Lea Giunchi Films (1911-1913) // Cinema’s First Nasty Women Review Part 2

Someone call the Trashmen

After Léontine is Léa. Léa is the second series documented in Cinema’s First Nasty Women. It appears that she had more than three films, though that’s all we get here. What is included is a real grab bag of shorts that don’t feel like they’re from the same thing. The first is a little on the realism side, the second an ensemble you could imagine is about a series of buffoonish couples, and the third surreal. It’s hard to believe these were intended for the same series, especially with the second not featuring Léa prominently. Then again, Léontine had almost this amount of variety. There still were more noticeable constants due to having most of her films, fifteen. These Léa films are incredibly varied in terms of quality, sometimes there’s good ideas and sometimes really poor ones.

Léa sui pattini aka Léa on Rollerskates (1911) is essentially Léa falling over on roller skates. Too little is done with the idea, though the ending is good. Léa lacks a personality, being a vessel that silly things happen to. If she had an identity, that could liven up this basic time-killer. Léa’s house looks like Léontine’s. Maybe they’re the same one? Overall, this is pretty much just one basic joke, which isn’t too painful due to how short it is. Léa’s falling isn’t great, but it suggests a desire to be a clown force in her own right.

Nothing really happens in Riposo festivo aka A Lively Day Off (1912). It goes through the motions of the story that lead to the end, with little forward drive. The ending is also far too predictable. A more significant problem is that the only characters that get much comedic material are two men. The women aren’t, other than when they briefly pester the men just as basically as women would in your average silent comedy. The character of Léa is often off to the background, doing nothing as desperately basic antics consume the screen. The story or humor aren’t exactly stellar, even on their own merits.

Lastly, there’s Léa bambola aka Léa as a Doll (1913). Finally we get a woman showing some identity and comedic ability. Léa is very fun here, committed to pretending to be a doll for ridiculous reasons. There’s some lovely absurdities here and Léa has a chance to show off her funny falling and her being lit up at the end of the short, acting like an explosive actual human being. The core idea and some elements are also good, like having a doll sign an important legal document, and everyone accepting a doll even could do such a thing. A criticism is that there could’ve been more done with this premise than was, though what we get is pretty solid, especially with the ending of Léa just loving life.

SPOILERS for Léa on Rollerskates

People chasing after our lead, but they go slowly because they’re in skates is pretty amusing. Léa being attached to a car at the end by the angry bystanders is a great way to end this one-joke half-reeler. A group of “straight man” characters running after the leading lady is very Léontine. It’s an interesting twist for them to actually catch her, and for what they do to be a charming bit of wackiness. This short suggests a character who ends up being a failure in situations. She literally is sent away when she wasn’t even intentionally knocking people over. Hopefully more shorts explored this element, taking it further. The Doll episode would be even more satisfying as she’d be fighting back against imposing forces.

OVERVIEW

The formula of these half-reel comedies was getting stale with Léontine. Léa continues a lot of those tropes, generally falling below Léontine. Just like her, Léa does have some good moments, with Léa as a Doll being the best short so far. The little bits of characterization in the first short and a bit more, tandem with better gags, in the third suggests there might be some quality Léa out there somewhere, wherein perhaps it’s a great shame we pretty much only have fragments here.

Léontine Films (1910-1912) // Cinema’s First Nasty Women Review Part 1

Cinema’s First Nasty Women is a triumphant Blu-ray box set that collects a large sum of old comedies – comedies that, you guessed, feature female comedians prominently. The first of many collected works is the Léontine series. The fifteen featured films detail a raucous girl that delights in chaos and destruction. This premise is of course open to including the funniest thing you’ve ever seen or something very middle of the road. Many popular silent comedies have a similar premise, notably Charlie Chaplin’s Keystone work. The contrast of using a young girl instead of what’s supposed to be a middle aged man does give more potential to this series. Many of these shorts are half-reelers. What you’d hope is that they pack an extremely mean punch before quickly concluding, using the limited timeframe to be concise. Unfortunately, ideas either don’t have enough time to develop or there’s too little of an idea, with that five or so minutes being far too inessential.

There is a common formula. “Léontine goes in public and is destructive, affected people run after her, repeat until a whole bunch of people are after her.” Her tricks are not very different or interesting from each other, so it can be tedious to watch all of these. The first available short, Léontine deviant trottin aka Léontine Becomes an Errand Girl (1910), is representative of this. It’s one of the more uneventful, though it is incomplete. There are strangely many needless intertitles. Who thought that and the moral at the end were a good idea? Fortunately, neither stick around. Another trope is the townsfolk being way too animated or extremely idiotic, such as in Les malices de Léontine aka Léontine’s Pranks (1912).

There are sometimes little bits that suggest the brilliance these could’ve been. Many of these films have beautiful backgrounds, with lived-in buildings and rich lighting. Les Ficelles de Léontine aka Léontine Pulls the Strings (1910) is a good example, with the episode otherwise a standard runaround. Léontine en apprentissage aka Léontine’s Apprenticeship (1910) features our lead fighting some boys. That is a great moment to give her some personality. Despite that, this short is lacking in moments you could even call jokes. Léontine goes into a room and destroys something in it. Fortunately, when black paint is dumped on her, there aren’t any racial gags that would date the film.

Léontine s’envole aka Léontine Gets Carried Away (1911) has a great twist, though the development of the story and the gags themselves are among the most plain. The ending is pretty dull. The pun in the title is very smirkable. The prime example of this issue is in La pile électrique de Léontine aka Léontine’s Battery (1910), which has a box that can electrocute people, topped off with a good special effect, and an even better ending. Regardless, the short is very formulaic, mostly being one joke and more damningly the lead does very little. You could imagine basically anyone serving her role here.

Speaking of which, what of Léontine’s personality? Sadly, she often just laughs at the destruction she causes or sets up said destruction. She could have things like a unique walk or fall (which the aforementioned Chaplin had) or any personality beyond a generative force that destroys people’s things and gives them something to run at. To illustrate my point, during Ventilateur breveté aka The New Air Fan (1911), I thought I might’ve played the wrong short due to not seeing Léontine. She’s one of the few bicyclists. She doesn’t even do anything chaotic, as it’s not suggested she was purposely trying to blow people away with the fan. Save for a shot of her at the end, you could show this to someone that’s seen some of this series and they wouldn’t think this was a Léontine film due to her being filmed from a distance for most of it. She doesn’t act wild, just simply rides her bike. This is also one of the better shorts, with the gags having some escalation. It is relatively predictable, but is still amusing due to an absurd premise and a little escalation, especially with that great theremin score.

Probably the weakest of these is Rosalie et Léontine vont au théâtre aka Rosalie and Léontine Go to the Theater (1911). Having a friend that’s just as destructive as the leading lady is a great idea, with them able to be more of a force as a duo, yet they are confined to a theater where they are reasonably static and get up to what you’d expect, they’re loud and make messes. Rosalie is so undistinguished, with jokes not even playing off of the duo element or her as an individual, making you wonder why she’s here. As is typical, there’s no real development to the humor.

In Un ravalement précipité aka A Hasty Renovation (1911), Léontine is pretty ordered and not destructive, as if someone forgot who this character was. She and the other cast members do very little, and thus don’t get laughs. There’s once again this strange issue of there not even really being jokes often. Too much cleaning. It’s a lot more fun to see a fearless Léontine, so this film is a least favorite. It’s amusing to think this was set right after she had an episode of destroying everything. It’s not fun to see Léontine worried about the consequences of her actions.

Despite these negatives, the series does roughly improve. It seems possible they understood some of these criticisms and sought to fix them. In Léontine enfant terrible aka Léontine, the Troublemaker (1911), Léontine is more charming in how much effort she puts into being destructive. Her facial expressions paint her as someone who seems determined. The gags are a little more inventive than usually, with it not always being obvious what she’ll do. Still, the series could be doing more, trying to be as outrageous as possible, but this is still decent.

Le bateau de Léontine aka Léontine’s Boat (1911) is glorious chaos. This one utilizes a simple premise effectively. Gags escalate, with things getting crazier and crazier. You don’t expect it to go as far as it does. Léontine does very little, but this short demands less of her than usual as the premise does have her “careless destructor” stamp in its DNA and it’s such a good premise. All topped with the name of the short being so hilariously understated. This is just about a “one joke” film, but it’s quite short and that joke has slight variations and extremely strong visuals. It’s fun to just imagine it being filmed and how much destruction had to be done. Léontine’s Boat is very outrageous.

Amour et musique aka Love and Music (1911) finally gives Léontine a really funny introduction to the story, with her adopting a musical instrument. The score is great, perfectly portraying her silliness. Despite this, this is one of the less eventful outings. Tragically, Léontine ultimately softens. In Léontine garde la maison aka Léontine Keeps House (1912), Léontine seems to have the best of intentions, but is just careless. That being said, this is a simple premise, which married to a few twists makes it one of the best shorts here, though due to the character shift, it’s a lot less lovable.

The listed last short for this character in the box set is La peur des ombres aka Fear of Shadows (1911). The lived-in backgrounds are just beautiful to look at, as are the darkly lit scenes, making a sharp setting for the bumbling cops. They at one point physically pull on terrified women. In a realistic scenario, they’d just tell them whatever they’re trying to show them, but because this is silent a visual way to convey that is needed. The twist is very good. Despite the fact that the main character of this series barely appears, the more ambitious filming style makes this the best short here. It would be funny if the advertising for this episode made no mention of Léontine, so her appearance would be more of a surprise.

Léontine en vacances aka Léontine on Vacation (1910) has a gloriously chaotic score (for a middling installment). So many of the scores for these films really amplify the experience. I would imagine that the people doing them have a good understanding of the energy the lead resonates, due to having a slightly unsettling feel. To nitpick, these films are not presented on the set in order, which seems like it’d be an obvious thing to do.

SPOILERS

It’s not fun to see Léontine lose, as she does in installments like Léontine on Vacation. She’s supposed to be a challenge to society. If society wins, then that’s too boring. You can see people get in trouble for breaking the rules everywhere.

There are some interesting themes. In Léontine Pulls the Strings, the townspeople, thinking a scarecrow is Léontine, beat it. It’s a little more understandable how Léontine would become like how she is if this is the environment she was brought up in. Léontine on Vacation suggests that Léontine’s family doesn’t know she’s a troublemaker, as she’s allowed to roam around. Maybe they don’t care? At least some of her family do expressly mind her behavior, though no one in this series seems to know who she is, as if she wouldn’t have a reputation. In Léontine’s Pranks, a woman’s skirt falls off and instead of putting it on, she chases after Léontine. This goes to show how crazed these characters often are to get Léontine, at the cost of disobeying social order. As an aside, I wonder if it wasn’t supposed to fall off and when it did, the actress improvised?

Favorite gags include in Pulls the Strings, where Léontine tricks a man before beating him with an object. The ending of Léontine’s Battery, where she evades capture by electrocuting authority figures. The New Air Fan starts with a good visual set piece, then there’s things like some people wanting to cool off, only for the fans to come and blow them away. At the end, a car with those fans comes out and blows the bicyclists away. In Léontine Keeps House, none of the townspeople check if they’re giving our hero the right kid and dog, further showcasing the lack of any sane minds. There’s something extremely charming about the ending, where Léontine is surrounded by dogs and babies. Léontine randomly falling in love in Love and Music, especially with a funny man, is amusingly absurd. Hopefully this isn’t supposed to be a “taming”. It works better as just being the most unexpected thing to happen, not a straight usage of this tired trope.

OVERVIEW

While the character of Léontine is praised for being a challenge to authority, she does often pick on random people who aren’t doing anything wrong, just living their lives. This isn’t a critique, but this can go to show how characters like this can be exaggerated to be as thought out and interesting as possible, when it was really more about the comedy. It’s great historical films like these are being preserved. Despite my many criticisms, these vignettes should be available for those interested to see, at least as proof that comedy wasn’t as male-dominated as some might think. The shorts I like are Léontine, the Troublemaker; Léontine’s Boat; and Fear of Shadows. None of these three, or the others, are anything essential or brilliant, but those three have the greatest density of quality laughs.

A Little Princess (1917) Review – ZaSu Pitts’ First Prominent Role In A Movie

Pickford and Pitts in the film

A Little Princess suffers from the standard tropes of the time. There are things to love., like some nice flourishes to the story. An intertitle describing the girls tiptoeing only taking up part of the screen, with their feet waddling across taking the bottom looks cool. Same with the stop-motion part. It’s a fun segment probably thrown in to liven the film up a little. Those moments aren’t something specific to a formula, it’s something the movie is doing that wasn’t in every story. There’s a scene where Sara tells a strangely lengthy fairytale. It comes so soon you kind of forget about the main plot. It has slight relevance to later, but it could’ve and should’ve been worked out or at least shortened as it’s quite tedious and an offense to pacing. These sorts of plot divergences were sadly common.

Mary Pickford as Sara is generally too inoffensive, not really seeming like a real person. The movie has a bit of an issue of making Sara seem like she’s perfect, with her downfalls so over-punctuated that the scenes are comical. Her brief moments of needing to be sad don’t really come across well, with Pickford lacking emotion. The comedy scenes are a little more fun and you can tell Pickford is enjoying herself, and thus the audience is enjoying her. One cute moment to establish Sara as good natured is when she gives her necklace to Becky. It’s a nice scene.

“All me life I’ve dreamed of ownin’ beads, Miss.”

ZaSu Pitts as Becky doesn’t have to be the lead and thus can feel more fleshed out. When good things happen to her, she has an electric look of joy on her face. Becky is colored with a good nature to things and a curiosity for the world. She sometimes lurks off to the side, as if she wanted to sneak away from working and find something more interesting. There’s a scene of her eyes wide open at Sara telling a story, like she’s fascinated by this little thing. It’s a shame she didn’t get more to do as the best scenes are of Sara and Becky hanging out. Assuming the movie couldn’t be about them getting in a misadventure together, there are moments, such as after the climax, where the movie could’ve gone on more and have some extra light comedy of the two handling the change in situation. Pitts gets one of the best lines in, “Pardon me, Miss, but was you ever dropped on your ‘ead w’en you was little?” One of the best duo scenes is when they find some food. Just look at Pitts’ facial expression and body language.

Miscellaneous comments include: Apparently Sara is supposed to be from nine to about twelve years old over the course of the movie. You really can’t buy it. Someone should’ve either made the characters adults, I don’t see why they couldn’t have been, or get child actors, which presumably wasn’t ideal as you’d think they’d want a proper star vehicle. “I know you by heart, my daddy. You are inside my heart.” That sounds like a low quality translation of a foreign film. Some intertitles have an entrancing poeticism to them, like, “A week before the shadow of old Santa speeds across the house tops.” In the middle of a scene, Sara just sneezes. It’s as if Pickford unexpectedly sneezed and it was decided to leave it in.

Becky in a way fills the role of the male lead in how she’s always there to comfort Sara, much like how a male lead sometimes has exactly what the protagonist needs to get what they want. Sometimes those men give the leading female emotional support without the writing and performances communicating that well, but you can understand that and how Becky is helping. Pitts and Pickford have better chemistry than most romance movies I’ve seen recently. They give each other the sweetest look before they part after Sara gives Becky the necklace.

SPOILERS

There should be more of a reason for the girls to like Sara. We get that a little with time apparently dulling their meanness and her giving the necklace. Also, them liking her isn’t relevant to the plot. More consequently, let’s see Sara get comfortable at the boarding house other than having a brief time of discomfort, followed by an intertitle implying she stopped being. When a girl falls off a chariot, how did Sara not hear her yell? It’s amusing that a cop picked her up and chased after Sara. He gets a funny line with, “I begs your pardon, Miss – – – but you dropped somethin’.” Why is everyone picking on Sara? It’s not like she chose to be rich. She isn’t even bratty or difficult.

Miss Minchin is cartoonishly villainous. Upon learning of Sara no longer having wealth and her dad dying, she doesn’t seem to care about how she would be feeling. There’s a shot that frames her as creepy where she tells her and throws her a black dress. This is all on her birthday and right after Minchin finds out about his death. Her intertitle of, “Your Father – is dead!” is obviously way too cold for someone that’s supposed to be looking after her. Why would she want or need to tell her so viciously? She lets Sara stay and work instead of kicking her to the streets. She is mad when Sara is upset by this, saying she should thank her. Sara doesn’t hit her or scream or do anything wrong, she is just saddened by her suddenly becoming a servant based on circumstances out of her control. Minchin then pulls her physically to her first task. Why force her? She could just tell Sara that the choice is hers if she wants to work or leave. If she’s supposed to be comically evil, give her some actual comedy and a comedy environment to play in.

Minchin throwing her doll to the ground, then Becky popping up unexpectedly to save it is such a wholesome moment, as is their bond’s punctuation by the scene where Becky gives it back to her. Afterwards, there’s an intertitle explaining that Sara feels hopeless, when what we see is her finding a little bit of joy in the situation. Her whole attitude throughout the movie is that if you really want something it’ll come true. She acts accordingly, consistently thinking she’ll eventually be freed and ultimately she is. At one point she gets a great line in, “Just try to remember that after all, Becky, we are both Princesses – inside!” The scenes of Sara as a servant are ironically more comedic, as she and Becky get in little situations over trying to escape boredom. “Why, don’t you know, Becky – when we’re not around the dolls all come to life?”

There’s a great scene where Minchin catches the duo stealing and eating nice food. Sara tells Becky to eat and they start shoving food in their mouths as fast as possible. This scene yields Pickford’s best and most energetic performance this film, though arguably she’s a bad friend for encouraging Becky to misbehave. She potentially could’ve got a lighter punishment if she hadn’t listened to Sara. This scene would’ve been better for earlier on, as it is a moment of Sara feeling like a person and like she’s not perfect. The happy ending is tacked on, with someone with money looking for Sara happening to just find her. What are the odds? You’d half expect her father to just be alive to make this as happy as possible. See the moment where one man is giving dialogue, but the camera is pointed at his friend behind him saying and doing nothing. ZaSu making silly faces is the final joke.

OVERVIEW

A Little Princess asks a lot for its story but can’t deliver. Its pacing is interrupted so badly and its plot so thinly cared about that you can’t follow it when it asks you to. However, it still has a nice Christmas vibe to it, and Pitts and Pickford function well as a lovable duo, with their lighthearted moments incredibly fun. The movie’s not too long, so it isn’t too bad if you want any of the benefits. Something about it I didn’t expect is that there is no romantic plot, which feels like a breath of fresh air when they’re sometimes so forced in. Also, I couldn’t find a score, so I added the score for “Grandma’s Boy”. It fits reasonably well.

Tillie’s Punctured Romance (1914) Review

Chaplin in the end (of the beginning)

Tillie’s Punctured Romance is a historically significant film. It’s the first feature length comedy ever and it’s also the last Charlie Chaplin at Keystone film when ordered by release date. It is a pretty epic way to tie him off. Those watching every Chaplin film can see this as a finale to this era. Functionally, the film has a lot of Keystone elements, but now things take longer to progress and the story escalates. Sometimes the movie will seem like a more typical comedy before Keystone antics break out, like when bricks suddenly start being thrown. There’s some filler that is very similar to the types of things viewers would be familiar with. There’s scenes of Tillie, Charlie Chaplin, and Mabel Normand walking around being silly. We deal with things like someone getting drunk for the first time and someone in a hurry to run away from where a problem is.

Despite the filler, the film has a decent pace and isn’t too boring. Keystone two-reelers are often more tedious, as if they had one-reel of material and stretched it out. The main benefit of Tillie is that you’re always curious what will happen next. This studio has functioned as an idea box of sorts and plenty are used here. Some of the “ideas” thrown at the cast aren’t what you would expect. Even if they are, they’re still in a journey that satisfies, even though probably for only one viewing. The main negative is that if you don’t find the studio funny, all you have is the story and characters. They’re alright enough, but they don’t make a strong impact. There are more dialogue scenes than you might expect. They aren’t too bad, but it would’ve been ideal to have fewer of them. They are unexpected as they focus on the main characters in a way that often develops them. It’s nice to see that even the first feature comedy can understand that it’s important to care about the characters.

The two female leads, Mabel Normand and Marie Dressler, make weak impressions. Dressler is particularly similar to Chaplin’s weaker moments of always managing to make messes and be a little too clumsy and dumb to be approachable. Charlie Chaplin is much better, having an aura of confidence and a seductive nature, only to be far weaker and pathetic underneath. It helps that he seems to be getting the best scenes. There’s a great bit where he’s nervous and starts picking at his cane, taking it apart. Chaplin as always is great at falling in a funny way. Charlie is someone you can love to hate. When Tillie accidentally steps on Charlie’s foot after a few occurrences of her accidentally hurting him, he raises his cane, as if to strike her. There’s a scene where a woman upsets Charlie. He goes to backhand her and a cop nearby laughs. Charlie is quick to seduce Tillie, with the latter seeming a little uncomfortable. She’s easily won over. While the romance is obviously underdeveloped, the movie doesn’t put much importance in it, so it’s excusable. It’s arguably part of the joke how fast they decide to wed.

The warm lighting and pretty shots make this one of the better directed Chaplin at Keystone films. Other favorite moments are Mabel’s introduction where she walks up to the camera; a shot of Mabel in front of a street, with us seeing the camera capture down the road; and a slightly shadow-covered policeman being filmed with a low angle, making him seem more intimidating. Charlie Chaplin’s introduction of his back to the camera before turning around looks pretty snazzy and would’ve been a fantastic way to introduce him in his first film. The editing is better than the shorts, but still could use some work.

There’s a scene in front of a movie theater where all the background posters are for Keystone films. The film within a film, A Thief’s Fate, is hilariously cheesy. A man finds a note that fell off a girl that reveals she has money and her family had to work very hard for it. At a party, it appears a man flirts with Charlie. It’s hard to interpret him as something other than a coded queer. There’s a few big fight scenes of varying levels of relevance to the story. They all feel like they were included as it’s such a staple of Keystone. They’re fine enough, with the very last one being kind of cute. They at least look better than a lot of the ones in shorts. They don’t feel very natural to the story, with there not being much build up. Only one is particularly annoying due to it in a way substituting for better character moments.

SPOILERS

When Charlie sees Tillie’s father hide a large sum of money, he leaves to the other room and closes the door. While this isn’t of consequence in the movie, if he actually closed the door in real life, he would be revealing through the sound that he saw the money. When Tillie is upset at a restaurant, surrounding men try to calm her down. Why would they care? After Tillie is arrested, she conveniently has rich relatives who bail her out. It’s funny when in the movie within a movie, the female accomplice of the thief extends her arms and yells when she’s arrested. She also laughs like an over the top villain.

Tillie applies for a job. Does she have a place to live? She has no money, so how could she? One of the funniest moments is when Charlie discovers that Tillie has inherited a fortune from her uncle in a newspaper. He hurries to Tillie to marry her. He gets down on his knees on the wet ground and manages to make a mess. Tillie marries him. Her doing so doesn’t make sense due to how poorly he treated her before. Also, the newspaper said she was the only heir, yet her father was shown to be alive. Later, Tillie decides to kill Charlie for cheating and starts firing at him, often in crowds. It’s a shame that this very out of the blue element is happening instead of something that deals more with the characters’ established emotions and arcs. Tillie keeps having pretty clear shots to hit Charlie and then either doesn’t shoot or doesn’t hit. She appears to forgive Charlie briefly, only to get mad at him right after.

There’s a 180 degree rule break with Tillie firing at Charlie and Mabel. It’s also obvious that the mansion and the dock are two very different areas, yet the editing suggests they’re right next to each other. It seems the uncle really being alive didn’t add anything. You’d think that would be what scared Charlie away, but that instead happens because he was caught cheating. Also, no one made sure the uncle was dead? There is no final joke, with the very last scene light on humor. While the lack of humor is a shame, the positives of the film really play into it as it is cathartic to see Tillie and Mabel both break up with Charlie and hug, as if they’ve gotten over either committing crimes and/or getting upset over things like Charlie. This scene would work far less if the characters were written worse.

OVERVIEW

It probably wouldn’t be hard to make a fifty-minute cut of this eighty-minute film without anything seeming missing. The film also suffers due to the lack of good jokes. The movie has a nice enough story for when you want something like this, but it stretches out its small few novelties until about breaking point. Without Charlie Chaplin, the lack of a good performance might push the movie to being unwatchable. While Chaplin from basically the beginning of his career was giving good performances, he sometimes had times where he seemed to be phoning it in. Even when he was trying, it sometimes wasn’t for the best film. Sadly very few of the thirty-five surviving are worth a viewing. It seems Chaplin understood that as he kept making fewer and fewer films a year until 1920 where he made zero. After that it was once in a while. The good and/or worthwhile Chaplin at Keystone films are Making a Living, Mabel’s Strange Predicament, The Star Boarder, Twenty Minutes of Love, Caught in a Cabaret, A Busy Day, The Face on the Barroom Floor, and The Masquerader. Tillie’s Punctured Romance doesn’t make the list, but wouldn’t be too bad a watch in addition to the others.

A cute dog that made this cameo in the film

His Prehistoric Past (1914) Review // The Tramp #25

Chaplin in the film

One of the reasons I wanted to watch every Charlie Chaplin film was to see how many of them were Tramp films. His Prehistoric Past is the second last Chaplin at Keystone and I know the last one has no Tramp in it. Thus, Prehistoric is the last of this era of Trampage. You could perhaps call this the end of the Tramp season 1. It’s been an interesting journey going through all these. The Tramp isn’t vicious or violent for the most part here. He acts like someone who just wants his girl and is also a bit of an asshole. That being said, there’s one point where the Tramp is surrounded by women, a man takes them all, and the Tramp hits him for them back. There are other violent moments, but they seem to be coming from him wanting to just have what he wants and be left alone. He doesn’t pick fights.

Miscellaneous comments include: There’s a funny moment where Mack Swain pulls out a club, as if to hit someone, but then seems to change his mind and puts it away. One actor keeps looking at the camera and it’s very annoying. The inside of Mack’s hut looks weird. It’s obviously not rock. Is it supposed to be? It would’ve been better if this short being a dream was a twist at the end, not a set up for the story. The ending would be more surprising.

I wonder if it was felt that simply having this story be set in prehistoric times was too much for audiences to grasp. There are cases where a fantasy or film with unrealistic elements, like The Wizard of Oz, is made to be a dream as it’s believed the audience couldn’t buy it otherwise. That being said, seeing as none of these Keystone films have been realistic, this might be hard to believe. Maybe a way of reconciling the earlier violent Tramp with the later kinder Tramp is that the kind Tramp dreamed any film where he was violent? It appears that in the seconds of Prehistoric set in the modern day, he gets mistreated. The Tramp also doesn’t do any wrongdoing in those moments.

You could take this as a character moment for the Tramp. Either he’s so violent in real life that all his dreams have that in them, even if he seems to be trying to escape it, or if the violent shorts are dreams, then it’s a power fantasy for him. If you watch a film like, The Star Boarder, then imagining him dreaming a violent short makes sense give or take.

SPOILERS

There’s a handful of good gags. One is where a man lifts the Tramp’s animal hide and intends to poke him in the butt. However, he revealed his presence in doing this and is thus kicked by the Tramp. Later, The Tramp and two others slowly move around a rock, trying to get the one in front of them. There’s a nice meandering score for this part, as if building up suspense. There’s a title card that reads, “They Exchange Cards”. The Tramp and Mack have amusing responses to reading the leaves, as if they’re business cards. The Tramp goes to hit someone over the head for taking the girls, then we cut before the club reaches his head to the Tramp where he was before with the girls again.

You’d think the Tramp could tell the women that were around him left without him needing to open his eyes. There’s a scene where the Tramp gets caught in the water. Were we supposed to fear he could drown? It’s a pretty random thing that of course isn’t plot relevant! In the seconds of time after the Tramp wakes up from his dream, he is apparently badgered by a cop. Someone’s really trying to throw this in every film, aren’t they? It’d be interesting to see if Keystone filmmakers (and also those on early Hal Roach) hated the police.

OVERVIEW

It wouldn’t be surprising that the reason the Tramp would later be more likable is so we can want him to win. Those films make good use of utilizing the character’s down points to get him to be sympathized with. The goal is to have a developed story, which needs developed characters. It’s easier to achieve the “goal” of these early shorts, to get laughs, with someone so comically unsocial and unlikable. It’d fascinate to see the alternate universe of Chaplin where he maintained the “the Tramp is a horrible person” element and still made movies seen as masterpieces. Perhaps he tells John from The Kid to not respect authority and how to get with women? To be honest, those ideas don’t seem that funny, but maybe a genius could’ve figured it out? Even the villainous Chaplin roles don’t manage to stay fresh for all these films. That might be because of the generally poor quality of them.

Despite the handful of good gags, most of His Prehistoric Past isn’t something you’d get much out of unless you were a Chaplin super fan. That sums up most of the Keystone films nicely. Based on the sorts of premises they have, it’s not hard to have at least an odd good joke, but as a whole they are repetitive.

Getting Acquainted (1914) Review // The Tramp #24

Chaplin in his death

Of the late in the day Chaplin at Keystone films, this has the weakest directing, looking very flat. The park setting doesn’t help. I couldn’t believe that this film had the same cast and location as His Trysting Place. You could believe both films come from the same recording day. Wikipedia calls the Tramp, “Mr. Sniffles” here, though such a name isn’t in the film. Seeing as he was called “Mr. Wow-Wow” in another, I’d like to think one is his mother’s name and the other his father’s. In all seriousness, seeing as it’s not in the movie, it’s BANISHED! The Tramp looks at Cecile Arnold’s butt for a second before looking away. Would be interesting to know if Chaplin got distracted for a second. The Tramp is portrayed give or take at his creepiest and most predatory here. This isn’t the first time he does something that’s simply very unlikable. It’s hard to tell if the joke is that he’s a horrible person for doing what he does or that the woman on the receiving end isn’t into it.

Mabel Normand and Mack Swain got a decent amount of material and thus opportunities to be funny. However, they seem to be going through the motions. Chaplin is a little, but there is a bit of a spark. No one seems to really have their heart here, as if this was just something everybody wanted to get out of the way as soon as possible. The camera is strangely high up in one scene, so there’s a lot of dead space at the top of the frame. A policeman walks from one frame to another, but based on where he left the first frame, he wouldn’t have arrived where he did in the second. There’s a scene where someone throws something at someone, but because of bad editing we don’t see the person get hit. The cop overacts quite a bit.

As has been a staple, that policeman is stupid, clumsy, and violent. The “They Get Acquainted” title card is funny. It’s a little unexpected and clever. The best acting moment is when a dazed Tramp lifts his hat with a mindless face, as if he is running on mental autopilot and wants to lift his hat to be polite. I’m curious to know what the Tramp sees in Phyllis Allen’s character. The same goes to Mack Swain when he was married to her in His Trysting Place.

SPOILERS

The Tramp quite brazenly hits on Mabel. He does a trick in order to touch her arm and try to kiss her. Possibly by accident, the Tramp lifts his cane with it caught in Mabel’s skirt, so we see some 1910s lady leg. Scandalous! The Tramp continuingly and poorly tries to get with Mabel while she’s consistently saying no. This includes him touching her. Mabel doesn’t hit the Tramp in response, instead trying to get help. She acts like all she wants is to avoid conflict. Perhaps she’s afraid that if she tried violently escaping him, he’d get violent in response. This feels somewhat realistic and thus not funny. Admittedly, it wouldn’t have been funny even if they were being goofy.

Mack is similarly creepy and handsy. It seems like he didn’t know Phyllis would have a problem with him touching her without permission. The men don’t seem to mind the other being grabby with their wife, which makes sense as they were doing the same thing. Near the end, the couples briefly and seemingly become friends for no reason. Based on Keystone logic, you think they’d be fighting each other. One of the best gags is when the Tramp sneaks up behind the policeman and pulls on his leg with his cane.

OVERVIEW

Sexual Harrassment: The Movie is definitely one of the least interesting or worthwhile of this series. Beyond it making light of sexual harassment, it just doesn’t have many good moments and it’s more sloppily put together than other Chaplin films made around this time. It’s more in tune with the earlier installments. It’s similar to Recreation, though at least that one had the good graces to be six minutes instead of fourteen. Thank Fanny Getting Acquainted wasn’t a two-reeler. As this is the last Mabel and the Tramp film, I propose a timeline of their various encounters: Mabel’s Strange Predicament, Mabel’s Busy Day, A Film Johnnie, Caught in a Cabaret, The Fatal Mallet, Getting Acquainted, Gentlemen of Nerve, Mabel’s Married Life, and finally His Trysting Places. Fortunately, it seems this dysfunctional romance didn’t last too long.

His Trysting Place (1914) Review // The Tramp #23

Chaplin in the Mabel

His Trysting Place easily could’ve been a one-reeler. The main story starts halfway through. A lot of the first half isn’t necessary, though it’s not too unpleasant. It’s surprising this short was considered worthy of being two reels considering how little there is. The Tramp and Mabel Normand are married again. Their relationship is generally portrayed as dysfunctional. The Tramp once again does things that aren’t grounded or connectable, and thus are not relatable or very funny. One is giving his son a gun to play with, seemingly not understanding how dangerous that is. Much of his humor is predictable. Chaplin’s improved directorial style remains, though the same ol’ same ol’ of bars and parks has gotten quite old.

Sometimes Mabel can overact and other times not. At one point, she’s upset and is heightened, but it feels like she comes from something real. In little time, she’s gesticulating far too comically. If her movements were better thought out, less would be more. Mabel does many Tramp-esque things. Just like him, she unthinkingly gets water spilled. She throws something at him when she’s upset. When Mabel finds the baby with the gun, she doesn’t do anything comedic or unexpected, she acts close to how a normal person would… and that’s not funny. This is supposed to be a goofy comedy! The middle between normal and hyper wacky is the sweet spot here.

The Tramp gets a moment to be violent, where over basically nothing he gets in a fight with someone and makes a big scene. This sort of thing would fit a lot better in the older shorts, especially because of how little it takes to provoke him. That fight scene is, however, quite good. It’s like the Tramp has had so much practice getting into fights at places like this that he knows what to do to win them. The Tramp is generally not that violent this short.

Mack Swain makes a weak impression and Phyllis Allen makes a negative one due to her overacting. Note her facial expressions. At one point, the baby is wrapped in a blanket and is obviously not really in the blanket. Why not put a doll in it so it looks like something is actually there? Later, Mack is clearly holding the baby-blanket differently between shots, as if he swapped from having his head on his left arm to his right. The Tramp looks at a crumpled up piece of paper, but it’s not crumpled when we get a closeup of it for the audience.

SPOILERS

Why would Mabel give the baby back after how grossly he was handled by the Tramp? She doesn’t notice him holding him just as recklessly as before. One of the funniest moments is when the Tramp nonchalantly eats a stranger’s food in front of him and wipes his hands on his beard. That minor player is great, having a look of disbelief on his face. Another great bit is when the Tramp uses a handkerchief and sets it down. Someone moves it, he goes for it again and feels around and can’t find it for obvious reasons. That’s a gag you could miss when watching! Earlier, there’s an intertitle that says, “He takes the wrong coat”. It’s a shame we didn’t get a visual way of learning this.

Despite the Tramp and Mabel making up over the main issue by the end, they still have loads of other problems. There’s no sign the Tramp will be more responsible with their baby, which was shown to be a problem based on Mabel’s response. It’d pay for him to stop getting into bar fights, but maybe the characters don’t care as that’s not shown to be a problem here? The Tramp doesn’t get in trouble. When Mabel thought the Tramp was cheating on her, she gets mad and starts beating on him, seeming unable to listen to him. The ending is fun, with the dust clearing only for Phyllis to discover that Mack was cheating on her. We get yet more spousal abuse, which is unfortunately a common trope. There’s not a sign that Mabel will be more respectful of the Tramp when there’s the appearance of him doing something wrong. You can imagine the attitude of the filmmakers is that women hitting their husbands isn’t a big deal, and possibly the same with husbands hitting their wives.

OVERVIEW

As is standard, this short doesn’t have enough going for it to be worthwhile. It’d be interesting to see if someone could fan edit the best bits from the poor shorts and make a highlight reel of sorts. The bar scene here could’ve happened in numerous other installments.

His Musical Career (1914) Review // The Tramp #22

Mack Swain and Charlie Chaplin

His Musical Career is unfortunately more of the lesser Chaplin. There’s a lot of filler of the Tramp and Mack Swain goofing around. The two are essentially a comedy duo here. They do serviceably, but they don’t elevate the material. Chaplin and Jess Dandy in His New Profession were a better duo. As has been a common problem, their opening scenes seem like bottom of the barrel filler, with the jokes almost coming across as them improvising material that is a light chuckle at the very best. More could’ve been done with the main premise of this film. It’s not a story a lot could be taken from, but there is something here. Let’s mine it for all it’s worth! Let’s get really interesting supporting actors that can be funny. The Tramp is looking for work. That could’ve had some relevance later, like he runs into his old boss or at the end he is fired again and he mentions now once again needing employment. It’s funny to think he was fired from his restaurant job from Dough and Dynamite.

It seems the Tramp at one point decides to drink from a random container. The Tramp carrying a piano on his back suggests he’s very strong. That looks awfully painful. Later, the Tramp continues to push on the piano despite Mack telling him not to. Can he not hear Mack? What could’ve been the centerpiece of the film is when the Tramp has to get the piano up a long flight of stairs. So many things could’ve hilariously gone wrong, but the Tramp essentially just falls down a little and that’s it. As if no one understood how to resolve this scene, we awkwardly cut and are onto the next bit.

SPOILERS

The duo accidentally gave a piano to someone who wanted to get rid of one and took a piano from someone who wanted another one. There is a lot of potential there. There are nice absurdist jokes like the two addresses they have to go to being, “666 Prospect Street” and “999 Prospect Street”. The man intending to get rid of a piano doesn’t seem to mind receiving one. That makes for a fun character trait that could’ve been elaborated on more. As is, it is pretty much a plot hole. The fact one of the houses is rich and the other poor could’ve served as commentary. The Tramp and Mack getting around on a donkey wagon is also a brilliantly weird idea.

Mack drinks varnish and the Tramp runs around, at one point dumping a container on him for no reason, as if that will get rid of the varnish? An especially predictable and unnatural gag is when the Tramp accidentally sets a piano on Mack’s head. It’s unnatural because this wouldn’t sensibly have happened, but everyone has to just be dumb for this second in order for it to occur. One of the better moments is when the donkey is lifted in the air due to how heavy the piano is. The Tramp is amusing in trying to resituate things and continue on his way. He seems playful and not stupid or malicious.

Mack for some reason pushes down a man who tries to stop him from taking the piano. While it’s supposed to be funny he would do this, he’s just acting randomly here and thus it’s not engaging or amusing. This does lead to an interesting thought, why does Mack work, especially doing something so laborious? The answer is for money. He is so blinded and numbed by just wanting to do his job that he will not listen to his own customers telling him he’s making a mistake. He seemingly just sees them as something in his way, with them trying to stop him from what he thinks is him properly doing his job. The fact the poor man seemed happy to get a piano might imply he was only getting rid of it out of desperation for money. Mack knocking down a rich man in order to do his job and get paid is a step away from saying something. It’d be nice to see later Chaplin try this story out as there’s so much to explore.

Mack and the Tramp parked by the house. When they leave they start walking down a hill. Maybe their donkey walked away, but that wasn’t established? They don’t acknowledge its absence. I wonder if the reason they were riding a donkey in the first place is that that’s a reason for how their ride may have been absent at the end. After they begin falling, a man is in front of them. He disappears after a cut. After a little more sliding down, there’s a cut to them falling in a lake without us seeing it beforehand. It looks like they’re on a street and not anywhere close to a lake. It’s just thrown in. Hopefully there’s lost footage here because if this is how this sequence was edited, then it’s probably the worst moment of Chaplin editing so far.

OVERVIEW

I wonder if anyone was disappointed about not getting a short where the Tramp has a career as a musician, which the title implies. He doesn’t do anything musical here. The pianos could’ve been replaced with anything that’s big and would be hard to move around. There’s a few chuckles, but this one isn’t worthwhile. In fact, starting with the step forward that was The New Janitor, each short has been worse than the one before it, though there are good qualities that make them a little more interesting as documents of Chaplin’s progression. One is that the Tramp doesn’t do too bad a job at working this installment, though of course he does do a lot wrong. Also, Charley Chase has been progressively looking more and more like Charley Chase.

Gentlemen of Nerve (1914) Review // The Tramp #21

The imposing Mack Swain and Charlie Chaplin in the film

There is a certain question left on the tongue when viewing these later Keystone entries, was Chaplin generally alternating between a film with a stronger story, and one with a weaker story that was more reminiscent of the earlier installments of his series? Gentlemen of Nerve’s predecessor is certainly a stronger work. It doesn’t even seem there was much of an attempt to give Nerve a story. That isn’t a problem if the humor and performances are good… When Mack Swain is standing in front of an entrance, the Tramp hits him with his cane instead of simply asking him to move. Yet more of the Tramp being violent just because. A sound film would probably feature him verbally asking Mack to move, so this element is probably here so we can get a visual.

The Tramp and Mack are briefly friendly for no reason other than gags. If they wanted those moments, why have moments of them in conflict beforehand? Their jokes are decent enough, but they’re predictable to the point that many of these scenes could’ve been included in numerous other films. Imagine in The Property Man if Chaplin did with Joe Bordeaux and “Garlico” what he does with Swain here? Imagine if what he does in Property he instead does here? Jess Dandy and Swain both play the same types of characters and each could reasonably do the other’s role in a movie, though Dandy is less exaggerated by a little.

Mabel, jealous of a woman talking to her boyfriend, stomps her foot. Mabel has a light and playful performance, acting in a way like a female “the Tramp”. If the real Charlie Chaplin and Mabel Normand got married, you could imagine a series of comedies where they play a Trampish couple. Maybe Normand was too old? Here, Mabel and Chester Conklin play a couple. Of all Mabel’s wacky boyfriends, this might be the least believable one. He is more comical than the others, but seeing as he’s the Snub Pollard-role, it makes sense that the Tramp’s rival would have the main girl. The Tramp sprays a bottle of something through a wall. The direction it’s pointing in isn’t the direction it’s coming out of. The liquid also looks different depending on which side of the wall it is appearing in. At one point he steals a woman’s drink and she doesn’t seem to care. Amusingly, when he is preparing to have a fight, he hands his cane and jacket to a random woman behind him. Throughout the movie, she can be seen watching the Tramp’s shenanigans, sometimes smiling. There’s a moment where the Tramp’s hat falls off and she hands it to him.

Miscellaneous comments: Here Chaplin’s character is named “Mr. Wow-Wow”, while acting and dressing like the Tramp. Based on some Tramp films naming the character “Charlie”, perhaps the character’s full name is “Charlie Wow-Wow”? A cop is violent. Who is hiring these guys? I would say perhaps one of Chaplin’s characters, like Lord Helpus, is, but I think we could call it one way or another by tracing the lineage of those hiring the police now. Despite criticisms of “blandness”, there is an unexpected moment in the story.

SPOILERS

The Tramp appears to get a happy ending. Chester and Mack get arrested and the Tramp is forming a relationship with Mabel. He seemed to be about as silly and violent as the other two, so who knows why he was deserving of getting the girl, especially when he so often doesn’t? The Tramp is genuinely charming when talking to Mabel. You get the impression he is happier and more confident here than normally. Both have better chemistry than in the film where they were married, Mabel’s Married Life. Maybe this is a prequel to that?

OVERVIEW

The ending is the only particularly interesting part. It could’ve and probably should’ve been added to a different film. It’d be nice to see a whole movie that expands on that, playing up the romance angle.

Dough and Dynamite (1914) Review // The Tramp #20

The Knockout (1914)

Keystone Studio’s founder Mack Sennett called Dough and Dynamite a “breakout” film for Charlie Chaplin. Its plot takes joy in being delightfully absurd while also having a progression of stakes. Still, it has many of the common issues that are sometimes overlooked in Chaplin’s films that represent a step forward in filmmaking for him. The film starts poorly with the Tramp just being a bit of a nuisance randomly. He doesn’t feel like a real person or even a thought out character, but merely an agent of destruction. The things he does are pretty predictable and basic. The gags like him touching a hot handle, dropping plates on the ground, or throwing bread he dropped at his boss, as he was missing the counter, feel like very little was put into making them interesting. This type of character works better if the material is great, but it’s too inane here. While the Tramp as usually has many incompetencies, he appears to be inching towards being better. Unless the boss is stupid beyond stupid, the Tramp is competent enough to not have been fired already. The former takeaway is certainly not impossible.

Miscellaneous comments include: It’s amusing that even when the Tramp is at a job where generally people dress nice, he’s wearing a relatively nice jacket that’s still too small and his baggy pants. It’s as if he has multiple large pairs of pants and small jackets and he wears the nicer ones on special occasions. A man points a knife at the Tramp and he turns it around to point at the man when he isn’t looking. The Tramp walks out of his way in order for him to step in some dough. Why not have it so the dough was dropped in his path? The Tramp almost touches a hot handle, so instead moves it with his foot. Earlier touching it with his foot burned him, but now it doesn’t. Throughout the film, the dough sometimes looks a little different or is more or less sticky. It appears to be whatever it needs to be for the plot.

Expectedly, there’s a lot of filler. In fact, there’s so much that it betrays the two-reel length. The filler is especially frustrating as the main concept of workers retaliating against their job and that job recruiting incompetent replacements is an excellent idea. There’s a lot of comedic potential in it and specifically comedy that seeps from the core of that idea, instead of being incidental. Imagine if the workers would find ways to sabotage something the Tramp is doing and he’s blamed for it as if he was being incompetent? Maybe the ending is him actually being incompetent and that somehow fixes everything? What if the workers all go to another job and for some absurd reason, the original workers at that second job quit and work at the first where the Tramp is?

SPOILERS

One of the funniest elements is that the Tramp drops a large bag on Chester and in the background of two scenes Chester is just laying on the ground with the bag on top of him, without him being acknowledged. It would’ve been nice if this happened as soon as possible, then we get the gags of the Tramp without Chester, all so we can have the most amount of scenes possible with Chester just in the background like that. It’s glorious how dumb it is for the workers to decide to put dynamite in some bread. They all shake hands like it’s the most brilliant thing they’ve ever thought of. It’s especially silly that they have an innocent-looking girl give it to the boss. That is such an immense slap in the face to reality that it becomes genius. The Tramp’s destructive nature has plot relevance when he dumps some water harshly and unknowingly dumps it over a fence at the workers.

The Tramp and Chester’s fights are unexpectedly intense, as if every Chester in these movies is the same person and he’s now at the breaking point from all the recurring abuse. When the Tramp accidentally gets stuck in one place, Chester hits him chaotically over and over, as if he finally has and is taking his chance to get him back. At one point, the Tramp just decides to hit Chester (for no reason). As he goes to grab some dough, Chester stands still, perhaps accepting his fate. The score for this is just a drumroll. It’s such a hilarious moment.

The plot of the boss thinking the Tramp was flirting with his wife is pretty forced in, probably just there so there could be a fight scene. If they needed a fight scene, why not have anything other than one of the most generic tropes of the era be the reason for it? Not that a fight is usually preferable. The final shot of the Tramp emerging from dough cuts way too fast, but isn’t too bad a gag. With better setup and payoff it could be a riot. It is undeniably among the most memorable images of this era of Chaplin.

An intertitle like, “The Fatal Loaf” is so hilarious that it demands to be part of a film that has a wittier sense of humor.

OVERVIEW

There’s the impression the workers didn’t really want anything as they aren’t shown achieving or failing to achieve anything practical. They just destroy and we don’t see them react to the destruction, nor do we get a response to it other than a little light comedy from a few main characters. That lack of resolution makes this not particularly satisfying. Off of this film, you could think Charlie Chaplin didn’t like unioners and thus wanted to simply attack them here. That doesn’t seem to actually be the case. Dough and Dynamite is nice as a stepping stone to greener pastures, but the story and jokes aren’t good enough to justify its length. There are a few great moments. Also, spot the Charley Chase cameo!