Having followed the interminable buffoonery involving Andrew Thomas and company, I completely agree with “New York Times” chief film critic Manohla Dargis’s statement that “with stupidity a proud national pastime on the boob tube and off, the moment is ripe for a nyuk-nyuk revival.”
Dargis, however, wasn’t writing about clowning in the Grand Canyon State. She was reviewing the new comedy, “The Three Stooges: The Movie,” and discussing those 3 lovable guys named Moe (no relation), Larry and Curly.
Nevertheless, her observations were spot-on about “a proud national pastime.” As a matter of fact, speaking locally, we do need more ‘nyuk-nyuk’ – - – given the real world inanity hereabouts. Indeed, Arizona is again vying for “Stupidest State.”
In 2010, it won the trophy of “a man with his head up his ass.” So dust off the mantle governor, the state’s contending strongly in 2012′s Stupidest State Showdown, which began last month.
Farcical stoogery at the Capitol.
And no wonder when Arizona’s legislature has worked so feverishly on laws like the one that a critic says “tries to Bully the Constitution“ or another one a different critic terms Arizona’s “Pregnant Before Sex” Law. And what’s left to say about the law now on the governor’s desk that approves guns in city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol?
But dim-witted legislation aside, just this morning there was news of other previously undisclosed clownishness. It was a report that the FBI had run a sting during the Andrew Thomas probe apparently to catch in any conduct unbecoming either the private investigator(s) hired by Thomas and/or the Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies supposedly tailing John Gleason and James Sudler, the two independent prosecutors imported from Colorado to investigate and prosecute Thomas et al. The sting was purportedly to thwart any attempts to “plant incriminating evidence on the two Colorado lawyers in order to discredit them.” It’s hard to make this stuff up.
Low-brow laughter.
But back to the other stooges. Having already admitted my affection for what some might consider low-brow “Old Skool” funk, I might as well come clean on my admiration for “The Three Stooges.”
That’s not to say, however, that I’ve been alone among lawyers in my affinity for the slapstick trio’s comedy. It’s also drawn the unabashed attention of high-brow legal scholarship. See, for example, “Images of lawyers and the Three Stooges.” Oklahoma City University Law Review v. 22 (Spring 1997).
Still, it’s hard to imagine erudition on “The Stooge Version of Law.” Rather than reading such stuff, I’d rather watch The Three Stooges in the film, “Disorder in the Court.”
So I’m making plans to catch the Farrelly brothers’ new movie – - – an homage to the stooges’ memorable schtick and their risible antics. But since the comedic pratfalls of Larry, Moe, and Curly are mostly ‘a guy thing,’ I’m already on notice: my guffawing will be solely in the company of my fellow Stooge-loving male companions.
____________________________________________________________________
Photo Credits: The_Three_Stooges.jpg, via Wikipedia Commons from “”Disorder in the Court,” one of the only four The Three Stooges short subjects in the Public Domain; PuckCover.jpg, cover of the April 23, 1884 issue of “Puck” Magazine via Wikipedia Commons and in the public domain.
