Sons of the Desert (1933)

Sadly Over-hyped

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

While growing up with my older brother we would often quote a line from one of Laurel & Hardy's movies that we knew so well, including this movie. It was sort of like that old joke about career convicts in a cell-block who after repeating the same jokes over and over, found themselves resorting to simplifying the system by yelling out a number. Each number was associated to a specific well-worn joke, and thus, when the number was yelled it would made everyone in the cell-block remember and laugh. Number 6!!! LOL. Our L&H routine basically created the same reaction for me and my brother. Our mother did not understand how a simple line of dialogue would set us off. Some of the best lines I still remember, and which still makes me laugh are: 'There's going to be a fight. It's going to be terrible.' 'There were two of them… Nick and Nick Jr.' 'We ship-hiked.' The quotes would often lead to further laughter as we commented on the actions that transpired in the movie that keyed on the quote. This kept us in hysterics for some time. Our mother just ignored it and left us to our own little world. It is funny we remember these small events all our lives. An interesting side note: When I briefly lived in southern California in the 1970's I attended several meetings of the "Sons of the Desert," which was the official Laurel and Hardy fan club (or 'Tent"). These meetings were surprisingly staid and quiet. It often included the showing of a L&H short, or obscure silent movie. Frequently it included the introduction of a little-known, surviving player or technician whom were involved in making L&H movies. At the time I wished my brother was there with me so we could have lightened up the place with our L&H routine. Isn't that what a fan club is all about?

This is the first Laurel and Hardy movie I've seen. Of course, I might judge it differently after I become more familiar with them. But that's the thing with watching classic movies - I'm constantly jumping in the deep end and there's always more to learn and understand. For now, I've got to trust my feelings and interpretations as they stand.I didn't like Stanley Laurel at all. I found his character overly stupid. A complete and utter moron but not in a funny way. His existence is unrealistic. He doesn't learn from his mistakes and he's unlikable (he eats fruit without asking and he's clumsy and useless). He always has a fake, blank expression on his face. As a performer, he is too one-dimensional and obvious. He didn't make me laugh once.On the other hand, I warmed up to Oliver Hardy pretty quickly. By halfway through, I was laughing at many of the things he did. His character is not an idiot. His acting is very natural and not too over- the-top. I enjoyed most of the times he fell or got hurt because they didn't look put on and his reactions were realistic.It's funny seeing someone get frustrated as things go wrong for them. Hardy opens a prank cigarette pack and then jumps when something suddenly pops out. He looks annoyed at the camera as he settles his nerves and then gives a fake smile and laugh to the person that pranked him. He also joins in on a prank call and the look on his face when he realises who he's talking to is priceless. I also love the look of curiosity/apprehension/confusion on his face as he watches his wife gathering all their plates and bowls in the kitchen.I think the material with the wives is quite dated. Aspects of it are funny. The idea that the men can't stand up for themselves is amusing. But the violence and anger of the women is too much and distracts from the otherwise innocent comedy that's going on.About 20 minutes into Son of the Desert, I was worried that it was going to be another huge disappointment similar to Duck Soup (I was excited for that movie but then found out that I abhor the Marx Brothers). But it picked up and Hardy kept me entertained. Laurel left a lot to be desired - his character is a cardboard cut-out and his comedic style is tired and obvious. I look forward to seeing some of their other films and finding out if my assessment of them will change or grow.

It was in 1979-when I was a kid of about 11-that I first watched this movie (my second viewing of Stan & Ollie after Way Out West) at the East Baton Rouge Parish Library (which today has been paved but the new version is now on the other side of the street). I stumbled in the middle of that one just as a singer was going to sing "Honolulu Baby" by Marvin Hatley (who plays the piano during the number). It didn't matter as I figured out the plot by the dialogue between their wives-one of whom is Mae Busch who often played the shrew in the Laurel & Hardy films. I eventually watched the whole thing when I bought the VHS tape from Video Treasures in 1992 and boy, did I find the whole thing hilarious from beginning to end which, having just watched for the fourth time, continues to this day! All the slapstick scenes are just sublime especially when Ollie does his hand gestures. And Charley Chase just adds to the funniness by playing an obnoxious fellow conventioneer! I think I've said enough to on that note, I very much recommend Sons of the Desert if you haven't yet! P.S. On that VHS tape, Stan's daughter, Lois, shows some photos of her father as a young man, as part of Fred Karno's troop with Charlie Chaplin, and some home movies of Stan with his father and aunt.

097: Sons of the Desert (1933) - released 12/29/1933, viewed 6/28/07.DOUG: We've kept up on some of the Laurel & Hardy shorts, both silent and sound, leading up to this, 'Sons of the Desert,' their first full-length feature. Can't remember who's who? It's easy: Ollie is the one with the head shaped like an "O." Ollie is basically the dumb guy who thinks he's smart, while Stan is the dumber guy who doesn't know the difference but is a lot nicer for it. Their routine was quite different from the Marx Brothers, who relied on both physical comedy and verbal sparring; this duo sticks mostly with the physical stuff (going back to their silent roots), although there are a few choice bits of dialogue. Also, while the Marx boys took situations and MADE them crazy, these two try to be normal, and crazy things end up happening TO them (not to mention the situations they cause with their own idiocy). Just one thing bugged me: we never really learn anything about the secret society that Stan and Ollie are a part of. What is their purpose? What is the meeting for? How do Stan & Ollie's silly antics in the movie affect them, if at all? They never really play a big role in the story other than setting up our guys for the comedy situations. All the same, very good laughs, definitely recommended for fans of classic comedy.KEVIN: The first feature-length Laurel & Hardy adventure on the list is sheer delight. The pair is a few years behind the Marx Brothers when it comes to features, but Stan and Oliver manage to make a much more impressive debut. The comedic beats are some of the best from the pair, and even though I felt that they were drawing it out sometimes, I still laughed. The story is slightly above average, centering around the pair trying to weasel out of their marital obligations in order to attend an annual fraternity convention. The crud hits the fan when the two idiots must explain why they weren't on a cruise to Honolulu that was hit by a typhoon (while they lied to their ladies and went to the convention). Stan's character, who struck me as somewhat inept and nonchalant in past shorts, here seems functionally retarded. To me, the real stars are the wives, played by Dorothy Christy and Mae Busch. What they do and say in putting up with their moronic hubbies (especially Busch) is inspired.Last film: Queen Christina (1933). Next film: Design for Living (1933).