Film Reviews: The Tramp & The Champion - 110th Anniversary

 "The Tramp"

*** (out ****)

If I were to be pressed to give an answer for who my favorite silent film comedian is, I'd have to say Charlie Chaplin. I like Chaplin for all the reasons his detractors don't. Chaplin wanted you to love him in his pictures, they say. His combination of comedy and pathos was mawkish, according to them. Then there was the ego. They interpret Chaplin's work as him just saying, put the camera on me and whatever I do is brilliant. Where they come up with this stuff I don't know. If I'm being honest, I  don't care either.

Chaplin's comedies had a humanity lacking in the work of other silent comedies. He had more to say on the human condition and the relationship between men and women than others. I am more emotionally involved in his feature films than that of other great silent comedians. Lastly, there is the simple fact that I laugh. Yes, dear readers I find Charlie Chaplin funny! Not mawkish. Not overly sentimental. Not an egomaniac. Just hilarious!

During the many years of this blog, I have reviewed practically all of Chaplin's feature-length films from his first,  "The Kid" (1920) to his final film, "A Countess in Hong Kong" (1967) and all in-between including "The Gold Rush" (1925), "City Lights" (1931) and "The Great Dictator" (1940). But I never paid much attention to the two-reelers he made. They seldom played on television when I was a kid but the feature films are the ones I would read movie critics review and those played on TV more often. And because of the nature of this blog, I only review feature-length films. So when I decided this year's blog theme would be Life is Short - a year long look at short films with an emphasis on comedy - I was eager to dive into Chaplin's work. I hadn't seen some of the two-reelers in decades!

What to review however. Initially I wanted to watch the comedies Chaplin made for the Mutual Film Corporation from 1916 - 1917. When Chaplin signed on to make 12 comedies for them over the course of one year (eventually it took 18 months to fulfill the contract) he was given a salary of $670,000. This made him the highest paid actor in the world! The Mutual films are often cited by historians to be Chaplin's best works since he was given full artistic control. He could make whatever film he wanted and still have final say. This was an area of contention for Chaplin when he worked for Essanay. As I watched all 12 of the Mutual comedies, a strange thing happened. I wasn't outright enjoying them. This was shocking. I had all but written the reviews in my head, prepared to write how Chaplin's great talent was on display in these early films. I could still write that review. I personally wouldn't believe a word of it but I could still write it. Those comedies had none of the emotional qualities that I had come to expect from watching Chaplin's feature-length films. These  Mutual comedies seemed to have been made in the same style as comedy producer Mack Sennett, who gave Chaplin his first break in America. These were what I call "kick in the ass" comedies. These are comedies where you see someone get kicked in the ass and we, the audience, are supposed to find it hysterical. When you think of quintessential silent film comedy in your head, which may involve people running around hitting each other, you are probably unknowingly thinking of Mack  Sennett comedies. Chaplin, on the other hand, I thought had a more refined view of comedy.

Disappointed with the Mutual comedies I turned to the comedy shorts Chaplin made for Essanay and for First National (he signed a million dollar contract to make eight films). To my surprise, I ended up enjoying the Essanay comedies most, which were made between 1915 - 1916 and consisted of 15 comedies. The two comedies I have chosen to review - which are also celebrating their 110th anniversaries - were made during this period. Neither of them match the quality of Chaplin's feature-length films but I "recognized" the Chaplin seen here more so than in the Mutual comedies.

"The Tramp" (1915) feels like a first draft of the kind of human comedy Chaplin would make later in his career. He is still tinkering with who his creation, the Tramp, is. In a lot of the Essanay and Mutual comedies, the Tramp is mischievous and deceitful. He isn't always the kind soul we expect him to be from "City Lights" or "The Circus" (1928). 

As the comedy begins the Tramp is a loner walking down a road. It was a common situation the character would find himself in and what I meant when I said I "recognized" the character in the Essanay comedies. As he walks down the road however cars drive past him. They are traveling at such a fast speed they actually knock him down. The Tramp gets up and begins to dust himself off. He eventually pulls out a brush to make sure he hasn't missed a spot. Besides being funny, this filled my heart with joy. Chaplin has already figured out while The Tramp may not have much in life, he still has a sense of dignity. The Tramp was always a gentleman. His clothes are torn, he has no home or job and yet he realizes he has fallen from grace. It is almost similar to what made the Oliver Hardy character funny in Laurel & Hardy comedies. These men understand what it means to be accepted and respected in society and when they fail in other of others, they feel embarrassed. These men know enough to realize their dignity has fallen.

For as good an insight into his character as this is, Chaplin then oddly misjudges the the character. The Tramp ends up in a field where he meets a Woman (Edna Purviance) who foolishly walks around flashing her money. Another tramp, credited as First Thief (Leo White) spots her and tries to steal her money. The Tramp notices this and fights off the thief. What the Tramp didn't seem to realize was she had money. When The Tramp notices this, the temptation to take it is too strong and directly in front of her swipes it. The Woman starts crying and quickly The Tramp regrets what he has done and gives her back the money. What a critical error on Chaplin's part. I don't mind if he wanted The Tramp to steal the money but he should have done it without the Woman noticing it. Then when the Woman realizes she doesn't have the money and begins to cry, The Tramp could find a way to sneakily put the money in her pocket. We would still get the same message - good people can be driven to bad acts in their desperation - but it would help make The Tramp seem less unlikable and a flat out crook. 

Perhaps sensing The Tramp is a good person, some type of friendship forms between the Woman and The Tramp and she invites him to her home, where she lives with her Father (Ernest Van Pelt) a farmer. For a reason not made clear to me, the Father puts The Tramp to work and has him tend to the farm with his Farmhand (Paddy McGuire). Here Chaplin leans into the mischievous nature of The Tramp as he purposely repeatedly hits the Farmhand with a pitchfork in his behind. Whatever sense of a narrative had been created is abandoned at this point so Chaplin could engage in physical comedy routines. Most of which involve The Tramp using the pitchfork to keep hitting the Farmhand in the ass. 

Chaplin must have felt "The Tramp" needed more conflict and an opportunity to turn The Tramp into a hero, so he brings the Thief back into the plot along with two sidekick thieves (one of whom is played by Bud Jamison, who is best known for appearing in Three Stooges comedies). This time they discover the Father counting money and want to steal it. They ask The Tramp, who the thieves see already has access to the house, to help them and will agree to split the money four ways. The Tramp agrees to their plan only to double-cross them.

Where "The Tramp" comes closest to succeeding is when Chaplin attempts to add elements of pathos to his story. By the time Chaplin gets to that point in the plot, it is too late in the short - which is practically three reels - to properly develop the situation and the emotional, dramatic potential it carries. Again, making this feel like a first draft of what Chaplin would later accomplish.

At 26 minutes "The Tramp" feels a little long in the tooth. There isn't much of a narrative and after a while I found the comedy gags repetitive. How many times can I see someone get stuck with a pitchfork in their ass? Is the ass a funny part of our anatomy and I'm just not fully appreciating it? What am I missing?

I also must admit to not fully appreciating Edna Purviance. I have failed to see her contribution to most - if not all - of the shorts she appeared in with Chaplin. It isn't necessarily Edna's fault either. Chaplin gives her nothing to do. I understand they were romantically linked while they were making these shorts between 1915 - 1917 but what role did Chaplin see her filling? He writes no comedy routines for her. Many times she is merely seen in only one scene so Chaplin's character can look adoringly at her. She has her moments in the beginning of "The Tramp" and then her role diminishes. I guess this is why "A Woman of Paris" (1923) is often considered Chaplin's "gift" to Purviance, giving her an opportunity to really act.

Still I must acknowledge there are elements in "The Tramp" that remind us of Chaplin's great comedic gifts and his ability to touch our hearts. It might be interesting for some viewers to see how Chaplin was working through the character and created what would become The Tramp's lasting persona. Chaplin would come back to similar themes in one of his Mutual comedies called "The Vagabond" (1916), which also feels like a draft of what was to come.

"The Champion"

*** (out of ****)

"The Champion" (1915) begins with an intertitle that states "Completely broke. Meditating on the ingratitude of humanity." This is the kind of philosophical messaging we would come to expect from Chaplin in his later films like "Modern Times" (1936), which also began with an intertitle message, "humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness." It demonstrates Chaplin felt early on that he could use The Tramp character as a symbol to make social commentary.

The first image we see in the film matches what is shown on the poster - which has nothing to do with the film's title and the eventual plot - The Tramp sitting next to his dog. The Tramp pulls out a bun and a hot dog from his pockets. As he is about to bite into it, he realizes the dog is looking at  him and then decides to offer the dog the hot dog, keeping the bun for himself. Of course this is meant to immediately establish The Tramp is a kind soul. He'd even offer a dog food while he is hungry. So far so good I thought. Again, I recognize this Chaplin. Here he is addressing one of the most consistent themes in his work - hunger. And in his usual fashion, is able to find the humor through the pain.

Chaplin uses this character establishment as a prologue for the film. While walking his dog, The Tramp comes across the training quarters of boxer Spike Dugan (Ernest Van Pelt), who is looking for sparring partners "who can take a punch". Although the wording on the sign may sound intimidating, The Tramp believes lady luck might be on his side after he trips over a horseshoe in front of the camp. Hungry and desperate, The Tramp convinces himself to try out. There are other men waiting there as well, all of whom look more physically imposing than The Tramp. Spike however appears to loom over all of them. One by one each man is knocked out by Spike with a single punch. The Tramp wasn't looking for a beating. What should he do? He decides to "load" his boxing glove with the horseshoe. When he spars with Spike, The Tramp knocks him out.

To me, this is another example of a misstep on Chaplin's part. I'm not against the idea of The Tramp knocking the boxer out with a loaded glove. That's funny. But it would have been funnier if The Tramp didn't know prior to putting the glove on that it was loaded. Again, this version of Chaplin's Tramp is very mischievous and sometimes down right rotten. By purposely loading the glove it takes away from the innocence of The Tramp and what makes him lovable. It reminded me of the Laurel & Hardy comedy short, "Any Old Port" (1932) where Stan gets mixed up in a boxing match. His opponent, Butch Long, is out to hurt Stan due to a prior incident. He asks his manager to load his glove. During the course of their fight, Stan ends up getting his hands the loaded glove, not knowing what is inside of it. He's not above using it however. See the difference in both scenarios? 

By knocking out Spike, everyone at the camp believes The Tramp must be one powerful man. Spike leaves the camp completely embarrassed and his trainer decides to train The Tramp instead to fight the world champion, Bob Uppercut (Bud Jamison). Without protest (another misstep) The Tramp seemingly goes along with the plan.

The idea of the diminutive comedian engaging in any sport, let alone boxing, which requires physical strength, is a way for "The Champion" to approach the most significant theme in comedies from this era, masculinity. Many comedians made boxing comedies since it lends itself so easily to this theme and has the potential for many comedic moments as the cowardly comedian fights off the stronger brute. There was Buster Keaton in "Battling Butler" (1926), Harold Lloyd in "The Milky Way" (1936), the Three Stooges in "Punch Drunks" (1934), "Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man" (1951) and although it's not a boxing comedy, the Martin & Lewis movie "Sailor Beware" (1952) has a boxing scene with Jerry Lewis.

The boxing match in "The Champion" is really the centerpiece of the comedy short and some of the antics during this sequence kind of feel burrowed from a "Fatty"  Arbuckle comedy made for Mack Sennett called "The Knockout" (1914). Chaplin had a small role in that short as the referee for the big fight. Chaplin practically steals the scene as he takes more punches than the boxers. In "The Champion" the referee gets knocked down a lot too but Chaplin knows to keep the comedy antics strictly limited to himself. I wonder however if Chaplin had "The Knockout" in mind when shooting "The Champion" and thought to himself, how could I improve the boxing sequence?

The only other sequence that takes up as much screen time involves a Gambler (Leo White) who is trying to bribe The Tramp to take a dive. Intertitles would have been useful here explaining who Leo White is playing and his exact intentions. Regardless the sequence goes on way too long. At one point Chaplin has The Tramp take the Gambler's money after he knocks him out. It is clear to the audience The Tramp has no interest in taking a dive. He's much too prideful. Shenanigans between these two characters go on for six minutes. About five minutes too long. The purpose of the sequence is to show us White could take a bump and demonstrate some moments of good comedic timing on Chaplin's part.

"The Champion" feels like two later Chaplin efforts combined - "A Dog's Life" (1918) and the boxing sequence from "City Lights", which is far superior to what is done here. With 20/20 hindsight everything from this time in Chaplin's career feels like a draft for what was to come later. Chaplin had ideas in his head that he wanted to explore but hadn't perfected them yet. But we must also take into consideration "The Tramp" and "The Champion" are 110 years old. It is remarkable and a true testament to Chaplin's talent that these comedies are watchable to the degree that they are. I'm too accustom to comedies from this era  perhaps to properly notice but neither of these comedies feel terribly dated. Think of the world Chaplin presents in these comedies. It is one where people are hungry and will do anything for money. It is a world where people fall in love and face rejection. Where men perform heroic acts to impress women. Sounds like 2025 to me. Human behavior hasn't changed all that much in the past 110 years.

That speaks to Chaplin's legacy and his impact not just on comedy but film in general. I've always been of the mind set comedy from the past tells us more about our society than drama. Comedy taste has changed over the years. That's not really the case with drama. What was a sad and dramatic story in 1915 or 1920 would most likely be a sad and dramatic story in 2025. Comedy has gone through different styles though we can in some cases see a link and the influence the past has had on the present. Are the mischievous antics of Chaplin here really so different from what Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler or Chris Farley did in the 1990s? It may not have been as graceful and considered vulgar for its time but the foundation of what they were doing is no different. "The Tramp" and "The Champion" may not show Chaplin at his very best but they are able to speak to us and make us laugh.