Sheriff Ben Holden is in love with hotel owner Madge Malarkey when down-and-out carnival man Gabby Gilfoil shows up hoping to take her for some money. Gilfoil is mistaken for the wanted man... See full summary »
Cowardly Elmer Finch is browbeaten by his wife, daughter, fat son and the family dog. After hypnosis he is domineering. He enters a contract with a fifteen-thousand dollar payoff, so his ... See full summary »
Larson E. Whipsnade runs a seedy circus which is perpetually in debt. His performers give him nothing but trouble, especially Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Meanwhile, Whipsnade's son ... See full summary »
Edward F. Cline
A small country on the verge of bankruptcy is persuaded to enter the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics as a means of raising money. Either a masterpiece of absurdity or a triumph of satire, ... See full summary »
The ring master is plotting to get the circus owner done away with in a lion cage so he can take over. World War I intervenes and eventually aids the Allied cause by joining the German army. Written by
Ed Stephan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
A sincere question from a lifelong W.C.Fields fan...
I have spent the past 45 years researching, studying and enjoying the life and professional career of W.C.Fields. It has been and continues to be an all consuming passion of mine. With the exception of the 1926 feature SO'S YOUR OLD MAN I believe I have either acquired or at least seen virtually every bit of extant film in which Fields appeared. I have much of his work in my 16mm film collection as well as the usual VHS and DVD. I believe I have every book ever written about the subject including books not exclusively dedicated to Fields but which include chapters or profiles pertinent to the man. When I was a kid in New York City I spent many an hour at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts trying to find out what I could about Fields' vaudeville career as well as ferreting through ancient editions of "Motion Picture News" and "Motion Picture Herald" in an effort to find contemporaneous reviews of the films. I was a member of the New York tent of the Sons Of The Desert and while this organization is primarily for Laurel and Hardy enthusiasts I was able to network with others (one of whom was Leonard Maltin) and keep myself up to date on the latest events with respect to film preservation and ongoing "new discoveries". I am no longer in N.Y.C. or for that matter in a metropolitan area of any significance or consequence and am thus "out of the loop". I don't even have a computer; this one belonging to my girlfriend. I keep both Ronald Fields' first book about his grandfather as well as James Curtis' excellent biography by my bedside at arm's length. My ardent fervor has neither diminished nor abated after all of these years nor do I imagine it will. O.K.....so what? Who cares?..... What does all of this mean to anyone but this author? It seems to me that news of a "find" of this magnitude would be of landmark importance not only to Fields fans but to the world of film scholarship and study at large. The reviewer who saw this film also claims to have seen at least one other missing W.C.Fields film (HIS LORDSHIP'S DILEMMA) and although he doesn't specifically claim to have seen it, his review of the film FOOLS FOR LUCK strongly suggests that he has. Why then isn't this BIG, BIG NEWS??? To me, finding or claiming to have seen not one but THREE of the films on the mercifully short list of missing Fields films would be a matter of major significance amongst historians irrespective of one's personal feelings about the subject. Clearly Fields does not enjoy the same following today as do Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin. If someone managed to unearth a print of Laurel & Hardy's HATS OFF it would be an extremely noteworthy event.....a REALLY big deal. So too should someone find the Marx Brothers' HUMORISK or Chaplin's HER FRIEND THE BANDIT although in a purely speculative vein BANDIT is probably just another Keystone. If it sounds as though I am either doubting or trying to discredit the reviewer who claims to have seen these films let me say unequivocally that this is not the case. A few years ago I e-mailed and had a brief but extremely pleasant correspondence with this gentleman pursuant to a review he had written of a very rare Edward G. Robinson film which he claims to have seen. When I found his reviews of these Fields films this past summer I hastily e-mailed him with essentially the same concerns I have set forth here. Curiously, this e-mail was not answered. Hmmmm..... I have since learned that the reviewer has written his final review (for METROPOLIS, his favorite film) and that perhaps my query to him regarding these Fields films was made too late. As I mentioned earlier, I have no computer of my own but do check the Fields web sights occasionally. How come none of the other Fields fans worldwide haven't questioned this? Surely, this must have occurred to some of you who are more than just casual admirers or devotees of W.C.Fields. If any of you find this a bit mystifying or perplexing as do I, please let me know. SOMETHING isn't quite right here.....
6 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?