In the Park (1915) User Reviews (17)

The Essanay short by this title is one of Chaplin's best "park" comedies

[wmorrow59 · 6/10 · 5 December 2002]

At one point in the 1930s, a period when Charles Chaplin would spend years making a single feature film, he remarked to a friend that in his early days all he needed was a cop, a park bench, and a pretty girl, and -- Presto! -- he and his crew could crank out a new comedy in a day or two. And indeed, he made so many films that way in 1914 (his year of apprenticeship with Keystone) they're practically interchangeable. Unfortunately, however, he had no control over the handling of these films after he left the company, and most were re-edited, retitled, and mixed up in dizzying ways by distributors out to make a buck. Thus, there are two Chaplin movies known as "In the Park." One is a reissue of a 1914 Keystone comedy originally titled Caught in the Rain, and the other is an Essanay release of the following year. Very little of the Keystone film actually takes place in a park: it's a marital farce involving sleepwalking and drunken bedroom-hopping, set mostly in a hotel. The "real" In the Park is appropriately named, for it has no interior scenes at all.

In his films of 1915 Chaplin begins to demonstrate a little more finesse, and his Tramp character is more sympathetic. Even in such a brief and simple film as the Essanay version of In the Park we find a coherent through-line (albeit no plot as such), touches of whimsy, and some cleanly executed physical comedy. The tempo is fairly relaxed and slapstick violence is kept to a minimum, at least compared to the earlier films. While the Tramp is of course the central character, Chaplin also deftly choreographs the movements of his supporting players: a nursemaid, a thief, courting couples, a cop, etc. Charlie has plenty of colorful characters to react to, flirt with, or fight, as the occasion demands.

I love Charlie's first scene with Edna the nursemaid, the way he leers at her, plays with his hat, and casually (Harpo-like) plops his leg into her lap. Along with the Keystone style brick-hurling and head-bopping we have Charlie playing with a string of sausages just for the fun of it, while portly Bud Jamison skips about the park like Baby Huey. I like the fact that Edna is given a brief comic moment of her own: she is first seen sitting on a bench, reading a book mysteriously titled "Why They Married." (Well hey, why not?) The other players still wear heavy makeup and emote vigorously, but Chaplin himself is more nuanced and self-assured as a performer, and less frenzied than in some of the earlier films. In the Park is no masterwork, but it does serve to showcase Chaplin's development from diamond-in-the-rough to the supreme comic artist and filmmaker he would soon become.

Thanks for the gag, Charlie

[SnorrSm1989 · 6/10 · 17 July 2008]

It is easy to dismiss IN THE PARK as yet another footnote in Chaplin's admittedly long list of rather casual products early on in his career; the comedian himself would probably be the first one to do so. Indeed, the apparent reversion to the Keystone-days (days which were in fact not so far behind at this time) is not accidental. The film had more or less been forced upon Chaplin, in order to meet the demands of schedule as he had, in the eyes of the Essanay Company, spent an intolerable amount of time on his previous effort. Like the later film BY THE SEA, this not quite coherent chronology of fast-paced gags serves as little more than a so-called "program-filler," even if added into a cavalcade of Chaplin-shorts. That being said, IN THE PARK has its moments --moments within a moment, you may say-- and does undeniably possess potential as a fun flick.

Without time to develop his character, the occasional glimpses of complexity that Chaplin had attributed the Tramp (I suppose it's that way around?) in some previous Essanay-films are here non-existent. Charlie is brought back to his carefree days, when he regarded anything and everything as intuitive and mechanical as himself (and it usually was). He is not very appealing, in other words; he intervenes in the affairs of two lovers, throws bricks at innocent by-passers, and makes awful grimaces at leading lady Edna Purviance for no apparent reason whatsoever. When Charlie helps a man to commit suicide by kicking him out in a lake, whereupon he gallantly lifts his hat and leaves, we are presented with an obvious but nonetheless fascinating contrast to the Tramp's far more likable personality of the mature years; how different would he not react when a certain drunken millionaire tried the same thing in CITY LIGHTS?

In short, the best advice I can give anyone eager to enjoy this comedy is to stay as neutral as possible, and try to avoid any comparison to Chaplin's later work. Just lean back and wait for the good bits to turn up. Charlie's slick, impulsive satyr dance following Edna's granted kiss is often referred to, but my favorite moment occurs early on: a rather dazzling-looking pickpocket searches Charlie's pockets, unaware that the victim has noticed him and does in fact search HIS pockets in the meantime. Quite matter-of-factly, Charlie snaps a cigarette out of the thief's pocket and lights it with finesse. While in high school, I 'borrowed' this bit into a stage act in which I performed and received belly laughs. While comic performers usually feel most satisfied when they get applause for their own material, I must admit I found it just as thrilling to earn laughs for a gag taken from a Chaplin-film, proving (once again) that his comedy lives on; and no less so when taken from such an obscure and neglected piece as IN THE PARK.

"The Biter Bit"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 27 September 2009]

This one-reeler from Charlie Chaplin's Essanay era harks back to his Keystone days in terms of setting and set-up, being a cheeky romantic farce taking place in a park, as so much of the Keystone output did. However in terms of pacing, gags and shooting style it shows off the development he has made since then.

In the Park opens with a handful of shots introducing the supporting players before the tramp himself even comes on the scene. This is Edna Purviance's most well-defined role so far. From her costume we can guess she is a maid (and therefore unmarried and from a working-class background), and the book she is reading quickly gives us a clue as to her personality. You didn't get that level of characterisation in a Keystone picture. Chaplin allows the comedy to build with various routines in long takes, before stepping up the pace of the editing as things become more chaotic in the last few minutes.

In the Park doesn't really have a plot as such, being simply a series of gags as Charlie wanders around playing off one character after another. Chaplin would make only one more single reel comedy (By the Sea), and would from now on concentrate on building up more sophisticated story lines for his tramp character. Still, this is an entertaining little effort, certainly good for a giggle.

And lastly, that all-important statistic – Number of kicks up the arse: 8 (3 for, 5 against)

Pretty funny

[TheOtherFool · 7/10 · 26 November 2004]

Charlie as the tramp is having a stroll to the park, where he meets some interesting characters. There are 2 couples, a policeman, a sausage seller and a pickpocket. Furthermore, there are stones laying around to be thrown and some butts to be kicked. You know, the usual.

There are some great scenes in this early short, in particular when Charlie tries to eat sausages dangling from his chest pocket and Charlie kicking a (drunk?) guy into the water. That scene is hilarious. Come to think of it: is there anyone out there who can kick a butt as well as Charlie?

A good, fun Chaplin to be seen by all his fans, though people not really into Charlie probably should start elsewhere to get to know his work better.

Below-average Chaplin

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 20 August 2005]

IN THE PARK feature's Chaplin's tramp in a virtually plot-free romp that revolves around a couple of lovers and a pickpocket in a park filled with tramps, thieves, brawlers and vagabonds. A lot of the stuff here seems to have simply been thrown together, as if Chaplin was devising the sketches as they were filming. Sadly, it doesn't really gel, and we are left with a disjointed piece of work that distracts from the meagre laughs to be found in the tramp's exploits. Edna Purviance and Bud Jamison offer solid support as always, but there's very little of worth in this effort. In fact it's so unremarkable I'm having trouble coming up with the required ten lines of text…

Some Good Moments, But Only Fair Overall

[Snow Leopard · 30 March 2004]

This short feature was apparently thrown together pretty quickly, or at least more quickly than were most of Chaplin's features at this point in his career, and it shows. "In the Park" is generally muddled, and despite a couple of good moments, overall it is rather mediocre or at best only fair.

The story, such as it is, has Chaplin wandering around in the park and getting involved in a series of scrapes with a variety of characters, including a policeman and some romantic couples. While most of it is connected together in one way or another, however implausibly, too much of the action makes little sense, and it just looks kind of clumsy. There was enough basic material to work with here, and they might have been able to make a better picture if they had taken more time on it. As it is, there are only a couple of real highlights. It's worth watching for these, but overall it's just not all that good.

low-key early Chaplin effort

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 23 May 2019]

Since we're most used to seeing Charlie Chaplin addressing class issues and mocking Hitler, his early work might seem low-key. "In the Park" depicts a series of antics in a city park. Funny stuff, but nothing spectacular.

One camera, one park, one day, one film.

[tgooderson · 6/10 · 1 June 2012]

Chaplin's first one reel farce for Essanay is set in a park. A lady has her handbag stolen by a thief who then attempts to steal Chaplin's sausages. Chaplin ends up with the bag and it goes from person to person with each usually ending up with a brick to the face or foot to the bottom until one man tries to kill himself and another ends up in Police custody.

For such a short film In the Park has a surprisingly large cast. Chaplin regulars such as Edna Purviance, Leo White and Bud Jamison all appear along with three or four other bit players. Considering the film is only fourteen minutes long it feels like a lot happens and is more reminiscent of Chaplin's Keystone pictures rather than say The Champion which was released just a week earlier than this.

As usual for Chaplin's films of the time there are plenty of mistaken punches and kicks, doffing of hats and general thievery and nuisance but the highlight is when Chaplin steals a string of sausages which he places in his breast pocket and then swings his body from side to side in order to get them into his mouth. It's little things like this which show Chaplin's promise and set him apart from his contemporaries.

The film's pacing helps to make it seem perhaps better than it actually is. There is little originality in it and although it is better than Chaplin's first two Essanay films, it's still not quite as good as The Champion.

www.attheback.blogspot.com

pretty dreary

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 7 May 2006]

This is one of 5 Chaplin that are on the first DVD of Chaplin's Essanay Comedies. In general, compared to volume 2, the shorts on volume 1 aren't as well-made--because the DVDs are arranged chronologically. Chaplin's skill as a film maker and actor appeared to improve through his stay with Essanay Studios.

This film has very little plot--just slapping and punching. It's like the first five minutes of Chaplin's later Essanay short A WOMAN--but instead of then transitioning to a plot, this film just stays stuck in slapstick mode. Too shallow to have any lasting value and I got very tired of the mean-spirited Chaplin hitting people. This shows little of Chaplin's later genius.

Pratfalls in the park

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 11 August 2016]

IN THE PARK is a short, 14 minute silent comedy that comes to us courtesy of star and director Charlie Chaplin. I'm slightly ashamed to say that this is my first experience of Chaplin, and it's a generally good one, although I understand that a quickie production like this wasn't one of his best efforts.

The action is centred in and around a park where various characters interact. Chaplin is in his famous 'little tramp' persona and has a lot of fun with his props, particularly his walking stick which he uses to commit petty crime. The emphasis here is on slapstick humour and pratfalls, with characters being kicked in the backside and pushed over frequently.

It's a relatively enjoyable short effort that offers up a couple of laugh out loud scenes and plenty of wry smiles during its brief running time. My favourite character is the hot dog vendor although there's plenty of mileage in a stolen handbag too. Inevitably a policeman ends up being the butt of some of the jokes although a romancing couple are mercilessly ribbed as well. It's good, old-fashioned fun.

Rehash Of Keystone Park Comedies

[CitizenCaine · 4/10 · 12 July 2008]

Chaplin's first park comedy for Essanay is a rehash of more of the same we've seen before in his park comedies for Keystone. Chaplin flirts with a woman, gets in trouble with her significant other, and the slapstick is on. Although Chaplin again edited, wrote, directed, and starred in this film, there's little to recommend regarding originality from Chaplin. There's the usual unsavory characters thrown in for good measure, one of whom is played by Warner Brothers director Lloyd Bacon. Brick-throwing makes a come back in this film. Being away from Keystone, only one policeman shows up at the end for the usual dousing in a lake. Highlights of the film include Chaplin getting a leg up on Edna Purviance, Chaplin trying to eat sausages out of his breast pocket, and Chaplin winding up for a good swift kick in someone's fanny. *1/2 of 4 stars.

Slapstick in the park one day

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 7 June 2018]

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 Essanay period after leaving Keystone, 'In the Park' is not one of his very best or even among the best of this particular period. 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 period is 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 'In the Park'.

'In the Park' is not one of his all-time funniest or most memorable, other efforts also have more pathos and a balance of that and the comedy. The story is still a little flimsy, there are times where it struggles to sustain the short length, and could have had more variety and less more of the same repeition.

On the other hand, 'In the Park' looks pretty good, not incredible but it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work (even when deadlines were still tight) and not churning out as many 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 funniest or original, 'In the Park' is still very entertaining with some clever, entertaining and well-timed slapstick. It moves quickly and there is no dullness in sight.

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, with charming Edna Purviance and the amusing hot dog vendor.

Summing up, worth a look though Chaplin did better. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Not one of His best

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 30 October 2017]

"In the Park" is a 14-minute short film from 1915, so this one is already over 100 years old and of course, this makes it a black-and-white silent film. The director here is Charles Chaplin and he is also one of the cast members. But this film focuses on several other characters too and there are many scenes where you see 3 people on the screen, so it's far from a mere Chaplin showcase. But maybe it is just too much for this duration: too many actors, too many plot twists etc. The fact that it is really just one location, namely the one in the title, cannot make up for that. Overall, I also felt that the slapstick comedy here wasn't really great and that there was a great deal of scenes that added almost nothing overall, which is why I think the film even dragged a bit at times. And the problem of lack of enough intertitles, so we know what is going on and actually at least partially understand what they were saying, even if we only get to read 1 out of 10 sentences we see them speaking. I may not be the biggest fan of the silent film greats, but I have seen much better stuff from that era for sure. You really need to dig Chaplin almost to a fanboy/-girl level to see any real value in this quarter of an hour. It's a shamed it turned out so forgettable as the cast includes many prolific and successful actors next to Chaplin. But I give the overall outcome a thumbs-down here. Not recommended.

Reminiscent of Charlie's Keystone Days

[sean-ramsden · 27 April 2020]

1915 is the year that we truly begin to see some of Chaplin's genius come through. The previous year consisted of slapstick comedy mostly with no real plot to follow. A lot of the time they made the story up when they arrived on set.

Unfortunately, In The Park seems to reminisce these films. Chaplin, now working at Essanay, has made a film that would not be out of place at Keystone (his previous studio). The scenario was somewhat hard to follow. We don't know anything about any of the characters so it is a struggle to care for what is going on. There are a few comedy moments but it is overall one to forget. The short ends with Chaplin helping a man commit suicide by kicking him into a lake, I'm not quite sure why.

As Chaplin would progress he would create many brilliant shorts and features. His Tramp character became more sympathetic. In this short The Tramp is quite rude and very dodgy. This short doesn't make us love the Tramp. It is not the worst of his films, but unfortunately, it is one to forget.

One of Chaplin's lesser short comedies.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 6/10 · 25 July 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** In The Park starts off with a scene that is very similar to one of Chaplin's other short films, By The Sea, where Charlie comes across a woman who is involved with another man. In this scene, Charlie approaches her and flirts with her while her oafish husband is temporarily away, and when he comes back, an argument ensues that ends with Charlie getting knocked backwards over a park bench. After this, however, the remainder of the film takes place in the apartment building where all three people live, even right across the hall from each other (seems strange that they don't know each other).

The thing that really takes away from this film is that there is so much that happens during the film that does not make much sense and is not explained, even in the limited way that is available in a silent film. For example, after having encountered the couple in the beach and after they have stormed off, Charlie staggers back home as though he is drunk, but we never see him drink, other than in an amusing attempt to drink from a water fountain in the park at the beginning of the film. When he gets to the hallway (which can be recognized as the exact same hallway as was seen in another of Chaplin's short comedies, called The Rounders), he accidentally wanders into the wrong room, thinking it's his (maybe it's because that was his room in The Rounders?), and continues with his unexplained drunken behavior. He picks up a bottle, pours something out of it onto his hat, combs his hat briefly, and then drinks from the bottle. Clearly, this is something that is not uncommon to see Chaplin do in one of his films, but we have no idea why he is acting like that.

Charlie eventually finds his way back to his own room, undresses at length, and crawls into bed, even though it could not have been more than half an hour since he was in the park, at which point it was broad daylight. As he is about to go to sleep, the other man's wife sleepwalks into his bed, and the better segment of the film follows. It is hilarious to watch Charlie trying to get this man's wife back into her own room without her husband finding out, and the scenes in which this happens are much better than the film as a whole, even though this also leads to more confusion as to what exactly is happening. The police wind up getting involved, and the film seems to end right in the middle of the final conflict.

While it's obvious that In The Park does not compare to the high quality of the majority of Chaplin's early silent comedies, the style and the skill are unmistakable. Even though this movie has more than it's share of unfortunate shortcomings, Chaplin's presence alone makes it a very entertaining film.

Irresistibly comic

[deickemeyer · 10 November 2019]

The latest one-reel Charlie Chaplin release. Many of its moments are made irresistibly comic by Chaplin's antics; at all times the fun is amusing. For one brief moment, Mr. Chaplin offends good taste. With his uncommon comic gift, a gift as distinct and as valuable as that possessed by the late John Sleeper Clark, he does not need to resort to coarseness of any description. - The Moving Picture World, April 3, 1915

Chaplin Could Do Much Better Than This

[JamesHitchcock · 10 February 2017]

During my childhood in the sixties and seventies, I was surprisingly familiar with the silent comedies made by the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton and the Keystone Kops, as these films were still regularly shown on television at this period. Although I and some of my friends used to enjoy them, I don't think that they were mainly aimed at children. The target audience were probably older people of my grandparents' generation who would have had nostalgic memories of such films from their own youth in the 1910s and 1920s, and it is probably the passing of that generation which has been responsible for their virtual disappearance from terrestrial television. Even on specialist movie channels they only turn up rarely, although the internet now offers new possibilities for watching them.

"In the Park" is an early Chaplin short from 1915, which not only stars the great man but was also written and directed by him. I don't think that Charlie is supposed to be a tramp in this film but he wears the costume- bowler hat, walking stick, baggy trousers and toothbrush moustache- which were associated with his "Little Tramp" character. As the title suggests, the action all takes place in a park. There isn't really a good deal of plot, just a series of visual gags revolving around Charlie, a remarkably incompetent pickpocket, a hot dog vendor, a policeman, a courting couple and a nursemaid (played by Edna Purviance, one of the silver screen's first sex symbols).

I call them "gags", although actually there is nothing particularly funny about any of them. Indeed, what struck me most forcibly about the film is just how unfunny and mean-spirited the attempts at humour are. Chaplin obviously assumed that the best way to get laughs was to kick someone, throw a brick at them or to push them into a pond. When he isn't committing criminal assault on his victims he is trying to steal their property. Why my grandparents' generation found this sort of thing funny is a mystery; I can only assume that in 1915 the cinema was such a novelty that people would flock to whatever was on offer, regardless of quality. Chaplin could do much better than this.