On images and
narratives of lovable but troubled plus-size American funny men.
Roscoe Conkling
“Fatty” Arbuckle was one of the first Hollywood mega-stars—his 1921 $1
million contract with Paramount, signed after more than a decade of starring roles
in early silent films,
helped set the standard for such deals, and led to a number of directorial roles for
Arbuckle in the next few years. But soon after Arbuckle was featured instead in
one of the first
Hollywood mega-scandals, the trio
of trials for the rape and manslaughter of actress Virginia Rappe at one of
Arbuckle’s notorious house parties—although Arbuckle was acquitted in the third
trial (after hung juries in the first two), his repututation and career never
recovered. When he died of a heart attack in 1933, only 46 years old, he
cemented his legacy as a troubled
larger-than-life comic performer, a narrative that has come to be
associated with a number of other actors as well, including John Belushi and
Chris Farley.
Although Canadian
comic John
Candy also died far too young, of a heart attack at the age of 43, I don’t
think he’s generally connected to that overarching narrative—Candy’s life and career seem to have
generally been free of the different kinds of shadows that plagued Arbuckle,
Belushi, and Farley; Candy’s weight, while of course a lifelong health concern
that certainly contributed to his death, is not to my mind in the same category
as the troubles confronted by those other funny men. Yet on the other hand,
many of Candy’s most famous characters were themselves troubled, lovable but
frustratingly erratic goofballs whose lives never quite seemed in order: Dewey “Ox”
Oxberger in Stripes (1981), Freddie Bauer in Splash (1984), Del Griffith in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987), Harry Crumb in Who’s Harry Crumb?
(1989), and, one of the most troubled and emblematic of all, the title
character in Uncle Buck (1989).
Buck Russell is
an unemployed gambler with a far more successful and stable brother; when Buck
finds himself watching his nieces and nephew for a few days, he of course rises
to the challenge, but does so in his own unique and chaotic, crazy uncle kind
of ways (such as imprisoning the older niece’s philandering boyfriend in the
trunk of his car). At the
film’s conclusion, Buck has helped the family in multiple ways, but it
seems clear that he himself will return to his own, largely unchanged troubled
life. It’s a strangely abrupt and frustratingly unsatisying ending,
particularly if we have come to care about the character at all (which is the
film’s intent), but I would argue that it links Buck’s story quite nicely to
these overarching American narratives of lovable but troubled funny men—all of
whom, like Buck, we came to care about and embrace; and all of whose stories
and lives likewise ended unsatisfyingly. The film is a comedy, and the lives
were, too often, tragedies—but there’s a complex thematic connection between
them all nonetheless.
Next uncle/aunt
tomorrow,
Ben
PS.
Thoughts on this uncle? Other uncle/aunt connections you’d highlight?
While the film's tiring moralizing of sex actually just made me feel uncomfortable I have to disagree that the film ends with Buck's return to his unchanged life. The film made clear that Buck was returning to his long-suffering girlfriend with a new found determination towards commitment and family. Buck has changed from irresponsible manchild bachelor into a man committed to engaging in a meaningful (monogamous) relationship with his girlfriend, and begin a life which will include children (bizarre as their ages begged to differ on that). His time taking care of children has prepared him to accept a life of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteBut what I want to know is why aren't there more Sharknado movies?