A Night at the Cinema 1914 (Various Directors, 1914)

Some people claim they are part of the “YouTube generation”. This is a generation whereby they digest their news, entertainment and education through bite size, under 10-minute videos. There is a sense that these YouTubers are viewer’s whose attention span is short and if videos are too long, they simply switch off. Comparatively, cinema in 1914 seemed to be primarily made up of shorts and bulletins that were bite size and included comic celebrities to round-off the screening. Considering many mornings will start off with a short viewing of Russell Brand’s ‘The Trews’, a video from a friends holiday on Facebook and then a comedy from Funny or Die – it seems viewing habits haven’t changed too much since 1914 at all.

A Night at the Cinema 1914 is part of the celebrations to mark the centenary of the start of World War I. The short 85-minute run-time of the film is comprised of 14 short films that range from news bulletins informing us of Emmeline Pankhurst’s arrest outside Buckingham Palace to the magnificent Egyptian pyramids and sphinx’s as troops march through the territory. Comedy includes a Monty-Python-esque ‘Rollicking Raja’ and a Charlie Chaplin short that shows a little insight into filmmaking of the era.

It is strange to imagine these films, on rotation, whereby visitors would simply pop in and watch whatever is on. Of course a new Chaplin will always sell additional tickets and important news coverage would pull in the punters also, but the very “short burst” nature of each film makes the time fly by and can become a mental timer to judge how far into the programme you’re at. Not to mention how, when you’ve seen military march across a desert landscape, you know it is only a short while before it stops and a completely different film will begin if it’s a little drawn out.

Stephen Horne provides the piano-based score to accompany the film. The music is playful, joyous and representative of the period. The ‘Rollicking Raja’ is the only composition that also includes a vocal track as a singer uses the original composition notes to sing in time with the merry man who could easily pass for Michael Palin in another bizarre disguise.

A Night at the Cinema 1914 veers from laugh-out-loud moments (as the ‘Perils of Pauline’ depict a hot air balloon rising from the ground, taking Pauline with it) to the sadness in the historical moment we see. The first of two World Wars is due to affect every man, woman and child (and dog) depicted on screen – and this was the innocent world before the bombshells hit. But many shorts vividly remind you of the time-period. Planes flying at Hendon airfield must’ve been simply breath-taking a mere decade after the Wright brothers first took flight. Daisy Doodad pulling faces as shocked men, smartly dressed, react isn’t too far from the face-pulling we’ve seen from Jim Carrey and Jack Lemmon. Then we have the underwater adventure of Lieutenant Pimple, whereby the “special effects” are so crude and practical, you cannot help but chuckle at the rickety production. It’s not without its faults, but it is a unique experience that those who appreciate the era will thoroughly enjoy.

This post was originally written for Flickering Myth

Monsieur Verdoux (Charlie Chaplin, 1947)

"What follows is History..."

Introduction

As a Chaplin film, it is interesting to note that within the first minute of Monsieur Verdoux the screen tells you that the film is "based on an idea by Orson Welles". Who would have thought!Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles together! It seems fleeting at best, because it is very-much a Chaplin-film with some technicial 'hints' of Welles. Like The Great Dictator and Modern Times, this film is socially-aware and politically-challenging. Which might be why it got such mixed reviews on its initial release. But then again, so did Citizen Kane. Another 'idea' from Orson Welles.

The Depression As An Excuse

Monsieur Verdoux (Charles Chaplin) worked within a bank as a teller for 30 years before he was made redundant during the depression. He decides to go into the 'business' of becoming a 'bluebeard' - whereby he marries wealthy women and takes all their money. Due to the censors, any scenes which implied characters were sharing any beds or involved in prostitution were taken out, whilst the clear motives for murder and, indeed, setting up the murder was kept in. Sex is bad. Murder is okay! We almost sympathise with the character as he justifies how his small business-motive of murder may be deserving of the death penalty but, hypocritically, senior politicians send soldiers to their death and are not held accountable.

In a similar manner to The Silence of the Lambs, whereby the murderer was based upon Ed Gein, Monsiur Verdoux is influenced on an actual serial killer in France, Henri Désiré Landru. Both Monsieur Verdoux and Landru killed multiple women - 14 for Verdoux, 11 for Landru - and both were sentenced to the guillotine after conviction.

But this is not a film which is rooted in horror or thriller characteristics. Instead, Chaplin manages to portray Verdoux as a character who is likeable. Often, we feel the same desire to kill - desperately waiting for Verdoux to kill off the annoying wives he has 'collected'. The lottery-winner Annabella Bonheur (Martha Raye) whose shrill voice and whiney attitude is set-up to be despised by the audience. Lydia Floray (Margaret Hoffman), the dull and depressed wife who moans about her lonely existence. The social-surroundings of the depression and, towards the final act, World War II, ensures an engaging context. Monsieur Verdoux plays on the women's fear of the depression as an excuse to worry and panic - and trust Verdoux. It brings to mind the recent recession the UK has fallen into again ... and how this inevitably will bring in its own share of cuts and increases: "Well, we are in a recession, so we need the money" says David Cameron. Like the women Verdoux marries, we feel there is no choice - and we must put up with the 'cost' of the political climate.

Hitchcock, Welles and Alec Guinness

As a film, it brings together the strong skills of Hitchcock, Welles and, to some extent, Powell and Pressberger. The story regarding Verdoux and the balance between comedy and thriller feels as if it is from the stories directed by Hitchcock. Consider Suspicion, in 1941, whereby Cary Grant is set-up throughout the film as attempting to kill his own wife, only in the final act to appear as innocent (Not Hitchcock's original intention but the studios claimed that Cary Grant can never portray a murderer!). In a similar manner to Suspicion, there is an ambiguity for a considerable amount of the film whereby you question whether he is murdering these women. Compare the evening meal Monsieur Verdoux has with 'The Girl' (Marilyn Nash), as he contemplates trying to kill her with a poisoned challice of wine  -and Cary Grant, walking up the stairs with a glass of milk in Suspicion. In comparison, I think I would prefer Chaplin's Verdoux offering me red-wine to Cary Grants 'Johnnie' offering me a glass of milk.

Kind Hearts and Coronets, two years after Monsieur Verdoux, cast Alec Guinness in multiple roles of an affluent family. In the opening credits, Chaplin is due to "play"four characters - and I hoped it would be Chaplin in different characters - but alas, he is the same character, going under a different name. The film highlights the 'multiple' characters of Verdoux, and this intrigues the viewer - could Robert Hamer have thought the same thing and took it one step further? Casting Alec Guinness in physically different roles, portraying different characters?

Of course, Orson Welles' connection to the film is not exclusively linked to the story. I would argue the nature of the opening shot of Monsieur Verdoux, whereby we see his grave whilst he narrates on the soundtrack how he 'became a bluebeard' seems to raise lots of questions regarding the film from the very-first shot - who killed him? how did he die? etc. Now consider the opening of Citizen Kane, and the first shot opens: No Trespassing. Again, from the very first shot, we are asking questions. Effectively, by starting the film with his grave, the narrative is also non-linear - much like Citizen Kane happily darting from one perspective to another throughout. And finally, both Kane and Verdoux feature in films that use their name in the title as they are both charismatic and carry a certain conflict with regard to their morals - Verdoux a murderer who justifies his acts in comparison to the Government, Kane as a capitalist, political figurehead who builds up and destroys his empire ... only to desperately seek his childhood. 

You Can't Escape Your Past

At no point are you expected to agree with Verdoux. I think with Kane, we could all poetntially relate to how he slowly lost his grip on humanity as he became more powerful, isolating himself from the world in the final act. Verdoux is likeable and never isolated. He constantly speaks to others - even from beyond the grave, he tells us his story.

In fact, this type of commentary is nothing new: The Immigrant is critical, and so is Modern Times. Monsieur Verdoux is very critical of the government and consequently forced the US to comment further on Chaplins communist sympathies. American critics specifially looked at Chalpin in a new way - commenting on his citizenship and his tax-affairs. The bigger picture is not commended this time and, as noted in the documentary Chaplin Today: Monsieur Verdoux, this was the "start of a very unhappy period" leading to some heavy criticism of Chaplin himself. But one crucial factor highlights his Verdouxs true character: as the film ends, he has the option to escape with 'The Girl', but chooses not to. Instead, he gives himself up and accepts his fate. Only five-years later, the US decided to refuse Chaplins return to the US. In both cases, the punishment doesn't feel like it fits the crime.

This was completely a 'talkie' (opposed to The Great Dictator and Modern Times - which used sound to complement the silent-comedy style); Chaplin comments on society and shortly after, he is silenced. The final shots even hint at the idea that Monsieur Verdoux walks to the guillotine in the same way as The Tramp wanders off at the end of his films. Maybe the happiness that The Tramp achieved in Modern Times was short-lived, wiped out by the depression and war, before The Tramp re-emerged as a bluebeard - assuming the name of  Monsieur Verdoux and foolishly deeming the murder of wives as a 'legitimate business'; taking his inspiration from the 'business' of politics and government. The joke may be here - in the contradictions and hypocrisies of authority.

Mabel's Strange Predicament (Henry Lehrman, 1914)

Over the next week, I will release three posts about some of the earliest surviving Charlie Chaplin films. This is the third of the three - the first film Making a Living and Kid Auto Races at Venice are easy to find by clicking apporpriately. To make it even better for you the readers, is how you will be able to watch the films yourself too as the films are so old, no one owns the copywright!

It is Established

This third film confirms Chaplin's 'character' of 'The Tramp' for the future. Unlike Kid Auto Races at Venice, Chaplin is not the centre-point of the film. Instead Mabel (Mabel Normand), a married woman locked out of her room in her pyjamas, Charlie bumps into and he takes a liking too. And comedy ensues - but there is much more screen time for Mabel's difficulty in hiding from her husband and hiding from Charlie - rather than Charlie himself. According to Merton in Silent Comedies Lehrman initially started directing the film, but Mack Sennett took over midway through "presumably due to more trouble between Henry and Charlie". Having said that, IMDB credits Mabel Normand herself as the director.

Drunk and Smoking

Everyone always mentions the trademark icons of Charlie is the hat and cain - but I think the drunken element and smoking-cigar are rarely mentioned. The character is rooted in this 'bad behaviour'. The film opens as drunken-Charlie is in the lobby and attempts flirting with Mabel before the film continues to show Mabel locking herself and finding herself face-to-face with Carlie again - a chase ensues to finish with Mabel hiding under the bed of a neighbour. Cue her husband arriving and looking for her and, to his shock finding her underneath the bed of another man. Then, I assume her Mother arrives, and is equally shocked. Fighting ensues - and then Charlie re-appears and the fights continue. Paul Merton notes how the fighting in the final act of this film, you can see, is much more playful and in jest, opposed to Lehrman's antics in Kid Auto Races at Venice whereby the force may be a little more than just comedy.

I will go through another three in due course, but feel free to comment below. The book by Paul Merton, Silent Comedies, has been indispensible as I have watched these films and I strongly recommend you track it down.

Kid Auto Races At Venice (Henry Lehrman, 1914)

Over the next week, I will release three posts about some of the earliest surviving Charlie Chaplin films. This is the second of the three. To make it even better for you, the readers, is how you will be able to watch the films yourself too - as the films are so old, no one owns the copywright!

The First Tramp

This is the first time we see Chaplin in full-tramp outfit. And it is incredible. The short is, fittingly, short. As Henry Lehrman, playing himself, films the Kids at the Auto Races in Venice, we see a recognisable character continually walking into shot. The camera is 'real', the camera is not ignored as the audience themselves are often caught looking at the camera too - but it is perfect comedic timing as Chaplin walks into shot from different sides of the frame - only to be pushed back out of shot by the director.

Interestingly, we often see the camera showing another camera shooting the action. We are watching the filming of the action itself - whereby the actual director is directing. According to Wikipedia this cutting between the actual footage and third-person perspective of the same situation is to explain the joke better.

A Rough Push

Furthermore, Paul Merton explains in Silent Comedies that "Lehrman gets quite violent with Charlie, on one occasion grabbing him by the throat and pushing him forcefully down to the ground, right out of frame", going further to state that "the hostility between these two leaps off the screen". Lehrman had worked for Sennetts production company at Keystone Studios since 1912, directing Roscoe Arbuckle amongst others. But directing Charlie must have been tough for him because Charlie knew how good he was - through his success on the vaudeville stage with Fred Karno - and Charlie didn't take long before working with a different director. The next film would see Mack Sennett himself intervene on directing duties ... but this was the start of something big. Even watching it now, it remains incredibly funny as this drunkard, tramp wanders across the screen at the most inconvenient moments time and time again ...

Making a Living (Henry Lehrman, 1914)

Over the next week, I will release three posts about some of the earliest surviving Charlie Chaplin films. They are only short and, to make it even better for you the readers, is how you will be able to watch the films yourself too as the films are so old, no one owns the copywright!

Before The Tramp

This is one of the earliest surviving films of Charlie Chaplin showing us his skills but not in guise of the iconic 'Little Tramp' character. The story is difficult to grasp without reading a synopsis - I simplified it to show an out-of-work man is conning another out of his money, woman and job. On closer inspection, Chaplin is actually an out-of-work reporter, who is not only swindling people out of their money, but also stealing rival journalists camera's to make money through his newspaper.

What is important about this film is that, not only is it the first Charlie Chaplin film, but it is also a film that features The Keystone Cops. The waving of truncheons and chasing, and fighting, is a feature of these comedians but Charlie Chaplin brought more intelligence to comedy - though he was incredibly skilled at slapstick (and this film shows Chaplin ultimately doing what he is told to do) we are not seeing anything too complex or with deeper subtext. Even the next film, Kid Auto Races at Venice, we will see more intelligent comedy that I believe already is miles ahead of the Keystone Cops comedy of chasing and falling over.

The Origin of an Icon

Charlie Chaplins trademark character of 'The Tramp' does not feature here whatsoever, but we can see many characteristics that would become a part of him - the hat, the stick and the cigar. The character, dubbed Edgar English, is arrogant and smug but the tipping of his hat and clumsiness is refined and more-likabale (Edgar is anything but likeable) in the character of 'The Tramp'.

The film premiered on 2nd February 1914 and was produced by Mack Sennett, the man who established the Keystone Studios in 1912. Sennett would be the man who would establish Chaplin and the directed, Lehrman, would also direct Chaplin in his next feature film ...

Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin, 1936)

"Buck up - never say die. We'll get along"

Introduction

Charlie Chaplin, above anything, was controversial. He was an artist who, through his success, shook the tree and commented on American freedom (The Immigrant) using a character known as 'Little Tramp'. Modern Times remains iconic and unforgettable as it was the little tramps final appearance. Created in 1914, the little tramp is - and remains - the most iconic character of the silent era. So, it is worth noting that a practically silent feature-film in 1936 was not that common - in fact, Chaplin even wrote a script for the film but decided to throw it out - "famously fearing that the mystery and romanticism of the tramp character would be ruined if he spoke".

The First Shot...

... shows sheep. The shot portrays a herd of sheep squeezing through a gate before dissolving into a group of factory workers ploughing into the work place. Already, seconds in, Chaplin makes his point. Between 1931 and 1932, Chaplin was on an 18-month world-tour. He saw the poverty and problems in the western world - even commenting "Unemployment is the vital question ... Machinery should benefit mankind. It should not spell tragedy and throw [mankind] out of work.". Much like Chaplin's two-reeler's, this film is broken into multiple sections. First we see the famous factory-sequence as Chaplin attempts to work in the monotonous and repetetive environment of factory work - leading to his madness. Each sequence notes a different contradiction or conflict in society. Chaplin, in the factory, is used and abused and hurt (through the testing of a machine that 'cuts out' the lunch hour!!!) and, inevitably perhaps, goes crazy.

Strikes and Drugs

Another highly relevant issue is also raised as the economic unrest and lack of employment ultimately leads to strike action. Through the film, we see how the strikes affects the poverty-stricken area - putting people out of the job and even taking lives. These strikes not only serve as a way to split the narrative but, additionally, we see how after a strike directly affects Chaplin's employment, his unhappy and frustrated attitude even leads to his arrest. The police punch him and kick him - a real example of the abuse strike-action often recieves.

Secondly, one sequence begins with the title card "searching for smuggled 'nose-powder." and we see, in prison a convict hiding the cocaine in a salt jar - leading to an incredible sequence as Chaplin uses the cocaine on his own food. This sequence finishes as the tramp is scared of the outside world and is more comfortable in the prison. These are big themes and huge statements that Chaplin was making. Real examples of a true artist - this is not merely entertainment, this is entertainment with edge.

Intelligent Comedy

So often I find myself arguing a similar point. Why should a film be analysed and disected. Why can't people just enjoy films and leave it at that. Moreso with comedy. What makes a good comedy? memorable dialogue? slap-stick humour? Not to mention how, I believe, some comedies give the impression of a much more intelligent agenda. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is what first comes to mind, but the relentless barrage of jokes and tone of Airplane! cannot be ignored either. One thing which is clear about Modern Times is how it clearly sits in the intelligent comedy' bracket. Chaplin knows what he is doing and is maximising his opportunities for comedy whilst make a political point. Even sequences involving Paulette Goddard as the 'Gamin' have real heart and are played completely straight - despite the little tramps clumsy nature. A building falling apart provides opportunity for slapstick - whih is perfectly delivered by Chaplin. But additionally, the low-standard of housing for the two working-class citizens is a worthy point to raise. It is purposeful and defined - over-analysis is with reason. My personal laugh-out-loud moments ("lol" moment...) include a sequence as a flag falls off a truck, the tramp picks it up and calls after the truck, waving the flag, only for a strike march behind him coincidently appearing giving the impression he is leading the strike. His complete lack of awareness and innocence again makes the sequence even more hilarious.

The Tramp films often end with his lonely walk - only for him to gain a spring in his step and walk confidently away. Not this time. This is a film which ends negatively as the tramp and the gamin' escape from police who attempted to arrest her. The two sit on the edge of the road and, she cries:

Gamin: What's the use of trying?
The Tramp: Buck up - never say die. We'll get along!

The two walk off together, arm in arm, as if to note that the future is officially bright for out tramp character.