Behind the Screen

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 post-Essanay period after leaving Keystone, 'Behind the Screen' is not one of his very best but is one of his best early efforts and among the better short films of his. 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, from 1914, The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. Something that can be seen in the more than worthwhile 'Behind the Screen'.

The story is more discernible than usual and is never dull, in fact it is quite eventful without being too busy. The romance is sweet enough and the chemistry is definitely there, part of me felt though that it was not needed.

On the other hand, 'Behind the Screen' looks pretty good, not incredible 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.

While not one of his most hilarious or touching, 'Behind the Screen' is still very funny with some clever, entertaining and well-timed slapstick, didn't mind that the pathos wasn't there as it was not the right kind of story. It moves quickly and there is no dullness in sight. The ending is one of the best and funniest ones of Chaplin's early work.

Chaplin directs more than competently, if not quite cinematic genius standard yet. He also, as usual, gives an amusing and expressive performance and at clear ease with the physicality of the role. The supporting cast acquit themselves well, particularly Eric Campbell. Edna Purviance is charming and her chemistry with Chaplin is beautiful, even if it did feel she was there to provide the "obligatory" love interest.

Overall, very enjoyable. 8/10 Bethany Cox

From 1916, this is one of Charlie Chaplin's more entertaining short films in my opinion. Chaplin is a stage assistant named David, who works under the oppressive Goliath. Problems arise when the other stage hands go on strike, leaving the work for David while Goliath torments him. One reason this film appeals to me is that, not only go you get Chaplin's usual funny schtick, but you also get a glimpse into a film studio of the time. I love seeing the simplicity of the studio sets, the single boxy film camera, and even the use of a trap door for one hilarious bit. I always love the back-and-forth between Chaplin and frequent collaborator Eric Campbell and this is one of their better shows. For that extra chuckle, the film even includes a pie fight in the finale. You can't go wrong with one of Chaplin's funnier early efforts such as BEHIND THE SCREEN.

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!

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.

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.