A Few Words About A few words about...™ Stan & Ollie - in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Arthur Powell]

I've heard that that "leasing arrangement" was done to make the Chaplin Estate happy but with full knowledge that compliance would be zilch.

My copy of Stan and Ollie arrived today, and I plan on screening it tonight with a few L&H shorts to accompany it.

 

[Matt Hough]

I was supposed to watch this last night, but I think I am coming down with the flu and I spent the night in bed instead.

Sorry to read this. I felt myself coming down with it two weeks ago and really began doctoring myself and trying not to succumb. Thankfully, I either had a mild case or staved it off for the most part since I only had mild chills and a runny nose for a couple of days instead of being really laid up for a week with high fever and no appetite.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Saw this in the theater and it was an absolute joy. It sort of works like an extra Laurel & Hardy feature in the way it doesn't shy away from comedy. Reilly and Coogan were perfect in every way. I also loved how their wives (Ida and Lucille) weren't just background characters, but actually had some great bits on their own.

By the way, a few months ago, I was passing through Harlem, Georgia (Hardy's birth place) where there's the Laurel & Hardy Museum. Worth visiting if you're in the area since it's loaded with memorabilia. There's even a theater in the back where they show the short films to visitors.

It does make me lament the lack of L&H on Blu-ray, though I know UCLA is diligently working their way through restorations of the Hal Roach Studios films.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I know what I’ll be doing tonight. Thanks for that link. I used to save all the catalogs but my mom through them away after I left the nest and before I could rescue them.

And you still talk to her?!!!

It’s a thing mothers do. My brother and I had this coffee tin of marbles. I was in the army when they moved to an apartment and things had to...but not our childhood marbles! I still loved her for the rest of her days.

 

[Matt Hough]

I am glad the Academy finally honored Stan Laurel with an honorary award, but I'm sorry Oliver Hardy wasn't similarly honored before his death. Another sad omission in the history of the Academy.

 

[PMF]

[...]It does make me lament the lack of L&H on Blu-ray, though I know UCLA is diligently working their way through restorations of the Hal Roach Studios films.

Bravo to UCLA. Let them know that I've already pre-ordered in spirit. Cant' wait.
Great confirmation that such good actions that are now underway.

It’s a thing mothers do. My brother and I had this coffee tin of marbles. I was in the army when they moved to an apartment and things had to...but not our childhood marbles! I still loved her for the rest of her days.

I, myself, have had treasures thrown out.
How do they do it? These woman who turned into mothers.
Our stuff gets tossed and still we end up loving them. It defies all logic.
Maybe men are Hardy's and woman are our laurels.
It's the most darndest of things.
P.S. Sorry to learn that you've lost your marbles.

 

[PMF]

I am glad the Academy finally honored Stan Laurel with an honorary award, but I'm sorry Oliver Hardy wasn't similarly honored before his death. Another sad omission in the history of the Academy.

In 1960, due to failing health, Danny Kaye accepted the honorary Oscar on behalf of Stanley.
If memory is serving me correctly, I recall that part of Stanley's acceptance speech had lovingly included,
"Gee, I wish Ollie were here to share this."

 

[Johnny Angell]

P.S. Sorry to learn that you've lost your marbles.

So is my wife.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Ollie Hardy should have had more sense
He bought a gee-gee and he jumped the fence
All for the sake of a couple of pence

 

[Randy Korstick]

I think if someone is exposed to 'old' movies or TV shows or music when they're young, they're more likely to accept or enjoy them than if they're teens or adults. I've seen many people say the same thing over the years and it was certainly true for me as well.

Probably a better chance but no guarantee. I tried this with my daughter when she was little and she seemed to enjoy quite a few older movies and tv shows at the time but now other than an occasional I love Lucy she won't watch anything made before the year 2000.

 

[Mysto]

Probably a better chance but no guarantee. I tried this with my daughter when she was little and she seemed to enjoy quite a few older movies and tv shows at the time but now other than an occasional I love Lucy she won't watch anything made before the year 2000.

Same thing happened to my son (I think it's all about being cool) but now that he is older he has re-discovered the old stuff. He got married - got a couple of cats and named them Stan & Ollie.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I watched Stan & Ollie last night. Other than what I felt to be a bit of a "Hollywood Ending," I thoroughly enjoyed it. The makeup on Reilly was a bit distracting and I could sometimes hear his own vocal patterns coming out, but still thought he did a great job. Coogan, on the other hand, was flawless. After watching many of his performances over the years, I'm in awe of his many talents.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Same thing happened to my son (I think it's all about being cool) but now that he is older he has re-discovered the old stuff. He got married - got a couple of cats and named them Stan & Ollie.

Actually I think its about to many options now with all the cable channels, DVD and Blu Ray and everything on streaming. When most of us grew up there was no home video and only 10-12 channels on tv

 

[Mysto]

Actually I think its about to many options now with all the cable channels, DVD and Blu Ray and everything on streaming. When most of us grew up there was no home video and only 10-12 channels on tv

You had 12 channels - when we grew up we only had 3 (four if you count Canada). And we had to walk 12 miles to school - in the snow - uphill - both ways

Perhaps you're right. I'm glad I grew up before computers - video games - and cable tv (even though I love my technology)

 

[Rob W]

You had 12 channels - when we grew up we only had 3 (four if you count Canada). And we had to walk 12 miles to school - in the snow - uphill - both ways

Luxury.

When I grew up we had no entertainment at all except for the rats in the basement who would put on plays based on old Jack Benny radio scripts.

 

[Johnny Angell]

When I grew up we had it so rough I had to scrounge an old tire from a junkyard to play fetch with my pet dinosaur. He hated it when we played marbles, you know, those short tyrannosaur arms.

 

[BarryR]

I've now viewed Stan & Ollie three times. Though it plays around with the facts for dramatic effect, it's a really sweet, joyous homage.

 

[Arthur Powell]

I viewed Stan and Ollie the other night, and overall I liked it. Here are a few comments:

1. John Reilly and Steve Coogan gave remarkable performances and absolutely nailed L&H's mannerisms and comic timing. I give a slight edge to Reilly because of how his acting combined with the prosthetics built the illusion that Hardy had come back to life. In still images, Coogan doesn't quite look like Laurel, but in motion the illusion is well conveyed. I will say though that vocally Coogan sounded more like Laurel than Reilly sounded like Hardy. Oddly enough, Coogan never attempted (at least in the finished film) Laurel's signature smile, laugh, and cry. Overall, Coogan and Reilly did well in playing L&H and showing the poignant bond the two men developed during their British tours.

2. One piece of dramatic license is how the on-screen L&H personas subtly melded into their private lives. From what I have heard, this wasn't exactly the case. Vivian Blaine, who co-starred with them in Jitterbugs, commented some years later how professional and serious they really were and that they weren't "funny" when not acting. For the purposes of the film, I do think it was appropriate, and it wasn't done in a grotesque manner a la Keefe Brasselle in The Eddie Cantor Story.

3. On the subject of dramatic licenses in general, yes the film plays fast and loose with the historical facts, but that's to be expected with biographical films. There's a scene in Jolson Sings Again when Larry Parks comments to the screenwriters of The Jolson Story that "facts really don't matter - just get the general scheme of things right." I do believe that the "general scheme" of the film is correct. Just to be clear, the central conflict is fiction - Laurel never held it against Hardy for doing Zenobia (the elephant picture). In fact, he encouraged Hardy a decade later to accept the role of John Wayne's sidekick in The Fighting Kentuckian when he was unable to work due to his compromised health (Stan had issues with his diabetes at the time). Some L&H scholars have also objected to how Hal Roach was portrayed, and I can see why. However, Roach's lack of screen time precludes the film from developing his character and relationship with Laurel. Yes, the two men quarreled a lot, but the quarrels centered on creative matters and not money (Laurel was the top-salaried performer on the lot, and Roach paid him more than he paid himself).

4. I laughed out loud at the film's beginning when Hardy makes a comment about wondering where the Roman soldiers came from because I was thinking exactly the same thing. I can't think of any production from the mid-1930s that would have required extras dressed up as Roman centurions on the Roach lot. So, did the screenwriter insert that joke as a nod and a wink to those of us who can get so hung up on historical accuracy, or am I reading too much into the line?

5. I appreciated the nearly old-fashioned way the movie was filmed. The film was allowed a slow pace that did well in accentuating Coogan and Reilly's great performances. We didn't have the MTV style of fast edits but instead long takes of actors actually acting. Also, I didn't notice the hyper-CGI use that annoys me with many films of today.

6. Will the film spur a revival of interest in L&H? Probably not. Several years ago, I remember some being very excited about The Artist and how it would do wonders in promoting silent films with the general public. That never really happened. Those who saw the film liked it, but they felt no interest in seeking out silents (I experienced this first hand when talking to a few friends on their reaction to the film). Stan and Ollie won't hurt the L&H legacy, but I don't think it's going to spur people to check out their work en masse. I wish it would though.

In short, Stan and Ollie is a great film and a loving and affectionate tribute to the boys. Go out and see it - you won't regret it.

 

[Mysto]

I viewed Stan and Ollie the other night, and overall I liked it. Here are a few comments:

1. John Reilly and Steve Coogan gave remarkable performances and absolutely nailed L&H's mannerisms and comic timing. I give a slight edge to Reilly because of how his acting combined with the prosthetics built the illusion that Hardy had come back to life. In still images, Coogan doesn't quite look like Laurel, but in motion the illusion is well conveyed. I will say though that vocally Coogan sounded more like Laurel than Reilly sounded like Hardy. Oddly enough, Coogan never attempted (at least in the finished film) Laurel's signature smile, laugh, and cry. Overall, Coogan and Reilly did well in playing L&H and showing the poignant bond the two men developed during their British tours.

2. One piece of dramatic license is how the on-screen L&H personas subtly melded into their private lives. From what I have heard, this wasn't exactly the case. Vivian Blaine, who co-starred with them in Jitterbugs, commented some years later how professional and serious they really were and that they weren't "funny" when not acting. For the purposes of the film, I do think it was appropriate, and it wasn't done in a grotesque manner a la Keefe Brasselle in The Eddie Cantor Story.

3. On the subject of dramatic licenses in general, yes the film plays fast and loose with the historical facts, but that's to be expected with biographical films. There's a scene in Jolson Sings Again when Larry Parks comments to the screenwriters of The Jolson Story that "facts really don't matter - just get the general scheme of things right." I do believe that the "general scheme" of the film is correct. Just to be clear, the central conflict is fiction - Laurel never held it against Hardy for doing Zenobia (the elephant picture). In fact, he encouraged Hardy a decade later to accept the role of John Wayne's sidekick in The Fighting Kentuckian when he was unable to work due to his compromised health (Stan had issues with his diabetes at the time). Some L&H scholars have also objected to how Hal Roach was portrayed, and I can see why. However, Roach's lack of screen time precludes the film from developing his character and relationship with Laurel. Yes, the two men quarreled a lot, but the quarrels centered on creative matters and not money (Laurel was the top-salaried performer on the lot, and Roach paid him more than he paid himself).

4. I laughed out loud at the film's beginning when Hardy makes a comment about wondering where the Roman soldiers came from because I was thinking exactly the same thing. I can't think of any production from the mid-1930s that would have required extras dressed up as Roman centurions on the Roach lot. So, did the screenwriter insert that joke as a nod and a wink to those of us who can get so hung up on historical accuracy, or am I reading too much into the line?

5. I appreciated the nearly old-fashioned way the movie was filmed. The film was allowed a slow pace that did well in accentuating Coogan and Reilly's great performances. We didn't have the MTV style of fast edits but instead long takes of actors actually acting. Also, I didn't notice the hyper-CGI use that annoys me with many films of today.

6. Will the film spur a revival of interest in L&H? Probably not. Several years ago, I remember some being very excited about The Artist and how it would do wonders in promoting silent films with the general public. That never really happened. Those who saw the film liked it, but they felt no interest in seeking out silents (I experienced this first hand when talking to a few friends on their reaction to the film). Stan and Ollie won't hurt the L&H legacy, but I don't think it's going to spur people to check out their work en masse. I wish it would though.

In short, Stan and Ollie is a great film and a loving and affectionate tribute to the boys. Go out and see it - you won't regret it.

Excellent overview. Thank You.
I too was a little concerned about the "loose facts" but the film was obviously made with so much love I let it pass. I recognize that in a biopic you never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I think the film would have had more impact on revival had it won an award. My only hope now is that it catches on in the streaming world. Like I said before - you never know.

 

[Arthur Powell]

Excellent overview. Thank You.
I too was a little concerned about the "loose facts" but the film was obviously made with so much love I let it pass. I recognize that in a biopic you never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I think the film would have had more impact on revival had it won an award. My only hope now is that it catches on in the streaming world. Like I said before - you never know.

If I may quote Laurel from Going Bye-Bye, "It could happen."