henry@rochester.UUCP (08/17/85)
From: Henry.Kautz
PEEWEE HERMAN'S BIG ADVENTURE
PeeWee Herman is a classic comic character, a modern-day Buster Keaton
or "Little Tramp". His costume and makeup is, in fact, that of a
silent-movie star. His personality is that of the innocent child, who
none the less is infinitely resouceful (like Chaplin's character), but
pathos is replaced by the manic energy of Bugs Bunny. PeeWee Herman
has appeared on the Tonight Show and MTV; now he has a full-length
movie out, his BIG ADVENTURE. Nominally, the film is about PeeWee's
search for his stolen bicycle. In reality, it is a reworking and
distillation of dozens of old silent comedies (his main enemy in the
movie, by the way, is an imitation of Fatty Arbuckle), classic Warner
Brother cartoons of the 50's, and 60's TV shows, such as Leave it to
Beaver.
So its a movie about movies, and its also a movie about STUFF. What
kinds of STUFF? TOYS, the NEAT STUFF that was advertised in comic
books and Boy's Life, like X-Ray Specs or crystal radio kits, which
were always a bit disappointing when you finally got them, but were
wonderful to dream about. PeeWee is never disappointed; he loves it
all, and refuses to enter the adult world, where we must "put away our
childish things". The central THING in the movie is the Bicycle: it
is the bike you dreamed about on Christmas Eve as a little kid, the
bike that can take you anywhere, at least in your imagination.
PeeWee's imagination is very close to the surface; his dreams -- and
nightmares -- get mixed up with reality. I think that's an important
part of childhood, too.
I won't spoil the movie by telling you the jokes: it's mostly physical
and visual humor (but very little real violence; nothing like the Three
Stooges brand of head-bashing). Besides, none of the bits are new! The
movie does go on too long; even at 90 minutes, it could stand to either
lose about 20 minutes, or pack in some more jokes. (Mel Brook's SILENT
MOVIE suffered on the same account, as I recall.) I enjoyed the movie
a lot. (Many other people there, however, were puzzled and bored. Oh,
well...) Sex 'n violence 'n filthy language? None (ah, too bad).
Take Grandma and the kids...
---- Henry Kautz
:uucp: {seismo|allegra}!rochester!henry
:arpa: henry@rochester
:mail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627
:phone: (716) 275-5766reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/27/85)
Comparing Pee Wee Herman to Chaplin and Keaton is overdoing it more than
a bit. Chaplin and Keaton were incredibly imaginative physical comedians.
Herman has a much more limited repetoire. There isn't a single sequence
in his film which matches up with even second rate Chaplin and Keaton.
There is also the fact that, unlike those comedians, Herman's comic persona
is intentionally grating if one does not have the proper taste to appreciate it.
(I, for one, don't.) I have never heard of anyone being irritated by Keaton's
comic persona, or even Chaplin's. (The irritation with Chaplin usually comes
over his sentimentality.)
For those who haven't seen them, I suggest watching the great silent comedians
(Chaplin, Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Langdon, and Laurel and Hardy; to a lesser
extent, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chase, the films of Mack Sennett, and Mabel
Normand) for yourselves. You will discover why the 1910s and 1920s were the
golden age of screen comedy.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherayers@convexs.UUCP (09/06/85)
>Comparing Pee Wee Herman to Chaplin and Keaton is overdoing it more than >a bit. Chaplin and Keaton were incredibly imaginative physical comedians. >Herman has a much more limited repetoire. There isn't a single sequence >in his film which matches up with even second rate Chaplin and Keaton. Thank you, Peter -- I'm glad someone had the nerve to say it... (Well _I_, for one, don't care!) blues, II
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (09/12/85)
> Comparing Pee Wee Herman to Chaplin and Keaton is overdoing it more than > a bit. Chaplin and Keaton were incredibly imaginative physical comedians. > I have never heard of anyone being irritated by Keaton's > comic persona, or even Chaplin's. (The irritation with Chaplin usually comes > over his sentimentality.) > > For those who haven't seen them, I suggest watching the great silent comedians > (Chaplin, Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Langdon, and Laurel and Hardy; to a lesser > extent, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chase, the films of Mack Sennett, and Mabel > Normand) for yourselves. You will discover why the 1910s and 1920s were the > golden age of screen comedy. > -- > Peter Reiher > reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU > {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher I find Buster Keaton to be far from humorous. As for a comic persona, hav- ing the exact same expression on one's face for an entire film career is over- doing it just a bit. Houses falling over, massive destruction, and hanging from the sides of tall buildings just aren't that funny. Mack Sennet, too, used violence more than humor in his films. You may find pie-fights and banana skins hilarious but to me it seem juvenile and annoying. -- Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die! -- udenva!showard P.S. Just so you Keaton fans don't feel too bad, I should add that I'm the same guy who doesn't like Sherlock Holmes, Shakespeare's Hamlet, or just about anything else that is considered the best in its field.
larsen@utah-gr.UUCP (Mark Larsen) (09/13/85)
Actually, this movie makes any 3 Stooges movie look like high comedy.
I regret to say that I was conned into seeing it. I'll admit to two or
three rye chuckles, but that was it.
-lml
--
-----------
Ma faute! Comment cela? L. Mark Larsen
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|hplabs|seismo}!utah-gr!larsen
ARPA: oper.larsen@utah-20.arpa
USnail: 4602 So. 600 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84107jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (09/22/85)
In article <6683@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes: > ... > For those who haven't seen them, I suggest watching the great silent comedians > (Chaplin, Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Langdon, and Laurel and Hardy; to a lesser > extent, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chase, the films of Mack Sennett, and Mabel > Normand) for yourselves. You will discover why the 1910s and 1920s were the > golden age of screen comedy. I certainly agree. I think Harold Lloyd did much of the funniest visual humor ever. (He must have been a great athlete too, especially as he did a lot of his climbing with only two fingers, due to a stunt accident--look for the scenes where he's wearing gloves). -- Joseph Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla