"A movie review is a reflection of your life." -Michael Phillips
What's my spin? I'm often looking at film from an ethical (not moralistic) stance. What does a film communicate about right and wrong especially in relationships?
(I only posted a link to the Adventurer because I couldn't
find a good full copy of The Pilgrim streaming)
I decided to watch the Adventurer as a lark (because it was
the only other Chaplin film on a silent film list I hadn't seen yet), but it
turns out to be quite appropriate. Both
are "fish out of water" comedies, and both begin with the Tramp as an
escaped convict taking on a new identity.
In the Adventurer, he claims he is a Commodore, and in The Pilgrim it is
assumed that he is a minister.
The basic joke of both is that the Tramp must act like an
educated, cultured gentleman, when he is anything but. In The Adventurer, this is shown by Chaplin
eating ice cream without a spoon, realizing his mistake, which then causes even
more mayhem. In The Pilgrim, it is
primarily shown by him being told he must lead a worship service, when it is
clear he had never been to one in his life. The last is a hilarious sequence.
The real difference is what Chaplin learned about comedy in
the intervening years. Although he was a
matured comic in his final Mutual film, and the timing and story of his comedy
is coherent and well ordered. But in The
Pilgrim we can see that he also learned about the necessity for real drama to
make the human connection with those in the film. It isn't enough to add some tension, he
pursued melodrama and truly heroic action.
A comparison of the endings of each film also shows quite a
bit of maturity. This is surprising,
really. Many directors and writers and
comedians have a schtick and stick with it, not growing. Chaplin has his bag of tricks, but he is
constantly expanding and improving his art.
It is this that makes him an artist and not just a comedian.
In the final year of WWI, Chaplin releases this comedy about
the soldier’s life in the trenches. There is a long tradition of films that
cater to the enlisted man, and this would be close to the first one. Unlike most of those films, this one is
actually funny-- still, almost a hundred years after it was made.
The set is quite reminiscent of Kubrick’s trenches in Paths
of Glory, which probably just means that’s what the trenches looked like. Still, it almost seemed a comic take on
Kubrick’s classic, although I’m certain they had nothing to do with each other.
Chaplin fails boot camp, unable to follow a single
order. In the trenches it’s even tougher
where it’s so wet that even the bottom bunks are covered in water. But Charlie soon becomes such a great soldier
that he captures a whole trench because he surrounded all 13 of them. But then comes the challenge of his military
career—going behind enemy lines.
The film is well paced and the jokes feel fresh, although I
could see some of them telegraphed well in advance. As a solid comic film, this is one of
Chaplin’s best.
This film is one of Chaplin’s most celebrated early films,
and it is a genius of slapstick. The
setting, a spa with a spring well as the center of the health cult, is just
perfect for Chaplin’s version of comedy.
He appears completely inebriated, attempting to navigate a revolving
door. As the film goes on, he becomes a
chivalrous gentleman toward the ladies, and then a wise guy trying to get out
of some uncomfortable situations.
It is just a set of gags, without much plot, but it flows
quickly from one set to another, without giving us any time to be bored. I didn’t laugh often, but the film kept me
entertained, which, I suppose, is the point.
I’d like to make special note of Eric Campbell, who is the
giant foil of most of Chaplin’s Mutual films, and a wonderful, if obvious bad
guy. Right at the end of the Mutual run,
Campbell died in an auto accident.
The end of the film is missing, but it was found in
2013. It should be included on DVD in
some future release of the film.
3.5/5
The Immigrant (1917)
This is one of Chaplin's most acclaimed and popular
shorts. Certainly it is a jump ahead of
his other films as far as cinematic stunts go-- tilting stages and live footage
from ships. You can tell that his films are selling better than ever, allowing
him to have the finances to attempt the new.
Unlike many directors who take chances on a new look or
special effect, but doesn't put any effort into making it entertaining, Chaplin
puts his full imagination into presenting something the audience hadn't seen
before, as well as putting a new spin on old gags.
Chaplin and Edna are immigrants into New York. The first half of the film takes place on the
boat in which there is a heavily tilting boat, sick passengers, money lost and
won. The second half takes place in a
restaurant where the Tramp is doing is best to pay a bill at a restaurant with
a grumpy waiter. There isn't a single
story that follows through logically the whole film, but especially the first
half is funnier than most of Chaplin's early shorts.
It is no surprise, really, that the second half in the
restaurant was shot first, because many of Chaplin's early shorts take place in
an eating establishment. But the fact
that he invented the first half of the film while he was filming the second is
amazing, since it really works and is quite innovative.
I learned something, too: The Tramp pantomimes "flute
sandwich", which I looked up and found it is a name for a sub
sandwich. Why the waiter gave him beans
and bread, I don't know.
The first half is great... I wish it would have followed
through more. 3.5/5
At Mutual Films, Chaplin finally is free from the demand to
produce a film every week or two. He now
has a month to produce a two-reel film, which gives him the creative space he
needs to create truly unique films. He
establishes a new setting and plot for each film, giving the Tramp the
opportunity to develop as a character as well.
Here, the Tramp is neither a rake, nor a sad sack, but a homeless man
trying to get by, taking what opportunities he gets with more than a little
mischievousness.
The Tramp wanders in a department store, where he takes
advantage of items on display to do his morning grooming, stunning the store
employee to silence. Meanwhile, the
store managers, including the floorwalker (who bears some resemblance to the
Tramp) is attempting to get away with 80,000 dollars they embezzled from the
store. The floorwalker decides to offer
the Tramp his job, so he can get away with the money. The Tramp saves the day, unknowingly, using
silliness to keep the murderous manager at bay.
It’s a more coherent, complete story than we’ve seen Chaplin
do for a while. Also, we can see
Chaplin’s influence on comedy of the future.
We see the first mirror sequence and the first moving stairway
gags. The persona the Tramp uses in this
film clearly influences the Bugs Bunny cartoons of later years. Perhaps I didn’t laugh at this film as much
as some earlier ones (His New Job, The Tramp, Triple Trouble), but that is more
because the best sequences are copied again and again by later performers and
comics.
3/5, but 3.5 for effort and recognizing the ingenuity copied
by many others.
Additional note about the quality of copies: Some are trying to fill the wider horizontal
size by cutting the top of the film.
That's awful, just awful. I know
I would have enjoyed this film more if I had been able to see the faces all the
time. I linked to a YouTube version that
doesn't have it cropped.
The Vagabond (1916)
We truly see Chaplin come into his own as a filmmaker
here. Here we have a film that is
somewhere between The Tramp and City Lights: It is a full story, with many
interesting characters, full settings, and full scenes that give proper comedic
impact without overstaying their welcome.
It took a while for him to become the director we recognize, but here he
is.
The Tramp is busking outside a bar, but when another band
steals his thunder, he passes the hat “for” them. They get upset, there is a fight and
chasing. Although there is much we have
seen before, there is some good choreography here. But not as much fun as the next scene when he
busks for a sole girl, and when that girl is beat with a whip, the Tramp can’t
stand by idly.
This is an almost perfect little film, with a good number of
laughs, and some good romantic drama.
Chaplin has finally entered the realm of the modern comedy, a genre he
helped invent. (Keaton is still a year away from his first film).
After Police, Chaplin worked on his first full-length
feature Life. Essanay Studios decided
that his film was taking too long, and that he needed to keep on his schedule
of a two-reel every other week. Chaplin
disagreed, and so left the studio, going to Mutual Studios, where he could run
his own division Lone Star Pictures.
Meanwhile Essanay still had many reels of outtakes, as well
as the unfinished picture Life. So a
year later they requested Leo White to compile a film from the old footage,
which is Triple Trouble. Chaplin sued
Essanay, but the court ruled that the footage belonged to the studio, so they
could do as they pleased with it. In Chaplin’s autobiography, he listed Triple
Trouble as one of his official films.
And rightly so.
Although it holds together as a single story poorly, and the end is just
tacked on, it contains some of the best material Chaplin did at Essanay, especially
the chaos at the flop house, and the choreography of the “free for all” at the
flop house is one of the best scenes Chaplin’s ever done.
Charlie is hired as a janitor at the Nutt House, where
Professor Nutt is working on his wireless explosive, which the politician Hun
wants to get his hands on (remember, this was filmed in 1916/17 when World War
I was still going strong). The focus,
though, is on the Tramp who makes more of a mess than cleans up. After his work is done, the Tramp goes to a
flop house where there is a drunk shouting in the middle of the night, and a
thief picking people’s pockets. That
same night, we follow the Tramp back to the Nutt house, where there is criminal
activity and a well organized, if clueless, police force.
I laughed more at this one picture than possibly the whole
set of films at Essanay. Although the
Tramp is a better film, this has some of the most entertaining stunts. How I wish Life had been finished, because I
think it might have been the best of Chaplin’s work in this time period.
4.5/5 with .5 taken off because there wasn’t enough material
to make it coherent = 4/5
This film is going to get a high rating. Not because it's popular, or because it is
named after Chaplin's beloved character.
But because it is only the second film that really expresses the
character of The Tramp, as we have known him.
In most of the films previous, Chaplin's tight-vested, baggy-trousered
often-impoverished character is either a drunk, a coveter of women or a
criminal. Not just an unsavory
character, but also not a particularly likable one, for he has very few
redeeming qualities.
In The Tramp, however, our tramp does lust after the girl
and her money, but proves himself heroic and chivalrous. He could have taken
money, many times over. Mind you, he is
still clumsy and lazy and a horrible worker, but we like him despite all
that. That is the charm of the Tramp,
and the only time his character really works.
We saw this character in The New Janitor, and we see it again, even more
so, in this film.
This doesn't mean that the film is a complete winner. Most of the gags aren't funny, and the film
seems pieced together. We have the
events around the Tramp and the country girl, and we have the tramp trying
unsuccessfully being a farm hand.
Neither are deeply funny, but the country girl story is adorable and the
plot is strong. It holds together as one
piece. And the bittersweet ending is
perfect for future Chaplin films, and it works well here.
This film is very significant in cinema history. It is the first full-length feature comedy
(at 115 minutes), and it is the first film that features Charlie Chaplin,
although in a co-starring role. The film
was clearly meant to feature Marie Dressler, who is a great comic, but Charlie
stole the show in small ways, again and again, showing him to be the star he
later would be.
Marie Dressler plays Tillie, a country girl from wealthy
roots, but she remains naive. Charlie
plays the city con, who escapes from the city on the lam, finds Tillie and her
wealthy father and decides to play at romance with the poor, homely, but
strong, girl in order to get at her father's money. With some help from a female accomplice
(Mable Normand), he succeeds, only to find that there were bigger fish to fry
in Tillie's family-- an uncle who is a millionaire.
Dressler is certainly a comic who deserved her celebrity status. Especially in the scene where she plays drunk
and all the binds of character are loosed, she is hilarious and unique. But it is Normand who is the character actor
here. She is the only one who is
believable, who refuses to mug for the camera and is actually interested in
acting instead of playing a series of comic sketches.
But Chaplin is the star.
He is more funny than not, and his movements look fluid and spontaneous,
a breath of fresh air in the midst of tired cliches. Yes, I know it is 1914, but since the
country/city comedy sketch gets played out again and again as does the naive v.
con man. They are classic tropes,
initiated in the ancient world (Aesop used them, for instance), but you can see
how tired some of the players are of doing this routine again. Chaplin keeps it fresh and the fact that his
now common stances and pratfalls are still interesting and funny is part of the
reason he is one of the best performers of cinema to this day. It is nice to
see him play a role outside of the Tramp character, and he does it well.
An additional benefit is the use of the Keystone Kops at the
end of the film. Again, their shtick is
familiar, but fun to watch.
Overall, this is not only a historically significant film,
it's a pretty funny one as well. It is
certainly worth watching for both reasons, and a good, short entertainment.
The best disguise Chaplin has in his makeup box is to take
off his mustache. A different mustache,
I can recognize him in, but if he's clean shaven, I have no idea who he
is. Clearly that's the case of his fellow
filmmakers at Keystone, as well.
Chaplin plays himself, famous movie star, who is a bit too
into himself and he makes enemies of his fellow actors (Arbunkle has great
repartee with Chaplin in his early scene) and his director (Charles Murray) and
so is fired. So Chaplin does a Tootsie,
dresses as a woman who is so convincing that the director makes a pass tries to rape her. It's a funny gag with some great small
moments, including one at the end where Chaplin is fighting with a Keystone
staff member and the staff tries to hit him in the face and he keeps ducking...
well, you'd have to see it.
In the process of them really improving, this has a coherent
story, excellent sight gags, but the ending is too rushed.
Just a couple weeks before the creative low point of
Chaplin's time at Keystone, Recreation, they decided to adapt a poem going
around at the time "The Face on the Barroom Floor". The original poem is about a man who enters a
bar, and for a bit of whiskey (and then a bit more) he promises to tell them a
funny story, and he tells them about his love who ran away from him with
another man. He then draws her face on
the floor of the bar and collapses and dies.
Not exactly comic material.
And, interestingly enough, the film doesn't make a comedy
out of it. They tell a slightly
different story, just to the side of the poem's story. Chaplin, is, of course, the man telling the
story, and emphasis is placed on his days as an artist, where he is looking at
his past through the sorrow of his present.
There are a few sight gags, but it frankly works better as a melancholic
piece with a good punchline two thirds in.
They finish it off with a fight and Chaplin drawing and dying on the
painting, but it doesn't fit the story.
If I hadn't read the poem first, I'm not sure I would have
understood the film as well. I think it
was really meant to be for those who already appreciated the poem, and so
offers commentary and humor to the side of the poem, without actually tackling
the poem as a straight adaptation.
That's a great way of adapting a work to film-- not ignoring the
original work, but assuming that the audience experienced the work already, and
providing tone and humor and side stories to the heart of the work.
I'm torn about this short.
In the end, I feel positive toward it, although I think the end of the
film was unnecessary.
Although still in 1914, this is Chaplin's 27th film for
Keystone Studios, and the first where we see The Tramp as being the character
we recognize as the classic character.
The first we see as a full-fledged character at all, sympathetic,
clumsy, well-intentioned, at times pathetic, at times heroic. Even so, the film is at times comedic and at
times dramatic, with the action being played for laughs and thrills, sometimes
at the same time. We can see the mixed emotions and sympathy for a sorry plight
we will often find in Chaplin-directed films.
The Tramp gets a job as a janitor in a tall office building,
which he finds himself completely incapable at.
While washing windows, he drops a bucket on the head of the owner, which
gets him fired. In another office, an
important employee of the office is threatened with gambling debts, and he
decides to take a desperate action.
This was a pleasure to watch, an almost perfect gem of a
film, which could easily be remade into a longer film. And it was, another longer Chaplin short, The
Bank. Jess Dandy played the boss well
(reminding me of a later Lionel Barrymore).
Here, the first time the Tramp was filmed, we have a complex
short, in perfectly timed comedy, with Mabel Normand as the star. Mabel Normand had a series of films that she starred in and sometimes directed. The films are of mixed quality, but they were among a number of films directed and presented from a woman's perspective, along with films by Alice Guy-Blache and Lois Weber.
The Tramp is drinking himself silly in the lobby of a hotel,
where he pays his rent for a chair which he keeps falling out of, driving other
customers away with his presence (and we assume, his smell). Mabel happily passes through with her dog and
goes upstairs to play with her pet.
Soon, she is locked out of her room in her bedclothes with a lecherous
Tramp after her and her boyfriend to visit and a couple across the hall to
further her embarrassment.
I am disappointed to see the Tramp in such an unsympathetic
light, but really the star is Mabel, whom I might watch more of because she is
a perfect victim here. Although Chaplin
isn't the star, he is the cause that moves the "predicament" to such
hilarious heights, and his perfect timing along with Normand, Harry McCoy and
Alice Davenport really keeps it going.
In a modern film, we might see this comedy stretched to a half hour of a
film, but it is perfect at just over ten minutes with many laughs.
This is certainly the better introduction to the Tramp,
between this and The Kid Races, but we see that the Tramp was first imagined as
a completely unsympathetic character. We
were meant to feel superior to him, as well as of the people who blindly reject
him with prejudice. We are to see in him
the people we are irritated by, the drunk or the person who insists being in
the film. That's a good start, but of
course, I prefer the more sympathetic Tramp of later years.
Chaplin says that as he was on his way to dress the part for
the film, "I thought I would dress in baggy pants, big shoes, a cane and a
derby hat. I wanted everything to be a contradiction: the pants baggy, the coat
tight, the hat small and the shoes large. I was undecided whether to look old
or young, but remembering Sennet had expected me to be a much older man, I
added a small mustache, which I reasoned, would add age without hiding my
expression." Mark Sennet was the
producer of the film.
Note: this is the funniest of these films from 1914 I've
seen so far, as well as the best choreographed.
And it is the only one directed by a woman, for Mabel Normand directed
it herself.
A strange short, but it is Chaplin's first starring role,
and occasionally funny.
Chaplin is a poor man, dressed to the nines with a long
mustache, trying to obtain an engagement with a wealthy woman. He only does so through stealing a ring from
his rival (Henry Lehrman, who also directed the short), and after fighting,
Chaplin comes out the victor. But he
still has another obstacle before he can be wed-- getting a job. So he battles with his rival over getting a
reporter's job at the local paper.
The strange part of the film is the editing. Clearly, there are portions of this film left
out. It drops us in the middle of the
story without context (which isn't so bad), there are cards for what we can
tell from the context, but no cards for scenes that would be useful to have
them. It feels as if part of the story
was cut out, it just feels perfunctory.
It turns out, the director admits that he purposely made cuts to Chaplin's
role because he disliked Chaplin and wanted him to fail. So, rivals both in front of and behind the
camera. Unfortunately, this did little
to improve Lehman's role, either.
Despite this, Chaplin still shines. Somehow, although his rival is the hard
working, upright one, we root for Chaplin because the rival is more of a buffoon,
and Chaplin is just more likable, although deceptive. But this film isn't very funny, except for a
couple scenes, and is sometimes confusing. What is clear that it isn't the
fault of the performers, all of whom did well, but the director/editor.
This film shows up under many names, including Doing His
Best or Busted Johnny.
3/5
Kid Auto Races at Venice (February, 1914)
It is 101 years since the Tramp first made his appearance in
this film. From this time, the Tramp has
been an icon, at times center in the world stage. Hitler probably borrowed his mustache style
from the Tramp, being a huge fan, which Chaplin used to great effect in The
Great Dictator, at the other end of the Tramp's career. Yet the Tramp's beginnings were small, an
inside joke between two people, with him doing nothing more than mugging for
the camera.
The plot is simple.
The Tramp is doing his best to get in front of the camera, posing, and
Henry Lehrman, the director of the film, is doing his best to keep him out of
it. By itself, the film is kinda
dull. But the meta-meaning of the story
is what really brings entertainment to it.
Just as background, the races were a "kids"
version of the Vanderbilt Cup, an auto race of some importance in 1914 Santa Monica,
CA. The children's version were mostly soap box races, using a ramp to give
speed. A few motorized cars were also
used in a separate race.
As we saw in the last film, Making a Living, Lehman didn't
care for Chaplin and tried to edit the better part of the star's role out of
the film. So here is a throwaway film,
six and a half minutes (the "longer" version is simply the film twice
in a row, as above), of Chaplin trying to force himself in front of the camera
and Lehrman pushing him out of it. To
me, it is funny to think of them coming up with this film as the only one the
two of them could agree upon. It is also
funny to think of the filming, where Lehrman is directing himself as a
director, doing the same thing in front of the camera, beside a camera, which
is also capturing Chaplin.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine it being too entertaining for
the audiences watching it for the first time in 1914. This film isn't given great applause, and
certainly Chaplin's performance is relatively poor. It isn't even the first time the Tramp was
filmed, because the movie Mabel's Strange Predicament, which also stars the
Tramp, was filmed first. This short was
released first, though, so it is given first credit.
