Aren’t Women Funny? (1929) 🇺🇸
Every woman in the land will testify to the fact that men are funny — especially husbands. “I’ll never forget the look on John’s face when he unscrewed the radiator cap and the muddy water boiled up over his clean shirt!” many a wife has chuckled to her women friends.
by H. A. Woodmansee
What woman hasn’t some such anecdote with which to entertain her acquaintances? To the average wife, the miscalculations of her husband are a never-failing source of amusement. Men must be funny.
But if men are funny, aren’t women funny, too? It is true that many a man, recounting the latest eccentricity of his wife, or girl friend, has exclaimed: “Aren’t women funny?” But more often the remark is delivered with a gesture of despair, rather than with a laugh.
Let’s see how the funny women of the screen measure up to the funny men. Who are the prominent male fun-makers? Take a deep breath, and wade through this list:
Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Harry Langdon, Buster Keaton, Chester Conklin, Ford Sterling, Wallace Beery, Raymond Hatton, Reginald Denny, Douglas MacLean, Raymond Griffith, Clyde Cook, Monty Banks, Johnny Hines, Karl Dane, George K. Arthur, Bert Roach, Edward Everett Horton, Charles Murray, George Sidney, Arthur Lake, Glenn Tryon, William Austin, Mack Swain, Arthur Stone, and W. C. Fields.
Every man-jack of them is a star or featured player in important pictures! Compare this aggregation with their feminine rivals. One thinks of Louise Fazenda, Mabel Normand, and Marion Davies. Then of Dot Farley, Polly Moran, Babe London, and those colleagues of the very late John Bunny, Flora Finch and Kate Price. There are other comediennes, but the list, in comparison with the first, is far from imposing. It looks even smaller, if we consider the host of two-reel Arnedy players, headed by such figures as Charlie Chase, Bobby Vernon, Lupino Lane, and Billy Dooley. The short comedies usually have men stars.
Some one asks: “How about Colleen Moore, Clara Bow, Bebe Daniels, Laura La Plante, Marie Prevost, et al? Do the achievements of these stars entitle them to be classed as comediennes, and are the ladies going to make a showing in that field after all? But this list might be more than matched by a list of men such as Richard Dix, Rod La Rocque, Jack Mulhall, and Owen [Owen Moore] and Tom Moore. The men and women of this class are not, strictly speaking, comedians, for their forte is not comedy, but romantic roles with comedy trimmings. Although they play comedy well, audiences do not come to theaters primarily to laugh at them.
Even among screen children, the male seems to get more laughs. Jackie Coogan was funner than Baby Peggy. The amusing “Our Gang” is mostly masculine, and the kids that amuse us most are the rotund Joe Cobb and little black Farina. In the stilt younger set, “Big-Boy’’ and “Snookums” are ahead of the girl infants in getting laughs.
Of course there are many who, appreciating the talents of our feminine stars, will say that women have a humor different than the usually broad, masculine variety, a humor which is less obvious, and which the casual observer may set down as cuteness or charm. There is probably considerable truth in this. But where is the female Charlie Chaplin, or Harry Langdon? What comedienne is pulling audiences into theaters as Harold Lloyd is?
But it is not the writer’s intention to imply that women’s comedy talents are “not so much.” Rather it seems likely that women have greater comic possibilities than any one would suspect — possibilities that have been shamefully neglected by picture producers, and even by the women who possess them.
When producers discover latent comedians, they develop and encourage them. But for the most part they have been singularly indifferent toward the women. Of late years, most of their efforts to gather in feminine comedy talent has been exercised in drafting from the stage such comediennes as Beatrice Lillie and the Duncan Sisters. The failure of these clever performers to put across their comedy on celluloid as well as they do on the stage has perhaps strengthened the impression that the screen isn’t the best place for the funny woman.
Audiences want girls with “It,” the producers believe. Accordingly, they are searching the globe for beautiful Every year they give scores of girls their chances as leading ladies and featured players, to discover if they have that magical “It.” They are yearning for more Clara Bows and Colleen Moores, and they are helping likely girls to get their stuff across. But it is a pity that some of the frantic searching isn’t directed toward the discovery and development of new comediennes like the Mabel Normand of other days.
One of the things that set Miss Normand apart from the host of merely good-looking girls who thronged the old Sennett lot was that droll, slightly pop-eyed expression. That, with beauty and infectious vivacity, made her one of America’s leading funsters. But, mindful of this, do producers scan the faces of unknown aspirants and say: “That girl is more than good looking; she has comical expressions and mannerisms; let’s give her a chance to play comedy — she might be a wow”? Very seldom. They are too busy looking for beauty-contest winners, conventional types, camera-perfect faces. And, unfortunately for the girl with the droll look, it is usually caused by a slightly unorthodox nose, slightly crossed, eyes, or some other minor irregularity of features. Or she lacks the poise and carriage of a clothes horse. And that, with most producers, rules her out.
Why don’t producers scan new faces for those quaint Normand eyes, for the saucy nose of Marie Prevost? There must be scores of girls, many of them now working as obscure extras, who have those little comicalities of expression and personality, which would make audiences laugh — and like them. It should be worth one million dollars to any producer to discover a good-looking young actress, with that droll, Harry Langdon baby stare, even if she should happen to have bow-legs.
But instead of new comediennes, every year producers push forward countless new ingénues, sweet-girl types, maidens suspected of having the all-desired “It.” Meanwhile many an ugly duckling, who might become a comedy swan, remains in the background.
Only once in a blue moon does a new comedienne of great promise flash into the electrics. With few exceptions, the screen comediennes of to-day hark back to the old Sennett days, or even further back. Or else they have come to pictures from the stage, with reputations already made.
To tell the truth, it is as much the fault of the girls themselves as of the producers, that there is so little feminine comedy talent on display. Girls are sensitive about their good looks. The average beautiful girl does not want to follow the example of Louise Fazenda, by forgetting her good looks and play half-witted slaveys and homely old maids. She would rather hide her comedy talents, which might bring her freak roles, and take a chance on reaching the top as a beautiful girl.
It must be remembered that the majority of our men comedians were developed in the hard school of slapstick comedy. They had to forget their dignity and good looks, if any. They were kicked downstairs, and dumped into glue vats. As unknowns, they tried hard to be ridiculous, to attract attention to themselves, and they were rewarded; by having producers say: “Ha-ha! that guy’s got a funny pan! Give him the part of that goofy bricklayer!” A few of the girls, such as Bebe Daniels and Louise Fazenda, stood the gaff with the men, and were rewarded by having their ability recognized. But it would’ make the average girl shudder to have a producer laugh at her as a freak. Therefore many a good little actress passes up a reputation as a comedienne, as a sacrifice on the altar of vanity;
It may be noted here that it is even more important for a comedienne to have a naturally droll look than for a comedian. A comedian can make his expression more comical by wearing a mustache, either of the toothbrush or walrus variety, an odd beard or haircut, a bulbous nose, spectacles, baggy clothes, odd hats. The props that a comedienne can vise habitually are much more limited, particularly if she wants to make a charming impression. If a good-looking girl wears the outlandish attire affected by many men comedians, the audience usually feels she is out of character, and is straining to be funny.
Perhaps, after all, women aren’t so funny as men. on the screen, but the fact remains that they have much more comedy talent than they are given a chance to show. The screen is overstocked with masculine comedians, but there is an acute demand for the ladies. Many a star comedian, whose popularity is sagging, would make vastly more entertaining comedies if he would select a leading lady who was not merely charming, but also a good comedy foil.
New comediennes can be searched for and developed. When the same effort is devoted to building comediennes as to building comedians, it should be clear to all that the answer to the question, “Are women funny?” is in the affirmative.
Marjorie Beebe is an example of what a feminine funster can do, when given half a chance.
Photo by: Max Munn Autrey (1891–1971)
Louise Fazenda never hesitates to disguise her attractiveness, hence her popularity.
Flora Finch was one of the first comediennes to achieve a following in the early days of the movies.
Photo by: Apeda Studio
Mabel Normand’s drollery and infectious vivacity made her unique among comediennes.
Collection: Picture Play Magazine, February 1929