by Samuel Wilson
The Man Nobody Knows, one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the 1920s, described Jesus Christ as the ultimate salesman. That idea may have been floating in the mind of Hal Roach’s title writer H. M. Walker when he introduced Big Business as “the story of a man who turned the other cheek, and got punched in the nose.” But who is the man? Is it Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy or their antagonist James Finlayson? Which of them turns the other cheek? This is Big Business, after all – arguably Laurel and Hardy’s best-remembered silent comedy and a definitive example of the team’s “tit for tat” trope. “Tit for tat” is the opposite of turning the other cheek, it would seem, so what’s Walker trying to say?
Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy are trying to sell Christmas trees in California, a proposition that seemed more ludicrous in 1929 than it may today. Finlayson is their third stop of the day, after an embarrassing but uneventful encounter with a single woman and a confrontation with a hammer-wielding but otherwise unseen homeowner. Finlayson gives them another flat no, and that’d be the end of that, except that the boys’ sample tree gets stuck in his door. This happens twice but things might still have ended peacefully had Stan not gotten a “big business idea,” rung Finlayson’s doorbell yet again and asked whether he’d reserve a tree for next year. The title of the picture has been invoked, so maybe Stan’s the man the title writer means. Maybe turning the other cheek means not taking no for an answer. That’s the way of a salesman, and that might be a kind of martyrdom, depending on your point of view. Attention will be paid to such men.
Finlayson escalates things by taking his hedge clipper to Stan’s tree. No play-by-play for the rest is necessary, except to summarize the absurdity of it. Stan and Ollie avenge their trees by wrecking Finlayson’s doorway; Finn avenges his doorbell by wrecking the boys’ car; they avenge the car by wrecking Finn’s house. At no point does either party try to stop the other from doing its damage. Each side is content to watch the other at work and then make reprisals. It’s not as if they dare each other, but a matter of each letting the other take his turn. While all three grow more frantic as the struggle escalates – the indelible image is of Finlayson wrestling on the sidewalk with a Christmas tree, in a struggle you can imagine him losing – they retain an almost instinctual sense of order.
The combatants rarely strike each other, preferring to hit each other where they live. While Stan and Ollie target Finlayson’s property, Finn targets the boys’ livelihood: their car and their inventory. Maybe their battle isn’t so absurd, after all. Big Business portrays a civil war of the bourgeoisie, the irrepressible conflict of the drive to sell and the desire to be left alone, the sanctity of commerce versus the sanctity of property. The first casualty is privacy, but the loss is hardly noticed. The fight becomes a spectacle, drawing an audience of Finlayson’s neighbors, none of whom make an effort to stop the destruction. Even the inevitable cop is content to remain a scorekeeping spectator until Stan accidentally injures him. The mayhem seems to be something that everyone, even the participants, wants to see happen. Maybe it’s impossible for spectators to take sides when the bourgeoisie turns against itself. Maybe, like an apologetic mafioso, they see it all as “just business.” Or maybe they’ve been desensitized from watching too many slapstick comedies. Why wouldn’t it look as funny to them as it does to us?
So maybe Big Business isn’t an imitation of Christ, but it is a divine comedy. James W. Horne directed it, overshadowed on either side by “supervising director” Leo McCarey and cameraman George Stevens. It’s a Hal Roach picture, exemplifying the producer’s character-driven, reaction-shot oriented approach to slapstick that raised his studio above Mack Sennett’s in the long war of fun factories. Laurel and Hardy took the Roach style to its highest, funniest level. Big Business is not quite their best work, but it’s still one of the best comedy shorts of the silent era.
How Big Business made the Top 100:
Bobby J. No. 9
Allan Fish No. 13
Samuel Wilson No. 31
John Greco No. 35
Sam Juliano No. 52
Jon Warner No. 55
Peter M. No. 57
Bobby McCartney No. 59
Jamie Uhler No. 60
Big Business portrays a civil war of the bourgeoisie, the irrepressible conflict of the drive to sell and the desire to be left alone, the sanctity of commerce versus the sanctity of property.
Great to have the writing debut of one of our best friends and finest writers – and a silent era scholar at that! I have known of your reverence for this iconic duo as well, based on other reviews of their work at MONDO 70. I had first seen this as part of a golden age documentary film that includes some highlights, and had immediately embraced it as one of my favorites well over four decades ago. As you note Samuel, the deceit of having Stan and Ollie and James Finlayson (a beloved foil in other films of the era) stand by and watch each other destroy their property is a hoot, and the film is a parody of escalating attacks that pre-dated THE WAR OF THE ROSES, but stands today as the definitive example of tit for tat in screen comedy. The boys of course are deeply revered, and comedy lovers rightly consider them among the real treasures in this popular
genre. This short film and THE MUSIC BOX are their pinnacles. Concise, wonderfully observant and authoritative, you have framed it’s excellence.
Sam I also first saw this in that famous documentary. Can’t seem to find the name. Wonderful comedy short and a terrific review to go with it. A cartoon formula enhanced by the real-life antics.
Sam and Frank, it was Robert Youngson’s When Comedy Was King. Youngson was a profound formative influence on me because of the way he sometimes morbidly framed silent comedies in the contest of lives cut short or long past. For instance, I remember one of his films mentioning that Laurel eventually received an honorary Oscar for his work, but emphasizing that Hardy had died some time before. For him, and later for me, these shorts weren’t just funny films but artifacts of a lost time with an added layer of pathos, whether the original creators intended pathos or not.
Ah, When Comedy Was King. Good job on Youngston’s focus.
Love this short and it’s one of my favorites from a genre I have named “destruction” comedy.
The thing is, while we often complain that we see the same things over and over again in stuff like the Stooges or, say a Wile E. Coyote cartoon, L+H basically ran the same formula again and again with their stuff as well.
The difference? Background set up that informs the viewer of the duos plight and the sympathies we should have for them. Yeah, sure, the house may fall to the ground by the time the short has ended, but its because we care so much for the boys that we’re with them all the way as they innocently demolish everything in their path.
I’d have this one way up there with their feature SONS OF THE DESERT, short THE MUSIC BOX and the often neglected THE CHIMP (can’t not love a film where one of the main characters is an actor in a bad gorilla suit).
Wonderful essay.
Dennis, Music Box is one I should have thought of for my list but didn’t, but I do have one silent short of theirs higher up than this, and I expect we’ll see that one turn up eventually. I wouldn’t call Stan and Ollie innocent in this particular film but the audience has definitely been set up to identify with the frustration that drives them. Thanks.
Samuel,
Fine work here on this hilarious Laurel and Hardy short. I will admit up front I am not the biggest fan of their work in general. I do like The Music Box but for the most part I find their stuff amusing but not altogether hilarious. This one however is quite something. I love the pure anarchy of the destruction….and just when you think they’ve gone too far…they go even farther. I love the ending where even forgiveness and reconciliation is tossed off as a fool’s game. Pure hilarity.
Laurel and Hardy were never stop dead hilarious. Nor did they try to be. What ultimately makes them so loved around the world and why they are on the top level of comics, is their humanity. This is what makes the humor so resonant and so poignant. Chaplin used the same formula. This is really the most meaningful of humor. There are well over a dozen Laurel and Hardy films that could make this list. I voted ‘Big Business’ and ‘The Music Box’, but wish I had listed others. Very nice write-up Samuel Wilson.
Outstanding review. There was also some tit for tat between Stan and Barnaby in March of the Wooden Soldiers, but this is grand scale stuff, the end all. Does seem one-sided though. A car for a house, even with insurance figured in.
But who knows where Stan and Ollie live? The key thing is that Finn has destroyed their only means of support as far as we know — the trees and the car, though one suspects that the boys will prove more resilient or adaptable than their foe.
That’s a very good point.
I have always seen Big Business as more of an anarchist piece. Two losers trying to make a buck the hard way. They certainly aren’t bourgeois. All they had to lose was their (watch) chains and tools of trade. Down with property and the running dogs of the bourgeoisie!
They can be bourgeois and the picture can be anarchist. Depends on how you identify with the boys. At that, Finlayson could be the true anarchist hero, the poor guy who just wants to be left alone, unprotected by the police and screwed over by the salesmen to the last.
Only recently (like a few weeks ago) discovered this orgy of destruction and was sick with laughter. Funny, funny stuff and a perfect essay.
Great job! One of my all time favorite L&H’s! A brilliant art of pure destruction!
“Maybe their battle isn’t so absurd, after all. Big Business portrays a civil war of the bourgeoisie, the irrepressible conflict of the drive to sell and the desire to be left alone, the sanctity of commerce versus the sanctity of property.”
Great observation: it is striking how many people who live by selling in more indirect ways (as perhaps is the case of this man in his cozy house) can’t stand being sold to directly. As someone whose job opportunities of the past few years have mostly involved sales, my sympathies are at least theoretically with the tree-pushers. As were, probably, many of the viewers – hence the popularity of L&H and other comedies from the period.
I probably need to see this again though, as generally the wait-for-it/wait-for-it/there-it-is! style of this duo’s humor doesn’t really tickle my funny bone. For whatever reason I like comedic gags to surprise rather than fulfill expectations – just a personal take I guess.
I totally agree! I still am startled that this was going on in this day and age. I am relieved I was not standing. The Owners need to know about things in future Lets watch closely this evolving issue to this.