La pícara primavera

This movie (like many other Charlie Chaplin movies) is pretty funny but it seems like it's missing something that the other Chaplin films had. The mustache! Chaplin plays the tramp here but without the mustache. All Chaplin fans know that you can't have the tramp without the mustache! Anyway the plot is that the tramp (or half tramp) finds a girl at a club who is also being admired by a guy who looks like the main character from Eraserhead, and they get into a big fight. It eventually dwindles down to the point where they both pretty much give up. It's another instance where Chaplin pretty much just made up the story as he went along but it doesn't seem to work here. Anyway can I recommend? Probably not because there are a lot of other Chaplin films better than this.

I've seen quite a few Chaplin shorts from early in his career and I've noticed that his early stuff (done for Keystone Studios) is pretty dreadful stuff. Unlike his wonderful full-length films from the 20s and 30s, the films from 1914-1915 are incredibly poorly made--having no script but only vague instructions from the director. In most cases, the films had almost no plot and degenerated to people punching and kicking each other.

In this film, Charlie walks around the park kicking, hitting and throwing bricks. That's all! He had done practically the same thing in some previous flicks and it's obvious the director just told him to improvise. Judging by the results, he was having a bad day.

FYI--the picture was on DVD from Delta Entertainment. Of all the shorts on the DVD, this was by far the worst quality--having been degraded almost to the point where it was unwatchable.

PS--I got an email from miked32 indicating that Chaplin HIMSELF was the director. Then I guess he is to blame along with the fact that few of these earely Sennett films had any working script.

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.

He did do better than 'Recreation', still made very early on in his career where he was still finding his feet and not fully formed what he became famous for. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Recreation' is a long way from a career high (nor is it a misfire), but has good efforts and one of the average/middling efforts in the 1914 Keystone batch.

'Recreation' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and some other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. Occasionally, things feel a little scrappy and confused, the content is not particularly inspired and some of it is on the repetitive side.

For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Recreation' is not bad at all and there are flashes of his distinctive style, meaning that he was showing signs of evolving.

While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable as his moustache-less Tramp character and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy.

Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later, 'Recreation' is amusing and hard to dislike. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.

Overall, average but far from a bad effort. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Before saying anything, I have to keep in mind this film was made in 1914 when cinema was in its infancy. Studios were experimenting different things to see what works out. Almost every great director has made some poor films in his initial days. Same is the case with Charlie Chaplin.And that's no big deal.

People of that era would have enjoyed watching throwing bricks and people falling in pond for sure. Even though I didn't like it but it was not that bad for that era, I feel.

Chaplin's early short films are common targets for complaints about their simplicity and lack of real story or plot, but I think it is important to remember that the films were made at time when huge audiences wanted to see films exactly like this. Chaplin had no great directors of the past to look to for inspiration, and film itself was an emerging medium, so really the only thing he had available to him was to see what worked and what didn't work by trial and error. Bricks and punches and kicks and everyone falling into the lake made people laugh, so that's what Chaplin gave them, and it helped him to achieve the success that allowed him to bring us the truly great films of his later career, so I think it's unfair to judge these films by the same standards as what Chaplin achieved later, and it also prevents you from really enjoying these films for what they are.

Audiences in 1914, for example, would have been fascinated by something as simple as one frame showing a person throwing a brick off screen, and then the next shot showing the brick flying into the screen. It is such a simple technique, but this is how movies started, and something this simple would have nearly knocked people over, because what they were looking at was really a moving picture, and one which really came to life because it moved so effortlessly around the park or the stage or the set or wherever the film took place. The important thing back then was not a moving story, but a moving picture. And if you could throw in a few punches and a few cops getting hit with bricks, so much the better.

Also, if you think that it is a joke to say that a film like this was "Written and Directed by Charlie Chaplin" since there is clearly no writing or direction involved, I would argue that you have simply never considered what is involved in making a short film. Yes, Chaplin has said on numerous occasions that in those days all he needed was a cop, a pretty woman, and a park and he had the ingredients for a short film, but he didn't mean that he could get away with throwing together something that simple, he meant that that was all he needed to satisfy his audience, and any entertainer's number one concern is to give the people what they want.

Since Chaplin began his career acting on stage, he was thinking about the immediate appeal to his audience, not about critics or how history would see his films. He wanted people to laugh while sitting in their seats in the theater in 1914, not in 90 years when they were watching DVD compilations of his early work. The film even seems to have been randomly titled, since "Recreation" really has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on the screen. It could even refer more to the film itself being made by Chaplin and a couple of friends just for fun than the story that unfolds on the screen.

There are a couple of classic Chaplin moments in the film, such as when he tries to put both of his feet up on a fence rail, and when a police officer sees him just as he is about the throw a brick, but for the most part the film is just a raucous slapstick romp involving a girl who wanders away from her boyfriend, who falls asleep while sitting with her on a park bench, and then a fight ensues over her affections and ultimately involves a couple of cops who want to find out who's throwing bricks around.

As some reviewers have noted, it seems to be a good example of what Chaplin was talking about when he said that in the old days all he needed was a cop, a girl, and a park bench and he could make a film, but I think this is a little misleading, because the film is more complex than it looks. Yes, of course the comedy is very, very simple, but it's a mistake to say there is no direction or story or plot. Scripts for silent films were very different than talking films, and while a lot of the comedy is clearly improvised, there is still more planning involved in putting something like this together than you might think.

I made a few 6 or 8 minute films for film classes when I was in college, and at the time I was so proud of them I almost couldn't stand it, but looking back, it's amazing how flawed and simplistic they are, despite the hours and hours of work I put into planning and shooting and editing them. I think that in order to really enjoy Chaplin's early films for what they are (and they are certainly still enjoyable, despite the physical decay and the lack of depth or story), you have to have either made your own short films or be willing to be open minded about something that was made in a very different time for very different audiences and with very different technology. If you consider the other films that were coming out at the time, these were some of the best.