Review: Go West
Chico and Harpo
venture west and hook up with con man Groucho, despite the latter previously
having been duped at the train station by the former two (even though he
initially set out to con them-
confused?). Together they get caught up in a land claim struggle over a place
called Dead Man’s Gulch. Chico and Harpo acquire the land deed fair and square,
but scheming John Beecher (Walter Woolf King) and Red Baxter (Robert Barrat)
have nefarious plans to grab it for themselves. John Carroll plays the grandson
of the old prospector who gave the land deed to Harpo and Chico, with Diana
Lewis playing his intended.
Even Marx
Brothers fans usually concede that this 1940 film from director Edward Buzzell (the
previous “At the Circus”, which was at least not awful) is a dud, and
boy is it ever. The second worst of the five Marx Brothers films I’ve seen by
far, it’s boring, unfunny, and as has been consistently the case, the humour is
counter-productive to getting into the story. Once again, Groucho isn’t so much
a comedic actor as he is a smart-arse sideline commentator who just so happens
to also be the main star playing the main character. Given that Groucho himself
is a character being played by the real-life Julius Henry Marx, it feels even
more like a put-on. Whilst Chico and Harpo have a purpose for travelling west
here, I swear Groucho has absolutely no character in this film at all. He’s
just Groucho and there he is…because stuff. And whilst I know the characters
they play are coming from the East, I still think it’s ridiculous that Chico
keeps his ‘a-pizza-pie, mamma mia! Spaghetti-O!’ green grocer accent in this.
He’s not meant to be from East Italy, for chrissakes.
At some point,
even in a comedy, there needs to be some kind of reality, even if it’s only
within the confines of the film’s fictional world that has been set up. The
Marx Brothers, at least in the five films I’ve seen of theirs, don’t give a
shit about any of that, and neither the director nor screenwriter Irving
Brecher (“At the Circus”, “Meet Me in St. Louis”) help much,
either. It’s not just Groucho, though, Harpo and Chico are also so bad here
that they might as well be in a TV comedy sketch with a fake western background
(And indeed, the backgrounds here do look fake). At least Chaplin and Keaton
made ‘real’ movies. This is amateurish and not remotely concerned with being an
actual movie. Sure, we get a railroad being built, something called Dead Man’s
Gulch (Is that where Stinky Pete lives?), and a Hatfield-McCoy style feud
getting in the way of young (middle-aged, really) love, but those are the
oldest clichés in a genre full of seriously old clichés. It’s really just a gag
reel though, and sadly the gags suck, I doubt Buster Keaton (who worked on the
screenplay, in terms of the gags) had all that much input to be honest. The
train-bound finale has a bit of a Keaton vibe to it, but certainly isn’t
anywhere near as clever as the usual Keaton standard (It ain’t “The General”,
that’s for damn sure). We get an eye-rolling gag where Groucho is trying to
make money off of the other two, that is really just a replay of the awful
gambling routine in “A Day at the Races”, but with Groucho switching
places with Chico this time, and not being as successful at the duping as Chico
was in the earlier film. For the most part, this is just a bunch of so-called
comedians acting too cool for the room (something that perhaps won’t annoy
fans, I concede), and the room is the movie itself. Add to that far too many
musical interludes with a songstress (an unfortunate June MacCloy) who sounds
distressingly masculine and can’t effing sing, and you’ve got yourself one
helluva bad time.
Clichéd,
catastrophically flippant, this was almost unendurably bad for me. With all the
schticky moments and musical interludes (all of which are pretty rank), there’s
practically no room for plot and character. What plot and character we do get
is ancient, even for the period, and The Marx’s just act above it all anyway.
Terrible, though as always with comedy, your tastes may wildly differ.
Rating: D
Comments
Post a Comment