Discussion:
The Difference Between Cury and Shemp...
(too old to reply)
Senorita Rita
2004-03-06 01:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Hello, you nitwits, you! =)

I found this page through a link from another Stooge site and I've
been lurking here for a coupe of weeks now. While browsing through the
topics in this newsgroup, I found several posts about Curly and Shemp,
and the age-old debate of who's "better." In particular, James N.'s
posts interested me. So I thought I'd add my $0.02. First of all,
theres not a fair way to compare these two. Curly and Shemp is like
apples and oranges. Although comedy can be subjective, there's no
doubt that they were both very talented. Personally, I find them both
very funny, but they had completely diffent comic styles, and worked
under different conditions. I think Shemp is hilarious, with his
subtle asides and impeckable timing. He brought a worldliness, and
dare I say, wisdom(?) to the Stooges that they rarely showed in their
earlier films. Perhaps this comes from the fact that Shemp himself was
not only a middle-aged man at that point, but a well-seasoned actor.
His Stooge charachter was, IMO, an amalgamation of all of the roles he
had previously played. He could be moody, bossy,timid, incredibly
quick-witted in one scene, and absolutely dumb in the next, depending
on the situation. It made his charachter more realisic and relatable,
even in the craziest Stooge plots. Shemp is everyone's favorite
uncle, or colorful next-door neighbor. Watching the Stooges was like
watching eccentric older relatives when Shemp was part of the team.
There have been many times that I've gotten a bigger laugh out of
Shemp than Curly...but there's something about Curly that makes him so
much more interesting.

What Jerry Howard did was something that very few performers have
been able to sucessfuly accomplish, which is to create an entirely
separate being who lives somewhere outside of our own reality. Curly
was a combination of average Joe and grotesque, other-worldy
individual. He was both obnoxious and endearing. Child-like and
experienced. Angelic and impish. Silly and genuine. Seemingly insane,
yet generally well-meaning. But no matter how outlandish he got, he
always made you BELIEVE in Curly. As a result, the audience is able to
believe in Moe and Larry and their over-the-top antics. Together,
they were the ego, the super-ego, and the id. The combination of Moe,
Larry and Curly was so perfect, and once Curly left, the dynamic of
the team and their films changed, for better or worse. There were
funnier films in later years, but gone was the great "triad", the
artistry, and the multi-level (sur)realism of the Boys' earlier work.

Could the charachter of Curly exist on his own? Maybe, but not in
the same capacity. Neither could Moe. Shemp's charachter, however,
could be effective in any scenario. So could Larry. Was Shemp a better
actor? Well, he definitely proved himself to be more versatile. But to
be fair to Curly, he never had the chance to prove himself as an actor
outside of his Stooge role. I would have liked to see him do something
different, but for whatever reason, he didn't. Maybe then critics and
fans could realize just how brilliant a comic he was. Was Curly a
comedy genius? I would have to say yes. And I would even put him in
the same category as Chaplin, NOT in terms of artistic freedom and
creativity (because unfortunately the Stooges had little creative
control over their films,)but in terms of creating a unique entity,
free of sarcasm or irony. I think Moe was briliant as well. He's my
favorite stooge one of the most underrated actors of all time.

Well, better quit before I start rambling. LOL
Spelvin
2004-03-06 02:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
Hello, you nitwits, you! =)
I found this page through a link from another Stooge site and I've
been lurking here for a coupe of weeks now. While browsing through the
topics in this newsgroup, I found several posts about Curly and Shemp,
and the age-old debate of who's "better." In particular, James N.'s
posts interested me. So I thought I'd add my $0.02. First of all,
theres not a fair way to compare these two. Curly and Shemp is like
apples and oranges. Although comedy can be subjective, there's no
doubt that they were both very talented. Personally, I find them both
very funny, but they had completely diffent comic styles, and worked
under different conditions. I think Shemp is hilarious, with his
subtle asides and impeckable timing. He brought a worldliness, and
dare I say, wisdom(?) to the Stooges that they rarely showed in their
earlier films. Perhaps this comes from the fact that Shemp himself was
not only a middle-aged man at that point, but a well-seasoned actor.
His Stooge charachter was, IMO, an amalgamation of all of the roles he
had previously played. He could be moody, bossy,timid, incredibly
quick-witted in one scene, and absolutely dumb in the next, depending
on the situation. It made his charachter more realisic and relatable,
even in the craziest Stooge plots. Shemp is everyone's favorite
uncle, or colorful next-door neighbor. Watching the Stooges was like
watching eccentric older relatives when Shemp was part of the team.
There have been many times that I've gotten a bigger laugh out of
Shemp than Curly...but there's something about Curly that makes him so
much more interesting.
What Jerry Howard did was something that very few performers have
been able to sucessfuly accomplish, which is to create an entirely
separate being who lives somewhere outside of our own reality. Curly
was a combination of average Joe and grotesque, other-worldy
individual. He was both obnoxious and endearing. Child-like and
experienced. Angelic and impish. Silly and genuine. Seemingly insane,
yet generally well-meaning. But no matter how outlandish he got, he
always made you BELIEVE in Curly. As a result, the audience is able to
believe in Moe and Larry and their over-the-top antics. Together,
they were the ego, the super-ego, and the id. The combination of Moe,
Larry and Curly was so perfect, and once Curly left, the dynamic of
the team and their films changed, for better or worse. There were
funnier films in later years, but gone was the great "triad", the
artistry, and the multi-level (sur)realism of the Boys' earlier work.
Could the charachter of Curly exist on his own? Maybe, but not in
the same capacity. Neither could Moe. Shemp's charachter, however,
could be effective in any scenario. So could Larry. Was Shemp a better
actor? Well, he definitely proved himself to be more versatile. But to
be fair to Curly, he never had the chance to prove himself as an actor
outside of his Stooge role. I would have liked to see him do something
different, but for whatever reason, he didn't. Maybe then critics and
fans could realize just how brilliant a comic he was. Was Curly a
comedy genius? I would have to say yes. And I would even put him in
the same category as Chaplin, NOT in terms of artistic freedom and
creativity (because unfortunately the Stooges had little creative
control over their films,)but in terms of creating a unique entity,
free of sarcasm or irony. I think Moe was briliant as well. He's my
favorite stooge one of the most underrated actors of all time.
Well, better quit before I start rambling. LOL
I agree with everything you said. I always liked Shemp -- at times, he
makes me laugh my you-know-what off. But Curly was in a class of his
own. I believe the character he created is one of the all-time great
creations in the history of movies. What comedian had more shtick? I
once made a list of about 50 major Curly "trademarks."

Moe was one of the most superb "straight" men of all time -- maybe the
greatest.

The Three Stooges have always been -- and still are -- badly underrated.

Spelvin
Rob Petrie
2004-03-06 05:56:12 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Senorita Rita
Hello, you nitwits, you! =)
I found this page through a link from another Stooge site and I've
been lurking here for a coupe of weeks now. While browsing through the
topics in this newsgroup, I found several posts about Curly and Shemp,
and the age-old debate of who's "better." In particular, James N.'s
posts interested me. So I thought I'd add my $0.02. First of all,
theres not a fair way to compare these two. Curly and Shemp is like
apples and oranges. Although comedy can be subjective, there's no
doubt that they were both very talented. Personally, I find them both
very funny, but they had completely diffent comic styles, and worked
under different conditions. I think Shemp is hilarious, with his
subtle asides and impeckable timing. He brought a worldliness, and
dare I say, wisdom(?) to the Stooges that they rarely showed in their
earlier films. Perhaps this comes from the fact that Shemp himself was
not only a middle-aged man at that point, but a well-seasoned actor.
His Stooge charachter was, IMO, an amalgamation of all of the roles he
had previously played. He could be moody, bossy,timid, incredibly
quick-witted in one scene, and absolutely dumb in the next, depending
on the situation. It made his charachter more realisic and relatable,
even in the craziest Stooge plots. Shemp is everyone's favorite
uncle, or colorful next-door neighbor. Watching the Stooges was like
watching eccentric older relatives when Shemp was part of the team.
There have been many times that I've gotten a bigger laugh out of
Shemp than Curly...but there's something about Curly that makes him so
much more interesting.
What Jerry Howard did was something that very few performers have
been able to sucessfuly accomplish, which is to create an entirely
separate being who lives somewhere outside of our own reality. Curly
was a combination of average Joe and grotesque, other-worldy
individual. He was both obnoxious and endearing. Child-like and
experienced. Angelic and impish. Silly and genuine. Seemingly insane,
yet generally well-meaning. But no matter how outlandish he got, he
always made you BELIEVE in Curly. As a result, the audience is able to
believe in Moe and Larry and their over-the-top antics. Together,
they were the ego, the super-ego, and the id. The combination of Moe,
Larry and Curly was so perfect, and once Curly left, the dynamic of
the team and their films changed, for better or worse. There were
funnier films in later years, but gone was the great "triad", the
artistry, and the multi-level (sur)realism of the Boys' earlier work.
Could the charachter of Curly exist on his own? Maybe, but not in
the same capacity. Neither could Moe. Shemp's charachter, however,
could be effective in any scenario. So could Larry. Was Shemp a better
actor? Well, he definitely proved himself to be more versatile. But to
be fair to Curly, he never had the chance to prove himself as an actor
outside of his Stooge role. I would have liked to see him do something
different, but for whatever reason, he didn't. Maybe then critics and
fans could realize just how brilliant a comic he was. Was Curly a
comedy genius? I would have to say yes. And I would even put him in
the same category as Chaplin, NOT in terms of artistic freedom and
creativity (because unfortunately the Stooges had little creative
control over their films,)but in terms of creating a unique entity,
free of sarcasm or irony. I think Moe was briliant as well. He's my
favorite stooge one of the most underrated actors of all time.
The Seniorita Rita is so RIGHT!
Shemp was funny, both on his own and with The Stooges.
Moe was the best straight man in all of slapstick comedy.
[with my apologies to the magnificent Oliver Hardy]

Curly, what else can I add to what you said?
But you'd better prepare yourself for a triple slap from Jim N.
'cause he doesn't think Jerome Lester 'Curly' [Q] Howard is worthy of the
word 'genius'!
Post by Senorita Rita
Well, better quit before I start rambling. LOL
James Neibaur
2004-03-06 07:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
The Seniorita Rita is so RIGHT!
Shemp was funny, both on his own and with The Stooges.
Yes he was.
Post by Rob Petrie
Moe was the best straight man in all of slapstick comedy.
I would say Bud Abbott
Post by Rob Petrie
[with my apologies to the magnificent Oliver Hardy]
Ollie wasn't really a straight man, though. He worked for laughs just like
Laurel. A straight man is one who plays it straight. It does not
necessarily mean the one who plays the leader (but it does work out that
way).

Curly, once again, had magnificent talent that never had a chance to be
honed or refined, but its crudity is part of the timeless charm. But talent
does not mean genius. Curly was not a genius and certainly is not in the
same league as Chaplin (whose importance to film history is enormous).

Stooge fans often attempt to elevate the trio's status in the annals of
screen comedy, which is easy to do when one is so passionate a fan. Curly
was a delightfully funny guy like Lou Costello, Joe E. Brown, Leon Errol,
et. al. And there is nothing bad about being placed in that company.

JN
Hardy-Boys.net
2004-03-06 15:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Curly was not a genius and certainly is not in the same league as Chaplin
(whose importance to film history is enormous).

You are right there.
Curly was 10 times funnier than Chaplin who, in my opinion, is vastly
over-rated.
--
Bob Finnan
The Hardy Boys Unofficial Home Page
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon
New & Out Of Print Books, Books-On-Tape, Videos, DVDs, CD-ROMs For Sale
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon/hbsale.htm
To reply: replace nospam with fwdixon
.....................................................................
James Neibaur
2004-03-06 15:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardy-Boys.net
Curly was 10 times funnier than Chaplin who, in my opinion, is vastly
over-rated.
But that is an opinion, and your full right. It is pretty easy to detail
just why Chaplin is perhaps the single most important figure in the history
of cinema. But if you find Curly funnier, that is perfectly fine. Some
people think I Love Lucy is overrated and believe Gilligan's Island to be
funnier. It is also their perfect right to think so.

We lifetime stooge fans have long heard the Stooges dismissed as merely a
series of slaps and eyepokes. To this day, even with the greater respect
they have garnered recently, the very mention of their names frequently
generates disdain. I never understood that, and still don't understand it.
The Stooges were very funny and very talented. They made some excellent
two-reel comedies. They have demonstrably withstood the test of time, which
elevates their best work to classic status, whether the nay-sayers want to
admit it or not. And, of course, Punch Drunks was named to the Library of
Congress for preservation -- right alongside Citizen Kane.

But with all that, I still realize the Stooges are not the creative
filmmakers or contributors to the culture as Chaplin, Keaton, et. al. But
they are underrated, and remain so. I even think they are underrated by
their fans. Some people are Stooges fans -- some are merely Curly fans.
There is a difference. The latter have psychological issues that attach
them to the fact that the most picked-on, misunderstood stooge is,
ultimately, the most loved. Stooges fans (e.g. the people who exist in this
newsgroup) appreciate the real talent that existed in all of the different
sets.

When I state that Curly was not a "genius" or that I like Shemp better, I
don't want it forgotten that despite my objectivity, I love Curly as much as
the rest of you.

JN
Hardy-Boys.net
2004-03-06 20:48:27 UTC
Permalink
It is pretty easy to detail just why Chaplin is perhaps the single most
important figure in the history of cinema.

In YOUR opinion (which, IMHO, is hyperbole).
I think he was a mediocre talent worshipped by effete cineastes who demand
that everyone else bow down before their opinion.
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 00:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardy-Boys.net
I think he was a mediocre talent worshipped by effete cineastes who demand
that everyone else bow down before their opinion.
No, it's what has been said since 1914, despite tiny groups of nay sayers
hollering on the sidelines, insisting this or that comic is funnier. The
effete cineastes you describe do underrate the Stooges, but do not overrate
Chaplin.

Chaplin's status is pretty solid. It will remain that way for probably
hundreds of more years.

JN
Senorita Rita
2004-03-07 03:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Some people are Stooges fans -- some are merely Curly fans.
There is a difference. The latter have psychological issues that attach
them to the fact that the most picked-on, misunderstood stooge is,
ultimately, the most loved.
Hmmm. So if someone were to say they were a Groucho Marx fan, but less
of a Marx Bros. enthusiast, would they also be displaying to results
of distressing psychological issues?
Post by James Neibaur
Stooges fans (e.g. the people who exist in this
newsgroup) appreciate the real talent that existed in all of the different
sets.
That I am. I appreciate all 6 stooges, from best films to worst. I'm
able to accept the fact that while the central charachters were always
good performers, the plots, scripts and gags were sometimes unoriginal
or uninspired. But I'm also able to recognize exceptional talent and
ge-.. brilliance when I see it.
Post by James Neibaur
When I state that Curly was not a "genius" or that I like Shemp better, I
don't want it forgotten that despite my objectivity, I love Curly as much as
the rest of you.
What's with the condescending attitude? I mean REALLY. Is it necessary
to talk down to other fans because you feel that you're more
"educated" on the subject of film?
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 04:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
Hmmm. So if someone were to say they were a Groucho Marx fan, but less
of a Marx Bros. enthusiast, would they also be displaying to results
of distressing psychological issues?
I don't know anyone who likes Groucho so much that they think his solo films
are as good or better than his Marx stuff. If so, that would be mighty
interesting indeed.
Post by Senorita Rita
That I am. I appreciate all 6 stooges, from best films to worst. I'm
able to accept the fact that while the central charachters were always
good performers, the plots, scripts and gags were sometimes unoriginal
or uninspired.
Yeah, usually the problem with the Besser period was that very thing.
Besser himself was a funny guy (and a really nice guy, btw).
Post by Senorita Rita
Post by James Neibaur
When I state that Curly was not a "genius" or that I like Shemp better, I
don't want it forgotten that despite my objectivity, I love Curly as much as
the rest of you.
What's with the condescending attitude? I mean REALLY. Is it necessary
to talk down to other fans because you feel that you're more
"educated" on the subject of film?
I don't at all see how the above is condescending. I simply stated that I
love the Curly as much as anybody in this newsgroup. That I like Shemp
better or feel that Chaplin is a great artist far beyond the realm in which
the Stooges exist does not make me love Curly any less.

If you can look at the Chaplin or Keaton films, then look at the Stooges
films and believe they have the same level of artistry, well --- ok.

JN
Hardy-Boys.net
2004-03-07 14:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Post by Senorita Rita
What's with the condescending attitude? I mean REALLY. Is it necessary
to talk down to other fans because you feel that you're more
"educated" on the subject of film?
I don't at all see how the above is condescending. I simply stated that
I
Post by James Neibaur
love the Curly as much as anybody in this newsgroup. That I like Shemp
better or feel that Chaplin is a great artist far beyond the realm in which
the Stooges exist does not make me love Curly any less.
Take it from me Neibaur, you come across as arrogant, smarmy and
condescending.
Perhaps you don't realize it but you do.
--
Bob Finnan
The Hardy Boys Unofficial Home Page
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon
New & Out Of Print Books, Books-On-Tape, Videos, DVDs, CD-ROMs For Sale
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon/hbsale.htm
To reply: replace nospam with fwdixon
.....................................................................
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 14:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardy-Boys.net
Take it from me Neibaur, you come across as arrogant, smarmy and
condescending.
Perhaps you don't realize it but you do.
Interesting coming from someone whose posts only offer negative comments.

JN
Hardy-Boys.net
2004-03-07 14:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Can't take the truth without going on the attack, eh Neibaur?
Welcome to my kill file, you smug ass.
This NG will be a much more pleasant experience without having to read your
condescending, know-it-all posts.
--
Bob Finnan
The Hardy Boys Unofficial Home Page
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon
New & Out Of Print Books, Books-On-Tape, Videos, DVDs, CD-ROMs For Sale
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon/hbsale.htm
To reply: replace nospam with fwdixon
.....................................................................
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 15:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardy-Boys.net
Can't take the truth without going on the attack, eh Neibaur?
I didn't attack. You attacked me, and I responded by stating that your
posts are usually negative. When Senorita Rita states that she takes
something I said as condescending, I am willing to clarify that it wasn't
meant as such. I am enjoying her discussion, as I always enjoy my
discussions with Roy (and he and I rarely agree).
Post by Hardy-Boys.net
Welcome to my kill file, you smug ass.
This NG will be a much more pleasant experience without having to read your
condescending, know-it-all posts.
Everyone in here knows-it-all. We just have different opinions about it.
Don't know what I did to make you so angry, but killfile me if you want.

JN
D.W. Atkinson
2004-03-07 16:08:14 UTC
Permalink
I have read nothing that was condescending from James.
He seems to be correct on many levels. If Bud & Lou had Del Lord and
the boys working for them, things might be different.
As far a Chaplin goes, it's easy to be a genius when your a pioneer, but
Chaplin continued to be a genius well into the sound era.

Curly could look at the camera and say woobwoobwoob and make a lot of
people laugh, Shemp couldn't for the most part.

Flame away,

Dennis
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 16:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.W. Atkinson
Curly could look at the camera and say woobwoobwoob and make a lot of
people laugh, Shemp couldn't for the most part.
An excellent point. Curly had tremendous command of every scene he was in.
Curly generated enthusiasm with little effort because his character was so
over-the-top, so commanding of the frame.

I think some of Curly's finest moments are his solo set-pieces. Like his
battle with the sousaphone in Even As I.O.U. His reactions, his timing,
everything is right on the mark. I think that bit is a marvelous piece of
film.

JN
Senorita Rita
2004-03-07 17:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Post by Senorita Rita
Hmmm. So if someone were to say they were a Groucho Marx fan, but less
of a Marx Bros. enthusiast, would they also be displaying to results
of distressing psychological issues?
I don't know anyone who likes Groucho so much that they think his solo films
are as good or better than his Marx stuff. If so, that would be mighty
interesting indeed.
This is not about his solo work. My point was that some fans of
particular groups may also have a favorite, or one that the feel is
somehow better than the rest. If I were to say, "Groucho is my
favorite" or "I think Harpo was brilliant," what would be wrong with
that? I still can appreciate all of them and their body of work.
Post by James Neibaur
Post by Senorita Rita
Post by James Neibaur
When I state that Curly was not a "genius" or that I like Shemp better, I
don't want it forgotten that despite my objectivity, I love Curly as much as
the rest of you.
What's with the condescending attitude? I mean REALLY. Is it necessary
to talk down to other fans because you feel that you're more
"educated" on the subject of film?
I don't at all see how the above is condescending. I simply stated that I
love the Curly as much as anybody in this newsgroup. That I like Shemp
better or feel that Chaplin is a great artist far beyond the realm in which
the Stooges exist does not make me love Curly any less.
But that is my point. The key word here is "FEEL." You rarely (if
ever) share your opinions about this topic, just what you percieve as
the "facts." And, yes, it does come across as condescending at times.
There's an attitude of, "Well, obviously I'm right, but if you feel
differently, well that's you're little opinion (Oh, and BTW, you're
wrong.)"
Post by James Neibaur
If you can look at the Chaplin or Keaton films, then look at the Stooges
films and believe they have the same level of artistry, well --- ok.
I never said that. All I said was that the Tramp is just as memorable
a screen charachter as the Stooges. I also stated that Curly rivals
Chaplin as a PHYSICAL comedian, an opinion which I stand by.
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 17:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
The key word here is "FEEL." You rarely (if
ever) share your opinions about this topic, just what you percieve as
the "facts."
Oh, well, if you want to trade favorites that would be much more fun. We
can offer some of our favorite Curly bits -- the ones we each find cleverest
and funniest. While I stop short of calling him a genius, I certainly
disagree that the Stooges films have many brilliant moments. I have argued
that for years. You probably have too.
Post by Senorita Rita
And, yes, it does come across as condescending at times.
There's an attitude of, "Well, obviously I'm right, but if you feel
differently, well that's you're little opinion (Oh, and BTW, you're
wrong.)"
Well I am certainly sorry if it read that way. But I did state that I
believe your opinion is every bit as valid as mine. And it is. I am rather
enjoying our discussion
Post by Senorita Rita
Post by James Neibaur
If you can look at the Chaplin or Keaton films, then look at the Stooges
films and believe they have the same level of artistry, well --- ok.
I never said that. All I said was that the Tramp is just as memorable
a screen charachter as the Stooges. I also stated that Curly rivals
Chaplin as a PHYSICAL comedian, an opinion which I stand by.
And yours is an informed opinion as you obviously have seen the films by
both comedians. I always respect the informed opinion, even if it disagrees
with mine. I'd like to think we each respect each other.

JN
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 17:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
I certainly
disagree that the Stooges films have many brilliant moments. I have argued
that for years. You probably have too.
DOH! I meant to write that I certainly AGREE that the Stooges films have
many brilliant moments. Typing with all thumbs again.

JN
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 17:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
This is not about his solo work. My point was that some fans of
particular groups may also have a favorite, or one that the feel is
somehow better than the rest. If I were to say, "Groucho is my
favorite" or "I think Harpo was brilliant," what would be wrong with
that? I still can appreciate all of them and their body of work.
That was more in reference to those who chant "No Shemp." Those are
obviously Curly fans, not Stooge fans. You have already established that
you have some respect for each of the various Stooges. I don't know of any
Marx fans who would chant Chico sucks. (Zeppo maybe)

JN

Senorita Rita
2004-03-06 17:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Curly, once again, had magnificent talent that never had a chance to be
honed or refined, but its crudity is part of the timeless charm. But talent
does not mean genius. Curly was not a genius and certainly is not in the
same league as Chaplin (whose importance to film history is enormous).
I agree that talent does not equal genius. And personally, I think the
term "genius" is overused to the point that it doesn't mean much. I
mean, I've heard Adam SANDLER fans call HIM a genius...=X So I should
rephrase my comment. In my opinion, the charachter of Curly is just as
funny, memorable, and "real" as the charachter of the Tramp created by
Chaplin. I also think that he rivals Chaplin in terms of physical
comedy.
Post by James Neibaur
Stooge fans often attempt to elevate the trio's status in the annals of
screen comedy, which is easy to do when one is so passionate a fan. Curly
was a delightfully funny guy like Lou Costello, Joe E. Brown, Leon Errol,
et. al. And there is nothing bad about being placed in that company.
Yes, some fans do tend to overrate their favorites. But the stooges, a
team that has been sorely overlooked and downplayed for darn near 70
years now,are long overdue for their props. As a result, some fans
feel that they need to be "elevated" in order to be seen at all.
However in most cases, the recognition and respect the Stooges do
recieve by fans is well-deserved.

As for Lou Costello and co, they're funny, but they're not Curly.
Although I'm not a huge A&C fan, Lou can be amusing. But Lou's act was
just that; an act. When I watch A&C, I always know that I am watching
two performers whose purpose is to make the audience laugh. With Curly
and the Stooges, its easy to forget that these charachters aren't
real. Curly is funny because of who he is, not because he's a comic
consciously trying to make us laugh. Often times, the Stooges are more
fascinating than funny because they're so believably outlandish. But
BECAUSE they're so believable, they get bigger laughs than would come
from any other comics or actors attempting to do their same shtick. A
lot of people assume that in reality, Curly and Moe were exactly the
same as their on-screen personas. THAT is the sign of a great actor.
Shemp may have had more diversity, but Curly took his one charachter
and perfected it to the point that it has become more memorable than
any role Shemp ever played. (Not knocking Shemp at ALL)
James Neibaur
2004-03-06 18:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
Yes, some fans do tend to overrate their favorites. But the stooges, a
team that has been sorely overlooked and downplayed for darn near 70
years now,are long overdue for their props.
I agree. But, as a result, Stooge fans tend to overrate their importance to
comedy in an effort to compensate for the shortsighted people who unfairly
dismiss them. Curly does not compare in any way to Chaplin anymore than The
Monkees compare to The Beatles. This does not make Curly (or The Monkees)
bad.

JN
Senorita Rita
2004-03-07 03:24:05 UTC
Permalink
James Neibaur <***@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<BC6F776E.2FDF9%***@wi.rr.com>...
Curly does not compare in any way to Chaplin anymore than The
Post by James Neibaur
Monkees compare to The Beatles. This does not make Curly (or The Monkees)
bad.
*choking on my Sprite* You're joking right? Comparing a manufactured
TV band to a vaudeville comedy team?! I don't see it. As you've stated
before, everyone is entitle to an opinion, and your views are opinions
as well, nothing more (no offense.) But if you insist of placing
Chaplin above all others, at least use a more proper analogy. For
example, Curly Howard is to Charlie Chaplin as the Beatles are
to...Little Richard.
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 04:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
*choking on my Sprite* You're joking right? Comparing a manufactured
TV band to a vaudeville comedy team?! I don't see it.
No, I was comparing a second-rate band to the very best one. That is the
same as comparing the Stooges to Chaplin.
Post by Senorita Rita
As you've stated
before, everyone is entitle to an opinion, and your views are opinions
as well, nothing more (no offense.)
Not offended at all. Roy and I have discussions like this all the time, and
we get along just fine. My opinions are indeed just that. It is only
important that they are informed opinions. If you have seen all the Chaplin
and all the Stooges, your opinions are most certainly every bit as valid as
mine. You then have the same criteria and came to a different conclusion.
Post by Senorita Rita
But if you insist of placing
Chaplin above all others, at least use a more proper analogy. For
example, Curly Howard is to Charlie Chaplin as the Beatles are
to...Little Richard.
I love Curly as much as you do. But I can see that he is about as important
to screen comedy as the Monkees are to rock and roll. I spent a good
portion of the sixties hearing people insist The Beatles were overwith and
The Monkees were now the thing. I didn't agree.

The Three Stooges may be your favorite. But they are not artists, they are
not geniuses, and their contribution to comedy in cinema is negligible.
However they are talented, they are funny, and those of us who have the
sentimental attachment to having grown up with them will love them forever.

JN
James Neibaur
2004-03-06 18:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senorita Rita
A
lot of people assume that in reality, Curly and Moe were exactly the
same as their on-screen personas. THAT is the sign of a great actor.
No, that is a sign of a really screwed up viewer.

JN
Rob Petrie
2004-03-06 21:33:07 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by James Neibaur
Post by Rob Petrie
The Seniorita Rita is so RIGHT!
Shemp was funny, both on his own and with The Stooges.
Yes he was.
Post by Rob Petrie
Moe was the best straight man in all of slapstick comedy.
I would say Bud Abbott
Bud is over-rated as a straight man because Lou wasn't as funny as
Curly-Shemp as the 3rd Stooge and Moe playing off both of them so well.
[If you read me, that means I also rate Shemp much higher than Lou on
the comedy meter, if that makes you feel any better about how I feel about
Curly.]
Post by James Neibaur
Post by Rob Petrie
[with my apologies to the magnificent Oliver Hardy]
Ollie wasn't really a straight man, though. He worked for laughs just like
Laurel. A straight man is one who plays it straight. It does not
necessarily mean the one who plays the leader (but it does work out that
way).
Ollie played more of a straight man although he got some laughs with
some of his shtick (tie twaddle, anger at Stan, etc.).
Ollie is similar to Moe in that he was the "brains" of the
corporation (to put it as Moe did in one short), and Ollie also played off
Stan for his laughs much more than intentionally getting them himself.
Post by James Neibaur
Curly, once again, had magnificent talent that never had a chance to be
honed or refined, but its crudity is part of the timeless charm. But talent
does not mean genius. Curly was not a genius and certainly is not in the
same league as Chaplin (whose importance to film history is enormous).
You are always implying genius means somebody who did something nobody
else did before or invented new things in cinema, plus had staying power
lasting decades.
So what about Groucho and Harpo of The Marx Brothers? What about L&H?
They were *all* geniuses, along with Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd.
Who hears about Harold Lloyd movie revivals-showings and/or attends
them, but few and far between these days?
Who hears about A&C movie (or tv) revivals and showings?
The movie revivals and showings you hear most about (number of, not in
any particular order) are: Chaplin, Keaton, The Marx Brothers, L&H, and The
Three Stooges, with the occasional Harold Lloyd showings.
That tells you something about who is really a legend in moviedom, and
who is not.
Post by James Neibaur
Stooge fans often attempt to elevate the trio's status in the annals of
screen comedy, which is easy to do when one is so passionate a fan. Curly
was a delightfully funny guy like Lou Costello, Joe E. Brown, Leon Errol,
et. al. And there is nothing bad about being placed in that company.
The Stooges were funnier than Lou, Joe, or Leon *combined*.
Who remembers Leon Errol these days or even Joe E. Brown but
hard-core film buffs like us?
Lou had some of that common touch Curly had, but Curly is a comic
legend while Lou was just another comedian in the movies plus his 52 tv
shorts in '52. [always easy to remember that fact!]
James Neibaur
2004-03-07 01:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
Bud is over-rated as a straight man because Lou wasn't as funny as
Curly-Shemp as the 3rd Stooge and Moe playing off both of them so well.
[If you read me, that means I also rate Shemp much higher than Lou on
the comedy meter, if that makes you feel any better about how I feel about
Curly.]
I think Bud is easily the best straight man, but would also not consider Moe
a straight-man in the conventional sense. I like A&C every bit as much as
the Stooges. I do not, however, like A&C better. They are about the same
to me. Love 'em both.
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by James Neibaur
Curly, once again, had magnificent talent that never had a chance to be
honed or refined, but its crudity is part of the timeless charm. But
talent
Post by James Neibaur
does not mean genius. Curly was not a genius and certainly is not in the
same league as Chaplin (whose importance to film history is enormous).
You are always implying genius means somebody who did something nobody
else did before or invented new things in cinema, plus had staying power
lasting decades.
Not always. Genius constitutes depth beyond a series of funny gags. Abbott
and Costello, for instance, would indeed rattle around under that
terminology. They were talented like the Stooges, but not geniuses. You
know my affection for Bob Hope. He was also immensely talented, but not a
genius.
Post by Rob Petrie
So what about Groucho and Harpo of The Marx Brothers? What about L&H?
They were *all* geniuses, along with Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd.
Yes they were.
Post by Rob Petrie
Who hears about Harold Lloyd movie revivals-showings and/or attends
them, but few and far between these days?
Harold Lloyd's films were unavailable for decades. TCM made a deal to show
them throughout the month of July in 2003 in restored prints and they were
among the station's highest rated presentations of all time. Which was your
favorite when you watched them?

But that really is beside the point. Timeless means something that is still
fresh years after its release, not something that continues to receive
countless showings due to accessibility.
Post by Rob Petrie
The movie revivals and showings you hear most about (number of, not in
any particular order) are: Chaplin, Keaton, The Marx Brothers, L&H, and The
Three Stooges, with the occasional Harold Lloyd showings.
Where? Chaplin was the subject of a new documentary that played the fests
like Cannes. Keaton was the subject of recent releases because of the
discovery of his collaborations with Arbuckle -- films which were considered
lost for many decades. I haven't seen a Marx Brothers festival since I was
in college in the seventies. And right now nothing in their catalog is on
DVD (some MGMs are coming along in May and there is talk of re-releasing the
Paramounts). Laurel and Hardy's films are withheld from all distribution by
their current owner (long story). I had to buy a DVD player that plays PAL
discs in order to get their films (beautiful prints available in Europe).
Lloyd's films (see above) were unavailable until very recently. Where are
these showings you are hearing about?
Post by Rob Petrie
That tells you something about who is really a legend in moviedom, and
who is not.
It tells me that you are guessing what is still being shown, and
incorrectly.
Post by Rob Petrie
The Stooges were funnier than Lou, Joe, or Leon *combined*.
To you, yes. But not to everyone. I like them better than Brown or
Errol, myself (what are some of your favorite Errol films? I don't really
like him all that much but do recognize his immense talent). And, as
stated, I love them the same as A&C.
Post by Rob Petrie
Who remembers Leon Errol these days or even Joe E. Brown but
hard-core film buffs like us?
That these comedians are no longer known by the public isn't what matters.
There work is still timeless if it remains fresh when seen. It isn't
genius. Charley Chase is another very strong example. Some argue that he
belongs in the top rank alongside Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd (many want to
replace poor Harry Langdon among the Big Four).
Post by Rob Petrie
Lou had some of that common touch Curly had, but Curly is a comic
legend while Lou was just another comedian in the movies plus his 52 tv
shorts in '52. [always easy to remember that fact!]
I have heard that exact same argument vice-versa from Abbott and Costello
fans -- almost word-for-word. So, I believe you're haunted!!

Both are comic legends. Lou Costello (with Bud) is one of only five
comedians to be among the top box office draws of the 30s and 40s. Two of
the others were Joe E. Brown and Bob Hope. (for the record -- Will Rogers
and Eddie Cantor round out the five). And, yes, it is only during the 40s
that Lou was active, not the 30s.

Abbott and Costello were also unfairly maligned as boorish burlesque comics
whose only accomplisment was the popularity of the masses. Same as the
Stooges. Both teams are still wonderfully funny, and both have their
admirers who like to elevate their status.

Speaking objectively, I can't do that. But subjectively, I love them
every bit as much as you do. Hey, I do my part. I managed to get an essay
on the Stooges in a high level cinema magazine like Cineaste, and the whole
point was to insist that they deserve recognition for their own special
contribution. Because I don't rank them alongside Chaplin, you guys often
think that I am not on your side.

The Three Stooges will always make me laugh, and give me real joy, for the
rest of my life. They don't have to be anything more than they truly are.

JN
Loading...