El chico

A very poor woman (Edna Purviance) can't take care of her baby and therefore she puts him in the back of a car, hoping someone will take good care of him. By a coincidence the kid ends up in the arms of a tramp, played by Charlie Chaplin of course, and he finds a note that asks if someone will take care of the orphan child. The tramp takes the job and the story continues five years later.

We see how the tramp and the kid (now played by Jackie Coogan) live and love each other, how they have little sneaky plans to earn money, how they belong to each other. In the meanwhile the woman has become rich and when she does a little charity for the poor she meets the kid not knowing it is hers.

This is a great feature film with Chaplin as the tramp. He composed the music himself as well and it fits the story perfectly. The kid is very good and he does a great job in scenes where kids can easily overreact. There is one great sequence where the tramp is in dreamland and every single person is an angel. This could have been a great movie on its own. As the film says in the first seconds, 'The Kid' is good for a laugh and perhaps a tear.

Charlie Chaplin's study of a tramp teaming up with a street kid (the cute little Jackie Coogan) has a fine line to tread between humour and pathos, and true to what you would expect of his best work, does it superbly. The tramp always manages to wring the hearts of his viewers and adding a little boy to the mix was the finishing touch. Look out too for little Lita Grey in the angel sequence, who would become Chaplin's 2nd wife four years after this film was made.

I've always thought there's a great beauty and poignancy to the best slapstick comedies, even unsentimental ones like Keaton's "The General" or Laurel and Hardy's "Way Out West." The latter comedy has a scene where L&H perform a soft-shoe dance; it always brings me to tears. Why? Maybe physical comedy has the same kind of effect on me as a dance performance. Both art forms are very expressive; the fact that I'm laughing doesn't dilute the emotional charge.

One of many things that made Chaplin a genius was his understanding of how close slapstick is to pathos already. Why not marry the two things? That's what he did in some of his early short films, and that's what he does in this feature comedy. The Little Tramp finds an abandoned baby and raises him into boyhood. But the authorities find out and want to take little Jackie (Jackie Coogan) away. Meanwhile, the mother who abandoned him has since become a wealthy singer and doesn't know if she'll ever find out what became of him.

Jackie Coogan (about five in this film), with his charming manners, his talents as a mimic and his adeptness at physical comedy, is one of the all-time great child actors. Want more evidence of Chaplin's genius? Coogan doesn't steal the film from him. This is true even though Chaplin, as producer, star and director, makes every evident attempt to spotlight the boy's talents. Coogan is even better here than he is in his own vehicles, like "My Boy" and "Oliver Twist."

Chaplin's storytelling—even with the foolish sub-Dickensian plot twists, such as Jackie suddenly taking ill—deftly draws out the comedy and pathos for maximum effect. The individual scenes themselves are flawlessly constructed. The window-breaking scene, the flophouse scene, the dream sequence, the trying-to-get-rid-of-the-baby scene—they're perfect. Chaplin's celebrated pantomimic skills are examples of storytelling in themselves.

Want me to criticize something? How about those thudding attempts to link the mother with Jesus? But you know, I can't even complain about that. It's too sweetly naïve. And the movie as a whole is too good to allow us to sneer at the (very) few flaws.

One important note: children love this movie. Show it to them while they're young, and you'll make Chaplin fans of them. And that's better than their becoming fans of almost anything that's being peddled to them.

Is there a way to name the greatest filmmaker of all time? Probably not, to different people it's gonna be different person, so I can speak only for myself. Let me try to describe my favorite contestant for this award:

This man is the true embodiment of the "American Dream": Having grown up in poverty and misery and virtually without parents (without a father and with insane mother), moving to America with basically nothing but his ability to speak English (in the era of the silent movies), this man manages to establish his own film company (United Artists) and becomes one of the creators of Hollywood. He produces, directs, writes, plays the leading role and composes the music for his movies. He is the creator of the most famous movie image on the earth-the Little Tramp. As you all probably know I am talking about sir Charles Spencer Chaplin.

There are attempts, sometimes I read, to make Buster Keaton candidate for the Chaplin's throne. Well, I won't comment on that for I am not familiar with Keaton's work; I grew up with Chaplin so you could say I am being biased, however I would mention only one fact here: the only time the two meet on the screen is in a Chaplin's movie "Limelight." I think this says a lot.

Why did I choose the movie "The Kid" as a podium for my tribute to the great Charlie? I have to say I like all of his movies, mistake, I love all of his movies, but this one is the true purl in his work to me. I don't think of any other movie, not only Chaplin's, that made me cry, I mean really cry, and laugh, I mean really laugh, like "The Kid." The closest I can think of now is another Chaplin's masterpiece "City Lights" but unlike the later one in the former one that is only him, the tramp, and the kid; and everything is silent. Think about it: the movie making at its purest.

I don't know whether I could make my point with this review-probably not. There are not enough words to describe the respect and gratitude I feel towards Chaplin. To me he is simply the greatest filmmaker of all time.

It takes your breath away over 100 years later so imagine how it must have felt walking out of a picture house in 1921! Quite rightly considered a work of genius by a genius, you must have a heart of stone if the story depicted fails to move you but when you consider the way it's presented, the music, the choreography, the longevity - then it really does become something a bit special indeed.