Before the Mustache There Was 'Love in Armor'

Love in Armor (1915)
Starring: Mae Busch, Charley Chase, Fritz Schade, Frank Oppermann, Billie Bennett, William Hauber, and Bert Hunn
Directors: Nick Cogley, Francis J. Grandon, Frank Griffin and Mack Sennett
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A conman (Schade) snakes his way into the good graces of a young woman's wealthy parents (Bennett and Oppermann) - but he comes to regret his life's choices when he gets between her (Busch) and her true love (Chase).

I really wanted to like "Love in Armor" more than I do. It has some really cute moments in it, a handful of funny gags, and I don't recall seeing a film with Charley Chase or Mae Busch in which they weren't good. But, despite the presence of these good bits, the bulk of the film borders on tedious. 

As could be expected, the best parts of this film are scenes involving Busch, Chase, or both of them. Busch's parents don't approve of Chase seeing her, so the would-be young couple have to sneak off into the bushes which leads to cute bit of mildly sexy physical humor where Busch is unable to pull down her skirt because it's caught on a branch is a good example of this. Another is where Chase, hidden in a suit of armor, puts the film's villains in their place and ultimately gets the girl with pranks and straight-up violence. There is also a running gag involving the world's most inept and clumsy butler.

But each of these fun parts is either preceded or followed by sequences and gags that are either so poorly motivated or ineptly staged that they never quite reach their potential, or are dragged out to the point where they stop being funny. A sequence where successive characters end up sitting on a cactus embodies all these problems. It's got all sorts of potential--that it almost reaches when Busch and Frank Opperman (as her father) end up with their butts prickled--but its set-up is so weak it taints the entire bit, and it is allowed to go on just a little too long. Meanwhile, the film's climax is a tangled mess of slapstick that's so badly executed and so repeptative that I thought perhaps there was some bad editing in copy I watched and the same moment got repeated twice.

Sloppy writing (or perhaps direction) also hurts the film a bit. There is a great moment between Chase and Busch when he makes it known to her that he is hiding in the suit of armor; it's my favorite part of the whole movie. However, this revelation happens within full view and earshot of Busch's mother who remains oblivious to her daugher's weird interaction with a suit of armor.

Despite my complaining above, "Love in Armor" is entertaining and it's 13-minute runtime speeds by. If you're a fan of Mae Busch or Charley Chase, you'll definitely enjoy yourself. You may find yourself wishing Chase got a little more screen-time, but at least you'll get to see what he looked like before the mustache!

And guess what? You can watch it right here, right now! Just click on the arrow below to start the video!

'Cheating Blondes' can safely be avoided

Cheating Blondes (aka "Girls in Trouble") (1933)
Starring: Thelma Todd, Ralf Harolde, Milton Wallis, Gilbert Frayle, Inez Courtney, Dorothy Gulliver, Mae Busch, and Brooks Benedict
Director: Joseph Levering
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

After her would-be rapist is shot, Anne Merrick (Todd) assumes the identity of her missing twin sister, Elaine (also Todd), to avoid being charged with murder. Meanwhile, her rejected newspaper reporter would-be husband (Harolde) is devoting every waking moment to see her captured, tried, and executed.

"Cheating Blondes" has some interesting issues at its core--domestic abuse and the problems that arise in society when women are treated as if they have less value than men. There is literally not a male character in the film who doesn't view women as things that are to be counted among their possessions, or treated as commodities, and there isn't a female character who doesn't suffer in some way because of it. There's also a hint of a murder mystery in the film... and it may have been more than a hint, or less of a mystery, if I'd been able to watch the entire film.

Unfortunately, there is a complete reel missing in the copy that's available on DVD, and it's a chunk of the film that contains a whole lot of plot that explains how Anne made contact with her sister's agent Mike Goldfish (Milton Wallis) and personal trainer Polly (Inez Courtney) and assumed her sister's identity with their knowledge and blessing; explains the connection between the agent and sister Elaine's weathy admirer Gilbert Frayle (Earl McCarthy); establishing a mystery around who actually shot the wife-beating, would-be rapist (Brooks Benedict); and further expands on the evidence that Ralf Harolde's reporter character is an absolute prick.

At least I assume that all those things happen in the 12 or so missing minutes, because, if they don't, then this is one of most disjointed, badly developed films of all time. There might even be something in there to make the title make sense, because right now, this film has a distinct lack of "cheating blondes". (In all seriousness, SOME or all of things must have been covered, because even the worst screenwriter and director in the world would have set up the developments that happen later in the film to at least a small degree, instead of having them drop on the confused viewer.)

That missing chunck of the film--a very key chunk--makes it hard to evaluate this film, because I really can't be sure to what degree my assumptions are right or wrong. For example, while watching the film, I was convinced that the manager had murdered Anne's sister, Elaine, because she was dropping him as an agent, but this turns out to be wrong assumption. Likewise, I suspect Mae Busch's and Ralf Harolde's character's got more development, because their behavior in the second half of the film seems like it needed more set-up than what is here. The same is true of some of the film's ending. Depending on what was in that missing piece, my rating could be one Star higher or lower... but I doubt I'll ever know what I missed.

While what there is here gets off to a slightly shakey start--Thelma Todd is quite terrible in the scene she has with Dorothy Gulliver, lending more credence to my theory that her performance is greatly impacted by whom she's playing off--but it quickly picks up, as everyone else is pretty decent. Even Todd is better in her later scenes, including one with Gulliver, so the movie is worth sticking with. Evenmoreso, this is an interesting bit of film due to its very stark treatment of sexism and misogny. Sexism, and even spousal abuse, is something that's just part of the fabric of life in many of these films from 1930s--because it probably was just a part of the fabric of life--but in "Cheating Blondes", treating women like objects or somehow lesser people is very much presented as a negative: It gets one characer killed and it literally ruins an otherwise successful career of another character. Meanwhile, the male character who recognizes that his presumptious and demanding behavior toward Todd's character Anne is unreasonable and uncivilized, and apologizes for and corrects his behavior, gets to enjoy a happy ending.

"Cheating Blondes" is available on DVD with "Cheers of the Crowd", a movie that isn't missing any pieces, but which also isn't all that good. If "Cheating Blondes" does sound interesting to you, I recommend you view it at one of several free online sources.

'Chickens Come Home' is top Laurel & Hardy

Chickens Come Home (1931)
Starring: Oliver Hardy, Stan Laurel, Mae Busch, Thelma Todd, James Finlayson, Norma Drew, and Patsy O'Byrne
Director: James W. Horne
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

When Oliver (Hardy) becomes a candidate for Mayor, an old lover (Busch) resurfaces to blackmail him with a compromising photo. Oliver refuses to pay her off, so his campaign manager (Laurel) tries to neutralize her through other means... which go horribly awry.

You can file this one under "timeless classics", because the storyline of "Chickens Come  Home" is funnier, yet feels just as topical, as whatever the most recent "edgy" and heavy-handed political skit  you might see on late-night television. I would love to see some enterprising filmmaker do a remake of this film with only some minor updates to bring it into modern times, but otherwise keep it as it is--even to the point where the performers' characters are named after them. Given the strong parallels there are between the events of this film and a certain situation with a stripper, a US presidential candidate, and his shady attorney, I think it would be add a lot to the fun of to the film to see the reaction of the obsessed and mentally deficient on both sides of the political spectrum.

As for the film, it's one of the best with Laurel & Hardy that I've seen. Both headliners get to play to their strengths and each major supporting cast member gets their turn at being funny, too. Hardy in particular gets to shine in this film. He has the best material to work with, and he plays nicely off Thelma Todd, who plays Hardy's wife with lots of charm and confused stares. In fact, this film would have been even stronger if Stan Laurel and Mae Busch's roles had been reduced mostly to the scenes they already share with Hardy; while the bit where Stan tries to keep Mae in her apartment is funny, I kept wanting to go back to the Hardy household. It's not that the scene was bad, it's just that the real story was unfolding elsewhere, and I the detour was not welcome.

Everything about this film is very funny. From the business our politically ambitious heroes--they manufacture fertilizer--through their last-ditch effort to hide their attempts to hide their efforts to attempt to hide Hardy's old relationship from their wives, every bit is perfectly performed by the highly talented cast. The one complaint I have about the film basically boils down to one sequence not being as good as the rest of the film (not to mention a little predictable)... so that's a weak complaint indeed.

Trivia: "Chickens Come Home" is a remake of a 1927 silent movie titled "Love 'Em and Weep." Many of the same cast members are featured in both films, with Stan Laurel and Mae Busch playing mostly the same roles, but Oliver Hardy had a bit part in the first version while James Finlayson was the one subjected to the blackmail, where here Hardy has the major role and Finlayson is a bit player.

'Sucker Money' shows dark side of psychics

Sucker Money (1933)
Starring: Earl McCarthy, Mischa Auer, Phyllis Barrington and Mae Busch
Directors: Dorothy Davenport and Melville Shyer
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When Jimmy (McCarthy), an actor-turned-newspaper reporter, infiltrates a group of confidence artists who are running an elaborate phony psychic operation, he gets more than just the material for a great expose: He finds romance in the form of beautiful Ms. Walton (Barrington), one of the targets of the bad guys, and he finds danger at the hands of the murderous leader of the gang, Swami Yomurda (Auer) when his cover is blown.

"Sucker Money" is a fine, fast-paced little reporter-saves-the-day-and-the-girl and self-declared "expose" film of the phony psychic racket (which, given the number of movies that were made with this theme during the 1930s and 1940s, I can only assume was quite widespread). The set-up is a bit weak--a criminal enterprise as elaborate and organized as the one presented in this film wouldn't turn to the want ads when it came to hiring new help--but that bit of nonsense aside, the film is engaging, well-acted, and well-filmed... even if it feels and looks a bit too much like a silent movie at times. (There's also the minor issue with the reporter wearing more lipstick and eyeliner than any of the women characters in the film when he's in his "acting mode". Perhaps that's to remind the audience that he's a ACTOR? Or maybe that was part of his disguise--"if they think I'm one of THOSE actors, the women won't come onto handsome ole me, and I'll get my story quicker"?

The weaknesses of the film are more than made up for by the evil Swami Yomurda (whose name is never said in the film, thank God.) Auer portrays a truly sinister and evil character, with strongly scripted actions to support him. He may be a fake psychic, but he has Svengali-like hypnotic powers, and he has no compulsion about ordering those under them to dispatch themselves by drinking poison. He does just this in the film's most startling scene. The scene alone makes the film worth watching, although the strong climax also makes it well worth your time, if you're a lover of old-fashioned crime dramas.




(Trivia: This is the second movie in which Mischa Auer played a crooked spiritualist named "Sawmi Yomurda." The first was 1932's "Sinister Hands," in which is also co-starred with Phyllis Barrington (her character in that film was a different one, however).