House of Errors

Though he lacked the same visibility and recognition of some of his contemporaries, from the silent era and through the advent of talkies Harry Langdon was a noteworthy and important name in comedy. Whether starring in a feature himself or serving as a writer behind the scenes, not least with some of Laurel and Hardy's big hits, cinema owes a debt to Langdon that can't be repaid. Of course even the most reliable stars have a hard time churning out perfection time after time, but in at least some measure one can trust the icon to provide a good time. Thankfully 'House of errors' counts among those pictures that is fairly above average, and it's rather consistently delightful pretty much right from the start. We can him and haw about just how precisely worthwhile it is, but one way or another, if you're receptive to the sensibilities of older films and are looking for something light and merry, there's not really any going wrong here.

The Hays Code quite regrettably neutered Hollywood for a solid couple decades, and values have changed over time in a way that means some older flicks just don't land as well as they would have years ago. Happily, this is an example of a title that manages to circumvent the issues common to fare of the time, and it holds up relatively well, if not faultlessly. I'm not going to sit here and say it's utterly impeccable; facets like direction, cinematography, and editing are suitable, but sometimes arguably a tad rough around the edges. The fun relies in no small part on extra lighthearted and frivolous situational humor and gags, fast-talking, silver-tongued repartee, and animated, wild performances - which, yes, is just dandy, but one must resist the temptation to think about it all too much, or to approach the material with the modern mind for scrutinizing every nook and cranny of a script. No matter how cynical or jaded one might be about the movie, however, it wants only to entertain, and when you get right down to it 'House of errors' is never not amusing.

Everyone in the cast plays off each other very well, and between that rapport and the guidance of producer and director Bernard B. Ray, these sixty-four minutes maintain a steady clip. Even setting aside the comedy the story and scene writing are reasonably solid, and I appreciate elements like the sets, hair, makeup, stunts, and practical effects. Some of the sound effects and music cues are a bit overdone and tiresome, but I do like the music generally as it adds flavor. Mind you, it's also true that the feature doesn't maintain the same energy throughout its whole length, and just as some bits are stronger than others, some are weaker. Furthermore, while not outright sexist, the few female characters aren't treated as well in the screenplay as the men. However, again, 'House of errors' is built purely to let its audience forget their troubles for a little while. Eighty years later it may not elicit hearty laughs, but that doesn't mean it's not enjoyable on its own merits.

Even if you're a big fan of someone involved I don't think this is something one needs to go out of their way to see; it's no riotous exemplar. For something cheerful and uninvolved, though, the film is a fine little diversion for an hour, and a swell way to pass the time on a quiet day. 'House of errors' doesn't demand viewership, but if you do have the opportunity to watch, I think most folks will step away with a smile on their face - and for some pictures, that's enough.

HOUSE OF ERRORS was the second feature film pairing silent (and sound) comedy great Harry Langdon (who also wrote the story) with British comic actor-writer-director Charley Rogers (best known for his work as a writer-director with Laurel and Hardy), playing Bert and Alf. In this one, the boys are the lowest level of employees at a newspaper and have always wanted to be reporters. They happen to overhear a potential story about an inventor who has a new model machine gun (this is a wartime film, after all!), and they pose as servants in order to get into his house. While there are some other wonderful elements in the film (one scene taking place in a flophouse features Monte Collins doing a brilliant routine about a flea circus--one wonders if Langdon, who wrote the story for the film, dragged that routine out of his old vaudeville days!), what makes it worthwhile are Langdon and Rogers. Langdon wrote in any number of scenes that rely on his brilliant physical comedy skills, honed during years of vaudeville work and in his classic silent shorts and features. The scene with the "fish hooks" coming through the window, the scene where he is walking along the molding on the wall of the flophouse, the scene at the movie's start with the car horn--there are any number of hilarious comic set-ups. Rogers is the more aggressive of the duo, and he is the perfect foil for Langdon's lost, confused character. This is a low-budget PRC feature, but director Bernard B. Ray was a master of getting the most out of a little because of his experience running his own studio in the 1930s and directing some classics in the western and action veins, starring the likes of Tom Tyler and Richard Talmadge and Jack Perrin. The lighting in this film is rudimentary at best and the sets ultra-cheap, but who cares? Langdon could perform in front of a brick wall, and he would be brilliant. I'm glad he had the chance to star in films like this one, the earlier DOUBLE TROUBLE with Rogers, DUMMY TROUBLE/MISBEHAVING HUSBANDS with Ralph Byrd, and his continuing series of Columbia comedy shorts during the early 1940s, in the last few years of his career and life. His timing and mannerisms and ability to play off others had not diminished. Langdon fans should NOT miss HOUSE OF ERRORS.

In the silent film days, Harry Langdon was very successful. Perhaps he wasn't as successful as the likes of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd or Laurel & Hardy...but his films were enjoyable, often sweet and the public loved them. However, he had a problem that sometimes comes with success...he started having lots of folks flatter him and that he could do better elsewhere. Now, considering his director in many of his best early films was Frank Capra, in hindsight we know that he could NOT do better. What followed were years of progressively worse films. The biggest problem with the later films is that they looked as if they were written for anyone and they just happened to stick Langdon in the lead. This was particularly true with his films from Columbia. Many of their shorts were Three Stooges style films (after all, the Stooges were their hottest property in the shorts department)....and slapstick and violence were NOT the sort of stuff that made Langdon so popular in the 20s.

By 1942, Langdon had been with Columbia's shorts department for nearly a decade and he occasionally worked for other studios here and there (such as with Hal Roach Studios in the film "Zenobia"). Of all the different studios he worked for, the worst was clearly PRC...which was one of the worst studios in Hollywood. PRC had a reputation for making movies fast, cheap and, generally, crappy. There were some exceptions...but not enough. "House of Errors" is pretty much what I'd expect from PRC....a comedy that isn't very funny and which had too many plot errors--the effect of rushing a film into production and doing no re-writes on problematic scripts.

The film finds Bert (Langdon) and Alf (Charley Rogers) reporters. The boss wants them to get a scoop on the Professor and his new invention, a better, faster and more deadly machine gun. Considering it was made during the war years, such plots were the norm. However, the Professor doesn't want to talk to reporters, so the pair pretend to be servants and go to work for him. Not surprisingly, soon folks arrive who want to steal the Professor's invention.

I think that you could have substituted any other actor (or perhaps a potato) into Langdon's role and the movie wouldn't have been much different. Additionally, the notion of a super-weapon which has no government agents and guards watching it and protecting the Professor seems ludicrous. Overall, a dull film with hardly a laugh.