Sossega Leão

A variation on Shakespeare's 'COMEDY OF ERRORS' (there are occasional references to the bard through the film),OUR RELATIONS is one of Laurel and Hardy's better features.It is certainly the most stylishly-produced film they ever made,and arguably the best from a technical viewpoint.If there is a fault it is with the overly-complex and overly-plotted storyline;it does rather mitigate against truly classic and hilarious routines that were evident in SONS OF THE DESERT and WAY OUT WEST(their best feature films),because there is so much story conveyed.And it's debatable if the familiar 'double' device,which was becoming hackneyed even in 1936,can squeeze that much humour out of it's various confusions and mistaken identities.The large number of characters supporting Stan and Ollie are also something of a distraction;some are relevant to the story,others are not so and abruptly depart somewhat improbably during the narrative.

These quibbles aside,the film is consistently amusing throughout,with familiar L & H foils (Finlayson,Housman),and those not so familiar (Toler,Hale) giving fine support.The most impressive aspect of OUR RELATIONS is it's technical sheen;it is very handsomely produced;the nightclub set particularly is highly impressive,and possibly the most elaborate and polished production design ever seen in a Laurel and Hardy film.Behind the camera,aspects are pretty accomplished too.Director Harry Lachman,usually more comfortable with straight drama (DANTE'S INFERNO with Spencer Tracy was his other most notable cinematic achievement) handles the comic sequences nicely,and commendably directs with a slick,speedy pace.This quickness has a slight downside;it would have been better if Lachman had sat back on a few occasions to allow L & H to indulge in their slower,yet more nuanced and subtle routines.We do see this near the beginning when Ollie reads a letter from his mother,and Stan conspires to break Ollie's reading glasses.This familiar and intimate bit of business is possibly the funniest scene in the film;the welter of plot complication after means we see virtually none of this well-versed style of theirs from this point on.Their encounters with the various many characters are amusing alright (especially Fin,who is well and truly savaged in his battle with the boys on this occasion),but OUR RELATIONS may have been even superior if Lachman had utilised a more methodical pace and concentration on L & H.Rudolph Mate,one of Hollywood's best Black and White cinematographers of the 30's and 40's, does a very accomplished job on the visuals,with some unexpectedly dramatic lighting,especially with the latter gangster sequence.This scene itself is rather over-stretched and perhaps even a trifle intimidating,with Tiny Sandford,in his final L & H film,not entirely comfortable as a brutish thug here.After being dispatched(entirely by mistake)on the dockside,the gangsters involved unconvincingly vanish from the scene,though Stan,Ollie,Alf and Bert finally meet at the end after all these complications.

OUR RELATIONS is not quite the best Laurel and Hardy feature,but only a small handful(WAY OUT WEST,SONS OF THE DESERT,BLOCKHEADS)could probably regard themselves as superior.There are no musical numbers or romantic sub-plots,perhaps because there's so much plot and incident abound! It would have been preferable had there been more emphasis on just L & H themselves,but from a technical and production point of view,OUR RELATIONS is Laurel and Hardy's most polished film;and while not their funniest,is still very amusing.

Rating:7 and a half out of 10.

OUR RELATIONS is probably the most classiest production Laurel and Hardy were involved with because of the great cinematographer-director Rudolph Mate (who worked on Dreyer's THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928)). Mate was a talented cinematographer who knew how to use lighting to enhance the scenes of Laurel and Hardy's comedy. Harry Lachman, a talented director, kept the complicated story line under control very well. The whole story is a kind of updating of William Shakespeare's COMEDY OF ERRORS. The story was actually based on THE MONEY BOX by W.W. Jacobs, author of the Grand Guignol classic THE MONKEY'S-PAW. The supporting cast is great, especially Daphne Pollard, Betty Healy, Sidney Toler, and Alan Hale. The whole film maintains laughs. Unfortunately, it rarely shows up anywhere today, although I do have a copy on video. It is probably the least-seen of Laurel and Hardy's major features.

Is this the most violent Laurel and Hardy film ever made? Surprisingly, while Stan and Ollie's twin brothers – Bert and Alf – are described as "bad lads", it's the originals that are the most malicious, in this sadistic – yet very funny all the same – Laurel and Hardy showcase. Stan gets to headbutt a barman and set fire to another man's chest hair, while Ollie, for his part, sticks a lightbulb in a man's mouth (James Finlayson, a regular stooge for the boys in 35 movies) then punches him in the face so he swallows the broken glass. Their supposedly rogue twins, meanwhile, merely try to save money and treat some ladies to a meal. In order to distinguish between the twins (other than the level of violence they display), musical cues are used – a sea shanty for the sailors Bert and Alf, and the Laurel and Hardy theme for Stan and Ollie.

There are lots of great sustained jokes in this movie, such as Ollie's broken spectacles, and the ultimate in a sustained gag is the mistaken identities between the sets of twins. This joke is taken so far towards its logical conclusion that the duos don't discover each other's existence until the final ninety seconds of film. This causes the plot to be far more imaginative, whereas a lesser film would have had greater reliance on the two pairs meeting. Arthur Housman is also good as the drunk, a role he seemed to make a career out of playing in many of his 159 film roles. It was a also a role he reprised with Laurel and Hardy, having played both "drunk" and "drunk sailor" in Scram!, The Live Ghost and The Fixer Uppers.

The direction by Harry Lachman is well above average for the pair. Some scenes are shot through a fish tank or the back of a bed's headrail, and there are lots of aerial shots. The split screen technology, while used sparingly, was extremely proficient for the time. One thing of note is that a couple of the sequences, such as the crushed in the telephone box scene, are slightly similar to sight gags in the Marx Brothers film of the previous year, A Night At The Opera. It's not that obvious, and may just be coincidence, but I'd rather hoped that Laurel and Hardy had inspired the Marx Brothers, and not the other way around. But it's probably funnier here anyway, particularly poor old Stan with a boot on his neck. Finally, one of the concluding scenes – Stan crying hysterically as he rolls around on concrete boots – is a real winner.

This and its companion were the only projects the boys ever said they didn't like. And it has fallen to the bottom of the listings, in part because of limited availability.

But I like it because I am particularly attuned to self-referential films. Explicit self reference (outside of shows about shows) was already becoming a fashionable idea in Hollywood. In this case, we have a plot taken from Shakespeare and characters (as always) inspired by Longfellow.

So a running joke, repeated 6 or seven times, has (at key points) one of them saying "Shakespeare" and the other responding "Longfellow." Also, there's a developing joke from Lewis Carroll about what goes up a chimney? Developing jokes depend on the thing being said differently each time. (The play is on flew/flue.)

I consider this their second best because there's more effort than just the stock physical comedy.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This film has an unusually complex plot for a Laurel and Hardy film. It is reminiscent of A Comedy Of Errors. In addition to playing Stanley and Oliver, the pair also play their long lost brothers Alf and Bert. The comedy fizzes along nicely although the film overall is lacking in classic moments. The main problem is that the characters of the two pairs of brother are not sufficiently differentiated so the viewer is often as confused as the characters in the film between Stanley and Oliver and Alf and Bert. The new print is generally excellent, although there are a few lapses of continuity.