The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (1947)

Directed by Preston Sturges; produced by Howard Hughes and Preston Sturges

A go-getter (Harold Lloyd) who came from behind in college and wowed everyone with his courage and determination is offered a job after graduation. Thinking that, as an ‘ideas man’, he belongs in the company’s advertising department, he is instead made a lowly accounting clerk, where he remains for the next twenty-two years. He is then fired, not just for not making progress but for actually regressing. It’s then that, with the help of a likeable small-time gambler (Jimmy Conlin), a lion (Jackie), a potent alcoholic cocktail and his own salvaged grit, he tries to reclaim the future that should have been his.

Another Sturges comedy (to go with The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, reviewed a couple of weeks ago), The Sin of Harold Diddlebock is remarkable in a number of ways. Firstly, it is a sequel to Lloyd’s classic 1925 silent-film The Freshman; so much so, in fact, that it incorporates the finale of that movie as the first fifteen minutes or so of this newer feature. Sturges wrote the screenplay with the intriguing notion of examining the destiny of the hero from the first movie, but then diverged with Lloyd over the form of the finished product. The result was, in truth, two movies: a longer, The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (Lloyd’s preference), and a shorter, called Mad Wednesday (Sturges’s favourite). Not having seen the latter, I can attest only that the former is an enjoyable comedy, fast-paced for the most part, typical of both director and star, with some slower bits that don’t do it any harm.

Lloyd made few movies after the advent of sound, though here he shows himself fully capable of utilizing it for comedy (the scene in which he explains to a young woman how he fell in love, consecutively, with all six of her elder sisters, is an example of his understated use of humour.) Though in his fifties at the time, Lloyd, with the right lighting and behaviour, and a modicum of make-up, convincingly portrays the younger character in a prolongation of the story that takes place in the 1920s. His style of acting adapted very well to the more naturalistic approach of the 1940s and, if that style includes bombast and exaggeration, it’s meant to accompany his exuberant (and, at times, drunk) character.

Another oddity is the leading lady, Frances Ramsden, who was in only three movies (this one being her last (as it was Lloyd’s) and only credited role), yet she handles herself very well and is a good, soft-spoken foil for the leading man. Why she didn't go on to other films, I don't know. The usual cast of Sturges regulars (of whom Conlin is one) are included, while Rudy Vallee, former 1930s musician and crooner turned actor, has a strangely small role, probably reduced in the editing room.

There is less subtle criticism or satire than in other Sturges movies, though there is some pointed commentary on growing old and wasting time. Risqué dialogue is added more than once, but it has to be caught fast.

The Sin of Harold Diddlebock did not do well with audiences (nor did its alter ego Mad Wednesday.) This may have been due to younger audiences preferring the newer comic actors, and Lloyd’s older fans favoring his silent work. Or it may be that I have missed the boat entirely. But this critic thinks that Lloyd’s last movie is a fun farewell from an imaginative and entertaining performer who deserves to be more widely remembered.