Zenobia (1939)
Zenobia is an interesting film to talk about as it marks the only feature to star Oliver Hardy without Stan Laurel. Although he did play supporting roles in films before his teaming with Laurel and even a couple after, this was the only time that he received top billing on his own. The reason behind the making of this film was not because of any desire for Hardy to make it as a solo, but rather as a result of a contract dispute. Laurel and Hardy had separate contracts under producer Hal Roach and after a series of disputes, Roach decided to end Laurel’s contract but keep Hardy’s. In an attempt to recapture the success of his most famous comedy team, Roach decided to have Hardy team up with former silent film star Harry Langdon, and Zenobia was supposed to be the first in a series of Langdon and Hardy series, although the contract dispute was soon cleared up and Laurel and Hardy were reunited. How does Zenobia hold up, though? Let’s find out.
Hardy plays Henry Tibbett, a well-known town doctor whose daughter (Jean Parker) is preparing for her wedding. A circus trainer (Harry Langdon) asks Tibbett to cure his elephant, Zenobia, but when Tibbett does, the elephant starts following him around, and Tibbett soon finds himself at risk of losing everything he has when the townspeople want nothing to do with him anymore.
So let’s start by discussing Langdon. When you really think about it, Langdon was the perfect choice to replace Laurel. Both played similarly childish characters, although they did take slightly different approaches, and Langdon had recently joined Laurel’s writing staff. Langdon does actually have some genuinely funny moments, like when he and Hardy are attending to Zenobia the second time or when he attempts to be a witness at a court case. However, this does lead us to our first problem: Langdon and Hardy are not really a team, at least, not for most of it. Outside of the scenes where they’re attending to Zenobia, they’re really separate acts and even rivals at one point. This wouldn’t be a big deal except that the “Langdon and Hardy” bits end up feeling really out of place.
In general, the film doesn’t seem to really know what kind of direction it wants to go, whether it wants to be more comedic or dramatic, so it ends up trying to do both. It does it in such an awkward way, though. One minute Hardy is a serious father and the next minute he’s getting comedically frustrated as he would in a Laurel and Hardy film. It’s a weird blend between the down-on-his-luck Ollie and a beloved family man that is just not paced well. It doesn’t help that the film also forces in several other Laurel clones. One of them is Billie Burke as Tibbett’s wife, and like Langdon, she actually does have some pretty funny moments, but this not only detracts from the more dramatic elements much like the Langdon and Hardy bits do, but also detracts from the Langdon and Hardy bits themselves. If you’re going to form a new comedy team, you’ve got to settle on one!
Unfortunately, my complaints don’t stop here. We get to possibly the biggest problem with this film: the racial prejudice. It is bad here. The three African American servants are not allowed in the courtroom with the others and one of them, played by Stepin Fetchit, has a really bad stutter. Seeing African Americans in subservient roles is expected in a lot of these films, so it’s not really that surprising, but my big problem with this is with one scene in particular.
Philip Hurlic plays an African American boy who is upset that he can’t go to a party because of his skin color, so Tibbett tries to explain an analogy to him about how both white and black pills do great things but are separate. Basically, he’s avoiding the question and trying to justify segregation, despite the fact that he is devoted to the Declaration of Independence and promotes equality! It’s a really uncomfortable scene to watch. I don’t blame Hardy for this; he really didn’t have much control over the scripts he was given, but it is a real product of its time, and it weakens what already seems to be a troubled production.
I’d like to emphasize that I don’t necessarily hate this film. There are still some pretty interesting elements to it, the most notable being Hardy’s more dramatic performance. He really does show that he could pull off emotions very well, though, let’s face it, he showed he could do this in the Laurel and Hardy films as well. A lot of the other actors give decent performances and, despite how hypocritical the Declaration of Independence subplot is, Hurlic’s recitation of it is still really impressive. Overall, this film is a failed experiment. It has some interesting elements that some may find worth it, but as for me, I have no plans to watch this one again anytime soon.
5 out of 10
Hardy plays Henry Tibbett, a well-known town doctor whose daughter (Jean Parker) is preparing for her wedding. A circus trainer (Harry Langdon) asks Tibbett to cure his elephant, Zenobia, but when Tibbett does, the elephant starts following him around, and Tibbett soon finds himself at risk of losing everything he has when the townspeople want nothing to do with him anymore.
So let’s start by discussing Langdon. When you really think about it, Langdon was the perfect choice to replace Laurel. Both played similarly childish characters, although they did take slightly different approaches, and Langdon had recently joined Laurel’s writing staff. Langdon does actually have some genuinely funny moments, like when he and Hardy are attending to Zenobia the second time or when he attempts to be a witness at a court case. However, this does lead us to our first problem: Langdon and Hardy are not really a team, at least, not for most of it. Outside of the scenes where they’re attending to Zenobia, they’re really separate acts and even rivals at one point. This wouldn’t be a big deal except that the “Langdon and Hardy” bits end up feeling really out of place.
In general, the film doesn’t seem to really know what kind of direction it wants to go, whether it wants to be more comedic or dramatic, so it ends up trying to do both. It does it in such an awkward way, though. One minute Hardy is a serious father and the next minute he’s getting comedically frustrated as he would in a Laurel and Hardy film. It’s a weird blend between the down-on-his-luck Ollie and a beloved family man that is just not paced well. It doesn’t help that the film also forces in several other Laurel clones. One of them is Billie Burke as Tibbett’s wife, and like Langdon, she actually does have some pretty funny moments, but this not only detracts from the more dramatic elements much like the Langdon and Hardy bits do, but also detracts from the Langdon and Hardy bits themselves. If you’re going to form a new comedy team, you’ve got to settle on one!
Unfortunately, my complaints don’t stop here. We get to possibly the biggest problem with this film: the racial prejudice. It is bad here. The three African American servants are not allowed in the courtroom with the others and one of them, played by Stepin Fetchit, has a really bad stutter. Seeing African Americans in subservient roles is expected in a lot of these films, so it’s not really that surprising, but my big problem with this is with one scene in particular.
Philip Hurlic plays an African American boy who is upset that he can’t go to a party because of his skin color, so Tibbett tries to explain an analogy to him about how both white and black pills do great things but are separate. Basically, he’s avoiding the question and trying to justify segregation, despite the fact that he is devoted to the Declaration of Independence and promotes equality! It’s a really uncomfortable scene to watch. I don’t blame Hardy for this; he really didn’t have much control over the scripts he was given, but it is a real product of its time, and it weakens what already seems to be a troubled production.
I’d like to emphasize that I don’t necessarily hate this film. There are still some pretty interesting elements to it, the most notable being Hardy’s more dramatic performance. He really does show that he could pull off emotions very well, though, let’s face it, he showed he could do this in the Laurel and Hardy films as well. A lot of the other actors give decent performances and, despite how hypocritical the Declaration of Independence subplot is, Hurlic’s recitation of it is still really impressive. Overall, this film is a failed experiment. It has some interesting elements that some may find worth it, but as for me, I have no plans to watch this one again anytime soon.
5 out of 10
Comments
Post a Comment