Im Park

Since we're most used to seeing Charlie Chaplin addressing class issues and mocking Hitler, his early work might seem low-key. "In the Park" depicts a series of antics in a city park. Funny stuff, but nothing spectacular.

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 feature's Chaplin's tramp in a virtually plot-free romp that revolves around a couple of lovers and a pickpocket in a park filled with tramps, thieves, brawlers and vagabonds. A lot of the stuff here seems to have simply been thrown together, as if Chaplin was devising the sketches as they were filming. Sadly, it doesn't really gel, and we are left with a disjointed piece of work that distracts from the meagre laughs to be found in the tramp's exploits. Edna Purviance and Bud Jamison offer solid support as always, but there's very little of worth in this effort. In fact it's so unremarkable I'm having trouble coming up with the required ten lines of text…

Charlie as the tramp is having a stroll to the park, where he meets some interesting characters. There are 2 couples, a policeman, a sausage seller and a pickpocket. Furthermore, there are stones laying around to be thrown and some butts to be kicked. You know, the usual.

There are some great scenes in this early short, in particular when Charlie tries to eat sausages dangling from his chest pocket and Charlie kicking a (drunk?) guy into the water. That scene is hilarious. Come to think of it: is there anyone out there who can kick a butt as well as Charlie?

A good, fun Chaplin to be seen by all his fans, though people not really into Charlie probably should start elsewhere to get to know his work better.

Chaplin's first one reel farce for Essanay is set in a park. A lady has her handbag stolen by a thief who then attempts to steal Chaplin's sausages. Chaplin ends up with the bag and it goes from person to person with each usually ending up with a brick to the face or foot to the bottom until one man tries to kill himself and another ends up in Police custody.

For such a short film In the Park has a surprisingly large cast. Chaplin regulars such as Edna Purviance, Leo White and Bud Jamison all appear along with three or four other bit players. Considering the film is only fourteen minutes long it feels like a lot happens and is more reminiscent of Chaplin's Keystone pictures rather than say The Champion which was released just a week earlier than this.

As usual for Chaplin's films of the time there are plenty of mistaken punches and kicks, doffing of hats and general thievery and nuisance but the highlight is when Chaplin steals a string of sausages which he places in his breast pocket and then swings his body from side to side in order to get them into his mouth. It's little things like this which show Chaplin's promise and set him apart from his contemporaries.

The film's pacing helps to make it seem perhaps better than it actually is. There is little originality in it and although it is better than Chaplin's first two Essanay films, it's still not quite as good as The Champion.

www.attheback.blogspot.com