Essanays Revisited

David Totheroh 5/28/06 10:52 PM

> The only thing he didn't have at
> Essanay, that he gave himself more and more of with each subsequent
> contract, was freedom from time pressures.

But he did have more time at Essanay than he had enjoyed at Mutual, and this
is evident especially in those Essanay shorts that are essentially
reworkings of his Keystone ideas. He was allowed to try some of the things,
engage in some of the experimentation, that the budget-minded Sennett would
not allow
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

James Neibaur wrote:
> David Totheroh 5/28/06 11:48 PM
>
> > Did you mean "than he had enjoyed at Keystone"?
>
> Yes fer crissakes, sometimes my mind doesn't work as quickly as I can type!
>
> > If so, that was sort of
> > my point. First he got control of his work and then, with each new
> > contract, he gave himself progressively more and more time to meet
> > outside deadlines, until with UA those deadlines were virtually
> > nonexistent.
>
> Yep. And at Essanay this development shows a discernible transition with
> each film. I find the period quite fascinating.
>
> Did you grandfather have much contact with Chaplin during this period? I
> know he was shooting the Broncho Billy westerns.

Rollie reported that he was with the driver who initially brought
Chaplin to Niles for the first time. He didn't talk much at all about
socializing with Chaplin as much as he did with the rest of the crew,
and the Snakeville gang, and of course the baseball team. I'll have to
check, but I think I remember him describing Chaplin as being aloof.
There was the incident when Chaplin 'caught' Anderson and Rollie
starting to cut (almost certainly) A Night Out. He gave them hell for
messing with his film, and for not working on a print instead of the
camera neg. Chaplin used to come out and watch them shoot the westerns.
And it's pretty clear, from their later ongoing relationship, in spite
of the editing run in, that they got along and respected each other's
work. Rollie also traveled with Anderson at least once to L.A. during
the summer of 1915 to "check up on" the Essanay folks working there
after Chaplin left Niles. Remember, Chaplin's stay in Niles was not
much more than 10 weeks.
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

David Totheroh 5/28/06 11:48 PM

> Did you mean "than he had enjoyed at Keystone"?

Yes fer crissakes, sometimes my mind doesn't work as quickly as I can type!

> If so, that was sort of
> my point. First he got control of his work and then, with each new
> contract, he gave himself progressively more and more time to meet
> outside deadlines, until with UA those deadlines were virtually
> nonexistent.

Yep. And at Essanay this development shows a discernible transition with
each film. I find the period quite fascinating.

Did you grandfather have much contact with Chaplin during this period? I
know he was shooting the Broncho Billy westerns.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Chaplin's Essanay somedies have always been some of my all time
favorites. Not for any deep meanings within the films structures or
seeing Chaplin's transition in filmaking away from Keystone (of which i
also like a great deal), it's plainly because the films are very funny
to me.

When I was a young teen discovering these comedies for the first time I
used to watch the syndicated "Charlie Chaplin Comedy Theater" and it
was always the Essanays that I enjoyed the most. Don't know what it
exactly is. Most likely it's the clever gags and funny eccentric
supporting characters in the shorts that appeal to me. There's a
free-wheeling, gritty atmosphere to the goings on I like.

Off hand I'd say WORK, A WOMAN, A JITNEY ELOPEMENT, SHANGHAIED, THE
CHAMPION, IN THE PARK, BY THE SEA, POLICE, A NIGHT IN THE SHOW and A
NIGHT OUT are some of Chaplin's funniest comedies.
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

In response to Jim's question in another thread (I'm presuming the
Essanay discussion has jumped HERE)...

I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
stock company) of the Keystones is missing, and Charlie hasn't yet
matured enough as an artist to turn out films as good as the Mutuals.
Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
into a rather dreary experience for me.

Of course, there are exceptions - and the later Essanays are almost as
good as the lesser Mutuals.
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Doug Sulpy 5/29/06 9:20 AM

> In response to Jim's question in another thread (I'm presuming the
> Essanay discussion has jumped HERE)...
>
> I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
> them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
> stock company) of the Keystones is missing, and Charlie hasn't yet
> matured enough as an artist to turn out films as good as the Mutuals.
> Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
> into a rather dreary experience for me.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions - and the later Essanays are almost as
> good as the lesser Mutuals.

I find this period especially fascinating as the transition between the
primitive knockabout Keystones and the refined Mutuals. Each film has a
significant transitional element, some more than others. And certainly as
Chaplin was concluding his tenure in Niles, he was showing real signs of
what was to come with the brilliant Mutual output
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

In article <C0A07E6F.75519%jneibaur@wi.rr.com>, James Neibaur
<jneibaur.DeleteThis@wi.rr.com> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy 5/29/06 9:20 AM
>
> > In response to Jim's question in another thread (I'm presuming the
> > Essanay discussion has jumped HERE)...
> >
> > I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
> > them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
> > stock company) of the Keystones is missing, and Charlie hasn't yet
> > matured enough as an artist to turn out films as good as the Mutuals.
> > Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
> > into a rather dreary experience for me.
> >
> > Of course, there are exceptions - and the later Essanays are almost as
> > good as the lesser Mutuals.
>
> I find this period especially fascinating as the transition between the
> primitive knockabout Keystones and the refined Mutuals. Each film has a
> significant transitional element, some more than others. And certainly as
> Chaplin was concluding his tenure in Niles, he was showing real signs of
> what was to come with the brilliant Mutual output

Looks like I have notes on his New Job, The Champion and A Night Out
(the rest I'll have to re-watch). Should I post them here, or start a
seperate thread for each?
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Doug Sulpy 5/29/06 1:20 PM

> Looks like I have notes on his New Job, The Champion and A Night Out
> (the rest I'll have to re-watch). Should I post them here, or start a
> seperate thread for each?

Any way you wish. I will be pleased with the information. Thanks very much

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
> them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
> stock company) of the Keystones is missing,

The Keystones do have a certain zest that's lacking in most of the
Essanays. Part of that might simply be a matter of length. Unlike the
Keystones, the Essanays are nearly all two-reelers... even ones like A
WOMAN, A JITNEY ELOPEMENT and A NIGHT OUT, which feel padded, and would
probably play better if they'd been done as one-reelers.

The Keystones benefit from a more interesting pool of supporting
players, though.


> and Charlie hasn't yet
> matured enough as an artist to turn out films as good as the Mutuals.

But he was also willing to use gag-men at Mutual, or at least "idea
men," like Vincent Bryan and maybe Henry Bergman. He doesn't seem to
have been doing that at Essanay.


> Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
> into a rather dreary experience for me.

What examples are you thinking of? To my eyes they've all got better
production values than the Keystones have.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

"Doug Sulpy" <KidAutoRaces.TakeThisOut@Venice.net> wrote in message
news:290520061020546205%KidAutoRaces@Venice.net...
> In response to Jim's question in another thread (I'm presuming the
> Essanay discussion has jumped HERE)...
>
> I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
> them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
> stock company) of the Keystones is missing, and Charlie hasn't yet
> matured enough as an artist to turn out films as good as the Mutuals.
> Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
> into a rather dreary experience for me.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions - and the later Essanays are almost as
> good as the lesser Mutuals.

You too? I never found the Essanays that funny either.

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

James Neibaur wrote:
> Doug Sulpy 6/3/06 9:45 AM
>
> > "Zest" is a good word for it - yeah. The Keystones have a certain --
> > SOMETHING (sense of fun, maybe?) that's entirely missing (for me) from
> > the early Essanays. The Keystones exist in a surreal comic universe...
> > the Essanays exist in OUR universe, attempting to replicate that other
> > one.
>
> I agree with your assessment of the fun, zesty Keystones, but I do see the
> Essanays as a very important transition from them to the Mutuals, and
> believe they have been terribly overlooked for decades.

They've also existed in some of the worst prints for the longest time.
This is a purely subjective opinion, but I can take the Keystones in
rough battered prints, because they are rough films. I don't really
need them to look crystal clear and projected at the right speed to be
funny (in fact, the deliriously fast projection speeds add to the
fun).

The Essanays, on the other hand, were like watching totally different
films when I bought the Image restorations. All previous editions I'd
seen were very bad looking, and appeared to be video transfers from the
80s given those white-on-black opening titles they all had.

>
> There is a very real, evident transition taking place where Chaplin is
> emerging from knockabout Charlie the comic to Charles the filmmaker. It
> culminated with the Mutual series.
>
> JN

Would you say that the Mutuals were the height of Chaplin's career? I
think they were the height of his career as a "comedian", in the sense
of the tricks and acts he had performed on stage. If his career had
gone no further than the Mutuals, or possibly the First National
shorts, Chaplin would still be remembered as one of the great comedians
of the silent era, much as we are starting to think of Arbuckle based
on the work he did in the time he was given. (I do think, though, that
his reputation would still be among the "big three", just maybe not as
high as Keaton and Lloyd's. Also, he would have been ignored by the
critics who championed his later, more "serious" efforts).

However, as a filmmaker, it seems hard to ignore THE GOLD RUSH-MODERN
TIMES as perhaps Chaplin's peak, cinematically. The late 1920s was
really a highpoint in terms of artistry in the American cinema, and
many silent screen artists did their best work in this period. Keaton's
THE GENERAL, Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN, and Langdon's THE STRONG MAN are
just three comic examples, but there was also William S. Hart's
TUMBLEWEEDS, Fairbanks' THE GAUCHO, Pickford's SPARROWS, Valentino's
THE EAGLE, etc. The Chaplin film that seems to have had the biggest
impact at this time is THE GOLD RUSH, but certainly his 1930s films are
equally strong. Without these three or four films, it seems that his
reputation as a great filmmaker, worthy of mention alongside Griffith,
von Stroheim, DeMille, Eisenstein, etc. would not have been firmly
cemented. Putting aside for a moment the comedy elements of THE GOLD
RUSH, CITY LIGHTS, and MODERN TIMES (and THE CIRCUS, too, really),
these films show an astonishing artistry in terms of their technical
presentation, and have profound and moving stories that stay with
viewers for years. CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES also benefit from
featuring Chaplin's musical scores. On top of this, Chaplin works in
some of the funniest sequences and most memorable comic set pieces ever
committed to film.

Just to draw a little "modern day" comparison:
I would agree that the Mutuals are Chaplin's "funniest" films, just as
I would say that "Take the Money and Run", "Bananas" and "Sleeper" are
Woody Allen's "funniest" films. But then I would argue that CITY LIGHTS
represents Chaplin at his most mature and profound as a filmmaker, much
in the same way MANHATTAN represents the same for Woody Allen.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

James Neibaur wrote:
> Matt Barry 6/3/06 11:53 AM
>
> > Would you say that the Mutuals were the height of Chaplin's career?
>
> I think from that point he maintained his absolute level of genius, thru
> First National and UA. Of course the feature films will have more depth,
> because there was more screen time. But I don't think he got better in that
> it wasn't likely possible to improve from that incredible level.
>
> JN

I would agree that he was at the height of his brilliance as a
comedian. I think a lot of it has to do with what "approach" one takes
to the films. A performance artist or comedian would probably find the
Mutuals the most interesting, as they are excellent recordings of his
great comic performances and gags. A filmmaker interested in narrative,
editing, lighting, etc. may find THE GOLD RUSH and MODERN TIMES more
interesting. This is not to say one is "better" than the other.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

In article <1149006416.682418.249110.RemoveThis@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Shush <shushfilmseznospam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> > I watch most of the Essanays "under duress" simply because I don't find
> > them very entertaining. The fun and farce (not to mention the unequaled
> > stock company) of the Keystones is missing,
>
> The Keystones do have a certain zest that's lacking in most of the
> Essanays.

"Zest" is a good word for it - yeah. The Keystones have a certain --
SOMETHING (sense of fun, maybe?) that's entirely missing (for me) from
the early Essanays. The Keystones exist in a surreal comic universe...
the Essanays exist in OUR universe, attempting to replicate that other
one.

Kind of like comparing that "something" that's in the Roach Laurel and
Hardy's to the Fox films.

> Part of that might simply be a matter of length. Unlike the
> Keystones, the Essanays are nearly all two-reelers... even ones like A
> WOMAN, A JITNEY ELOPEMENT and A NIGHT OUT, which feel padded, and would
> probably play better if they'd been done as one-reelers.

That's interesting. I never thought the reason they drag on is simply
because they're longer than they need to be. It might be fun to try and
cut one down someday and see how it plays as a one-reeler.

> > Add that to the lousy production values on most of them, and they turn
> > into a rather dreary experience for me.
>
> What examples are you thinking of? To my eyes they've all got better
> production values than the Keystones have.

Well, it goes back to that "surreal comic universe" thing - the fake
painted backdrops on the Keystones don't strike me as 'poor production
values' - indeed, they're part of the fun, and fit nicely with the
cartoon-like characters.

The earlier Essanays, on the other hand, feel cheaper to me simply
BECAUSE the locations (and backdrops) are more realistic. The kind of
run-down places in "The Tramp" and "The Champion" have a kind of "home
movie" vibe that somehow seems to fight against the comic action that's
going on.
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited