Way cool! “What am I, a mountain goat?” 
(Paraphrased, from memory.)
So many great lines from those shows. Almost lose track of the fact that they came out of someone’s brain.
I think part of it was because people went to lectures, debates, and other speaking engagements to be entertained. You might even pay to get in, so you better get your money’s worth. At the dedication of what would become the Gettysburg National Cemetery, it was Edward Everett, not President Lincoln, who was the main speaker. One of the great American orators of his day, Everett spoke for nearly two hours and Lincoln for just a few minutes. I’ve never read Everett’s speech but we’re all familiar with Lincoln’s.
When manners change, things get lost. There’s a scene in Henry James’ novella The Spoils of Poynton where a visitor is unwelcome, so the lady of the house does not ask him to sit down, and he stands leaning against the mantle until he is uncomfortable enough that he has to leave.
It’s very funny if you are old enough that your mother taught you not to sit in another person’s house until invited to do so. Otherwise, it’s probably a head-scratcher, especially since The Spoils of Poynton is not a funny book-- it just has some people making very effective digs at one another that are funny.
In regard to Chaplin, I am also one who has never found him either funny in isolation-- that is, in compilations of “best of” moments from many of his films, nor entertaining in general, and I have seen several of his films from start to finish, under various conditions, but I must stress this: at the correct speed. Because, technical stuff, silent films are often shown at a frames-per-second rate that is faster than intended, they look terrible.
That said, I am HUGE fan of silent films in general, something I do not want to discuss, just something I mention to say I have lots of basis of comparison for Chaplin’s films. I have been a silent film aficionado since my teens, and even once wrote a fan letter to Lillian Gish (to which she responded). I have seen all of Gish’s films that are still extant, ditto for Lon Chaney, and the director DW Griffith. I’ve seen most of Mary Pickford’s films. I’ve seen most of Harold Lloyd’s, and Buster Keaton’s, and find them hilarious. I’ve seen a good representation of films from the earliest, such as Georges Méliès films (A Trip to the Moon, e.g.) the Frankenstein starring Charles Ogle, and right through Metropolis, which is one of my favorite films of all time.
So I don’t dislike Chaplin because his films are silent, or black & white, or I’ve seen them only poorly presented, at the wrong speed, using copies in terrible shape. I dislike Chaplin because to me, he isn’t very interesting. I don’t know why. There are lots of popular things and people I have disliked. I could never stand Robin Williams. I hate the movie Forrest Gump.
Chaplin appealed to a lot of people, but no one appeals to everyone. A lot of people are chiming in on a thread that specifically addressed the question of Chaplin. If someone posted a poll, probably the majority of voters would like him.
I still don’t.
I find Chaplin to be a bit like Monty Python. The good bits (and there are many) are amazing and timeless and still make people laugh uproariously today, which often causes us to forget that there was also a lot of material that simply isn’t that funny or interesting anymore.
Harold Lloyd was the highest-paid star of the 1920s silent era of film and one of cinema’s most popular personalities.
Lloyd did not permit his films to be shown on television because he believed that the medium would damage the quality of his films (200+). I respect his decision, but it probably accounts for his being less popular than Chaplin and Keaton today.
But in my book, Harold is #1.
I first discovered Harold Lloyd as a teenager, in the late '70s or early '80s, when our local PBS station ran a series of his shorts.
Looking at his Wikipedia entry, it appears that, after his death in 1971, Time-Life Films got a contract to license his films for TV, and packaged them up into half-hour episodes, which is likely what I’d seen back then. However, it also sounds like Time-Life did some butchering of the films, which is apparently what Lloyd had been afraid of in the first place.
The Wiki article makes it sound like Harold didn’t allow his films to be televised because the networks didn’t meet his $ demand. But, according to his daughter, the real reason was that he didn’t want his product tarnished.
The guy had very high standards. And he did most of his own stuntwork. He lost a thumb because of it.
Here’s a good compilation of some of Lloyd’s stunts.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Harpo Marx and Lucy got the inspiration for their mirror routine from Lloyd’s “The Marathon” (1919).
Well, I suspect the immediate source for the scene was the Mirror Scene in the Marx Brother’s own Duck Soup, where Harpo did it with Groucho
But the Marx brothers might have been inspired originally by Harold Lloyd.
Yes, I should have said The Marathon > Duck Soup > I Love Lucy.
A lot of Lloyd’s brilliance was in the sets and camera work. In the famous clock scene, they use stagecraft to make it look like he’s up high. He is really a couple of feet off of the ground. The one where he is in the cart and crosses as the train just misses him was filmed backwards. The train is really pulling away.
The mirror scene is always talked about as an old vaudeville routine. I’d be surprised if it appeared first in any movie. I put in a question over at The Marx Brothers Council, where experts congregate. I’ll let you know what emerges.
The first appearance in a movie is given to Max Linder, a French comedian, in 1913. There were others before Lloyd as well. Here’s a short clip of silent uses.
Yes, but contemporaneously (sp?) Everett’s speech was the one considered a success.
Men dressed as women was a sure knee slapper up until the 70’s. Also when the, “Take my wife, please.” jokes were popular.
So, you know, we’ve come a long way and I’m proud of us.
Certainly anyone attempting stunts like the “clock scene” IRL, with no “effects” would be insane, or suicidal. But, the Big 3 did do many stunts that were quite dangerous, which no film star today would attempt (nor would the film’s insurance company allow).
The oldest “mirrors” (reflective polished obsidian) in the archaeological record date back to 4000 BCE, so the ancient Greeks may have have done the “mirror routine” in their plays. And it was certainly a vaudeville routine predating film. I was simply surmising that the inspiration for Marx and Ball in particular may have been from Lloyd (or perhaps Chaplin, or Linder) whose films they were most likely familiar with. But, maybe not.
Just as a side note, trick “mirror shots” where they had no actual mirror (but had mirror-image sets on both sides of the frame) have been used for non-comedic purposes in dramatic moviers.
Here it is in Rouben Mamoulian’s great version of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr, Hyde
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Jm59kdak8w0
(I always thought that the Mr. Hyde that Fredric March turns into looks a lot like Jeff Goldblum)
They used it in Terminator 2 for the scenes where they took the mremory chip our of the Terminator’s head (sadly cut from the Theatrical version, but you can see it in the Director’s cut on DVD). They used Linda Hamilton’s sister and a model of Arnold’s head for the scene
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=fYTOK89w8h0
(Damned SD site won’t let me link to the Youtube sites, so I had to break yup the URLs)
It’s not an unreasonable assumption but they would also be very familiar with Vaudeville.
Couldn’t wait for others so I did my own searching.
Some newspaper sleuthing turned up My Friend from India by Henry A. Du Souchet, a farce that debuted in Philadelphia on September 5, 1896. There’s no question that the mirror scene involved two people imitating one another’s movements, because a drawing to that effect appears in the The Salt Lake Herald, 2 Nov 1899, p. 11. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 23 Apr 1897, p. 11, says that “The device is as old as the hills on stage [but] it is not too much to say that the mirror is the chief factor [in the play’s success.]”
The play toured for decades and was made into a 1927 movie. I think it’s safe to say that everyone in the theater world knew about the mirror scene by 1913.
Revivals of the play continue down to the present. Some were taking place when Harpo was on Lucy. No matter how much a Lloyd fan you are, I think that saying Lucy and Harpo were imitating him is a stretch.
A technique that was used pretty much up until greenscreening became standard. It’s used at the end of Carrie (1976).
Albeit, probably the first use of splicing footage in backwards to create a special effect is in the 1910 Frankenstein by Edison studios, where a very elaborate effigy with an endoskeleton, and several layers of sinews and flesh (papier mâché, but masterfully so), is burned, while it is moving a bit, by control of wires-- less masterful, but must have been as shocking to audiences of 1910 as the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park were to me in 1993. Anyway, arms and head flailing, the thing is burned while filmed, and then that footage is spliced in backward, so it appears to form literally out of the air.
Identical twin sister, IIRC.