Let's talk about the Essanays...

So, growing weary of the seemingly endless First National battles, I thought I'd try asking how our group denizens feel about the Essanays. Love them? Hate them? Think they're only ok? Think a few stand out as equal to or better than some or all of the Mutuals?

I'm still relatively new to the Essanays. I've seen them all at least once now, and a few I've seen two or three times. Collectively, they are more interesting to me as a study of Chaplin's evolution as an artist than they are entertaining, funny, or moving, although a few of them are almost there. I've decided I really like THE TRAMP, THE CHAMPION, and THE BANK as whole entities. SHANGHAIED is leaving me cold so far. BY THE SEA is kind of fun, just good old-fashioned chaotic mayhem. I must say that I absolutely love the hat-on-the-string fight. Random (or orchestrated) Essanay thoughts, anyone? And, any thoughts on the quality of Shepard's restoration of them (which seems pretty damn impressive to me)?

Click here for a piece I did on the Essanays for Film Quarterly a couple of years ago:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1070/1_54/67330043/ p1/article.jhtml

Overall, except for the Talkies, I think they're Chaplin's weakest group of films.

They have none of the energy of the Keystones, and suffer from the lack of the excellent stable of clowns and supporting players that Charlie had access to there. The comedy is neither inspired or particularly original ('A Night In The Show,' 'A Night Out,' and 'By The Sea' are nothing more than rehashed Keystones) - or particularly funny, and the films have an overall feeling of cheapness to them. Somehow, in the Keystones, when you have a cheap painted set it works fine in the absurd Keystoneworld that those films all took place in.... in the Essanays, however, the cheap sets just look like cheap sets...

Worst of all is that horrible moment where Charlie allows himself to be shot in 'The Tramp,' completely changing the tone of the film, and indulging himself in that 'pathos' crap, which is no more convincinng here than it is in a Biograph - except that it BELONGS in a Biograph... Someone should have slapped him and demanded a happy ending.

I feel better about some of the later Essanays. I can stand 'The Bank,' 'Police' and 'Carmen' - but even the best of the Essanays seem like rough drafts for the far better Mutuals to come.

the far better Mutuals to come.

True. Its almost like Chaplin was finding and developing his own comedic style during this period.

It is the artist in transition

I never get tired of 'A Night in the Show' and rank it higher even more than the first two Mutuals, Floorwalker & Fireman. I find absurdly funny and its success probably comes from its Stage Hall originations where the comedic timing could be worked out night after night. Moreover, Chaplin adapted it for the silent camera remarkably well. -Another testimony to his directorial prowess at such a young age.

and then:

I agree. I find the Essanays hard to sit through- they just don't hold my interest for some reason. I actually prefer some of the Keystones over them (like LAUGHING GAS, CAUGHT IN A CABARET, and THE PROPERTY MAN, although Chaplin is pretty cruel in the latter, kicking an old man in the face).

Admittedly, part of the problem was the poor quality and incompleteness of the Essanays (often too dark), but the David Shepard restorations didn't change my opinion of them that much.

I think this was a transition period for Chaplin- going from the knockabout slapstick of the Keystones, to having more control over his work and trying to change his style.

What I'm curious about- is why things suddenly improved at Mutual (he called this the happiest period of his life). Was it Edna? Was it the working conditions at Mutual? Was it the huge increase in his paycheck? Did he just come into his own at that time? He had some excellent supporting players at Mutual too (Eric Campbell, Albert Austin, Henry Bergman, etc.).

I wonder if it's because he had his own studio, a comfortable place to work with all the supplies he needed. I suspect he may have dashed off some of the Essanay work just to get it done and get out of their facilities.

He was also in LA, instead of Niles, which meant that he had his friends to see, places to go, and inspiration. He probably took Edna out all over the place!

But I suspect it's the studio. It looks like a really workable space in the pictures I've seen, and Buster Keaton did well there too for many years.

Good move. A lot of that has boiled down to semantics.

Love them?

I'm quite fond of the Essanays. Overall they aren't as polished as the Mutuals, but the best of them are stronger than the weaker Mutuals. _Police_ is as good as most of the Mutuals, and _The Bank_, _Work_, and _The Tramp_ are serious stuff. All of them have wonderful bits in them, even when they aren't that strong overall

Since he was in LA for the last 8 Essanays, I'd have to agree that the studio, and supporting cast, is the more logical factor. (Of course, he got a cameraman he was pretty comfortabe working with at that time, too )

What fascinates me about that one is the fact that he exploited the capabilities of film to do what he was never able to do on stage