In the Park

The latest one-reel Charlie Chaplin release. Many of its moments are made irresistibly comic by Chaplin's antics; at all times the fun is amusing. For one brief moment, Mr. Chaplin offends good taste. With his uncommon comic gift, a gift as distinct and as valuable as that possessed by the late John Sleeper Clark, he does not need to resort to coarseness of any description. - The Moving Picture World, April 3, 1915

This one-reeler from Charlie Chaplin's Essanay era harks back to his Keystone days in terms of setting and set-up, being a cheeky romantic farce taking place in a park, as so much of the Keystone output did. However in terms of pacing, gags and shooting style it shows off the development he has made since then.

In the Park opens with a handful of shots introducing the supporting players before the tramp himself even comes on the scene. This is Edna Purviance's most well-defined role so far. From her costume we can guess she is a maid (and therefore unmarried and from a working-class background), and the book she is reading quickly gives us a clue as to her personality. You didn't get that level of characterisation in a Keystone picture. Chaplin allows the comedy to build with various routines in long takes, before stepping up the pace of the editing as things become more chaotic in the last few minutes.

In the Park doesn't really have a plot as such, being simply a series of gags as Charlie wanders around playing off one character after another. Chaplin would make only one more single reel comedy (By the Sea), and would from now on concentrate on building up more sophisticated story lines for his tramp character. Still, this is an entertaining little effort, certainly good for a giggle.

And lastly, that all-important statistic – Number of kicks up the arse: 8 (3 for, 5 against)

IN THE PARK is a short, 14 minute silent comedy that comes to us courtesy of star and director Charlie Chaplin. I'm slightly ashamed to say that this is my first experience of Chaplin, and it's a generally good one, although I understand that a quickie production like this wasn't one of his best efforts.

The action is centred in and around a park where various characters interact. Chaplin is in his famous 'little tramp' persona and has a lot of fun with his props, particularly his walking stick which he uses to commit petty crime. The emphasis here is on slapstick humour and pratfalls, with characters being kicked in the backside and pushed over frequently.

It's a relatively enjoyable short effort that offers up a couple of laugh out loud scenes and plenty of wry smiles during its brief running time. My favourite character is the hot dog vendor although there's plenty of mileage in a stolen handbag too. Inevitably a policeman ends up being the butt of some of the jokes although a romancing couple are mercilessly ribbed as well. It's good, old-fashioned fun.

At one point in the 1930s, a period when Charles Chaplin would spend years making a single feature film, he remarked to a friend that in his early days all he needed was a cop, a park bench, and a pretty girl, and -- Presto! -- he and his crew could crank out a new comedy in a day or two. And indeed, he made so many films that way in 1914 (his year of apprenticeship with Keystone) they're practically interchangeable. Unfortunately, however, he had no control over the handling of these films after he left the company, and most were re-edited, retitled, and mixed up in dizzying ways by distributors out to make a buck. Thus, there are two Chaplin movies known as "In the Park." One is a reissue of a 1914 Keystone comedy originally titled Caught in the Rain, and the other is an Essanay release of the following year. Very little of the Keystone film actually takes place in a park: it's a marital farce involving sleepwalking and drunken bedroom-hopping, set mostly in a hotel. The "real" In the Park is appropriately named, for it has no interior scenes at all.

In his films of 1915 Chaplin begins to demonstrate a little more finesse, and his Tramp character is more sympathetic. Even in such a brief and simple film as the Essanay version of In the Park we find a coherent through-line (albeit no plot as such), touches of whimsy, and some cleanly executed physical comedy. The tempo is fairly relaxed and slapstick violence is kept to a minimum, at least compared to the earlier films. While the Tramp is of course the central character, Chaplin also deftly choreographs the movements of his supporting players: a nursemaid, a thief, courting couples, a cop, etc. Charlie has plenty of colorful characters to react to, flirt with, or fight, as the occasion demands.

I love Charlie's first scene with Edna the nursemaid, the way he leers at her, plays with his hat, and casually (Harpo-like) plops his leg into her lap. Along with the Keystone style brick-hurling and head-bopping we have Charlie playing with a string of sausages just for the fun of it, while portly Bud Jamison skips about the park like Baby Huey. I like the fact that Edna is given a brief comic moment of her own: she is first seen sitting on a bench, reading a book mysteriously titled "Why They Married." (Well hey, why not?) The other players still wear heavy makeup and emote vigorously, but Chaplin himself is more nuanced and self-assured as a performer, and less frenzied than in some of the earlier films. In the Park is no masterwork, but it does serve to showcase Chaplin's development from diamond-in-the-rough to the supreme comic artist and filmmaker he would soon become.

This short feature was apparently thrown together pretty quickly, or at least more quickly than were most of Chaplin's features at this point in his career, and it shows. "In the Park" is generally muddled, and despite a couple of good moments, overall it is rather mediocre or at best only fair.

The story, such as it is, has Chaplin wandering around in the park and getting involved in a series of scrapes with a variety of characters, including a policeman and some romantic couples. While most of it is connected together in one way or another, however implausibly, too much of the action makes little sense, and it just looks kind of clumsy. There was enough basic material to work with here, and they might have been able to make a better picture if they had taken more time on it. As it is, there are only a couple of real highlights. It's worth watching for these, but overall it's just not all that good.