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.
