Chaplin was great (if one can overlook the sometimes thick pathos), and Keaton has absolutely no equal. Neither man, however, made the transition to sound effectively. Laurel and Hardy’s comedy was *elevated* with sound and speech. Their contrasting physiques, ability to move with grace (even while taking a fall) and disparate voices served to make them even funnier.
Rather than dismiss L&H as strictly slapstick, and erroneously link their humor to the base, artless, repetitive and unimaginative Three Stooges, please read this, from a British comic who “gets” them:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/28/laurel-hardy-slapstick
A fine mess: the enduring appeal of Laurel and Hardy
Sanjeev Bhaskar (Sanjeev Bhaskar, OBE, born 31 October 1963, is a British comedian, actor and broadcaster, best known for his work in the BBC Two sketch comedy series Goodness Gracious Me and star of the sitcom The Kumars at No. 42.)
The Guardian Thu 27 Aug 2009
<snip>
Laurel and Hardy's slapstick routines, simple dialogue and plots (mainly consisting of turning everyday tribulations into Herculean trials of endurance) were easily appealing to a kid. As I grew older, I began to appreciate the choreography of those routines and, more importantly, the sophistication of the sparse, spoken gags. At a time when screwball comedies were delivering comic verbal duelling at a pace that still impresses, Laurel and Hardy relied on the simplicity of a good line and an exasperated look directly into the camera.
This breaking of the fourth wall is as delightful and involving to a contemporary audience as it was intended to be almost a century ago. Stan and Ollie knew that to speak to the audience was to shatter the illusion and that too many glances would render them impotent. But catching Ollie's eye after the umpteenth brick has landed on his head still comes as an unexpected surprise.
Much has been made of the fact that the Stan and Ollie characters were basically children in adult bodies, that they represented more innocent times, with simpler values. However, much of their output was under the dark clouds of the Great Depression and prohibition – hardly innocent and simple times. They represented the ordinary guy with no handout, no education and seemingly no prospects, who nevertheless strove forward dealing with life's absurdities in an even more absurd manner.
The childlike curiosity of Stan – pressing the button marked "Do Not Press" – is the curiosity we're born with but society knocks out of us. The pomposity of Ollie – one we all develop to varying degrees – is the riposte to society's pressure to be an achiever. Both attitudes are constantly and remorselessly pricked in their movies. However, for me, the most engaging aspect of their movies is their relationship. Long before The Simpsons suggested that family dysfunction did not necessarily lead to decay, Laurel and Hardy's on-screen friendship endured, no matter what comic calamities and infighting attempted to derail it. Part of the comfort in watching them was to know that by the end of the movie, the relationship would remain intact.
Also, unlike Chaplin, there was no room for pathos. Stan Laurel was a writer and director as well, but only interested in comedy. Whereas Chaplin's social themes and political thoughts were played out in his films, Laurel and Hardy's sole focus was to make us laugh. Arguably, they rode the transition from silent movies to talkies better than anyone else and, more importantly, their relationship endured.
<snip>
= new reply since forum marked as read
I’m just a big fan of classic film comedy. Our mileages (and tastes) differ. I respect that.
