A soup that is missing several ingredients

Rating: Null/10 (26 January 2002)

Having never seen a Marx Brothers film before, I watched "Duck Soup" not knowing what to expect other than what the hype led me to believe. My impression of the Marx Brothers beforehand was that they were a more socially-accepted, somewhat highbrow version of the Three Stooges that focused more on witty jokes than slapstick. There was Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and sometimes Zeppo, with Groucho being the best-known of the bunch due to his long career on the "You Bet Your Life" TV show and the "nose, glasses, and mustache" disguise based on his appearance.
I didn't think "Duck Soup" was terrible, certainly not enough to prevent me from checking out another Marx Brothers film some time. A few scenes involved humorous takes on traditional comic themes like mistaken identity and the man-in-the-mirror routine. But after viewing "Duck Soup", it would seem that I was overestimating the Marxes. Partly to blame is the hype surrounding the film, which leads one to expect comic brilliance and intelligent satire, rather than the frequently abrasive gags to be found here (and the satire that is not to).
After the unsettling title image of live ducks flailing about in what looks like a pot of steaming water, the quartet of Marxes soon makes its presence known. Zeppo is barely noticeable, and so neither good nor bad, but Chico turns out to be an Italian stereotype, and, even sadder, the star Groucho is a rude, irritating punk rather than a hilarious funnyman. A disappointment, since he is the star around whom the plot revolves. Meanwhile, the "great" Harpo is one of the most unlikable, unappealing physical comedians I've ever seen. I found nothing amusing or clever about his habits of leering at people and destroying their personal property, either with scissors or his own brute force. Nor was it funny to see him continually lift his leg in the air in an inexplicable manner, as if he was a dog about to pee or something.
Some of the funny parts are at the end during the climactic battle. The thing is, it's just Three Stooges stuff that critics would scoff at if it appeared outside of a Marx film. Sticks of dynamite with extra-long fuses, getting locked in a closet, immobilizing the bad guy and throwing garbage in his facethese are all conventions of Stooge slapstick, and in "Duck Soup" seem to be filmed in the same style as those shorts. I am almost positive that I've seen Moe, Larry, and Curly do a military sketch that was much the same.
Many people have held this film up as a "comic masterpiece" and even a "brilliant political satire" about politics, with lots of tie-ins to fascism and the rise of Hitler, natch, although this film was made long before the Nazis went into full swing. I think that this praise is applied too liberally by adoring fans and critics who wish to appear well-informed and sophisticated and are only too willing to join the bandwagon. In his review for "Duck Soup", Roger Ebert quotes some British critic named Patrick McCray who called the film "an absurdist essay on politics and warfare [ that ] can stand alongside (or even above) the works of Beckett and Ionesco." Really, now, Beckett and Ionesco? Is "Duck Soup" deserving of such high regard? To me, the film seems more like a chance for a few comedian brothers to make a light comedy together, make some money, and have some fun. It's not an awful film, but not a great one, either, and certainly not a watershed in American film comedy.
I could detect little pertinent satire. While the targets being lampooned are fictional, they seem closest to the old excessive European monarchies that were around for centuries until World War One. The political environment consists of lavish palaces, grand balls with royal fanfares and pomp, and continental ambassadors in ornate uniforms. But absolute monarchies no longer determine world events, even in 1933, and so a good deal of "Duck Soup's" alleged relevance is nonexistent to begin with. It's easier to ridicule a style of government that hasn't led the way since decades ago. Perhaps the strongest joke arrives within the first few minutes of the film, when a wealthy donor threatens to withhold a political donation unless the current administration appoints a new leader of her choosing. This is a sharp parody of political systems in which money has become the deciding factor. Today the scene reminds US viewers how money and connections more than anything else brought our current prez (and many pols) to power, the controversy about campaign finance reform, etc. Unfortunately, after this opening bit, the film fails to offer anything else on this level, nothing to make the work as a whole a perceptive social satire.
After this comment was first posted, I gave the Marx brothers another chance when I watched "A Day at the Races," and was pleasantly surprised. Sometime I'll get around to checking out their other movies.