Skip to main content

Oh no, I’m not going to follow you and get shot. If I was half-shot, I’d follow you

Love Happy 
(1949)

(SPOILERS) And so the Marx Brothers’ (collective) screen career ends with a decrepit whimper. It’s very obvious that Love Happy was initially developed as solo project for Harpo – he falls in love! – since he gets the lion’s share of the scenes. More surprising is that Groucho wasn’t in fact a late-stage addition; he provides the narration, but only really intrudes on the proceedings at the very end. And Chico? He mentions tootsie-frutsie ice cream.

Female Client: Some men are following me.
Grunion: Really? I can’t understand why.

There’s enough plot to be getting on with, some of it quite promising, since it revolves around the theft of the Royal Romanoff diamonds, hidden in a tin of sardines and unknowingly swiped by Harpo, who is feeding a cast of cash-strapped theatrical types attempting to put on the titular musical revue. Chico is Faustino the Great, professing to be a mind reader, while Groucho is private detective Sam Grunion, employed to find said diamonds and eye up Marilyn Monroe in her very brief film debut.

Grunion: For three days Maggie ate Harpo’s presents – smoked chicken, canned turkey, tuna fish. If only she’d developed a taste for sardines, the show would’ve been saved.

Groucho, then. He looks different – real moustache and eyebrows – and engages in some passable introductory mockery. Of lead Mike Johnston (Paul Valentine): “Interesting dance, isn’t it? He learnt it fighting off bill collectors”. And Maggie (Vera-Allen, sometime Danny Kaye co-star): “She’s a dancer too. But it’s hard to tell when she’s sitting down”. But he’s in it so little – three-ish scenes, pretty much – and his lines aren’t exactly zingers. Ilona Massey as villain Madame Egelichi ought to be the inspiration for a slew of great Groucho gags, but he’s limited to the so-so likes of “Oh no, I’m not going to follow you and get shot. If I was half-shot, I’d follow you”.

Grunion: I am the same Sam Grunion who solved the international uranium-mining swindle. Scotland Yard was baffled, the FBI was baffled. They sent for me and the case was solved immediately: I confessed.

Groucho gets one proper scene with each of Harpo and Chico (the latter not even sharing a shot). Chico naturally has a piano interlude. He also has a Hat erection gag. Groucho used to say the movie was made as a means to pay Chico’s gambling debts, although Harpo’s initiation of the project makes that seem less likely (but it’s nevertheless a good story, particularly since the movie is rubbish). He does get to play cards with a dog, however.

Mike Johnson: Could you love a heel that’s been repaired?

Accordingly, most of the proceedings hang on Harpo, and early on, the bushy-haired shoplifter has a couple of moments. The best of which is easily a protracted sequence in which Massey’s thugs (including Raymond “Perry Mason” Burr) empty his voluminous pockets, producing such choice items as several legs of a shop dummy, a welcome mat, a barber’s pole, a block of ice, a sled and a live dog. He is subsequently tortured, forced to smoke rope, put on a rack, subjected to food and water torture and has an apple placed on the top of his head to be shot at – which he eats, having snatched the gun and put it to his own head. Harpo also has a pet penguin. He is, however, at his furthest distance from the randy animal of the early films, a hapless unrequited romantic in love with Maggie (who despite a falling out with Mike, a bit of a dick, ends up with him).

Faustino: You want I should read your mind again? All right, start thinking... You’re thinking the same thing you thought about yesterday. And the day before… That’s the only thought-a you got, huh? You’re in love.

With regard to his fate, Groucho informs us that Harpo disappears with the diamonds, not realising their value (thinking they’re the fakes). And appropriately, we learn Groucho’s Grunion has got hitched to Madame Egelichi. Love Happy feels like a botch, despite Frank Tashlin’s presence as a writer (Harpo gets a story credit), and serves as an illustration of how just one element of the trio being off does for the whole thing. Chico probably serves his take-or-leave-him function most seamlessly here, but Harpo isn’t a lead, and Groucho needs his fake moustache to fly.


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.

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.

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.

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

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

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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.

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…