andy stew

I loved the idea of this and have always found these "100 Greatest" shows very interesting. But I thought it was disgraceful when the countdown finished without a trace of Rowan Atkinson's OTHER immortal and internationally successful creation, Mr Bean, WHO WAS ON THE LIST OF THE 100 FINALISTS. (The superb Edmund Blackadder came a triumphant 3rd, after John Cleese's wonderful Basil Fawlty and David Jason's brilliant Del Boy.)

I checked the Channel 4 website for the final list, and there found that Mr Bean HAD actually been voted into 15th place (or thereabouts), but yet the television broadcast had somewhere along the line added a character or done something similar which resulted in Harry Enfield's Kevin the Teenager or Rik Mayall's Rick from "The Young Ones" (I can't remember offhand) occupying that position.

It's absolutely ridiculous the amount of snobbery shown in Britain towards one of its best-loved comedy exports -- just because "Mr Bean" is basically innocent, old-fashioned visual humour, it's frowned upon. People seem to think that if something isn't "wordy", or doesn't involve much verbal humour then it's therefore neither subtle nor intelligent, or is too "old-fashioned" to be funny, and is not worth bothering about. I'll tell you "Mr Bean" is more erudite, original, subtle and inventive than most of the puerile, mindless, "one-joke-and-that's-sex-and-lewdness-with-all-else-that-appertains-to-sex-a nd-lewdness" dribble that's broadcast today.

Even the smash-hit movie (smash-hit therefore making it ripe for a critical mauling, further displaying the difference between the media's perception and that of the public), "Bean -- The Ultimate Disaster Movie", was snubbed and haughtily sneered at, and was denied even a single BAFTA nomination despite being the most successful British film of that year, beating "The Full Monty" and coming second just behind "Four Weddings and a Funeral" (which Atkinson and Richard Curtis were also involved in) in the list of all-time biggest British blockbusters. (Currently I believe it's still in the Top 5 most financially successful British films of all time.)

Admittedly, a more original concept could have been chosen than the typical "British--American stars" theme employed to ensure success in the USA, but what Curtis, Mel Smith and especially Atkinson did with what they had was incredible. I originally watched "Bean" with only the knowledge that it had been a big hit overseas and in the UK, and no other knowledge as to the critical reception or the controversy surrounding the film or anything of that nature. Unite that with the fact that a few years previously I had "grown up" and lost interest in Mr Bean, and was watching this with only a mild interest, not expecting much.

(I had only heard about and was subsequently impressed with the news that "Bean" had been a huge and unsuspected hit in Canada and the US, beating the other predicted summer blockbusters of that year, so, admittedly, my admiration for Mr Bean had recovered somewhat, though not vastly.)

Of course, the film blew me away, it was so (completely unexpectedly) gut-bustingly hysterical, I wondered what all the negative fuss was about (after discovering that it existed -- by the bucketful).

Anyways, I'll just finish my little rant here -- I think I can be justifiably guilty of righteous anger. Why nominate Mr Bean for the final shortlist to be voted on and then remove him completely when he makes it into 15th place? I just can't understand it. The programme-makers and Channel 4 ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

At least I can wallow in the fact that Rowan Atkinson was the only performer to have two of his characters included in the Top 100 and to have BOTH of them placed in the Top 15. This demonstrates that Atkinson, genius that he is, has succeeded in becoming one of the most popular comedians in Britain, because he's created at least two characters that people do not MERELY LIKE, but are PASSIONATE about. It appears to be the very young and the very old who go for "Mr Bean", whereas the hip, post-watershed "Blackadder" appeals to, on average, those between 15 and 50. "Mr Bean" appeals strongly to working- and upper-class audiences, and "Blackadder" appeals mostly to the middle-classes.

So we can see why the media don't like Mr Bean -- but, Channel 4, you pile of gutless wonders, that's still no reason to do what you did.

(Just thought I'd get that in twice. For emphasis. You probably won't read it but I don't care. I've had my say.)

(OK I'll go now.)

I enjoyed this film a great deal. There were many hilarious gags and some clever satirical sideswipes, and the main performers were excellent. Woody Harrelson and Randy Quaid made a superb team, and both were quite moving at times.

However, I must mention the extraordinary comic genius of Bill Murray here, as in this film he provided me with what must be one of the funniest scenes in the history of movies -- a very simple gag that was really bound to happen, yet I wasn't expecting it. It is the climactic scene where he and Harrelson are the finalists in the tournament, and twice involves his comb-over ...

I can't go any further. I'm laughing so much. My sister and I missed the rest of the film as we bust our guts in absolute hysterics as Murray performed little victory dances (one involving his shoulder-blades almost killed me) while totally oblivious to the state that his hair was in ...

I don't want to spoil it for you. Just rent out the film, watch it with a friend, forget that I mentioned this scene, and when it happens it will catch you unawares and you will hopefully laugh yourself silly.

Ernie McCracken really was the biggest loser in the film, as he thought he was cool and suave, yet he had a terrible hairstyle (two, actually) and was a disgusting, selfish and unfeeling pervert. He plays a big role in the plot, but Murray's outstanding performance makes him so self-absorbed and bereft of any real humanity that he is almost completely separate from the movie -- there really is no point in him being there, apart from to provide us with enormous laughs and upstage everyone else and all the important things in the film. He just exists for himself and his own satisfaction, and everything about him is insincere.

When you watch it you will know what I mean when I say that he really seems to be one of the most unimportant important characters I've seen. Murray really is in a league of his own when it comes to cynicism and wry, dry and ironic humour; his gift is his ability to allow his casual arrogance to remove all pomposity and sentimentality, and mock everything that's important, so you can't do anything but laugh.

When he re-entered the film, I really couldn't care less what the outcome was going to be. I just laughed as he signed an autograph for a beautiful female fan and whispered to her what room he was staying in; and as he jokingly apologised for the appalling damage he had inflicted on Roy Munson (Harrelson), which had completely ruined his life 17 years earlier, and then selfishly began to make light of the matter, before avoiding a few punches from Ishmael (Quaid) and running off quickly while telling Claudia (Vanessa Angel) what room he was staying in.

And all the while, he has a hairstyle that is worse than Munson's and Ishmael's put together.

Man, that's some good tasting comedy.

"Take two turkeys, one goose, four cabbages, but no duck, and mix them together. After one taste, you'll duck soup for the rest of your life."

The Marx Brothers' finest and funniest film has all the right ingredients for a fine and funny film. It is an extraordinary dose of non-stop nonsense from start to finish, and one of the funniest films of all time. Groucho is on top form with his relentless puns and sharp insults, especially in the interplay between Margaret Dumont and himself; Harpo continues his quest to induce heart failure to those in the audience who are capable of laughter by use of first-class visual humour; Chico complements these two perfectly by adapting to their methods and creating a unique rapport with each, while adding his own brilliant style of looking and sounding like an idiot (but don't let this fool you -- he IS an idiot) through his seeming misuse of the English language and his zany behaviour; and Zeppo somehow completes the group quite nicely by providing good straight support.

The whole film succeeds because absolutely nothing (apart from the comedy) is taken seriously; situations, people, clichés, film techniques, political ideas, or anything that especially has to do with pomp and authority, are all mercilessly mocked, given a fresh slant, or their legitimacy simply ignored. Which, in a Marx Brothers satire, is as it should be. (In fact, the best comedies contain an element of this.) And the underlying theme of the absurdity of war ultimately comes across through the anarchy, satisfying the eggheads.

DUCK SOUP has been seen as one of the candidates for the best comedy ever made. It would definitely be in my top 5, with Laurel & Hardy's WAY OUT WEST and BLOCK-HEADS at 2 and 3. My personal favourite film is SONS OF THE DESERT. I do not wish to detract from the sheer genius of the Marx Brothers, and the dazzling brilliance of DUCK SOUP, but in my opinion, Laurel & Hardy remain unsurpassed as the supreme masters of comedy. Not only were they magnificently inventive and subtle (their subtlety was so good that a lot of people even today will refute the claim that Laurel & Hardy were subtle) -- like Chaplin -- but they also made this ingenuity exceptionally funny -- like the Marx Brothers (the greatest comedy group of all time), W.C. Fields (along with Charley Chase, the greatest solo comedians of the Golden Era) and Buster Keaton (the master of silent comedy) -- and did so consistently in the vast majority of the 106 films they made together (and even in a substantial number of the films they made separately), whether silent or sound, short or feature.

The Marx Brothers are those from the sound era who perhaps come closest to the levels of Laurel & Hardy's humour. Theirs has been described as Laurel & Hardy 'sped up', or with less of a sense of pace. The same absurdity and anarchy is present in their work, yet Laurel & Hardy's characters have more humanity. After watching DUCK SOUP, I felt elated and satisfied with the quality and quantity of the comedy, yet I observed that the characters had really been more or less zany caricatures and stereotypes, who were there mostly to keep the superb gags flowing, whereas Laurel & Hardy were two perfectly rounded and believable people, making mistakes and facing consequences (although the pair's general incapacity to fully comprehend their circumstances provided a certain distance, and in some cases a very basic form of cynicism or irony, ensuring that, as with the best comedy, things are considered or interpreted in a less serious fashion -- Stanley's deadpan graveness, like Groucho's, seems to mock the idea of solemnity), and this therefore, I feel, intensified the comedy and made the characters, situations and gags even funnier, because they came from a human well-spring, forming and producing human reactions. Although Stanley is regarded as a more extreme comic character, less in contact with logic than Ollie, it is the latter that provides the solid link with reality -- the Marx Brothers had this to a lesser degree than L&H, although it was not entirely absent, and they were given more depth in the MGM features. (That is why I believe the two best films from each of the eras in the Marxes' career -- this and A NIGHT AT THE OPERA -- should not be mutually exclusive, as their zaniness is at its least diluted in the Paramount years, but is set within more of a frame of believability at MGM, granting slightly more depth to the characters.)

Of course, Marx Brothers fans will argue that the Marxes were Hollywood's 'alternative comedians', attempting to change the face of traditional comedy, and create their own unique style; and concepts that were prevalent in the silent and early sound era, like creating identifiable comic characters, did not really need to be called upon. In fact, with their exaggerated costumes and mannerisms, the team seemed to be satirizing the whole idea of what Chaplin, Keaton or Langdon did with their 'Tramp', 'Stone-face' or 'Boy' characters.

However, I am not trying to pit Laurel & Hardy's groundbreaking comedy style (for they were in fact crafting a very innovative body of work under a subtle cloak of traditionalism) against the pioneering work of the Marx Brothers; I am just reasserting the brilliance of L&H after their work was practically overlooked in the disgraceful debacle of the AFI's comedy poll. I am also attempting to point out that although comic characters don't have to be three-dimensional to be funny (proved by the Marxes), comedy is generally intensified when they are (as with L&H). Unlike the Stooges, who were also two-dimensional, the Marx Brothers' personae were at least engaging. So give me a break.

Anyway, DUCK SOUP is a masterpiece, the Marx Brothers were geniuses, and you haven't stopped talking since I got here -- were you vaccinated with a gramophone needle?