The Property Man (1914) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not Chaplins Best
DKosty12326 April 2007
This film is not Chaplin's best. In fact, this Keystone production lacks the depth & heart & sympathy which Charlie's Little Tramp would evolve too. This is not surprising when you consider this is still early in Charlies career.

The film is built around slap stick. That is because Mack Sennett was actually working with Charlie at this point & Mack's trademark slap stick comedy is evident. Charlie is obviously still learning the film making craft here. He is evolving towards the classic character he would reach in a few short years of making comedy shorts.

While not Chaplins best, the film does get some laughs with some scenes like the beer spilled in Charlies pants, Charlie ogles the show girls, Charlie shows up the strong man, etc. The punching & abusing the old stage hand man is a little extreme but it is quite obvious that the makeup is hiding the fact the guy is younger than he looks. Look for the Mack Sennett signs back stage. They include "Actors- Do Not Pose In Front of Your Posters" & "If You Act Is Rotten, Do Not Take It Out On The Props".

This films tells you that Chaplin studied Sennett in this period & within a short time moved beyond his type of slap stick.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Kick 'em, then kick 'em again
ducatic-8229016 January 2017
Good old Keystone rough and tumble. Chaplin himself would not have liked this film, as he thought the only thing that justified Keystone's existence was a dark-eyed girl that weaved in and out of their pictures, Mabel Normand. Clearly, Mabel isn't in this one, so it qualifies as rubbish. However, all Keystone films made money, so what WE think today is immaterial. Those that handed over their 7 cents entrance fee undoubtedly thought they'd had their money's worth. That's what matters. The film brings out most of Keystone's ammunition: kicks in the rear, heads stamped on, flashes of petticoat, spraying with a hose and a ballet dancer's legs, what more could be wished for. They must have been rolling in the aisles. I would guess the film is a sort of remake of 'That Ragtime Band', albeit minus the charming Mabel.

The prop man is Charlie Chaplin, and he has a mission – to cause as much disruption in his little theater as possible. Film-goers eyes must have popped out of their heads – the entrance prices are 9c,19c, 29c, 49c with box seats reduced to 98 cents. Sennett is telling us that this place is so lousy they've had to reduce prices. At the start the deadbeat prop man and an aging janitor with a Zee-Zee Top beard, are drinking beer from a jug. There follows an argument with an act that has not been put on the bill poster. When the lady part of the act goes to the star dressing room she finds it empty and resplendent with graffiti (written by actresses? never!). Things get worse when the lady assistant of Garlico The Strongman enters the dressing room and finds the first lady there. While the ladies get violent, Garlico is bouncing Charlie off the walls. Enter the Goo Goo Sisters (the what!) and Charlie soon spills his beer down his trousers and, seemingly down a sister's dress as well. In an act reminiscent of The Fatima Sisters from Ragtime Band, the Goos indulge in some titillating dancing, giving Charlie an eyeful of petticoats. Garlico performs his strongman act, but his assistant gets knocked out during some ludicrous slapstick – twice. The strongman himself is laid out by little Charlie using a dumbbell as a club. Mack Sennett appears in this film as a member of the audience, but, unsurprisingly, he disappears just before the theater-goers get a hosing down. The majority of the film is composed of endless crazy slapstick, which would have had regular Keystoners in stitches. For present-day fans of slapstick, this film is still a must.

As in 'That Ragtime Band' small-time theaters are not treated kindly by Keystone (they were the competition after all). They tell us the theater is a dirty, disgusting place, staffed by alcoholic hobos, and the acts comprise psychologically unstable miscreants and lewd women. For this you will pay much more than in a cinema. This is no illusion though, for Mary Pickford described the theaters of the day, where the actresses would throw makeup at the walls and smash mirrors if their performance did not go down well (the sign in this film 'If your act is rotten do not take it out on the props' is a genuine one). When Pickford got her first star dressing room she was furious to find it dirty, covered in graffiti and with every convenience trashed. She got so hysterical that her mother had to slap her face to bring her round. Of course the theater staff would never clear up after spoiled, unstable, swelled head actresses – let them wallow in their own filth.

Garlico's assistant was played by Peggy Page, an actress who has been identified with the Helen Carruthers that attempted suicide in 1915. Charlie and Helen appeared together in 17 films for Keystone, and they seem to have been very lovey with each other – so much so that Peggy / Helen might have followed him to Essanay. The actress was never a star, but came close in Chaplin's His Prehistoric Past. It is rather curious that Chas never mentioned her in his autobiography, but then he only ever mentioned 'the greats'. Was Peggy/ Helen of the class of actress that Mabel Normand labeled as only able 'to enter a scene and flirt with the comedian?' The film was criticized in the press for being too brutal. 'Is kicking an old man in the head actually funny?' They asked.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Flashes of the Little Tramp in the larval stage, but far too few of them to save this short
llltdesq9 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is an early Charlie Chaplin Keystone short. There will be spoilers ahead:

I'm really at a loss for words here, because I generally like Chaplin's work. I came to this short cold, with no knowledge of it coming in. So I was surprised by what I saw in this one. The character Chaplin plays here is quite different in personality from the Little Tramp which made him a film icon. The titular character is rude, obnoxious and just as prone to abuse others as he himself is abused here. The gags are much more violent and often cruel with little in the way of humor to them.

There's virtually no plot to this. Chaplin is the prop man at a vaudeville theater. Various acts come in and out, interacting with Chaplin, the most notable of the the strongman and his pretty assistant. The strongman is a bully and takes things out on Chaplin. Chaplin, in turn, abuses an old man, who is probably the equivalent of "Pops", the old stage door manager you see in such films. When the funniest thing in the the first third of the short is Chaplin pointing at a "No Smoking" sign and telling an actor to put out a cigarette while he puffs away at a pipe, you're in for a long, underwhelming experience.

The humor (what there is of it) comes from Chaplin messing up the acts on-stage while trying to handle scenery and props with the old man, who eventually has enough of Chaplin's bullying and at last starts fighting back. Through here, you see flashes of the Little Tramp's movements, but not nearly enough to make up for the problems with pacing and timing. It seems a hair off much of the time.

The most puzzling part is a lengthy sequence where the old man is under a trunk belonging to the strongman and Chaplin's character spends more time doing anything and everything except trying to move the trunk. If what he was doing was funny, that would be one thing, but it really isn't very interesting, let alone funny.

Worth watching for Chaplin completists.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too funny to pass for vulgarity
deickemeyer26 December 2018
A two-reel picture of the funny things that happened behind the scenes in a vaudeville theater. There are very few people who don't like these Keystones. They are thoroughly vulgar and touch the homely strings of our own vulgarity. Some of the funniest things in this picture are vulgar they are too vulgar to describe, but are too funny to pass for vulgarity when only seen. They are not the best pictures for a parlor entertainment, that is true. There is some brutality in this picture and we can't help feeling that this is reprehensible. What human being can see an old man kicked in the face and count it fun? - The Moving Picture World, August 15, 1914
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Chaplin the Villain
nukisepp10 February 2021
Not one of the Chaplin's best isn't saying much when describing any Chaplin's work from his Keystone period. Non of his Keystone pictures gets close to his best works. But, in this case, when we say that this might be Chaplin's worst - well, it sounds intriguing. Many people say that this movie is Chaplin's worst because here he is in his most unsympathetic role. He is just a bully going around kicking people just for his amusement. Notice one thing - he plays the archetype of the bully - picking only the one's who are visibly weaker than him, but when some real authority arrives, he visibly shrinks. Well, I tell you, people, that when your favorite actor plays a jerk that doesn't mean the movie is bad. With that, I don't want to say that 'The Property Man' is a masterpiece. No, by any standards it is average Keystone rough slapstick. The film is quite well structured, the story is straightforward and coherent. There is no subtlety and Charlie is not a sweet loveable character (well, he rarely was in The Keystone pictures). What I've heard, he didn't like that film very much, but I'm happy to have seen it. This gives a perfect view of his other side - the one he luckily ditched. It is a misfire, like many call it, but it was much needed misfire. Besides Chaplin being not likeable, the film itself is quite alright.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
In which a fledgling comic genius learned what not to do
wmorrow595 August 2002
There's only one genuine point of interest posed by the Keystone comedy The Property Man, written and directed by Charlie Chaplin: What would this great comedian's output have looked like if he'd never outgrown the crude Mack Sennett-style slapstick of his earliest film appearances? For those interested in this troubling question, the answer can be found here.

This short, which is set backstage in a vaudeville theater, is infamous for its harsh violence, and it's easy to see why. Most Keystone comedies feature lots of comic mayhem, and Chaplin's are no exception, but in the midst of it all Charlie himself is usually at least a moderately sympathetic figure. Not on this occasion! We watch The Property Man a little stunned as Charlie does everything possible to turn audience sympathy against himself. Most notoriously, Charlie bullies his elderly assistant, smacking and kicking him repeatedly, even when the old man is pinned under a fallen trunk. For me this is far from funny, and when the old man finally fights back it's exhilarating, and we root for him to settle the score with his tormentor. It's like visiting some nightmarish alternate universe where we root for Elmer Fudd to nail a mean-spirited Bugs Bunny. Actually, watching this movie is similar to seeing the earliest appearances of favorite cartoon characters such as Mickey Mouse or Daffy Duck, when the characters themselves still looked like rough sketches, and their behavior was crude and aggressive. Charlie is certainly aggressive in The Property Man: while flirting with the strong man's comely female assistant he gets so carried away he knocks her to the ground.

Viewers expecting a plot of some sort won't find one here. Events in this film follow a loose framework. Performers arrive at the theater for the show, quarrels erupt over dressing rooms, and then one act after another appears on stage. There are several shots of the audience, who look like rubes. I tend to enjoy movies set at theaters, and admittedly this film does provide a taste of what vaudeville was like in its heyday, allowing for Keystone-style exaggeration. Still, our enjoyment is undercut by the film's nasty tone. Even when Charlie isn't assaulting people his comic business is decidedly on the rough side. At one point, while he's flirting with a pair of dancing girls, beer (or punch, or something) gets spilled down his pants, creating a highly unappealing impression. Later, when Garlico the strong man is on stage and bends to lift a bar-bell, Charlie deliberately tears a piece of fabric so that Garlico will think he's ripped his tights. This is one of the film's rare comic moments, perhaps because the strong man is the only character in the movie more obnoxious than Charlie.

Get the idea? This movie isn't merely tiresome, it's a blot on Chaplin's reputation, but fortunately he outgrew stuff like this pretty quickly, even before he left Keystone. And then within a couple of years he would make Behind the Screen, set at a movie studio, in which huge Eric Campbell would play Goliath the bullying prop man, and Charlie -- the Charlie we recognize, the lovable little guy -- would play his assistant, the hapless and put-upon David. And, much to our relief, the proper pecking order would be established in Chaplin's universe.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Rough property
TheLittleSongbird28 May 2018
Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors.

Everybody has to have at least one misfire in their careers, even the best directors and actors have not so good films or films they regret. From his early still evolving period before he properly found his stride and fairly fresh from his vaudeville background, like 'His Favourite Pastime' and 'A Busy Day' , 'The Property Man' shows that Chaplin is not immune from this. While an important milestone period for him, his Keystone years/films generally were watchable and interesting enough overall but patchy, none being among his best work.

By all means 'The Property Man' has a few good points. While a little primitive and not exactly audacious, the production values are far from cheap.

There are also a few amusing moments, a little zest on occasions and Charlie does his best with the uninspired material he has and doesn't go through the motions like he did in 'A Busy Man'.

Where 'The Property Man' falls down is that mostly it's not particularly funny. The timing feels limp and there is very little, if any, freshness or originality. There is an over-reliance on slap-stick and it is very broad and very repetitive. There is not much charm here and there is not much to be emotionally invested by. The story is flimsy, so much so things feel over-stretched, there are not many Chaplin short films where a short length feels very dull but 'The Property Man' is one of them.

Charlie does his best certainly and looks engaged, but not much more than that due to his material being pretty uninspired. The cast are not much to write home about.

In conclusion, an early career misfire. 4/10 Bethany Cox
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Uneven Chaplin As A Prop Man
CitizenCaine29 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Clearly not one of Chaplin's better early entries, the film focuses on the back stage doings of a local theatrical production company and the difficulties it faces during its latest production. Chaplin plays the title character: A Property man moving trunks, etc. back stage. This film moves fast like most of the films Chaplin directed and edited himself. Like those also, it has better continuity. Chaplin gets into it with an old man carrying a trunk early in the film, but this bit is just not funny. It's funny until the moment Chaplin gets on top of the trunk to attempt to pull it off the old man trapped underneath it; however, continuing to kick at a helpless old man afterward becomes sadistic. He has some funny bits with the strong man and turns things up a notch with the fireman's hose at the end, dousing Mack Sennett in the audience in the process. *1/2 of 4 stars.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Proof that Chaplin was not always a film genius
planktonrules20 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
While Charlie Chaplin made some wonderful films (particularly his full-length ones), there is a mystical aura about his reputation that isn't merited in his early shorts. During 1914 (his first year in movies), he appeared in over thirty films and few of them are particularly memorable. Some have barely any plot and aren't funny and others (like this one) are pure slapstick and not the nice, sweet style we associate with Chaplin. In these films (and particularly this one), Chaplin is a nasty piece of work and is quite difficult to like. The term "genius" is certainly not a way to describe these films. The bottom line is that there was an evolution of Chaplin and 1914 was a rough start, though the public inexplicably loved his films.

In THE PROPERTY MAN, Chaplin is given a longer format in which to work and direct, as the movie is about 18 minutes long (the actual times for silent films vary considerably depending on the speed by which they were projected). But despite this format, the film doesn't take advantage of this in order to do much character development. Instead, Chaplin is seen as a sadistic jerk and it makes no sense at all why he's allowed to work with this traveling stage show. At one point he drops a heavy trunk on a guy and just sits on it--watching the guy in pain. Later, he spends most of the film kicking an older man behind the stage. It just isn't funny and there's no sweetness or pathos here! In addition, he deliberately ruins the strong man's act, throws weights around (hitting a female member of the cast) and finally sprays water on the cast and audience. It's all very traditional slapstick, which is very cruel and "Punch and Judy-like"--with few, if any, heroes or reason for all the violence.

While I love many of Chaplin's later films (including his sound films), I just can't recommend this film unless you are a film historian and want to see the evolution of Chaplin from a rampaging sadist to the gentle "Little Tramp" of his later films.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed