Skip to main content

This hotel not only has running water, it has running guests.

The Cocoanuts
(1929)

The first Marx Brothers movie proper – Humour Risk appears to be forever lost – and an adaptation of their 1925 Broadway musical, with music and lyrics by no less than Irving Berlin. The Cocoanuts is serviced with a fairly no-frills approach by directors Robert Florey and Joseph Santley (their only work with the brothers: “One of them didn’t understand English and the other didn’t understand comedy” quipped Groucho). Groucho, Harpo and Chico arrive on the big screen fully formed, as does Margaret Dumont’s Mrs Potter (Groucho would no doubt make a gag there), while Zeppo’s Jamison is as shapeless as ever (I’m being unkind, actually; in other films, he’s actually quite a welcome presence).

Hammer: Believe me, you gotta get up early if you want to get out of bed.

Notably set during the get-rich-quick Florida land boom, which was well and truly over by the time the film version came out (The Cocoanuts was released five months prior to the Wall Street Crash), Groucho’s Mr Hammer is manager of Hotel de Cocoanut, a role he fulfils with a diligent lack of due decorum and scruples (he hasn’t paid the bellhops: “You want to be wage slaves?” he asks, before advising them that what makes wage slaves are wages – “I want you to be free”).

Mrs Potter: I don’t think you’d love me if I were poor.
Hammer: I might, but I’d keep my mouth shut.

He wants to offload the place to Dumont, as “the most exclusive residential district in Florida. Nobody lives here”. And of course, he pursues this goal by persistently insulting her, to her mild amusement/horror (“Where will you be when you’re 65? That’s only about six months from now”; of her eyes “they shine like the pants of a blue serge suit”).

Chico: 'Ats-a my partner, but he no speak.
Hammer: Oh, he’s your silent partner.

Harpo and Chico don’t arrive until twenty minutes in, and it’s mostly the latter whose services Grouch employs, to mixed effect (asked to put in bids to raise the stakes at the auction, he keeps outbidding himself). Both are explicitly characterised as lower class here, in contrast to the surrounding high society– “I could kill those tramps” – making their messing with the best-laid plans even more of a delight.

Hammer (to Chico): The next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you, will you?

Harpo is up to his usual anarchistic activities, including his oft-decried sex-pest antics (he’s always struck me as far too abstract to really engender offence, with sequences and sketches that are virtual non sequitors). At one point, he eats the phone at the reception desk. At another, he locks himself in a prison cell, only to “break” one of the bars and exit (they’ve just rescued the protagonist from the chokey). He also plays the harp, while Chico gives us a bit on the piano, both to be par for the series’ course. It didn’t occur to me that he’s smoking a joint during the wedding party sequence, but since it’s in the Blu-ray booklet, I presume it’s true.

Hammer (to Chico): How is it you never got double pneumonia?

Chico’s most notable exchange is probably the extended viaduct/ ”Why a duck?” piece of misunderstanding with Groucho. There’s also extended business regarding resemblance to the Prince of Wales (first with Harpo, then Groucho to Dumont), suggested by nefarious Penelope (Kay Francis). Penelope has inveigled Harvey Yates (Cyril Ring) into stealing Dumont’s diamond necklace and pinning it on hapless Lon-Chaney-in-Phantom of the Opera-alike Bob Adams (Oscar Shaw), who wants to marry Dumont’s daughter Polly (Mary Eaton).

Hammer (to bellhop): Boy! It’s been reported to me there’s a poker game going on in room four-twenty. You go up there, knock on the door and see if you can get me a seat.

As Marx Brothers surrounding plots go, this is a fairly solid one, albeit it suffers from the usual issues of the nominal lead characters tending to the uninteresting. To be fair to Shaw, he makes a fairly good straight man to Groucho (certainly no worse than Zeppo) and is sporting at having his belongings continually nicked by Harpo. Francis meanwhile is really very good at delivering the duplicity.

Hammer: He wants his shirt.
Hennessy (singing): I want my shirt.

Best of the non-regular guest cast, however, is Basil Ruysdael as Detective Hennessey, who enters as any other character destined to be given the run around by the main trio, all eyes on them being up to no good – which is fair enough – but comes into his own during a sequence in the final reel where he loses his shirt and pleads for its return via a full-throated appropriation of Habanera and the song of the Toreador from Carmen. It’s also quite amusing, in a wrap-up kind of way, that Dumont tells the assembled guests at engagement party that there’s been a “slight change” in plans as her daughter will now be marrying Bob.

Bob Adams: Oh Mr Hammer... There’s a man outside who wants to see you with a black moustache.
Hammer: Tell him I’ve got one.

The brothers filmed this while pulling double duties, appearing on stage in Animal Crackers in the evening (which would be their follow-up feature). The Cocoanuts may not be the best of their Paramount comedies, but those first five features are by far the most consistent and uncompromised the brothers were on the big screen (even including the two feted first two MGMs). What you’re really rating them for is consistency of inventiveness and amusement, in reverse order, for which The Cocoanuts more than comes through. And since you can never have enough Groucho lines accompanying a Marx Brothers review, here’s a few more in parting:

Mrs Potter: Mr Hammer, your costume’s wonderful.
Hammer: This costume has been condemned by Good Housekeeping.

Mrs Potter: My dear Mr Hammer, I shall never get married before my daughter.
Hammer: You did once.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Time wounds all heels.

Go West (1940)
(SPOILERS) Comedy westerns were nothing new when the Marx Brothers succumbed – Buster Keaton had made one with the same title fifteen years earlier – but theirs served to underline how variable the results could be. For every Bob Hope (Son of Paleface) there’s a Seth McFarlane (A Million Ways to Die in the West). In theory, the brothers riding roughshod over such genre conventions ought to have been uproarious, but they’d rather run out of gas by this point, and the results are, for the most part, sadly pedestrian. Even Go West's big train-chase climax fails to elicit the once accustomed anarchy that was their stock in trade.

Shall we bind the deal with a kiss? Or, five dollars in cash? You lose either way.

The Big Store (1941)
(SPOILERS) Three go mad in a department store. The results are undoubtedly more diverting than low point Go West, but it feels as if there is even more flotsam to wade through to get to the good stuff in The Big Store, which is almost exclusively delivered by Groucho as private detective and bodyguard Wolf J Flywheel. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the climax is one of the better ones, an extended chase sequence through the store that is frequently quite inventive.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

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).

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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 …