Slapstick comedy began with the Keystone Kops of the silent era, and the early masters of comedy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and Harry Langdon. One after another pratfall, trip, slip, stumble and knock on the head kept audiences laughing. When there was no dialog but occasional script cards flashed on the screen, action and facial expressions were everything in early comedy. But sound brought some changes, to comedy. It brought dialog that broadened the field and experiences of comedy. Some comedies were all with dialog - witty humor, funny expressions and looks, clever exchanges and zingers. But slapstick did still endure, now with some new purveyors of the art. Only now, it was mostly in couples or teams of players. Thus we had Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers and Abbott and Costello from the 1930s into the 1950s. And, some movies were being made with various actors having an occasional scene with a pratfall or some other slapstick situation. Then, since the mid-20th century, situational comedy began to become more prevalent. And by the end of the century, situational and dialog all but dominated the field of comedy, with occasional antics worked in. But for the most part, slapstick was a thing of the past. The few rare occasions when it has been used to any extent since the mid-20th century with much success have been plots with exceptional screenplays.

Now, why all of this background and discussion about slapstick before a word about this movie? It's to put it in perspective and help one to understand the change in human perceptions that have accompanied the technical changes in the motion picture industry. Quite simply, when there wasn't sound, how long would an audience sit just to watch scenes interspersed with cue cards of the script, however funny the lines might be? The silent movies were made for minimal explanation, with much left to the imagination, minds and intelligence of the audience to understand what was going on in the pictures. What would get laughter more or quicker than a slapstick gesture or incident? But with sound, the human mind wanted and looked for more. Which also explains why the plots of films became much more substantial with screenplays to fill them out.

So, on Christmas 1997, Disney released the movie, "Mr. Magoo." It was based on a mid-20th century cartoon character of the same name. And the studio obtained Leslie Nielsen for the lead role. He was one of the few actors who had successfully made a smash slapstick comedy in the late 20th century -- "The Naked Gun," in 1988. That film led to a sequel and then another, in 1991 and 1994, which, following the trend of the vast majority of sequels, declined substantially in quality from the first film. I've never come across an article or source that explained the who, what and why of Disney making this movie. While Disney had grown to become the top movie studio of Hollywood by the end of the 20th century, it was showing signs of losing touch with the populace - with people and audiences, especially for films of family appeal.

Even with Leslie Nielsen in the lead role, I hardly chuckled at a couple of early goofs and then "Mr. Magoo" soon became tedious with its slapstick duds. The movie bombed at the box office and may have been the biggest flop of all movies of 1997 and 1998. It's total box office even fell short of its budget, by more than $1 million, giving Disney a loss of nearly $20 million. My three stars are for the dog that had the role of Angus. Disney apparently had plans to serialize "Mr. Magoo" with sequels, but its big bomb at the box office and unanimous put down by critics ended that plan. The Disney "empire" was begun by a man who loved to tell and show stories for children and families. The modern Disney entity, indeed, seems to have severed its roots with Walt Disney.