Horst in Translation ([email protected]) This was a concept that already existed 100 years from now (or almost hundred years) and here we see Charlie Chaplin's take on it in this 20-minute black-and-white short film. I wonder how much his personal experiences from very early in his career contributed to that. Then again, even if he was possibly at his peak in 1916, it was still early in his career as he wasn't even 30 when he made this and yet the probably biggest film star on the planet. Edna Purviance as his romantic interest and Eric Campbell as the antagonist, who looks so huge next to the tiny Chaplin, are frequent Chaplin collaborators and both are here on board again as well. I thought this was one of Chaplin's better films and enjoyed watching it for the most part. My favorite scene was probably the one with his co-worker's sandwich. Thumbs up.

Cineanalyst It's very interesting and illuminating to screen Chaplin's early short films, to see his evolution as a comedian and as a protagonist viewers could root for. As well, one can trace the recurrent themes and see him refining and expanding upon routines. The self-referential aspect of "Behind the Screen" is one such scenario he had tried before, and it's a significant advancement over those previous works, becoming the apex of Chaplin's backstage parodies on film-making.From the beginning, Chaplin was involved in self-referential comedies, of which Mack Sennett's Keystone was of the first to explore in film. Only his second film, "Kid Auto Races at Venice" featured Chaplin mugging for the camera much to the annoyance of the cameraman. While at Keystone, Chaplin was also involved in, at least, three similar shorts where he causes mayhem backstage or during a scene: "A Film Johnnie", "The Property Man" (which is set in vaudeville rather than movie-making) and "The Masquerader". In 1915, he directed a much better paced version of this scenario, "His New Job", while at Essanay. The column gag in "Behind the Screen" is elaborated from the brief one in "His New Job". Furthermore, the storyline of Edna Purviance's character trying to get work at the studio by masquerading as a male is taken from "The Masquerader", except then it was Chaplin pretending to be a woman--a reversal upon a reversal. It also fits into the structure of self-reference, as she's an actress playing a wannabe-actress who pretends (acts) in an attempt to become an actress.There are some well worked out gags here involving a trap door and pie throwing, ruining movie scenes and generally causing havoc throughout a film studio. Chaplin and Eric Campbell once again play out their antagonism of David to Goliath. Even the homosexual joke works, without being too offensive. There's also the anti-trade unions social commentary and the violent explosive finale gag, both of which didn't hamper the fun for me.Others have seen a parody of Keystone's film-making and knockabout slapstick in the film, and that certainly has credibility. As well, it's remarkable how far Chaplin had come after only leaving Keystone two years prior. "Behind the Screen" is a much-matured Chaplin short that finds its humor in poking fun at what it is and what goes into itself.

23skidoo-4 (Spoiler warning)The unsung star of many of Chaplin's best silent films has to be Edna Purviance. She and Chaplin shared a chemistry that, to be honest, was superior to all other on-screen pairings Chaplin enjoyed either in his silent era, or later sound films. And that includes Paulette Goddard and Claire Bloom.Behind the Screen doesn't showcase Edna per se - she only appears in maybe 5 minutes of it - but she nearly steals the scene as a wannabe actress who disguises herself as a male stagehand in order to break into show business. Of course it doesn't take long for Charlie (here playing David to Eric Campbell's burly Goliath) to see through the disguise. Mere moments later, he and Edna are smooching up a storm, leading to one of the funniest moments in all of Chaplin's silents when Campbell's character catches the two, thinks they're gay, then starts "flying" around the room. Yes, it's politically incorrect and yes, no one could get away with such a joke today. But this was 1916 and no one cared. It was just a joke ... and a very funny one.Edna's best scene is when Charlie discovers her sitting alone, strumming a guitar and singing. It's a very brief moment, but you can tell from how it's filmed that Chaplin did indeed care about showcasing his favorite co-star.The rest of the film is a fast moving look behind the scenes at a movie studio, and features a rapid fire succession of gags, including the inevitable pie-throwing battle. An unexpectedly violent ending (played for laughs but nonetheless probably fatal for those involved) leaves a strange aftertaste, but otherwise this is an example of Chaplin hitting his stride during his very productive middle-period of silent films. Highly recommended both for fans and for those curious about the appeal of Edna Purviance.

Snow Leopard "Behind the Screen" is an excellent Charlie Chaplin short feature, with plenty of good slapstick and much more. The setting, with Charlie working as a hired hand in a movie-making operation, lends itself to a lot of good comedy, and there are plenty of standard gags plus a lot of material that creatively uses the props and situations of the setting. It also works very well as a self-satire of the industry (as suggested by the title), making some subtle and other not so subtle points. Finally, there is some nice interplay between Charlie's character and his superiors, especially his burly, brutish immediate supervisor, played by Eric Campbell, an amusing actor who was one of Chaplin's best supporting players.Most of these earlier Chaplin films (referring to 1914-1916, the years when he made the majority of his short features, making ten or more each year) do not get very high ratings. It's true that some of them are mostly routine slapstick, but there are also a few gems like this one that combine slapstick with substance. Most of the movies from these years can be rather hard to watch, because the film often survives in poor condition, and so it's understandable that even the best ones might not always stand out as clearly from the rest. But this one is a fine film, and definitely recommended for Chaplin fans.