I like Follies of 1936, but not 1938.

[lrog]

And I understand, Reunion In Rhythm, was almost called, Follies of 1937. I don't like that one either.

Follies of 1936, is the only song and dance episode, I like.

[Buppster]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm not a fan of musical episodes myself but the Hal Roach Follies trio pale into insignificance when compared with the atrociously over the top Ziegfeld influenced MGM Our Gang 'shows.'

[tboneator64]

For me, the MGM 'Our Gang' BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, JR. one reeler from 1943 is the absolute nadir of their "let's put on a show" entries. Although RADIO BUGS from 1944 doesn't quite fit that category, I also find it an only marginally better slogfest!

On the other hand, I really enjoy all of the Hal Roach era musical shorts, from 1934's MIKE FRIGHT to the late 1937 entry OUR GANG FOLLIES OF 1938, which was a special two reel short release, the series being well into the shorter one reel era by that time.

CHEERS!

[Buppster]

I don't mind Follies of '38, as it actually had a plot and wasn't just an onslaught of over rehearsed tap dancing 'kiddies,' plus Philip McMahon was great.

Follies '36, reunion etc are not my cup of tea but they still probably look better than they are, when compared with the MGM 'show' shorts.

[myhomeo]

FOLLIES OF 36 started the 'Let's put on a show!' trope with the Rascals. I liked 38 too, but that's probably where it should have ended, having reached its logical progression.

Unfortunately, the "kids put on a show" idea was too good a springboard to stories so they kept it rolling. It reached its nadir in the MGM era, when it felt more like they were just doing kiddie revue shorts to avoid having to write about the Gang.

[Buppster]

It's ironic that in the hands of MGM what Hal Roach originally envisioned a group of scruffy kids behaving naturally, as an antidote to the over rehearsed miniature adult professionals seen in many movies of the time, ended up being precisely that. Tap dancing child professionals, with fixed smiles and elaborate wardrobes performing bland garbage while the Gang acted like miniature adults, lecturing their audience about the morally correct ways in which they should to behave. Hal Roach must have squirmed in his seat with embarrassment, if he ever had the misfortune to sit through one of the MGM shorts in a cinema, knowing that by selling the rights to MGM he was at least partially responsible for the travesty that the Gang had become. 

[dchord568]

I agree with the OP. The 1936 Follies were great. Even though a few liberties were taken, you could still imagine that a group of neighborhood kids put on that show, and all the amateur elements give it tremendous charm.

On the other hand, the Our Gang kids in tuxedos with lush Broadway production behind them does absolutely nothing to me, and the opera plot quickly grows tiresome.

[eternalstudent]

I would have to say that the only episodes about the gang putting on a show that I actually enjoy and find funny are "Spanky," "Beginners Luck," and "Pay as You Exit." Obviously the shows they put on aren't actually realistic, but yet they still have a realness about them because they're acting like kids. I find Reunion in Rhythm, Follies of 1938, and even Arbor Day painful to sit through because of how they're being presented as mini adults.

[Buppster]

And by the time they reached Captain Spanky's Show Boat the cinemas were probably making more in their concession kiosk from selling barf bags than from selling popcorn.



Remind me again how ordinary kids, playing in the street and arguing over sticks, have access to a paddle steamer and child-size show boat costumes.

[myhomeo]

In all fairness, most of 38 was a dream sequence, which explains the tuxes, elaborate sets, etc.

But yeah, that was one of the problems with later productions. They kept getting away from the original charm of the kids' clumsy, ingenious, unpolished performances and turning them into little Kiddie Revues.

Should comment, though, 36 has one of my least favorite Rascal moments: The bit where the chorus line of little girls sit down on the stage and do a kick-dance, waving their legs in (approximate) synchronization. The joke was supposed to be that this dance was somewhat risque for the time and neither the girls nor the all-kid audience knew that. That would leave a bad taste in my mouth even if Gus Meins wasn't the director.

[Buppster]

'36 can just about be excused as a 'show in the cellar' (a cellar with a high ceiling and a 'stage') but I'll let that pass, as a one off. Unfortunately it wasn't a one off.  '38 included a dream sequence at Spanky's night club and that fact excused the polished kiddie performers. No problem with that, it was a touch of originality. Prior to Alfalfa's dream the show in the cellar was... frankly unbelievable and because it had been done before it lacked any novelty value. After '38 the whole scruffy kids behaving naturally ethos of the Gang had been MGM'd out of existence and with it went most of the humour and all of the charm.

[sandro]

i like Follies of 1936 but John Collum was not there. i like Reunion In Rhythm and Follies of 1938 too.

[Buppster]

Strange, on John Collum's Wikipedia page '36 is listed among his Our Gang credits.

*John Collum @ Wikipedia*

But on the Wikipedia page for Follies of 1936, he's not listed at all.

*Follies of 1936 @ Wikipedia*

Oh well, at least Donald Proffitt was there, as well as Sonny Bupp, Delmar Watson, Philip Hurlic, Marvin Trin and Billy Wolfstone.

[sandro]

yes Donald Proffitt was there, i dont see the others.

[mtw12055]

Nothing strange about a Wikipedia editor getting something wrong.