Merry Christmas all. Now that Thanksgiving is over it is officially the Christmas season and as such I am glad to spend some time writing about some Christmas movies I love. Enjoy.
Because of the success of the duo's first comic operetta The Devil’s Brother (1934), Laurel and Hardy appeared in more comic operettas. The best was probably Babes in Toyland based off of Victor Herbert’s operetta of the same name.
The story centers on Stanley Dum (Stan Laurel) and Ollie Dee (Oliver Hardy), who live with the woman in the shoe (Florence Roberts) and her daughter Little Bopeep (Charlotte Henry). The woman in the shoe can't pay her rent and if she doesn't get the money soon Bopeep will have to marry the evil Barnaby (Henry Brandon), despite Bopeep being in love with Tom-Tom (Felix Night). Stan and Ollie try to do everything they can to help Bopeep, the woman in the shoe and Tom-Tom.
Laurel and Hardy were not the first comedy team to be considered for a movie adaption of Babes in Toyland. The Jolson Musical Theatre Company (Al Jolson was not involved in this company, instead their home theatre was one named after the entertainer) had a stage revival of Victor Herbert's operetta, Babes in Toyland, that ran from December 23, 1929, to January 11, 1930, for 32 performances. This brought about new interest in the property. Radio Pictures (later to become RKO) became interested in making a film version. Variety stated on March 19, 1930, "Radio Pictures has purchased the screen rights to the late Victor Herbert's 'Babes in Toyland.' Price reported at $50,000. Radio has not yet set a date for production." However, Radio Pictures and Herbert's estate did not come to a full agreement until April 9, 1930. This movie would have stared Metropolitan Opera baritone, Everett Marshall and the comedy team of Wheeler and Woosley. The plan of including Wheeler and Woolsey in this film was not a coincidence. They had already starred in two popular musical comedies Rio Rita (1929) and The Cuckoos (1930). Both of these were based off of Broadway hits, and both had been box office smashes. Naturally Babes in Toyland felt like a sure thing. However, musicals were starting to dip in popularity. After the coming of sound movie musicals were something incredibly exciting but as time went on, they started to lose some luster in audiences' eyes. With this Radio Pictures was starting to get cold feet about this expensive and massive production. Something else happened as well. Radio Pictures had released a massive and expensive musical entitled Dixiana (1930). That movie was also a massive box office failure. It would not be long after until the project found itself sitting on a shelf, while Wheeler and Woolsey were assigned smaller scale films with more modest budgets. By 1933 Radio Pictures had become RKO and RKO were the distributors for the films of Walt Disney. Walt brought to his friend, comedy producer, Hal Roach's attention that nothing was being done with Babes and Toyland. Walt suggested to Roach that perhaps RKO would be interested in buying it.
Producer Hal Roach had much different plans for this film in the beginning. He wanted it to feature all the studio's stars, including the Our Gang kids, Thelma Todd and Charley Chase. However no one but Hal Roach seemed to be pleased with the original outline for the film, and it was put on hold. When the idea was picked up again, all the other stars of the Hal Roach studios except Laurel and Hardy would not be in the film anymore. Everyone but Hal Roach became happy with this new film. Hal Roach would still like the original idea better.
Hal Roach would later state, "Why I let Laurel and Hardy go was because of Babes in Toyland. I knew that after Babes in Toyland, I knew that I was through making Laurel and Hardy pictures. At that time it got the point where it was no longer fun, or anything else to me. When I let Laurel and Hardy go, it had nothing to do with money. I said, I didn't want to make any more pictures with them." In truth Laurel and Hardy would continue making movies for Hal Roach through 1939 but the experience of Babes in Toyland, left a bitter taste in his mouth for the rest of his life. This started as a passion project for him and for one of the few times in his career Hal Roach actually wrote the script for a movie. Hal Roach later recalled presenting this new story to Stan Laurel. "I thought Stan was going to go nuts over it. I gave Stan the story when I got home and he said, 'Oh we can't do this.' I said 'Why?' He said, 'Well we can't work without our derby hats. They are our trademark.' I said, 'In the first place they are Chaplin's trademark. You can put a bandana handkerchief on your head, and you'll still be Laurel and Hardy.' We argued for about two weeks. Babes in Toyland was a big property, and I was paying real dough for it. I had worked so hard on this thing, and I was so disgusted in light of this opposition, and I just said 'Enough. I'm out of this thing completely. Go make the picture.' I never paid a bloody bit of attention to what they did, and it was a flop. It didn't even get the cost back. And I know that the story I had written would've gone very well. Could've been one of the biggest pictures in the business."
In 1967 Hal Roach said in an interview, when talking about Stan Laurel, "It was the Chaplin complex. Chaplin has wrecked more comedy careers than booze. No matter who they are - Stan Laurel, Buster Keaton, Fatty Arbuckle, Jaques Tati, yes, and Jerry Lewis - they all begin thinking they can't realize their potential unless they direct themselves as Chaplin did. But the difference is that Chaplin had a backlog of comedy that the others didn't have. The pantomime tradition had started in France, then moved to England where there were hundreds of companies that that dealt in pantomime comedy. Fred Karno had a stable of 40 different acts, out of which came Chaplin and Laurel. Chaplin borrowed all those old comedy routines and he was great - until he ran out of them. His later films show none of that early brilliance." This a strange statement to say the least. First off Hal Roach himself notes that Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel have the same comedy backgrounds and then states that it is Chaplin's comedy background that makes him a superior filmmaker to Stan Laurel. It is also bizarre to mention Buster Keaton as somebody who would be better off not directing himself. Most fans of movie comedy consider Buster to have been just as brilliant of a director as a comedian (some (not me) might even say a superior director). Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, though not as praised for his filmmaking abilities as Chaplin or Keaton, directed many of his best films. Jaques Tati is often praised by cinephiles as one of the finest comedy directors of all time. The only example I would tend to agree with is Jerry Lewis, who I feel become too self-indulgent after becoming his own director. However, Lewis also has his supporters in this area.
Hal Roach would expand on this idea when speaking at the London Hilton in 1987. He would state, "The reason I let Laurel and Hardy go was that Laurel's great ambition was to be another Chaplin. He wanted to do the whole thing. Unfortunately the kinds of pictures he wanted to make were almost childish and I had to be the guy to say, 'this is the kind of picture you are going to make.' This all started when I bought a musical, Babes in Toyland. And after I bought it, I came back on the train, although there were planes flying at the time, in order to write the story, because there was no story for Babes in Toyland.
"All of Stan's friends, no matter what they were doing, Stan claimed that he had written it. We came back and the mistake I made was calling the writers in and telling them this was what they were going to make next. The always had the idea that I talked to Stan, then he gave me the ideas, and I told the writers what to do. Then, because I wrote this one the train and brought the writers in, even Stan didn't know what I was going to talk about.
"I thought I'd brought a great thing and a great thing for them. And Stan was so mad. He said he couldn't do it, because they weren't wearing their derbies. Anyway, we fought for a couple of weeks and finally I said, 'All right, you go and make it yourself' ... so I turned it over to them and they made a very bad picture. It was a bad finish; it made the Parent Teachers Association condemn the picture because of these goons coming out of the woods. and so on. I mean, everything was wrong. I had enough dough that I could say I didn't want to make any more Laurel and Hardy Pictures."
All this brings up the question of what Hal Roach's original ideas for Babes in Toyland were. Luckily, two story treatments were printed in Randy Skervedt's book, March of the Wooden Soldiers: The Amazing Story of Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland. After reading that book, I tend to agree with Stan Laurel and feel that the film that ended up being made was much better than Hal Roach's original conception for the story.
Hal Roach's original story treatments were surprisingly dark and grim affairs. While it is true that fairy tales have always had their dark side, there was always enough light and joy to balance this out. These light and fun elements are surprisingly absent from Roach's original treatment. Even the Laurel and Hardy comedy is darker and more disturbing than actually funny. To make matters worse, Laurel and Hardy were somehow cast as henchmen for the antagonist. The last thing you want from a Laurel and Hardy movie is to actually be rooting against Laurel and Hardy. This grim and unpleasant would-be adaption is not what anyone would want from either a children's fantasy or a Laurel and Hardy comedy.
The first of the story treatments to appear in Randy Skervedt's book is a 13-page document that provides a simple synopsis of the story. It is believed that this was what he had written on the aforementioned train ride. The story starts off charmingly and innocently enough. On Christmas Eve Spanky and Jean Darling (of Our Gang (AKA Little Rascals) fame) are poor orphans longingly staring into the window of a toy store. Jean tells Spanky about Santa Claus but Spanky doubts there is one. Meanwhile Laurel and Hardy are selling pies with little luck, giving to some slapstick incidents. The two run into Spanky and Jean and are sad to learn the two kids have no Christmas cheer. They take the two kids home with them. They then tell the kids that they are the Pieman and Simple Simon (straight out of the Mother Goose story) and are agents of Santa Claus. They tell them all about Mother Goose and Santa Claus. The kids go to bed and dream that Mother Goose comes through the window and tells the kids the story of how "Hate" almost brought disaster to Toyland. Toyland would first have been seen through a big parade of Mother Goose characters. Then the Master Toymaker is introduced. He is despondent believing that toys will no longer satisfy the modern child. What he believes will make toys more valuable to children is to give them souls. He hears about an alchemist named Barnaby, has found the secret to bringing life, which may be a step to the toys getting souls. Barnaby is an evil and nasty man, who is introduced snarling at children. He then tries to romance Miss Muffett, the daughter of Mother Hubbard. He gives her a bouquet of flowers, which she throws out. When her beau Tom-Tom the piper's son comes to visit, he sees the bouquet with a note in it saying, "From your future husband." Tom-Tom gets very jealous and has a quarrel with Miss Muffet and the two part on terrible terms. Barnaby still decides that he must get rid of Tom-Tom. So, her plants one of the three little pigs in Tom-Tom's house. Pignapping is a crime punishable by life imprisonment (as you probably already know). He advises Tom-Tom to run away into the enchanted forest. Miss Muffett knows that the forest is filled with monstrous deadly spiders and heads out into it to find him. Meanwhile Barnaby meets the toymaker and promises to give him what he calls "The Life Essence." However unknown to the toymaker, he has added something evil to the Life Essence. Barnaby then meets Laurel and Hardy (as Simon and the Pieman) and tricks them into helping him. Meanwhile Miss Muffett and Tom-Tom are facing off against various monsters and creepy trials.
Then Laurel and Hardy go to help Barnaby, and this is where this treatment completely falls apart. Hal Roach's treatment describes Barnaby's laboratory as "an awe-inspiring mass of test tubes and boiling cauldrons. Around the walls are various esoteric symbols associated with alchemy and Devil Worship, including the signs of the Zodiac, spiders and goats' heads." Nice, lovely family friendly stuff. He gives Laurel and Hardy two glasses with liquids, one labeled "happiness" and the other "love." He explains that he has put distilled a small vital of "hate" in each of these. They then have some unfunny antics messing around with both of these elements and finding their personalities changing. It is then Stan spots a liquid labeled "hate." For some inexplicable reason Stan seems drawn to this liquid. After taking it, Stan starts acting like a complete jerk causing him to kick Ollie in the bum. Later on, Barnaby brings the toy soldiers to life. The soldiers overpower the Toymaker and almost kill him. The soldiers then rampage through Toyland and Barnaby frames Tom-Tom saying Tom-Tom put the "hate" into the soldiers. Tom-Tom is then sent to the dungeon. Various "comedic" incidents lead to the King of Toyland, Santa Claus himself, to order Laurel and Hardy to execute Tom-Tom!!!!! Wait, what? Santa Claus is ordering an execution. What kind of Santa Claus is this? The robotic Santa from Futurama? Getting back to the story this leads to a whole comedy sequence involving Laurel and Hardy incompetently preparing to behead Tom-Tom!!!!! Yeah, this is the type of comedic routine you want to see in a Laurel and Hardy comedy!!!!!! (note obvious sarcasm) The duo does not feel they will be able to do such a thing so they suggest that perhaps Tom-Tom should kill himself by taking poison!!! Again, this is supposed to be a Laurel and Hardy comedy, right? However, earlier, Miss Muffett had married Barnaby in order to save Tom-Tom's life. Tom-Tom learns of this and decides to kill himself by drinking poisoned wine. Barnaby arrives and it turns out he had no intention to actually save Tom-Tom's life. He decides to drink to Tom-Tom's health only to drink the poisoned wine himself. The toymaker recovers and tells Santa the truth about Barnaby and Tom-Tom's innocence. This leads to a happy ending. The kids wake up and are filled with Christmas joy for some reason after having a dream where Santa Claus orders Laurel and Hardy to kill someone.
The second story treatment seen in Randy Skretvedt's book is 23 pages and has even more disturbing stuff in it. The treatment also features a lengthy comedic sequence in the prologue where a drunk (who would be played by Arthur Housman) wants to feed a horse, Stan and Ollie's pies. This new treatment is quite different in more ways than just this. Santa Claus plays a larger role, and it is he who wants to find souls for the toys. This treatment features a lengthy sequence where Barnaby works on making his evil elixir of "Hate." The treatment states, "The Toymaker ... describes to Barnaby the happiness of little children who will have living toys to play with; toys to cherish and love. Barnaby smirkingly agrees but when the door closes on the toymaker, his demeanor changes to malicious triumph and he shrieks, 'yes, the dear little children will have my toys but not to give them happiness - to give them DEATH and INJURY and TORMENT!" Oddly enough as well as Stan taking the exlir of hate, he also takes an exlir called love and starts to comedically flirt with Ollie. This is something that certainly wouldn't have flown past the censors. This treatment's worst sin is that Laurel and Hardy are fully the bad guys here with nothing sympatric about them. One strange word choice is in this treatment comes from part that states, "The main body ... of soldiers march down the street ... In the menace of their even stride and force of their heavy marching, is the suggestion of violence, murder and rape into the inhabits of Toyland." I really don't want to think about rape entering Toyland. The scene with Laurel and Hardy preparing to behead Tom-Tom is extended and even more gruesome. The ending is borrowed from the play and would feature Barnaby turning into a giant spider and being stoned to death. This is something that might work in a children's play but just feels forced and out of nowhere in a film. The treatment features lengthy sequences where Laurel and Hardy completely disappear from the story and frankly they don't do much to help move the story along. Long parts of this treatment (especially when Barnaby creating the barrel of hate) are also humorless, overlong and excessively dark.
Since, Hal Roach and Walt Disney were friends, Walt allowed him to use the song, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf, from the Disney Silly Symphony short cartoon, The Three Little Pigs. Also, this film featured Mickey Mouse as one of the characters in Toyland. Since this was a live action movie Mickey was achieved by using a monkey in a mouse suit.
On July 17, 1933 Hal Roach wrote Walt Disney, the following letter.
"Dear Walt:
On the idea of using the Three Little Pigs in 'Babes in Toyland,' that I talked to you about the other day, the only thing we would like from you is the right to use the theme music and possibly get the girls who sang the music or a sound track of their voices.
"We would use but a very small part of the music - just enough to introduce them. If the make-up on the children that I mentioned, does not work out satisfactorily, we will use three real little pigs instead.
"Please let me know what you would like to do about this.
"Kindest regards Sincerely Hal Roach."
On July 27th Walt Disney responded.
"Dear Hal:
Answering your letter of July 17th, you have our permission to use the characters and music from The Three Little Pigs in your Laurel and Hardy feature, Babes in Toyland, in the manner you have outlined to me recently.
"However our contract with Irving Berlin Inc. is such that you will have to pay Berlin music royalities for use of any music from The Three Little Pigs. I am sure you will have no trouble in making arragnements with them but if you should, please get in touch with us and we will see that you are taken care of properly.
"Please be assured that we are more than willing to cooperate with you on this and anything that might come up in the future, and this letter is more or less a form which is made necessary because of the many licensee contracs we have already entered into for use of the characters.
"If you would like to use the original girls who did the voices, I would be glad to get them together for you or you many use any piece of the soundtrack, as well as any models of the characters. In other words, with my best regards I am,
Sincerely yours, Walt Disney."
Babes in Toyland was directed by Charles Rodgers and Gus Meins. Nearly all of Charles Rodgers’ directorial credits are Laurel and Hardy films. Gus Meins was one of the main directors of Our Gang films.
The production number for this film was F-5. Hal Roach's originally story was completed in December 1933. A new story and screenplay treatment went into work in June 1934 and the final script was completed by July 28.
Sets and the stop motion sequences were prepared in January 1934. Though shooting was originally meant to start on February 26, due to all the production issues shooting did not actually begin until August 6th. Shooting occurred from August 6th through August 16th, until the production was suspended. Shooting would resume on Sept. 24 and wrap up on October 17th. Editing took place in late October. The film's preview took place on November 9th, and it was finally released on November 30th.
I love how movie theaters used to go to great lengths to promote a film. This can be seen in the following page from a 1934 issue of The Film Daily. If you have any trouble reading it click on the page and use your touch screen to zoom in. If you don't have a touch screen, click here.
Babes in Toyland is very charming on all levels it is very funny, it has a good story, nice musical numbers, and a great atmosphere. The Bogey Land sequence is very atmospheric. The Stan and Ollie characters are just as likable as ever. What makes this film so great is that all the different elements work together perfectly. None of them distract from the others, and they all are done well individually as well. Though the look of this film may be dated (though not much) it is very charming and is a delight to see. Everything comes together perfectly here. The story, music, and humor all come together to create something very special and what is probably the best of the duo’s operettas and one of their greatest feature films.
The following are two exhibitor’s reviews from the Motion Picture Herald (dated February 2, 1935).
“Babes in Toyland: Laurel and Hardy – Played to fair business and all liked it. Good for both children and adults. Played January 11 – Warner McLaughlin, Empire Theatre, Port Henry, N. Y. Small town patronage.”
“Babes in Toyland: Laurel and Hardy – Wonderful. Laurel and Hardy do some fine work and the story is good. Production, cast, story, sound, sets and in fact everything is all that one could ask or except. – S.H. Rich, Rich Theater, Montpeiler, Idaho.”
The following pages come from an issue of Hollywood Low-Down dated January 1, 1935.
Because of the success of the duo's first comic operetta The Devil’s Brother (1934), Laurel and Hardy appeared in more comic operettas. The best was probably Babes in Toyland based off of Victor Herbert’s operetta of the same name.
The story centers on Stanley Dum (Stan Laurel) and Ollie Dee (Oliver Hardy), who live with the woman in the shoe (Florence Roberts) and her daughter Little Bopeep (Charlotte Henry). The woman in the shoe can't pay her rent and if she doesn't get the money soon Bopeep will have to marry the evil Barnaby (Henry Brandon), despite Bopeep being in love with Tom-Tom (Felix Night). Stan and Ollie try to do everything they can to help Bopeep, the woman in the shoe and Tom-Tom.
Laurel and Hardy were not the first comedy team to be considered for a movie adaption of Babes in Toyland. The Jolson Musical Theatre Company (Al Jolson was not involved in this company, instead their home theatre was one named after the entertainer) had a stage revival of Victor Herbert's operetta, Babes in Toyland, that ran from December 23, 1929, to January 11, 1930, for 32 performances. This brought about new interest in the property. Radio Pictures (later to become RKO) became interested in making a film version. Variety stated on March 19, 1930, "Radio Pictures has purchased the screen rights to the late Victor Herbert's 'Babes in Toyland.' Price reported at $50,000. Radio has not yet set a date for production." However, Radio Pictures and Herbert's estate did not come to a full agreement until April 9, 1930. This movie would have stared Metropolitan Opera baritone, Everett Marshall and the comedy team of Wheeler and Woosley. The plan of including Wheeler and Woolsey in this film was not a coincidence. They had already starred in two popular musical comedies Rio Rita (1929) and The Cuckoos (1930). Both of these were based off of Broadway hits, and both had been box office smashes. Naturally Babes in Toyland felt like a sure thing. However, musicals were starting to dip in popularity. After the coming of sound movie musicals were something incredibly exciting but as time went on, they started to lose some luster in audiences' eyes. With this Radio Pictures was starting to get cold feet about this expensive and massive production. Something else happened as well. Radio Pictures had released a massive and expensive musical entitled Dixiana (1930). That movie was also a massive box office failure. It would not be long after until the project found itself sitting on a shelf, while Wheeler and Woolsey were assigned smaller scale films with more modest budgets. By 1933 Radio Pictures had become RKO and RKO were the distributors for the films of Walt Disney. Walt brought to his friend, comedy producer, Hal Roach's attention that nothing was being done with Babes and Toyland. Walt suggested to Roach that perhaps RKO would be interested in buying it.
Producer Hal Roach had much different plans for this film in the beginning. He wanted it to feature all the studio's stars, including the Our Gang kids, Thelma Todd and Charley Chase. However no one but Hal Roach seemed to be pleased with the original outline for the film, and it was put on hold. When the idea was picked up again, all the other stars of the Hal Roach studios except Laurel and Hardy would not be in the film anymore. Everyone but Hal Roach became happy with this new film. Hal Roach would still like the original idea better.
Hal Roach would later state, "Why I let Laurel and Hardy go was because of Babes in Toyland. I knew that after Babes in Toyland, I knew that I was through making Laurel and Hardy pictures. At that time it got the point where it was no longer fun, or anything else to me. When I let Laurel and Hardy go, it had nothing to do with money. I said, I didn't want to make any more pictures with them." In truth Laurel and Hardy would continue making movies for Hal Roach through 1939 but the experience of Babes in Toyland, left a bitter taste in his mouth for the rest of his life. This started as a passion project for him and for one of the few times in his career Hal Roach actually wrote the script for a movie. Hal Roach later recalled presenting this new story to Stan Laurel. "I thought Stan was going to go nuts over it. I gave Stan the story when I got home and he said, 'Oh we can't do this.' I said 'Why?' He said, 'Well we can't work without our derby hats. They are our trademark.' I said, 'In the first place they are Chaplin's trademark. You can put a bandana handkerchief on your head, and you'll still be Laurel and Hardy.' We argued for about two weeks. Babes in Toyland was a big property, and I was paying real dough for it. I had worked so hard on this thing, and I was so disgusted in light of this opposition, and I just said 'Enough. I'm out of this thing completely. Go make the picture.' I never paid a bloody bit of attention to what they did, and it was a flop. It didn't even get the cost back. And I know that the story I had written would've gone very well. Could've been one of the biggest pictures in the business."
In 1967 Hal Roach said in an interview, when talking about Stan Laurel, "It was the Chaplin complex. Chaplin has wrecked more comedy careers than booze. No matter who they are - Stan Laurel, Buster Keaton, Fatty Arbuckle, Jaques Tati, yes, and Jerry Lewis - they all begin thinking they can't realize their potential unless they direct themselves as Chaplin did. But the difference is that Chaplin had a backlog of comedy that the others didn't have. The pantomime tradition had started in France, then moved to England where there were hundreds of companies that that dealt in pantomime comedy. Fred Karno had a stable of 40 different acts, out of which came Chaplin and Laurel. Chaplin borrowed all those old comedy routines and he was great - until he ran out of them. His later films show none of that early brilliance." This a strange statement to say the least. First off Hal Roach himself notes that Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel have the same comedy backgrounds and then states that it is Chaplin's comedy background that makes him a superior filmmaker to Stan Laurel. It is also bizarre to mention Buster Keaton as somebody who would be better off not directing himself. Most fans of movie comedy consider Buster to have been just as brilliant of a director as a comedian (some (not me) might even say a superior director). Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, though not as praised for his filmmaking abilities as Chaplin or Keaton, directed many of his best films. Jaques Tati is often praised by cinephiles as one of the finest comedy directors of all time. The only example I would tend to agree with is Jerry Lewis, who I feel become too self-indulgent after becoming his own director. However, Lewis also has his supporters in this area.
Hal Roach would expand on this idea when speaking at the London Hilton in 1987. He would state, "The reason I let Laurel and Hardy go was that Laurel's great ambition was to be another Chaplin. He wanted to do the whole thing. Unfortunately the kinds of pictures he wanted to make were almost childish and I had to be the guy to say, 'this is the kind of picture you are going to make.' This all started when I bought a musical, Babes in Toyland. And after I bought it, I came back on the train, although there were planes flying at the time, in order to write the story, because there was no story for Babes in Toyland.
"All of Stan's friends, no matter what they were doing, Stan claimed that he had written it. We came back and the mistake I made was calling the writers in and telling them this was what they were going to make next. The always had the idea that I talked to Stan, then he gave me the ideas, and I told the writers what to do. Then, because I wrote this one the train and brought the writers in, even Stan didn't know what I was going to talk about.
"I thought I'd brought a great thing and a great thing for them. And Stan was so mad. He said he couldn't do it, because they weren't wearing their derbies. Anyway, we fought for a couple of weeks and finally I said, 'All right, you go and make it yourself' ... so I turned it over to them and they made a very bad picture. It was a bad finish; it made the Parent Teachers Association condemn the picture because of these goons coming out of the woods. and so on. I mean, everything was wrong. I had enough dough that I could say I didn't want to make any more Laurel and Hardy Pictures."
All this brings up the question of what Hal Roach's original ideas for Babes in Toyland were. Luckily, two story treatments were printed in Randy Skervedt's book, March of the Wooden Soldiers: The Amazing Story of Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland. After reading that book, I tend to agree with Stan Laurel and feel that the film that ended up being made was much better than Hal Roach's original conception for the story.
Hal Roach's original story treatments were surprisingly dark and grim affairs. While it is true that fairy tales have always had their dark side, there was always enough light and joy to balance this out. These light and fun elements are surprisingly absent from Roach's original treatment. Even the Laurel and Hardy comedy is darker and more disturbing than actually funny. To make matters worse, Laurel and Hardy were somehow cast as henchmen for the antagonist. The last thing you want from a Laurel and Hardy movie is to actually be rooting against Laurel and Hardy. This grim and unpleasant would-be adaption is not what anyone would want from either a children's fantasy or a Laurel and Hardy comedy.
The first of the story treatments to appear in Randy Skervedt's book is a 13-page document that provides a simple synopsis of the story. It is believed that this was what he had written on the aforementioned train ride. The story starts off charmingly and innocently enough. On Christmas Eve Spanky and Jean Darling (of Our Gang (AKA Little Rascals) fame) are poor orphans longingly staring into the window of a toy store. Jean tells Spanky about Santa Claus but Spanky doubts there is one. Meanwhile Laurel and Hardy are selling pies with little luck, giving to some slapstick incidents. The two run into Spanky and Jean and are sad to learn the two kids have no Christmas cheer. They take the two kids home with them. They then tell the kids that they are the Pieman and Simple Simon (straight out of the Mother Goose story) and are agents of Santa Claus. They tell them all about Mother Goose and Santa Claus. The kids go to bed and dream that Mother Goose comes through the window and tells the kids the story of how "Hate" almost brought disaster to Toyland. Toyland would first have been seen through a big parade of Mother Goose characters. Then the Master Toymaker is introduced. He is despondent believing that toys will no longer satisfy the modern child. What he believes will make toys more valuable to children is to give them souls. He hears about an alchemist named Barnaby, has found the secret to bringing life, which may be a step to the toys getting souls. Barnaby is an evil and nasty man, who is introduced snarling at children. He then tries to romance Miss Muffett, the daughter of Mother Hubbard. He gives her a bouquet of flowers, which she throws out. When her beau Tom-Tom the piper's son comes to visit, he sees the bouquet with a note in it saying, "From your future husband." Tom-Tom gets very jealous and has a quarrel with Miss Muffet and the two part on terrible terms. Barnaby still decides that he must get rid of Tom-Tom. So, her plants one of the three little pigs in Tom-Tom's house. Pignapping is a crime punishable by life imprisonment (as you probably already know). He advises Tom-Tom to run away into the enchanted forest. Miss Muffett knows that the forest is filled with monstrous deadly spiders and heads out into it to find him. Meanwhile Barnaby meets the toymaker and promises to give him what he calls "The Life Essence." However unknown to the toymaker, he has added something evil to the Life Essence. Barnaby then meets Laurel and Hardy (as Simon and the Pieman) and tricks them into helping him. Meanwhile Miss Muffett and Tom-Tom are facing off against various monsters and creepy trials.
Then Laurel and Hardy go to help Barnaby, and this is where this treatment completely falls apart. Hal Roach's treatment describes Barnaby's laboratory as "an awe-inspiring mass of test tubes and boiling cauldrons. Around the walls are various esoteric symbols associated with alchemy and Devil Worship, including the signs of the Zodiac, spiders and goats' heads." Nice, lovely family friendly stuff. He gives Laurel and Hardy two glasses with liquids, one labeled "happiness" and the other "love." He explains that he has put distilled a small vital of "hate" in each of these. They then have some unfunny antics messing around with both of these elements and finding their personalities changing. It is then Stan spots a liquid labeled "hate." For some inexplicable reason Stan seems drawn to this liquid. After taking it, Stan starts acting like a complete jerk causing him to kick Ollie in the bum. Later on, Barnaby brings the toy soldiers to life. The soldiers overpower the Toymaker and almost kill him. The soldiers then rampage through Toyland and Barnaby frames Tom-Tom saying Tom-Tom put the "hate" into the soldiers. Tom-Tom is then sent to the dungeon. Various "comedic" incidents lead to the King of Toyland, Santa Claus himself, to order Laurel and Hardy to execute Tom-Tom!!!!! Wait, what? Santa Claus is ordering an execution. What kind of Santa Claus is this? The robotic Santa from Futurama? Getting back to the story this leads to a whole comedy sequence involving Laurel and Hardy incompetently preparing to behead Tom-Tom!!!!! Yeah, this is the type of comedic routine you want to see in a Laurel and Hardy comedy!!!!!! (note obvious sarcasm) The duo does not feel they will be able to do such a thing so they suggest that perhaps Tom-Tom should kill himself by taking poison!!! Again, this is supposed to be a Laurel and Hardy comedy, right? However, earlier, Miss Muffett had married Barnaby in order to save Tom-Tom's life. Tom-Tom learns of this and decides to kill himself by drinking poisoned wine. Barnaby arrives and it turns out he had no intention to actually save Tom-Tom's life. He decides to drink to Tom-Tom's health only to drink the poisoned wine himself. The toymaker recovers and tells Santa the truth about Barnaby and Tom-Tom's innocence. This leads to a happy ending. The kids wake up and are filled with Christmas joy for some reason after having a dream where Santa Claus orders Laurel and Hardy to kill someone.
The second story treatment seen in Randy Skretvedt's book is 23 pages and has even more disturbing stuff in it. The treatment also features a lengthy comedic sequence in the prologue where a drunk (who would be played by Arthur Housman) wants to feed a horse, Stan and Ollie's pies. This new treatment is quite different in more ways than just this. Santa Claus plays a larger role, and it is he who wants to find souls for the toys. This treatment features a lengthy sequence where Barnaby works on making his evil elixir of "Hate." The treatment states, "The Toymaker ... describes to Barnaby the happiness of little children who will have living toys to play with; toys to cherish and love. Barnaby smirkingly agrees but when the door closes on the toymaker, his demeanor changes to malicious triumph and he shrieks, 'yes, the dear little children will have my toys but not to give them happiness - to give them DEATH and INJURY and TORMENT!" Oddly enough as well as Stan taking the exlir of hate, he also takes an exlir called love and starts to comedically flirt with Ollie. This is something that certainly wouldn't have flown past the censors. This treatment's worst sin is that Laurel and Hardy are fully the bad guys here with nothing sympatric about them. One strange word choice is in this treatment comes from part that states, "The main body ... of soldiers march down the street ... In the menace of their even stride and force of their heavy marching, is the suggestion of violence, murder and rape into the inhabits of Toyland." I really don't want to think about rape entering Toyland. The scene with Laurel and Hardy preparing to behead Tom-Tom is extended and even more gruesome. The ending is borrowed from the play and would feature Barnaby turning into a giant spider and being stoned to death. This is something that might work in a children's play but just feels forced and out of nowhere in a film. The treatment features lengthy sequences where Laurel and Hardy completely disappear from the story and frankly they don't do much to help move the story along. Long parts of this treatment (especially when Barnaby creating the barrel of hate) are also humorless, overlong and excessively dark.
Since, Hal Roach and Walt Disney were friends, Walt allowed him to use the song, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf, from the Disney Silly Symphony short cartoon, The Three Little Pigs. Also, this film featured Mickey Mouse as one of the characters in Toyland. Since this was a live action movie Mickey was achieved by using a monkey in a mouse suit.
On July 17, 1933 Hal Roach wrote Walt Disney, the following letter.
"Dear Walt:
On the idea of using the Three Little Pigs in 'Babes in Toyland,' that I talked to you about the other day, the only thing we would like from you is the right to use the theme music and possibly get the girls who sang the music or a sound track of their voices.
"We would use but a very small part of the music - just enough to introduce them. If the make-up on the children that I mentioned, does not work out satisfactorily, we will use three real little pigs instead.
"Please let me know what you would like to do about this.
"Kindest regards Sincerely Hal Roach."
On July 27th Walt Disney responded.
"Dear Hal:
Answering your letter of July 17th, you have our permission to use the characters and music from The Three Little Pigs in your Laurel and Hardy feature, Babes in Toyland, in the manner you have outlined to me recently.
"However our contract with Irving Berlin Inc. is such that you will have to pay Berlin music royalities for use of any music from The Three Little Pigs. I am sure you will have no trouble in making arragnements with them but if you should, please get in touch with us and we will see that you are taken care of properly.
"Please be assured that we are more than willing to cooperate with you on this and anything that might come up in the future, and this letter is more or less a form which is made necessary because of the many licensee contracs we have already entered into for use of the characters.
"If you would like to use the original girls who did the voices, I would be glad to get them together for you or you many use any piece of the soundtrack, as well as any models of the characters. In other words, with my best regards I am,
Sincerely yours, Walt Disney."
 |
| The Philadelphia Exhibitor, 1934 |
Babes in Toyland was directed by Charles Rodgers and Gus Meins. Nearly all of Charles Rodgers’ directorial credits are Laurel and Hardy films. Gus Meins was one of the main directors of Our Gang films.
The production number for this film was F-5. Hal Roach's originally story was completed in December 1933. A new story and screenplay treatment went into work in June 1934 and the final script was completed by July 28.
Sets and the stop motion sequences were prepared in January 1934. Though shooting was originally meant to start on February 26, due to all the production issues shooting did not actually begin until August 6th. Shooting occurred from August 6th through August 16th, until the production was suspended. Shooting would resume on Sept. 24 and wrap up on October 17th. Editing took place in late October. The film's preview took place on November 9th, and it was finally released on November 30th.
I love how movie theaters used to go to great lengths to promote a film. This can be seen in the following page from a 1934 issue of The Film Daily. If you have any trouble reading it click on the page and use your touch screen to zoom in. If you don't have a touch screen, click here.
Babes in Toyland is very charming on all levels it is very funny, it has a good story, nice musical numbers, and a great atmosphere. The Bogey Land sequence is very atmospheric. The Stan and Ollie characters are just as likable as ever. What makes this film so great is that all the different elements work together perfectly. None of them distract from the others, and they all are done well individually as well. Though the look of this film may be dated (though not much) it is very charming and is a delight to see. Everything comes together perfectly here. The story, music, and humor all come together to create something very special and what is probably the best of the duo’s operettas and one of their greatest feature films.
The following are two exhibitor’s reviews from the Motion Picture Herald (dated February 2, 1935).
“Babes in Toyland: Laurel and Hardy – Played to fair business and all liked it. Good for both children and adults. Played January 11 – Warner McLaughlin, Empire Theatre, Port Henry, N. Y. Small town patronage.”
“Babes in Toyland: Laurel and Hardy – Wonderful. Laurel and Hardy do some fine work and the story is good. Production, cast, story, sound, sets and in fact everything is all that one could ask or except. – S.H. Rich, Rich Theater, Montpeiler, Idaho.”
The following pages come from an issue of Hollywood Low-Down dated January 1, 1935.
Resources Used
Laurel and Hardy: The Magic Behind the Movies by Randy Skredvedt
March of the Wooden Soldiers: The Amazing Story of Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland by Randy Skredvedt
March of the Wooden Soldiers: The Amazing Story of Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland by Randy Skredvedt
No comments:
Post a Comment