Essanays Revisited

"James Neibaur" <jneibaur DeleteThis @wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:C0A73706.75CAE%jneibaur@wi.rr.com...
> 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

With a couple of notable exceptions (A DOG'S LIFE and PAY DAY), I think the
First National shorts suffer in comparison with the Mutuals, actually.
They're nowhere nearly as funny or engaging. Especially A DAY'S PLEASURE.
Though I dearly love THE KID, THE GOLD RUSH, and MODERN TIMES (I merely
really like THE CIRCUS and CITY LIGHTS), my favorite overall period of his
career is undeniably the Mutuals. Twelve perfect short comedies (if
perfection is possible), and I don't recognize any of them as being "weak".
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

In article <C0A71052.75C80%jneibaur@wi.rr.com>, James Neibaur
<jneibaur DeleteThis @wi.rr.com> wrote:

> 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.

I agree.
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

WaverBoy 6/3/06 3:47 PM

> With a couple of notable exceptions (A DOG'S LIFE and PAY DAY), I think the
> First National shorts suffer in comparison with the Mutuals, actually.
> They're nowhere nearly as funny or engaging. Especially A DAY'S PLEASURE.
> Though I dearly love THE KID, THE GOLD RUSH, and MODERN TIMES (I merely
> really like THE CIRCUS and CITY LIGHTS), my favorite overall period of his
> career is undeniably the Mutuals. Twelve perfect short comedies (if
> perfection is possible), and I don't recognize any of them as being "weak".

I agree with your assessment to an extent. I think the Mutuals are
perfect, but I think he maintained some level of this perfection for the
remainder of his career. I have the same subjective affection for the
Mutual shorts as you do.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Matt Barry 6/4/06 6:27 AM

> This brings up an important question: when is
> a comedy not a comedy? I have heard some references to contemporary
> opinions of THE KID, that saw it more as a drama with some comedic
> elements, rather than an outright comedy.

Chaplin's tramp is essentially a comic figure from the outset. This is a
comedy with a dramatic theme
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

James Neibaur wrote:
> Matt Barry 6/4/06 6:27 AM
>
> > This brings up an important question: when is
> > a comedy not a comedy? I have heard some references to contemporary
> > opinions of THE KID, that saw it more as a drama with some comedic
> > elements, rather than an outright comedy.
>
> Chaplin's tramp is essentially a comic figure from the outset. This is a
> comedy with a dramatic theme

I've always seen it as a comedy, too. I think the strong dramatic
elements were necessary to give the film some narrative structure and
provide character motivation, and these elements also accounted for the
strong reputation of the film early on. The scene where Chaplin rescues
Jackie Coogan from the welfare officers is incredibly moving-we
sometimes forget this is a comedy for a moment just because it's rare
to find scenes that moving even in purely dramatic films. Chaplin did
this incredibly well, time and time again, as did Keaton and to a
lesser extent Lloyd. You might disagree with this, but it seems to me
like this near-perfect blending of comic shtick and good narrative
pretty much disappeared after the introduction of sound film. Of course
you still had the comedies of Lubitsch, Sturges, Wilder, etc., but
these were comedies written for actors to play out. The "comedian
comedies", however, very rarely touched on the brilliant combination of
humor and great filmmaking/storytelling that Chaplin and Keaton had
mastered. Much as I love the Marx Bros., for instance, their plots
(especially in the MGMs) always feel tacked on to provide a story which
can be put on pause while the Brothers do a routine or two. This goes
for many of the highly-rated comics of the sound era. It has nothing to
do with how funny they are-the Marxes are possibly the funniest of all,
but their films themselves are merely vehicles to record these
brilliant comic performances. As funny as, say, A DAY AT THE RACES is,
it doesn't create the same impact as watching THE GOLD RUSH or THE
GENERAL.

I'm trying to think of some sound era comedians who were as continually
successful as Chaplin and Keaton in blending their low-comic shtick
into a satisfying narrative with great filmmaking. Jerry Lewis
possibly, but he never seemed as interested in stories. I'm thinking of
movies like THE LADIES MAN or THE ERRAND BOY, which are brilliantly
directed, and very funny, but are really a string of comic sequences.
Woody Allen possibily achieved this, though.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> "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.

Well, here's another way in which the Essanays are a transitional
phase. The earlier Essanays do attempt to operate in that farcical
Keystone world, but the later ones do so to a much lesser extent. Look
at HIS NEW JOB, A NIGHT OUT and THE CHAMPION, for example. You've got
Ben Turpin playing the same kind of clownish sidekick that we see
Chester Conklin playing in the Keystones. Leo White is playing his
foppish "Count" character, with all the burlesque mannerisms and
exaggerated dignity, like a counterpart at Keystone would have. The
boxers in THE CHAMPION are exaggeratedly brutish, like an Edgar Kennedy
would have played at Keystone.

But late Essanays like POLICE and A NIGHT AT THE SHOW have few, if
any, farcical characters in them.

It seems to me that the Keystones of 1915 are often less
improvisational, less broad and have fewer silly character types than
the Keystones of 1914. Slapstick comedy in general was evolving, not
just Chaplin. If he'd stayed on with Sennett throughout 1915, we'd
probably still be seeing much the same development as there is in the
Essanays that he made instead, though the films themselves would
probably also be shorter, more numerous, and generally not as good.



> > 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.

BY THE SEA isn't a brilliant film, but it's very good for what it
is: an improvisational one-reel farce. But if it were twice as long,
it'd probably be only half as good. If A JITNEY ELOPEMENT was trimmed
down from 1800-2000 feet down to 1000-1200 feet, I think it'd play much
better than it does.



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

Shush wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> Well, here's another way in which the Essanays are a transitional
> phase. The earlier Essanays do attempt to operate in that farcical
> Keystone world, but the later ones do so to a much lesser extent. Look
> at HIS NEW JOB, A NIGHT OUT and THE CHAMPION, for example. You've got
> Ben Turpin playing the same kind of clownish sidekick that we see
> Chester Conklin playing in the Keystones. Leo White is playing his
> foppish "Count" character, with all the burlesque mannerisms and
> exaggerated dignity, like a counterpart at Keystone would have. The
> boxers in THE CHAMPION are exaggeratedly brutish, like an Edgar Kennedy
> would have played at Keystone.
>
> But late Essanays like POLICE and A NIGHT AT THE SHOW have few, if
> any, farcical characters in them.
>

Strangely, I used to find A NIGHT IN THE SHOW to be tedious, but now I
really enjoy it as a sort of "record" of what a Karno show must have
been like. POLICE is still one of the best of the lot.

> It seems to me that the Keystones of 1915 are often less
> improvisational, less broad and have fewer silly character types than
> the Keystones of 1914. Slapstick comedy in general was evolving, not
> just Chaplin. If he'd stayed on with Sennett throughout 1915, we'd
> probably still be seeing much the same development as there is in the
> Essanays that he made instead, though the films themselves would
> probably also be shorter, more numerous, and generally not as good.

I believe things did begin to change around Keystone in 1915,
especially after the merger with Triangle. From what I've read, there
were tighter scripts, direction, etc. and by 1916-1917 the feel of the
Keystone comedies began to change greatly. 1914 was still pretty early
in terms of the cinema. The Keystones from that period reflect this.

>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> BY THE SEA isn't a brilliant film, but it's very good for what it
> is: an improvisational one-reel farce. But if it were twice as long,
> it'd probably be only half as good. If A JITNEY ELOPEMENT was trimmed
> down from 1800-2000 feet down to 1000-1200 feet, I think it'd play much
> better than it does.
>
>
>
> --Shush--

I've always liked BY THE SEA, and I'm not completely sure why. The
comedy itself isn't particularly inspired, its mainly a lot of rough
knockabout and pushing and shoving on the beach. But there's a certain
fun quality to it that makes it a short I can watch again and again and
always find it very funny.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Essanays Revisited