The conventional wisdom is that Animal Crackers is the first great Marx Brothers movie. Like its predecessor, it’s based on a Broadway play the brothers did before the movies. This film is a much better translation of the scenes and gags than The Cocoanuts, which for better and for worse feel like something that was originated for theater. The opening makes a great impression, especially after seeing the first installment. There’s dynamic and well filmed angles, all traversing a large set. It looks grand and cinematic and impossible to do in a play. The sound design is a lot smoother. The singing comes in at natural points, instead of sort of just happening in the first. The large crowd has a purpose, as they’re there to celebrate Groucho’s character, Captain Spaulding. It makes sense they’d be singing or otherwise being involved. If technology was developed enough that the brothers’ plays could be recorded, the first film might be a lot like its filmed play equivalent, but Crackers not so much due to it elevating its cinematography.
Groucho is very fluid with his delivery. His wisecracks have natural beats in the story. It’s like he knows this story like the back of his hand, which he probably did. Chico and Groucho make strong first impressions with funny quips and a back and forth in the beginning. Same with Harpo, who is introduced a little later. The three are often fast and punchy, unless there’s good comedic reason to slow down. Thus, there’s a rhythm to the pacing that makes the jokes land better. Zeppo is once again underutilized. It’s like no one knew what to do with him, as he is absent for most of the runtime. There’s a scene of Captain Spaulding in the dark that is rumored to actually be Zeppo. It’s a funny sequence, and it’s nice he had that moment to shine, if it really was him.
Margaret Dumont feels loose and comfortable, determined to not be a strict straight man character and instead have fun with the role. She has a warm voice and mannerisms that make her impossible to forget. As an example, look at her elegant motion and perfect comedic timing in the conversation, “You are a very beautiful woman.” “No, no, Mr. Chandler.” “Well, maybe I’m wrong.” “Whaat?” Her dragging that line out a little kills so much harder than it would without. Her ability to make such minor things funny with her delivery, sometimes besting the performances of the brothers, is fortunately not something that fans and critics have overlooked. Her uncovered face makes her more expressive than the brothers who are following their characters’ established personalities. Moments like Margaret Dumont not knowing if anyone else is in the room, despite Chico briefly talking and him and Harpo making noise demonstrate that these “straight man characters” aren’t too straight. The world’s kooky and she embraces it.
There’s a lot of filler, consisting of Marx Brothers humor that is sometimes more suited to the stage, though this problem is not as big an issue as in The Cocoanuts. They are generally nice jokes or musical divulgences, but if you want a solidly told story, you should go elsewhere. Many of the gags feel inconsequential for the literal plot. The film would be better if the jokes were necessary, especially because as is, they make the pacing weaker as a whole. However, most individual scenes move at a good rate, but not all together. That is enough to make the film tremendously enjoyable. A favorite moment is Harpo’s time to play the harp, and a least favorite is him chasing a woman around, apparently to sexually harass her. Some gags and scenes suggest they’ll become important later, then don’t, like the one about “Abie the Fish Peddler”.
The Marx Brothers are often praised for their films about making fun of society by going into real world settings. While that is a present element here undeniably, it doesn’t come across particularly well for one big reason. The side characters and extras don’t act like real people. Often they stand around instead of playing off the brothers. It’s okay to forgive such a blunder, as it’s not a big deal, but it breaks the logic of the film and this point that people bring up. It’s like the filmmakers can’t decide if the minor characters are or aren’t supposed to be goofy.
SPOILERS
Near the beginning, two women just show up and relatively loudly discuss taking an incredibly expensive painting. This element feels a little forced in. They just casually decide to do it for no good reason. Later, one of the women asks Chico’s character to help by replacing the painting with a fake. With moments like that, you can imagine another movie where the woman’s charms would be more effective or significant. Either she gets her wish, or the person refuses to help and the plot escalates. Chico just doesn’t seem interested and the incident doesn’t leave an impression on him. He doesn’t seem receptive to her trying to charm him. He still does it for her, but without an explanation or logical progression from their interaction before. The final joke of Harpo knocking himself out by a girl he likes is a fine last joke. It actually feels like a joke instead of usually when it only feels like an unfortunate reminder of the past’s attitudes.
OVERVIEW
Just like the first time, this is a collection of jokes. Whether or not that’s your thing is up to you. Whether or not you like the jokes is a matter of personal tastes. You can’t argue that they’re acted, staged, and communicated better this time around, especially with how crisp Groucho is. That being said, Animal Crackers isn’t more essential a watch than The Cocoanuts if you want a movie that’s funny, good, famous, or features the Marx Brothers.
Opened By Mistake is a delight. It continues the streak of really good films this series has been on. This film even features a character arc subtly for both leads, with the comedy being absurd and the character moments dense with elements to interpret. The film commits with the plot itself and certain moments going for something cartoonish, but fits with the real world. Both our leads get time to shine saying and doing some things that suggest they walked into crazy land where logic goes to die. This short, like some others, does feel like it could be a Patsy-solo film, though Thelma does get some really funny things to do. Thelma is sadly sidelined a little. There’s also the common issue of objects and people sometimes being in different locations between cuts, such as a cart that was knocked over at one point being upright later. The wonky continuity lives on. There’s a little filler, but it’s funny enough to not be a matter.
A scene of the two leads around the 5:00 mark is light on comedy, focusing more on the two having a bit of a confrontation. Both give performances that clearly have emotion under the skin. They come off more human and less absurd than normally. This is not at the sacrifice of continuity, as this is the sort of thing you could imagine happening with the sillier versions of the two. A scene of Patsy trying to contain her emotions is set as it rains in the background, suggesting that she wants to cry or is distraught on the inside. Thelma doesn’t initially seem to want to talk to Patsy as she’s trying to work. The first thing she says when she finds out Patsy is on the phone is, “Now, what do you want?”, with an annoyed tone of voice. Her character doesn’t remain as stiff, with this being a telling introduction to the adventure she and Patsy will go on. Both actresses are on top form.
The bit characters do well with their minimal material. William Burress, Charles McAvoy, and most prominently Nora Cecil expect to leave an impression and do. Cecil’s character is especially compelling as she has a bit of a character arc that’s unexpected. The fact such a minor character even has an arc speaks to how well this film can stick to its story and concept, with everyone following it.
SPOILERS
To detail the little character moments this story, Thelma is told off for making a mistake by Cecil and makes a rude face at her when she isn’t looking. This is a sign of Thelma not respecting institutions enough to maintain composure. If she did, but disliked this one person, she might not have thought it safe enough for fear of reprimand. Later, Thelma doesn’t seem happy to see Patsy. Patsy being depicted through a window in the rain is hysterical. She’s just waiting out there. A few minutes later, Thelma pushes Patsy and she falls into a loud cart of containers. Thelma blames Patsy, though she literally was the one who pushed her! What could Patsy have done differently? Thelma pushing her is more of a Patsy thing to do. By extension of this…
Thelma is going crazy. She tries to talk Patsy into getting her appendix removed, saying it’s trendy, for the sake of her job. How would letting Patsy escape as the latter wants be impeding Thelma? Thelma even tries to physically stop Patsy, saying she’ll help her escape, though she has to “play ball” right now. Patsy resists, though for a good reason. Seeing as Thelma was just trying to get her to actually have her appendix removed and now Thelma is acting a little on edge, she might be worried that Thelma either wouldn’t help her or would fail to help her. Outside of the character focus, it’s hilarious that the hospital workers are so determined to perform surgery on Patsy that they’ll have this long and impressive fight with her. It’s of course not realistic at all. It paints a great picture of society falling apart for the sake of and through comedy. Even the first short had this, but there’s been little progressions. Now an initially orderly hospital decides to force Patsy to get surgery she clearly doesn’t want off of little evidence. At the center is of course Patsy and Thelma. There’s an excellent fight scene between Patsy and some nurses. It’s at its best when it’s straightforward. They’re all kicking and screaming, with simple gags and the nature of the scene being funny. For whatever reason, a portion of it is in slow motion. It looks super weird. Who thought that was a good idea? Still, the personal nature of it is captivating. The slow-mow has a dirty and rough look, reminiscent of nature documentaries. The film is better without, especially with dialogue not matching characters’ mouths, but it’s not the worst. There is a quality gag, that doesn’t really make sense, of Patsy being in slow-motion and Thelma snapping her out with water to the face. A personal favorite gag is Patsy falling out the window of the building.
There’s a random joke where a policeman is responsible for someone’s car being damaged. Another demonstration that the whole world is becoming crazier. It is also in keeping with the film’s strange sense of humor. Another moment is Patsy being fired from her job before going to the hospital, with Patsy’s boss looking disheveled. The scene is filler, but is amusing. It’s interesting seeing her without Thelma, as the two usually associate. Later, Patsy and Thelma bizarrely don’t leave the hospital on a real stretcher, but with Patsy holding up crutches with fake feet on them, all covered by a blanket. Who thought of that? I will shake their hand. It’s so nonsensical, but so hilarious.
GAY (SPOILERS)
Just like those that came before it, we are greeted to little moments that suggest romance between the two leads. Some of these moments come off that way more in the context of the history between the two, as seen in the first nine films. Some of these moments are tenuous, but all are interesting. Patsy immediately wants to tell Thelma about an update to her life, even when at work. When Patsy is down in the dumps and is evicted from her apartment, she wants to spend the night with Thelma. It doesn’t really make sense to go to a hospital. She shows interest in being with Thelma beyond other factors. Of course, we don’t know her circumstances. Thelma could be her only option. Based on how casually Patsy mentions being evicted and not having any of her stuff, she could be lying for the sake of being with Thelma? It’s possible Patsy wasn’t allowed to get her stuff, as she was locked out of her apartment by her word.
Thelma tells Patsy she can’t stay. After Patsy fails to convince her otherwise, they have an emotional goodbye. They act like lovers. The solemnness in their tone of voice is like a couple having to part at the end of a movie, such as Casablanca. Patsy seems to expect Thelma to let her stay, but Thelma tries and mostly succeeds to stay strong willed. The two have an emblematic moment where they make eye contact as Patsy is leaving. They seem almost distraught by parting. This interpretation is skewed if you take that they’ve been apart for a while, as they aren’t the warmest at first, so perhaps it hasn’t been too long. Thelma has apparently been involved in nursing for three years. I’d like to think it’s something she was doing on the side as she got up to other adventures.
Their high emotions imply that Patsy wanted to spend more time with Thelma and when she didn’t get it, was upset, but wanted to keep composure. Listen to how she says, “Goodbye, my friend.”, calmer; and then later, “Goodbye”, with a harder time keeping herself together. Thelma also becomes more sorrowful. The tension breaks when Thelma warmly says, “Oh, Patsy.” The stiffness of Thelma’s face goes away as emotions seep out to call for her. You can see the suggestion of developing tears in Thelma’s eyes. Patsy smiles, like she’s relieved and emotionally stabilized that Thelma said she’s apparently allowed to stay. Thelma’s eyes briefly bulge like she doesn’t know how to feel about her emotions getting the best of her. Based on Patsy calling Thelma at an inappropriate time earlier, you can imagine Thelma having wanted to resist her charms for the sake of doing her own business and couldn’t for very long.
Thelma looks away shyly as the two have goofy smiles. It’s as if they’re overjoyed to see each other, but want to be coy. Thelma fiddles with a chair and both look to and away from the other a few times, like they’re waiting for the other to say something. Thelma is both straight-laced and comedic when she then hands Patsy an umbrella, like she doesn’t want to be emotionally compromised. Patsy is hurt by this. Thelma then makes a joke and says she’s thinking on how Patsy can stay. The boundaries Thelma established were thin. She wanted to hold her own, but couldn’t help herself. She doesn’t want Patsy to be out in the rain. Her doing some comedic things suggests she’s come around more to Patsy by being silly like her. Patsy is often raucous and prone to problems, but Thelma is willing to accept that and take a risk by letting her stay. It’s odd she didn’t just truthfully say to Cecil that this is a person who needs help and could get sick out in the rain, instead of trying to sneak her in.
When a maid sees them, Thelma asks if Patsy needs anything for the sake of putting on appearance. Patsy asks for some food, seemingly as a joke. Thelma actually gets her that food. She can’t say no! For a bit of the film and longer than you’d expect, Patsy is without Thelma. This shows Patsy at her most under-siege. She’s in danger and afraid without her. Thelma ultimately helps and saves Patsy, showing that their bond is what gets them through strife, with that being a cathartic resolution to their earlier issues. You’re supposed to feel relieved they are now together again and getting along. Thelma seems to progressively stop caring about her job. She ultimately gets Patsy out of the hospital by putting her on a stretcher and taking her outside. Based on how concerned she has been with getting caught doing something wrong, it’s worth wondering why she would just openly walk out with her? While Patsy didn’t know the plan when she refused to comply, if she did you’d think she’d gather that probably wouldn’t work. Thelma has progressively become more Patsy-like, with her now having this hair-brained scheme. It’s interesting this is something that has been progressively happening over time. She goes from overly concerned with formality to leaving in an obvious way. By the end, she only cares about saving Patsy.
Some social behaviors that are supposed to encourage good manners are generally facades. This has been shown in other installments of this series, like Soup and Fish and Three Chumps Ahead. The hospital is at first ordered, but by the end, some are yelling or fighting like animals for no good reason. This could be read as symbolic for the world Patsy and Thelma are trying to avoid in films like One-Horse Farmers. They want to be where there is no fear. And if they don’t escape it, they can get sucked into it. That’s what happens with Thelma here. Patsy is always resistant to Thelma wanting to fit in at the cost of herself and ultimately shows Thelma that she is sacrificing their happiness. Patsy is portrayed as correct, as the world continues to be bizarre and increasingly chaotic, but Patsy remains her weird self. When Thelma is holding Patsy’s feet as she tries to kick, Patsy yells “Thelma!” a few times. You might think she’s asking her to stop holding her, but what if Patsy is also communicating that she should come to her senses and not put her fitting-in over her? That would fit with Thelma being focused on helping Patsy after this point, without a direct explanation. She yells for Thelma because she has more trust and faith in her than anyone else. Patsy has mellowed out of some of her behavior, seemingly because Thelma has gotten her to. She’s only changed, and only a little, for Thelma.
As if to symbolize Patsy and Thelma realizing they belong together after they initially were tense, at the end they lock arms and walk away from the adventure, discarding some of the things they had been carrying. Who needs them? They have each other. They’re even smiling.
OVERVIEW
Hopefully most can love the short’s willingness to throw sanity out the window. The best Patsy and Thelma shorts will either go that route or at least dance on the window’s sill. This short and Three Chumps Ahead feature more toxicity between the two than in some of the installments, but they work quite well with that element. This more complex dynamic leads to some human moments, which balance expertly with the very silly elements and make you care more about our heroes. You understand why they like each other, even when they are upset. Scenes like the ending unite their bond in stating that their priority is more or less always each other, with the seeds of their affection sprinkled throughout the runtime. Even ignoring the non-comedic moments, there’s enough laughs to recommend Opened By Mistake to any comedy fan.
For the friends of continuity, it seems Thelma has moved out, though the two keep in touch, as Patsy reflexively calls Thelma the day she got her new job. Seeing as Patsy and Thelma were apart for a little, we’ll see if the films of Patsy with Pert Kelton or Lyda Roberti fit in that time gap. Perhaps they lived with Patsy when Thelma moved out and ultimately Thelma moved back in? This short seems like it could be after the pair’s more stressful note in their eighth film, Three Chumps Ahead. Their ninth doesn’t fit as well continuity-wise, with it seemingly coming later down the line. Seeing as the two have especially good character drama here, this should be among the earlier shorts chronologically. This short makes it harder to believe the series isn’t set in the same universe.
ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL
I’m now especially interested in seeing the Thelma and ZaSu shorts, mainly so I can see if Thelma was particularly crazy in them. It seems that ZaSu was the silly one, so Thelma might’ve been the straight one, at least by comparison. Hopefully she isn’t too like her character in the first three Patsy shorts, as she wasn’t as compelling. I’ll also want to see if society and Thelma become more crazy, and if that’s because of Patsy and Thelma. However, I may take a break from them, so as to not overload myself. ZaSu has been great in the clips I’ve seen of her, such as a Superman cereal commercial, so I am compelled to move to that. Some feature length comedies starring Thelma, Patsy, ZaSu, The Marx Brothers, or other stars may be my next interest. I’m also looking into reviewing more 1800s films, Christine Jorgensen’s interview album, and the music of Ken Fleischman. Stay tuned!
Is The Cocoanuts a classic? A masterpiece? A failure? The Marx Brothers’ films generally have a cultural ubiquity that especially applies to their second to seventh films. Their first runaround is grandfathered in due to starting the whole affair and involving a lot of the same people as the brothers’ first five films. There are things to love and things to be not so impressed with. Namely, the movie is glistened with a coat of paint. The color is ‘glam’. There’s a frequency of elaborate dance and musical numbers. This extends to a sequence of flappers dancing in the opening credits. While these sequences are quite nice and can hardly be called poorly executed, even to the point of them being welcome to the film, there is a fatal flaw. If you don’t like the music and only the comedy, then the movie is shooting itself. The start-and-stop nature means that the pacing is pretty lackluster and that can turn off the uninitiated, especially because some of the numbers start very suddenly.
Start and stop musical numbers were not uncommon in this era of films. While the Marx Brothers do it better than many others, it’s still a jarring experience and not technically good filmmaking. In fact, the first time I watched a Marx Brothers movie, being Duck Soup, I didn’t like or get it. They’re the sort of thing that only works if you already like that type of humor or are willing to learn to love it. They’re less approachable than, as an example, the Monty Python films. Those either are not about having a story or can stay more focused on them. While the brothers and their films are worth loving, one can’t fault those who don’t. That being said, the madcap energy of the Marx Brothers makes sense to have musical numbers with. Their eclectic nature and theater origins are represented by a lot of divergences and little moments that focus on each brother. It’s like a variety show or more specific examples; The Monkees, The Goodies,and The Young Ones. All three series and the Marxes take the approach of musical or other left turns. The storylines are often not considered as necessary as the experience.
The sea of dancing flappers describes the tone of the story. This is a world where everybody is ready to dance or party. Most are just a face in a sea of them, not having individuality. It’s a fun aesthetic, though these sequences could be cut without consequence. You can imagine they might be the most memorable part to some, because the main characters aren’t on top-form. Groucho doesn’t exude as much confidence as he would later. His performance is a little awkward and it’s understandable why he didn’t want the movie released. Still, he has his one liners and other elements that make him recognizable. He has his Grouchoisms working enough to make it not a bad performance or hard to watch, but it would’ve really helped to rehearse more. One highlight is an early scene of him trying to trick his workers into working for free.
Zeppo is essentially a straight man, giving funny and simple responses to Groucho. You can tell they have chemistry. Zeppo succeeds with a less is more approach to how he performs. It’s a shame that he is absent for a comical amount of the film. Seeing him more involved and grouped with all his brothers in the beginning and end doesn’t feel right, because it suggests he’s just as involved as them and would come to mind as an equally main character, when in fact he feels separate due to his lack of screen time. Chico and Harpo are a duo, and feel the most like their famous personas. A favorite Chico joke is, “I’d kill you for money. No, you’re my friend, I kill you for nothing.” That also is telling of how he feels about Harpo. Some of Harpo’s gags are quite good, but some seem very random, as if he was thinking of anything he could possibly do that might be funny. Some gags by him about come off as improvised. One highlight is him being hit on by a woman. He subverts her expectations by being so clownish. The film has an iconic moment of the four Marxes trying to shake each other’s hand.
One potential issue with the brother’s act is that they are clearly seasoned stage characters that are just sort of in this film. If you had this same story without them, would you think to include a greasepaint mustache, a bumbling Italian stereotype, and a destructive mute? Part of the joke is that it’s like the most random thing you could think of was thrown into a very “normal” story. The film would also certainly be far worse without them, but the randomness isn’t as compelling as something that has a purpose. They especially feel out of place whenever after they say an offensive joke, the other actors move on like nothing happened. Their humor doesn’t have consequence and it feels like stage jokes being plopped in. Still, the jokes’ inclusion is preferable to their absence, because they’re generally funny. Technically good storytelling shouldn’t include elements that feel like someone picked an idea from a hat. Take The Philadelphia Story, where every character has a purpose and a point. A better story would make their specific characters and impressions important and unremovable. Whether or not one minds this is up to them. For those that don’t, you simply have to accept this problem and move on. The scenes of Groucho’s character, “Hammer”, with Mrs. Potter, played by Margaret Dumont, feel especially pointless. They don’t really go anywhere.
The Marxes “derailing someone else’s story” is especially funny as the more plain narrative is sidelined for a big chunk of the film. The romantic couple you’re supposed to be rooting for has a few minutes in the beginning, then next appear about an hour in. You don’t care about Polly and Bob or their love because we haven’t been given the chance to! Based on how everyone is acting, you’d think they had a whole movie’s worth of stuff to do. It’s funny to imagine there was a whole movie of them doing stuff that just wasn’t shown. What we get doesn’t work as well, playing as if a Marx Brothers movie has stopped for this different movie. It’s very jarring. One big way to improve this element is to make the male romantic lead Zeppo’s character, Jamison. While Zeppo would still need more scenes to get us to care about the romance, Zeppo’s comedic scenes with Groucho would also help that. Even with how minor Bob is, Zeppo has less screen time or things to do.
One of the funniest and most clever parts is the sequence of various characters running around three rooms, usually avoiding each other. The sequence is sometimes managed with the aid of a split screen effect. Its inventiveness makes contrast with the rest of the filming and is the best part of the film. Generally, the other elements that seem like they were stage gags included here don’t work as well. Group shots sometimes feature the extras too involved, where they all have strong reactions, or they all seem stiff and too lifeless. A middle ground would be more believable. The actors sometimes have a strange stutter or pause to their delivery, like they’ve forgotten their lines or wanted to make a larger impression than they should. There’s a song about a guy missing his shirt. It’s a little too stupid here, but the over the top spectacle might fit in something more honestly ridiculous. While you can make complaints about the necessity of Groucho and Chico’s whole characters, the baseline of them being a wisecracking greedy Capitalist and a rough talking and ill intentioned thief have a natural place. Harpo’s “shtick” as a whole is somewhat random, with there not being much natural room for a mute clown. Harpo sometimes earns his marks by being very funny, but why have this ridiculous element other than it’s supposed to be there from the group already including him?
SPOILERS
It’s ridiculously sudden how Polly is immediately set to be married by her mother after her boyfriend is arrested. Her new fiancé is apparently just okay marrying this woman who loves another man and is distraught over being accused of a crime. Mrs. Potter announces to the watching crowd her daughter will be married and all the extras congratulate her (despite knowing what just happened). Her new fiancé asks her what’s wrong, as if it isn’t obvious. She says she’s okay, to seem composed for him. Why is she bothering? She acts like she’s just suddenly decided to go along with this. This is played straight! Chico and Harpo then help Bob get out of jail, despite there not being a reason for them to. Their characters are criminals that only do things in their best interest, or at least not in the interest of others only. The sequence is still funny, especially the twist where Bob is unable to read a note because Harpo keeps interrupting him with jokes. It’s hysterical here and you can imagine it being even better onstage.
OVERVIEW
This is a light, but very flawed movie to watch. One could picture the film being a flop and making the brothers look bad, due to its poor story and acting, so you can see why they wouldn’t want it released. Another shame is that the excellent Margaret Dumont doesn’t get much good material here. Still, those flaws aren’t too apparent and it’s a fun movie if you like this sort of humor and musical numbers, or flapper girls as I do. The soundtrack album is excellent and one should listen to, even if they don’t care for the movie. A favorite is Harpo’s chance to show off his harp skills. It is out of place in the film, but is a really pretty song on its own merits.
The generic story probably works better in theater, as if a polite drama about a plan to steal a necklace is interrupted by the brothers getting into shenanigans, who could also play off of the particular vibe from the other players or the audience. Here, that element seems far flatter, as if a Marx Brothers film and standard drama were mushed together. Sometimes one will stop for the other. Wisely, the film focuses more on the Marxes, and thus is overall a worthwhile watch for it, but the potential of something more fluid is obvious.
One-Horse Farmers is a fun short. Its main success serves more in character deconstruction than in comedy. In fact, it might not be very engaging to someone who wasn’t already familiar with the duo and then started here. Certain character decisions wouldn’t make so much sense outside of an appreciation for the leads. Namely, why are Patsy and Thelma moving to a farm away from people? Who knows unless you like them already and have seen the little ways they have rejected society? The plot concerns the girls moving to “Paradise Acres”. They can grow their own food and live their own lives away from the struggles of busy life. If you care about the characters, these little moments of them getting along or not will be funny or at least enlightening. If you don’t, you might wonder why you should care.
Both get a chance to expand on their characters more. More than any other short so far, we see them bond like people who love being together. The plot necessitates that they have to pick society or the other and they go with being together. They would have to spend more time together on a farm than in a city. In tandem with this are good character and actor moments, like Patsy having a point to be quiet when something goes wrong, not seeming as confident or thoughtless as she sometimes is. The humor is generally solid, though as always can be hit or miss. The faster third act is the best, due to its fast pace and upping the ante. Sadly, there’s not much of a “final joke”, which leaves the film on a less satisfying note than it could. Based on how it ends, you could believe there was a third reel afterwards.
GAY (SPOILERS)
My theory that “Patsy and Thelma are trying to find their place of comfort” is absolutely lit up right now. This short is basically about that. The film opens on sardines closely packed in a tin, before fading to Thelma and Patsy on a crowded subway, evoking how either the audience and our leads feel/should feel about this sort of environment. Thelma tells Patsy to be careful with their money, as if she loses it, they’ll “have no place to live”, said morbidly tongued. Thelma is demoralized by the social pressures and importance of things like money, based on this moment and some later ones. Apparently, Thelma trusts Patsy to hold their money, which suggests Patsy is trustworthy enough to not lose it, adding to the signs that she’s a lot more stable off-screen.
This film has many queer moments, though some are tenuous or based in stereotyping. “Well, we gotta eat, we gotta live.”, Patsy says to someone about how they “can stand it there”. The dialogue associates Patsy and Thelma as a unit. The man refers to them as “you girls” and Patsy refers to them collectively, talking about them being together with their own food and land, using pronouns that refer to the both of them as a collective. It’s just a given that they’re never separate. The man even says to Thelma, “Say lady, you got a very smart girlfriend here.” Their bond is suggested by Patsy never asking Thelma if she wants to go to “Paradise Acres”, perhaps she already knew she’d be up for something like that? It would’ve made sense for her to pass this particular hustle by her, so the fact she didn’t is telling. Thelma on the subway and prior to seeing the house in person isn’t shown to mind this sudden change in lifestyle. Thus, she was probably willing to go along with this and trust that Patsy wasn’t being foolish. Later on, it’s shown to be a given that the two sleep in the same bed, despite there being two there. When the bed itself becomes problematic, Thelma sleeps on the other. A little later, Patsy joins Thelma and she doesn’t seem to mind. Once they’ve fallen asleep, they’re shown cuddling. In a moment of danger, Patsy holds onto Thelma.
They’re literally moving to a secluded area to be away from people. Thelma is never shown wanting to drop Patsy for her mistakes. If things had gone according to plan and Thelma and Patsy lived in “paradise”, it’d be much harder for them to find boyfriends. This film doesn’t really make sense in the view that they would want that. They’re choosing to live together. They’re idea of “heaven” is being together. They even dress like an old married couple on a farm. When Patsy is under their bed, Thelma jokes, “Looking for a man?” The idea of Patsy looking for a man for herself is funny to Thelma, because she would never do that. What else would that be referring to? It’s not like she’s referencing Patsy ever showing interest in finding a husband. Thelma had shown interest in being a social person in past shorts, but gave that up for an environment where the only person she’d be around often is Patsy. If not, then why is she here?
SPOILERS
In the beginning, Thelma talks about being careful with the rent money, yet the two later show up to their new home with a lot of animals. How did they afford them? Even if the animals themselves were free, the food and other things they would need to take care of them aren’t. The character moments are insightful for recurring fans. When it’s revealed the land they bought is difficult to live in and not as sold, Patsy feels bad about what she did. She normally wouldn’t accept her own shortcomings. Thelma doesn’t seem that upset, telling Patsy, “Cheer up, kid. At least we’re out of the subway.” They both want to be away from the city enough that they’ll live here! Patsy says she’ll clean the house. We see a brief scene of her doing so without making a mistake. After that ends, the place is clean. Patsy did something that would’ve probably taken a while without us seeing a mistake. Later, it’s shown that there was sand in the sandwich Thelma was eating, which may or may not have been the fault of Patsy, it’s not stated.
Patsy does do some little things wrong, with a gag from earlier in the series popping up; Thelma telling Patsy to sit down and not get up, so she doesn’t make a mistake. Unlike in the past, she doesn’t do anything wrong until that sequence is over. Thelma has progressively been showing more Patsy-esque behavior. The big one is that she would apparently go along with Patsy buying the house, instead of being the Thelma that seemed more interested in normal society in the earlier shorts. Thelma also makes some mistakes, like burning a broom. She has a proud look on her face before seeming distressed over her blunder.
The humor is light and approachable, unless you find the moments that seem related to the great depression funny, which they are. The jokes of our heroes crammed in a subway have an aura of sadness, but that’s the type of laugh you’d get from a Chaplin film. They make the characters feel more real and introduce an axiom for which they exist on. Perhaps Patsy was so fed up with the struggles, she would accept a smooth-talking man’s word that a house he was selling was good without proof. He was taking advantage of her, and is never seen getting his comeuppance in any way.
When a storm starts terrorizing the duo, the pacing gets faster and the story more exciting. A personal favorite moment is when Patsy screams and falls out the window, unbeknownst to Thelma. She tries to get back in, but Thelma pushes against the door. The house shifting around as the two slide around is a funny joke in the vein of The Gold Rush. There are a few minor nonsensical moments that are easy to forgive, like Thelma being hungry, not eating, and that plot point being dropped. Also, there’s the two sleeping with a face of makeup on. I hope they had a good skincare routine if they were going to do that! Hopefully Patsy and Thelma didn’t drive around with a cow attached to their car for too long. That would hurt.
OVERVIEW
Anyone disappointed by the on-the-surface heterosexual Three Chumps Ahead should feel relieved this time around. We are greeted to a lesbian couple in the 1930s being a working unit that puts the other above all else. It is rewarding to see them making life together after the trials and tribulations of a world filled with the struggles of social expectations and Capitalism. The film intrigues in what they’ll do next now that their bond and goals have evolved to this point. Even if you don’t care about that, it’s still a funny short. While One-Horse Farmers does have some duller moments, there’s enough good material here to place it among the better Patsy and Thelma shorts and make you want to go catch the next one. This one really is Cottagecore: The Movie.
Pink Floyd took to 1970 with a shift in style. The space rock and music based on filling atmosphere has been significantly minimized. In its place is a style that’s decidedly more “down to Earth.” They’re better for it, as they were unable to blow you out with amazement, so instead will suck you in with intimacy. The two best examples of this are tracks featured live here and in studio form on the band’s 1970 album, Atom Heart Mother. Those two tracks are “Fat Old Sun” and “If”. Both take advantage of a light guitar sound and connect with a feeling of reflection. They speak on how people might be without dwelling in poetic lyrics that suited Syd Barrett better than the rest of the group. “Green is the Colour” works for similar reasons. “Embryo” seems like it wants to impress you and rock out, but plays like a dragged out experiment. The version here of “Careful With That Axe, Eugene” feels a little out of place, due to fitting in more closely with their late 60s material than early 70s. It still is a nice recording/version of that song.
There are three versions of “Atom Heart Mother Suite”. This is perhaps the most textbook “love it or hate it” Pink Floyd song. The most damning thing you can say is that after the first false ending, you hope that’s the end and you can move on now. The choir and brass give the impression it’s supposed to be operatic, which comes off as very pretentious. They’re trying so hard to have this great experience, but are also going through the motions. Parts will be played like they’re supposed to be climactic or relief from a climax, but they sort of just happen and end without build-up or commitment from the whole group. The notes are telling one story and the playing usually another. The shortest version is about eighteen minutes. The tedium of it makes one not look forward to the next time it appears in this compilation. The main riff near the start and end are good, so this could’ve been salvaged as just a two or three minute ditty. The “Live in Montreux” version is the best for having minimal vocals and brass. Those elements missing ground the piece a little.
The seller for this album to some is the unreleased material from a soundtrack album called Zabriskie Point. Those that want to dig deep in the band’s catalog will appreciate this, though much of the material sounds very incomplete, like demos. Most aren’t too bad, because they’re mostly short. Practically all the material from these box sets sound like they could be a finished and released song, even if a little thin, but not many of these. There are good songs, though. The good ones include “On the Highway” and “Auto Scene, Version 2”. They’re pleasant guitar pieces. “Auto Scene, Version 3” is a warm rocker. “Aeroplane” ups the ante, but not too much. It’s a fun space rock song that isn’t stunning, but doesn’t outstay its welcome and goes at a good pace. Of the soundtrack songs, the earliest tracks tend to be better. It seems it might’ve been deliberate to end this album with the less complete-sounding tracks and then another version of “Atom Heart Mother Suite”. You can easily stop before then if you want. The other boxsets lead with studio material, then live tracks, but this set is the other way around.
“Explosion” has the same issues as the group’s long experiments. “The Riot Scene” and “Love Scene, Version 1” are just a little keyboard noodling. They’re very nothing. “Looking at Map” is the same, though it’s a band piece. Its lack of much ambition is immortalized by that title. Guess the band couldn’t afford an article. As much can be said about “Love Scene, Version 7”, which includes what sounds like mistakes from being an unpolished demo. Both versions of “Take Off” can’t decide if they want to be space rockers or not. “Love Scene, Version 2” and “Take 1” are the best of the ones that feel really incomplete. They have good ambience, but don’t feel essential. “Unknown Song (Take 1)” is another nice guitar number, though it’s too long. It might’ve been one of the better Zabriskie Point tracks if shortened. “Love Scene (Take 2)” is very pleasant, but far too long. It’s like something you’d meditate with. Finally, “Crumbling Land (Take 1)” is ruined by the vocals. They’re too processed and throw-off what the intended tone is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be otherworldly or a little guitar number?
OVERVIEW
1970: Devi/ation has its share of gems, like some good alternate versions of already good songs and the earlier Zabriskie Point tracks praised. The main positive is David Gilmour’s sweet vocal that really shines at being ethereal or chilling. “Fat Old Sun” is a good example of his talent there. His guitar playing is also very effective at the various styles or feelings it needs to be or have. The guitar-led instrumentals can either really set the tone of a composition at best and at worst, with some Zabriskie material, be nice as background music. The weakest material feels less necessary than the weak material on the 1968 and 1969 sets. At least those feel more like the band is trying to do something. That being said, it is no problem to have as much as possible, especially the elusive soundtrack recordings, as they fill an interesting piece of history. The weaker live tracks make the album less-accessible due to being so long, with even the announcer sounding amusingly unenthused. Those wanting good material should catch the tracks that I like and those initiated in the Pink Floyd cult should check out it all.
Roger Waters, Syd Barrett, Richard Wright, and Nick Mason, one of the all-time great rock bands
Syd Barrett is Jesus Christ. At least, that’s the way it seems he’s taken by some. Despite releasing little more than three albums in his time, he’s left an impact that makes some starving for more. Fortunately, we’ve gotten a little more, though less than you’d hope. One is a rarity compilation covering his solo career, Opel, and later this one, 1965–1967: Cambridge St/ation. This is a priceless collection that gives us a further view into the eccentricities of this mentally ill, but no less brilliant man. It and the proper album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, cover essentially all of Syd with Pink Floyd without getting into little things that are more for the super fans. There are recordings that at least have existed that seem like obvious inclusions. Maybe they are either lost or are really bad. Even if they are somewhat bad, it’s a shame to not include them when this era is so lacking in recordings.
The album starts with recordings from the band in their R&B days, at least a year before they recorded their classic ‘67 songs. While it’s easy to note and criticize the novice qualities, they work well as what they are, entertaining demos. They aren’t really Pink Floyd in a sense, other than interesting moments that remind you of the band they would become. The least-Floyd part is the lead guitar, which is very R&B influenced and not invoking of psychedelia or the styles of Syd Barrett and his ultimate replacement, David Gilmour. Those parts are in fact played by an early member of the group, Bob Klose. Syd Barrett’s vocals and Richard Wright’s keyboard are much more in-line with what the group would become. Richard Wright gives that space rock touch to the blues standard, “I’m a King Bee”, which is an odd choice for a song like that, but it works. “Lucy Leave”, “Remember Me”, and especially “Butterfly” take advantage of Syd’s quirky singing and songwriting and are not too unnatural starting points for the band. The other three tracks are very strange due to things like stomping basslines and the emulation of R&B tricks. They are oddities, beyond oddities, especially the Bo Diddley pastiche, “Double O Bo”. They are enjoyable enough tracks that fans can grow to love, as long as you aren’t expecting them to sound too like what came next…
The album gets going with a series of singles that prove how good Syd was at them. They all are fresh and strange; psychedelic, but not excessive in its tropes. The guitar effects are a lot richer and well chosen than some other music of the time. You can understand why it was felt Syd would be an unstoppable musician. The group is very cohesive. The members get little moments to shine. While Syd’s guitar is great at propelling the landscape of the material, Richard Wright is once again the secret weapon with his keyboard sound feeling so distinctive. It’s weird to listen to a Syd song without Rick, then one with. Most of Syd’s solo work that features a keyboard player, features Wright doing it. Wright’s one composition here, “Paintbox”, puts himself on display and is a welcome addition to the set. Favorite parts are the really high vocal on “Apples and Oranges”, which manage to not come off as cheesy, as may seem a risk. The breakdown on “See Emily Play” rocks out, without being distracting or unnecessary, probably because the group was so well rehearsed. The four came together to have a real unforgettable flair within their contemporaries and bands to come. Their singles are the best examples of that.
Next are tracks that were unreleased. Some weren’t released in any capacity, while some are alternate versions of available songs. The distant vocal on “Vegetable Man” is both trippy and a cool effect, making sense with the theme of isolation. We have a secret song in an alternate version of “Matilda Mother”, which has very different lyrics that are a surprising gem to someone that overlooked this before. It gives the classic song a different tone. It’s a shame it seems the recording wasn’t kept in as good of quality as other tapes. There’s also an alternate version of Barrett’s only song on the group’s second album, “Jugband Blues”. It’s an interesting look at the development of the piece. The released version is undeniably much better in how polished it is, but pay attention to this earlier version’s pause before the horns come in. It introduces them more unsettlingly. These unreleased recordings, which are mostly from shortly before Syd left the group, paint his mental collapse as he talks about darker subject matter. The tracks can seem a little morbid, but the tip-top playing and writing make them captivating and highlights among Syd and also the band’s entire work. Listening from track one up to the end of this point covers a timeline of the development and mental decline of Syd Barrett, though not a decline in terms of quality of material. The running order is not that bad to listen to if you want a “second Barrett Pink Floyd album”, though it could be better for someone looking for a cohesive album experience.
What’s left, which is about an hour, features the band playing a live show and then a thirty-minute avant-garde piece in studio. For the sake of a good listening experience, the live show should probably have been cut. The vocals are almost completely inaudible and the divergence doesn’t flow particularly well from or to the studio tracks. The desire is understandable to include a Syd-era live recording, and it seems this was the best-recorded one, but it fails to carry the tone of the journey of this band by being a full show tossed in the middle of a series of studio recordings. A few highlights would’ve been better cohesion-wise, though as a fan of all things Syd, I am not sorry to have as much as possible, including this. The avant-garde piece, titled “John Latham”, expands upon all the group has done before or after. Its drone and eclectic structure make it feel unlike anything else the band did, while not feeling like it couldn’t be them. The chirping space guitar, atmospheric keys, banging ominous drums, and bouncing bass are all there. The guitar is reminiscent of “Pow R. Toc H.”’s animal noises. That’s one of the fun things to pick up on for those mapping the trajectory of the group.
OVERVIEW
For those that know and love the David Gilmour-era of Pink Floyd, this may not satisfy. It’s not a Gilmour-feeling album. Beyond him not being on it, it doesn’t have his style. If when Syd Barrett left the group, the remaining changed their name to something else (ala Small Faces to Face or Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship), people probably wouldn’t think, “it’s the same band, so why change the name?”. Syd Barrett is in a league of his own and that can cause fans to argue over whether he or Roger Waters was the superior leader of the outfit. That is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The logical extension from Piper and this compilation is solo Syd, not 1968 Pink Floyd. It is in fact a compelling and necessary chapter for Syd in terms of mapping how we got from Piper in 1967 to something miles away in 1970’s The Madcap Laughs. It is not particularly necessary to someone that doesn’t care beyond the era with Gilmour. They would want the pre-script highlights of Piper (if that) and then jump to either the group’s second album or 1968 rarities comp, which are the first two projects to lay the groundwork for what would become of that. Thus, this album details a band that died quickly; a band that didn’t live past the beginning of 1968, or 1970 if you would consider solo-Syd the same thing. I wouldn’t, seeing as the Floyd band brings a very unique sound to the table. Cambridge St/ation is a fascinating and generally cohesive finale of this promising rock group that seemed to have it all figured out, only to fall apart under tragic circumstances that name “1965-1967” Pink Floyd one of the great ‘what ifs’ of rock and roll.
For fun, here’s a “cohesive” trim and slight reorder of this album, for the sake of better flow.
I went into this film a little nervous. My interpretation of our two leads thus far has been of “love conquers all”. While Patsy can get on Thelma’s nerves a lot (and a little the other way around), the two manage to be relatively solid next time around. This film is an inherent disagreement of such a narrative. As a way of explaining it away, I was going to see if it could fit as the chronological first short, before things developed. That isn’t possible. The short changes a noticeable amount of what I’ve taken from the series and how I feel about it. And for that, I dearly thank it.
Three Chumps Ahead is an incredibly delightful installment of the Thelma-Patsy series. It goes the whole hog of “give our characters a very simple premise and let them run wild with what they do.” That premise can easily be filled with lame jokes, or great jokes. This one usually has great ones. Thelma reveals she has a boyfriend and Patsy does not approve. The situation naturally gives Patsy opportunities for not only comedic moments, but also character moments. We get a lot from how she handles the matter at hand. Seemingly unable to respect Thelma’s wishes, Patsy doesn’t dress or act politely. She in other films has great fashion-sense, so her here wearing mal-fitting clothes paints how she feels.
As is standard, Thelma is less prominent than Patsy, but is not without moments to be fun. She’s had more to do as of late. Perhaps she asked to be given more material? Seeing as the series originally starred Thelma and ZaSu Pitts, I wonder if she didn’t like that Patsy got most of the action. Thelma, as typically, does a lot of criticizing Patsy and making facial expressions, while trying her best to maintain the peace with an outside entity. The twist is that she does more with/in response to Patsy, like insisting she practice how to properly greet someone at the door or exploding at Patsy for being so problematic. Some of Thelma’s gags you can imagine were intended for Patsy; like when she opens the door carelessly, it hits Patsy, and the latter falls over. Despite such gags, she doesn’t feel like Patsy, but a reflection of Patsy. In some ways, they are opposites and in some, they are the same.
Archie Baker is Thelma’s boyfriend, played by Eddie Phillips. Phillips gives a more nuanced performance than you might expect and is simply one of the best bit actors of the series. He has a list of accomplishments to his name and a sly persona that is understandably convincing, but feels a little off under scrutiny. Even from his first scene onward, you get hints at something under the surface. Note how he feels about Thelma and especially Patsy as the film goes on. His brother is Benny Baker, played by an actor bearing the same name. He is ready to follow his brother’s orders and comes to his orders and the situation with certain expectations and feelings. Those being challenged create lots of moments plastered on his face or through his voice that make him and his brother enjoyable characters and more relatable than you might expect. It’d be nice if they became recurring characters, but alas.
The film’s comedy excels primarily because it is based in our characters. What a character will do next is rooted in the information they have and their understood personalities. They do little things that color and reflect how they think. The little moments can make a difference. After Patsy takes Archie’s hat when he enters, she at a random point puts it on. That’s such a simple thing, but it tells us a bit about Patsy and people in general in how you can either want to fiddle with objects or not really think about what you do with them.
SPOILERS
Thelma says Archie means “everything to her”, yet she still keeps Patsy around for the date after she becomes a problem. Why not kick Patsy out of the apartment or leave herself? Can Thelma just not handle that? Even if Patsy was well-behaved, wouldn’t she want some privacy on her date? She does leave later, though, but Archie encouraged it. Thelma recurrently makes her relationship Patsy’s business, like how she wants Patsy to greet Archie at the door and asks her to make sandwiches for her and Archie. Wouldn’t she be concerned that Patsy would do something bad to them, which she does? Thelma’s behavior is more consistent with someone trying to make Patsy feel jealous or more kindly, that she can’t handle not having Patsy involved in her life, even to the point of keeping her on her date. A relatively-common sitcom trope that would come years later is “someone tries to make their friend/ex feel jealous, but ultimately doesn’t get anywhere with who they’re pretending to like.” Thelma continues to be shown as more mistake-prone than early on. Beyond her knocking over Patsy, she later forces uncomfortable shoes on Patsy’s foot, instead of letting her put them on herself. At the end, Thelma knocks over a stack of cleaned dishes she and Patsy did. I’d like to think Patsy didn’t see any issue with stacking the dishes so high and unstably.
Patsy has a funny moment where she acts like how she’ll greet Archie. She’s overly enthused, possibly emulating how she’d normally greet someone. When Archie does show up, she is actually pretty polite and not overbearing. While it’s hard to gather why she acts well, it should be noted that Thelma wasn’t there for them meeting, but basically all of Patsy’s disturbances are with Thelma in the room. You could say she was really being considerate, but why bother if she’s going to be disrespectful elsewhere? It’s as if she’s only putting it on for Thelma. In the past, Patsy has been shown to be very thoughtful and intelligent, so this may be an attempt to be calculating for some purpose.
Archie calls upon his brother as he thinks he’ll distract Patsy now that she has a date. When Benny greets Patsy and almost immediately asks her for a kiss, she is in disbelief. She never kisses him or otherwise shows any interest in him. As a conspiracy theory, maybe she was originally going to in an earlier version of the script, as he has somewhat similar humor and eats her sandwiches, while no one else does. Imagine a story where Thelma is with a man that she loves and Patsy is forced with his brother, then Thelma’s date falls through, but Patsy falls in love with the brother. Thelma is ultimately upset that that family will still be in her life! Patsy Kelly not being particularly suited to falling for men could result in that idea being dropped. Quite the opposite of her falling for Benny, Patsy shows some fun character moments by being so focused on Thelma. She doesn’t seem to be thinking about anything else. When Thelma goes, she takes the first course of action to find her. She luls Benny into a false sense of security, then beats him up for information. The audio-only gag is creative. This is another moment of Patsy being able to be smart by pretending to like Benny so she can get the info.
Patsy and Benny go to the restaurant Thelma and Archie are at. Thelma, who is not happy to see Patsy, accepts her invitation to sit down. When Patsy overhears some men being beaten up for not paying for their food, she buys an excessive amount of food just to get at Archie. You can imagine a lot of funny gags that never were of Patsy receiving and eating the food, as we skip from her ordering to her being done. Archie and Benny figure out a way to leave and the girls have to do the dishes as punishment.
Like in some previous shorts, Patsy does the trick of, “Not giving Thelma what she wanted, but giving her something more worthwhile”, but not entirely. Throughout the film, Patsy suspects and is later proven right that Archie isn’t rich or kind. The ending I expected was Archie somehow screwing over our leads completely selfishly, leading to Patsy being vindicated by Thelma. While he does screw them over, it’s for a more understandable reason. He was taken advantage of by Patsy, who knew he’d be beaten for not having money. Thelma also had to participate in a probably very long and tedious punishment that was entirely Patsy’s fault. Patsy did still prove that Archie wasn’t rich. A more pro-Patsy ending would be for her to take the punishment herself and Thelma either being allowed to go or voluntarily helping Patsy. In fact, we don’t know the latter didn’t happen. Thelma doesn’t appear bitter or angry over having to do the dishes, though we only see her once they’ve basically done them all.
To try to exonerate Patsy, it doesn’t really make sense she’d be forced to do the dishes. It would’ve been expected for a man to pay and presuming the girls truthfully said Archie tricked everyone so he could leave, why should they be punished? Against her, Patsy could’ve done something to catch Archie that wouldn’t kick back at her and Thelma. As an aside, why was it ever on the table that Archie would pay for Patsy? While Archie and Benny are under pressure to put up with social conventions, that wouldn’t include paying for someone who is technically another guy’s date.
Archie embodies a fun twist of a straight man character being unstraightened by the silly antics by the main characters. When he hears the sound of Patsy loudly crashing into the kitchen early on, he shows concern. By the end, he doesn’t care about them getting into heat, with a smug look on his face that reads, “You thought you could get me, but I won.”
GAY (SPOILERS)
After discovering the “straight short”, it seemed that the most logical placement chronologically for this short would be before everything else, as in before Patsy and Thelma “got closer”. Despite the duo being colder to each other, it’s more like two people who have been together excessively and want a break. There are many moments, some tenuous, that speak to them having a romantic bond, which has perhaps been strained. Thelma wants Patsy to feel her heart (which requires touching her boob), though Thelma Todd may not know where the heart is located based on where she referred to. Thelma then kisses Patsy’s hand when describing how Archie kisses hers romantically, saying he kisses hers the same. Patsy is in disbelief, saying things like, “Hey, wait-a, hey listen, toots, you don’t mean to tell me you’ve fallen in love with some guy?” “Hook, line, and sinker.” “Well, you poor fish.” Later Patsy says, “After all these years, you’re gonna let a guy with a yacht and a mustache come between us.” If they were both straight women living together out of financial necessity or just being friends, why would Patsy care about Thelma dating a man? Finding someone you love is something most want. Patsy should be happy for her, not trying to ruin the date. Also, Patsy being so upset and them knowing each other for “years” makes it hard to say both logically and for the benefit of a good story that this is the chronological first short. They suggest a history.
Social conventions and norms force characters here to do things they wouldn’t want to do. Archie is compelled to pay for Patsy’s food and he was going to before she ordered more than he could handle. Thelma tries hard to act like everything is fine between her and Patsy and feels better when things get to the point that she can’t hide it, and thus doesn’t have to try. This extends to little things like Thelma being mad that Patsy won’t wear uncomfortable, but nice-looking shoes. Wouldn’t everyone rather just do what they want? They come off as miserable. More consequentially, Archie is merely pretending to be rich. While it isn’t explained why, one apparent explanation is to impress women. He has to hide a lot about himself and thus be a nuisance to those that find him and discover who he really is. Patsy is looked at poorly for being herself, while others hide in boxes to varying degrees and she is the happiest. If you are to take my interpretations of these characters, Thelma has internalized homophobia and is making life harder for herself by pretending she isn’t what she is. She isn’t the only character in this film facing such an experience… “A girl? You sure? Oh yeah, if it’s a girl I’ll come right up because I like girls.” That’s the line Benny says when his brother informs him he wants him to come see a girl. Talk about overkill. He’s overly try-hard about getting Patsy to kiss him or “play games with him”, being needlessly overt. While Benny isn’t focused on enough to make any sort of judgment call, it’s a curious element, especially when taken in totality of this short and even more so in the series.
The most pro-gay interpretation of Patsy and Thelma in this story is that they are on a break and Patsy is jealous of someone else being with Thelma, with the relationship being in some trouble due to the two being frustrated with the other’s behavior and other aspects. While Patsy is the overt trouble maker, Thelma is heartless for involving Patsy in her romantic life, despite her clearly not liking it, even having her do things like make sandwiches. They both act like they’re sick of the other’s problems and wish the other would be more amenable, but not like they would leave and never see each other again. They both are at least usually focused on the other. That could make them in-line with some tv couples that are somewhat toxic and at each other, but have enough affection to put up with the other. Will be looking forward to the sequel, “Two Skirts See A Shrink”. Other interpretations that are not impossible, but less satisfying are that the film is a dream, the two are in an open relationship, or Thelma is playing an elaborate prank. They would erase a lot of the little defining moments by giving a stranger context.
Thelma seems compelled by “compulsory heterosexuality”. Thelma’s obsession with Patsy only being dented by Archie asking her to leave the apartment could suggest a desire to not be part of an outsider life coming to fruition. When Patsy finds her, Thelma doesn’t ask her to leave. While you could say she was trying to follow social manners, she was already willing to take Patsy in another room and tell her off earlier. Thelma sees Archie as a natural way to fit in. We don’t see why he’s so great to her other than superficial things, things like having money and presenting himself as a caring man. She can only see him in superficial ways because she’s forcing it. Thelma being shown at the end with Patsy represents her deciding that Patsy and what she has to offer is what is for her. We don’t see Thelma trying to find or reconnect with Archie, though it’s not impossible that happened. Based on how Thelma doesn’t seem too worked up by the relationship ending at the very end and also in other shorts, she might’ve been trying to convince herself she loved him, possibly for the sake of feeling superior to Patsy.
The next installment in the series features Thelma seeming content with her life with Patsy and no one else. They move somewhere away from people and don’t seem to like being around people. One debatable contradiction to this whole theory is how excited she is to tell Patsy about Archie at the beginning, but that could be considered her either playing it up for Patsy and/or herself. If Patsy hadn’t screwed the date over, Thelma might’ve kept dating Archie, but seeing as he wasn’t real about himself, that would’ve been a waste of time. Patsy in a way “saved” Thelma from the trouble. My friend told me she’d rather do those dishes than continue dating a dishonest person like that.
This short honestly doesn’t paint Thelma and Patsy as being in a currently stable relationship. In my notes, I was less kind and said they weren’t that “well as a couple or like they could be one”. Their near-inability to bother with anything unrelated to them makes that older opinion weaker, though even this more positive interpretation means they’re on each other’s nerves. Earlier shorts have had them seem more like they feel good about the other, to say the least. Something is good enough for them to stick around. Here, it’s more like there’s a mental codependence. A romantic might say they’re too in love to let it die and others that they are too psychologically attached to want to truly end things. What you would hope they would do for their own personal benefits, whether to stay or separate, is up to you. I am simply left intrigued by what will come next. Their conflict here is more human and complicated than, “Patsy makes a mistake and Thelma yells at her” or “Our love is unstoppable”. This dynamic leads to better comedy, like in how our heroes fight each other. There’s also potential for character growth. If Patsy and Thelma want to find their place and be happy, they can’t just get over society, but they have to get over themselves. Despite originally thinking they worked best when unbreakable, this film pleasantly challenged that, though I still think they should be unbreakable in certain ways that Three Chumps Ahead doesn’t refute. At the end of the day, they stay together.
Those inclined can of course take a completely heterosexual view. If that’s how they see it, that’s completely fine. However, many reviews have pointed out the romantic elements of the fictional characters that began when the real life lesbian Patsy Kelly replaced Thelma’s initial partner, the heterosexual ZaSu Pitts. Consider that as of the first seven shorts, the two girls are never shown to be attracted to men. Patsy calls Thelma “toots” several times in this short and others. Thelma is eager to tell Patsy about her goings-on and involve her in her life. You’d imagine that if your friend or roommate ruined your date the way Patsy did, you’d end the relationship. Thelma never is shown to consider leaving Patsy.
Finally, Patsy and Thelma are looking for their place and their people, per my interpretation of these films. Thelma is sometimes near-desperate to be a normal person in society. What better way to do that than to fall in love with a rich man and be away from that problematic Patsy that doesn’t conform to societal expectations? At the end, Thelma knocks over the stack of cleaned dishes she and Patsy did, symbolically suggesting that she is or will end up more Patsy-like and doesn’t fit normal conventions of what a woman should be.
OVERVIEW
I fully admit that I would rather a lesbian narrative than not, that Patsy and Thelma are committed together despite not always getting along. If you’ve bought my interpretation of their first seven films, a more straightforward interpretation might be that Thelma is bisexual and that their relationship is on thin enough standing that if Thelma says she’s fallen in love with a man, Patsy won’t say, “But we’re together?” Media that isn’t afraid to reach the vicinity of homosexuality can strike as very meaningful, giving a starved person the comfort of knowing that there is and always has been. No matter the intentions behind these films, they still communicate a message that is absent from Laurel and Hardy or The Liver Birds, as examples. They communicate moments of a true warmth in the maddening world that is both real life and fictional. If you take a deep look in Three Chumps Ahead, there’s a lot of interesting things to gather. Things that may prove me worth taking seriously or worth laughing at. Admittedly, many of these queer elements were noticeable once under analysis, but that analysis proved this installment a game changer.
You should take from this one what you will. It’s a bit of an oddity for the more coarse textures that have been softer in the past. As someone who has been advocating for Patsy and Thelma really having a deep affection for each other, this one succeeded for one simple reason, it’s absolutely hilarious. There’s not a lot of needless material that feels like it is to make a runtime. Everything here is in service of good humor. While affection is preferable, at least it’s not ‘mean’ and unfunny. For the friends of continuity, this short is a little weird coming off of the previous one’s progressive bond developed between the leads. Them being more unnerved suggests that this is one of their later adventures chronologically.
While previous films have bent the characters’ traits, this one arguably is a much more drastic example of Patsy and Thelma being out of character. Film series like The Three Stooges imply that all of their adventures share a universe, except for the occasional film that is in its own independent continuity. One could say this film here is, though that feels too easy and you’d be ignoring all the interesting implications, but that might serve a better rationale for some. If there’s one takeaway to gleam from this short, it’s that Patsy probably makes good sandwiches, as Thelma asked her to make them when she was trying to make a good impression on Archie.
As a teen, I watched quite a few “popcorn 30s films”. They’re very disposable and goofy, for better and for worse. While Kelly the Second is no exception, featuring some of the same issues, it does manage to be decently funny. In fact, it’s one of the better disposable 30s films. There are a few reasons why, but the main is the fabulous Patsy Kelly. She carries a big energy with her to simple things as the main character, Mollie Patricia Kelly. She gets into fights and is strong willed, but her emotional center makes her very likable. Her character manages to maintain these qualities whenever suddenly thrown in situations. One personal favorite moment is when she throws a baseball near the beginning. She just decides to go do it, with there being a silly pay off to the joke; and her carrying a light nature to her mannerisms that make the scene funnier. There’s another moment of her deciding to wear a disguise for little, but not no, reason. She casually wears a very eye-catching one, instead of something more subtle. The film is light on drama, with Kelly doing a good enough job. Admittedly, it’s not her strong suit. Probably her best dramatic moment is when something depresses her, so she walks away a little slumped forward. She keeps bumping into people, gestures like she’s apologizing, then keeps on. Such a scene makes a striking contrast to how loud she sometimes is.
A lot of b-pictures like this one fall into common mistakes, like skipping over character development, which hurts the pacing, and editing mistakes that suggest the production was too rushed to be looked over more finely. It’s very easy to forgive these elements, though it’s a shame they are even there. One reason they are so forgivable is that the lead cast is consistently solid, though sometimes isn’t much more than they need to be. The male lead is Cecil Callahan, played by Guinn Williams. He’s a tall and intimidating guy who has a heart of gold. His offish qualities are gratefully not overdone and he is someone the audience cares enough to follow. He could’ve been given more jokes than he has, so as to give him more of a presence, but he is very serviceable as is. Sometimes he’s just there for the plot. Charley Chase is “the doc”. He’s a relatively minor character, though is great at being this nervous little man who gets into situations that you might know. Scenes of him scared depict him with an earnest charm. A performance that was surprisingly very good is Pert Kelton as Gloria. She’s a warm-mouthed enchantress who has a way of appealing to everyone. A few characters are into her and it’s fun to see her just be this girl that is given things by rich men as she floats her way through the film. An early scene of her with a $20 bill paints her as delightfully devilish and captivating. She doesn’t steal the show from Patsy, but leaves you wanting more. You’ll have to wonder if that’s from restraint on Kelton’s part or from ability on Kelly’s. She did a duo-comedy film with Patsy Kelly, which I now especially want to see.
Seeing as this film features a comedic duo as the leads, Cecil acts not unlike how Patsy acts, and Patsy’s famous comedy duo just ended; it’s interesting to think if this film was intended for that comedy duo. The more violent or bumbling moments between the doc, Mollie, and Cecil could go to Patsy and the more balanced ones to Thelma Todd. The Patsy and Thelma theme tune is even briefly featured. In the Thelma series, Patsy often calls her the term “toots”, which has a somewhat romantic connotation. Here, a few men call her that and she doesn’t like it. Sounds like something that’d be an in-joke for fans of the duo series. Kelly also does a “scared roar” she’s done in the past. Kelly the Second involves some of the same people, though the translation to the conventions of a romantic feature changes the tone somewhat.
One way the film manages to be so charming is the sense of community it creates. When fights break out, a crowd of people either form around it or get riled up by it. When there’s no one to make breakfasts at the doc’s drugstore, everyone wants Mollie. They don’t go to another place or solely demand somebody to help them. They want to deal with the specific, comfortable environment of Mollie assisting them. Every event involves a large group of people. When one person gets water spilled on him, a large group of extras in the room point and laugh. How could more than a few have even seen that? The doc is shown to be Mollie’s boss. The two are such close friends that he is involved in her personal life throughout the film. This is reminiscent of I Accuse My Parents. At one point, she’s afraid of being fired, though why would she think that based on his nature? In the beginning, Mollie is sent off to work by an overly-concerned older woman making sure she’s well fed and prepared. That woman is her landlord. She never appears after this scene. Why include her? Why make her Mollie’s landlord? These little moments make the film very comfortable. Isn’t it nice to think there’s somewhere where everyone is involved with each other?
A notable plot point is that Cecil is a much better fighter when a certain song plays. Sound familiar? Any comedy fan’s brow may raise at that being the same premise as the Three Stooges short, Punch Drunks. While the element is included for plot reasons, some very good gags come of it. Here, it’s “The Irish Washerwoman”.
SPOILERS
Based on comical misunderstandings, if the violence-prone Cecil gets in one more fight than the doc will lose his business. Mollie decides he’s going to fight… as a boxer, thus it’ll be legal. The movie takes a sharp turn here. You would’ve thought the story would be about a bunch of close calls where Cecil almost gets into fights, but the plot point is dropped. Cecil does in fact punch people he shouldn’t carelessly, without any mention of the doc’s drugstore or problem arising for anyone. A better storyline to lead into the meat of the film would be about a young woman who wants to prove herself as a boxing trainer. She can only find a reckless and seemingly too inexperienced to be good truck driver, then they manage to make something work. That would also be a better lead-in for the eventual romance, as Mollie would be in a natural position to resist any feelings like that. Conflict! Mollie and the doc never seem interested in being the trainer and manager respectively until the roles are decided up by Mollie.
Edward Brophy plays a gullible mobster named Ike Arnold. Ike is unbelievably gullible. He decides to bet thousands of dollars on Cecil after misunderstanding the doc in conversation in a sequence that isn’t funny enough to justify being as long as it is. He’s one of the weaker players as he isn’t given the chance to be funny and spends all his time making poor decisions for the plot. An associate of his, Spike, played by Harold Huber, barely speaks but manages to get some laughs. Perhaps he’d be better with more to do, but part of what works is how unassuming he is. Ike is a recurring part of the story, but there’s not much of a payoff, so for the sake of good storytelling should be cut. Admittedly, good gags and Pert Kelton make this element much more tolerable.
Mollie is not very offish or clumsy for the most part, except for scenes of her running from or getting into trouble with animals. This bit of the runtime shows her a lot more like Kelly’s character in the Thelma series than here. It’s weird she’d be so afraid of animals. She doesn’t usually seem so vulnerable or bothered by something so insignificant. To top it off, she has an annoying moan that pops up here and elsewhere. While this obviously isn’t the case, the scene of her running from them could about pass as an outtake from a film like One-Horse Farmers. Instead of this divergence, we should’ve had more scenes of Cecil winning matches and he and Mollie progressing the social ladder. As is, there’s only a brief montage. There’s so much potential for them to get into goofy antics from trying to win games and handling the wealth that comes with it.
Some little moments worth mentioning: Patsy in drag. There’s a funny line of Gloria calling her “Rasputin”. Mollie doesn’t seem like the type of person that would try to hide by wearing such a ridiculous costume. That is a lot more like something Patsy would do in her old series. One of the funniest gags is when after Cecil is losing, Mollie gets the audience to sing the Irish Washerwoman. It’s such a weird and unexpected gag. It’s so odd and charming that it gets a big laugh. It’s topped off with her dancing with someone in the hall. This sort of motif was established with the “community element” of the story. Its somewhat grand scale leaves us with a good feeling as we approach the end of the film. Later, Gloria and Spike embrace, suggesting they’ll get together. Ike then quickly punches out them both in a cartoonish manner. One of the better executed woman-punching moments in the film lexicon comedy-wise. It’s hard to say if this sort of thing could be considered an endorsement of real-life violence, but just within the film, it carries the tone well.
There’s no romantic component between Patsy and Cecil until the 41:14 minute mark of a 70 minute movie. It’s very sudden. Going forth, the romance is more prominent. It’s hilarious the film forgets to establish it beyond the bare minimum. Why would Mollie or Cecil like the other romantically? Who knows?! About six and a half minutes from that, the doc suspects that Mollie and Cecil will wed due to their immense chemistry. The film most likely included this scene to cover for the fact it wasn’t shown. As a side note, Cecil says Mollie doesn’t act like a lady. Thelma would sometimes say things like that.
Patsy is not good at “falling in love” in these rom-coms. Her chemistry with everyone except Thelma Todd feels at most like friendship. Her and Cecil don’t ever get a chance to fall in love. They come off as goofy pals that can have fun working together, but that’s all there is to it. Patsy does have some nice moments where she is erratic, due to her feelings towards Cecil. Some of these moments are supposed to be and are funny. While that erratic behavior is compelling in its own way, it doesn’t translate to Cecil. You don’t feel like she’s being destroyed by her feelings or when she thinks Cecil and Gloria will marry, she just feels destroyed. When they first meet, they are bickering. Cecil even threatens to spank Mollie. That’s not the best of first impressions. Emblematically, though Mollie and Cecil admit their feelings at the end, suggesting they will get married, they never kiss. Not once in the whole 70 minutes. They never even are shown attempting to kiss. The romance angle would probably not be hard to edit out.
I was going to kid with my friends that the film ended with a marriage between Mollie and Gloria. While that doesn’t happen, Mollie does kiss her on the lips. It’s not romantic at all, but it’s still quite amusing, especially because that’s the only kiss in the whole film. Makes you wonder if Patsy Kelly asked not to kiss any men in the film.
OVERVIEW
Patsy was able to prove herself without the signature Thelma Todd by her side. The film would probably be better if Thelma was included, but what is available shouldn’t leave a fan of 30s comedies disappointed. The comedy is light and enjoyable. These sorts of cheesy popcorn movies are certainly not for everyone, but if you like them, you like them. The film was better just being an amusing comedy, as the romance angle mostly doesn’t work. One exception is Pert Kelton, who still could’ve done a lot of the same stuff without the romance angle. Anyone that wants a similar premise, but shorter, better, and more famous should check out the Three Stooges short, Punch Drunks. Both films are recommended, as Kelly the Second never collapses under the weight of its admitted issues and maintains being a warm and inessential comedy.
ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL
As a teen, I watched some 30s popcorn films, like Joe E. Brown movies. This is like one of those, though a little better. I love Joe, but maybe Patsy could tie them together better? Based on when these line-up, perhaps Kelly the Second is supposed to be set in the Thelma-verse and this whole time, Patsy’s real first name was “Mollie”? That would be weird to think. The only feature length girl-duo film named Patsy “Kitty Reilly”. Non-duo Patsy films also usually give her a new name. Not sure why they would give her her name normally, then change it here and also not change it very much. This is subject to change, but I currently am subscribing to, “The 41 short subjects between Thelma, ZaSu, and Patsy are all in the same universe, but that’s it.” They always keep the same name and hold that familial feel where you think they’ve had a bunch of adventures. We’ll have to see if Nobody’s Baby, Broadway Limited, and some others challenge that. Maybe Patsy joins witness protection and gets sent around to different areas with various names?
Pink Floyd’s weakest two years have seemed to be 1968 and 1969. If you remove the 1967 tracks from the group’s second album, A Saucerful Of Secrets, then what’s left and the two 1969 albums are among the group’s most tedious. A lack of direction and reverse-engineering of their sound makes the once and later great band seem like a poorly thought out Rutles-styled parody that misses the mark. 1970 and 1971 both progressed out of this slump, with some truly great material present, though there were still misfires. Anyone just listening to the studio albums may think that they simply forgot how to make good music for two years, though there are some inessential gems in the mix. The Early Years box set offers an interesting nuance to that story by including rare and/or non-album material. Painting their escaping of the shadow of former leader Syd Barrett far more explicitly.
The 1969 volume is especially fascinating, as it has significant strengths and also weaknesses over 1968: Germin/ation. It damn-near forces me to throw out my bible on when the band was or wasn’t good. For disc one, we’re treated to a bundle of psychedelic experiments that hit strange tones. “Hollywood” is a novel instrumental that features what feels like nice noodling. It pays from being very short. The “Theme from Film ‘More’ – Beat Version” starts with a good groove. The bass gets some time to shine, but the track drags too long on too little an idea. The same can be said for an alt version of “More Blues”. “Seabirds” feels like a modified version of one of the band’s best post-Syd instrumentals, “A Saucerful Of Secrets”. What’s here is good, but just listen to the Saucerful track. They’re so close, except “Seabirds” isn’t as strong. It has this eerie whir that you can take or leave. I’m in the middle. The track naturally benefits from building atmosphere, succeeding better than other songs that force it in. “Embryo” is the last studio track. It fails from feeling too much like an idea and not a coherent piece of music.
Next is “Granchester Meadows”, which makes use of really tasteful crisp vocals and guitar playing. “Green Is the Colour” works for similar reasons, while “Cymbaline” and “The Narrow Way” suffer for the main complaint I’ve levied at this era. The last five tracks of disc one are nice versions of the band’s best long and ethereal tracks. The riffs are consistently really nice and seem to breed better concepts than their weaker experiments. They have simple ideas and engross you with their playing that feels very thought-out.
Disc two covers the live concept album, The Man and The Journey. While it can be off putting that it features some of the same tracks as the groups’ weaker albums, this is easily the best Floyd album between the Syd Barrett-era and The Dark Side Of The Moon. The key difference is that this album has a point. The tracks make use of silence or repetition to build emotions and strong feelings, not because they need to concoct a factory-made Pink Floyd song. The group is very fluid and in-line, which is ironic as the album they decided to work on instead of Man featured only solo tracks by members of the band. Man would benefit from a studio recording, so the instruments could really leap out and maybe more vocals, but what we have is an engaging experience that feels very 60s and very Pink Floyd, instead of trying to go for what could be “trendy”. It tackles an idea the band will return to, criticizing Capitalism and relating to the human experience, though in a different way. The instrumentals capture the vibe of what someone might go through.
A stand-out track is “Work”, which features unconventional instruments that sound like someone working, while being very rhythmic. It sounds like what the never completed Floyd album, Household Objects, might’ve sounded like. Here, the band does versions of songs generally not done very well on other recordings. One example is “Cymbaline”. That track is now called “Nightmare” and really does feel like one. Apparently that’s what it needed to be emotional? You need more than just yelling the name of the song! This second disc is a great series of music that, in a sense, negates their second to fourth albums by doing better versions of tracks from those albums. You could call it a highlight reel, though it stands on its own. You’d have a better experience going from the group’s first album, then Man, then their fifth; than listening to the first five studio albums.
OVERVIEW
It feels like an insult to give most of the praise for the first half to tracks that they did on studio albums better. It proves they still had the ability to be good and meaningful, but struggled to make and showcase something new that works. Even The Man and The Journey does take from some excellent earlier cuts, though not very much. The Man and The Journey is the definitive 60s Pink Floyd project without Syd Barrett and proves they had something going right. Similarly with my review of the 1969 compilation, this is a nice album for a Pink Floyd fan that wants to know what the band was up to, but doesn’t need an ungodly amount of redundant tracks. If that concept album at the second half was released at the time without the audience noises and with light overdubs to give more “pop”, it would probably be seen as a classic rock album and an essential listen, unlike the similarly-lengthed Ummagumma they worked on instead. Even what we have is an essential listen, despite it not being in the most obvious of places. While 1969: Dramatis/ation has some of the most tired Floyd tracks, it has enough good material to be worth a visit. This review should be a good guide for what is and isn’t pleasurable to listen to.
The Rolling Stones’ first album of original material has become a rock monolith of sorts. It’s an iconic piece of music that has stood the test of time, even at its length of 52-minutes. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards certainly had great ability and style in their songwriting, but couldn’t keep a consistent quality control. Someone had the right idea, as there are plenty of outtakes. There’s in fact five, six if you include “Paint It Black”. In an alternate universe, those six were included and released as an early double album, but that isn’t the case here. All the better for it, as the album as-is loses steam too fast. The tracks trend from best to worst.
“Mother’s Little Helper”, “Stupid Girl”, and “Under My Thumb” are among the best 60s Stones songs. All capture an aggressive British wit about a man who has it all figured out in his own head, all featuring lyrics that have a negative view towards women. The guitar work, especially on tracks like Mother’s, feel like it’s on the verge of a mental breakdown; the drumming sounding like a mix of a heartbeat and an oncoming train; and the bass your psyche about to give up entirely. There’s a surreal and frightening aura to it all. Its spirit is proto-punk and dreamlike. “Lady Jane” is a poorly placed ballad. Its preceding track, “Stupid Girl”, asks to be continued by something with more trouble and bizarreness and the album stops to include this instead. It’s a nice enough track, though not as exceptional. “Flight 505” continues the cursed charm of the other three. It celebrates its own dark comedy, being upbeat despite some dark lyrics.
Most of the material here feels like interesting enough experiments that’d make nice bonus tracks, though a few are great. Their diversity gives the record an identity crisis, like it doesn’t know what it’s trying to make you feel. “Out Of Time” is a psychedelic plea, as if the singer is losing control of their emotions. “Take It Or Leave It” is folk-esque, as are “Doncha Bother Me” and “High And Dry”. The latter two benefit from distancing themselves more from that, as the Stones can’t capture the right “folk feeling”. They’re too much of a rock group. Doncha is reminiscent of Link Wray and is among the more novel Stones works. The last three cuts, Take It, “Think”, and “What To Do”, feel like demos. The vocals are a little flatter, in addition to a lack of feeling to the backing band. The songs somewhat devolve into “just say the name of the song over and over”. The album was recorded in two short periods. These come off as the last thing they recorded, once they were burned out. Imagine Take It with some muscle in the guitar playing. It’d be much better. “What To Do” is the last track. It needed either to not be the last or have some finality. It’s just a bit of fluff. All the “experiments” on the album are wildly inconsistent, which makes sense. Some are great and all feel like the Stones are trying to make their statement.
Every track on the album can’t be called bad as the playful innocence of this rebel gang of youngsters gives enough charm to stop strong negative feelings. That doesn’t stop problems from being prevalent, but that makes them more forgivable. Representative of the whole album is the last track of side-a, “Goin’ Home”. It starts with a bluesy little song that goes at a nice pace before the track degrades into an improvisational jam. Conceptually, it’s not bad, but the track simply loses steam. It feels like no one knew what to do, especially Mick Jagger. He just says little things throughout. This song is a more dramatic show-stopper, as it goes on for eleven and a half minutes, at the cost of the pacing. This demonstrates the lyrical theme of “we’re too brave to not do what we want”. No one thought to cut this bad boy down, which is a shame.
OVERVIEW
Someone wanting to listen to Aftermath should listen to it as is, so as to get the artistically-intended experience. One way to basically respect that and also give a better ending is to include “Paint It Black” after “What To Do”, as if it was the last track. It’s a much better closer than what we got. It was also included as the opener to the American version of the album. That American version is a little better for cutting some of the filler. “Goin’ Home” is its final track and that makes more sense than the UK’s ending. The shorter tracks can maintain tension and then it all seeps out at the end. It’s still not a great song, but it fits more at the end of side b than side a. For fun, I included a version of the album I constructed, cutting out the tracks best left off.
The Filme Diary 