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 writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …