The Terror of Tiny Town

THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN enjoys something of a cult reputation as one of the "worst films ever made" and is notorious for being a musical western enacted solely by dwarf actors (or midgets, as they're credited in the opening titles). However, this isn't that bad at all; it comes across as a distinctly average but mildly enjoyable western with the added novelty of having the entire cast populated by dwarf actors.

It's fair to say that the acting isn't a strong point here, but the dwarfs certainly are enthusiastic performers and you can't fault their efforts in that respect. The musical scenes fare less well due to the high pitched nature of the voices, but the cattle rustling plot is more interesting and there's even a little romance to be enjoyed here. THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN is a unique film, yes, but in many ways it's all rather predictable and ordinary for the era. There are far, far worse films out there too.

Well, I've been curious about this movie for years and now I've finally seen it: "The Terror of Tiny Town" (1938), a Western/musical with an all-dwarf cast! In many respects it's just a typical Western-- dashing hero attempts to save/woo gorgeous gal and fight off cattle rustlers at the same time (one such rustler tries to frame the hero for murder). The film starts with an average-sized man introducing the diminiutive stars; including the hero, "Buck Lawson" (played by Billy Curtis, who has been in several movies and even has a walk-on in "the Incredible Shrinking Man".)

"Tiny Town" is populated entirely by little people(or "midgets" as some have called them). They ride ponies instead of horses, but everything in town seems scaled for average sized people. Thus the image of cowboys sauntering UNDER half-doors into saloons! To be honest I think SOME of the "dwarf" actors were actually average-sized children. In one scene, a barbershop quartet sings and a "dwarf" in a chair sings along in a much deeper voice than you'd expect. That "dwarf" looks more like an average-sized little boy in reality.

But then more than a few of the (adult) little people in the cast look like kids (but aren't)-- not just height-wise but they also have very-young-looking faces. You almost think it's a film of kids playing adults (ever see "Bugsy Malone"?) but they are indeed dwarfs.

You get the typical elements of an "oater" (Western), from shoot-em-ups to a seductive female singer in a saloon; some very bad puns ("smallpox", "half-pint"); a hero-and-girl duet that will conjure up images of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette McDonald (all together now: "when I'm calling you-u-u-u"--though to be honest, the songs in "Tiny Town" are VERY forgettable!)...a dwarf drinking a huge beer stein, and a duel in a shack where dynamite is about to go off!

So is it great or horrible? Kind of in between; unusual enough (in that it has an all-dwarf cast) to see at least once, but cliched dialogue, weak songs, etc....still, now at least I can say I've seen The Terror of Tiny Town!

(PS--I must add that in many respects the film is the type that exploits little-person actors for their size instead of whatever other talents they may have. How many dwarf actors out there go to a casting call and immediately are told, "ah! We'll make you the leprechaun...the tiny space alien...one of Santa's elves..." etc. instead of more substantial roles... )

Frankly, everything has already been said by previous users. Yes, it's ludicrous. Yes, it's boring. Yes, it's clichéd. Yes, it's badly acted.

But, COME ON, this was intended as a Columbia "C" filler to begin with. Think about it....... "Oz" was already filming, or soon to start, with ALL of these actors as "Munchkins." (Well, "Tex" isn't in "Oz," but every other name appears.) What better way to get some cheap studio material into the theaters? The little people were already making news in the trades.....you'd better BELIEVE Columbia utilized the situation.

Charles Becker, as the cook, has some funny moments, considering the quality of every other performance. And, Billy Curtis, as the hero, actually comes across as a miniaturized version of the standard Hollywood Western star.

As a curiosity, it is definitely worth watching once, with friends and a few margaritas.

I watched this in preparation for Herzog's dwarf film. He requires some time in the wilderness.

In the early 30's there were some precode films that copied already established genres but with toddlers playing the roles. I commented on two: "War Babies" and "Runt Pages." Recently, I saw "Baby Geniuses," which borrowed heavily in spirit — but without the sex jokes.

This is also modeled in a way on those, but is schizophrenic.

It was the same year that "Wizard of Oz," used little people in a serious way to introduce the distorted magic of Oz. (This was before we could rely on Dr Suess.) Nearly all of these actors were in that scene, with its grueling shoot. The actual story is played almost perfectly straight. A standard script is used: cowboy romance, "Romeo and Juliette" family feud and romance, cattle rustling, corrupt sheriff, barroom moll... the whole works. These actors and the director take the movie seriously.

On the other hand, a different director managed the musical numbers. There are a half dozen, and the novelty of little people is played to the hilt, using some actual children I think where cuteness is required. The shift in stance is radical. You can see that distributor realized that they had a problem, so here is what they did:

At the beginning, an announcer comes on "stage" to announce that we would see a "novelty picture" with "midgets." A one of a kind, first ever, he effuses. But he is interrupted by the actor playing the hero, who assures him that the movie is not a novelty but a real film. Then he and the film's villain engage in a bit of scripted verbal slapping that someone thought was a successful synthesis of worlds.

Here's what interests me: mainstream movies have only a few seconds to work with the viewer to establish where what the world is they are entering and where they stand in it. It is critical to the success of a film that this is right. It is why genres are so strong film; there is no relief from the moving forward of the narrative. Big films today can do that by showing a synopsis of the whole movie in the long trailers we have. And title sequences have become extremely effective: an art in itself.

By here in 1938, they took those few precious minutes for this strange dialog.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Okay, so I just watched this all-Midget (sorry, Little People) Western. Now, while I laughed at some of the way their sizes were exploited like when one fell carrying some boxes that blocked his face or when a townsperson drank a giant glass of beer (I think Jerry Maren played the latter by the way), overall I don't think this deserves the moniker of one of "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time" as implied in the book of that name. In fact, for the most part I was quite excited at the way the whole thing was filmed and liked many of the performances especially Billy Curtis as the Hero, Buck Lawson, and "Little Billy" Rhodes as the Villain, Bat Haines. They have a great fight scene at the climax. Yvonne Moray as the Heroine, Nancy Preston, and Nita Krabs as the Dance Hall Girl, Nita, who loves Bat are also good in their roles. And then there's Charles Becker as the Comic Relief, Otto the Cook, who has a pretty intentionally funny scene with a duck he's trying to kill as he tries to sweet talk him. The singing is wonderful, too, though hearing an obviously taller male voice coming out of Curtis' mouth was pretty strange especially in contrast to Ms. Murray's natural warbling voice after that. By the way, the only actual tall person that appears is in the beginning when an announcer steps from behind the curtain to introduce the Hero and Villain (with the requisite "boos" and "hiss"!) before the opening credits. So on that note, I'd recommend The Terror of Tiny Town to anyone who likes a good-old fashioned musical western starring talented little people.