Skip to main content

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers
(1932)

(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

Wagstaff: Tomorrow we start tearing down the college.
Professor: But professor, where will the students sleep?
Wagstaff: Where they always sleep, in the classroom.

That mission being, Groucho is persuaded of the need to beef up Huxley’s athletic accomplishments by beefing up the college football team… by visiting the local speakeasy in order to secure some professional players. Inevitably, he actually secures Pinky (Harpo) and Baravelli (Chico) (“They must be football players. I got them out of a speakeasy”). Meanwhile, Connie Bailey (Thelma Todd, luxuriant), the “college widow” (carrying all the connotations that suggests) is being impressed upon to undermine Groucho’s plan, as local gambler Jennings (David Landau) is betting on Darwin College to win. Oh, yes, and Zeppo is Groucho’s son Frank, and he’s fooling around with the college widow. At least, when his brothers aren’t.

Wagstaff: I’m the plumber. I’m just hanging around in case something goes wrong with her pipes. (to audience) That’s the first time I’ve used that joke in twenty years.

Horse Feathers was original planned to be gangster-centric, but this was nixed in the wake of the Lindberg baby case; as a result, the brothers duly recycled some material from their 1910 vaudeville show, so when Groucho tells his plumber joke (above) he probably isn’t kidding about when he last used the gag.

Referee: What are you doing with that cigar in your mouth.
Wagstaff: Why, do you know another way to smoke it?

The picture’s also noted for having its share of subsequently deleted scenes, either for post-Hayes Code reasons of prurience or (more bizarrely) for a compilation of Harpo’s japes (these would have included – as reported by Michael Brooke in the Blu-ray release’s essay – dog catcher Pinky attracting canines with fake lampposts, trying it on with Connie, and persuading Groucho to jump into his dog-catching net from her upstairs window, inevitably removed at the last moment). There was also an original ending in which the college burns down while the trio play cards, and another scene with Harpo bowling grapefruits at bottles on the speakeasy bar (even with these gone, the running time is apparently only two minutes shorter than it was originally).

Bum: Say, buddy, could you help me out? I’d love to get a cup of coffee.

If a portion of Harpo material remains excised, there’s still more than enough that tickles. We first see him producing a cup of coffee from his coat for an itinerate (whether he actually wanted the money for something else is unclear), and proceeds to engage in a variety of dog-catching antics, including a run in with a police officer (“See that badge?” he is asked, before opening his coat to reveal a whole display of matching ones). He proceeds to trap said officer in his cage (pulling down a sign announcing “Police Dog for Sale”). 

Wagstaff: Why don’t you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out.

The speakeasy scene is awash with sight gags (giving the password by sticking a sword down a fish’s mouth, cutting cards with an axe, winning on the slot machine, then doing likewise with a telephone). Later, Harpo’s possessed with manic glee as he engages in a book-burning exercise, graduating from tossing tomes on the blaze to shovelling on trough loads of them. 

Wagstaff: And that reminds me of a story that’s so dirty, I’m afraid to think of it myself.

He’s relatively restrained in the sex-pest stakes this time, though; it’s Chico who, alarmingly, is providing Connie with unwanted advances (albeit, we know Harpo’s were excised, there’s something seedier and more unsettling about such behaviour with Chico, who’s generally quite chaste). The sequence is a flurry of slapstick and manic gags of the coming in and going out of rooms variety, including deliveries of ice (Baravellli is an ice man for the speakeasy) that go straight out the window (the ones not given to a reluctant Todd). Chico also has the usual misunderstood wordplay scene with Groucho, this time in their initial speakeasy scene (“What do you take for a haddock?”).

Receptionist: The dean is furious. He’s waxing wroth.
Wagstaff: Is Roth out there too? Tell Roth to wax the dean awhile.

Chico and Harpo’s best sequence, though, finds them kidnapped by the Darwin players they have been sent to kidnap (Harpo bursts into tears). Deciding to escape, they saw through the floor around them in circular fashion, first dropping in on the players below, and then, on second attempt, landing in a genteel ladies’ bridge game. Harpo promptly steals a scarf and runs out to a garbage cart, riding away on it as if in a retelling of Ben-Hur.

Wagstaff: Can you cash a cheque for fifteen dollars and twenty-two cents?
Bartender: Sure. Five, ten, fifteen and twenty-two.
Wagstaff: As soon as I get a cheque for fifteen dollars and twenty-two cents, I’ll send it to you.

Groucho is on peerlessly incorrigible form, recycling his “See this five-dollar bill?” gag from Monkey Business but with bells on (above). He provides students with an impromptu biology lecture, becoming distracted from white phagocytes to indulge in a peashooter fight with Harpo and Chico (“Have you got two empty dunce chairs? I’ve brought you two empty dunces”; Harpo also proves that the candle can burn at both ends). Then there’s his lascivious punishment of a student instead of Harpo:

Wagstaff: Just for that, you stay after school.
Female Student: But professor, I didn’t do anything.
Wagstaff: I know, but there’s no fun keeping him after school.

There’s particular fun to be had with Todd, of course. Much more preferable to Chico (“Oh yes, I was on your lap. And doing pretty well as I recall”) although the scramble of brothers for her attentions, literally all over her, is slightly unnerving.

Wagstaff: Did my son tell you you had beautiful eyes?
Connie: Why, yes.
Wagstaff: He tells me that too! He tells everyone he meets.

Of course, Connie is only using Zeppo, but the cheerful bawdiness of a scene in which Frank walks in on dad canoodling with his girlfriend is surprising even now; Todd’s best scene is probably the boating one, however, in which she attempts to extract information from Groucho by playing the little girl:

Connie: Is big stwong man going to tell ickle baby all about the football signals?
Wagstaff: Was that you or the duck?

Leading to Groucho’s “If icky girl keep on talking that way, big stwong man’s gonna kick all her teef wight down her fwoat”. There’s also the classic:

Connie: Oh, professor, you’re full of whimsy.
Wagstaff: Can you notice it from there? I’m always that way after I eat radishes.

Everyone Says I Love You is “sung” by all four brothers (Zeppo, denied even an effective romantic lead this time, sees his best line comes early, the irreverent “Hello, old timer!” when he first spies dad on stage). Chico and Harpo utilise their preferred supporting instruments and Groucho serenades Todd in the boat; it provides a strong thematic glue to the musical digressions. Plus, it helps that the song is a catchy one.

Jennings: I love good music.
Wagstaff: So do I, let’s get out of here.

The football match climax is the expected free-for-all, in which Chico somehow arrives at the game before charioteer Harpo (did the latter stop off on the way?). Who at one point puts a Darwin player’s finger between a hotdog roll and bites down on it. Another Harpo highlight sees him asked “Where’s your number?”; he’s assisted in removing his jersey to find it, only for the jersey to stretch the length of the field.

Wagstaff: I’ve got to stay here, but there’s no reason you folks shouldn’t go out in the lobby until this is over.

I find it difficult to choose an order of favourites in the run from Animal Crackers to Horse Feathers; they’re an embarrassment of riches for the brothers at their most unrestrained. Director Norman Z McLeod (returning from Monkey Business) and the writers (Bert Kalmar, Harry Ruby, SJ Perelman and Will B Johnstone) provide the necessary continuity of a streamlined machine. At this point, it looked as if they could keep on churning pictures of this quality forever, if not for the conflagration of elements that would see their relationship with Paramount flounder, ironically producing what is now regarded as their undisputed crowning glory: Duck Soup.



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.