Even with the stars being noted first and foremost, I was skeptical when I sat to watch; the very name portends a feature built less for comedy than for racism. Given the casting of white actors as non-white characters, and some consistent choices of hair and makeup, those concerns seem to bear fruit before the plot even really begins. Things are actually worse than that, however: while we do get our first laugh about ten minutes in, it's surrounded in that scene, and definitely followed thereafter, by boisterous yelling, exaggerated acting, substantial repetition, and general ruckus that are all supposed to be funny in and of themselves, but which instead are just irritating, and subsequently dull. These vexations have the unfortunate effect of greatly dampening the humor and otherwise entertainment that should be vibrant and delightful. By all means, what we get here are the same tricks of the trade that Bud Abbott and Lou Costello have employed in all their works, and likewise other classic comedians: gags, situational humor, physical comedy, witty repartee, high energy and dynamics, interludes of music or dance, and wisecracks galore. Some of this does have the desired impact, and there's more fun to come, yet the sad fact of the matter is that the tenor that is adopted from the outset serves to quash on an enduring basis a major part of the joy that 'Lost in a harem' should evoke. I tried to have a good time; I just didn't succeed.
Case in point: I fully recognize that the bit with The Derelict should be a highlight of these eighty-nine minutes as the gag is repeated multiple times and drawn out. It had the opposite effect for me, and I nearly shut the film off right there and then. Further illustrating the point, while waiting for the next bit of mirth of worth, I tracked how long it took for the title to earn another laugh after the first; the answer was about seventeen minutes. Part of the problem stems from the writing, for not every idea herein comes off well even on paper, and some moments just fall flat. Part of the problem is in Charles Reisner's direction, which too often seems to favor zip and zest over accentuation of real cleverness. Even if we say that Reisner had a hand in guiding the cast, part of the problem is in the acting, for the actors themselves turn in performances that commonly feel either empty and halfhearted, or hollowly overcharged, but rarely Just Right. By all means, this is well made in other capacities, including utterly gorgeous sets and costumes (although, they're borrowed from another production anyway), tremendous choreography, and splendid stunts and effects. This isn't truly different than other Abbott and Costello flicks, nor those of other folks like Laurel and Hardy or The Marx Brothers. So why did I laugh so little in this case? (To be completely honest I lost track, but I think it still ended up being only twice throughout the entire runtime.)
The result of all this is that eighty-nine minutes feel much longer than they are; if you're so unimpressed as I was and genuinely fall asleep in the middle of it, the viewing experience literally grows considerably. I think what it comes down to is that Harry Ruskin, John Grant, and Harry Crane penned an earnest adventure flick, if perhaps a lighthearted one, and as far as I'm concerned 'Lost in a harem' would have worked much better if the most significant gags and comedy had been excised. For as ineffective as too much of the intended humor was, it only serves to bring down the enjoyment of the whole; even where a bit wasn't specifically tiresome, instead of being funny they were mostly just reminders of what the picture was supposed to be. With all this having been said, clearly a lot of other people have watched this and had a total blast; I'm glad for them. Maybe if I tried watching it again, under different circumstances, I'd like it much more than I presently do. For having struggled through it once, though, why would I subject myself to it again? Check out this 1944 movie if you want, but to me it's just illustration that even the tried and true can't always bring out a laugh, and sometimes getting off on the wrong foot can set the tone for a long time to come. I'll find more of Abbott and Costello to watch and I'm sure I'll love them; this I can do without.
Case in point: I fully recognize that the bit with The Derelict should be a highlight of these eighty-nine minutes as the gag is repeated multiple times and drawn out. It had the opposite effect for me, and I nearly shut the film off right there and then. Further illustrating the point, while waiting for the next bit of mirth of worth, I tracked how long it took for the title to earn another laugh after the first; the answer was about seventeen minutes. Part of the problem stems from the writing, for not every idea herein comes off well even on paper, and some moments just fall flat. Part of the problem is in Charles Reisner's direction, which too often seems to favor zip and zest over accentuation of real cleverness. Even if we say that Reisner had a hand in guiding the cast, part of the problem is in the acting, for the actors themselves turn in performances that commonly feel either empty and halfhearted, or hollowly overcharged, but rarely Just Right. By all means, this is well made in other capacities, including utterly gorgeous sets and costumes (although, they're borrowed from another production anyway), tremendous choreography, and splendid stunts and effects. This isn't truly different than other Abbott and Costello flicks, nor those of other folks like Laurel and Hardy or The Marx Brothers. So why did I laugh so little in this case? (To be completely honest I lost track, but I think it still ended up being only twice throughout the entire runtime.)
The result of all this is that eighty-nine minutes feel much longer than they are; if you're so unimpressed as I was and genuinely fall asleep in the middle of it, the viewing experience literally grows considerably. I think what it comes down to is that Harry Ruskin, John Grant, and Harry Crane penned an earnest adventure flick, if perhaps a lighthearted one, and as far as I'm concerned 'Lost in a harem' would have worked much better if the most significant gags and comedy had been excised. For as ineffective as too much of the intended humor was, it only serves to bring down the enjoyment of the whole; even where a bit wasn't specifically tiresome, instead of being funny they were mostly just reminders of what the picture was supposed to be. With all this having been said, clearly a lot of other people have watched this and had a total blast; I'm glad for them. Maybe if I tried watching it again, under different circumstances, I'd like it much more than I presently do. For having struggled through it once, though, why would I subject myself to it again? Check out this 1944 movie if you want, but to me it's just illustration that even the tried and true can't always bring out a laugh, and sometimes getting off on the wrong foot can set the tone for a long time to come. I'll find more of Abbott and Costello to watch and I'm sure I'll love them; this I can do without.