the events leading up to a stroke on film. But that's movies for you.
