Charlie Chaplin Films Pt. 1:

A Dog’s Life: Writer-director-star Charlie Chaplin of course plays the unemployed Tramp, who rescues a dog named Scraps from being mauled by several other, bigger dogs. The two make fast friends, whilst the Tramp also falls for a rather brow-beaten bar singer (Edna Purviance). There’s also the matter of some stolen loot added to the mix.

Charlie Chaplin’s first two-reeler, and apparently the first film to make $1 million, this film from 1918 is just OK. I’m more of a Buster Keaton fan, I feel he was the more creative and innovative of the two. The dog Scraps (really Mutt) steals the show easily, but you can definitely see Chaplin’s trademark pathos and The Tramp character really is an interesting one. Chaplin himself grew up poor, of course, and he really did seem to want to inject themes of poverty and unemployment into his films.

There’s a cute bit at the employment office with The Tramp struggling to get to the service window, but actually with a rather sad ending to the scene, a sting in the tail if you will. One funny bit has Chaplin sneaking the dog into a club, and the dog’s tail sticking out of Chaplin’s clothes, banging on a drum. I also think we see what was likely cinema’s first-ever dog shit joke at one point. Others can correct me on that, but I think it might be accurate to say. So the comedy has its moments, but for me, it’s the sadness and pathos, more than anything that struck me here, and it won’t be the last time you read that from me. I just think that other films (“The Kid”, “The Gold Rush”, “Modern Times”) did it much better than this, it’s an OK dry run for his feature-length outings. An easy way to kill 40 minutes or so, if you ever get the chance.

Rating: C+

A Day’s Pleasure: In this 1919 short film, Chaplin (not playing The Tramp this time), his wife (Edna Purviance) and their kids (including Jackie Coogan, soon to feature prominently in Chaplin’s feature-length “The Kid”), try to enjoy an outing on a ferry. It doesn’t go smoothly to say the least.

There’s a very funny sea-sickness joke involving The Tramp and some African-American big band musicians, though there’s a touch of racism (or at least very un-PC humour) to it as well. The whole thing has a Mr. Bean/TV sitcom vibe to it, or “National Lampoon’s Vacation” meets Murphy’s Law, as everything that can go wrong, does go wrong. The idea behind the film is very simple but also true and relatable: Having a nice day is awfully bloody difficult, especially if you have no idea how to unfold a deck chair. That gag in particular could’ve served as the inspiration for some of the stuff on “Mr. Bean” in particular.

Chaplin’s own music score deserves a mention here, it’s particularly jaunty I must say. Also, if Chaplin invented the movie dog shit gag in “A Dog’s Life”, he may well have invented shaky-cam here, for the sea-sickness gags. I’m almost serious, too. It doesn’t have the cleverness of some of the gags in “A Dog’s Life”, nor does it feature much of Chaplin’s trademark social commentary. It’s a bit light on substance, I guess. However, it might be a bit funnier and more consistent than “A Dog’s Life”. I guess that makes them about even overall, though. It’s not bad, just obviously insubstantial due to its short film constraints (and it was also made in a week, apparently), and more of a straight-up comedy short.

Rating: C+

The Kid: Charlie Chaplin is once again the poor Tramp, who happens upon a young baby, abandoned by its destitute single mother (Edna Purviance). The Tramp raises him as his own, and eventually he is played as a child by Jackie Coogan. The two get into a window repairing racket, where the kid will smash the windows, and The Tramp will come along to offer to fix it. Unfortunately, the boy takes ill, and when it is revealed that The Tramp is not his biological father, child welfare becomes involved.

The first feature-length film from writer-director-star Charlie Chaplin (who had a helluva tough upbringing himself), and his most substantial film up to its date, this 1921 blend of comedy and heart is more cute and heart-warming than funny (Perhaps I’ve seen the basic idea done to death in the years since this film and it has lost some of its edge in the sands of time). Young Coogan actually takes the film out from underneath Chaplin, and will steal your heart, too. The film doesn’t really perk up until these two get together, and Coogan is undoubtedly an adorable scene-stealer (It’s amazing to think he grew up to be Uncle Fester. Hollywood is fucked up, y’all!). Sure, when you think about it, The Tramp is entirely unsuitable to be looking after a kid, but you won’t really notice that at first. Besides, this is a film that has a kid committing vandalism, really, so it’s best not to think too much. It’s quite a cheeky film for 1921, actually, and a good one overall.

However, a stupid and ill-advised dream sequence towards the end threatens to ruin the fun. I’m not sure what was going on there. Best leave the invention and ingenuity to Buster Keaton, Mr. Chaplin. Stick to the comedy and pathos. But I wouldn’t be surprised to find this among peoples’ favourite Chaplin films, nor would it surprise me to find that it brings many a tear to people’s eyes. 

Rating: B-

The Circus: The Tramp is taking in the sights of a local circus when the cops accuse him of being a thief, and chase him all around. This results in a lot of pratfalling and interrupting circus acts, and inadvertently, turning The Tramp into the star of the show. The soulless, profit-driven owner (Al Ernest Garcia) decides to try The Tramp out as a clown. Unfortunately, despite being an unintentional hoot, when given directions, he proves a flop. But his unintended pratfalling proves a hit with audiences, and so he is kept on the payroll. The owner does not, however, tell The Tramp that he’s the star of the show (lest he have to pay him more!), and The Tramp is none the wiser. Meanwhile, the circus owner also physically abuses his stepdaughter (Merna Kennedy), one of the other circus performers, for screwing up her routine. The bastard also starves her, I might add. The Tramp, of course, is kind to her and falls in love with her, but she seems more interested in the more conventionally handsome tightrope walker (Harry Crocker). When the tightrope walker fails to turn up for a show, guess who is assigned the task of walking the tightrope instead?

This 1928 silent film earned writer-director-composer-star Charlie Chaplin a special Oscar, and although not up to the standard of some of this later works, it’s still his second best film up to this point (“The Gold Rush” is undeniably better). Chaplin actually sings at the beginning of this film (aside from the circus-style music, it’s the only sound you’ll hear in the film), and he might sound a bit different to how you expect (It was recorded in 1969 when 80 year-old Chaplin re-edited the film). Apparently the film was made in a time of turmoil for the man, but it never makes its way onto the screen. It’s jolly good fun.

Early on we get a cute scene with Chaplin being fed by a small child, which is amusing. The film might also be the genesis of the hall of mirrors gag that you see in so many films since. He also provides some rather clever gags with his character (The Tramp) getting involved with some of the circus acts, mid-routine, whilst the cops are chasing after him. My favourite bit was probably when The Tramp gets beset by monkeys whilst up on the highwire. It’s obvious how that was done, but it’s still very clever for 1928-29. There’s also an absolutely hair-raising bit with The Tramp stuck in the lion’s cage. Did he really do that or was it some kind of film trickery?

It’s pretty amusing stuff, but compared to later Chaplin films, this one at times feels like episodes/vignettes for a Tramp Joins the Circus-type TV sitcom, rather than a stand-alone feature film. Obviously, this is pre-TV of course, but it does have an episodic feel early on. Like most Chaplin films, there’s a tinge of sadness and social commentary here, with the poor Tramp being exploited and underpaid. The female lead character (played by Merna Kennedy) gets a rough going, treated in a quite shockingly brutish way by the circus owner. I’m surprised they’d show scenes of her being physically abused, but I think this was pre-Hays era, and maybe such things were viewed differently back then, I dunno.

I also found the film’s treatment of clowns fascinating. The clowns in the film get booed, with cries of ‘Where’s the funny man?’, referring to Chaplin’s bumbling circus employee, who is only funny when he’s not trying to be funny. The funny thing about this film is, episodic or not, it’s still one of the most entertaining Chaplin films to that date. It also becomes far less vignette-based, and more cinematic in the second half, which is much better. Interesting ending too, bucking romantic tradition somewhat, but it still works. A solid and entertaining 20s-era Chaplin effort well worth seeking out.

Rating: B-

City Lights: The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) saves a drunken millionaire (Harry Myers) from ending it all, and in good faith he offers The Tramp a place to sleep for the night. However, it becomes pretty clear soon after that the millionaire only likes The Tramp when they are getting pissed together, and throws him out when he sobers up. Meanwhile, The Tramp has fallen for a blind flower girl (Virginia Cherrill), and attempts all kinds of jobs (boxing, even) to earn money to pay for an operation to restore her sight. He finally gets enough money to pay for the operation, but one too many scrapes with the law sees him imprisoned before the operation is finished. Will he ever see his love again? And what will she think when she finally sees him?

This 1931 romantic comedy/drama from writer-director-composer-star Charlie Chaplin is considered by many to be his best film, or at least Top 3 (Orson Welles apparently called it his favourite film of all-time). Of all of his most famous films (the others being “The Gold Rush”, “Modern Times” and “The Great Dictator”), for me it’s the weakest. It’s still an entertaining motion picture, don’t get me wrong. I just prefer the others (and the highly underrated “Limelight”, for that matter).

That this is a silent film in an era where ‘talkies’ were quite widespread (“The Jazz Singer” came out in 1927, for instance) shows just how stubborn and resistant to change Chaplin was (a bit of a sticking point with me), but could The Tramp really work in a fully sound motion picture? It’s worth pondering, maybe Chaplin kinda had a point in sticking to his guns for so long.

This is one of Chaplin’s funniest film up to that date, but what pulls the film back somewhat for me is how unfocussed the film is in terms of narrative. The scenes with the suicidal drunk early on mean that the film takes too long to really come into focus on its main plot. The film’s sweet romance, for me was its most potentially strong asset, but Chaplin faffs about and never quite gets around to it the way I wanted him to. I think the film would’ve been even better had it begun with the ‘meet cute’ between the romantic leads (Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill), then show us that she needs rent money, and away we go. Instead, it’s like 30 minutes before we find out about her financial situation.

It’s still a funny film, however. The opening scene which features characters talking like adults in a Charlie Brown special is a lot funnier than I expected, having read about it. The opening is very cheeky and features some wonderful physical comedy. There’s an even funnier bit where he swallows a party whistle, I nearly hurt myself with laughter at that, old as the gag is. He attracts the attention of taxis, dogs, etc. Chaplin nervously, almost effeminately awaiting his first boxing match is just adorable. By the way, I’m pretty sure Scorsese based the boxing scenes in “Raging Bull” on this. Still awake? Just checking. The film’s finest moment, however, is the ending. It’s beautiful, and might even bring you to tears. I’m a bit surprised the end scene isn’t a bit longer, and when you see the film, you’ll know what I mean. However, I kinda like how it stops just short of being neat and tidy. It gives you the basic idea, but also a little something to ponder. There’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s not his strongest work, and it’s overrated, but there’s still lots to like and recommend here.

Rating: B-