derek-199

The first Chaplin film I saw properly this is a magical film. Its a milestone in film history as the first example of a silent comedy feature integrating drama and pathos into the comedy. Jackie Coogan gives a great performance in the title role almost as a miniature Tramp which is probably what Charlie meant all along. The Kid and the tramp are two of a kind, just as Charlie was a child performer too, a clog dancer with the Eight Lancashire Lads. In many ways this is Chaplin's most personal work almost re-enacting episodes of his own poverty stricken childhood of the 1890s. The only disappointing sequence is the Tramp's dream of heaven which seems a bit irrelevant but does look pretty.

The version I prefer is Chaplin's 52 minute reissue. I've seen the scenes cut from the 67 minute version on a Public Domain DVD, they don't really add anything to the film and are rather over-sentimental.

What a great movie ! I was immediately drawn in by the family saga aspect of it also the idea of immigrants coming to the New World : a fascinating mix of ideas. Also I wasn't expecting it to be so resolutely anti-war : the scenes of the mud in no man's land were as powerful as many later movies. Valentino delivered an excellent though I felt restrained performance for him and unlike the other films I've seen him in the whole show wasn't just him : sure he was the dominant personality and you could see why the film made his name but it wasn't just about his romances.

The only flaws I felt were the portrayal of the Germans, particularly the German brothers who were all done up like Erich Von Stroheim, with Harold Lloyd glasses : they I felt were a little too Teutonic even for the period though this wasn't long after the Great War. Another flaw I felt was the holy professor guy with the beard who kept alluding to the holy "apocalypse" and its relationship with the war. I suppose it was where the title came from but this became a bit wearing at times though some of the images were well done.

Incredible that in 1916 Griffith embarked on a film with four different stories intercut to indeed present "love's struggle through the ages". This really is the ultimate epic film, no film before or since can really match it for ambition or scope. Lillian Gish believed it was ruined when Griffith cut it down from his original version, destroying the narrative flow but the extensive intercutting gathering speed and intensity towards the end was hugely influential particularly on the Soviets and directors like Hitchcock who liked to turn the screw with mounting suspense. Its not a film though to show a newcomer to the silents, it requires some experience of silent drama. People in 1916 were either amazed by the spectacle or baffled by it, one reviewer said they feared Belshazzar would be knocked down by an automobile at any second.

President Wilson said it was like "seeing history written in lightning". The impact and importance of this film in cinema history can't really be overstated. It got the upper classes interested in film as an art form. The battle scenes were incredible for the time and are still I believe among the finest of the silent cinema.

There is little doubt that much of the content of second half is horrendously racist and Griffith was such a master story teller it comes across as perfectly believable to unsuspecting audiences. He uses Mae Marsh's delightful gamin performance to reinforce "his" point of view : our sympathy for her sets "us" against the blacks. It makes you feel uneasy watching this now, it still retains a lot of emotional power, very unusual for such an old film. The acting of all is understated particularly Henry B. Walthall as the little colonel giving it more resonance. The fact that Griffith hooked an audience for such a long film was a huge breakthrough in both narrative terms and also in using film for dubious propaganda.

This in fact wasn't the first feature length film comedy but certainly was the first to make a big impact. It really cemented the young Charlie Chaplin in the affections of the public, oddly enough he was then receiving $1000 dollars less in salary than his leading lady Marie Dressler was getting.

Looking at this film now its Chaplin and Mabel Normand who come off best, Dressler overdoes the mugging to an outrageous degree, appearing to flail wildly about and shooting everything in sight ! Despite the fact this was based on a theatre play with Dressler there is no refinement here its basic knockabout slapstick, really two reels artificially extended to six with frankly unbelievable plotting.

*Spoilers ahead* At one point in particular an important character is apparently killed after falling down a mountain but miraculously gets up a few reels later ! Some of these absurdities can still be quite funny and of course the Keystone Kops come along at the end to clear things up falling into the sea in the process.

This film also betrays the time when it was made by portraying Dressler and Normand as fairly dumb to be taken in by conman Chaplin. Its a neat turn by Charlie quite unlike his famous Tramp.