Tweet Wheeler & Woolsey

An article from Matt Barry on Wheeler & Woolsey

http://www.forcesofgeek.com/2012/04/com ... olsey.html

An article from Matt Barry on Wheeler & Woolsey

http://www.forcesofgeek.com/2012/04/com ... olsey.html" target="_blank

Kinda light. Doesn't even mention their two best films, HIPS HIPS HOORAY and COCKEYED CAVALIERS.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I wonder if Woolsey realized that he was 'the straight man' of the team?

The article states that W&W "worked well" with George Stevens on Kentucky Kernals(1934) and The Nitwits(1935). A great stroke of luck for them during the team's short career. Stevens knew comedy so well that he could bring coherence to their verbal jabbering, and use the visual aspects of comedy to enhance their performances. I remember watching W&W as a kid on Baltimore TV, and thinking what an unfunny blowhard Woolsey came off as. Groucho was such an unmitigated, smart-ass that kid's could enjoy him. As an adult, Woolsey isn't any funnier, and I still find myself wondering what Bert Wheeler is doing in any film.

The article states that W&W "worked well" with George Stevens on Kentucky Kernals(1934) and The Nitwits(1935). A great stroke of luck for them during the team's short career. Stevens knew comedy so well that he could bring coherence to their verbal jabbering, and use the visual aspects of comedy to enhance their performances. I remember watching W&W as a kid on Baltimore TV, and thinking what an unfunny blowhard Woolsey came off as. Groucho was such an unmitigated, smart-ass that kid's could enjoy him. As an adult, Woolsey isn't any funnier, and I still find myself wondering what Bert Wheeler is doing in any film.

Actually, I have never been that fond of either of the W&W films George Stevens directed, they are both post-code, which seriously hampered Bert and Bob's comedy, and Steven's always methodical pacing doesn't help them either. THE NITWITS is the better of the two, but I actually like the Abbott and Costello remake WHO DONE IT (1942) better than the original. Mark Sandrich handled the team much far more effectively in both HIPS HIPS HOORAY and COCKEYED CAVALIERS, and both those films are majorly improved by Thelma Todd's participation.

Wheeler and Woolsey have always been a hot or cold taste for most film buffs. They were basically a less acerbic version of the Marx Brothers sort of humor, made more palatable for the small town senses. They are basically at their best when telling a few racy jokes and doing a song and dance, but they are not trying to be comedy greats, just pleasant entertainers. If you don't buy into their relaxed sort of charm, especially when watching these films alone, they aren't going to win you over. But their pre-code films do work quite well with audiences, even today, and of their post-code films, the only truly awful one is MUMMYS BOYS, and that's because it has no musical numbers.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Can't say that Woolsey was anything remarkable (other than being damned lucky, careerwise), but Wheeler certainly was a talented fellow. His singing and dancing (especially with Dorothy Lee) were invariably delightful and charming.

Richard, I very much agree with your theory of watching films with an audience vs. watching them alone; it does change your perception of the performers and the picture. Seeing Charley Chase with an audience carried over to watching him alone. My experience watching Charley with an audience was so strongly enjoyable that I go right back to that feeling watching him alone. Even with "Becoming Charlie Chase", I usually watch with the commentaries because it does give me some sense of watching it with someone. I would welcome the chance to watch W&W with an audience especially if Thelma Todd is in the cast. And to Westegg as well, I see W&W as an invention of sound. The thing that puts me off about them is the lack of underlying physical comedy that you find with silent comedians making the transition to sound. It's a fuller, more balanced comedy than a comic on a screen cracking wise, using double entandrees, and other verbal tricks. I may be incorrect, but I attribute this quote to Ed Wynn, "Comedians say things funny, and comics say funny things." I love stand up, but the beauty of the silent comedians that made the transition to sound, is what they brought with them. I don't see this foundation with W&W, they strike me as a couple of comics rather than comedians.

I agree that Robert Woolsey is an acquired taste and his brand of 'comedy' hasn't travelled well through the years, but I have a soft spot for little Bert Wheeler. He could sing, dance, and was genuinely funny, as well as being rather cute. I've seen nearly all the team's films (aside from Cleopatra) and a couple of his solo efforts, and I do enjoy watching him. There's also a clip out there of him late in life upstaging Pat Boone on his TV show. He was a genuine vaudeville pro and although perhaps the films of W&W look clunky now, he still shows considerable talent, IMO, especially when teamed with Dorothy Lee or Marjorie White.

I think he was simply pitched for the stage rather than the movie screen and never made the transitition.

Bob

Robert Woolsey wasn't a remarkable comedian in himself, but he had excellent timing and delivery- if you gave him the right material he could get the maximum effect from it. The studios got the idea that he had to be "Funny" so they dressed him in grotesque exaggerated outfits- Wheeler was allowed to look reasonably normal and dapper.

If Woolsey hadn't become half of a team he'd have been another Walter Catlett- their stage roles and careers intersected frequently in the 20's and they played similar fast talking but slightly dim witted types.

especially when teamed with Dorothy Lee or Marjorie White.

Either one of those two firecrackers could probably make Barry Manilow palatable. (Probably, I said.) However, I like W&W pretty well even without them.

According to Ed Watz's excellent book on the team (if memory serves) I think Woolsey was more or less a Catlett clone, and Catlett might very well have teamed up with Wheeler if circumstances went differently. Woolsey simply took on the Catlett persona which worked well with Wheeler.

If I'm wrong, all I can say is, "WHHHOA-OH!"

I think Woolsey was more or less a Catlett clone, and Catlett might very well have teamed up with Wheeler if circumstances went differently.

Why would two comics with the same type of personae team up with each other? That's a rather strange hybrid.

Folks like to compare Wheeler and Woolsey to the Marx Bros but always forget one big difference -- W&W were not a veteran vaudeville team who had worked together for 2 decades before coming to film. They were both veteran solo performers (Robert Woolsey supported Fields in POPPY for a year) who both happened to get cast opposite each other for Ziegfelds' stage version of RIO RITA, acted with each other for 2 years before being signed by RKO to recreate their roles and then just continued on together from there. It's not like they had an arsenal of gags and sketches that the two of them performed together for decades that they could reach back into for inspiration. They were a studio created 'team', much like Keaton and Durante.....or the Monkees for TV.

Put into that context I find them very lightweight and at times rather enjoyable (but were they funnier than The Beatles?).

Robert Woolsey wasn't a remarkable comedian in himself, but he had excellent timing and delivery- if you gave him the right material he could get the maximum effect from it. The studios got the idea that he had to be "Funny" so they dressed him in grotesque exaggerated outfits- Wheeler was allowed to look reasonably normal and dapper.

If Woolsey hadn't become half of a team he'd have been another Walter Catlett- their stage roles and careers intersected frequently in the 20's and they played similar fast talking but slightly dim witted types.

Thank you. His sharpies reminded much of Catlett (I was watching It's Tough To Be Famous the other night). Comic timing is a virtue that isn't as respected as it should be. The worst thing to happen to W&W was that their characters got exaggerated more and more as the years went. Wheeler's characters were hardly as stupid in the days of Rio Rita, and Woolsey's weren't straining so hard for the boffo line. Also, too, overexposure.

I think Woolsey was more or less a Catlett clone, and Catlett might very well have teamed up with Wheeler if circumstances went differently.

gjohson wrote: "Why would two comics with the same type of personae team up with each other? That's a rather strange hybrid."

What do you mean? That would be a Catlett & Woolsey teaming, but I didn't say that. I said Catlett could have teamed up with Wheeler (and still have the same comedy dynamic as with Woolsey).

According to Ed Watz's excellent book on the team (if memory serves) I think Woolsey was more or less a Catlett clone, and Catlett might very well have teamed up with Wheeler if circumstances went differently. Woolsey simply took on the Catlett persona which worked well with Wheeler.

If I'm wrong, all I can say is, "WHHHOA-OH!"

Thanks for the nice words about my book - Wheeler and Catlett did work together during the 1928 season of RIO RITA on Broadway, Wheeler recalled that Woolsey had a falling out with Ziegfeld at the time. But Woolsey was back in the role he created when RITA went on the road in 1929. As Bert later theorized, if Catlett had stayed with the show, it might've been Wheeler & Catlett in RKO movies instead of Wheeler & Woolsey.

I don't have my old research notes for the book handy but I recall that Wheeler and Catlett did team together subsequently in at least two "summer straw hat" theater revivals circa 1949-53. They also teamed for a live TV episode. As a matter of fact, Bert also did a live TV sketch during the 1950's with half of another 30's comedy team - Bobby Clark.

My opinion of them is that they were essentially a stage act that didn't quite translate to talking pictures. You can sense that anticipation of an audience reaction that is not forthcoming. Of course nowadays you have to look at them too in the period they existed - their patter would now be considered so out-dated it's not funny. Wheeler at least was able to escape the routines to sing and dance.

My opinion of them is that they were essentially a stage act that didn't quite translate to talking pictures. You can sense that anticipation of an audience reaction that is not forthcoming. Of course nowadays you have to look at them too in the period they existed - their patter would now be considered so out-dated it's not funny. Wheeler at least was able to escape the routines to sing and dance.

Donald, it sounds as though you're referring to Wheeler & Woolsey's 1930-31 talkies - before the film industry overall got the pacing down right for talkies. From PEACH O'RENO (late 1931) onwards their films are smoother and you don't have the long "stage waits" for laughs to follow. Also W & W stop laughing at themselves around the same time that talkies became more polished, production-wise, while they continued to move away from the stagebound routines. By the time of HOLD 'EM JAIL in 1932 they were making comedies that integrated characterization, snappy dialogue, and visual gags that were accomplished and comparable to the better comedy productions of the era.

Unfortunately the W & W films in public domain HALF SHOT AT SUNRISE, DIXIANA and HOOK LINE & SINKER all date from 1930. The comedy is not that well-written, and the films are technically crude with turgid pacing.

During the 1930s Wheeler & Woolsey were tremendously popular in Australia, in fact they were a huge hit throughout all the UK territories and Ireland. Looking at the comedies of Will Hay, The Crazy Gang, George Formby, etc., and even the later Carry On series, one can see a familial resemblance to the W & W type of humor. Sid James must be related to Bob Woolsey somewhere down the line...

My opinion of them is that they were essentially a stage act that didn't quite translate to talking pictures. You can sense that anticipation of an audience reaction that is not forthcoming. Of course nowadays you have to look at them too in the period they existed - their patter would now be considered so out-dated it's not funny. Wheeler at least was able to escape the routines to sing and dance.

Donald, it sounds as though you're referring to Wheeler & Woolsey's 1930-31 talkies - before the film industry overall got the pacing down right for talkies. From PEACH O'RENO (late 1931) onwards their films are smoother and you don't have the long "stage waits" for laughs to follow. Also W & W stop laughing at themselves around the same time that talkies became more polished, production-wise, while they continued to move away from the stagebound routines. By the time of HOLD 'EM JAIL in 1932 they were making comedies that integrated characterization, snappy dialogue, and visual gags that were accomplished and comparable to the better comedy productions of the era.

Unfortunately the W & W films in public domain HALF SHOT AT SUNRISE, DIXIANA and HOOK LINE & SINKER all date from 1930. The comedy is not that well-written, and the films are technically crude with turgid pacing.

During the 1930s Wheeler & Woolsey were tremendously popular in Australia, in fact they were a huge hit throughout all the UK territories and Ireland. Looking at the comedies of Will Hay, The Crazy Gang, George Formby, etc., and even the later Carry On series, one can see a familial resemblance to the W & W type of humor. Sid James must be related to Bob Woolsey somewhere down the line...

I have problems with W&W's early features myself. When I see a film like Hook, Line, and Sinker, I can feel how badly paced it is (I swear Eddie Cline didn't get to pacing his talkie comedies well until Million Dollar Legs, but Cracked Nuts is certainly a fair step better than Hook, Line, and Sinker and the Seiter comedies were all better paced). As far as the British comedians, I love Will Hay and his seedy characters. George Formby is a bit more of a guy I like enough to watch his films, but I don't seek them out. The Carry On films are inconsistent, but they had a great stock company and often hit a mark of parody/comedy that paralyzes me.

[quote]During the 1930s Wheeler & Woolsey were tremendously popular in Australia, in fact they were a huge hit throughout all the UK territories and Ireland. Looking at the comedies of Will Hay, The Crazy Gang, George Formby, etc., and even the later Carry On series, one can see a familial resemblance to the W & W type of humor. Sid James must be related to Bob Woolsey somewhere down the line...[/quote]

You may be quite right. I have never sought out W & W - they merely appeared incidentally in pictures that I wanted to see, and they were mostly an unwarranted irritation same as the appearances of El Brendel in early talkies. Perhaps the sense of humour was different throughout the British Empire (with the exception of Canada) where British comedy was much more popular than the American - although I find the silent American comedies together with Laurel & Hardy, the Marx Bros and W.C. Fields exceedingly funny? The later American comedians such as Abbot and Costello (with the exception of "Who's on First") Bob Hope and Jerry Lewis I found completely unfunny - but this is just my opinion.

Incidentally some of the early Australian talkie comedies such as "Diggers" and "His Royal Highness" proved popular in the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire - they were never released in the U.S. in the 30's as far as I know.

I don't have my old research notes for the book handy but I recall that Wheeler and Catlett did team together subsequently in at least two "summer straw hat" theater revivals circa 1949-53. They also teamed for a live TV episode. As a matter of fact, Bert also did a live TV sketch during the 1950's with half of another 30's comedy team - Bobby Clark.[/quote]

Wow, that's amazing to think Wheeler & Catlett performed together post-WWII. Don't know that much about Catlett, but Wheeler was such a show biz trouper. Too bad he never wrote his memoirs! Still, all the more reason your own research has done an invaluable service. At least W&W films are showing up at the WB Archives. I think RIO RITA and THE CUCKOOS hold up well enough from their early period, and DIPLOMANIACS is my particular favorite.

Perhaps the sense of humour was different throughout the British Empire (with the exception of Canada) where British comedy was much more popular than the American

Thanks to the Canadian wing of the Odeon Cinemas chain (which was later absorbed by Empire Theatres in Atlantic Canada and Cineplex-Odeon elsewhere), British comedies got a lot of theatrical play in the Great White North. I remember seeing ads for Carry On films playing here in Halifax up into the '70s (I used to see them on TV, but my parents thought they were too crude to take a young whippersnapper like me to see them in the theatre), and the George Formby films used to play here and were prominently advertised in local papers. Formby must have been quite popular in Canada, he did a nationwide tour in the early '50s, to raise money for Red River flood victims in Manitoba, and packed the Halifax Forum, which is only a couple of blocks from where I live now.

Not sure about Will Hay films, but I'm pretty sure I've seen ads for Norman Wisdom titles when I've looked through the newspaper microfilm. And then there were all those Adventures of a Plumber's Mate-style sex comedies from the '70s which also made the rounds.

[snip]The later American comedians such as Abbot and Costello (with the exception of "Who's on First") Bob Hope and Jerry Lewis I found completely unfunny - but this is just my opinion.

You're not alone on this view. I might enjoy Lou Costello and Jerry Lewis better if they didn't behave as though everything they did was so "brilliant."

I don't care much for Abbott & Costello until they filmed their half hour tv show, which is as close to two-reelers as they'd ever get. Also on their show Bud Abbott's "con man" persona pulls out all stops and becomes a much funnier character than his partner Lou. Then there's the great Sid Fields as their landlord, who is an incredible straightman out of Burlesque.

I can't watch any of the Martin & Lewis features. As soon as Jerr starts clawing for pathos with his "Hey, I tawt you was my fwend" shtick it's fingernail-on-the-chalk time for me. Also the comic routines in M&L films usually don't lead to anything and after a promising setup merely fizzle out.

Jerry Lewis on his own did make a few really good movies but even there the overall average is way low when you consider the surefire opportunities that misfired.

I really enjoyed Rowan Atkinson's two Mr. Bean features (Johnny English Reborn was also fun) but like the Jacques Tati films they come out years apart. Almost no one is doing genuine comedy anymore. It's almost unfathomable to imagine that at one time the motion picture industry had many great comedians like Atkinson plus writers and directors who knew how to keep making that kind of comedy for the screen, year in, year out.

After acquiring a 16mm projector in the early '50s, my parents force-fed me a heavy diet of A&C, because (I surmise) those films had been sold as a package deal with the projector. At the ages of 5-6-7, they were amusing, but that effect diminished rapidly. Don't even remember the TV series, but if it competed with any western, there'd have been no contest.

Gee Ed, if you're going to mention the Mr. Bean features at least start with the TV series, which was filled with imaginative and clever sight gags. The features merely showcased the best of the TV work. Many here don't care for Atkinson's characterization of Mr. Bean but I have great fondness for both the show and the comedian. I applaud his desire to keep visual comedy on the air. Can you imagine trying to sell that concept to our Network suits? That series could had only been produced in England.

Gee Ed, if you're going to mention the Mr. Bean features at least start with the TV series, which was filled with imaginative and clever sight gags. The features merely showcased the best of the TV work. Many here don't care for Atkinson's characterization of Mr. Bean but I have great fondness for both the show and the comedian. I applaud his desire to keep visual comedy on the air. Can you imagine trying to sell that concept to our Network suits? That series could had only been produced in England.

Now don't get yer knickers in a twist, old bean. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Bean first saw light as an occasional character on shows during the 1980's...followed by his tv episodes beginning around 1989, and as you noted, many (though certainly not all) of the best scenes were revised, revamped, and expanded in his feature films, not at all unlike the common practice of the greats who came years before him, artists like W.C. Fields and Laurel & Hardy, among others.

I recall that on the old alt.silent.movies thread of a decade ago there were occasional rumbles from folks who hated BEAN and loved BLACK ADDER, but I'm all for freedom of choice, even when I personally can't fathom that point of view (hey, there were those who considered Laurel & Hardy minor comics -- maybe there's some who still feel that way).

After acquiring a 16mm projector in the early '50s, my parents force-fed me a heavy diet of A&C, because (I surmise) those films had been sold as a package deal with the projector. At the ages of 5-6-7, they were amusing, but that effect diminished rapidly. Don't even remember the TV series, but if it competed with any western, there'd have been no contest.

To me, the Abbott and Costello TV show, especially the first season, is almost the ideal format for their limited,but enjoyable bag of tricks. A strong supporting cast, little padding and something akin to a two-reeler sensibility bookended by stage routines. Actually, if someone asked me about A and C, I would show a couple of episodes from the first season, particularly the ones with Joe Besser as "Stinky."

One of the best was their elaborate preparations for a trip- Lou has made reservations at "The Biltmore, near Arizona". They finally get into the car and Lou drives about 20 feet- the Hotel Biltmore is at the end of the block, next to the Arizona Cafe. (Bud really should have done the planning)

I really enjoyed Rowan Atkinson's two Mr. Bean features (Johnny English Reborn was also fun) but like the Jacques Tati films they come out years apart. Almost no one is doing genuine comedy anymore. It's almost unfathomable to imagine that at one time the motion picture industry had many great comedians like Atkinson plus writers and directors who knew how to keep making that kind of comedy for the screen, year in, year out.

There is a very good show that has just finished airing here in Australia, called 'Woodley'. I really hope it comes to America, as it's exactly the sort of show you're describing. Simple story, good physical comedy, just the right amount of pathos. It's what I would characterise as 'low dialogue' - a bit like Mr Bean; there's little that couldn't have been conveyed with an intertitle - and the star, Frank Woodley, is a rubber-face blunderbuss of the best old tradition. The setting is modern, but I frequently found myself mentally transposing the picture to black and white and adding some pork-pie hats.

There are some show highlights at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/woodley/webextras/, but I'm not sure if they'll work overseas.

From what I understand, the audience reaction was mixed, which is not surprising - quite a risky project in this day and age. But I found it delightful.

I'm still waiting for someone to show some appreciation for the forgotten comedy team of Morton & Hayes.