I read a couple of Booth Tarkington's Penrod books about half a century ago, out of the middle school library and thought them all right. William Beaudine's silent version of the second book -- he would remake it as a talkie in 1931 -- clearly builds on Hal Roach's already successful OUR GANG series, even if the setting is Indiana rather than upstate New York. An early title tells us that the problems of boyhood are universal and timeless, and this makes me believe it. Penrod has three things he cherishes: his dog, Duke -- played by Cameo, who would reprise her role eight years later -- his shack on the lot next door, and his gang. Eventually all three will be taken from him by the incomprehensible workings of the adult world.
I think that is part of what another commenter groups into what he calls 'social satire'. I find nothing satirical about it. I think it's an accurate representation of the selfish and uncaring nature of most people. Ben Alexander, as Penrod, suffers because he has no power, and as a child, is not seen as having any feelings that need to be considered. His father, Rockliffe Fellowes, orders him to let the obnoxious kid into their club because his father, William Mong, is powerful in town. Later, when Mong runs over Penrod's dog and kills him, he offers the boy money, when sympathy might be more helpful. And Penrod's rejection of his standards makes this grown man seek his revenge. It's only by an almost literal deus ex machina that the situation is resolved at all, and not particularly satisfactorily; his dog, in the end, is still dead.
That is the reason I find the first half of the movie, filled with the concerns of boyhood when nothing is final, better than the second half. Still, I always enjoy those OUR GANG shorts which are almost plotless, just filling up an endless weekend day. Normally I enjoy a well told story with a formal plot, and it is here. However, those days of childhood, where my problems were small and inconsequential and easily soluble, are still fresh in my memory, and I mourn their passing and the cares of the adulthood which seemed so desirable at the time. What a fool I was!
I think that is part of what another commenter groups into what he calls 'social satire'. I find nothing satirical about it. I think it's an accurate representation of the selfish and uncaring nature of most people. Ben Alexander, as Penrod, suffers because he has no power, and as a child, is not seen as having any feelings that need to be considered. His father, Rockliffe Fellowes, orders him to let the obnoxious kid into their club because his father, William Mong, is powerful in town. Later, when Mong runs over Penrod's dog and kills him, he offers the boy money, when sympathy might be more helpful. And Penrod's rejection of his standards makes this grown man seek his revenge. It's only by an almost literal deus ex machina that the situation is resolved at all, and not particularly satisfactorily; his dog, in the end, is still dead.
That is the reason I find the first half of the movie, filled with the concerns of boyhood when nothing is final, better than the second half. Still, I always enjoy those OUR GANG shorts which are almost plotless, just filling up an endless weekend day. Normally I enjoy a well told story with a formal plot, and it is here. However, those days of childhood, where my problems were small and inconsequential and easily soluble, are still fresh in my memory, and I mourn their passing and the cares of the adulthood which seemed so desirable at the time. What a fool I was!