Penetrating the Three Stooges

I don't think I elaborated enough on my point when I brought up the pervasive phallic imagery and props in the Three Stooges shorts we watched today, which I didn't bring up just to say "Haha, look at the phallic imagery" (though, sometimes, doing just that can make me laugh... I wonder what Freud would say about that...) To me, the phallic symbols play a part in the repetition and survival mechanism of comedy that we were asked to observe. Specifically, the imagery and props seem to heighten the consistent homoerotic undertones that, on at least some level, help the jokes and slapstick work for Larry, Curly, and Moe.

The discussion today ended on the role of women in the Three Stooges, and someone mentioned that women often don't take on the traditionally subservient roles in this medium, which is an interesting point. Adding to that, though the Stooges court women, physical contact between the two genders is limited, and I'm not sure the women take on much of a role in the overall course of action or comedic plot. Even when the woman hides someone under the sand, he is ultimately penetrated by an umbrella wand...by another man. This act of penetration via a phallic object seems to represent a sexual exchange. Not only is this sexually-symbolic exchange both violent and comedic; but, it also is the only physical exchange in the scene, and it is one of the funnier slapstick moments. To reiterate, no act of physical intimacy (violent or passive) occurs between the male and the female.

In another Stooges clip I watched before class, "Monkey's Uncle," the homoerotic undertones occur sans a phallic prop: one "Stooge" (I can't figure out who's who just yet) churns butter, while the other stands behind, grinding on the lower half of his body. As soon as the pair finishes churning, the fluid-like butter splatters everywhere. No women are present. I'll spare the deconstruction here; you can use your imagination.

I'll briefly provide two more examples just to prove this is a trend and that my imagination isn't completely dirty and so I can make my overarching point. The first involves the phallic stick again, as a Stooge (I think it was Curly) attempts to nail it into the ground, and it keeps popping back up as another Stooge approaches. The second one involves a more intimate setting--the pitched tent where the trio snoozes and snuggles together, giggling and accusing the others of toe-licking/tickling. Perhaps I'm taking on an anachronistic viewpoint--maybe in the 30s and 40s it was common for men to tickle one another in such close quarters without any other implication. However, I think it has more to do with the need for intimacy as a means of survival, and, given that the Stooges thrive in a homo social, hyper-masculine, violent setting, women are not needed for that intimacy.

And the exclusion of women can also contribute to the trio's laugh-generating schema, for the intimately violent male-to-male exchanges, though sexually-charged, seem accidental. That exchange can be funny in that it's unexpected. But this approach is not new to the Stooges. Shakespeare and other Renaissance playwrights employ (often "accidental") homoeroticism on the stage because only men were allowed on stage until the Restoration period. Men playing the roles of women, who cross-dress to penetrate exclusive circles of men and then have "female" characters fall in love with them is a centuries-old plot, particularly in the genre of comedy. Confusing traditional roles of sexuality and, in the case of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the roles of gender allows the audience to witness something as insiders. The subjects/actors, as outsiders, are generally unaware of their homoerotic escapades.

So, do the Stooges, in all of their "low humor," actually reflect some of the "high culture" humor in Shakespeare, a humor that is multi-layered and comments on various social and cultural issues? Or, are the Stooges simply "groundlings," borrowing basic elements of an age-old comedic tradition and using them only to be violent? I'm still thinking on that one...