"Robetta and Doretto, No. 2", made later in the year 1894 by the Edison Company, is an interesting example of a more advanced story film by W. K. L. Dickson. This is not at all to say that the twenty-second short is in any way different from the other single shot works of the company; the action still takes place within a fixed camera field, is once more against the boring black background of the company's previous output, and like the company's other work is a documentation of an act. The story itself is not at all sophisticated in any way, shape or form, and has no moral or allegorical value; it is a mere stage routine, a simple comedy, a primitive slapstick piece. Yet, while the short remains as such and is nothing new compared to the other performance routines Dickson and Heise shot, the fact that the act itself so happens to be a stage skit with a small narrative already begins to illustrate how the new medium could be used for telling stories--which is what eventually gave Méliès and the other companies the scent when they went on to begin narrative filmmaking.
In truth, "Chinese Laundry Scene" (the title the film is known as on here) was actually the second of three shootings documenting Phil Doretto and Robetta's (first name unknown) stage performance(s). The other two, Nos. 1 and 3, have either long since been destroyed or are simply not available to the internet; so if this is the case, they may unfortunately never resurface. It is also debatable whether they were films of the same act or documentations of different performances; opinions will differ. Likely as not, this film and No. 3 are/were undoubtedly both remakes of the original recording, quite obviously because of the wear and tear the original negative gained from having so many prints made. Already, this states just how popular the duo's act was, that three film versions had to be made to meet the demand for prints. Thus, no one should be surprised that the original was lost because probably of this issue. Furthermore, evidence states the exact same problem had occurred many times previous, with the Edison Company's "Sandow, No. 1" as a prime example, and would continue to occur for some years onward. Thus, the most likely answer is that indeed "No. 2" is a remake.
The brief film consists of a primitive cardboard laundromat building set up, quite stagy-looking and which would later be surpassed by Méliès's gorgeous sets in his fantasy features. A Chinese man (Robetta or Doretto, not sure) hits a policeman over the head with a bottle, runs into the laundry, and a wild chase ensues involving a trick door and a few minor stunts. Mere slapstick, all of it but fairly entertaining for the day.
While I indeed stated earlier on that the entire set-up is only a stage routine (and furthermore no different from the company's other shorts in that respect), I believe there should still be some recognition to this movie as being the first comedy film, made a year prior to the Lumière Brothers' "L'Arroseur Arrose" of 1895. Don't forget, even if the 'comedy' in this movie is only staged nonsense, the fact remains it is still comedy and undeniably the earliest forerunner to Charlie Chaplin. It is a staged slapstick routine put on film. Does this make the film a true comedy, or is it just a documentation? Answers will vary, but it is quite clear to me at least that the slapstick in the act likewise transfers to film, in the manner of water traveling through a paper towel. The "Robetta and Doretto" trilogy, though never recognized as such, is quite clearly (though arguably) an almost certain contender to the beginning of film comedy.
In truth, "Chinese Laundry Scene" (the title the film is known as on here) was actually the second of three shootings documenting Phil Doretto and Robetta's (first name unknown) stage performance(s). The other two, Nos. 1 and 3, have either long since been destroyed or are simply not available to the internet; so if this is the case, they may unfortunately never resurface. It is also debatable whether they were films of the same act or documentations of different performances; opinions will differ. Likely as not, this film and No. 3 are/were undoubtedly both remakes of the original recording, quite obviously because of the wear and tear the original negative gained from having so many prints made. Already, this states just how popular the duo's act was, that three film versions had to be made to meet the demand for prints. Thus, no one should be surprised that the original was lost because probably of this issue. Furthermore, evidence states the exact same problem had occurred many times previous, with the Edison Company's "Sandow, No. 1" as a prime example, and would continue to occur for some years onward. Thus, the most likely answer is that indeed "No. 2" is a remake.
The brief film consists of a primitive cardboard laundromat building set up, quite stagy-looking and which would later be surpassed by Méliès's gorgeous sets in his fantasy features. A Chinese man (Robetta or Doretto, not sure) hits a policeman over the head with a bottle, runs into the laundry, and a wild chase ensues involving a trick door and a few minor stunts. Mere slapstick, all of it but fairly entertaining for the day.
While I indeed stated earlier on that the entire set-up is only a stage routine (and furthermore no different from the company's other shorts in that respect), I believe there should still be some recognition to this movie as being the first comedy film, made a year prior to the Lumière Brothers' "L'Arroseur Arrose" of 1895. Don't forget, even if the 'comedy' in this movie is only staged nonsense, the fact remains it is still comedy and undeniably the earliest forerunner to Charlie Chaplin. It is a staged slapstick routine put on film. Does this make the film a true comedy, or is it just a documentation? Answers will vary, but it is quite clear to me at least that the slapstick in the act likewise transfers to film, in the manner of water traveling through a paper towel. The "Robetta and Doretto" trilogy, though never recognized as such, is quite clearly (though arguably) an almost certain contender to the beginning of film comedy.