. . . AS FAR AWAY from this movie as you can get! Yes, "Tillie's Punctured Romance" is today considered a classic, but mainly because it has the reputation of being the "first feature-length comedy," and because it is the only film in which the three leads (Normand, Dressler, Chaplin) appeared together, and because it contains one of the earliest "film-within-a-film" sequences. Other than that, it's pretty much useless, unless you want to study Marie's acting style, drool over the always-lovely Mabel, or watch Charlie play the opposite of his beloved "Little Tramp" character.
Don't get me wrong. I like slapstick, I love Chaplin, I think Marie Dressler was a fabulous actress, and you've already heard what I think about Mabel Normand. But not a one of the three is used to any great advantage in this movie--and even Swain, Bennett, and Conklin (all of whom deserve more credit for their work in early cinema than they normally get) are wasted here.
The trouble with this movie is not in the plot (hackneyed as it may seem to current audiences) nor with the actors (who did what they could with the script at hand). No, the trouble really lies with the writing and directing. I can't comment on the original play, having never read or seen it, but I do know that Mack Sennett knew what he was doing with short films--the deservedly classic status of his hundreds of early flicks attests to this. However, when you ask people to sit still and watch over an hour's worth of your movie, there should be something more to hold their attention than your having people fall down over and over and over again. Here's a math problem for someone with much more time on their hands than I have: count the people who fall down in this movie, and divide by the number of minutes the movie lasts, and I think you'll see what I mean.
Please, please, please--do yourself a favor, if you're at all interested in silent movies, or trying to find a way to get your friends to enjoy them with you. Treat yourself (and them) to "City Lights," "The General," "The Gold Rush," any of the one- or two-reelers by Sennett or Hal Roach. Or, for that matter, practically any other silent comedy. (Hey, even Mel Brooks's "Silent Movie" is better than this, although that's not saying much.) Put on some of your (or their) favorite music, if there's not a synchronized score (my copy of "Tillie" seems to have purloined Scott Joplin tracks from a noisy LP). But unless you're ready for over an hour of mostly meaningless pratfalls, don't subject yourself or your friends to this. It's wonderful that it still exists; film students can analyze it to their hearts content. Now go watch something good.
Don't get me wrong. I like slapstick, I love Chaplin, I think Marie Dressler was a fabulous actress, and you've already heard what I think about Mabel Normand. But not a one of the three is used to any great advantage in this movie--and even Swain, Bennett, and Conklin (all of whom deserve more credit for their work in early cinema than they normally get) are wasted here.
The trouble with this movie is not in the plot (hackneyed as it may seem to current audiences) nor with the actors (who did what they could with the script at hand). No, the trouble really lies with the writing and directing. I can't comment on the original play, having never read or seen it, but I do know that Mack Sennett knew what he was doing with short films--the deservedly classic status of his hundreds of early flicks attests to this. However, when you ask people to sit still and watch over an hour's worth of your movie, there should be something more to hold their attention than your having people fall down over and over and over again. Here's a math problem for someone with much more time on their hands than I have: count the people who fall down in this movie, and divide by the number of minutes the movie lasts, and I think you'll see what I mean.
Please, please, please--do yourself a favor, if you're at all interested in silent movies, or trying to find a way to get your friends to enjoy them with you. Treat yourself (and them) to "City Lights," "The General," "The Gold Rush," any of the one- or two-reelers by Sennett or Hal Roach. Or, for that matter, practically any other silent comedy. (Hey, even Mel Brooks's "Silent Movie" is better than this, although that's not saying much.) Put on some of your (or their) favorite music, if there's not a synchronized score (my copy of "Tillie" seems to have purloined Scott Joplin tracks from a noisy LP). But unless you're ready for over an hour of mostly meaningless pratfalls, don't subject yourself or your friends to this. It's wonderful that it still exists; film students can analyze it to their hearts content. Now go watch something good.