Die 3 Stooges

One of the better biographical TV movies, "The Three Stooges" suffers from the main failing that most such movies do: taking "liberties" with the facts. There are few things more annoying than watching a movie about people you know something about, and seeing an incident or event portrayed as having occurred that you KNOW never happened, or information given as "fact" when you KNOW it is completely wrong, and that happens several times in this film. Overall, though, it was somewhat better than I expected it to be. Paul Ben-Victor was very, very good as Moe. He had Moe's "Stooge" character down pat, and was surprisingly effective with Moe's off-screen character, although he didn't play Moe as quite the savvy businessman he was in real life--most of the Stooges' real money was made in personal appearances, and Moe made certain that some of Larry's and Curly's income was invested for their future, as they were both notoriously loose with their money (Curly on women, Larry on horses). Although the film for some reason shows Moe as living a sort of lower-middle class existence after his career ended, in reality he had made some shrewd investments over the years and by the time the Stooges broke up, he was a very wealthy man.

Michael Chiklis had the most difficult job--Curly has always been everyone's favorite Stooge, and most viewers would be paying a lot more attention to how he played Curly than how the other two actors played their characters. To Chiklis' credit, he acquitted himself extremely well. Curly, like his fellow comics Lou Costello and Oliver Hardy, was quite graceful for a heavyset man--they'd have to be, to do the kind of physical comedy they did--and Chiklis shared that trait, too. He also had Curly's mannerisms and voice patterns down pat, although his voice wasn't quite as high-pitched as Curly's was. Overall, Chiklis did a terrific job.

The one thing that really did surprise me, though, was how badly Columbia Pictures, and especially studio owner Harry Cohn, came across--and deservedly so, given the studio's shabby treatment of the Stooges and how it screwed them out of untold amounts of money. I figured that the filmmakers would pretty much whitewash, or at best just gloss over, Columbia's almost criminal treatment of the comedy team that basically put the studio on the map, but they didn't do that at all, which was refreshing.

If you're a Stooges fan you'll definitely like this movie, and even if you're not, it's a pretty good story of one of the most beloved comedy teams in film history. Check it out.

A fairly decent made for TV movie, which depicts the beginnings and rise to fame of The Three Stooges. The film concentrates mainly on the behind the scene part of the Stooges lives and career. From their early days with Ted Healy who is portrayed as a somewhat tyrannical figure. The discovery of Larry Fine, the departure of Shemp and the addition of Moes younger brother Curly to the act. Their signing with Columbia Pictures to make the now classic shorts. The sad loss of Curly which led to the return of Shemp to the trio. The lean years before a return to a new generation of fans. The film covers several years and is compressed well for a two-hour movie.

It also shows that behind the zany antics the Stooges were known for it wasn't nearly all fun and games. They were entertainers who paid their dues, encountered ruthless studio bosses and even at times the general public who could confuse what they saw on the screen with reality. After seeing this made for TV picture you'll still laugh when you watch the old Columbia shorts and films the Stooges appeared in. You may however find yourself having a greater appreciation for these entertainers whose profession was comedy and took as much pride in what they did as any other professional in the world of show business.

Seeing this ABC TV Movie changed the way I looked at the Stooges. I still found them to be very funny (who didn't?) but this showed how they were really ripped off. Paul Ben-Victor, Evan Handler, Michael Chiklis and Jon Kassir do an excellent job of portraying the famous Stooges. This was a drama about the classic funny men. It really was a sad tv movie with not as much humor as you might expect. On the bright side, the film's ending was on a high note for the Stooges.

In all the comments I have read before this one, not one mention of the man responsible for the production was Australian actor, Mel Gibson. Gibson, a life-long fan of the Stooges, was the executive Producer of the Film and put up most of the money for the production.(He even did a Stooges routine in the opening scene of Lethal Weapon). And it was filmed entirely in Australia. It is a shame that no American Studio thought enough of them to make the film.

The film was a wonderful tribute to the Stooges and the portrayals were magnificent. Here it is two years later and the movie is still not available on Video. How fortunate I was to tape the movie (less commercials), so that I have enjoyed it time and again since I first saw it. I do hope ABC will repeat it or Cable will pick it up to screen on the TRUE Channel.

JohnnyReb

The surprise is, or should have been, anyway, that a film about comedy legends is as morose and depressing as this one. Maybe given the usual pandering level of made for TV biographies, this isn't that surprising. After all, everyone 'knows' that every comedian is a noble, weeping clown. Right? --Or if not, it's just the sort of juicy, clichéd skew the makers of biographies can't resist.

I would classify the entire film biography form as one of the last bastions of detectably (not delectably, unless you're John Waters) unselfconscious, pre-ironic Corn. As such, it is an area riper than most for satire and parody. To much of the modern audience, this will pose obvious problems. So I wondered, as I caught more than enough of this film, who can be the typical viewer for this kind of thing. You don't go to film biographies for the truth, the inside scoop, and you don't go there (and certainly not in the case of this film) for a feel-good wallow. Why DO you go there?

This film highlights two critical problems faced by all makers of film biographies, those for the cheap screen (TV) and those for the too-expensive screen (aka The Big Screen). One is finding an apt impersonator for a high profile person whose mug, body language and delivery are seared into the brain of several generations by high level exposure to their shtick. Those casting these films (like the recent Lucille Ball/Desi Arnaz TV flick) can cleave two distinct ways: Accommodate the literal-minded by casting physical dead ringers (the trade-off being that they may not project the subject very well at all) OR pick someone who is not a physical match, but seems to capture the essence (the obvious problem there is how someone who looks nothing like you captures your essence; not out of the question, but seldom pulled off). The casting here is only serviceable. The way you know this is about the Three Stooges is because of their hair. Period. (One is reminded of the Stooges short wherein Moe, playing Hitler, shouts at the guy who swipes his mustache "You've stolen my personality!")

The other big problem is the telescoping or condensing of what may have happened over days or weeks into one impossibly pregnant instant. These instants (which seem to happen only in film bios and really bad drama TV series and made-for-TV movies) always remind me of the moment in those late 30s musicals when Mickey Rooney rallies the kids with "C'mon kids, let's put on a show!" and on the spot everyone agrees, and everything falls right into place. --Where in real life a muddled period of investigating options and making plans would lead more or less ploddingly to a breakthrough.

These films cheat NOT by cutting to the chase, which is always necessary in film, but in the WAY they cut to it. Highly condensed moments never happen this way in real life. It's just bad writing. I know art is not real life, but really good film manages to convey the feel of the way things happen in life. Sometimes total fiction films do it. That's part of the art of film. (Really good comics manage to do it too, even if you can count on the fingers of one hand the strips or books that have managed to rise to that level.) The trite stuff, the rubbish, always rings false, usually comically so. An example: '1955' the screen says. Two of the Stooges are obviously at a funeral. Larry asides to Moe "Shemp always gave his best; he really put his heart into everything he did." Moe back to Larry, with a sanctimonious smirk: "Yes, but he was always overshadowed by Curly." Fade out. That's the entire funeral scene.

Now hold on there. I realize some condensation has to take place if you are showing entire lives in a couple of hours. That isn't my complaint. It is the unlikeliness and poor positioning of dialog such as this one that undercut the entire form. If Larry and Moe sat and reflected half an hour a day for two weeks after Shemp's funeral, a fly on the wall might digest what they were saying into "Yes, but he was always overshadowed by Curly." But who can believe for an instant that anyone would speak those words over a coffin? And when Moe pretends to two-finger poke a new manager in the eye, he immediately takes a moment out to explain to the manager --but, duh, really to us-- that "That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes; looks real on film though." Hoo-boy.

Even big films like Pollack have had the same sort of problem. When art phonies corner Pollack between benders and affairs, and simper on about how he is creating "the only meaningful painting these days", you don't believe it for a second. In real life, Pollack would have dismissed these knuckleheads who talk like they write, rolled out the yard goods, uncapped the paint and called up a liquor store that delivers. Not in film bio land, though: When fools talk, mouthing the most absurd dialog ever, everyone listens with a straight face. All film biographies, even the big ones, seem to exist in an abstract never never land that feels like a gloss and collage of newspaper clippings. They are uninspired highlight reels.