The Continuity of _Police_

I spent last evening taking a *close* look at the _Police_ and _Triple Trouble_ footage, both in McGlynn's _Chaplin Puzzle_ and in the new Shepard DVDs.

Let me start with McGlynn. He claims that _Police_ and _Triple Trouble_ were made out of footage shot for _Life_. He reconstructs _Life_ as follows: Ex-convict Charlie's money is stolen and he therefore fails to get into the flophouse. After spending the night on the street (no footage), he is employed at the Nutt mansion with Edna

I think it's also a likely possibility that Essanay originally did release Police as Chaplin and the LOC summary indicate, and that *after* the first run, Essanay then canibalized the film to use in Triple Trouble. If I'm not mistaken, David Shepard was only able to locate one print (of The Tramp) which he was sure was from an original 1915 release, of all of the Essanays. With his contacts and efforts to acquire the sources he used for the new Essanay restorations and that level of success, it certainly isn't surprising that a print reflecting the LOC synopsis doesn't survive. And its lack would not necessarily mean such a version wasn't released.

The synopsis that Essanay filed with the Library of Congress most likely summarized the cut that Chaplin sent them. That's how it was with the synopsis of 'Carmen' that they filed at nearly the same time. The 'Police' synopsis shows the flophouse sequence as being intact. Why would the synopsis have that scene in it, if it hadn't been part of the film Chaplin delivered to them? They weren't just making it up.

We can think up a hundred different 'maybe' and 'what-if' scenarios, but I think this one is the most probable, based on the evidence.

Essanay never felt it had a responsibility to release Chaplin's cut of anything. They certainly cut up and re-arranged his films when they produced 'The Essanay-Chaplin Revue' and 'Chase Me Charlie,' and Chaplin seems not to have complained about those revisions either.

The padding on 'Carmen' doesn't do Essanay any credit, but that doesn't mean there was nobody there who could edit a film well. The company didn't stay in business for over a decade by cranking out lousy films. Their Francis X. Bushman, Beverly Bayne, and Henry B. Walthall films were very successful, and even their minor releases could be very well made (in fact, their 'Young Mother Hubbard' of 1917 was the surprise hit at Cinevent last year). The company was suffering from poor distribution and high litigation costs, but not from sloppy filmmaking.

Cutting out one sequence of 'Police' and cleaning up the continuity gap could be done by any film school freshman today, and was certainly no stretch for Essanay's editing department.

However, I'm not declaring as a *fact* that Essanay cut 'Police' down; it's my opinion. But I think it's the most likely of all possible

Trade magazines like 'Moving Picture World' listed the exact length of new releases. We know that 'Police' ran to 2050 feet when first released. It'd be interesting to see if that figure stayed roughly the same in its many re-issues, but the practice was to just list the number of reels for re-issues.

For example, I have a March 1921 issue that announces several Essanay Chaplins becoming available on the states-rights market. 'Carmen' is there at four reels, and a number of others are there at two reels. But guess what... 'By the Sea' is listed as a two-reeler. An error? Or did someone pad that film out to justify a higher rental fee? Probably the former, but at this point it's impossible to be certain.

Is there any reason to believe the LOC version *couldn't* have come in at 2050 feet?

Of course, I agree. I also think it's getting rather pointless trying to get Connie to at least admit this is the most reasonable explanation. I'm reminded a little of that fellow last year who kept insisting that the fall at the end of 'The Rink' could have been an outtake, reinserted by someone after the final edit had been made.

That's a fascinating theory. If I might add some support

That depends on how the synopsis was prepared.

That's how it was with

You're still assuming that the synopsis was based on the final version. It's a logical assumption, but it ain't necessarily so.

I'd like a little more evidence.

Well, then we must congratulate them on preparing a better version than Chaplin. Miracles do happen.

For obvious reasons. He had left the company long before and couldn't be blamed for the results. It was Chaplin's reputation as a filmmaker that he was concerned about.

Since my son has just gone through NYU film school, I must respectfully disagree with your estimate of the capabilities of a film school freshman.

And I can only judge what Essanay could have done with _Police_ by what Leo White did to the other Chaplin material he worked on. He was Essanay's designated Chaplin hack.

Connie K.

It would be very easy to test this theory. If _Police_ was 2050 feet when released, it was only a few hairs longer than _Work_ at 2017. Why not compare the running times of the two, which I'll bet (a nickel) are very close with _Police_ as is, and then clock the flophouse sequence from _Triple Trouble_ to see how many minutes/feet that would add.

These are the two longest Essanays, according to Robinson, except for the expanded _Burlesque). If Essanay (or Chaplin) did trim _Police_, excessive length may have been a consideration.

Connie K.

I'll bet (a nickel) there is.

Connie K.

I have said it is the most economical hypothesis, given what we know, which is not very much. What more do you want? I can't say you're absolutely right, because I don't know that, and *neither do you*.

I'm reminded a

If you think my arguments are that silly, you obviously aren't paying much attention to what I'm posting. I've yet to see an answer worth considering as to why Chaplin complained about _Carmen_ and _Triple Trouble_, but not about_Police_