Before television, before even the early days of cinema,
there were the classic vaudeville acts. Physical comedy, dancing, songs, and
slapstick all rolled into one—it may seem a bit corny and silly to our modern
eyes, but for less cynical audiences in the early 20th century,
there was nothing like it to take their minds off things. In this environment,
greats like Buster Keaton, The Three Stooges, and Charlie Chaplin arose, as did
one little duo who went by Laurel and Hardy.
The influence of vaudeville carries on far beyond those
halcyon years—inspiring everything from Jackie Chan to Jackass—but here, we’re
going to talk about a recent tribute to the aforementioned double act: Stan and
Ollie. Directed by Jon S. Baird, the film, to my surprise, focused on the duo’s
waning years in the fifties as opposed to their stardom in Hollywood. It makes
sense, I suppose—the film probably doesn’t have the budget or reach to
replicate the extravagance of classic Hollywood, and the creators wisely went
for something they could mine for the most emotional impact.
Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly are effortless as Stan
Laurel and Oliver Hardy—it’s that kind of performance where you won’t even
think of them as anything else on screen. The style of comedy is replicated down
exactly, their personalities come off in just the right way, and everything
does feel very genuine and passionate in its presentation. Even old skits that were
never filmed, but described by theater audiencegoers of the time, are presented
finally for everyone’s viewing pleasure.
As for the rest of the film, there’s honestly not a whole
lot to say. It’s fine, but a little predictable—the duo go through their ups
and downs on a tour of 1950s England, trying to capture old glories. You have
the somewhat predictable fallings out and arguments, and it doesn’t really it’s
completely true to the actual lives of the characters. That’s not to say it’s
bad, but the story does feel like more the setup for the actors and director to
make their tribute to the Laurel and Hardy performances.
Still, the film definitely amused and entertained the
audience I was with, and while I wouldn’t call it a smash hit classic, it’s a
charming enough piece with all the right amount of sincerity. You’ll probably get
more out of it if you’re familiar with the old classics—I myself do remember watching
a few reruns of some of their short films as a kid, and being amused by them
even then. It captures enough of that to work fine. If any of it sounds
interesting, give it a shot.
Comments
Post a Comment