Soup and Fish (1934) Review // Applying Queer Theory To Thelma Todd And Patsy Kelly Films Part 5

Patsy and Thelma in the film

Soup and Fish is an interesting addition to the canon, being better than the ones before it. While Air Fright and Babes in the Goods are forgiving to the sorts of power structures that hurt working class people like Patsy and Thelma, this one is less so. Intentionally or not, it makes for a lighthearted and fun adventure about Patsy versus the world. Despite this, Thelma is not left without a purpose in the story. She is in a sense in the middle of those two extremes, but Patsy isn’t demeaning or insulting to Thelma or the world, managing to make a clever point about life by just being herself. Thelma gives an interesting perspective by being somewhat disapproving of Patsy, while still associating with her. The supporting cast emphasizes the comedy, being mostly made up of snooty and overly complacent rich people; most getting very little to do. A fun side character is Gladys Gale as Mrs. Dukesbery. She carries herself with an amusing voice and lighthearted vibe. Billy Gilbert is delightful as Count Gustav. He brings a good balance to Patsy and Thelma and the rest of the cast. He’s best not discussed until spoilers.

The editing is wonky as always. One weird moment is when a man opens a door and Thelma falls as if she was leaning on the door, despite her not having been shown leaning or being pushed or anything out of the ordinary. Was there a gag that was there, then removed? The comedy is generally good, though the film does ask for more. It would be satisfying to learn more about what people like and emphasize how the story changes. Same with giving Patsy a reason to be a trickster…

Patsy is depicted as a prankster. This essentially fills the role of her making mistakes. Thelma acts like she’s been a prankster for a while. Is the film trying to retcon her past actions as pranks or saying they happened to not show this side of her? The latter seems far more likely, because the former doesn’t make any sense. Some of the funniest moments in the film come from Patsy’s gags. She hands someone a piece of paper so sticky it’s hard to remove. She plays with her silverware. It’s weird whenever her jokes veer into being more like how a child would act, as it makes her look like she hasn’t had social training, but there aren’t too many such moments. Patsy is a better character when portrayed as intelligent, because if not then it’s hard to connect with her. She would just be some inane annoyance. That is a problem with various moments in the earlier films. Those looking to exonerate Patsy could say she was trying to impress someone there that she was clearly getting along with, it being beneficial to get on their good side.

GAY (SPOILERS)

Here is a list of sometimes tenuous moments that seem queer. Some of this is based in stereotyping, such as one favorite moment when Patsy leans on Thelma’s shoulder. Mrs. Dukesbery desires Thelma and Patsy for a party because they’re the only girls she knows that can give a party “that genuine continental flavor”. Gay people are perceived as distinct by many throughout history. While not necessarily knowing what it is about Thelma and Patsy that’s worth getting, Mrs. Dukesbery might see their uniqueness regardless. This is bolstered by how different Patsy is from the other party goers. Thelma says she and Patsy are available to go to the party despite Patsy’s habit of playing pranks on people against the wishes of Thelma. Just like in Air Fright, Thelma can’t seem to not include Patsy to things. If she didn’t want to be with her, why let her go? Thelma asks Patsy to act like a lady, as she did in Beauty and the Bus. She knows that Patsy and to a lesser extent herself don’t really fit into society. Take a conversation two minor characters have, “These boring affairs are getting me down.” “Oh, well one must, y’know.” Patsy replies, “Must one?”

A possibly straight moment is when just after Thelma is invited to the party, she imagines an encounter… “Patsy, I’m so thrilled thinking of going to their house. ‘Oh, why Count, haven’t I met you at Monte Carlo?’” While one interpretation is that she wants to win the affection of a man, that would lead to a bit of a logical error. Why would she bring Patsy along? She knows she causes trouble. A more probable interpretation is she is too attached to Patsy to part with her and either wants social clout or wants to pick on Patsy, especially because she acts out how she’d talk to this Count with over the top body language. The film’s audio is a little muffled, so while Thelma was probably saying “Count”, it sounds much more like she’s saying, “Countess”. If you take that she is saying Countess, that adds to the interpretation of her picking on Patsy. Later she goes to someone she thinks is the Count and tries to get him to kiss her hand, as well as referring to Patsy as her friend. If she wanted to make the best possible impression, why bring Patsy along? Also, in Three Chumps Ahead, Patsy tries to ruin her date with a man, but here does nothing to interfere; suggesting she doesn’t see her with the count as a threat. Maybe it was for social clout and Patsy knew it wouldn’t be anything? Even from a more straightforward interpretation, it doesn’t make sense that she’d fall for some random man or pursue him or others. You can also buy that Thelma just wanted her hand shaken, but that is a bit of a stretch.

Patsy has been playing pranks on people, including Thelma, who still is comfortable dating her. It’s queer for Patsy to be at contrast with a social environment, especially one that is used to people being a certain way that just doesn’t fit everyone. Qualities our heroes have are not considered feminine (Beauty having many moments of that), like Patsy being loud. This lack of femininity or traditional behavior can be used to their advantage. Patsy gets everyone at the party to be unruly and ridiculous, not taking themselves so seriously. Everyone is shown to be happier doing things her way, especially Count Gustav who is delighted by Patsy from square one.

Soup and Fish is a bit of an outlier from those that came before it. Patsy isn’t incompetent. She doesn’t seem to make any mistakes, with her destructive nature coming from tackling a way of being she doesn’t approve of on purpose. One could consider her at her worst for intentionally causing mayhem and doing something she knew would upset Thelma or at her best for bringing such joy to the party and perhaps creating for Thelma a better time than if she had been well-mannered. We get a little of Thelma and Patsy “connecting” when Thelma is ultimately won over and enjoys what Patsy’s done, seeing as she is seen participating in the silly antics at the end. She even pranks Patsy in a pretty good “final joke” for the film. You could say Patsy wanted Thelma and everyone to live a little and succeeded at that, and thus wasn’t trying to hurt Thelma. The Patsy of the first three shorts would’ve been so incompetent she just happened to destroy everything.

Characters in these films often conforming to Conservative societal expectations suggests society is still homophobic, as much as it was in the 30s. Thelma does her best to fit in, but clearly enjoys Patsy being Patsy at the end. ‘Queer’ is a term that means different, outside of the norm. In looking for their place, Patsy and Thelma have to a degree made something incongruent to them their place, at least in a way. Something different being proven to be better or at least acceptable to an unlikely group. Patsy fulfilled Mrs. Dukesbery’s request by giving a very different flavor to the party. You’d think she would know what Patsy is like from interacting with her at the latter’s job, suggesting this was something Patsy felt best and that she knew how to behave when she should. She did so with the not-Count. Patsy is clearly shown to be in the right at the end, despite her being portrayed as wrong in the past and someone calling her and Thelma “not like ladies, but wildcats.”

OVERVIEW

Soup and Fish might have been a lot more fun as a feature film. There’s plenty of ideas to work with. That being said, what we have is funny, though underdeveloped due to these films’ focus on being funny and not really thoughtful. Still, what we do have is a good way to spend twenty minutes and is especially rewarding if you’ve been watching Patsy and Thelma in order from the beginning. Even those that haven’t seen them should check this one out.

Babes in the Goods (1934) Review // Applying Queer Theory To Thelma Todd And Patsy Kelly Films Part 4

After watching the first three Thelma and Patsy shorts, you might imagine that for their career as a duo, Patsy will be a screwup and Thelma a straight man. However, starting with Babes in the Goods that is challenged and bent. Here is the first time the main cause of conflict isn’t Patsy (though the third installment of the series was partially caused by others). Now, it’s other people who are raining on the parade of Thelma and Patsy. The two then have to manage together. While Patsy does make mistakes, there are fewer and Thelma makes more. See a great gag where Thelma opens a door in Patsy’s face, Patsy pushes her into a shower, which then causes water to spray at Patsy. There, both do a similar amount of dishing and receiving comedic abuse. Opening a door in the other’s face seems like something Patsy would do.

The reason they get into the pickle they’re in is because of a greedy and uncaring boss. The film doesn’t directly say he did anything wrong, as he never gets his comeuppance for his actions and isn’t shown to be rude. He tells them to demonstrate their kitchen appliances for the public until no one is watching. The two follow his instruction to not stop performing carefully, doing so until unreasonably late despite being told it wouldn’t take long. This suggests the two are concerned with losing their job and if they stopped performing when it started getting late, he might’ve found out and fired them. That or they didn’t think to stop, which seems unlikely. The reason for this probably goes back to a central quality all these films have shared. They’re about getting out jokes. They’re not about critiques of Capitalism or how young gay women manage in a Conservative and uncaring world. On their face, they’re supposed to make you laugh for a little. Ignore the editing mistakes and implications of the story. However, these themes appear relatively unobscured in multiple of these films. Someone might’ve had the idea to put them there on purpose. If not, they’re still very compelling, especially to someone in 2022 watching several of these films in a short period of time on DVD and with the knowledge that Patsy Kelly was a lesbian and others involved were gay allies.

Many of these shorts have titillation. Those who like to see women in a minimal amount of clothing will want to check this one out. We also get moments of that in their second and third shorts. You can imagine the filmmakers trying to justify any reason for them to be scantily clad. Said moments manage to be funny, happening in such a way that makes you laugh; though obviously the point is more to show women parts than be funny. Some might see that as worth the wait through the most of the film, which includes some drag in the pacing. There’s a period of just the girls fumbling around in the store, not doing anything particularly interesting.

SPOILERS

A moment of Patsy trying to open a door leads Thelma to believe she simply isn’t opening it right, only to confirm for herself that it’s locked. Patsy convinced a man watching them to leave, thus not only not making a mistake, but doing something helpful. The writers seem to have realized how she was too annoying in the past, so now that’s lessened. Some small mistakes include her going to sleep immediately instead of waiting to see if Thelma needed anything of her; getting out of the bed when she knew the weight imbalance would cause the bed and Thelma to fall; and Patsy jolting and making noises in bed, as if in an intense dream. As an aside, Thelma looked annoyed, but in such a way to suggest Patsy hasn’t done this before. If she had, Thelma may have shown a face of or said, “Here we go again.” We can see in multiple other shorts that they sleep in the same bed, even when they don’t have to. So if Patsy had done this serially, Thelma would know. It was pretty funny when Thelma hit Patsy with her butt so as to knock her out of bed, despite probably knowing that the sudden weight imbalance would cause her to fall over.

Patsy’s only big mistake this film was when she promised Thelma she’d stay awake all night, then failed. A simple way to give Patsy a great character moment would be to just keep her awake. It would’ve been unexpected and another moment to make Patsy look good, seeing as there’s an effort to make her more likable. We could have a funny scene of her doing something stupid due to being delirious. It was established that they were going to go on a “dance date”, so maybe Patsy decides to dance? Maybe Thelma gets up and does one with her, before insisting Patsy have a chance to get some sleep? If that’s too nice, maybe one or both of them fall down due to fatigue, causing Thelma to ask her to sleep. Perhaps Thelma didn’t really care about Patsy not sleeping because based on her behavior, obviously she would’ve fallen asleep.

GAY (SPOILERS)

Here is a list of sometimes tenuous lesbian moments in this film. Every Thelma and Patsy movie so far has had several moments. “C’mon Patsy, we gotta date.” is one favorite. Unrelated to Patsy and Thelma, a crowd of men, and a small few women, watch an attractive woman bend over. When our leads are told to work longer than they originally had to, Patsy says, “There goes our dance date.”, suggesting it was something they were going to do together. It’s their date. Of course, a gay interpretation isn’t the only one. She could mean they were both going to go find men to dance with, but that’s not the more apparent conclusion. Later when the two leave their job, Patsy puts her arm over Thelma’s shoulder. Once they sleep, Patsy is seen sleeping on top of Thelma, which could be seen as a nice gesture that she wanted to shield her from public view and also that she would miss not cuddling up with her, as she was doing. She did so quite lovingly, with her arm around Thelma. Trying to sell fabric to a woman, Thelma says, “Now here’s one, Madame, that I’m sure you’d like. Gay colors and all.” While the usage of that word is etymologically unrelated to homosexuality, it’s funny, so it’s included.

If Patsy and Thelma had disobeyed their boss and left earlier than they were told to, they might’ve been able to go home and thus not sleep at the store. They essentially were exploited and not really left with an option to not get in trouble. They may have caught onto the bad deal they had, because when their boss fires them, they don’t try to explain what actually happened. Maybe they thought they wouldn’t be believed or just didn’t care anymore? The powers that be don’t care and maybe our heroes had enough. In front of a crowd, their boss tells them to remove the blankets they’re wearing, which are covering their undergarments. Instead of explaining the problem, they just take them off. They could’ve explained that easily.

Following the motif of the two trying to find a comfortable and satisfying environment to exist in, they seem to realize there that that’s not where they belong, as they then didn’t care about a group of people seeing them indecent. You could take that as them being annoyed that they either have to cover their bodies or not cover their bodies, though they were already covering of their own volition. When they removed the blankets, they extended their arms, as if presenting to and for the crowd. They could’ve released the blankets, but still covered up best they could. It’s a somewhat progressive scene to have women decide “Screw it” and reveal what they naturally have. They walk off, symbolizing them leaving this job behind. But what are their options? They’ll have to find a different job. For those keeping track, they never appear to mind that the other protagonist is seeing them partially nude.

OVERVIEW

All of these shorts have some filler and some wasted potential. What if in this film, stranger things of the night prevented them from sleeping or escaping? While what we have is good, there’s some filler and a lot of wasted potential. The low budgets are so evident that here we are in a small set for the whole movie. Not that there was a need for more sets. Babes in the Goods is a fun little comedy and an improvement on the first three shorts, but still suffers from basic problems. It would be amazing if there were deleted scenes, possibly too risqué for the times, that could be dug up and included in the movies.

Air Fright (1933) Review // Applying Queer Theory To Thelma Todd And Patsy Kelly Films Part 3

You might look at Thelma and Patsy’s second film, Backs to Nature, and say it’s too straightforward, too lowkey. Air Fright challenges that immediately. It makes a strong first impression by showing the cast and crew’s names on top of buildings. The camera then shakes around before settling on and showing the next set of credits. This introduction is strange in how striking it is. It gets you into the film, gives you a sense of what it will be like, but doesn’t share too much. The movie as a whole is chaotic, just like the intro.

This, as well as the first two installments, feature Patsy being comically inept and Thelma being the straight man character. This formula is better served in this film, as it’s more ridiculous and absurdist than the first two. Thelma and Patsy are air hostesses. A man is showing his new invention on a plane. That invention is silly and our heroes find a way to get involved. The concept of the film is weird enough that if you throw some comedy conventions in there, you get something inherently unique. Not to say that a more nuanced dynamic isn’t desired or appreciated, but it isn’t so necessary here as it sometimes is. Patsy does a good job as always bouncing off of other characters’ energies, especially here with the ridiculous premise. Don Barclay returns in a supporting role, he is a kooky inventor who gets into some little shenanigans. He’s not given much to do, but he’s fun regardless. His tone of voice comes off as, “I am overly confident and eccentric to a fault.”

Thelma’s presence is more muted here, at some points not distinguishing herself from the various side characters that do little more than have lines or actions designed essentially to just move the plot forward. At other points, Thelma is away and Patsy is given the focus. Patsy’s antics don’t necessarily bounce off of Thelma, with a lot of her moments relating to other people. With a little tweaking, this could have been sold as a solo Patsy film. Patsy doesn’t exclusively act against Thelma in the others, but she does less here. Thelma seems to be trying to prevent Patsy’s mistakes before they happen. In fact, Patsy in this film made fewer than in the first two movies. Quite a few things happen to Patsy, with Patsy more or less blamed for them, but they weren’t really her fault. She does still make a few mistakes. Thelma is more prone to getting upset with Patsy in Air Fright, though based on how many factors were out of Patsy’s control, Thelma comes off as unreasonable. You can imagine she’d be getting pretty sick of her mistakes after how constant they are. What did she expect when she allowed Patsy to get this job? Patsy has acted like this in the last two.

The film could’ve done more to be funny or interesting. While the basic concept is very good, it doesn’t do much with it. That being said, there’s funny gags and moments, like when Patsy is asked to sit and talk to the side characters, but factors keep preventing that from happening. Another is when Patsy tries to steal food for herself. Just like in Backs to Nature, Patsy gets a nice scream. This film is more rewarding less as a comedy and more as something for those taking these films as in continuity with each other and gay-themed…

GAY (SPOILERS)

Here is a list of sometimes tenuous Sapphic moments in this film. Thelma describes the rules for being an air hostess to Patsy. When Patsy doesn’t seem to be paying attention, Thelma asks, “Did you get what I said?” Patsy replies, “I’ve been getting it every night for a week.” Why night? Maybe she reminds her before bed, as in they sleep in the same bed. Also, if they were just friends, why would Thelma be pressuring her so strongly? It makes more sense that she sees them as a team and genuinely wants them to do well together. A romantic relationship is a partnership after all. It seems that Patsy makes fewer mistakes off screen, perhaps Thelma is clinging to that and is encouraging her to do a better job. Not too long later, Thelma literally calls Patsy her girlfriend. While that term wasn’t necessarily romantic at the time, it often was. It was used as a romantic term in and before the 1930s. Thelma holds Patsy’s hand as they leave a room, though that was probably to deter her from touching anything. 

Thelma is asked how Patsy is when Patsy is nearby, as if Thelma is close enough to her to know how she is. While Thelma is upset at Patsy, the two have a nice alone moment as Thelma makes sandwiches. When Patsy steals one, Thelma playfully asks her what she’s hiding in her mouth in a way that suggests an understanding of Patsy. She doesn’t hate her and perhaps knows that eventually Patsy will win her over again. It’s not like when one of the Three Stooges always manage to mess things up for each other. There’s a clear warmth here. Despite that warmth, Thelma throughout the scene is annoyed and Patsy continues to be childish. Don’t steal a sandwich, you already made Thelma mad. Just afterwards the most heartwarming thing ever happened… once Patsy is kicked out of the room they were in, Thelma comes out to give Patsy a sandwich, one that’s in fact larger than the ones she was seen making. There’s no joke or twist here. Thelma is just doing something nice for someone she cares about, despite being mad at her. This demonstrates her affection for her, despite the issues. While Thelma is often in that little room making sandwiches or other work, Patsy sits right outside the room, though not going in because Thelma is mad at her. When someone asks if she feels lonely sitting by herself, Patsy says no, because her “pal, toots, is there”.

Barclay is there to test an invention of his; parachuted seats that can be ejected from a plane at the pull of a lever. When the person who was going to test the stunt becomes unavailable suddenly, the group of mostly male and all white company directors decide to have Patsy sit in a chair and eject her without her permission. When it’s all said and done, Patsy is the last person to be ejected from the plane, with Barclay and the plane’s pilots never being ejected. Much can be said about a bunch of businessmen who don’t care about the comfort and safety of someone, especially someone who is certainly a woman and, by interpretation, queer. Ultimately, their cruelty results in their downfall. The two arguably queer leads don’t desire their downfall, but Patsy still partially caused it by accidentally pulling some of the levers that eject the chairs.

One could look at this as the power structures designed to shut people down not helping anyone in the long run. If you fill the ground with holes that people you don’t like can fall through, be careful you yourself don’t fall through them. The businessmen still have an advantage. They were comfortably in their seats, so had pretty clean falls to the ground. When almost all the chairs fell, Patsy had to walk across to the other side. If she fell she wouldn’t have a parachute. Patsy and Thelma get tangled up in the last chair and it drops, with them at points being in danger of falling without a parachute or anything to save their lives. The inventor doesn’t even fall at all. Through all this Thelma was mostly concerned with Patsy making mistakes, though she didn’t know that she was being tricked into being ejected. When it was all said and done, Thelma might’ve just thought that Patsy messed everything up; those more to blame not being. The business people did get a fright, some falling in some kind of danger, but Patsy and Thelma arguably had it worse by almost getting hit by a train. You can bet they’ll be out of a job after this, too. While these scenes are very much up to interpretation, one is that people being disadvantaged is dangerous. If no one planned to eject Patsy, this would not have happened.

As a side note, when Thelma falls after Patsy pulled the lever, Patsy is clearly trying to pull her up, but Barclay clearly isn’t. He does briefly try to help. When Patsy falls out a different hole and Barclay is pinned by the parachute rope, he cuts the wood of the plane, causing them to fall. Barclay’s intentions are never made clear, but they can be interpreted. There’s not really a reason for him to not try to help Thelma up, though you could argue he was afraid of falling. When he’s pinned down, he doesn’t try to lift Patsy or Thelma back into the plane, despite having the mobility to. If he had done so incorrectly, they might’ve fallen out without a parachute, but their deaths were more likely as a result of him doing what he did, sawing the wood. He can’t control how they fall. You could take his actions as him not caring about their wellbeing, maybe he only helped when it would make him look bad in the eyes of Patsy or the pilots? Of course, this entire sequence is most accurately interpreted as the filmmakers trying to do a funny and exciting ending, without much concern for what is suggested by the character’s actions. Still, this is what we have, so it’s interesting to engage with.

SPOILERS

A favorite moment comes when Patsy is told to go into the plane before everyone boards. Barclay talks and Patsy is absent for longer than we’re used to, until Barclay pulls a switch and Patsy falls out the plane. We never see her sit down, so it’s a nice surprise for those wondering what happened to her. The film plays a scattershot of predictable, but amusing comedic moments. Once one of the businesspeople falls out of the plane, you know they all will, and they all do. You also know that they’ll fall into something uncomfortable, but not too dangerous. That happens. These moments are still chuckle worthy. The ending, when all hell breaks loose, is a mess, though. There’s lots of minor continuity errors between shots and lots of cutting. It can be hard to keep track of what’s going on. The film doesn’t even know what’s happening. When Patsy tries to pull Thelma back onto the plane, she asks for Thelma’s help. Why not ask Barclay? How could Thelma have helped her? A Chekov’s gun of the two rehearsing the rules of being a hostess doesn’t have a pay off. 

While Patsy makes some mistakes, various problems occur outside of her. One time her outfit is caught on a gate and when the gate moves, she’s dragged by it. How was she supposed to know that would happen? A big one is when she bumps into the man hired for the stunt, his cigar falls into his clothes, and he jumps out of the plane when trying to remove the cigar. Thelma was pulling on her, as she was lightheaded. Thelma could’ve been more careful. Even though it would be hard to anticipate that the result would be the stuntman falling, she was still pulling on Patsy in a cramped room full of people. She should’ve anticipated that would cause Patsy to bump into someone. Also, the stuntman easily jumped out a door to the plane, why not make that harder to do? This whole thing might’ve still failed if Patsy was never on board. Barclay at one point intends to eject Patsy, but pulls the wrong lever and ejects someone else. During the proper demonstration, he might’ve still ejected the wrong person instead of the person recruited for the stunt. Patsy making fewer mistakes here could be a sign that she has taken Thelma’s previous reactions to heart and is thus trying to better herself.

Thelma guides Patsy to safety when she’s afraid of falling down a hole out the plane. It isn’t gay to save someone of the same gender from falling to their death, but it’s a nice scene that shows that they’re caring for each other. That didn’t have to be there. Instead of Patsy ejecting Thelma, Barclay should’ve, so as to not make it her fault. She inadvertently was harming someone she cares about. Patsy arguably almost killed Thelma by being partially responsible for some of the things that went wrong, but this whole idea was so stupid, to have literal holes in the plane floor, that she can be partially exonerated for not having come up with it. Despite that, if Patsy was less clumsy, Thelma would’ve been less likely to be killed. If instead of Barclay cutting the wood to the plane he cut their parachute rope, they’d be dead. If Patsy hadn’t accidentally ejected Thelma, that wouldn’t have been a concern. This is Patsy’s second film where she debatably almost killed Thelma. Those desperate to save Patsy from guilt could say she would’ve been more careful had Thelma’s life been more directly on the line, which is entirely possible. It’s not like she pushed Thelma out the plane. Also, it seems Patsy didn’t want to even do this or have faith in her own abilities. She basically did what she was told, though made quite a few mistakes along the way.

It would make more sense for after the chairs fall, the hole is closed up somehow, so no one has to fear falling to their death. Why would the levers to drop the chairs be so accessible, where someone might hit them by accident? Why even have more than one or two chairs drop? This was a test after all. The ending starts strong, being very chaotic, but once it resolves, the film just kind of ends. There’s a slight scare of a train coming for the girls, it passes them, then the film ends. Why not have one of them throw out a one-liner?

OVERVIEW

I was intrigued to watch this series due to seeing an intimate and charming promotional photo of Patsy and Thelma. Now that I’ve seen the film it’s attached to, there are no regrets. We’re treated to a spectacle of what was probably some random writer’s kooky idea. The film doesn’t do much, but it’s nice it bothered to do anything. Some of these films suffer from cheap moments. Air Fright is one of the more noticeable examples because its concept is somewhat bigger than the others, for probably a similarly low budget. Is this a good film? No. However, the high of all the insanity lasts just enough until the end, and thus the film doesn’t outstay its welcome. If it was feature length and just as little happened, a skip would be encouraged, but it isn’t even twenty minutes.

1933: Actresses Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly starred together in several Hal Roach-directed Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films.

Backs to Nature (1933) Review // Applying Queer Theory To Thelma Todd And Patsy Kelly Films Part 2

Thelma and Patsy in the film

Backs to Nature is the first tale of Thelma and Patsy to not have to serve as an introduction to the characters. As you’d expect, it does present our heroes and ask you to interpret them. Let’s see what they’re like and what they do in situations. See Thelma and Patsy cook food in a fire started in the middle of the woods; conflict with customers in a day job, despite this film being about the wilderness; and lesbian subtext for critics ninety years in the future to interpret or make up.

Bizarrely, the beginnings of the film detail the girls working at a checking area, getting into comedic situations with customers. This sequence doesn’t connect to the meat of the film, though Thelma does describe wanting to vacation at a hotel and Patsy convincing her to go to nature instead. This exchange could’ve happened anywhere, possibly with something that feels connected. What if Thelma comes home one day and is glad to have her paycheck, which she’ll use on that hotel, then Patsy changes her mind, saying that paycheck can thus be saved? That’d be a more understandable reason for Thelma to go with Patsy’s idea and it establishes where they live. This way they feel a little more human and real. They aren’t just thrown in random comedy scenarios, they have other things going on! For that reason it’s nice to see them at their job, as that does round the characters more, but it would’ve been better to save that for a short more deserving of it.

After that intro the girls go to the woods. If you imagine what could go wrong, that basically happens. It’s as if the writer took all the most obvious ideas and just included them with no twist. Our two leads being good performers does help a little, but not enough to make this a good film by any means. The dynamic is a little more generic than in their first film. Patsy makes a mistake and Thelma is annoyed. That formula isn’t challenged much. One could imagine this was their first filmed short as what was released before and after shows a more nuanced portrayal of their characters. This film doesn’t give many moments of Patsy and Thelma seeming to get along, though there are minor moments. These sorts of comedies work best when there’s a reason they want to stay together, despite the issues. Alternatively, make it so they have no choice but to associate; a trope that’s more common with British comedies. A few elements of the first film are repeated here, like Thelma making a very foolish mistake. See the ‘bacon’ scene!

There are funny moments in Nature. Patsy gets her wisecracks and jokes. Beyond that, she is good at taking something you wouldn’t think would be funny and making it funny. Yelling “What kind of a cat is that?” is one highlight. A favorite Thelma moment is when she yells and slides out of the situation causing her distress. Both are silly and endearing elements that didn’t have to be included. If you decide to skip this film due to its general low quality, at least go to 18:20 for Patsy’s roar and the setup to it. You won’t be disappointed.

GAY (SPOILERS)

My dedication to cataloging gay moments in these films, even very tenuous ones, will continue here… One of the nicer moments of the film is how Patsy is consistently determined to make a nice vacation for Thelma. Sure, she doesn’t actually do it much, but she clearly wants to very much. When a monkey escapes and starts jumping around, terrorizing people, Patsy helps Thelma escape by pulling her away from harm’s way. If this was a Three Stooges short, you’d expect them to push each other into danger. Patsy is shown to be very caring in intention. Later, Patsy protects Thelma from popping corn, once again seeming more concerned with her comedic partner than you might expect from others. When the two are cooking food at the fire, Thelma is shown to be happy there and glad they went to the woods instead of the hotel. Seeing as she’s not painted to be annoyed, enough probably worked out right for her to not be upset. If what we see on screen is the only thing that happened, you’d think she’d be annoyed, expecting something else to go wrong. We get a relatively lengthy sequence of about sixty seconds of the two just enjoying the scene and not conflicting before things start going wrong again. This could be support for my theory that “Patsy usually is good enough at making things work out that Thelma trusts her and likes being with her.” This scene is peaceful to the point of being out of step with the rest of the film due to how slow it is.

After Thelma tries to calm Patsy’s nerves about a bear trying to hurt them by smelling and following their bacon, Thelma puts it under her pillow. When the bear goes in their tent for it (What did the two of them think was going to happen when they put bacon under their pillow?) and rustles the bed and Thelma, Thelma thinks Patsy is doing something. Those with dirty minds can interpret the meaning of her thinking Patsy is rustling the bed and herself, as if she’s done it in the past. Despite how nervous and scared she is, Patsy comes up with them escaping the bear by going up a tree, helps Thelma up the tree, and tries to scare the bear away when prompted to by Thelma. While Patsy wasn’t endangering herself by doing those things, they still show how she is thinking of Thelma’s wishes and well being. Patsy also calls Thelma the romantic term, “Toots”.

When Thelma and Patsy are less under pressure by social expectations, they are shown to be more comfortable here than in the previous film when things are going well. They wear clothes that wouldn’t be considered appropriate in a social setting, being butcher. They enjoy the peace and quiet they have access to now. Queer stories often have a theme of wanting to be away from societal pressures, whether that be by transforming society to be more accepting, or simply leaving society and being alone. Thelma and Patsy aren’t shown to not want to go back to civilization, but they would rather be doing this than go to a hotel. Things like the wind blowing in their face, a bear approaching them, and something some park rangers do later suggest the wilderness is more hostile than they’d like to think. Many interpretations can be drawn from that, such as leaving society won’t gain them happiness or they need to try elsewhere or everywhere is hell or any number of things. Future films might give more clues into that.

SPOILERS

There are a few moments of the two not at odds, like them working together and talking out dealing with the tent. These moments don’t outnumber the bickering, such as Patsy constantly knocking the tent over, sometimes with Thelma inside. That being said, sometimes a scene ends and at the start of the next, the tent is built and stable. Seeing as Patsy has had trouble not doing something to help, perhaps she did in fact successfully construct the tent off screen? While these scenes are sometimes implied and not shown, the duo does seem to work well together at points. Thelma trusts Patsy to scare away the bear by asking her to make a noise at it.

Continuity errors and Patsy being careless are still prevalent. The tree Patsy chopped down was obviously not as big as what fell on Thelma. When the corn she was cooking starts popping violently, Patsy at first puts the corn in Thelma’s face, not being careful enough to move it elsewhere. Patsy, here and in the first film, is told to stay put by Thelma, but she still finds a way to create trouble. More drastic than her other screw ups, Patsy shoots at a rabbit without looking and instead shoots a container Thelma is holding, meaning Patsy almost shot Thelma. The implications of this are unsettling. She could’ve killed her. Continuity errors could arguably save Patsy. The gun was pointed too low down to actually hit where the container was and the sound effect of the bullet hitting its destination doesn’t match up with the condition the container is in. All this along with us not literally seeing the bullet hit could mean the bullet didn’t even come close to Thelma. Obviously the intentions were different, but poor editing suggests something different.

The ending gag was an interesting bit of titillation. Park rangers show up and shoot at the bear in the tree, but also shoot off the backs of Patsy and Thelma’s clothes, thus exposing their bare backs. It’s a weird pre-code moment in how forced this bit of nudity is, especially because this serves as the very end of the film. It would’ve paid to have an actual pay off instead of things ending right here. If you want to keep that nudity, what if they fall or jump out the tree, realize the fronts of their clothes aren’t very well attached, see that there’s a bunch of park rangers on the verge of seeing them naked, and decide to run away into the woods or jump in their car and drive away?

OVERVIEW

While Backs to Nature is bland, it’s not so offensively bland or offensively anything else to constitute not watching it if you are a fan of anyone involved. Those just wanting a good comedy should go elsewhere. At least catch that roar, though! As a side note for those keeping track of continuity, Patsy and Thelma have a different car here than the car they had in Beauty and the Bus. It also seems they’ve been working at their day job for a while, due to their level of proficiency.

Beauty and the Bus (1933) Review // Applying Queer Theory To Thelma Todd And Patsy Kelly Films Part 1

A frame from the film

Hal Roach hit it big putting together the successful comedy duo of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. To appeal more widely, he put together a female duo of… Anita Garvin and Marion Byron. Three films later they were over. A few years after he tried again with Thelma Todd and… ZaSu Pitts. After a healthy seventeen films, Pitts left and was replaced by Patsy Kelly. Here we find the classic line up of Hal Roach’s female duos, collectively known as “Girl Friends”. The Todd-Kelly line-up yielded the most films of any of the Girl Friends line-ups. The reason for me skipping over the first two was an inability to resist what makes Thelma and Patsy so special to some. Patsy Kelly the actress was a lesbian. Her tomboy-aura bounced off Thelma in a manner that suggested the characters were more than just friends, falling into somewhat typical depictions of lesbians in films. The subject was fascinating enough to look into in depth, starting with their first film.

Beauty and the Bus, and other Thelma and Patsy shorts, are delightful collections of weird humor that has the sense of coming from minds that don’t see the world like the rest of us. Essentially, their only priority is to quickly fire laughs in efficient comedy vehicles. The great performances are demonstrated by the actor’s abilities to do something not necessarily funny in a funny way. Patsy manhandles a car door like she’s from a farm, arching over it; Thelma makes startled facial expressions; Patsy crawls under some chairs and gets into arguments. The two have a “straight man” and “funny man” dynamic that works well, though you can wonder why Thelma is putting up with Patsy by dealing with her, though there is a joke that sort-of comments on that issue.

It’s interesting to compare Patsy and Thelma to Laurel and Hardy, especially the shorts that focus heavily on Laurel making a lot of mistakes. Patsy and Laurel are prone to making said mistakes, sometimes ones that are too childish. You’d think that even a klutzy adult would be able to manage themselves better than those two. Hardy and Thelma get put in the role of “straight man that has a response to the person being weird”. That being said, there’s more to Hal Roach’s duos than just a straight man and funny man. Hardy and Thelma get into trouble and are given some great lines and moments to interact with guest actors. A scene of Beauty set on the road features Patsy on her quest to steal the scene, but Thelma walks away with some of the more memorable lines. This dynamic is more engaging than if only one ever was funny and the other was just there for the sake of being there. The guest cast is also solid. At worst, they effectively do their job, such as the cop that Patsy argues with, but at best can be amusing and a highlight. Don Barclay is one. He’s a snooty motorist that gets in a confrontation with the girls. You can imagine him trying to seem like a weird annoyance that sometimes shows up in people’s lives.

A common issue are editing errors. Environments slightly change between a cut, showing a lack of control for continuity. At one point, a man’s car is damaged, but later it’s shown to be fine. Thelma says to Patsy, “You keep your eye open for a man on a motorcycle”, despite it not previously being explained why she wants one or what that means, perhaps it was a term of the time. Another problem, that also occurs with Laurel and Hardy, is how the film can push too hard on the differences between our two leads. We always see them fighting. Usually, both pairs don’t have to be together. The suggested reason for that is that they like each other enough to put up with the problems. However, if you rarely show good moments viewers won’t buy why they put up with each other. One positive moment is when Thelma trusts Patsy to hold something, suggesting she is trustworthy to some degree, but that doesn’t really go well.

SPOILERS

Patsy generally is the reason things go wrong. Thelma convinced a cop to not ticket them, but Patsy loudly insulting him prompts him to provide said ticket. Just like Hardy, Thelma is not free of causing destruction, such as foolishly throwing pieces of glass in the road for cars to drive by. Was that not obviously a bad idea? When Thelma tells a man that Barclay’s character flattened his tire, he starts destroying Thelma’s car under the belief it’s Barclay’s. Thelma doesn’t tell the man it’s the wrong car until so much damage had been done.

Intentionally or not, this film can come off as a response to Laurel and Hardy. Beauty pokes fun at the male duo’s violent tendencies, making the situation more absurd by having a more over the top catastrophe, noting the traffic jam and fight around it. Beauty and the Bus is still consistently funny, but could’ve used a better ending. One would be for the film to end with them looking at Barclay’s car, instead of going on a little longer. Another would be for after Thelma drives away from Patsy, something funny happens. Maybe the cop from earlier offers Patsy a ride and she gets in, saying it “Beats walking”.

GAY (SPOILERS)

On top of the constant humor, the movie characterizes the two protagonist’s relationship in a way it didn’t have to, covering them both show annoyance and affection for the other. Here is a list of gay-interpreted moments. Some are tenuous, with non-gay interpretations being possible or more probable in some cases, but it seemed better to include as much as possible than not.

Patsy describes doing chores and making the bed, plus various other things at the aim of doing nice things for Thelma. Patsy has the “butchy” desire to fight men that cause her or Thelma problems. Thelma claims to know Patsy “too well” to trust her with holding the tickets for a new car. Thelma is disgusted when pretending to be into the cop so as to get out of a ticket. Don Barclay is somewhat effeminate and could be believed to be trying to “act gay”, a trope relatively common at the time. One of the film’s funniest moments comes when the two grab Barclay and without a flinch throw him in the water before stealing his car. Other films might not have the women do something “masculine”, such a moment would usually happen between men. A favorite line is, “Patsy, will you try to be a lady?” Of course some of these are based on stereotypes, but still interesting regardless, especially when looked at through the lens of them being a couple.

In general, Patsy frequently wants the best for Thelma, even though she can’t be careful enough to not create problems for the both of them. Their arguing has a tone and sense like a married couple. “I don’t want to hurt you or your feelings, but you just keep being problematic.” More damningly is Patsy frequently calling Thelma “Toots”, which was somewhat seen as romantic at the time. This could also be an explanation for why Thelma puts up with Patsy, she’s well meaning and they love each other too much to part over minor incidents.

Many comedies focus on a group at odds. While there isn’t an exception here, there’s not a conflict over something like attracting a man or defeating the other, but to exist in a straight laced and Conservative world. Even Thelma is at odds with people, not liking the various characters she deals with. The difference between her and Patsy is she is a better pretender. She smiles for and is nice to the cop, not because she wants him, but because she wants to be unafflicted by his social punishment. She still messes up by throwing the glass. The difference between these outcasts and someone like The Three Stooges is that the Stooges are clowns by just looking at them. They would be clowns if removed from society and left in isolation. Patsy and Thelma look like normal people who if put in isolation, would be at home in what is comfortable for them. They wouldn’t have to deal with people, though they’d still be their weird selves. Patsy would of course be silly, but not in the way someone like the Stooges are.

OVERVIEW

Beauty and the Bus is the product of something coming into its own. Thelma and Patsy’s dynamic will soon change and develop for the better. Taken on its own merits, this first installment is a quirky and admirable piece of comedy that is satisfying to watch and doesn’t out stay its welcome.

Hearts Divided (1936) Review: A Bit Of Film Starring Marion Davies

Recommended track to listen to: Bring It To Jerome by Bo Diddley

My journey through the films of Marion Davies has led me to a strange place. A place of dread and discomfort. A place called the mid 30s. While Not So Dumb manages to be delightful, taking advantage of verbal humor, and some other installments being or seeming fine enough, fans tend to feel Davies went into decline in the 30s. This was exemplified to me by Polly of the Circus. So lifeless and hollow that it felt more like an exercise in tedium than a film, despite only being sixty-nine minutes long. Still, while the silent era of Davies didn’t manage a dud quite that bad, that can’t be representative of a trend? Especially considering that some of the silents are quite bad and some of the sounds pretty good. My confidence was challenged by seeing some moments of Operator 13, which features Marion in blackface and a stereotypical “minstrel show dialect”. Hmm. That one will probably be worse than Polly, but I can at least pretend until seeing it. Next I watched Hearts Divided. It is truly a groundbreaking work that has shifted how I see Marion Davies.

Hearts begins promisingly enough. There’s a little bit of drama between Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte, the latter played by the great Claude Rains. These scenes play a pretty minor role in the film as a whole. Napoleon and especially Thomas Jefferson are minor players. While the film is centralized around Betsy, played by Marion Davies, she first appears at the 11:26 mark. This is representative of the whole movie. Though things are basically about her, Betsy is in a sense off to the side. In fact, the political subplot doesn’t really necessitate that character, despite Davies being top billed. She is not much more than her connection with Jerome Bonaparte, played by Dick Powell. Davies does get top billing and all of her movies are vehicles for her, Powell certainly is the protagonist, though that may not be on purpose.

The central plot is about Jerome’s goals and experiences more so than Betsy’s. Whenever Jerome and Betsy are in conflict, Jerome is portrayed as being in the right. Anyone watching for Marion will be disappointed by her lack of presence, failing to steal scenes from the phoning-it-in Powell. Jerome holds a stiff upper lip and acts as a typical handsome lead. He does a few basic things with the intention of seeming romantic, like singing a pretty song. He never comes close to burrowing in the hearts of the audience, making you at least understand how someone could love him. The most memorable thing he does is kiss Betsy without consent, and that’s for the wrong reason clearly.

One moment of Davies saying the line, “You have no right to talk that way,” is particularly telling. Her performance shows a dead and wooden look on her face and tone in her voice. Her head tilts the way one does when you have no feeling for what you’re doing and are just going through the motions; plus maybe if you’re also a bit sleepy. Marion doesn’t seem like she cares at all. As if she is fulfilling something she’s known and is trying to make it through the day, going through the process. Seeing as this is her third-last film ever, she seemingly ran out of steam soon after Hearts.

A group of three suitors are comic relief, all inept at winning Betsy’s affection. If all of their scenes were removed, the film would be basically the same. This would be excusable if the trio of dunces actually were satisfying, but the humor is generally so alien to be impenetrable; like if you explained comedy and its purpose to a robot and asked it to write jokes. One example is when one runs into a tree and the others joke about how stupid he is. An unintentionally funny moment is when they prance through the woods as silly music plays, showing how out of place they are from the more-serious film.

To be fair, one of them got an honest laugh from me, “Tell me, senator, have you ever seen anyone quite so annoying?” “Yes.” At another point, one made an amusing expression with his interesting face. That face suggests that that actor might’ve been better in a role focused on body language and not talking. Hopefully he had a career in the silent era. These three serve as a brutal reminder that this is the only Davies film I’ve seen (of twelve) where she never tries to be funny. Normally she’ll inject some comedy into her performance, as that’s her strength. That added layer is sorely missed.

Claude Rains does the best job here. He is an effective and caring leader, who has some faults. You can imagine this performance in a more straightforward and easier-to-take-seriously Napoleon film. Rains, given little to do, doesn’t provide a masterful portrayal by any means, but he clearly is trying and knows what he’s doing. He does manage to give a few layers to his character in a scene near the end. Another benefit to the film he provides is the scene of him shirtless. Shame there’s no such equivalent for Davies.

None of the moments have weight, save for that one Rains scene. They hit the beats of storytelling, but there’s no drive or forward momentum, no room to breathe. Nothing where we can dwell in a state of mind or environment, as we have to move on apparently. If someone says something dramatic, that should matter to those hearing it. While they may respond, two seconds later we’ll move past that, with a resolution or everybody ignoring it. If you map out the typical events in a romance movie, that’s basically the number of scenes our lovebirds have, with one-a-scene. Try not to get a headache from the roller coaster of the two being pushed together, then apart, and repeat.

SPOILERS

Jerome and Betsy meet at a horse race. They make a bet where if Betsy loses, she has to go on a walk with him. At a breakneck pace; she’s persuaded, the horses race, she loses, they start walking, and then we cut to after the walk. Any of those moments would be more impactful if more time was spent on them. Jerome makes himself instantly unlikable when he kisses Betsy without consent, then afterwards says, “It’s your own fault for being so adorable.” The film either portrays him as in the right or not doing something a big deal or warranting Betsy to be upset, despite what he did and how he tried to undermine it. He never gets his comeuppance. In fact, he doesn’t really lose in the movie. He’s treated as a charismatic and loveable guy, despite either being bland or stuck in his own ego.

The film and I will tangent to one of the most bizarre and probably the worst scene in the film. When Betsy walks away from Jerome after that kiss, she comes across a little black boy she knows, and they begin talking. After sliding in a little racist joke (“I ain’t so easy to find in the dark.”), Betsy is nice to him and he responds, “Ms. Betsy, I sure glad I belong to you.” Betsy says he only belongs to his “mammy”. He responds, “Please, Ms. Betsy, can I belong to you, too?” “Alright, as long as you’re good.” “Then I always gonna be good.” Betsy returns the boy to his “mammy” as a group of slaves sing and generally seem fine. Hopefully a modern audience would understand just how uncomfortable and racist that sequence is. The nature of a group of white filmmakers filming this scene of a group of black people seeming so grateful and happy to be doing what they’re doing is deeply unsettling and I shutter at anyone who could maintain faith in this movie working out after that. Seeing as the sequence is irrelevant to the plot, to the point of none of the characters other than Betsy appearing in the rest of the film, it seems this was just someone satisfying either their jollies or some Confederate rewriting of history. Thus is a damp reminder to older cinema in general. A black child literally asking to be owned by Marion makes me embarrassed to be a fan of her.

Once Jerome is hired as her French teacher, Betsy is portrayed as silly for seeming so at arms with Jerome, an obvious attempt of her trying to hide her feelings. Despite her falling madly in love with him, the only things he had done was give French lessons, sing, and commit sexual assault. While it’s suggested they had a nice walk together, we never saw it. Next time show the walk and not the assault. Not that that would be enough. The movie is so dedicated to following a basic romance formula it doesn’t remember to give this guy something worth liking. In fact, this story is quite forgetful. When things seem like they won’t work out, Betsy’s mother tells her it’s all for the best for things to end. This scene doesn’t have a payoff. No scene of the mother giving her blessing or showing a response to the two being together at the end. This is a common “beat” in romance films, but the closure was lost in translation. Just like several other scenes, this one should be cut.

The best moment is when Napoleon seemingly gives into what Jerome and Betsy want, letting them marry, but that was part of his plan to manipulate them. It was a clever moment, though harmed by the overly-theatrical dialogue. Still, Claude Rains has such a warm voice that you can imagine him being good at tricking people. Even when looking at the script, it was genuinely a clever way to subvert audience expectations and give a realistic reason for their relationship to end. It would be very funny if that literally was the end, but alas Napoleon is later convinced and Jerome and Betsy reconnect. There’s a cold and quick fade upon their union, ending the film. Scenes like this show the importance of the scene at the end of a lot of Buster Keaton films where we see him and the love interest living happily ever after. That’s a great way to create satisfaction and fulfillment. It feels like a middle finger to just have the movie stop once the plot is resolved. Let’s see them off!

OVERVIEW

Hearts Divided is barely even a film. It doesn’t seem like anyone other than possibly Claude Rains had any affinity for the story or desire to put in effort. The pacing is so jolty that you can’t even really get comfortable with it. The ultimate signifier of how lifeless and unrealistic this love story is, the real Jerome and Betsy Bonaparte married in 1803, only to annul their marriage in 1805. So it seems we could’ve had a sequel in 1938 where Dick and Marion portray a couple ready to end it. Hearts can be only recommended to the very bravest of Marion fans. Marion fans that can stomach skipping any should definitely skip this one, and probably Polly. My hopes aren’t high for Operator. At least Polly and Hearts have nice outfits for Marion to wear. The elaborate outfits are definitely the best part of the films.

Some would feel dissuaded. Polly and Hearts Divided have challenged me on how bad a Marion Davies film and performance can be, and I suspect Operator will be about this bad. Some other 30s Marions seem to be bland, though not offensive or awful to these degrees. However, I know Davies can be a charming and hilarious performer. She’s someone who has the ability to make a girl of the 21st century traverse all the middling commercial films she’s done. Why shall I stop now? Hearts Divided may be a challenge of hubris, but perhaps it’s a challenge worth facing. Facing to know that nobody is perfect. Or maybe I’m just making things up to justify the film? Probably.

Small Faces – Three Fan Albums

For those not in the know, fan albums are the attempts of me and many others to take songs and put them on an album, typically they’re made to improve upon something, such as an existing album or to take non-album tracks and put them on an album.

One of the most famous “unappreciated in their time bands” is Small Faces. The soulful vocal of Steve Marriott with the intricate playing of him (guitar), Ronnie Lane (bass), Kenney Jones (drums), and Ian McLagan (keys) made for one of the most legendary unappreciated bands. While gone too soon, they’ve left behind about six studio albums of quality material.

The first album to listen to is the official Small Faces. Next is my construction of the minimal material recorded before the first album and what came after. From the Beginning is an official compilation that covers similar material. Much of this material was first released on that collection. However, it includes some overlap with the second official studio album and some deserving material is missing. The next thing to go to is the official second album. It’s officially called Small Faces, but the album cover includes the name three times; thus I like to call it Small Faces Small Faces Small Faces. It’s nice to have exactly one album in between them, so I can call my first fan album Small Faces Small Faces.

Afterwards is the next bundle of material, which I’ve named I Feel Much Better. This compiles some of the group’s most famous material as it has a lot of singles. The American version of Small Faces x3 had a lot of different tracks and is basically half x3 and half I Feel Much Better. The next album is my favorite Small Faces album, the official Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake. It’s a famous rock album for a reason! The final full length generally contains material from the group’s unfinished fourth album. Other people’s fan albums of this usually include material to fill out the runtime that in my opinion shouldn’t be included; things like material from the bands that Small Faces members joined upon their breakup. I was able to find enough material for a true Small Faces album, but there was a problem. Half of it was instrumental, with many of them sounding like there should be vocals. Some of the instrumentals will be moved to an oddities set. I must break my “no live tracks” rule to finish the sixth proper album. The group didn’t have many live recordings, but some late-in-the-day ones were included with finished fourth album songs called In Memoriam. They will be used with most of the studio material. The Autumn Stone is the title for this third fan album/sixth overall album.

While those six albums realize every studio track, bar those few instrumentals, there’s a lot of odd ball material for those interested. Steve Marriott did about an album’s worth of material before joining Small Faces. The last few tracks feature Kenney Jones, Ronnie Lane, and early Small Faces keyboardist Jimmy Winston. They were excluded from a proper Small Faces album due to being so amateurish and incomplete. This Steve Marriott album is less a fan album and more a compilation. I just put the tracks in order so one can feel the progression before making it to the actual Small Faces in what is more or less recording order. There’s also an officially released live album, as well as various other live tracks. A fan albumer with the site Albums That Should Exist did a pretty good job of catching a lot of the live tracks. Thus, I am canonizing their version in my project. You can say the band in my universe released all those albums the way ATSE constructed them. I didn’t have any hand in constructing the ATSE live albums and am not taking credit for them.

A live bootleg exists and it’s included in the links below. Once again I didn’t sequence it. There’s also material the band appeared on for other artists, namely Billy Nicholls recordings and enough random tracks to go on the same album as the one with primarily instrumental throwaways. Some of the Nicholls tracks might not feature Small Faces, but I’m not sure which ones. Finally there’s all the solo material by early member Jimmy Winston. Why not include them? That Jimmy album is officially released. I couldn’t find a copy of it, but it’s listed for those dedicated enough to find it. This should cover those interested in this band before their untimely end. Perhaps at some point I’ll cover what they did next.

Tracklists

STEVE MARRIOTT – GIVE HER MY REGARDS

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Consider Yourself”
2. “Be Back Soon”
3. “I’d Do Anything”
4. “Imaginary Love”
5. “What’d I Say”
6. “Give All She’s Got”
7. “Give Her My Regards”
8. “Blue Morning”
9. “You Really Got Me”

SIDE B

1. “Money, Money”
2. “You’ll Never Get Away From Me”
3. “Good Morning Blues”
4. “Before You Accuse Me”
5. “As I Was Walkin’ aka 1964”
6. “Mod Blues Tune”
7. ​”Mezmerizing Tune”
8. “Mezmerizing Tune Take 2”
9. “That’s What I Want”

SMALL FACES – SMALL FACES SMALL FACES

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “What’s a Matter Baby”
2. “I’ve Got Mine”
3. “Baby Don’t You Do It”
4. “Almost Grown”
5. “Plum Nellie”
6. “All or Nothing”

SIDE B

1. “Hey Girl”
2. “Take This Hurt Off Me”
3. “I Can’t Dance with You”
4. “You’ve Really Got a Hold on Me”
5. “Understanding”
6. “Grow Your Own”
7. “Runaway”

SMALL FACES – I FEEL MUCH BETTER

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “I Can’t Make It”
2. “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”
3. “Patterns”
4. “That Man”
5. “My Mind’s Eye”
6. “Picaninny”
7. “Here Come the Nice”

SIDE B

1. “Just Passing”
2. “Call It Something Nice”
3. “I’m Only Dreaming”
4. “Take My Time”
5. “Tin Soldier”
6. “I Feel Much Better”
7. “Itchycoo Park”

SMALL FACES – THE AUTUMN STONE

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Every Little Bit Hurts”
2. “Don’t Burst My Bubble”
3. “Donkey Rides, a Penny a Glass”
4. “Collibosher”
5. “Rollin Over (Live)”
6. “If I Were A Carpenter (Live)”
7. “All Or Nothing (Live)”

SIDE B

1. “Tin Soldier (Live)”
2. “Kamikhazi”
3. “Wham Bam, Thank You Man”
4. “Red Balloon”
5. “The Autumn Stone”
6. “The Universal”

SMALL FACES – THE ODDS

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “P. P. Arnold – (If You Think You’re) Groovy”
2. “Traffic – Berkshire Poppies”
3. “Ronnie Lane & Kenney Jones – Mind The Doors Please”
4. “Fred aka The Pig Trotters”
5. “Jack aka The War of the Worlds”
6. “Wide Eyed Girl on the Wall”
7. “Every Little Bit Hurts (Live)”
8. “Johnny Hallyday – Amen (Bang Bang)”
9. “Johnny Hallyday – Reclamation (News Report)”
10. “Johnny Hallyday – Regarde Pour Moi (What You Will)”

SMALL FACES – LIVE IN VIENNA

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Jam”
2. “Song of a Baker”
3. “Long Black Veil”

SIDE B

1. “Every Little Bit Hurts”
2. “All or Nothing”
3. “Tin Soldier”

Links to everything

1. Steve Marriott – Give Her My Regards (1964) – YouTube
2. Live (1966) – Archive.org
3. Small Faces (1966) – Spotify, YouTube
4. BBC Sessions Volume 1 (1966) – Albums That Should Exist
5. Small Faces Small Faces (1966) – Spotify, YouTube
6. Small Faces Small Faces Small Faces (1967) – Spotify, YouTube
7. I Feel Much Better (1967) – YouTube
8. Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake (1968) – Spotify, YouTube
9. BBC Sessions Volume 2 (1968) – Albums That Should Exist
10. Billy Nicholls – Would You Believe (1968) – Spotify, YouTube
11. Billy Nicholls – Snapshot – Archive.org
12. The Autumn Stone (1968) – YouTube
13. Small Faces & Other Artists – The Odds (1969) – YouTube
14. Live in Vienna (1969) – YouTube
15. Jimmy Winston – Off The Record (1976)

Links to just the prime studio albums

1. Small Faces (1966) – Spotify, YouTube
2. Small Faces Small Faces (1966) – Spotify, YouTube
3. Small Faces Small Faces Small Faces (1967) – Spotify, YouTube
4. I Feel Much Better (1967) – YouTube
5. Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake (1968) – Spotify, YouTube
6. The Autumn Stone (1968) – YouTube

This is a passion of mine and if one person likes what I do, I’ll feel honored. I like suggestions on what artist to cover next, so if you know of one you’d like me to look at, feel free to suggest ‘em!

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944) Review: The Hilarious Thriller Featuring Cary Grant, Not Boris Karloff, and Adorable Little Old Ladies

Arsenic and Old Lace is one of those very strange films that doesn’t come around too often. People typically live in reality and thus films tip their hat to that somewhat. While Arsenic isn’t necessarily exempt, it doesn’t compel itself to such a hat tip and instead to being whatever it wants to be, for better and for worse. It can be respected for this and also hard to grasp in certain places. It’s one of those movies where in order to best appreciate it, you should know as little about it as possible. Let it all come to you as it’s introduced in the film. I read a one sentence overview and knew I had to track this one down. However, wisely I first waited until I forgot it so things could be about as fresh as possible. The twists have a pleasant ability to raise your brows!

Some of the characters are “straight men” archetypes to some degree or another. Our lead, Mortimer Brewster, played by Cary Grant, is that at points. It’s very common for him to be the most levelheaded person in the room, but that’s not a high bar to reach. He’s at his best acting like an exaggeration of a real person, giving wide-eyed and explosive reactions to unnatural things he learns. Once the plot gets going, he is briefly absent before being far more manic than before. After the introduction of more over the top characters, you could almost think he was compelled to match them more and leaves reality a little too much; being insanely idiotic at times in a way that reads more as plot contrivance than a choice for how a character should act.

As is typical with classic movies, all the cast delight in their time to shine, from the man who thinks he’s Theodore Roosevelt to the cop too eager to talk about his play. You can imagine these actors taking such pleasure in giving these outlandish performances. This is not the place for subtle dramas or deep romances. A personal favorite is Dr. Einstein by the great Peter Lorre. He is the most straight man of the bunch. While involved in this mess, his intentions are to have the least conflict possible. His exhausted and held-in contempt make a great balance to the ramblings of characters like Jonathan.

The first time you see Jonathan you may think he’s played by Boris Karloff, but in fact he isn’t. This is poked fun at as he’s often compared to Karloff in the film, I thought it was him at first! This gag is sweetened by the knowledge that the real Boris Karloff played the character in the stage production of Arsenic. Raymond Massey gives a very Karloff-esque performance that makes you wonder if he was studying Karloff’s take on the role. He doesn’t generate many laughs, but gives great delivery that can lead to someone else saying something funny in response. Despite the fact that other screen adaptations and the aforementioned play feature one of the most iconic horror actors of all time, Boris Karloff, Massey leaves an imprint that will make him hard to forget or not appreciate.

This film both subverts and falls into the trappings of the exposition dump. Instead of naturally sharing information, there are excuses among characters to describe facts relevant to the plot, sometimes even to characters who already know what’s being told. It’s a pretty frustrating and lazy trope, though good acting and jokes lessen their edges. Other than a few moments of this, the “getting information out to the audience” is handled quite subtly. It’s wrapped in a comedic situation where it would be perfectly logical to give the info that is given. One can miss that you were even being told things for later. It’s a shame all the info wasn’t communicated so well.

SPOILERS

One of the great scenes of cinema greeted us when Mortimer learned that his two aunts, considered the sweetest ladies you’ll ever meet, were in fact murderers. Grant’s hilarious facial expressions communicate so much dread and confusion; hopefully the audience won’t miss them due to excessive laughing. The chemistry and dialogue are top notch between Grant, Josephine Hull, and Jean Adair. It’s unbelievably jam packed with things to appreciate, namely the mood being emphasized with blocking. Think of Mortimer seeing the body for the first time. While Mortimer went to visit them when it was still bright, we learn that it’s dark by seeing his angry and neglected wife walking outside to talk to him. That simple scene tells us so much about how she’s feeling and how long our hero has been stewing.

Once this introductory segment is over, Jonathan and Einstein show up. From here things take a turn for the weird and absurd, even beyond what has already happened. Some characters make illogical or against-character decisions for the sake of progressing the plot. When Mortimer must leave his aunts unattended, he says they shouldn’t let anyone in, should leave their victim where he is, and do nothing. Why wouldn’t he specify he didn’t want them to murder? One would imagine this would be a loophole the aunts could use to murder, but it doesn’t end up mattering. He may as well have told them to not murder. The aunts respected Mortimer’s wishes, but broke their promise by taking the body away when he wanted it left where it was for no reason. While the characters don’t need to be logical, they shouldn’t be random. Mortimer’s reaction to learning his aunts are killers is perfect. It’s sort of like how one would react but heightened as this is a comedy. However, him and Jonathan’s better judgment being defeated by a sibling rivalry is only present for the sake of the plot. Them being related doesn’t matter much beyond that.

Jonathan almost kills Mortimer’s wife, Elaine. When Mortimer and others show up, Elaine sticks around. It’s a little hard to buy that she wouldn’t take the opportunity to leave. She easily could’ve ran out the door now that Jonathan was preoccupied. Mortimer paints himself as a lot less likable here than before. He doesn’t really listen to her valid concerns. The intentions were probably for his lack of response to be funny, but it contradicts what we know about him already. He earlier couldn’t think about anything but the fact that his aunts were killers and there were bodies in the house. He panicked trying to save the life of a man he never met that his aunts tried to kill. Now, he shoes his wife away, insisting on sticking around without understanding how she’d feel or considering that he is in a house with a murderer that hates him.

Mortimer continues to do odd things that don’t make any sense. He shares information with Jonathan that angers him, probably making him want to kill him more. Mortimer doesn’t heed Einstein’s warning to leave, which results in him being gagged and tied to a chair. When the cop returns and talks to him, he doesn’t try to warn the cop that a man with a knife is about to stab him. Even though his mouth was gagged, he could’ve nodded his head towards Jonathan and yelled. Beyond simple plot holes, the story is often unfocused. Einstein knocks Jonathan out and the police come, apprehending him. Jonathan stops really mattering and doesn’t have a pay off, so why have so much backstory and time dedicated to him? Mortimer is a critic of marriage who gets married at the beginning of the film. This doesn’t play into anything. It’s as if this was relevant in an early draft, then the payoff was deleted. One potential remedy would be to have the events somehow convince him to get married, in which case this element could be there but not in the foreground. In fact Elaine is often absent, so it’s odd she’s even in the film. A lot of films of this time have forced-in romances, so this might’ve seemed like something that had to be included.

Mortimer being inconsistent suggests that different ideas were considered at different points. If a character goes through something, they should be different than when they started. Mortimer was literally almost murdered gruesomely and if you cut that murder attempt out, you wouldn’t have thought anything had happened. He isn’t ever shown to be a Buster Keaton-type, where he’ll be in danger and not acknowledge it for the laugh. Mortimer not acknowledging certain events isn’t the joke, the scenes just stop being relevant. Sometimes Mortimer is away from the screen for a while, with a decent amount of the story not involving him very closely. He is how we were learning about the characters, giving a more grounded look. His absence suggests his view isn’t important, so he can be gone and things keep happening. Why were we following him in the first place? Why is he the protagonist? Give us a reason!

OVERVIEW

This film promises and delivers a lot of really good humor and moments. It’s such a weird and funny movie that everyone should see it. That being said, it has quite a few plot holes or unexplained elements that make the story not rewarding like how some movies can be, where everything plays back in and matters. Cary Grant was relatively reserved before suddenly being weirder. It might’ve been seen as a novelty that the typically suave Grant now makes a fool of himself. That sort of thing needs to be earned, with him being ridiculous in response to something. If the intention was for the story to constantly push him closer to the edge, it didn’t focus on him enough to portray that.

Arsenic and Old Lace has had other versions that seem worthwhile. Featured are Billie Burke, Lillian Gish, and the man himself Boris Karloff. It’d be interesting to see what they do differently to this 1944 adaptation, which is generally thought to be the best version of this story. While it has room for improvement, it certainly deserves its title as a hilarious and weird classic.

The Philadelphia Story (1940) Review: The Career-Saving Classic Comedy Romp

James Stewart’s mal-fitting suit

In 1935, legendary film actress Katharine Hepburn began her great career decline with the release of Sylvia Scarlett. While not the disaster some make it out to be, Scarlett’s mildly controversial subject matter paired with its dull moments and pace were not considered a recipe for success. Off the backs of several more failed films and being labeled “box office poison”, Hepburn was determined to make her comeback. She carefully picked a play that suited her strengths. That play was a big success, naturally as the lead role was intended for her in the first place. It was adapted to film and released in December 1940 to a revival for Hepburn. That film is The Philadelphia Story.

Directed by George Cukor, The Philadelphia Story follows Tracy Lord, a socialite whose marriage plans are complicated by the arrival of her ex-husband C.K. Dexter Haven, played by Cary Grant, and tabloid journalist Macaulay “Mike” Connor, played by James Stewart.

While the film is not without faults, its positives shine much brighter and more obviously than any negative. The dialogue flies by very fast. It seems like not ten seconds goes by without a quip of some kind. Failing the humor, the lines are packed with exposition. While of all the exposition dumps ever to grace the silver screen, this film has some of the better ones, it’s still a little irritating that they’re here. How convenient it is that the cast is talking about certain character’s relationships and other information necessary for us to understand what’s going on? The fast nature and the fact that some characters are being thrown into the story without having met anyone else does help in explaining why they’re and thus we’re being told so much, it is still only there for our benefit. That being said, showing instead of telling is always preferable.

Another way to forgive the exposition is that it’s delivered so well. The cast is just phenomenal, portraying the film’s charactered wit and managing thoughtful dramatic performances. From Jimmy Stewart’s believability while constantly being on edge to Cary Grant menacingly walking into frame. Katharine Hepburn ties it all together. While not quite as witty or devilish as she has shown herself to be, her snark and independence while also stealing all the men’s attention make her character entrancing and Hepburn impossible to hate. The three actors fight throughout the runtime to steal the scenes they’re in from the others, all handling the farcical and ridiculous comedy with grace and absurdism when needed. Others might not know how to handle some moments, such as parading around like drunken fools, but the fact they can so well is such a tremendous delight.

There’s a sense of relief after watching from knowing Hepburn and Grant were in many more films together (including Sylvia Scarlett and another of Hepburn’s most enduring, Bringing Up Baby) and a shame that Stewart never before or since did a film with either of the other two leads. Virginia Weidler is a stand-out of the side cast, especially considering she’s a child actor, as Dinah. She seems so amused and mocking of the silly problems the adults get themselves into. The ending makes her just the most marvelous little devil. One lesser performance was John Howard as George Kittredge. He’s fine as he is, but he should’ve had an actual presence, so he could be appreciated on his own. He essentially only shows up to progress the plot and not be very funny.

SPOILERS

There’s a lot of funny moments. One favorite is when Tracy interrogates Mike and his photographer Liz by quickly talking niceties and interrupting them when convenient in order to paint a certain picture that makes her look good and also understand what their deal is. Later after Tracy offers a drink to Liz, she sets her camera down and Tracy *accidentally* knocks over the table, breaking her camera. Dinah comedically relays that she saw an encounter between other characters at night gives her character a reason to be there and impossible not to love.

There’s a feminist undertone to the film, though it’s somewhat buried. Tracy encouraged her mother to leave her husband, which might’ve been shocking for the time. At the end Tracy says to her soon-to-be-husband Dexter, “l’ll promise to be yare.” and Dexter replies, “Be whatever you like.” Most prominently is that Tracy can afford to be herself. She isn’t afraid of anybody, though that could be backhanded by saying she didn’t earn her wealth, she inherited it from her father. In fact Tracy’s father is one of two characters who fight the feminist message.

If Tracy’s father was thrown into a modern film, the protagonists and audience would find him horribly misogynist and self centered. That would be the expected reaction. While the film doesn’t say he’s not those things, unfortunately it never says he is or that he’s done anything wrong other than possibly when he insulted Tracy, saying she’s “made of bronze”. He’s such a jerk I wonder if the film wanted him to be seen as bad, but their intentions weren’t communicated well enough. He was literally talking about how women should be forgiving of their cheating husbands and judging them for not fulfilling the desires of men. Him and the women’s butt-pinching “Uncle Willie” don’t get their comeuppance. Liz shows discomfort at the pinches she receives, but they’re played for laughs. Dexter also pushes Tracy at one point. An intended moment of catharsis and satisfaction is when Tracy lives up to her father’s standards, instead of him getting off his high horse, so who knows what the intentions were? It is also strange that he feels good about Tracy breaking her engagement.

Speaking of the ending, the film can be applauded for its slight parody of the very common-of-the-time trope of people suddenly getting married. Marriage was proposed to Tracy by two men, neither being the man she was to marry earlier that day. The understanding the film demonstrates that it knows it’s absurdist makes the moment very funny. However, seeing as the film never demonstrated that it was so absurdist to leave reality, it cannot be excused for how little chemistry Tracy and Dexter have. They were mainly at odds with each other throughout the runtime. No one really seems to like that Dexter keeps showing up to their events. One might think Tracy would end up with Mike, as the two have many moments of being close.

That being said, Dexter’s very presence spoils the ending, as why would he be included in the story if he wasn’t going to end up with Tracy? If he wasn’t going to do that, he’d have needed something to do. Close to the end of the film Tracy and Dexter started being warmer and showing a bond, but that should’ve been present throughout the film instead of tacked on at the end. Dexter and Tracy re-marry at what was intended to be Tracy and George’s wedding. It seems they re-married in front of George’s family and friends. This fact is never acknowledged, so it may not have been something the writer’s thought of. Regardless, it’s funny if you realize it.

OVERVIEW

While one can find things to complain about, ‘Why did Mike even participate in the adventure based on what he said in his opening scene?’, ‘Why didn’t certain moments get more screen time?’, and ‘Why are there some regressive moments in this progressive film?’ While these moments can make your head spin if you let them, they are minor and excusable enough, especially in contrast to all the creative and hilarious moments that Katharine Hepburn and friends get themselves into. The Philadelphia Story is one of the sharpest romps of the 40s and well worth your time. James Stewart, Cary Grant, and Katharine Hepburn give hysterical performances as the leads and are pretty much at their best here.