Hughes’ Clues

I have to wonder whether John Hughes ever saw the Harold Lloyd short film I Do (1921), directed by Hal Roach. . . as its story shares some striking similarities to his festive holiday classic script for Home Alone (1990), directed by Chris Columbus.

A twenty-two minute ditty on a newly married couple, The Boy (Lloyd) joins in union with The Girl (Mildred Davis – who would marry Lloyd just two short years later) – a nice touch finds some early animation depicting the ceremony.

Flashing forward to a year later, a gag makes us first think they may have already had their own child. . . but it is not so. . . and maybe that’s a good thing. Asked to babysit the two children of the Brother-in-Law (William Gillespie), the narrative definitely doesn’t hold anything back – as they are named The Disturbance (Jack Morgan) and The Annoyance (Jack Edwards). With the latter simply being a colicky little baby, the former is one of the most inventive kids you’ll see outside of the aforementioned Home Alone.

Running The Boy ragged, The Disturbance has an imagination for the ages. . . creating makeshift swings, hammering his guardian’s shoes to the ground, destroying ornate carved wall art, or sawing through a leg of a splendid sofa. The type of day that could produce a grey hair or two, it doesn’t help when a gossipy neighbour warns the couple that a skulking streetwalker (Noah Young), might be the violent thief that has been causing chaos in the neighbourhood (a real issue at the time, the newspaper shown onscreen shows the actual crime story, as well as several wartime skirmishes, including France occupying several German cities, and talk on the Polish-Soviet War).

Fusing the clever gags of the four year old with a possible robber breaking in, some of the skits are eerily similar to Home Alone – a supposed light cord bringing down something unexpected (not an iron though), a combination of nails and shoes can’t be good, as well as a mannequin tricking a character into thinking it is a real person. . . and let’s not forget a fireworks scene (that causes some scares), if Hughes didn’t see this one, it could definitely be considered a cool companion piece.

An uneven though fun adventure, some of I Do’s issues might stem from the fact the entire first reel was axed after test audiences reacted poorly (in it was our introduction to the couple, her parents, and how they fell for each other). In fact, Lloyd was one of the first to pioneer this process of pre-screenings. . . understanding that the audience knew best. Despite the missing reel, Lloyd and his team throw a lot of different comedic elements at their audience. . . some working, some dragging on a bit too long (a bottle filling scene lags), yet, despite this, it still makes for entertaining viewing. So, say ‘I do’ to this hundred year old comedy, it’s surely worth a watch, even if you’re home alone.