2/10
A commentary on whether Jean Harlow is disrobed, and a meh review.
17 May 2015
Apparently Jean Harlow is in this, but she didn't' stand out to me. After reading about it, I watched the potion back and yes a small piece of her dress appears to come off as part of a gag, but her legs are entirely covered by stockings and without a 4K resolution remaster, there's nothing about her that looks remotely disrobed. Anyone who thinks this is raunchy for 1929 is just plain wrong. There's actual nudity in silent movies. Anything prior to 1934 has a huge chance of being absolutely filthy, the Hays Code put a stop to that from 34-54. My favourite is probably in Buster Keaton's One Week, where the girl is having a bath and you see the line of the top of her breast, but she drops something, and has to reach it outside the bath, so a hand comes over the camera while she does and she smiles this amazing smile that acknowledges the audience. Great stuff.

Back to this though. What did stand out was an Erich von Stroheim pastiche. The Prince is absolutely a Stroheim reference. He's got the monocle, the hair, the outfit from say Foolish Wives.

Sadly I didn't find any of Double Whoopee particularly funny or fun compared to the other shorts I've seen, or say Buster Keaton. So my review is "meh," and a meh comedy is not worth your time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed