Charlie Chaplin Film by Film Thread

When it comes to Chaplin shorts, YouTube is definitely your friend. Pick a film (any film) and feel free to offer up some thoughts. At worst you'll get a boot in the backside or a pie to the face.

 

And your comment will then get edited into the appropriate portion of the word document I am compiling to circulate to all interested participants

 

Yeah I was on the fence about rating it so high because it is not a laugh riot - but I love the comic teaming and interplay between Mack and Charlie. Basically decided I had to give this as good a rating as The Rounders.

The odd thing is that the laughs often come more densely in the earliest shorts, where that was the sole focus, but that doesn't make them better as films necessarily.

Of course my highest rating yet has gone to Caught in the Rain, which I also think is the funniest one yet. Too bad about the abysmal print quality. That is definitely the one I would most like to see surface in better quality. If it did, that is the one upgrade (other than the missing film My Friend the Bandit turning up) that is likely to get me to spring for a Blu-Ray upgrade.

 

You have the BFI set (Flicker Alley) set, right? "Caught In The Rain" looks great.

 

Yeah I have that set. It might look better than other versions out there in the past, but you don't think it looks noticeably worse than most of the other films in the set? It's certainly miles better than Recreation.

 

No, not at all. I think it's one of the better looking films in the set.

 

Here are the main issues I see with it:

Opening 90 seconds or so has some damage visible along right side of frame and there is visible damage along both sides of frame in hotel lobby sequence around 5:25

A lot of fleeting marks on the frames throughout, at times it almost seems to be snowing (like when he leaves bar), also quite bad around 6:30-7:00

At times vertical lines stay on screen like frame was scratched (i.e., hotel lobby -Zbigniew line through desk clerk)

Image not that stable in the beginning and there are some jumps from splices.

Got to be some missing footage at 2:23 before Charlie gets to bar as that 1 or 2 second shot of Ambrose and a woman is to brief to make sense. There is another sh ot that has to be missing footage at about 2:46 as it is less than a second long.

Gotta go to a band rehearsal now, but that is what I saw in first 2/3 of film.

 

None of that stuff bothers me at all as long as the image is sharp and clear. After all, we're talking about films over 100 years old, where we're lucky that any 35mm material exists at all.

 

I agree, and I'm not saying I am real troubled by it (though filling in missing footage woukd be the most key issue a new print could fix). I have been rating the films on print quality as well as content as I go through, so I have been trying to notice those things.

This is one of the ones that has more of those flaws than most and it is my fav so far, so if they found an upgraded version of this it would be enough to entice me to upgrade to a hypothetical BluRay.

The only one that really needs an upgrade for enjoyment is Recreation, which apparently is possible based on what is out there on YouTube, as discussed.

P.S. cool to see SH dropping in on the thread to agree with you

 

Random thoughts on "Caught In The Rain."

1. Whoever scored this seems to have thought they were watching "Barry Lyndon" instead of a slapstick comedy.
2. At the beginning of the film, Mack heads off to a refreshment stand which seems to sell drinks of some sort. So, what's that mysterious package he walks away with (and subsequently uses to hammer Charlie)? It could be a cigar box, since he's lighting a cigar, but the box is still wrapped. What's more, it's completely vanished by the time they get back to their hotel.
3. In another print of the film I have, Mack and Alice walk into the hotel, then there's a cut and we see them going up the stairs. In the BFI print, the shot of them going up the stairs comes later, so this might explain the missing footage (with the jump cut explained by a missing intertitle - interesting that there are no intertitles at all in the first half of the film). On the other hand, "Caught In The Rain" clocks in at 11 minutes, so it's definitely missing a significant amount of footage somewhere.
4. Looks like we can add the guy in the lobby to Ray's list of Charlie's gout victims.
5. The stairs sequence is very clearly the ancestor of Charlie's routine in "One A.M."
6. When we cut back from Mack's room to the hotel lobby, Charlie's suddenly wearing a woman's hat. Clearly more footage is missing.
7. I'm a little confused by the scene where Charlie gets undressed, then finds a coin in his pants pocket. He gives us a look like: "Oh, yeah! This means I can get more booze later!" Was there a scene earlier (now missing) where he scores the coin?
8. Why is there a hairbrush in his bed?
9. For that matter, why is he going to sleep in broad daylight? And why is it broad daylight when the clock in the lobby says 10:30? (This could be explained by the lack of tinting for a night scene, but I don't believe Keystones were tinted).
10. Why do a bunch of cops tackle the cop who shoots at Charlie (or are they just slipping on the wet sidewalk?) and what's that mysterious bag that's left behind when they run off (it's probably filled with mysterious packages).
11. In the other print, there's a bit more footage at the end so we see Charlie and Alice pass out on the ground.

 

It's an odd score but I feel it works quite well especially building to a climax at the end.

Interesting that you infer the amount of missing footage from the length if the print. It makes sense but hadn't occurred to me. As one reel films from Keystone tend to top out just shy of 15 minutes, are you thinking they always targeted that length and that the shortfall in most is due to missing scenes? And would you think the same applied to 30 minutes for 2 reelers?

 

Pretty much, yes. Look at the two prints we have complete from the Library of Congress paper prints - "Gentlemen Of Nerve" runs just short of 15 minutes, and "Dough And Dynamite" a little over 27.

According to Glenn Mitchell, the U.K. length of "Gentlemen Of Nerve" was 1030 feet (in 35mm), and "Caught In The Rain" was pretty much the same - 1015 feet, so originally the two would have been about the same length.

 

Interestingly the next film we have up is his shortest Keystone reeler, clocking in at only 20:44, his Trysting Place.
I will watch it with an eye toward whether there are big gaps, as there could be up to 9 minutes missing.

 

"Dough and Dynamite" was originally 2,010 ft., while "His Trysting Places" was 1,912. Since we know D&D lasted 27:00, if I remember how to do math, that would mean "Trysting Places" originally ran about 25:43, if projected at same speed (and, indeed, it probably was shown a little slower, since there's far less slapstick in it). The BFI version is, as you guessed, woefully incomplete - but we'll get to that when we get to that .

 

I find the score to be a noble experiment that ultimately fails. It works during the quieter, slower scenes (and actually accentuates the pace of the film, which is less frenzied than your average Keystone), but during the action-filled climax it clashes considerably with the action on screen (and the gravity, or lack thereof).

It looks like Mack heads to a business called "Cornucopias", so one assumes they have everything! I think he needed to buy a package of ANYTHING so he had a box to beat Charlie with, but I'll throw it out there that he could have purchased a box of cheap cigars along with one more expensive one as a treat (which he unfortunately throws away right after lighting it). I noticed that the Flicker Alley print trims the beginning of the first scene - so we miss Mack pantomiming that he is going to get a drink (I guess the cigar/cigars were a bonus). The package doesn't disappear - you can see Mack throw it down in Charlie's general direction after the bench flips over.

Version with longer first scene:


This version deletes Charlie going into the bar, and encountering the policeman afterwards.

Is it possible that Charlie asks the hotel clerk "How much?" in reference to the two young ladies in the lobby, causing him to be so offended?

Agreed that we're almost certainly missing a scene where Charlie borrows the lady's hat.

A fun little bit of discontinuity - when Mack throws Charlie out of his room and into the hallway, Charlie suddenly has a cigarette, and it just as suddenly disappears again. Also, later, when Alice flaps her arms in despair she appears to be fully dressed under her night clothes.

My guess on the coin - could it be that he has only one coin left, or only one penny left, and he smiles remembering that he drank away the rest of his money (complete with the tongue pantomime)? His acknowledgment of the coin does set up the later scene when Alice starts to go through his pockets while sleepwalking (so Charlie takes away the pants to protect his coin).

Charlie has a hairbrush in his bed because he is a disorganized slob who also sleeps with his shoes under his pillow.

When Mack returns from the bar and is "caught in the rain", why does he turn away from the door of the hotel to face the camera? It's raining - go inside!

The cop starts shooting at Charlie up on the balcony - clearly the penalty for lighting a match on a policeman's uniform is death. I think the cops tackling the first cop is just typical Keystone high jinks (or maybe they don't think he should shoot Charlie?)

 

Interesting. I am curious as to what source there is for the footage length of each film

 

Mitchell says it's the "U.K. length cited in Bioscope" ("The Bioscope" was a contemporary trade paper).

RE: Caught in the Rain

Thanks for solving the great disappearing package (that didn't) mystery, Ray. I missed him throw it at Charlie after he beats him with it.

About the scene with the two girls in the hotel lobby - it's something like that, yeah. If it's not "how much" it's something a little more innocent like "can you hook me up with one of those two? (yes, I still insist in viewing 1914 as a more innocent time).

I read the shoe-under-the-pillow thing a bit differently - to me it's an in-joke between Charlie and his audience (kind of like him taking the shoes out of a safe in "How To Make Movies"). As we see in "Triple Trouble," people slept with their valuables under their pillow - to Charlie, his oversized shoes are his most valuable possession.

 

Charlie does appear to get the young lady's names from the hotel register.

I hadn't considered that he breaks the fourth wall a bit by putting the shoes (part of his identity as a film star) under the pillow for safekeeping. Interesting idea.

 

His Trysting Places (Film #32)
Shipped October 1, 1914
Released November 9, 1914
Two reels 20:44
Scenario and Director: Chaplin
Producer: Mack Sennett
(Park comedy #9)

This is one of the finer Keystones and shows some growth as a filmmaker served up with a good helping of humor. It is a bit disjointed however, almost feeling like two films loosely threaded together, the first about his family life with a wife and child and the second a fairly standard park comedy based on a misunderstanding over some possessions changing hands.

If there is some footage missing in this film, as seems indicated by how short it is for a two reeler (and other info Doug Sulpy provided above), my guess is that some of this involved providing a back story for the note Clarice gives to Ambrose to provide to her "darling". With the absence of any set up for this, I was misled by this the first several times I watched the film, believing that she was giving this note to Ambrose to propose meeting him for a tryst. It was only after reading reviews pointing out that Ambrose was only the messenger to deliver this note, that I understood it to be a note to someone else (I have also seen other reviewers who shared my initial misunderstanding of what was happening).

I enjoy Charlie's domestic scenes with Mabel, in which he basically lets her handle about everything, simultaneously cooking and caring for a baby, while he can barely muster reading with his feet propped up on the stove without repeatedly burning himself. When left to care with the baby (whom he treats more or less like a prop - not building a relationship as he does in later films with both dogs and kids), he clearly has no idea what to do - lifting the kid by the back of his outfit and taking over his cradle as a place to lie and read while the baby plays with a real gun beside him. Mabel gets mad over how Charlie is treating the kid, which she registers by throwing a horseshoe at him - but she does kiss him before he goes out to get the baby a present (a baby bottle).

The scene where Charlie and Ambrose happen to eat next to one another at a restaurant is a good one which both advances the plot (as they both inadvertently trade jackets - leading to their wives discover things that make it seem like Charlie is planning a Tryst and Ambrose secretly has a baby), and has a fare amount of comedy, including Charlie using a man's beard as a napkin (after eating his food), mocking Ambrose's loud eating by pretending to playing air violin, and making him sneeze with pepper. It seems sort of odd by modern standards that Charlie is serve what appears to be a mostly meatless bone to gnaw on. In the fight that ultimately breaks out in the diner, there is a jump cut - suggesting that some footage could be missing from this scene as well.

As noted the second reel is basically all park comedy and almost feels like it could be its own phone, though the crucial misunderstandings that motivate the characters in this half all stem from the contents of the jackets swapped at the end of the first half (hence, the reels are more threaded together than unified). This film improves on Charlie's past two reelers as it at least has a second real film idea and does not feel like is is running on the fumes of a single idea by the end. But the duct taped together by a note and a baby bottle quality seems forced and doesn't give it the unified feeling that characterizes his best one reel films with Keystone. While making steps in the right direction, he still does not fully grasp how to function as masterfully beyond the one reel medium.

Other positive points include Charlie's interactions with both Mabel and Ambrose, the pleasure in seeing Charlie, Mabel and child end the film as a happy family, and the quality of the surviving print is quite good by Keystone standards (at least the parts that survive).

Rating:
Content 7.5/10
Print: 5/10

 

Unfortunately parts of this film make me shudder a lot more than they make me laugh, although those scenes are generally in the beginning of the film (so we get them out of them way). I wonder if 1914 audiences universally laughed at Charlie's parenting "skills". The scene in the restaurant (both the bits with Ambrose, and the melee that follows) take on the feel of more meticulous later films (a la Mutuals) - there appears to be scripted and rehearsed choreography here rather than just improvising around an outline and getting it on film as quickly as possible. Good stuff! Overall, an enjoyable effort. I know that film makers in the teens were big on starting film titles with "His" and "Her", but in this case, why "His Trysting Places"? The only male truly trysting in this film is never seen trysting and in fact is never even identified. The title is probably still more marketable than "His Parenting Skills".

 

I'll post more about this film later, but I wanted to let you know your initial impression was correct. It is Mack who's having an affair with Clarice. One of the reissues added the "Why don't you post this letter for me?" intertitle, and consequently changed the plot.

From the 11-10-14 copyright:

"Meanwhile Ambrose takes leave of his adoring wife to go on one of his periodical strolls. He has an appointment with Clarice, the pretty telephone girl in the hall of his apartment house, to meet her in the park, and as he passes, she hands him a note stating the hour and precise location of the trysting place. This he slips into his pocket with an affectionate wink - and takes his way to the twenty-five cent eating place to kill time before the rendezvous."

 

I just watched the sequence again a few times and I just don't see it. All the romance that is in Clarice when she is reading and sealing up the note is absent when she speaks to Ambrose. I think he is, in fact, just a messenger (and a poor one at that, since he never posts the letter), and the person who wrote up the copyright blurb misinterpreted the scene, IMO.

 

The whole thing comes down to that title. If it wasn't originally in there, I think it suggests plot A (Mack's the lover), if it was in there, we have plot B (unknown suitor). However, I don't think the person writing the copyright (who would obviously have been watching an original print) ever saw that title, since if they had you'd think their description would have followed it.

Also, if you edit the intertitle out (not in the BFI print, but in other prints of the film) there's no gap at all in the action, which suggests to me that the title was added after the fact (in re-editing these things over the years, I've noticed that genuine Keystone titles seem to displace a couple of seconds of the action - not just interrupt it).

As for Clarice's reaction - I view that a bit differently. As Mack enters the scene, she's breaks into a shy smile and glances down at the love letter (though she could just be thinking of her lover, and not necessarily Mack). For his part, Mack does seem awfully flirty - even when he exits the hotel, he seems very pleased and pats the pocket of his jacket with the letter in it.

 

I first saw the film in a version without the intertitle of course, which is why I thought the tryst was between Clarice and Ambrose

 

Is it possible that neither the Flicker Alley recreation or the WA Films version have the original letter that is described in the copyright blurb?

Copyright:

"Meanwhile Ambrose takes leave of his adoring wife to go on one of his periodical strolls. He has an appointment with Clarice, the pretty telephone girl in the hall of his apartment house, to meet her in the park, and as he passes, she hands him a note stating the hour and precise location of the trysting place."

Flicker Alley letter:

My Darling -
Meet me in the park this afternoon at our little trysting place. Don't fail me as I could not live without seeing you soon again. Clarice

WA Films letter:

My dearest Snooky Ookums,
Meet me at 3 p.m. in the park at our old trysting place. Your little love bird is longing for a million kisses. Camomile

The WA letter has "the hour", but the name of the character is Camomile. The Flicker Alley letter has the right character name, but lacks "the hour". Neither has the "precise location".

Of course the contents of the letter don't answer the "Is Ambrose her lover?" question. If Ambrose is her lover, is all that happiness with his wife (and Ambrose looking delighted when she kisses him on the head) supposed to be manufactured? Ambrose looks plenty pleased with himself before he encounters Helen/Clarice/Camomile - his "flirtiness" would just seem to be an extension of that.