Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

Tom Gooderson-A'Court 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

Michael DeZubiria ***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.