LIFE

I've been thinking about the sequencing of 'Police' the last few days, and in particular the relationship between 'Police' and 'Triple Trouble.'

What I'm confused about is that both Asplund and Robinson (and Mitchell, for that matter) all claim that the flophouse sequence (some of which is in 'Police,' and some of which is in 'Triple Trouble' came from the unfinished film 'Life,' which both describe as a 'more realistic' or 'serious' feature film that was never finished.

Asplund doesn't give his source for this. Robinson simply says it was 'reported' and seems very unclear about the details. My question: reported WHERE and do we have *any* grounds at all to believe this?

It isn't *that* murky. As was reported in a piece by Hooman Mehran in the Summer 1996 issue of Limelight, Chaplin's rift with Spoor (which Chaplin notes in MA) may very well have been significantly widened by Spoor's reaction to Chaplin's idea of making a feature. But the plan was already well in the works when the Essanay News reported in its July 17, 1915 edition, under the headline 'Charles Chaplin Will Produce Feature Picture' that 'besides the regular releases of a two-reel comedy every three weeks, released through the General Film company, Mr. Chaplin will now produce a multi-reel comedy, which will be released as a special feature shortly.' So it pre-dates Police, and Chaplin's 'probably beginning to think of bolting the company' by around 6 months.

The reporting in the Essanay News through 1915 offers some interesting insights, both in what is reported and also in what isn't. A lot of it is available on microfilm in the Robinson Locke collection in the Lincoln Center Library in NYC and I believe the Library of Congress has an almost complete set on microfilm as well.

Mehran's conclusion is that Police might well have been very little more than a rethinking into two reels, the material shot the previous summer for the planned feature which Chaplin later referred to as Life. The assumption that Life would be 'more realistic or serious' rather than comedic, I think comes simply from the 'grittier' cynical outlook and setting of Police and the flop-house scenes in Triple Trouble, as well as the inherent implications of Chaplin's choice of the name Life.

It was Essanay itself that announced the 'Life' project in its own trade paper. But I don't know of any quote of Chaplin's in which he even mentions such a film. We know that Essanay had no problem with telling outrageous lies about Chaplin's work (in 1918 they announced 'Triple Trouble' as a Chaplin release they'd been saving for three years), and this may be another example.

In 1915 the company was seriously gearing up for feature film production for the first time in its history. The days of the one- and two-reel drama were ending. Naturally they'd want to promote its new features to the exhibitors. Its most popular stars were Francis X. Bushman and Chaplin. So it figures that they'd help build up some buzz by suggesting a Chaplin feature was in the works. (And of course, the following year they did present a couple of Chaplin features, sort of.)

My feeling is that 'Life' was the front office's production, never Chaplin's.

As for the flop house sequence, it plays great but Chaplin may have been stumped for something to build out of it. If so, he may have just dropped the whole thing and gone on to a new idea, returning to it a little later. But I don't know... David or Connie may have more solid information about it.

I think it's simply incorrect to conclude that the flophouse material in _Police_ and _Triple Trouble_ come from the same source. The two sequences are incompatible. In _Police_, Charlie can't get into the flophouse because he has no money. Therefore he joins his old cellmate (after picking his pocket) in an attempted burglary. In _Triple Trouble_, he's in the flophouse, and manages to acquire a tidy sum while he's there. Therefore there would be no reason for him to attempt to break into a house.

But both of these sequences do use the same sets and some of the same actors. And some material from _Police_ and _Work_ is *duplicated* in _Triple Trouble_.

The earliest remarks about _Life_ that I have in my personal library appear in Theodore Huff's _Charlie Chaplin_ (1951), p. 54. Huff indicates that some vague relationship exists between _Police_, _Life_, and _Triple Trouble_, the latter being 'patched together from bits extracted from _Police_, _Work_, and an unfinished feature titled 'Life' (which Chaplin abandoned because of the demand for short comedies), and non-Chaplin scenes directed by Leo White, in 1918.' Huff also says that _Police_ was 'tampered with after Chaplin left Essanay. One whole sequence was removed to help 'pad' another film.' By this I think he means the flophouse sequence, but for reasons I've indicated, this can't be true. I suspect this is merely a bad guess based on imprefect memory and lack of opportunity to compare the films closely. And as for his first statement about 'Life,' I have no idea what his source of information might be. Like most film books published by trade presses, Huff's book has neither citations of sources nor bibliography.

John McCabe (_Charlie Chaplin_, 1978) has a great deal more to say about _Life_: 'During the last months of his Essanay contract he started filming a feature-length film he planned to call _Life_, meaning _My Life_. _Life_ was to be an account of the London he knew as a street boy in the savage days when his mother was in the asylum and Sydney was at sea. Chapin wanted to show the tragicomic world of flophouses, grimy alleys, and living 'on the beg'' (pp. 77-78, paperback edition). Once again, no source is cited. For all I know, McCabe may be offering his own conjecture as fact here.

And what does Chaplin himself say about _Life_? As far as I can recall, nothing.

Could that be a hint?

Connie K.

(RE: 'Life'

But is there any evidence that Chaplin ever *had* the idea of making a feature, outside of Essanay's own PR?

Don't be so smug. I'm simply referencing Robinson, who says: 'In his last days at Essanay Chaplin was reported to be working on a feature film called 'Life'...'

I agree. Perhaps Charlie realized that by having Edna and Charlie at odds (as seen in the kitchen scene) he was undercutting any kind of romance between the two. Thus, he ditched the kitchen scene, and reworked the flophouse material into 'Police.'

I think the 'realistic' and 'serious' descriptions are nothing more than the collective fantasy of fifty years of Chaplin scholars, who are watching the kitchen and flophouse scenes with their eyes closed.

Insofar as sets are concerned, I'd argue that most of the Essanay settings are every bit as 'gritty' and ugly as those found in the 'Life' footage. That's one of the reasons, in fact, I find those films so unattractive in general.

May well have. Or may not, since, as Shush points out, Essanay was on the point of moving into longer films. If Chaplin didn't have Spoor's support, it was probably because of his history of taking longer and spending more to make his shorts.

But the plan was already

Directly or indirectly, this must be one of Huff's sources, and no doubt it is the original source of the story.

Hooman's conclusion is highly probable.

I see in the program notes to _Police_ in Essanay III the familiar assertion that this film was 'altered by Essanay after Chaplin had edited the film.' I have yet to see any evidence that this occurred other than Huff's unsupported statement. All we know for sure is that some footage from _Police_ was duplicated in _Triple Trouble_. This does not prove that anything was edited out of _Police_, and furthermore, what would Essanay's motive be for doing this?

Their motive for expanding _Carmen_ was clear, but why should they take anything out of _Police_?

Connie K.

The point is the uniqueness of this one report, and how *little* was made of it, a Chaplin Feature for God's sake, while at the same time Essanay was hyping the hell out of the ongoing production of Chaplin's shorter format comedies. All other indications are that Spoor was discouraging longer works (at least from Chaplin and Anderson) so why would the official in-house publication report it at all? It wouldn't even make sense as an 'excuse' for Chaplin's 'lethargic' production schedule given that they say right in the article that the feature work will not interrupt the regular output of short comedies for you the exhibitor to make your money on.

Smug? Where does *that* come from? I'm simply referencing primary source material to show that there was nothing 'bizarre' about the idea, as you contended, because the timeframe was *not* concurrent with Police, but much earlier. I personally don't think it matters a whole lot what the source is for the inaccuracy, but I do think it important to correct misinformation. I've pointed out one or two other errors to David R and for some reason he never felt the need to defend himself by labeling me 'smug'. But hey, if you find it important to read into my posts some sort of emotional content that you have no way of assessing accurately, help yourself. I'd rather stick with the Chaplin issues if it's all the same to you.

By 'setting' I certainly didn't intend the limited meaning of 'sets'. That's why I used the phrase ''grittier' cynical outlook' with the word. 'Ugly' was not part of what I was refering to, that's why I didn't use that word.

And I would challenge your argument that 'most of the Essanay settings are every bit as ''gritty' and ugly as those found in the 'Life' footage'. First off, I thought you were saying that Life had no reality except as Essanay PR hype. So what footage do you mean? If I take you to mean Police and the Chaplin parts of Triple Trouble, what would you say is as cynical? In The Park? The Bank? The Tramp? Shanghaied and By The Sea may be cynical, but in primarily different ways. I do see similarities in Work, but in ways that presuppose social comment, which, if your pervious comments on The Immigrant are to be believed, you don't feel is a significant part of any of Chaplin's silent work. What's left that's got as cynical an outlook? A Woman? Carmen? Personally, I don't see it.

But wouldn't that suggest that it is, in fact, simply the work of some fanciful PR person?

Translation: 'Don't feel happy you caught ME in a mistake, Pal

This would certainly settle the matter. Most probably, Chaplin (always anxious about receiving his correct compensation) would have insisted on an amendment to his contract specifying how he was to be paid from the proceeds of a feature film.

I don't think this would've been a 'handshake deal.'

I believe Spoor would have been ecstatic to have a Chaplin feature in 1915... as long as he could have a steady flow of shorts along with it. Chaplin could probably have batted out a good feature in three or four months, but I doubt Spoor would have sacrificed several shorts to get one feature. I've seen no evidence that Chaplin wanted to do a feature at that point, or that he and Spoor ever discussed the idea.

Again, I believe Spoor wanted all the features he could get in 1915 (his studio released eleven that year, whereas it had produced only two the previous year). But he didn't want feature production to slow down the production of shorts. This may have been a contractual issue between Essanay and General Film, or simply Spoor's concept of how to make it in the movie business.

Surprisingly, Essanay's very first feature was a G.M. Anderson project, 'The Good-for-Nothing' (1914). (Yep, it was filmed at Niles, too.) Anderson was still cranking out shorts at the time, which evidently explains why Spoor allowed the feature to be made.

My theory about 'Life' is that it was just a publicity item planted in the company's journal to keep the exhibitors' buzz about Chaplin going strong. Significantly, the blurb was careful to note that there would be no suspension of two-reelers.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but there seems to have been no mention of a Chaplin feature in 'Moving Picture World' or the other trade magazines, and no mention in the leading fan magazines. There doesn't seem to be any reference to 'Life' in any of Chaplin's interviews or writings. So without any corroboration at all, I can't believe the announcement Essanay made about 'Life.' The company's claims (especially concerning Chaplin) were wrong too often for them to have any credibility.

Here's a trivia item for you all. At the time of that announcement in 'Essanay News' (July 1915), the company's Chicago studio had just finished a feature called 'Skinner's Baby' (copyrighted July 23). Film historian Anthony Slide says that Jackie Coogan made his very first film appearance in it! ('Early American Cinema,' pg. 78)

Small world...