Auf der Sonnenseite

"Sunnyside" and "A Day's Pleasure", the two films Chaplin made before his early masterpiece "The Kid", are two of his worst--probably since his days at Essanay. The most evident problem with "Sunnyside" is how uneven and poorly constructed it is. There's a lot going on in the film (maybe too much), and it seems more inspired than the lackluster "A Day's Pleasure", but it's a mess. Chaplin knew it, too; reportedly, he spent much time trying to make it into a coherent picture, and he contributed the film's failure to his personal problems at the time surrounding his failed marriage. In this light, the "etc., etc., etc." in the intertitles seems an expression of exasperation from the director.

In the film, the Tramp works overtime as a farmhand and employee of the adjoining hotel; his only solace being in his love for Edna Purviance's village belle. That sounds simple enough, but its construction and the fluency of the gags are off-kilter, as is the balance between slapstick and pathos. As a result, much of the hilarity and emotional involvement is forsaken.

Perhaps, "Sunnyside" was instructive for Chaplin. His subsequent films, especially "The Kid", would contain pathos and slapstick harmoniously. One may view the film as an experiment in this light. Furthermore, the dream sequence in "The Kid" is a more fully developed construction than that in "Sunnyside". The dancing nymphs interlude here in homage to ballet dancer and choreographer Vaslav Nijinsky might've worked better if placed in a better construction. Nevertheless, There are some funny moments here, as well as some hints at moments of poignancy. I especially liked the opening scenes where the Tramp won't get out of bed and brings a chicken and a cow into the kitchen to make breakfast. But, such moments are often lost within the ultimate hodgepodge that is "Sunnyside".

Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors.

From his period after Mutual, 'Sunnyside' is not one of his very best and not even among the best of this particular period. As said with many of his post-Keystone efforts, it shows a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career. The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. After Mutual the style had properly settled and the cinematic genius emerged. Something that can be seen in 'Sunnyside' though other efforts do it better.

The story is slight and a bit too busy and manic in places. It does get bogged down at times by padding and a few scenes that don't serve a lot of purpose. Not all the sequences work either.

It is agreed that the nymphs scene in particular is bizarre and doesn't fit with the rest of the content and story, that was a scene that could easily have been left out and it would not have affected anything at all.

On the other hand, 'Sunnyside' looks good, not amazing (though the opening shot for early Chaplin is remarkable) but it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work and not churning out countless shorts in the same year of very variable success like he did with Keystone. Appreciate the importance of his Keystone period and there is some good stuff he did there, but the more mature and careful quality seen here and later on is obvious.

'Sunnyside' is very funny and charming, if not one of Chaplin's substance or pathos-filled. Its best moments (like with the horse doctor) are hilarious with some clever, entertaining, remarkably inventive and well-timed slapstick and the charm doesn't get over-sentimental. It generally moves quickly and there is little dullness in sight. The second half is both hilarious and enchanting and the message isn't laid on too thick and has more potency than one would think.

Chaplin directs more than competently and the cinematic genius quality is emerging. He also, as usual, gives a playful and expressive performance and at clear ease with the physicality and substance of the role. The support is good and the chemistry charms.

Overall, good but not great. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Charlie Chaplin's satirical streak was not reserved solely for pompous authority figures with big bellies and wispy beards. He was not averse to turning his wit outwards and directing it at the very production style and process he himself was a part of. Sunnyside does not lampoon the movie industry – rather it makes a joke out of the Chaplin brand which the comic, eager to move on to more sophisticated feature films, was beginning to grow weary of.

Chaplin had practically invented the narrative slapstick comedy, but here he belittles the storytelling aspects that were now a comedy standard, curtailing descriptions of characters and places with "etc, etc, etc" and using a title card to bluntly announce the romantic subplot. Throughout the picture he makes use of his now most clichéd plot devices – the abused employee, the sophisticated love rival, the "it-was-all-a-dream" revelation – and, of course, numerous examples of his stock slapstick manoeuvre, the kick up the arse.

And yet, it appears Chaplin was incapable of deliberately making a bad picture. There are plenty of decent gags here, especially those at the beginning where Charlie thwarts his employer's attempts to get him out of bed. And even at the height of his sarcasm and hyperbole it seems Chaplin cannot help but work in gags and sub-gags which are genuinely funny. And for all its narrative laziness, Sunnyside is actually strong in its visual storytelling, beginning with the iris on the church spire to set the tone, then opening up the iris to reveal an exquisitely balanced shot of the village. And even the rushed ending is among Chaplin's sweetest in its delicate imagery.

And there's more; the all important statistic – Number of kicks up the arse: 24 (2 for, 22 against – can this be a record?)

It's somewhat uneven, and you'd probably say that it's interesting rather than good, but "Sunnyside" is still worth seeing if you like Charlie Chaplin's short comedies. A couple of the sequences are very enjoyable, but others don't really work that well, and just take up time.

Rather than his usual tramp character, Charlie plays a put-upon farmhand and handyman who has some of the same characteristics, and the story combines some conventional slapstick with some more imaginative sequences. Some of the material is quite good, especially the sequence with Charlie and the horse doctor treating a patient. But not all of it comes off equally well, and it bogs down at times. It's only average among Chaplin's many short comedies, and not quite as good as most of the later ones, but it has enough to be worth seeing.

Sunnyside reminds me of some of the early films in Alfred Hitchcock's career, like Rich & Strange or The Skin Game, which are curiosity pieces both because they come from such massive directors and are still so empty and disappointing. Like some of Hitch's early films, Sunnyside for Charlie Chaplin represents to me a point in his early career when he was testing the waters and still trying to find out what he is really best at doing.

Some people were disappointed that Chaplin forced the Tramp into the unlikely role of a farmhand, forgetting that the very nature of the Tramp is that he is such an everyman that he can be placed in virtually every different kind of situation, from brick-layer to World War I soldier, and Chaplin can use his particular brand of comedy to deliver his clever political themes and brilliant slapstick.

Some of the situations and sequences don't work so well or run as smoothly as many of Chaplin's more famous ones, and there is a bizarre sequence involving some dancing nymphs, but it is interesting to consider how this early, experimental film foreshadows the work that Chaplin did later in much more famous and highly superior films like City Lights and The Kid. Throughout the film are what may be taken as examples of the exasperation that Chaplin has admitted to having during the production of the film, but to call is a total loss is missing the mark completely. Certainly not the best of Chaplin's early short films, but I don't think Chaplin ever made a real failure.