Magnolia

Magnolia

Appreciation Day

Monday, 20 April 2020

Film #18 - Babes in the Goods (1934)


    
Starring Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly.

Featuring Arthur Housman and Jack Barty.

Directed by Gus Meins.

Synopsis

"Girls, you don't seem very anxious to make a sale!"

        
"Babes in the Goods" begins with two shop-workers in a department store demonstrating how to use a nice, shiny dishwasher to hundreds, literally hundreds, of spectators gathered outside on the sidewalk.

*jokes*



The department store boss (Jack Barty) is pleased with how the demonstration is going, and wants to continue the sales push during the rush hour. What with the other two girls clocking off, the "new" girls will be put in the window to replace them.

I think we can all guess who the "new" girls will be!

Kelly and Todd are trying to sell a new gown to a rather obstinate Fay Holderness, with Kelly doing the modelling. As well as attempting the impossible, the girls also get left holding the baby.



Mr Barty asks Kelly and Todd to go in the front window and demonstrate the dishwasher, strictly informing them that as long as they have an audience, they keep demonstrating.



The girls set about demonstrating the modern way of washing dishes as Charlie Hall looks on engrossed. Someone pushes to the front of the queue, yes, it's the inimitable drunk, Arthur Housman!



As is typical of the duo, Kelly bungles the demonstration, having trouble with the hose and breaking the tap.

Most of the crowd begin to disperse, but ol' Arthur maintains his prime viewing position, even after twenty-five demonstrations.



Reluctant to cease demonstrating as they still have an audience, the girls decide the best way to clock off is to get Housman to leave. They attempt to do so by scaring him, but this fails miserably.



They carry on demonstrating, but Kelly makes the mistake of loading the dishes into the washing machine!

Eventually, the automatic blinds of the store kick in, meaning that Housman can no longer see in, and the girls can go home.

However, they've been locked in!

With no way out until morning, Kelly is quite happy to sleep on the bed a couple of windows down.



Todd eventually joins her, after stripping down to her underwear.

Patsy moves around a lot in her sleep and eventually the pair end up falling out of bed.



Frightened that they will still be asleep when the blinds are opened in the morning, Kelly volunteers to remain awake.

However, this does not go to plan!



With the blinds now open and the girls fast asleep in bed, Housman - who has been outside all night - is free to continue watching them. He gives them a wake up call by burning Kelly's posterior! (Just think ants and a magnifying glass...)



What with their nightmares now true, Todd hides behind the bed to protect her modesty whereas Kelly tries to run away. However, she inadvertently catches her dress in the door and is left in the same state of undress as Thelma.



Mr Barty arrives for work and finds the two girls covering their modesty with blankets. He fires them, ordering them to leave the bedclothes on their way out, leaving Kelly and Todd with no choice but to walk out of the job in just their underwear.


        

Review

"That guy's screwy!"

    
If you were to ask me 5 years ago, having watched all of the Kelly & Todds, is this a particular short which you'd rank as one of your favourites, I may have said that "Babes in the Goods" would be right up there in my top 3, after I'd given you my standard response of squinting at you and stating "I wouldn't say yes, and I wouldn't say no".

Watching it again now for the purpose of this review - in fact, watching it several times in order to write this review - I'd still happily place it in my top 3 Kelly & Todds.

In my opinion, it contains many of the elements that make for a good K & T short: Kelly's bungling getting the girls into trouble; Todd's pained facial expressions in having to deal with Kelly's bungling; a fair amount of pretty heavy handed slapstick; and it's also pretty risque, possibly it's the most risque short in their canon.

More of that later on...

AND, of course, who doesn't love Arthur Housman?



Is there even a bad Roach short that features Housman??! Probably not!

Once again, that ol' lovable rogue provides much merriment, in fact, I would be so bold as to state that he gets the best laughs in the short. Put your hand in the air if you agree with me...


In particular, it's hilarious when he puts his umbrella up against the shop window in the mistaken belief that he will get drenched by the dishwasher jet. Likewise, it's great when the girls' best attempts to get him to go home for the night involve Kelly threatening that she'll dig a home for him and Housman just imitating what they are doing.


For me, this is vintage Housman, and it's nice to see him as quite integral to the success of this short, rather than as in say, "Scram" where he disappears mid film. The sheer look of horror on his face as Thelma dismembers the manikin is hilarious, as is the fact that he ends up in a bin after a giant, de-clothed Todd walks towards him! That's brilliant.

  

Housman is also blessed with a really novel way of waking up the sleeping duo once the blinds have gone up. Burning Kelly's butt was something I didn't see coming, and his lecherous wink right at the end as he encourages the girls to drop the bed clothes and parade out in a state of undress is just the right side of tasteful.

I feel as if Arthur Housman always improves the quality of a short, just by gracing it with his presence.


Moving on, I've also got a couple of questions I wonder whether people can help me out with: Does anybody know the names of the two women who are demonstrating the dishwasher at the start of the short??

Having watched very little of the Roach output in the last 3 years and being a bit rusty, I feel like their faces are familiar but I can't immediately place them in any other films. As part of the Roach stock company, I guess they only ever had walk on parts like in "Babes in the Goods", but I'd be curious to learn if anybody has any information on them.


Secondly, another pretty obscure question: Does anybody know who was the stunt body double for Patsy Kelly??? It's quite well done in this short, but it is obvious that when Kelly falls out of the bed one time, and later on, takes a flying leap onto the bed, deshabille, that it's not Patsy Kelly! Again, just curious.  

Right, I haven't written much about Kelly and Todd yet, so let's correct that with some text about "Babes in the Goods" and risque nature. It's arguable that this is one of the most racy Kelly & Todds, potentially one of the most risque Roach studio releases (although personally, I'd vouch for Mixed Nuts being the most risque - more of that in another review...).


What makes it so ribald? Well, Thelma Todd once again gets to take her dress off - are you all keeping a tally of how many times that occurs in the Pitts/Kelly & Todd series? - and there are plenty of loving close-ups of Thelma Todd in her underwear...


...BUT, I believe this is the only time in the series that Patsy Kelly also takes her dress off too (unless you're counting the end of "Backs to Nature"...).


The question I ask is: why? Let me explain.

The fact that Thelma Todd takes her dress off copious amounts of times in the series probably indicates that the Roach studio thought that there was good marketability in getting people in to see a Pitts/Todd or Kelly/Todd if the lovely Thelma Todd was presented in a state of undress.

Arguably, this must have worked, as Todd kept getting scripted to take her dress off in subsequent shorts. I'm curious as to why Patsy Kelly also sheds her dress (albeit, accidentally) in this short, and then doesn't for the rest of the series. 

Is it something to do with a simple gag? That the situation for the girls is like a very real bad dream - waking up to find your bed has been put in a shop window for the common multitude to gawp and titter at - so it's even funnier if BOTH girls have just their negligees on to enhance the comedy?


Or could it have been to do with the developing comedy dynamic that the writers were toying with? "Babes in the Goods" is an early Kelly and Todd short. Could they have been planning to utilise the 'woops-my-dress-has-come-off' gag for both women in the future?

The fact they didn't, in Kelly's instance, to me suggests that the writers probably thought that it would turn into overkill and I also feel that it's not long after this short that Kelly becomes less glamorised and more frumpy and bumbling, thereby incorporating some of the traits typical in her predecessor, Pitts.


Whatever the reasons, I'm glad they didn't make it a regular feature. Does anyone else agree with me that it can only be funny so many times when Thelma Todd takes her dress off? I wonder whether some of the less successful comedy in the Kelly & Todd series stems from moments where Todd is undressed. What I mean is, at least for me in "Babes in the Goods", Arthur Housman has the best moments, and I'd kind of expect a Kelly & Todd short to, well, have Kelly & Todd deliver the best slapstick and gags!


I've rambled on a lot about ribaldry, but there's also one other saucy moment that raises a wry smile in its risque-ness. It's the moment when one of the above-mentioned unidentified demonstrators is in the shop window!


   
The fact that the whole crowd leans across as our demonstrator changes placards...come on now! Just look at the guy's face in the front row who is nearest to, ahem, her posterior! Hahahaha. Seriously, you don't usually get this kind of stuff very often in a Roach release, as Jack Barty (below) would attest.


I haven't said anything about the title of the short, which is an obvious pun on the phrase "Babes in the Woods", which might commonly refer to two young innocents led into a trap. Interestingly, IMDB reveals that Disney released an animated short entitled "Babes in the Woods" in 1932, and perhaps more relevant to us, a 1917 silent fantasy with the same name featured a child actor by the name of Gertrude Messinger, who had of course appeared in Roach's "Boyfriends" series.

Just a couple more quick points on some of my favourite moments in the short. As would be expected, Kelly and Todd work well together, Kelly is quick with her quips such as "Night owl Kelly never sleeps" and her catchphrase question - "What do I get?" - is answered by an irate Todd - "MAGNOLIA!" - . I also really enjoy the bits where the two girls are trying to get to sleep in the bed and they keep falling out. For me, that's up there with some of the finest moments of comedy that Laurel and Hardy performed involving a bed.


And Kelly's retort about an earthquake: hilarious!


Todd also has some great one-liners, such as suggesting that Fay Holderness's colour is "battleship grey"! Hahaha.


The slapstick involving the dishwasher demonstration is also well done, and often very funny. Personally, I'd vouch for Kelly loading the -washing machine- with the dishes a highlight of the comedy.



Whew! I think I'll wrap things up there...I've got to go and wash the dishes...


What do you think of "Babes in the Goods"? Where does it rank in your list of favourite Kelly and Todds?
  

Watch it

"What do I get???? MAG - NOLIA!"


"Babes in the Goodsis available on DVD, beautifully restored by the German Filmmuseum as part of their "Female Comedy Teams" set.

Here's the link: Female Comedy Teams DVD 

My screenshots for this review are taken from "The Complete Hal Roach Thelma Todd & Patsy Kelly Comedy Collection" set released by Classic Flix. An excellent set and well worth purchasing!

Here's the link: Complete Hal Roach Todd & Kelly 

Saturday, 18 April 2020

2020 Musings

Wow, has it really been 3 years since I last wrote a review...

I've made a promise to myself to start focusing on this blog from now on. I've tentatively planned to write a new review every month featuring all your old friends and some new faces as well.

Who can you expect to see throughout 2020? Well, along with popular pairings such as Kelly & Todd and Laurel & Hardy, expect to see more Charley Chase and Harry Langdon. And there might even be a few surprises, such as Alice Howell, Snub Pollard, and Lloyd Hamilton to name a few...

As always, leave a comment with what stars and films you'd like to see me review!

On a side note, I haven't written -anything- in 3 years. Until that point, typically I'd be writing short stories, fiction, and material for a book on Hal Roach's comediennes alongside the blog, so to say I'm feeling a bit rusty would be an understatement. So I hope you'll bear with me as I get up to speed with writing the reviews again. That also explains the image of a creatively frustrated Thelma Todd below!

Finally, in happier news, in those 3 years where I've been silent - no pun intended - there has been a great range of silent and 'talkie' black and white comedy DVD and Blu Ray releases. I'll aim to bring as many of these great releases to the forefront of my blog to celebrate the excellent work that is going on in the world of black and white comedy. 

What do you get with this blog? Certainly nothing magnolia! Happy musings! Right, time to start work on Film #18...


Thursday, 26 April 2018

2018 Musings...

An update on Magnolia's Musings!

Late 2017/Early 2018 has been a busy time for your old pal here at Magnolia's Musings. What with a house move and long hours at my job, it's been difficult to devote any time at all to the blog.

However, all that is about to change!

With renewed vigour (and getting up off my backside), Magnolia's Musings is now back in business with a new review coming soon!

Here's to a black and white late 2018!


Friday, 14 April 2017

Film #17 - A Pair of Tights (1929)


    
Starring Anita Garvin and Marion Byron.

Featuring Edgar Kennedy, Stuart Erwin, and "Spec" O'Donnell.

Directed by Hal Yates.

Synopsis

"The story of two girls who were born hungry, raised hungry, grew up hungry - And still are!"

        
"A Pair of Tights" begins with our hungry girls, Anita and Marion, lamenting the fact that Anita seems to have char-grilled another dinner beyond edibility.



Marion soon gets over the disappointment by informing Anita that her boyfriend is coming to visit with his boss, and that the boss wants to meet Anita.

Anita is happy about this - maybe the two girls will get taken out to dinner?!



Marion's boyfriend (Stuart Erwin) and his boss (Edgar Kennedy) turn up outside the girls' flat in a car. Stuart has no money and Edgar is revealed to be a tightwad.



Observing Stuart turn out his empty pockets, Marion and Anita are not too thrilled...



Still, Marion is pleased to see her boyfriend. Anita, however, takes one look at Edgar and is not attracted to him!



Anita goes and sits on the piano stool and Edgar follows. She is deliberately cold towards him, staring at him blankly as Edgar tries to think of something to say.



Marion and Stuart, meanwhile, are all smiles and giggles!



Edgar tries to put his arm around Anita, but she pushes his hand away. He gets up, affronted, and Anita goes crashing off the edge of the stool to the floor! Edgar returns to the seat to try and embrace Anita again, but she shoves him away.

Anita then stands up and sends Edgar crashing off the stool onto the floor.




The party of four then set out in the car to find somewhere to have dinner...for 25 cents!

Marion spots an ice cream parlour and asks Edgar whether they can get four ice cream cones. Anita advises against it, saying that their appetites will be spoiled, at which point, Edgar's ears prick up and he happily obliges in handing over money to Marion!

Marion heads into the parlour to get 4 ice creams, but not before getting hit on the nose by the swinging door as she tries to enter.

Marion has trouble opening the door, carrying 4 ice cream cones, so she kicks it open with her foot, only for the doors to hit her backside on the way out. The four scoops of ice cream fall off the cones!



Edgar gives Marion more money and she heads back to get more ice cream. In the meantime, a policeman (Edgar Dearing) appears and tells the trio in the car that they can't wait outside the shop and must keep driving round the block.

Marion decides to exit out of the shop backwards first this time, only for a dog to start jumping up at her.



She holds the cones up high in an attempt to stop the pooch getting them. As she does so, she inadvertently causes a fan to blow the ice cream off the cones, straight into Edgar's face, much to Anita's merriment.



Marion goes back with more money, and the rest of the gang must drive on as the policeman approaches once again.

A cautious Marion heads back out of the parlour, only for the dog to badger her again! The dog manages to get hold of one of Marion's garter belts (?!) which has fallen down, and pulls her around for a bit.



She puts the ice creams safely on the seat of a parked car and bends down to sort out her tights. As she does so, the owners of the car return and a woman (Ellinor Vanderveer) sits down on the ice creams!

A shocked Marion runs back into the parlour.



The gang drive on, and crash into the side of a car driven by Charlie Hall (who else?!). Charlie gets out to remonstrate, just as Marion returns with the ice cream.

Charlie takes the ice creams and sticks them on Edgar's head. He also gives Marion money to buy more ice cream; a pleasant chap, that Mr Hall. This leaves Anita in stitches, looking at Edgar's forehead.



A young man (Spec O'Donnell) has just purchased an ice cream. He loiters outside the door just as Marion exits the parlour. The door knocks Spec and his ice cream falls on the floor. He retaliates by knocking Marion's cones to the ground!

Spec asks his father (Harry Bernard, who lives above the shop) for another dime. He chucks one down, which Spec fails to catch, so he gropes around on the floor for it by the door.

Marion exits and trips straight over him.




Chaos now ensues - the gang in the car run over the policeman and try to get away; Marion attempts to exit the shop again but ends up smacking the door into Spec who receives an ice cream cone to the nose.

Spec then attempts to knock the ice cream out of Marion's cones, but Marion is able to catch the scoops each time, until he kicks her backside and she drops them all! She goes to kick him, but he catches her leg and doesn't let go. 

By now, the trio are back outside the shop. Anita gets out to deal with Spec. She pinches his ear, saving Marion, and allowing Marion to plant a well-placed kick to the seat of Spec's pants.



Anita, pretty fed up, asks Marion to give her the money and she will get the cones herself.

Anita gets them and comes out of the store, only for Spec to take his revenge by throwing down a potted plant from above which hits Anita straight on the head! Once again the ice cream is ruined.

Anita lobs ice cream up at Spec, but hits his father. He comes down in a huff, but not before Spec throws another potted plant down at Anita.



Anita tweaks the nose of Spec's father, and he sends her to the ground with a leg-sweep. Now Edgar gets involved and all hell breaks loose!



Edgar takes a plant pot to the head, courtesy of Spec, so does his father (by mistake), then an epic game of leg-sweeping takes place which sees everyone end up on the floor, including lots of innocent bystanders...

...And then Marion appears with four ice creams...

...And she ends up on the floor as well!



Edgar, Anita, and Marion, eventually manage to crawl back into the car which is hastily driven away, with the cop still chasing them. He gets hold of the hood of the car, but no more!    

Review

"I'll get four ice cream cones if it takes all day!"

    
"A Pair of Tights", the last of the three short films to feature the comedy team of Marion Byron and Anita Garvin, is a hilarious, slapstick fest, showcasing the talents of the comediennes.



The film is interesting in terms of Byron and Garvin's pairing; in the first two Byron and Garvin shorts - "Feed 'Em and Weep" and "Going Ga-Ga", Marion Byron performs as a childlike innocent, simple to the point of excess. She wears a baggy skirt that is too big for her and sports an excessively large hat. Her hair is tied up, with a single lock hanging down in a curl visible upon her forehead. Her face is excessively white, often portraying a look of shocked innocence or unsuitability for the hostile, fast-paced life around her. In many ways, Byron's character in those first two shorts is essentially a mixing together of elements of Stan Laurel's character with elements of soon-to-be-Roach employee, Harry Langdon.

It makes for a really interesting - and funny - character.

But in "A Pair of Tights", the studio have turned Marion into a sexy flapper - the character type she performed in "Steamboat Bill, Jr", alongside Buster Keaton. Marion Byron's penchant for great slapstick is still visible in "A Pair of Tights", but it's interesting that the studio removed the 'weirdness' from the character she was in the first two shorts, and made her more 'accessible' in this final short.



I wonder why?

Anita Garvin's character in "A Pair of Tights" is essentially the same one from the first two short films that the pair made together, which makes you wonder why the studio decided to change the formula. This is especially interesting because, like in "Going Ga-Ga", I find that "A Pair of Tights" seems to centralise the action around Marion as the lead slapstick figure, with Anita Garvin a close second co-conspirator in the madness.

Like in "Going Ga-Ga", I also find myself laughing a plenty at Marion Byron; she really was a terrific silent actress - she just pulls the funniest faces!



So, first things first, we've established that there has been a slight character change in the Byron/Garvin pairing in this short, but is this film on a par with their first two starring shorts?

Well, yes, is the easy answer!



"A Pair of Tights" is a really great short. It's definitely a short that I've warmed to over re-watchings. I remember the first time that I saw all three Byron/Garvin shorts, "A Pair of Tights" was initially my least favourite. I don't really know why. I didn't dislike it; certainly not. Perhaps I thought it wasn't as quirky as the first two.



I don't know. But having watched it several times, I would say that it's certainly one of my favourite Roach shorts in terms of pure comedic action.

Why is this? Let's find out!  

I remember the first time I watched the short, I must have been having a slow day. I remember thinking for ages: "why on earth is it called 'A Pair of Tights'? Then it twigged...



"A Pair of Tights" as a name for the short might make you immediately think it's a reference to Anita and Marion (and Marion's tight trouble), but it is in fact more appropriate as a joke about the two tight-wads, Stuart and Edgar, who don't want to spend any money on the girls.




That's probably one of the first reasons why I rate this short so highly. You can see how I wax lyrical about Marion Byron and Anita Garvin in my reviews of "Going Ga-Ga" and "Feed 'Em and Weep", but this short is topped off by the fact that you have Spec O'Donnell, Charlie Hall, and Edgar Kennedy in it.

Edgar Kennedy, especially. He's brilliant to watch in this short as the tightwad boss who not only wants to keep his hard earned cash for himself, but also has to deal with an angry Anita Garvin!



Stuart Erwin was new to me, but, according to IMDB, he was new to film as well in late 1928 when this was filmed; this was only his second film appearance, and his first (and last?) at the Hal Roach Studios.



It was good to Spec appear again, he feels like something of an old friend if you've seen many of the Max Davidson short comedies. He's at his brilliant, brattish self, fighting with Marion Byron.



And as for Charlie Hall, well, any film he pops up in is always made the better for his mischievous contribution!



So, this short features two great silent comediennes who are both marvellously funny to watch, a strong supporting cast who all get plenty of laughs. What else makes it funny? Ice cream!

The fact that a large amount of the film centres on Marion's attempts to purchase 4 ice cream cones and transport them safely to a parked car might make you turn your nose up and think, "well, that sounds a bit overdone/boring", but it certainly isn't! The film becomes remarkably creative - and hilarious - with every scoop of ice cream that ends up on the floor, as you begin to wonder how out of hands things can get for poor, little Marion.

Some of my favourite moments in this film include:

The early exchanges between hungry Marion and Anita, after Anita has burnt dinner in the frying pan. The girls are brilliant at expressing emotion through their comedic facial expressions and it's clear that they had a good chemistry onscreen.



It's also particularly funny to see Marion and Anita's reactions to the fact that Stuart and Edgar are a pair of tightwads! Look at the expressions on their faces!



How does Marion achieve such a pop-eyed look?!?



Once Edgar and Stuart appear in the girl's apartment, some great comedy moments occur. Marion and Stuart very much take a back seat in this part of the film, and it's Anita and Edgar who steal the show. I love Kennedy's embarrassed smirks and uncomfortable wriggling as he tries to think of something to say to Anita. When she does snap back at him that she's feeling "hungry", her look of boredom is brilliant!

Things get funnier when Edgar attempts to follow Stuart's lead and put his arm around his would-be girlfriend, Anita. It's great fun to see her bat him away with her hands!



And to top it off, it's hilarious to see Anita crash onto the floor off the piano stool, only for her to return the favour to Edgar minutes later. The look of anger on Edgar's face is superb; as is Anita's belittling laugh.

But it's once the couples set out in the car and Marion attempts to get ice cream that the comedy really notches up a gear (no pun intended).



It becomes terrific fun to watch in eagerness to see what is going to happen next in Marion's attempts to purchase ice cream. The ways in which she drops and spills the ice cream onto the floor become more and more creative as the film unfolds, whether it's being upset by a dog or putting them on the seat of a parked car, only for someone to come and sit on them, the slapstick never dwindles for one moment or becomes tedious.

And through it all, Marion's cheerfulness to get ice cream makes it all even funnier! And her reactions to the dropped ice cream leave the viewer laughing as well - whether it's bemused indifference or a look of shock.



Even the predictable gag of Kennedy getting hit in the face with ice cream doesn't become tedious, thanks to slight variations. Once he is the victim of Marion as she holds the ice cream right in front of a ventilator fan, and the other time he is one of Charlie Hall's victims. I think that both times, it's Anita Garvin's over-the-top laughter that really makes the moment!



And just when you think the comedy is starting to settle down, Spec O'Donnell enters and the ice cream spilling and tit-for-tat escalates to new eccentricities. My favourite moment is when poor Marion trips over Spec and ends up on the floor amongst the ice cream - her look of annoyance is priceless; until now she's been sweet, little, patient Marion, now she's angry!



The epic tit-for-tat battle involves nose tweaks, plant pots, more ice cream, and finally, a bizarre game of leg sweeping that sees loads of people end up on the floor outside the ice cream parlour. Edgar, Marion, and Anita's slow crawl through the carnage is one of the standout moments of the film.

An utterly bonkers short film is ended with the party never getting ice cream as they flee in Stuart's car, chased by the cop. This really is a funny short with lots of re-watchability (new word).


  
Overall, the film is once again a terrific showcase for the acting talents of Marion Byron and Anita Garvin. Both dominate the screen with their antics, whether it's slapping, tripping, fighting, scowling, or laughing at Edgar Kennedy. In all three films, the duo showcase what would have been a winning combination for a slapstick double-act. All things point towards a series that would have been very different in style to the Pitts and Todd series that would appear a couple of years later. What a pity that Marion Byron and Anita Garvin never had the chance to develop their partnership further.



I think I'll end with a couple of questions:

I've been straining my eyes but I can't make it out; can Max Davidson be seen lurking behind the counter in the ice cream parlour (you need a good shot of Marion Byron outside the doors to the shop to attempt to see Max inside)? And is Katherine Grant the lady who looks outside the shop at all the people on the floor towards the end of the film (see the last picture in the synopsis section above)?



What do you think of "A Pair of Tights"? Where does it rank in terms of the three short films that Byron and Garvin made? Why did their partnership end?


  

Watch it

"We don't have to spend any money on these Janes, do we?"



"A Pair of Tightsis available on DVD, beautifully restored by the German Filmmuseum as part of their "Female Comedy Teams" set.

Here's the link: Female Comedy Teams DVD