The Hal Roach films
One of the repeated aspects of Mabel’s later films is that she is almost always playing a little girl character. This was not always the most ingenious use of her, yet was dictated by the wants of her audience and producers. Did this kind of type-casting go against her own wishes? It is not easy to say, but the simple answer would seem to be no. While she had told William Desmond Taylor she regretted not being able to make films like The Little Minister or The Morals of Marcus (Taylor's version was called Morals), she does not seem outwardly to have been unhappy about her own screen roles. While Gene Fowler, in Father Goose, does present her as telling Sennett she was weary of Cinderella, she was probably more traditional in her tastes then we might off hand suspect. That she was as sentimental and old-fashioned minded as Sennett, however, would, on the other hand, be an obvious overstatement.
Depending on how one looks at them, Mabel’s Roach films are either too little too late, or else fitting farewells of an unpretentious genius and a great heart, and on reflection the latter seems the more correct of the two.
In doing short films for Hal Roach in 1926 and 1927, Mabel was decidedly taking a step down from her former station. Where as before she was always the main star, now she was one among dozens of the Hal Roach “All-Stars.” Possibly she wanted to be sporting by offering some humility on her part, even to the extent of starring in a short with the not so flattering title Raggedy Rose. In The Nickel Hopper her character, a working – and dancing -- girl, says to the un-introduced beau: “I don't live on Park St. I live on Lark St.” In other words, she parts with any claim to affected title and when it gets right down to it, she’s not really so different than the rest of us.
The two and three reel shorts Mabel made for Hal Roach are actually very good taken as the light, upbeat comedy fare. They are not by any stretch masterpieces; yet they are entertaining enough, and suggest what Mabel might have done outside Sennett. In light of her previous real life ordeals, there is an understandable effort in these shorts to create some sympathy for her. She is still mostly playing Cinderella; yet, except for portions of Raggedy Rose, she seems more confident, and her general look has improved since either Suzanna or The Extra Girl. It is intriguing for us to see, as it no doubt was then, to see where Mabel has come to in the wake of the previous scandals and health problems. Under the circumstances, she seems to have weathered them encouragingly well -- though by no means completely. In Nickel Hopper she breaks down weeping in such a way that, again, is quite inappropriate to the circumstance; such that we are painfully brought to mind of the prodigious difficulties and sadness still burdening her. Moreover, she looks not a little disoriented in some of Raggedy Rose. Anita Garvin, who appeared therein with Mabel, in an interview I had with her related that during shooting Mabel had trouble finding her spot in front of the camera. And, indeed, Mabel on screen occasionally seems not a little befuddled or distracted. Other than these particular exceptions, Mabel comes off rather well in the Roach comedies – again, as always, given the trying circumstances.
Raggedy Rose, the first of the Roach films, was directed by Richard Wallace in collaboration with Stan Laurel, and is much less of a film than it might have been. Though it reuses some of the gags of What Happened to Rosa, the premise for her character is interesting. Rose is the one “who gets everything second hand -- even the sunshine.” Mabel and Max Davidson (who appeared in The Extra Girl) make for a credible comedy team, and it’s to be regretted their pairing was not further pursued. In spite of this, external stresses, such as the revival of the Taylor case by District Attorney Asa Keyes, brought a tension to the making of the film that were apparently too much for her. This in turn must have affected Wallace and Laurel; so that much of Raggedy Rose, particularly the latter part, is done in a rather careless and sloppy manner. It is in this short, incidentally, that the gag of an auto completely falling apart on slightest impact -- the same one used later in the Roach Laurel and Hardy comedies -- saw one of its earliest debuts.
In The Nickel-Hopper -- for the first time -- she is placed in a setting that makes reference to the 20's Jazz Age. While Clara Bow was able to take full advantage of this, Mabel was prevented previously from doing so largely because it clashed too much with the image of her prior films. Moreover, it might have been thought unnecessarily provocative, given the Taylor scandal, for Mabel to be cast in the role of frivolous flapper -- “silly girl” or “sweetheart” being much safer characters public relations-wise. Here she is still a not well-to- do working girl, yet, this time, one at a dance hall kicking up her heals to live Jazz music. More in temper of the era also, the father, rather than being the respectable, if silly figure, of previous films is here an outright, good-for-nothing buffoon -- competently enough acted by Michael Visaroff. Aside from this, there are diverting, albeit brief, appearances by Oliver Hardy and the then not-so-famous William Henry Pratt, known later as Boris Karloff. There isn’t much improvement on the old gags; some of those in Rose being decidedly better. Yet it proceeds more smoothly and evenly than Raggedy Rose, and aside from a scene where she breaks down crying (rather inexplicably so), she looks relatively more refreshed and up to form. The film ends with an amusing and surrealistic sequence. After she and the groom accidentally trip off a cliff, her wedding dress opens up into a parachute, and by this means the two newlyweds magically descend.
Anything Once! (and also Should Men Walk Home?) is noteworthy because it is such airy fluff and, other than a little paleness and a slight rigidity in Mabel’s movements, there seems hardly a sign of problems, unlike the previous Roach films. There are likeable moments, such as Mabel at the ironing board. But the comedy is not otherwise remarkable. Later in the film, she is dressed in an 18th century tall wig, and ballroom gown similar to the one in Molly O'. Although a two reel short, it is, like Molly O’, a Cinderella story, but a Cinderella story which ends on the note that our diminutive heroine “must be wooed to be won.”
In The Nickel Hopper -- for the first time -- she is placed in a setting that makes reference to the 20's Jazz Age. While Clara Bow was able to take full advantage of this, Mabel was prevented previously from doing so largely because it clashed too much with the image of her prior films. Moreover, it might have been thought unnecessarily provocative, given the Taylor scandal, for Mabel to be cast in the role of frivolous flapper – “silly girl” or “sweetheart” being much safer characters public relations-wise. Here she is still a not well-to- do working girl, yet, this time, one at a dance hall kicking up her heals to live Jazz music. More in temper of the era also, the father, rather than being the respectable, if silly figure, of previous films is here an outright, good-for-nothing buffoon – competently enough acted by Michael Visaroff. Aside from this, there are diverting, albeit brief, appearances by Oliver Hardy and the then not-so-famous William Henry Pratt, known later as Boris Karloff. There isn’t much improvement on the old gags; some of those in Rose being decidedly better. Yet it proceeds more smoothly and evenly than Raggedy Rose, and aside from a scene where she breaks down crying (rather inexplicably so), she looks relatively more refreshed and up to form. The film ends with an amusing and surrealistic sequence. After she and the groom accidentally trip off a cliff, her wedding dress opens up into a parachute, and by this means the two newlyweds magically descend.
Anything Once! (and also Should Men Walk Home?) is noteworthy because it is such airy fluff and, other than a little paleness and a slight rigidity in Mabel's movements, there seems hardly a sign of problems, unlike the previous Roach films. There are likeable moments, such as Mabel at the ironing board. But the comedy is not otherwise remarkable. Later in the film, she is dressed in an 18th century tall wig, and ballroom gown similar to the one in Molly O'. Although a two reel short, it is, like Molly O’, a Cinderella story, but a Cinderella story which ends on the note that our diminutive heroine “must be wooed to be won.”
One Hour Married while it is rumored to exist, has not yet (to my knowledge) been found. A comedy set amid the trenches of World War One, it appears to have been a clever and unusual film for her; with Mabel at one point sporting a mustache -- a witty touch reminiscent of the old Biograph short Katchem Kate.
Her last outing, Should Men Walk Home? is very unusual among all of her films. One has to go as far back as Tillie's Punctured Romance to find Mabel playing the “bad girl.” Here she is a gun robber holding up vehicles, and later a jewel thief! Needless to say, it is quite out of character from what we saw her doing earlier, and, though only in fun, is still a daring move away from Sue Graham and Raggedy Rose. Directed by Leo McCarey, the plot of this short centers on two crooks (played respectively by Normand and Creighton Hale) attending a party at a fancy mansion, and who seek by stealth to make off with a purloined jewel. Meanwhile a suspicious house detective, portrayed by Eugene Pallette, follows them about attempting to catch them with the goods. Hale is a both appealing and funny lead, and Mabel carries herself well. Certainly, it is very curious to see her doing something so very different. Despite this, and aside from its value in this way, there is no great merit to this comedy, other than to suggest what other kinds of roles she might else have expanded into. Should Men Walk Home? is like a test film; the ideas and possibilities of which regrettably were never to be realized. We can say that her performance shows some new promise, but that’s about it. A firm conclusion is impossible. And thus it could be said, like the film’s title itself, that Mabel’s career itself ends on a question mark.
The woes of life over time and ultimately crashed in with ruinous fury upon her, and there is simply no getting around the fact. These troubles interfered tremendously with and strained the quality of her work; such that after the triumph of her Biograph and Keystone Days -- with the notable exception of Mickey -- one can’t help but feel a little disappointed with the later films by comparison. The last are good enough in and of themselves -- after all Mabel just about never bores -- yet for the most part they fall noticeably short of the energy and youthful fervor of the Biograph, Keystone films, and Mickey.
But this is true only if we narrowly insist on treating those later films as comedy and fun entertainment. If, however, we step back and view the star of these films as an exuberant heart fatally disappointed, passing through the relentless tumult of real life, we get an affecting portrait of endurance holding out against egregious and aggravated suffering. Though blow follows upon tragic blow, she stills looks forward, while doing her best to laugh and make others happy. She does not always succeed; yet this only reminds us of the devastating obstacles and insurmountable ills she was faced with. In retrospect then, hers is a beautiful, yet sad, drama that teaches a deeper wisdom about life that few at the time, even those involved in making these films, could hardly have been aware. The mystery and intrigue accompanying it all only adds to its fascination for us today.
In addition to the semi-real life portrait of Mabel in these later films, we also are provided with indirect glimpses of those who steadfastly stood up for her: Richard Jones and many others -- under no little pressure themselves -- who took part in their making and production. Their wit, courage and effort in support of her, remain an inspiration and model to those who aspire to something more noble and worthy in this life.
