Skip to main content

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.

Quale: You love your brother, don’t you?
Panello: No, but I’m used to him.

That big train-chase climax has its moments, however, including various couplings and uncouplings (at one point, Harpo’s legs are stretched to an inordinate length as he forms a human bridge between cars), de-railings and re-railings, and desperate forays for fuel (entailing utilising most of the cargo, as well as a significant portion of a carriage). But screenwriter Irving Brecher (again with uncredited support from Buster Keaton) fails to come up with anything truly inspired. The plot revolves around a worthless property, Dead Man’s Gulch, that suddenly becomes valuable when the railway wants to build through it, by which point the deed has fallen into the hands of Harpo and Chico (as brothers this time, Rusty and Joseph Panello, prospecting for gold). And then, thanks to Groucho, into the mitts of ruthless Red Baxter (Robert Barrat, a good villainous foil, but underused as a recipient of Marx abuse) and dodgy railroad man Beecher (Walter Woolf King).

Quale: I give you my solemn word as an embezzler that I’ll be back.

In the normal course, having the dirty done on them would lead to entirely destructive mayhem on the brothers’ part, but being as they have now long since been repurposed, and as essentially kindly sorts (even Groucho, when the plot requires it), they are set on restoring the deed to the original owners, gratis. Those being Dan Wilson (Tully Marshall) and his granddaughter Eve (Diana Lewis); her beau Terry Turner (John Carroll) brought the deal to Eve’s attention.

Quale: There’s something corrupt going on around my pants, and I just can’t seem to locate it.

So we’re served up some rather familiar routines, the first of which finds Groucho outwitted by Harpo and Chico at a train station as all three attempt to head out west, but without the necessary fare; he loses his money and half his trouser leg. Groucho is S Quentin Quale (San Quentin quail – jailbait – although, according to The Annotated Marx Brothers, this wasn’t considered quite as shocking at the time… how things change), and that kind of inventiveness surfaces sporadically, but too sporadically: the opening foreword quotes “Go west, young man, go west”; “This is the story of three men who made Horace Greeley sorry he said it”. Groucho, who has a home in Drooly-on-the-Lapel, works for the Bona Fide Oil Company, which Beecher has never heard of (“You haven’t? Evidently, you don’t read the bankruptcy notices”). Told by Baxter that he won’t be paid for the deed, Groucho replies “Well, that’s one way of reducing your overhead”.

Panello: If any trouble starts, we’ll telephone for help.
Quayle: Telephone? This is 1870. Don Ameche hasn’t invented the telephone yet.
There’s some spirited bag and hat play during a stagecoach ride (in which King is as versatile with the comedic interplay as the brothers themselves). Harpo, having nearly blown off Baxter’s head with a gun disguised as a duster, entertainingly blows a safe, while a couple of saloon floozies attempt to get Groucho and Chico drunk (one of whom, June MacCloy’s Lulubelle, sees Groucho managing to slip by a “Lulubelle, it’s you. I didn’t recognise you standing up”). Unfortunately, there’s also a laborious visit to a Native American village (the inhabitants conspicuously played by Caucasians), only fleetingly lifted by Groucho pointing the finger (“Are you insinuating that the white man is not the Indian’s friend? Who swindled you out of Manhattan Island for 24 dollars?”).

Quayle: Ma’am, why is that baby constantly crying?
Mother: He can’t stand the jerks in the coach.

There are also the obligatory intermittent musical numbers, none of which are that long, but still frequent enough to make an already rather sluggish movie seem more so. Groucho breaks the fourth wall occasionally (“You know, it’s stimulating when two giant intellects get together” he notes of Harpo getting on famously with Mitchell Lewis’ Indian chief), but not with the wit we’re used to, and when he notes of a tied-up train driver “You know, this is the best gag in the picture”, we can’t help but agree (although, actually, the telephone one is pretty good).



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.