REMARKS: STOOGES' MOVIE WAS INTERESTING, IF INACCURATE

I'm sure every reader has been breathlessly awaiting today's paper to get my take on Monday's ABC movie on the lives of the Three Stooges. After all, where else in a smaller community, can one go for such intellectual enlightenment?

Within the realm of Stooge fans, though, April 24 (the date of the made-for-TV movie) was a long-awaited -- and in many cases, long-dreaded -- date. It had been a hot topic on the alt.comedy.slapstick.3stooges newsgroup and in the Three Stooges Yahoo club, among other on-line groups. When someone got hold of a copy of the script a few months ago, the "experts" had been waging a debate on the potential merits of the film.

Now the debate has taken fresh life, as the event has come and gone. As I anticipated, a voluminous number of Stoogifiles hit the net during the hours after the two-hour movie ended at 9 p.m. Monday night -- myself included.

The results seem to be largely divided -- just as opinion was prior to the showing of the movie. Critics -- mainly the real hard-core Stooge experts -- point to a number of liberties taken with the facts and some apparent cases of character assassination. Others considered it quite entertaining and were able to overlook the blemishes.

One newsgroup subscriber listed nearly 30 errors in fact, and they were, indeed, legion. Most, though, were quite minor. Curly Howard was depicted as suffering a stroke during actual filming of "Half-wits' Holiday." He was actually found slumped over in a chair between scenes of the film. The Stooges' two break-ups with comedian Ted Healy were condensed to one occurrence and was portrayed with much more bitterness than associates recalled later. Moe was credited with the idea to have Curly's head shaven. Actually disagreement exists between "experts," as to whether Healy suggested it, or whether Shemp Howard made the suggestion to Curly, to convince Moe that Curly would be an acceptable replacement for Shemp. Numerous other details were switched around or reworked for the convenience of the 90-minutes (minutes commercial time) plot.

These did not particularly bother me. I hate historic inaccuracy, but have grown used to it, whether famous battles, political campaigns or Biblical epics are translated to the screen. What did bother me was the way a few individuals were characterized.

For one, Shemp Howard was portrayed as a sniveling, cowardly wuss, who was unable to deal with the violence of the act. This is patently absurd. Shemp was a timid and flighty man, who did have a number of phobias. He was scared of heights, scared of wild animals and paranoid about burglars and muggers. Shemp was a trooper in the old vaudeville tradition, though. I had never seen any mention of him complaining about Healy (who dealt out most of the physical abuse before the Stooges broke away for good in 1934) or Moe being too rough. In fact, in one of the group's most famous scenes (during "Brideless Groom"), he had to urge ladylike Christine McIntyre to "come on and really belt me" in the jaw, to climax a scene in which she knocks him through a door. Actually, from what I've read, his wife despised Healy and urged him to jump when a solo movie offer came up in 1933.

Healy, the creator of the Stooges, was also savaged. One of the newsgroup posters was Healy's grand daughter, who was absolutely livid. Healy, who has faded into obscurity, was an up and coming comic, who was an inspiration for comedians like Milton Berle and Bob Hope. Healy, who was childhood friends with the Horwitz (Howard) brothers, hired Shemp and Moe to join him on the vaudeville stage in 1925. Later they caught Larry and Mable Fine's act and signed Larry as the third "stooge."

Healy was said to be a big-hearted and kind man -- when sober. His alcohol-induced fits of temper and distasteful practical jokes made working with him more and more intolerable over the years. He did -- as depicted in the movie -- thwart the boys' opportunity to sign a deal (without him) with Fox in 1930. This led the stooges to break away and work on stage briefly, as Howard, Fine & Howard. They later returned, after Healy promised to behave, and wound up leaving on amicable terms early in 1934 -- with Healy granting them permission to use the "Three Stooges" moniker.

The movie depicted a belligerent Healy not only assaulting Moe in public, but threatening to blow up theaters in which the Stooges performed after the split-up. It also downplayed Healy's talent, which was considerable. An mysterious "accidental" death, following a bar brawl, led to Healy's untimely death in 1937, just as his solo career was beginning to take off.

Joe Besser, who came into the act after Shemp's 1955 death, was also dealt an unkind hand. The cherubic, sissified Besser was no roughneck. Neither, though, was he the effete, uncooperative nerd the movie portrayed. Besser was a trooper like the others and left the act only due to his wife's ill health and other obligations.

Many also complained that the Shemp years were virtually eliminated. From Curly's stroke (He actually had two, in 1945 and 1947.), the movie cut to one sequence shot with Shemp, back to Curly in a wheelchair, then to the others at the grave of both Curly AND Shemp in 1955. Again, Shemp was dealt a bad draw. He turned in many outstanding efforts and co-workers generally considered him the funniest and most inventive of the Stooges.

Comments also widely ranged on the performances of the actors. I found all of them acceptable myself -- again, taking exception to the way Shemp, Healy and Besser were depicted. If nothing else, the film accurately depicted Moe, Larry and Shemp as loyal husbands in a business where faithful mates are rare.

Debate raged on-line on everything from whether the Stooges ever slipped into on-stage mannerisms while off stage (as they did a few times in the film), to whether it would have been better to have shown snippets of original Stooges shorts, rather than these actors' recreations of the old film footage.

This is one debate that will probably never be settled. To many of the purists, the film was simply too historically inaccurate to enjoy. To the younger and/or less expert fans -- and those with higher tolerance levels -- the film was an enjoyable experience, as the boys came to life in living color.

To any readers who watched the film, I would say "I hope you found it enjoyable and educational -- but you have a real interest, don't take everything you saw as Gospel."