Charlot, panadero

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 'Dough and Dynamite', 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. 'Dough and Dynamite' is a long way from a career high, but has a lot of nice things about it and is to me one of the better efforts in the 1914 Keystone batch.

'Dough and Dynamite' 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.

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

While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick.

Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later, 'Dough and Dynamite' is humorous, sweet and easy to like. The support is above average, Chester Conklin providing amusing moments. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.

Overall, pretty decent. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Dough and Dynamite was one of Chaplin's longest films at the time it was made, and also featured an unusually complex plot. Granted, "complex plot" meant something very different in 1914 than it means in 2008, but this was certainly a step up from his previous films, many of which were little more than exaggerated fist-fights. There is even some dramatic tension in this one!

The story involves some bakers going on strike demanding more money and less work, and so Charlie and one other man, played by Chester Conklin,have to take over for them. Neither of them is in anyway qualified to be baking bread.

There are some memorable moments, such as Charlie getting revenge against his co-worker for hitting him over the head (not knowing that his co-worker had been hit over the head himself), the floury dough-fights, and Charlie making dinner rolls by wrapping the dough around his arm.

The film seems to build up its story and have some semblance of a genuinely developed plot but ultimately ends like so many of these other early short films, with a fight and a seemingly meaningless ending. Still, it's clear that Chaplin was beginning to make genuine advances in his film techniques.

This picture, which is to be released on October 26, is the first of the long-promised two-reel Keystone comedies that are to be released hereafter at regular intervals. So far as the story itself it could easily have been told in a half reel, but there is a genuine laugh in nearly every scene and the picture is one of the cleanest ones that Keystone has done. The scene of the story is a combined bakery and restaurant elaborately constructed with three rooms, shop, restaurant and kitchen on the street level, and two bakerooms in the cellar. In all of these and in the back yard, the "goat" gets into all kinds of trouble. He is a waiter and when the bakers go on strike the proprietor makes him take their places. The strikers buy a loaf of bread, put a dynamite cartridge inside of it and then return it to the shop as being too heavy. The waiter-baker chucks in into the oven to cook some more and then after a while things happen. The explosion of course wrecks everything and the last views we have are of the proprietor digging himself out of the debris of bricks and mortar that was once the bake oven and of the "goat's" head slowly emerging from a great mass of dough that completely envelops him. - Moving Picture World, October 24, 1914

For those who are familiar with later Chaplin films, this is interesting in a film-school sort of way. Chaplin was working with a script by Mack Sennett, and the story and gags follow the high-speed comedy methods favored by him; yet the gags and the situations were re-used by Chaplin in later films, from THE PAWNSHOP through MODERN TIMES. The difference is that when Chaplin was working for Keystone, he turned out 35 short films, about nine hours of screen time, in one year. By the time he did his later films, he would take several years for each, rehearsing and perfecting each gag through sometimes hundreds of takes.

In this film, we see them in in primitive form. They lack the polish and grace that would make them so very funny in later films, but they have their own charm, if you feel that speed and destruction are the basics of good film comedy.

'Dough and Dynamite', an early Chaplin piece scripted by Mack Sennett, has all the hallmarks of a try-out (which indeed it was, its speed and plot reappearing in later work from the little comic).

Chaplin is good, but the story lacks focus. There's a manic and exasperated character (the priceless Chester Conklin); a flash customer (John Francis Dillon), and a mysterious loaf. The dough of the title gets everywhere but it can't hold this disappointing short together.

My feeling is that 'Dough and Dynamite' drags too much for a short piece - as an example of how to do set pieces of comedy, it's fine, but it is hard going for audiences today compared to the rest of Charlie's work.