La Folle Aventure de Charlot et de Lolotte

For today's audience there are two things that are striking about Tillie's Punctured Romance. The first is that Charlie Chaplin does not get first billing here. He was not yet the star he would become, he was just another of Mack Sennett's comedy stars. He does not play the tramp character yet though there are some tramp like aspects in who he does play.

The second is that this is a chance to see Marie Dressler a whole lot earlier in her career than we know her from sound films. Marie was a very big vaudeville star and her character her was a whole lot like her act on stage. The homely big boned girl who seems to be born a total klutz.

There's not really much to the outrageous plot of this 83 minutes of unadulterated slapstick. It seems like every other minute someone was either tripping or being kicked in the derrière. That was the way it was with Mack Sennett comedies.

Chaplin plays a city slicker who takes Marie off the farm and to the big city. But when he gets there his eye roves towards Mabel Normand. Mabel back in the day was a full figured girl herself and a bit more attractive than Marie.

But when news of her rich uncle falling off Mount Baldy makes her an heiress, Charlie finds his passion for Marie and her money rekindling. Kind of leaves Mabel the odd girl out. And in the climax the Keystone Kops are called in after a brawl develops at a society party that Marie is throwing to introduce herself to society.

Tillie's Punctured Romance could have told the story in half the screen time it takes. There's only so much pure slapstick you can take at one time. Still it's not a bad film and it does display the talents of Chaplin, Dressler, and Normand and a host of other comedy names from the Mack Sennett studio.

This was the last film Chaplin was in that he neither directed nor wrote, made at the end of 1914, his first full year in America. There are a dearth of title cards in this one, and just about everything is projected via pantomime. And because it is a Mack Sennett film there is lots of pants kicking.

The plot is pretty simple. Chaplin plays a ne'er do well who convinces plain plus sized Tillie, who is physically abused by her father, to elope with him and to help herself to a big dowry. When they get to the city he steals her money and abandons her for his old girlfriend, Mabel Normand. As Tillie's fortunes wax and wane, so does Chaplin's interest in her.

Why was pants kicking and pie throwing considered such a big laugh getter in early silent film? According to a film historian on some silent Charlie Chase films I bought, it was push back at Victorian values of the day. When Victorian values fell away after WWI, this was no longer considered funny.

Things I noticed? That three million dollars in 1914 was considered a great fortune, worthy of newspaper headlines. Today it would be the cost of a home in the San Francisco Bay area that is nothing to write home about. Also, notice that men AND women are put in the same drunk tank. I have no idea if that is a dash of realism or just the Keystone Cops mismanaging a precinct as usual. When there is a big society party towards the end, the band is all dressed up like a bunch of Cossacks, but the servants are dressed like they are from the French Revolutionary period. I have no idea what was up with that.

At any rate, it is a real treat to see three great comics on the silent screen together. It's a shame sound had to come in for Marie Dressler to really get her due in comedy, a top box office draw the last few years of her life. Of course, Chaplin made the transition successfully, but pantomime was really always his forte. Poor Mabel Normand, a great silent comedienne, will not live long enough to compete in talking pictures. She died in 1930 of tuberculosis.

The comedy in "Tillie's Punctured Romance" is admittedly mediocre, but many who love classic cinema will still find this feature worth seeing once just for its cast. Besides Mabel Normand, it has Charlie Chaplin and Marie Dressler in some of their earliest film roles, plus Edgar Kennedy and Mack Swain in smaller roles, and of course the Keystone Cops. Most of these wonderful performers are not shown to their best advantage here, but it is still a rare chance to see them all together.

The film in itself is only fair. The story-line had possibilities, but Mack Sennett's disjointed, knockabout style just doesn't work very well in a full-length feature. Most of the material is quite predictable after a while, and except for the "Cops", who have a few funny moments, the cast members do not have roles that give them a chance to do what they do best. There are a handful of decent gags amongst the routine physical humor, and a film-within-a-film sequence that comes off all right, but in general there just was not enough worthwhile material to fill up a running time of this length. With this cast, though, it might have made a very good two- or three-reeler.

What a treat that this 1914 feature-length comedy still exists. Historically important as the first feature comedy, it also boasts three great stars: Charlie Chaplin, Marie Dressler, and Mabel Normand. Directed by legendary Mack Sennett, this broad comedy was adapted from Dressler's stage hit. It's rough, with missing pieces, but enough exists to showcase the comedy talents of this trio of stars. The story is trite but Dressler and Chaplin are so funny, you forget the plot and laugh along with the mugging and pratfalls. So far as I know, Dressler and Chaplin never worked together again. What a shame. Dressler adapted to talkies (winning an Oscar for Min and Bill) so much better than Chaplin did. Normand died before the advent of talkies. Anyway, certainly worth a look. Co-stars Chester Conklin, Charles Murray, Minta Durfee, Edgar Kennedy, Charley Chase, Mack Swain, and possibly Milton Berle as the newsboy. Berle always said he played it. Edna Purviance may be the leading lady in the film Chaplin and Normand go to see. I love this film.

Chaplin, Mabel Normand, Marie Dressler and Director Mack Sennett on the same set should be hard to beat, right? Well, yes and no. I would have to agree with the majority of writers that the film is important as the first feature length comedy, and for the exceptional talent associated with it. But the slapstick and sight gags become tiresome in a hurry - today's audiences are too sophisticated (or think they are) for pratfalls, a kick in the pants, etc., and so the film does not wear well.To really appreciate it we would have to have been in the audience when it was current. Time marches on, and some pictures get trampled in the march. I gave it a '6' solely on its historical value.

By the way, too many writers include a story synopsis with their comments - but why? If there's one in place, why repeat?