The Stage Hand (1933)

Add a Plot »

Director:

Harry Langdon

Writers:

Harry Langdon (story), Eddie Davis (story) (as Edward Davis)

Stars:

Harry Langdon, Marel Foster, Ira Hayward

Cast

Cast overview:
Harry Langdon	...	Harry
Marel Foster
Ira Hayward
Eddie Shubert
Rollin Grimes
Maryen Lynn
Harry Hammill	...	(as Harry Hamill)

Storyline

---

Plot Keywords:

two reeler | 

---

Genres:

Short | Comedy

---

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

8 September 1933 (USA)

Company Credits

Production Co:

Educational Films Corporation of America

Technical Specs

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Victor System)

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

User Reviews

Not bad for Langdon in the 30s, but not at all up to the standards of his silent comedies

This film was made by Harry Langdon for Educational Films--a low-budget studio known for it's cut-rate productions. At this point in his career, Langdon was no longer a star but eked out a living in cheap comedies for a variety of studios (such as Hal Roach, Educational and Columbia--among others). Unfortunately, these films are a far cry from the wonderful shorts Langdon made in the days of silents.

Harry is a stagehand in a local production. However, instead of concentrating on the rehearsal just before the curtain is raised, the janitor takes him aside and shows him his still and insists that Harry have a few drinks. Prohibition was in effect in the US until December, 1933 and it would seem this film came up just before this--when drinking was illegal. Up until its repeal, alcohol was a pretty popular theme in films--so it's not surprising they'd use this in this short comedy. Seeing Harry have a drink and his reaction was pretty funny and it certainly was not surprising to see where the film would go from there--a drunk Harry and his janitor friend would make a mess of the production--though the film lacks a decent resolution and the end of the film is a bit of a jumbled mess.

Compared to other Langdon films of the 30s that survive to this day, this one is decent and is good for a few laughs. However, it just isn't as fresh and clever as his earlier work and if you are expecting genius, this film isn't it. Instead of his sweet child-like persona of the early films, here he relies on cheaper laughs by being a klutz or playing drunk--not exactly subtle, huh?