Skip to main content

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service
(1938)

(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

Miller: You do me a favour and kindly keep your wife’s name out of this. Do you realise, you’re talking about the woman you love?

Groucho is producing a play – or trying to – and running up a massive bill ($1,200 – nearly $22,000 in today’s money) into the bargain at the hotel managed by his brother-in-law (Cliff Dunstan as the better named Joseph Gribble). Chico (Harry Binelli) and Harpo (Faker Englund) are his hapless cohorts. Gribble is under pressure from the particularly uncompromising supervising director Gregory Wagner (Donald MacBride), keen to show he’s cutting costs.

Leo: Gee, I don’t know where I’m at. Mr Gribble says I owe 600 dollars, downstairs they think I’ve got a tapeworm, and this man thinks I’m a lunatic!

There are various larks involving absconding from Groucho’s room but making it look like he’s still staying there (so the trio don his entire wardrobe and leave the suitcases). There’s also the play’s hapless author, Leo Davis (Frank Albertson), who joins the tradition of unmemorable leading men in the brothers’ movies, excepting he’s slightly more memorable than most and is given his fair share of business (pretending to be dead having been requested to die slowly for two and a half hours; pretending to have measles after Harpo spits iodine all over him; at one point, Harpo must pretend he’s Leo, now suffering from a tapeworm – “His hair wasn’t red yesterday” exclaims Wagner).

Leo: My mother seemed very happy when I left.
Miller: Only a mother’s mask. At this moment, she may be sitting at the fireside, wringing her hands.
Leo: Oh, we have no fireside.
Miller: You have no fireside? How do you listen to the President’s speeches?

The result of Glenn Tyron and Philip Loeb adapting a play (by Allen Boretz and John Murray, originally debuting the year before) is that, even when Groucho gives delivers the laughs, they tend to be germane to the plot; when Davis protests the state of the production, Groucho replies “I am a great manager. A great manager never puts his own money into a play”. His decision, after Russian waiter and would-be stage star Sasha Smirnoff (Alexander Asro) provides them with a free meal on the promise of a part, to renege on his promise is also classic Groucho unscrupulousness (“No, when I made that offer, I was prepared to go through with it. But now I’ve eaten, I see things a little differently”). He and Chico also run through their history of bill avoidance:

Miller: Remember, I had kidney stones at the Apollo, and gallstones at the Plaza.
Binelli: Ah, those were the happy days.

As per a play, the vast majority of the action takes place in the one room (so it ought to have come cheap), with various characters called upon to show up and then suffer indignities or confusion at the brothers’ hands; a doctor locked in the bathroom, a debt collector calling about Leo’s typewriter. Most notable is the involvement of an agent (Philip Wood) for potential backer Zachary Fisk, hit on the head while Harpo is chasing a turkey round the room with a baseball bat; the turkey, in both live and stuffed, aeronautically-accomplished form, is the true star of the picture, and the only moments where there’s a real sight of the brothers’ lunacy at work.

Binelli: Hello? Room Service. Bring up enough ice to cool a warm body.

MacBride makes a suitably unlikeable villain, with a good line in oaths (well, one: “Jumping Butterballs!”). Made to believe that Leo has expired due to the stress he has caused him, Wagner insists “I never hurt anybody in my life!” Upon which, there’s a knock at the door and Harpo appears, dagger in his chest with a note attached reading “Wagner drove me to my death just as he drove Leo Davis”. The irreverence continues with regard to disposing of the body (“Maybe we could sell it to some medical students”).

Binelli: I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

There’s also an almost Coens-esque play on the play title Hail and Farewell, repeated at intervals whenever someone leaves the room. And a possibly meta- commentary: following the turkey’s appearance, the agent is asked “How do you like it? It’s a scene from our second act”. Which is also Room Service’s second act. Later, Groucho and co are employing delaying tactics to prevent MacBride calling a halt to the performance (which has been put on by way of a bounced cheque): “Well, even with the fire, we’ve still fifteen more minutes. Any more bright ideas, Binelli?” Fifteen more minutes is also about the time Room Service has left. So if Room Service isn’t within a shout of top flight Marx Brothers, but it’s sufficiently lively not to deserve the brickbats it often receives.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

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 glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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.