IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,9/10
3188
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuCharlie is an overworked labourer at a film studio who helps a young woman find work even while his coworkers strike against his tyrannical boss.Charlie is an overworked labourer at a film studio who helps a young woman find work even while his coworkers strike against his tyrannical boss.Charlie is an overworked labourer at a film studio who helps a young woman find work even while his coworkers strike against his tyrannical boss.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Albert Austin
- Stagehand
- (Nicht genannt)
- …
Lloyd Bacon
- Director of Comedy Film
- (Nicht genannt)
- …
Henry Bergman
- Director of History Film
- (Nicht genannt)
Leota Bryan
- Actress
- (Nicht genannt)
Frank J. Coleman
- Assistant Director
- (Nicht genannt)
James T. Kelley
- Stagehand
- (Nicht genannt)
- …
Charlotte Mineau
- Actress
- (Nicht genannt)
Wesley Ruggles
- Actor
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Chaplin plays the part of David, the lowly assistant to the oafish stage hand Goliath, and as is to be expected, everything goes wrong in the most hilarious ways. Being an early short Chaplin comedy, a good portion of the comedy is slapstick, with such elaborately acted scenes as the one with the stage pillar prop that just would not seem to stand up.
Poor David works like a slave for the lazy Goliath, but at first, he just keeps messing things up - he just can't seem to do anything right. But later, when he starts working really hard and doing things right, his boss always walks in just as he sits down to rest, and he gets into trouble for loafing on the job, and Goliath, who spends most of his time sleeping, gets all of the credit for David's work.
Not only does this film satirize the falsity of film and stage, but it also goes into actual filming, in the surprisingly effective pie throwing scene. Eventually, all of the workers go on strike, leaving only David and Goliath on stage and, as is common in Chaplin's films, he ends up the victor as a result of some inadvertent events concerning a trap door and a lot of guys fighting. The ending of this film is unusually violent for a generally light Chaplin comedy, but the comedic value is never diminished.
Poor David works like a slave for the lazy Goliath, but at first, he just keeps messing things up - he just can't seem to do anything right. But later, when he starts working really hard and doing things right, his boss always walks in just as he sits down to rest, and he gets into trouble for loafing on the job, and Goliath, who spends most of his time sleeping, gets all of the credit for David's work.
Not only does this film satirize the falsity of film and stage, but it also goes into actual filming, in the surprisingly effective pie throwing scene. Eventually, all of the workers go on strike, leaving only David and Goliath on stage and, as is common in Chaplin's films, he ends up the victor as a result of some inadvertent events concerning a trap door and a lot of guys fighting. The ending of this film is unusually violent for a generally light Chaplin comedy, but the comedic value is never diminished.
Charlie has various misadventures while working in the property department of a movie studio. For some reason, this film turned out to be the last of Chaplin's twelve Mutual shorts that I saw. I really looked forward to seeing it, thinking that Charlie would make the most of the studio location.
Sadly, if only because of my sense of anticipation, I was a bit disappointed. I didn't find it as funny as the bulk of the other Mutual shorts. Despite a location rich in potential, I found the funniest moments in this film to be some of the smallest like Charlie trying to steal bites from Albert Austin's lunch. Still, the film retains interest as a behind the screen view of motion picture production circa 1916. (A superior and more concise view of the world of producing silent films can be found in 'Singing in the Rain' as Gene Kelly walks through a silent studio with the head of the studio.) To me, the most interesting thing about this film is Chaplin's hostile attitude toward the striking union workers. If he had made this film later in his career, the radical unionists might have been the good guys!
Sadly, if only because of my sense of anticipation, I was a bit disappointed. I didn't find it as funny as the bulk of the other Mutual shorts. Despite a location rich in potential, I found the funniest moments in this film to be some of the smallest like Charlie trying to steal bites from Albert Austin's lunch. Still, the film retains interest as a behind the screen view of motion picture production circa 1916. (A superior and more concise view of the world of producing silent films can be found in 'Singing in the Rain' as Gene Kelly walks through a silent studio with the head of the studio.) To me, the most interesting thing about this film is Chaplin's hostile attitude toward the striking union workers. If he had made this film later in his career, the radical unionists might have been the good guys!
David is an assistant to stagehand Goliath in a movie studio. A young woman wanting to be an actress sneaks into the studio dressed as a boy but David discovers her. However he has enough problems with a lazy boss and an aptitude for causing trouble.
I suggest that this short has a plot but in reality the whole girl disguised as boy thing just appears to be in there to allow Chaplin to get a sneaking kiss from Purviance! However what is in the film is plenty of very funny routines including a trap door, a falling pillar and the traditional custard pie fight. These are all very funny and well designed. In fact at the time of production Chaplin took so long over each scene that Mutual Films had to apologise to it's exhibiters for the delay in release.
Chaplin himself is good as the put upon little man who gets up to mischief and the rest are basically fall guys who overact really well as you need to do in a short. Like I said, why Purviance was in this for is anyone's guess contractual reasons? Chaplin's choice?
Despite this it is very funny with lots of enjoyable set-ups in a short time. Only the supposed romantic sub plot spoils thing slightly.
I suggest that this short has a plot but in reality the whole girl disguised as boy thing just appears to be in there to allow Chaplin to get a sneaking kiss from Purviance! However what is in the film is plenty of very funny routines including a trap door, a falling pillar and the traditional custard pie fight. These are all very funny and well designed. In fact at the time of production Chaplin took so long over each scene that Mutual Films had to apologise to it's exhibiters for the delay in release.
Chaplin himself is good as the put upon little man who gets up to mischief and the rest are basically fall guys who overact really well as you need to do in a short. Like I said, why Purviance was in this for is anyone's guess contractual reasons? Chaplin's choice?
Despite this it is very funny with lots of enjoyable set-ups in a short time. Only the supposed romantic sub plot spoils thing slightly.
Charlie Chaplin sometimes repeated himself when it came to ideas for his comedy shorts, but only when his skill and technique had improved significantly in the meantime. Behind the Screen treads similar ground to Dough and Dynamite (made at Keystone) and His New Job (made at Essanay), being a comical expose on the film-making process itself, but it demonstrates all the development his style had made since those older pictures.
One major difference is the audacity and satiric bite of Chaplin's comedy by this point. Unlike the earlier examples, Behind the Screen bases most of its jokes on the artificiality of cinema, with "marble" pillars being shifted by hand, an "invisible" trapdoor that causes mayhem, and eventually the dramatic department having its dignity invaded by errant custard pies from a comedy set. He also has a sly dig at pompous directors and lazy stagehands. All this from an era before the majority of people in the audience wouldn't have really known exactly what went on behind the cameras. Still there is enough broad slapstick here to entertain the viewers who don't get the in-jokes.
Chaplin's management of the comedy is also now incredibly refined and to-the-point. In the earliest scenes, he shows how he can make himself the centre of attention without necessarily being in the foreground. Whilst everyone else on the set stays fairly still, Charlie bustles about all over the place leaving chaos in his wake. It's funnier this way because we see the little tramp upsetting the order of his environment.
The comedian had by now also accumulated a regular crew of supporting players – comic actors who were more buffoonish and ridiculous than funny in their own right, thus providing suitable antagonists for the little tramp. Eric Campbell is as usual the burly bully – the tyrant of a small pond who it is satisfying to see knocked down. Henry Bergman, in only his second of what would be many appearances with Chaplin is the perfect awkward fat man. He must have been a real find, and Charlie seems to take every opportunity to knock him down to get that undignified and helpless flailing of arms and legs that Bergman was the master of. And of course he now has Edna Purviance – by now often the only one allowed to be a completely straight actress. Her features are too feminine to be a convincing tomboy, but at least she gets the chance to be involved in some of the comedic action this time round.
Which leaves me only to give out the all-important statistic –
Number of kicks up the arse: 7 (5 for, 2 against)
One major difference is the audacity and satiric bite of Chaplin's comedy by this point. Unlike the earlier examples, Behind the Screen bases most of its jokes on the artificiality of cinema, with "marble" pillars being shifted by hand, an "invisible" trapdoor that causes mayhem, and eventually the dramatic department having its dignity invaded by errant custard pies from a comedy set. He also has a sly dig at pompous directors and lazy stagehands. All this from an era before the majority of people in the audience wouldn't have really known exactly what went on behind the cameras. Still there is enough broad slapstick here to entertain the viewers who don't get the in-jokes.
Chaplin's management of the comedy is also now incredibly refined and to-the-point. In the earliest scenes, he shows how he can make himself the centre of attention without necessarily being in the foreground. Whilst everyone else on the set stays fairly still, Charlie bustles about all over the place leaving chaos in his wake. It's funnier this way because we see the little tramp upsetting the order of his environment.
The comedian had by now also accumulated a regular crew of supporting players – comic actors who were more buffoonish and ridiculous than funny in their own right, thus providing suitable antagonists for the little tramp. Eric Campbell is as usual the burly bully – the tyrant of a small pond who it is satisfying to see knocked down. Henry Bergman, in only his second of what would be many appearances with Chaplin is the perfect awkward fat man. He must have been a real find, and Charlie seems to take every opportunity to knock him down to get that undignified and helpless flailing of arms and legs that Bergman was the master of. And of course he now has Edna Purviance – by now often the only one allowed to be a completely straight actress. Her features are too feminine to be a convincing tomboy, but at least she gets the chance to be involved in some of the comedic action this time round.
Which leaves me only to give out the all-important statistic –
Number of kicks up the arse: 7 (5 for, 2 against)
"Behind the Screen" is an excellent Charlie Chaplin short feature, with plenty of good slapstick and much more. The setting, with Charlie working as a hired hand in a movie-making operation, lends itself to a lot of good comedy, and there are plenty of standard gags plus a lot of material that creatively uses the props and situations of the setting. It also works very well as a self-satire of the industry (as suggested by the title), making some subtle and other not so subtle points. Finally, there is some nice interplay between Charlie's character and his superiors, especially his burly, brutish immediate supervisor, played by Eric Campbell, an amusing actor who was one of Chaplin's best supporting players.
Most of these earlier Chaplin films (referring to 1914-1916, the years when he made the majority of his short features, making ten or more each year) do not get very high ratings. It's true that some of them are mostly routine slapstick, but there are also a few gems like this one that combine slapstick with substance. Most of the movies from these years can be rather hard to watch, because the film often survives in poor condition, and so it's understandable that even the best ones might not always stand out as clearly from the rest. But this one is a fine film, and definitely recommended for Chaplin fans.
Most of these earlier Chaplin films (referring to 1914-1916, the years when he made the majority of his short features, making ten or more each year) do not get very high ratings. It's true that some of them are mostly routine slapstick, but there are also a few gems like this one that combine slapstick with substance. Most of the movies from these years can be rather hard to watch, because the film often survives in poor condition, and so it's understandable that even the best ones might not always stand out as clearly from the rest. But this one is a fine film, and definitely recommended for Chaplin fans.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThis is one of the few films in which Charles Chaplin's character (David) gets a name other than "Charlie" or a description like "The Tramp". Only in his last sound films does he portray people with a full name.
- Alternative VersionenKino International distributes a set of videos containing all the 12 Mutual short films made by Chaplin in 1915 - 1917. They are presented by David Shepard, who copyrighted the versions in 1984, and has a music soundtrack composed and performed by Michael Mortilla who copyrighted his score in 1989. The running time of this film is 23 minutes.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Der unbekannte Chaplin: My Happiest Years (1983)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Laufzeit
- 30 Min.
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.33 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen