User Reviews

I have spent the past 45 years researching, studying and enjoying the life and professional career of W.C.Fields. It has been and continues to be an all consuming passion of mine. With the exception of the 1926 feature SO'S YOUR OLD MAN I believe I have either acquired or at least seen virtually every bit of extant film in which Fields appeared. I have much of his work in my 16mm film collection as well as the usual VHS and DVD. I believe I have every book ever written about the subject including books not exclusively dedicated to Fields but which include chapters or profiles pertinent to the man. When I was a kid in New York City I spent many an hour at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts trying to find out what I could about Fields' vaudeville career as well as ferreting through ancient editions of "Motion Picture News" and "Motion Picture Herald" in an effort to find contemporaneous reviews of the films. I was a member of the New York tent of the Sons Of The Desert and while this organization is primarily for Laurel and Hardy enthusiasts I was able to network with others (one of whom was Leonard Maltin) and keep myself up to date on the latest events with respect to film preservation and ongoing "new discoveries". I am no longer in N.Y.C. or for that matter in a metropolitan area of any significance or consequence and am thus "out of the loop". I don't even have a computer; this one belonging to my girlfriend. I keep both Ronald Fields' first book about his grandfather as well as James Curtis' excellent biography by my bedside at arm's length. My ardent fervor has neither diminished nor abated after all of these years nor do I imagine it will. O.K.....so what? Who cares?..... What does all of this mean to anyone but this author? It seems to me that news of a "find" of this magnitude would be of landmark importance not only to Fields fans but to the world of film scholarship and study at large. The reviewer who saw this film also claims to have seen at least one other missing W.C.Fields film (HIS LORDSHIP'S DILEMMA) and although he doesn't specifically claim to have seen it, his review of the film FOOLS FOR LUCK strongly suggests that he has. Why then isn't this BIG, BIG NEWS??? To me, finding or claiming to have seen not one but THREE of the films on the mercifully short list of missing Fields films would be a matter of major significance amongst historians irrespective of one's personal feelings about the subject. Clearly Fields does not enjoy the same following today as do Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin. If someone managed to unearth a print of Laurel & Hardy's HATS OFF it would be an extremely noteworthy event.....a REALLY big deal. So too should someone find the Marx Brothers' HUMORISK or Chaplin's HER FRIEND THE BANDIT although in a purely speculative vein BANDIT is probably just another Keystone. If it sounds as though I am either doubting or trying to discredit the reviewer who claims to have seen these films let me say unequivocally that this is not the case. A few years ago I e-mailed and had a brief but extremely pleasant correspondence with this gentleman pursuant to a review he had written of a very rare Edward G. Robinson film which he claims to have seen. When I found his reviews of these Fields films this past summer I hastily e-mailed him with essentially the same concerns I have set forth here. Curiously, this e-mail was not answered. Hmmmm..... I have since learned that the reviewer has written his final review (for METROPOLIS, his favorite film) and that perhaps my query to him regarding these Fields films was made too late. As I mentioned earlier, I have no computer of my own but do check the Fields web sights occasionally. How come none of the other Fields fans worldwide haven't questioned this? Surely, this must have occurred to some of you who are more than just casual admirers or devotees of W.C.Fields. If any of you find this a bit mystifying or perplexing as do I, please let me know. SOMETHING isn't quite right here.....

According to what the current review says, this "Lost Film" apparently has been found in the reviewer's attic. If so, I shall add this title,in spite of not having seen it, to a future e-mail to Universal's website for a future volume of the "W.C. Fields Comedy Collection" 5-DVD box-set series. Although the reviewer at hand didn't enjoy this too much, it is vital, since it has been lost for over 80 years. It is nice to know that a distribution print has been discovered, thus making it a possible candidate for future DVD release to be seen by the general public. If this is released, it should be digitally cleaned up & include a newly recorded piano soundtrack utitlizing the original piano rolls (if THEY survived). Thanks for proving the existence of this film!

"Tillie's Punctured Romance" (1928), starring W.C. Fields, is supposedly a remake of the landmark 1914 comedy film of the same title starring Marie Dressler and Charlie Chaplin (which was itself based on a stage comedy starring Dressler) ... and Keystone stalwart comedian Mack Swain even repeats his role as Tillie's father from the original film. But, except for the title, the two movies have almost nothing in common ... and the Fields version, alas, isn't even very funny.

The opening shot in this movie is the familiar Paramount logo, so I expected great things. Paramount were Fields's regular studio at this point, and Paramount always surpassed all the other Hollywood studios in producing hilarious, innovative comedies. But then I saw the rest of the credits, and my heart sank. "Tillie's Punctured Romance" was released by Paramount (hence the logo), but it wasn't a Paramount production. This movie was actually produced by Al Christie of Educational Pictures, a cheapjack studio which specialised in churning out unfunny comedies made on minuscule budgets. The low budget (and bad scripting and direction) are obvious all through this film.

In the Keystone original, Tillie (played by Dressler) is an ugly-duckling heiress who attracts the attention of confidence trickster Chaplin. Tillie thinks that Charlie genuinely loves her, but of course he's really after Tillie's money while secretly wooing pretty chambermaid Mabel Normand. This plot was funny and believable. The plot of the "remake" makes no sense, and isn't funny. Louise Fazenda plays plain-Jane farmgirl Tillie, who runs away with a travelling circus and is promptly seduced by ringmaster Fields. Since Tilllie isn't good-looking and has no money, it's not clear why Fields's character is so interested in her.

Pint-sized comedian Chester Conklin was a long-time second banana at Keystone, usually playing an annoying little rival to Swain or Chaplin or some other important comedian. He played secondary roles in many Keystone comedies (including the original "Tillie"), but he has a much larger role than usual here, as the owner of the circus and Fields's rival for Fazenda's affections. Unfortunately, Conklin proves here that he's no lead comedian. (He would go back to supporting roles in Chaplin's "Modern Times" and some Preston Sturges movies.)

This film's sequences in the lion cage are embarrassing; the crude editing and camera angles make it very obvious that the actors are never onscreen with a live lion.

In the last two reels of the movie, for want of anything better to do, Fields and Conklin run off to the trenches of World War One, with Fazenda joining them as an ambulance driver. "The Big Parade" (a war drama) was a solid money-maker of the late silent era; for several years thereafter, many comedy films exploited World War One themes in an attempt to ride the coat-tails of that movie's box-office success.

"Tillie's Punctured Romance" manages to rip off its Keystone predecessor AND "The Big Parade".

Fields's character in this film is totally unsympathetic and villainous, without any of the redeeming traits which he showed in his more popular films. I'm very much a W.C. Fields fan (and I like Conklin and Fazenda too), so it pains me to say that none of them come off well in this unnecessary and unfunny film. Don't confuse "Tillie's Punctured Romance" with "Tillie and Gus", a later (and much better) W.C. Fields film which is quite unrelated to this one. Stick to the original "Tillie's Punctured Romance"