What is it about three men that seems to create a mystique? In the
1970s we had Frank Gifford, Howard Cosell and "Dandy Don" Meredith. I
suppose Howard was the leader (like "Moe"), "Dandy Don" the clown and
Frank the straight man. Oh, don't underestimate the importance of the
"straight man." The creative minds behind the Three Stooges understood
this fully.
Gifford did deliver a classic funny line once: "She was almost
perfect" (after the camera panned in on an attractive woman who
proceeded to remove some effluence from her nose).
We saw the "three men" formula again with Leslie Nielsen, George
Kennedy and the notorious O.J. Simpson. Kennedy was the straight man,
watching with amazement as the comic, Nielsen, was an impostor in place
of an opera singer for the National Anthem. Simpson took the pratfalls.
We laughed as Simpson was subjected to real violence, within comic
boundaries of course.
Freud once said "all comedy is derived from sadism."
Thus we come to the subject of the Three Stooges, the mention of
which probably makes you instantly smile or wince. There are those who
seem programmed not to like the Three Stooges. My old boss at the Morris
newspaper, Jim Morrison, is one. He recalls getting introduced to the
iconic comic act at the Halloween parties given by the Morris Lions Club
for the Morris kids. The Lions set up a reel-to-reel movie projector!
Power point was way off in the future. We had "slide projectors."
Remember the stand-up comic who had the line "How'd that get in there?"
I remember at least one of those Halloween parties being held at
the "wrestling gym" of the old, now-abandoned school. (The city is
finally talking about demolition. But why is it just the city's issue?
Shouldn't the cost be spread around the school district? Did the city
get taken on this? The city's excuse for why the site hasn't been
re-developed, is "the 2008 economic downturn." It's always nice to have
an excuse, isn't it?)
So, we have this rather interesting predisposition to either like
or not like the Three Stooges. Like it's sort of primal. Freud might be
consulted further. I have read that women tend not to like the Three
Stooges. Imagine that.
Hollywood is trying to make the Stooges a current phenomenon. "The
Three Stooges: the Movie" is from the Farrelly brothers. Directors Bobby
and Peter Farrelly have a comedy track record to be sure. I confess I'm
not "into" their work. I have watched only portions of "There's
Something About Mary" on cable TV. Another exhibit is "Dumb and Dumber."
Jeff Daniels is typecast in my mind as a Civil War officer from
"Gettysburg." (Aren't we due for a new movie about that battle?)
All that the Farrellys have touched has not turned to gold. "Hall
Pass" was an arguably vile offering. Could they rebound with their
"Three Stooges" project? They didn't have to create any new comedic
chemistry or model. The mold was right there waiting for them. It was a
resurrection project all the way.
The movie was on the drawing board for a long time. It had to
survive MGM's bankruptcy. It survived rumors of certain "name" actors
filling the key roles. Sean Penn as Larry? As it turned out, Sean Hayes
stepped into the role of Larry, a Stooge whose humor was, shall we say,
understated. A writer once observed "Larry really wasn't very funny but
it wouldn't be the same without him."
Ah, the comedic chemistry. It might be hard to appreciate how
important some of these secondary players are. Each of the Stooges
represented the "Stooge spirit" in a particular way. They were
vagrant-like without seeming fazed at all by that. They had an optimism
and determination that defied their incompetence. They were
good-hearted.
"There was a lot more to the Three Stooges than violence," a critic once said.
It's chiseled in stone that critics must approach all movies
objectively. Given the sort of innate acceptance or rejection of the
Three Stooges we all feel, there's a problem for reviewing "The Three
Stooges: the Movie." Maybe disclaimers would be in order. The
non-believers aren't going to be swayed by a well-made movie. My old
boss Morrison certainly wouldn't be. I imagine I'm in the "believers"
camp. While I wouldn't join a fan club, I find the Stooges'
entertainment more than mildly appealing.
Will Sasso plays Curly Howard. Some Stooges fans might suggest
there never was a substitute for Curly. He was the burly slapstick
master who acted childlike. I loved him as the pro wrestler who was a
stand-in for "Bust-Off" who had gotten drunk. Curly beat up his foe when
he got a whiff of "Wild Hyacinth" perfume.
The script for the new movie was not written to really showcase the
Sasso character. I'd love to see Sasso as the pro wrestler. The script
was written with balance in mind for the three performers. Sasso does
well with the difficult task of bringing "Curly" back to life. If I had
been told before seeing this movie, that Sasso would do so well, I would
have assumed his character stood out, even stealing the movie. It does
not. It's as if Curly's presence had to be suppressed a bit. The
scriptwriters would have nothing to do with Sasso (as Curly) stealing
this movie.
The script actually seems tilted toward Moe, played by a guy whose
last name is a sobriety test for when you're typing: Chris
Diamantopoulos. Critics have raved especially about "Chris D.'s"
performance. "He owns the role," one said, whereas the other two just
seemed like impersonators.
Critics have been puzzled or indecisive about Hayes as Larry. I read one who raved and another who gave a thumbs-down.
Clearly these three actors were going to be judged by exacting
standards. The ambivalence about Hayes as Larry might reflect the subtle
and understated role of Larry Fine himself. He was important but it was
hard sometimes to understand why.
Roger Ebert described the new movie as "the best you can do for
2012." He reflected, "I didn't laugh much." And he asked, "Was it really
necessary?" He admits that the acting, or impersonation, was solid.
About a third of the way into the movie, I was tempted to press the
"stop" button on my DVD player. The movie just wasn't working for me.
It seemed strained, this effort to make the now-dead Stooges "real"
again. Yes, wouldn't it be great to see "Bogie" and Gable come to life
again? Except that it just can't happen, any more than we can gather the
'69 Mets and Orioles together and see that Series again. I felt like I
should be watching an authentic Stooges DVD or tape. These are available
at our Morris Public Library.
I stuck with the whole movie and found that by the end, it was
acceptable entertainment, or as Ebert would say, "the best you can do
for 2012." Like Ebert I never really laughed.
Was this movie a museum exhibit or genuine comedy? Because of this
lingering question, I hope there's no sequel. We don't need "The Three
Stooges Christmas Movie." Not that I'd rule it out.
"The Three Stooges: the Movie" is organized into three segments.
The Farrellys are trying to re-create the feel of those "shorts"
complete with the type of "still" (and music) that would introduce them.
But these are not true "shorts," as the story continues pretty
seamlessly. The original Stooges were all about "shorts." They were a
quick and guilty pleasure. I suspect they were shown before the main
attraction. Thus they didn't tax the mind too much.
Storylines were basic and banal and even that might be generous. A
job needs to be done and here come the Stooges in their painting
overalls and with ladder etc. Simple storylines were much more common
in an earlier age. Today we take for granted sub-plots. A complicated
storyline is actually anathema to the Stooges' shtick. The new movie has
the kind of finesse and complications in the storyline that are typical
of today. Maybe this is mainly how the movie loses some authenticity.
Full-length features were not the Stooges' thing to begin with.
The storyline has the Stooges seeking $830,000 to keep an orphanage
open. We learn of a murder plot against a millionaire. "Chris D." as
Moe ends up on reality TV. I liked this aspect of the movie, unlike most
of the reviewers I read. The notorious "Jersey Shore" crew gives the
backdrop. I have never actually watched that show. Moe is good for their
ratings. Eventually there's a financial plum from this.
There's a black widow wife character played by the sultry Sofia
Vergara. (I must avoid the Freudian slip of typing "Viagra.") She schemes to murder her rich husband, a childhood acquaintance
of the Stooges.
The husband character is impressed by the unconditional friendship
among the Stooges. He feels brethren with them even though he's on the
safe side of the "sane" line. He likes them just like the brawny pro
wrestler "Bust-Off" in that old Stooges short.
Maybe we like the Stooges because they seem so non-threatening.
Sasso, Hayes and "Chris D." nail the timing and mannerisms of the
originals. That's commendable. But one is left wondering if this is a
truly inspired fresh product or more of a Las Vegas stage show featuring
impersonators. Maybe the lesson is to leave the past alone.
The real Stooges did nearly 200 short films. Their peak was before
World War II but they hardly faded away after that. "Shemp" replaced
Curly. "Shemp" had successors too. The Stooges had a formula or
philosophy that worked through transitions. At the end it was Joe DeRita
in the role of the third Stooge. He always looked like he could act
like the original Curly but he really couldn't.
There was a biopic a few years ago about the Three Stooges that I
actually found to be more moving than the new movie. The biopic was the
type of movie I'd like to watch again. The new movie isn't.
The Farrellys made a bold and committed effort to be sure they
truly paid homage. Jane Lynch (from "Glee") was a delight as always as
"Mother Superior."
I'm glad this whole troupe got together to try to resurrect the classic act and classic imagery. But I'm afraid, one is enough.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment