Skip to main content

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus
(1939)

(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

Pauline: They tell me you’re a great lawyer.
Loophole: Who do? Certainly not my clients. Certainly not the ones who were hung last week.
Irving Brecher earns the screenplay credit (he’d also pen the subsequent Go West), but a slumming-it Buster Keaton wrote many of the sight gags, gags that apparently didn’t sit too well with the brothers’ style. Much of the set up and back and forth are familiar, however, with the most instantly noticeable anomaly being Groucho’s choice of toupee; it’s as obviously fake as his tache. There’s the usual romantic couple who sporadically break into song, but on this occasion circus owner Jeff Wilson (Kenny Baker) is the nephew of Margaret Dumont (Mrs Susanna Dukesbury), his choice of career failing to meet with her high-society approval and thus leaving him threatened with disinheritance. Jeff’s smitten with Julia Randall (Florence Rice) – “She’s alright, but whoever heard of anyone singing with a horse act?” (not as entertaining as that sounds).

Loophole: You’re the prettiest millstone I’ve ever had around my neck.

Jeff’s inheritance isn’t the only thing under threat; his livelihood is being jeopardised by Carter (James Burke), who wants to take over the circus and so engineers the threat of the $10,000 Wilson owes him (having it stolen from Wilson before he can pay it back). Naturally, Punchy (Harpo, assistant to villainous Goliath the Strongman, played by Nat Pendleton) and Tony (Chico) are on hand to help out and hinder. It’s the latter who calls in Groucho’s attorney, one J Cheever Loophole.

Loophole: You’re not only thoroughly detestable, but you’re cute.

Chico’s brand of indolent idiocy is present and correct, usually in the face of Groucho. There’s a familiar routine in which he stresses the need for a badge if Groucho’s to board the circus train, tying the latter up in doublespeak to thwart him doing so. Later, when cross examining Little Professor Atom (Jerry Maren), who is in league with Goliath (“The midget? The small midget?”), Groucho attempts to persuade the performer to offer him a cigar as means to gathering damning evidence, but Chico continually manages to stifle this plan by producing his own (“I bet your father spent the first year of your life throwing rocks at the stork”). The scene features a very amusing moment of corpsing on Maren’s part when Groucho asks him “Do you realise if Jeff had been hit a little harder the charge would have been murder? Pronounced MURHERUAARRRR!

Pauline: I realised that you’re the man I’ve been dreaming of.
Loophole: What do you eat before you go to bed?

Before Dumont shows up (with half an hour to go), Groucho sings Lydia the Tattooed Lady, indulges in a spot of flirting – as is his custom – with the villainess, Peerless Pauline (Eve Arden), who has a neat line in walking on the ceiling (“You’re like a beautiful chandelier”). He manages to secure the $10,000, only to have her pick his pocket and secrete it down her top, eliciting a classic Groucho-to-camera “There must be some way of getting that money, without getting in trouble with the Hayes Office”.

Loophole: The night I drank champagne from your slipper. Two quarts. It would have been more, but you were wearing insoles.

When Groucho calls on Dumont, the expected round of insults masquerading as wooing are duly present and correct, Groucho getting in to see her by pretending to be Mr Dukesbury (claiming he had passed out, notpassed on – “just a typographical error”) and then claiming to represent the French conductor Jardinet (Fritz Feld), so persuading her to pay for the circus as entertainment at her dinner party. At the dinner, Dumont asks Groucho to sit on her right hand (“How will you eat? Through a tube?”). Her announcements are then interrupted by an elephant trumpeting (“You should cut out starches”). Naturally, the circus meets with everyone’s approval, including Dumont’s, albeit events take a turn when Carter releases a gorilla and – it isn’t quite clear how – Dumont ends up in a cannon, which is duly fired (“And there goes Seabiscuit!”) The gorilla ends up counting the money (“Is it all there?”)

Loophole: You know, the last time I stood on the ceiling was at a lodge meeting. The chairman had the floor.

Harpo is also provided with some quality business, larking around with a variety of animals. A sealion gives him (bad) draughts advice, the same one he earlier guided through the rain under an umbrella. He sends himself to sleep by counting (a) sheep (lamb), and rides an ostrich to the rescue when Carter and co attempt to burn down the circus. He also causes uproar in Professor Atom’s miniature room when he sneezes. Naturally, he also has to play the obligatory harp (following the “Swingali” number). Perhaps his best sustained scene sees Punchy and Tony searching Goliath’s room while the latter sleeps; Harpo first hangs off the door in a coat on a hook, then destroys a pillow, before offering up a quality Santa Claus impression.

Jardinet: I cross the ocean! I am called dope ring! I race on a train, when I get here, what do I find? Animals. Animals!
Mrs Dukesbury: Animals?
Loophole: Animals! Mrs Dukesbury’s friends are my friends!

The proceedings culminate in the usual knockabout antics, but there’s amusement to be found when Jardinet actually shows up (“You’re all upset. Why don’t you go back to Paris and lie down?”) and then when his floating performance platform is cast adrift. He’s last seen heading out to sea playing Wagner’s prelude to Act II of Lohengrin. So no, At the Circus isn’t as sustained as their earlier MGMs, but sporadically, it offers more than enough laughs to get by.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.