Skip to main content

It’s a picture about a picture about Hellzapoppin’.

Hellzapoppin
(1941)

The film that tends to get credited as the progenitor of unfettered fourth wall breaking. Not that comedies weren’t doing this kind of thing from the get-go, but not quite as concertedly or consistently or inventively as Hellzapoppin’. Universal had scooped up the rights to the musical revue (and Hellzapoppin’ is nothing if not inhabited with the feel of a revue) by comedians Harold “Chic” Johnson and John “Ole” Olsen, who star in and compere the proceedings, betting it would translate somehow. Somehow it does, albeit by way of a very hit-and-miss movie, one in which you can’t help but admire the sheer abandon involved.


The show, first staged in 1938, was the longest running Broadway musical at the time, a melee of skits, one-liners, slapstick and songs, relying on audience interaction and encouraging a general disregard for the self-contained stage. This element naturally lent itself to the screen version, so stressing its irreverence immediately (“… any similarity between Hellzapoppin’ and a real motion picture is purely coincidental”). The form, the slightest of plots providing a means to glue together asides and gags, with songs as filler, along with a love story “because every picture has one”, recalls the outings of former stage performers the Marx Brothers, but this takes the approach even further.


If Ole and Chic aren’t disrupting what flow there is, then it’s Shemp Howard’s projectionist Louie (“What’s the matter with you guys? Don’t you know you can’t talk to me and the audience”), reversing the film or pulling frames up, down or upside down, and following pretty girls around the room. Or Hugh Herbert (Quimby) appearing at intervals, uttering some piece of drollery or exhibiting a costume change. Ole and Chic lose heads and bodies, travel from set to set and generally deconstruct what little construction there is (“Look my friend, we’re making a motion picture here”; That’s a matter of opinion”) and point the finger at Tinseltown’s habit of meddling for the sake of it (“This is Hollywood, we change everything”).


Fortunately, the extended romantic entanglements aren’t soporific the way they are in Marx Brothers movies; Pepi (Mischa Auer, with a natural gait and face for comedy) pursues Kitty Rand (Jane Frazee), and is himself pursued by Betty Johnson (Martha Raye), leading to a series of spirited, risqué lines and energetic dance numbers (particularly Raye on a treadmill, and Auer leaping about with paper stuck to his feet; there’s also some awesome Congeroo jitterbugging).


The trade and techniques will be readily recognisable to anyone familiar with the Zucker Brothers, Mel Brooks, Hope and Crosby, or Spike Milligan. The picture is replete with announcements to the audience (“Stinky, will you go home?”) and topical references (Frankenstein’s Monster, Mr Jordan). There is a cumulative feeling that this is just stretching itself for as long as it can keep going, at which point its inventiveness begins to feel like formula, but Hellzapoppin’, whose director HC Potter came from theatre, and later helmed Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House, is still a lesson in what are often assumed as relatively modern comedy techniques being nothing of the sort.


The movie concludes – not really spoilers – with a hunter attempting to shoot a bear (well, a man in a bear costume), who comments “Ha ha ha. You missed me. You need glasses” to which some (real) dogs observe “Imagine that, a talking bear”. At which point the scriptwriter is reprimanded, “Talking bears, talking Dogs, people who disappear, slapstick comedy. What kind of script is that?” It’s Hellzapoppin’ evidently, and its influence is vast. That doesn’t make it an unassailable classic, of course. What it really lacks is a strong talent to martial the mayhem; Ole and Chic are merely amiable rather than exuberant or provocative, which may explain why they didn’t achieve a lasting foothold in Hollywood.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985)
(SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and gleefully distr…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).