I've been wondering about something that seems to have changed among comedy
fans in the last several years. I think this is appropriate for the Laurel
and Hardy newsgroup as their films have been one of the best cases of this
"revisionism":

Are viewers today more "forgiving" (for lack of a better word) of the lesser
efforts of the classic comedians? Or is merely that, with the advent of
video and DVD and being able to judge for ourselves, we're not as quick to
dismiss these lesser (often later) efforts? I think pretty much all the
classic comedians' later work was subject to this type of negative
review-Chaplin's A KING IN NEW YORK, Keaton's supporting role appearances,
certainly the Marx Bros.' last films, and especially the Laurel and Hardy
Fox films. (W.C. Fields may have been the only comedian to go out doing his
best work, if we exclude the last couple cameos in WWII musicals, he ended
his film career on an extremely high note by anyone's standards).

Even such a respected historian as John McCabe was very quick to dismiss the
post-Roach Laurel and Hardy films without a second thought. Today, those
same films have not only been re-evaluated, but a number of fans cite them
as being superior to some of the work they did at Roach in their heyday.

Matt Barry wrote:

Absolutely.
It is generational. My generation went thru hell and high water
to view the works of L&H. Their shorts could be seen once a
week in most TV markets in the 60's & 70's. Their features were
usually broken into two parts and shown in consecutive weeks.
If you wanted to catch their silents a local museum with a liberal
film program was needed. Finally the local retro art theatre was
handy to help fill in any gaps that may of been missed.

One could spend a childhood and parts of their young adulthood
trying to view the entire filmography of The Boys back then. Now
multiply that by the other major comedians of that era and you can
see how one started growing gray hairs early in life.

By contrast, this generation of film buffs just needs their visa card
to send for the European 21 DVD set of Stan & Ollie and after a few
weeks of constant bloodshot eyes they've caught up to my childhood.

garyjohnson321@hotmail.com wrote:

} As to why they insist on elevating the
} status of L&H's minor works is a puzzle
} to me. I guess they enjoy being
} contrarians and want to buck the status
} quo.

That is insulting. All I know about the later L&H films is that some of them
make me laugh. I do not laugh because Scott Macgillivray told me to, or to buck
the status quo; I laugh because the films are genuinely funny.

I think that "The Big Noise" and "The Bullfighters" were both very much like
Roach films. However, the MGM film made in-between, "Nothing But Trouble" was
completely uncharacteristic and almost completely without laughs. I expected to
like this film, as it looked very lively in the trailer.

I think "Great Guns" was very out-of-character for L&H, and was missing a lot of
ingredients that made their Roach films so memorable: believable and likeable
lead characters, funny supporting players, catchy music scoring, etc.
Nevertheless, most of the comedy gags still work.

"Eric Perlin" SPAMSUCKSintergate.com> wrote in message
news:8ur8l25vtkcap4rek0qi5uvtrrq61en7kd@4ax.com...

garyjohnson321@hotmail.com wrote:

Absotlutely wrong. Age has nothing to do with the ability of the
comedians. They are just as funny in their older films as they are when
younger. Sometimes funnier.

Maybe It's because that since the 80s such pathetic excuses for comedy
films have appeared(Pauly Shore, "Police Academy"), that even the
weakest L&H looks like gold by comparison.
Matt Barry wrote:

Mister Levity wrote:

Based on what?
I'm not talking about their innate sense of humor.
Great comedians will always be able to bring a smile
to their audience.
I'm speaking of the gradual dissolution of the projection
of their...

Steverino got it. There's so much poor comedy done today, that ANY L&H
film looks better by comparison. Same with much of live classic tv
from the 50s.

"steverino" msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163170373.820480.114740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I think this definitely is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason.
There has definitely been a dearth of good screen comedy in recent years.
The '80s produced some interesting comedy films. I...

"Matt Barry" bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:vr75h.226$bj1.92@trndny05...

I just saw "Borat" last night, and while cringe-inducing all over the place,
there was a great Oliver Hardy gag near the end. I won't give it away but I
thought it was clever and almost an inside joke.

I agree on Chris Guest. "Waiting for Guffman" had me rolling because I do a
lot of community theater. The other ones elicited fewer laughs but only
because of the subject matter which was not as close to me.

Brooks is a great satirist; Carrey's "Liar Liar" and "Bruce Almighty" I
thought were high points for him. I laughed at those a lot.

I also laughed a lot at Murphy's "Nutty Professor." Not so much #2.

Perry