General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Laurel and Hardy affect.
L&H were two comedians in the early days of the movies. Their humor lied in their ignorance and total incompetence. They were immensely popular in their day. People were able to laugh at them because it made them feel superior.
Thus began a parade of lovable fools like Jerry Lewis and Homer Simpson. The more ignorant their shenanigans were, the more the public loved them.
Today we have Donald Trump. Laurel and Hardy are brain surgeons compared to him. Jerry Lewis is a professor of languages, and Homer is a nuclear scientist in contrast with that stable genius.
Does this explain Trump's popularity? Do Americans really prefer a clown over an educated professional?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)but there is and has been a strain of anti-intellectualism in American culture and politics for many years, long predating Laurel and Hardy and having little to do with show biz. When I was in college in the late '60s one of the assigned books was Hofstader's "Anti-intellectualism in Americal Life." It was published in 1963 and won a Pulitzer prize. Here's a synopsis from Wikipedia:
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)What you and Richard are saying is true, as evidenced by the RW using words like elite and ivory tower. I think it's the same attitude.
rampartc
(5,407 posts)hofstader's masterpiece "the paranoid style in American politics" appeared on 1964, but certainly applies to our current situation.
https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)There has always been a strong anti-intellectual sentiment in the US. Think of the college students versus the right wing workers in the Vietnam era.
The US media allows people like Bush and Trump to lie.
Plus, this plays into the US myth that anyone can be President.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)and deep down they know theyre ignorant and whether its true or not, on the wrong side of average intelligence.
The rest of us despise him, which we never did with clowns like Laurel and Hardy or Lucille Ball.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Her humor was in her reaction to mishaps. She was never an ignorant buffoon. People laughed with her, not at her.
Response to Cartoonist (Original post)
Cartoonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
VOX
(22,976 posts)To say their humor lied [sic] in their ignorance and total incompetence reveals a lack of knowledge about their art.
Firstly, the boys are always gentlemen, and never mean spirited. But they get into trouble in various situations just like we all do: we delude ourselves because we think were somehow smarter, and have THE brightest idea, only to have the world bite back, and hard. Or we try to help out in a humanistic fashion, only to have that act of selflessness subverted by authority (in many guises).
Its not that theyre merely foolish and/or stupid; rather, they are like inexperienced, naive children existing in a surreal, hostile world, with each successive great idea only magnifying their ever-escalating difficulties.
Possibly the best Laurel and Hardy short film is The Music Box (1932 Oscar winner for Best Short Film), where they attempt to deliver a piano up an imposing flight of stairs, encountering gravity, a goofy nurse, a badge-heavy patrol cop, a water fountain, faulty electricity, and the blustering recipient of the gift piano. The Sisyphean metaphor couldnt be more obvious. Theyre experts at the anticipated gag we see disaster looming, and when it inevitably arrives, the viewer experiences a catharsis via the laughter of recognition.
Laurel and Hardy arent funny because they makes us feel superior. Theyre enduringly funny because they remind us of ourselves when were battling an unforgiving world, or when our own hubris blinds us to the trouble thats sure to come. Laurel and Hardy take the hits for us, and we love them for it.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)And they're always stupid. And spare me their intellectualism. Saying they're like children is my point. I can forgive that in a child, but these were adults. Slapstick humor like a pie in the face or having a piano roll over you is not intellectual.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Your paucity of knowledge about film comedy and humor is surprising, given that you call yourself cartoonist.
Youre among friends here, no need to be confrontational.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Compare them to their contemporaries. I consider Charlie Chaplin to be the funniest person in film history. Buster Keaton is a true intellectual comedian. Later came the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges. Guess which of those two do I group with Laurel & Hardy?
VOX
(22,976 posts)Chaplin was great (if one can overlook the sometimes thick pathos), and Keaton has absolutely no equal. Neither man, however, made the transition to sound effectively. Laurel and Hardys comedy was *elevated* with sound and speech. Their contrasting physiques, ability to move with grace (even while taking a fall) and disparate voices served to make them even funnier.
Rather than dismiss L&H as strictly slapstick, and erroneously link their humor to the base, artless, repetitive and unimaginative Three Stooges, please read this, from a British comic who gets them:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/28/laurel-hardy-slapstick
A fine mess: the enduring appeal of Laurel and Hardy
Sanjeev Bhaskar (Sanjeev Bhaskar, OBE, born 31 October 1963, is a British comedian, actor and broadcaster, best known for his work in the BBC Two sketch comedy series Goodness Gracious Me and star of the sitcom The Kumars at No. 42.)
The Guardian Thu 27 Aug 2009
<snip>
Laurel and Hardy's slapstick routines, simple dialogue and plots (mainly consisting of turning everyday tribulations into Herculean trials of endurance) were easily appealing to a kid. As I grew older, I began to appreciate the choreography of those routines and, more importantly, the sophistication of the sparse, spoken gags. At a time when screwball comedies were delivering comic verbal duelling at a pace that still impresses, Laurel and Hardy relied on the simplicity of a good line and an exasperated look directly into the camera.
This breaking of the fourth wall is as delightful and involving to a contemporary audience as it was intended to be almost a century ago. Stan and Ollie knew that to speak to the audience was to shatter the illusion and that too many glances would render them impotent. But catching Ollie's eye after the umpteenth brick has landed on his head still comes as an unexpected surprise.
Much has been made of the fact that the Stan and Ollie characters were basically children in adult bodies, that they represented more innocent times, with simpler values. However, much of their output was under the dark clouds of the Great Depression and prohibition hardly innocent and simple times. They represented the ordinary guy with no handout, no education and seemingly no prospects, who nevertheless strove forward dealing with life's absurdities in an even more absurd manner.
The childlike curiosity of Stan pressing the button marked "Do Not Press" is the curiosity we're born with but society knocks out of us. The pomposity of Ollie one we all develop to varying degrees is the riposte to society's pressure to be an achiever. Both attitudes are constantly and remorselessly pricked in their movies. However, for me, the most engaging aspect of their movies is their relationship. Long before The Simpsons suggested that family dysfunction did not necessarily lead to decay, Laurel and Hardy's on-screen friendship endured, no matter what comic calamities and infighting attempted to derail it. Part of the comfort in watching them was to know that by the end of the movie, the relationship would remain intact.
Also, unlike Chaplin, there was no room for pathos. Stan Laurel was a writer and director as well, but only interested in comedy. Whereas Chaplin's social themes and political thoughts were played out in his films, Laurel and Hardy's sole focus was to make us laugh. Arguably, they rode the transition from silent movies to talkies better than anyone else and, more importantly, their relationship endured.
<snip>
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)I'm contrarian that way. It's okay if you like them. My post was meant as a dig at Trump fans. I'm sorry if you took it personal.
VOX
(22,976 posts)But at some point, you should watch Big Business, The Music Box, and the feature, Sons of the Desert (if you havent already), with an open yet critical mind. These classics are art, something the Stooges could only aspire to.
High marks to W.C. Fields as well.
Take care
tinrobot
(10,895 posts)Not a good comparison.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)So why did you make it? I sure didn't.
kskiska
(27,045 posts)the girl next door in point, saying how they think they're so smart, but they're not.