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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism