Laurel and Hardy on Disc

[hearthesilence]

I tried read the rest of Harris's thread but two very hostile posters (including one involved with the restoration, SkreTvedt) jumped in and kept hammering away at Harris, claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The restoration team said they did NOT scrub the grain clean, and they that they did use the best elements possible. Numerous posts put up screen captures and videos comparing older DVD's and the current reissues. Maybe they didn't try to scrub it, but it could very well be the encoding. Who knows, but the point is, the texture is not showing the way it should. I can see "grain" there but it doesn't look the way it should. I believe the film restorations were done properly because I did see them projected, but that's not the same as mastering and encoding it well to a BD.

When the price goes down, I'll buy it, but it's still a disappointment and it's too bad some of the people involved refuse to accept any criticism of their work, even when it's valid and offered in a more even tone.

EDIT: SkreTvedt actually appears in the link Stefan posted, where he carries on accusing Harris's review of being unfair and unbalanced, then criticizes the more favorable review for calling Music Box "waxy." Same response as before - "*I* don't think it's waxy" and therefore everyone is wrong. This is soon followed by a screencap of the BD which does indeed look waxy, especially when compared to the DVD cap of the same frame. It's also revealed that Harris's thread was heavily cleaned up - considering the hostility of the posts still there, it's stunning to think there was a whole lot worse.

[movielocke]

wow, I watched it all last summer and all shorts and features all seemed fine, but my only reference point is VHS and they were staggering improvements on that, and the films were a lot of fun (most of the time). but I'd defer to RAH's expert opinion as to restoration details.

[hearthesilence]

wow, I watched it all last summer and all shorts and features all seemed fine, but my only reference point is VHS and they were staggering improvements on that, and the films were a lot of fun (most of the time). but I'd defer to RAH's expert opinion as to restoration details.

There are moments that look great. Like a large chunk of Sons of the Desert came from the original 35mm OCN and that part (at least the detail) looks fantastic...but a lot of it obviously came from a dupe well-removed from the OCN (where the film grain is far clearer than the actual image capture, which almost appears out of focus), and it's a pretty big drop in quality when it cuts to that footage. And furthermore, there's evidence that the whole film has been mastered way too bright. And that's one of the "good" transfers. Disc three with The Music Box has been universally panned over at the blu-ray forum as horrid.

[Tuco]

Don't know if I'm posting in the right place, but wondering about Laurel and Hardy's silents. As in - are we ever going to see a set of decent DVDs or (not holding my breath) blu-rays? The last rumors I can find are from 2019 on Nitrateville, saying that The Film Detective would release them on two (!) discs. Just wonderin'...

[domino harvey]

I’m making my way through the first Kit Parker set and it has not taken long to realize these two rank down at the bottom for me in terms of comic cinema figures of this period. I could point to how these shorts are horrendously slowed down for dead spaces of built in time for audience laffs that I can’t imagine needing that much room, or how every last gag is telegraphed from a mile away and thus there are rarely any surprises or delights as it all plays out exactly as one would expect (or, as stated, slower than one would expect). But I think the biggest hurdle here is that these are set up as comedies of frustration (making them an antecedent to Looney Tunes, among others) but functionally they are just reiterations of the same joke about how stupid these two are. And I don’t find characters in a movie finding new ways to be dumb funny or inventive, only tiring. The great physical comics of the 20s and 30s have an innate goodness and ingenuity to their characters (Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd), but this duo just kind of sucks, right? Like what am I missing here? This is closer to the Three Stooges than anything I thought I’d want to watch should be

[hearthesilence]

I never expected goodness and ingenuity from a Laurel and Hardy film, if anything they're farcical depictions of the ugly, self-destructive inclinations of humanity, not to mention its tendency to escalate conflicts and hostility to an absurd degree. Pretty much sounds like the world we're living in now.

[domino harvey]

But these shorts and, from what I've seen, fans of these shorts love these two. Yours may be a valid reading, but I don't believe these shorts are critical in the sense of using the duo's actions to make larger observations about human nature. They're just two morons doing dumb things and then holding holding holding holding holding holding holding for laffs that never come

Of the five shorts I recently watched, which include what I gather are two of their most popular titles, (the Music Box and Helpmates), there was exactly one (1) joke that was unexpected/amusing. That is an abominable success rate. I could believe the duo could work for me with different/better material (and I mildly enjoyed their feature the Flying Deuces, which is vastly more professionally made and acted than any of the shorts i've seen), but I'm skeptical I'm in for much of a sea change if I am struggling with some of their most well-regarded works

[Never Cursed]

Has everything that you've seen been a sound short? I'm not an expert on Laurel and Hardy, but if you haven't seen it Big Business is a lot of fun (as it should be, given that Leo McCarey made it) and has a very wacky finale. It's neither slow-paced nor reliant on the two being dumb for laughs (the idea of selling Christmas trees in July notwithstanding). It would be very easy for me to imagine that the transition to sound did them no favors.

[domino harvey]

Haven’t seen that one yet. Was planning on picking up the MoC silent sets but how much enjoyment I get out of the remaining contents of the Kit Parker set will prob dictate whether I do or not

[Never Cursed]

Okay, that makes sense. I'd watch that one on YouTube or something (it's to my knowledge their most famous silent short), and probably ignore them as a property if it does nothing for you. Their best sound moments were surely amalgamated for Myra Breckinridge, so you've probably already seen the highlights reel without intending to!

[domino harvey]

I dutifully watched Big Business and it’s a great example of what I’m not vibing with here: by removing a valid inciting action for the pair’s battle of destruction, Laurel and Hardy are just bullies and it’s not much fun to root for the assholes. It would have taken one line/intertitle to make the property owner “deserve” his punishment, but that would lessen the intended misanthropy (and while I wouldn’t say I love that other comic misanthrope of the era, WC Fields, at least he holds himself at arms length with some self awareness and we aren’t necessarily asked as an audience to align ourselves with him). I do think the pair are better served by the timing here, at least— much less mugging than in the sound shorts. I liked the visual of Hardy’s wool collar winter coat in the California sun too.

[knives]

I wouldn’t say these are the bottom of the barrel, I’ve seen too many of these terrible shorts to say so, the comparison in terms of quality to the 3 Stooges seems apt. They’re about the same with a more talented team to boost them.

[Never Cursed]

I dutifully watched Big Business and it’s a great example of what I’m not vibing with here: by removing a valid inciting action for the pair’s battle of destruction, Laurel and Hardy are just bullies and it’s not much fun to root for the assholes. It would have taken one line/intertitle to make the property owner “deserve” his punishment, but that would lessen the intended misanthropy (and while I wouldn’t say I love that other comic misanthrope of the era, WC Fields, at least he holds himself at arms length with some self awareness and we aren’t necessarily asked as an audience to align ourselves with him). I do think the pair are better served by the timing here, at least— much less mugging than in the sound shorts. I liked the visual of Hardy’s wool collar winter coat in the California sun too.

Hmm, I get what you're saying, but for me James Finlayson obliterating the "tree" with hedge clippers is good enough at least for the short's purposes. You also have to remember that, although annoying, our duo is poor and scraping for cash here (their car is an old Model T which you would call a "heap of junk" even then) and there's a latent class conflict under that (the spirited if misguided street peddlers driving into a neighborhood where they don't belong and getting wrapped up into a small-scale war with a petty tyrant homeowner) which is, I think, what the filmmakers thought a general audience might respond to. It helps that Finlayson really sells his innate foulness at the end by dancing over the ruins of the car like an angry demon. I'm not saying that the film is a bold Marxist statement or anything, just that I think there's stuff in it that directs our sympathies towards one side and makes the titular duo more fools caught up in a hostile world than antagonizing bullies (at least in this short).

I should also note that, in spite of Stan and Ollie's best efforts, Finlayson's house stands to this day and can be found in Cheviot Hills.

[Roger Ryan]

Before one gives up entirely, I would recommend the 1934 feature Sons of the Desert which does not rely on a whole lot of physical destruction for its humor. It also has a fun supporting role for Charlie Chase. I tend to be more amused by the small bits of business both Laurel and Hardy display rather than the large set pieces, meaning things like Laurel's cautious hesitancy given into violent abandon without warning or Hardy's desperate appeal to the audience by looking directly at the camera (although, only the subtler variations of this trait are effective, usually in a wide shot).

[domino harvey]

Their First Mistake is twenty minutes straight of gay jokes, showing that hack comedy like this has always been around. Of course the simpletons on LB think this makes it progressive or something. Hey bud, they ain’t laughing with you

[zedz]

I’m making my way through the first Kit Parker set and it has not taken long to realize these two rank down at the bottom for me in terms of comic cinema figures of this period. I could point to how these shorts are horrendously slowed down for dead spaces of built in time for audience laffs that I can’t imagine needing that much room, or how every last gag is telegraphed from a mile away and thus there are rarely any surprises or delights as it all plays out exactly as one would expect (or, as stated, slower than one would expect). But I think the biggest hurdle here is that these are set up as comedies of frustration (making them an antecedent to Looney Tunes, among others) but functionally they are just reiterations of the same joke about how stupid these two are. And I don’t find characters in a movie finding new ways to be dumb funny or inventive, only tiring. The great physical comics of the 20s and 30s have an innate goodness and ingenuity to their characters (Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd), but this duo just kind of sucks, right? Like what am I missing here? This is closer to the Three Stooges than anything I thought I’d want to watch should be

I'm in this tiny leaking boat with you. I know so many people who hail them as comic geniuses (mostly these are people who watched them endlessly on British TV as kids), but these people have never seen the great films of Keaton and Lloyd, and the stuff they find funny (stuff getting broken at length, pie fights) is the stuff I find rote and tedious. I don't think it's anything to do with innate goodness, but I think you've hit the nail on the head with 'ingenuity'. The great silent comics are brimming with it, and their gags are unpredictable, exquisitely timed, and executed with breathtaking finesse. My preferred comic instrument is the scalpel, not the sledgehammer. For me, Laurel and Hardy are, with rare exceptions, the early comedy equivalent of 'catchphrase comedy', where the point is to build up to the line, or the action, that everybody's expecting, and there's a bizarre ritual of completion that stands in the place of a joke, and the audience responds to it as if it were a joke, but isn't actually funny (or was only actually funny the first time, somewhere in the distant past). In short: "another fine mess" = "computer says no."

[bearcuborg]

Ghost World:

Steve Buscemi when asked about a new movie:
“I must have missed that one… but what do I know, I like Laurel & Hardy movies.”

Buscemi’s date:
“Laurel & Hardy? I never cared for them. Why does the fat one have to be so mean to the little one?”

[Roger Ryan]

I'm in this tiny leaking boat with you. I know so many people who hail them as comic geniuses (mostly these are people who watched them endlessly on British TV as kids), but these people have never seen the great films of Keaton and Lloyd, and the stuff they find funny (stuff getting broken at length, pie fights) is the stuff I find rote and tedious...

I think it's a little too simplistic to say that those who champion Laurel and Hardy have never seen Keaton or Lloyd. Is it not possible to both appreciate other (better) film comedians of this era and Stan and Ollie as well? I would also say that Laurel and Hardy's sound films hold their own next to both Lloyd's and, especially, Keaton's sound films (given the dismal quality of the latter's 30s efforts). I can't disagree that the appeal most likely starts with viewers being children when first encountering the duo. Laurel and Hardy were favorites of mine at age 8 through 10, but by about age 11 I found Keaton, the Marx Brothers, and W.C. Fields much more to my liking (for 20s/30s comedy) and it stayed that way! Still, Laurel and Hardy created indelible personalities. Their performances are a vivid collection of mannerisms that ride above the often-tedious slapstick, and those performances are what make me smile.

[hearthesilence]

I think it's a little too simplistic to say that those who champion Laurel and Hardy have never seen Keaton or Lloyd.

If that is the argument, it would be a very bizarre and completely inaccurate assumption. When I was growing up, I didn't know anyone who put on their films, I only sought them out after coming across gushing reviews from the Chicago-area critics (not just Ebert but Dave Kehr and Jonathan Rosenbaum too), all of whom were bigger boosters of Chaplin and Keaton, and I remember my school's library had an old book on comedy in film that preceded its highly complimentary chapter on Laurel and Hardy with gushing chapters on Chaplin and Keaton - FWIW the same book was very dismissive of the Three Stooges as cruel, mean and worthless while holding up the team of Laurel and Hardy as one of cinema's greats. (I don't remember the title or author of the book, but it was likely meant as an introductory book to one part of film history given what I do remember about it.)

[Stefan Andersson]

Pardon Us restoration comparison video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVA6A5Icck

[Stefan Andersson]

Relevant discussions:
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... er.387227/

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/commun ... er.386743/

[hearthesilence]

Pardon Us restoration comparison video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVA6A5Icck

Impressive, even if it's a workprint source it looks great.