Mr. Jones seduces the cook, but is discovered by Mrs. Jones.Mr. Jones seduces the cook, but is discovered by Mrs. Jones.Mr. Jones seduces the cook, but is discovered by Mrs. Jones.
- Director
Photos
Storyline
Featured review
cute and clever
I agree very much with the other review about this film, which, while it may bot be subtle, certainly has a certain sophistication lacking in most comedies of the period. Unfortunately the "viewer entrapment" he detects is almost certainly the result of viewing with naive modern eyes. I do not imagine anyone in 1900 would have for a moment mistaken a cook, albeit a pretty one, busily making pastry, for a gentleman's wife.
Modern eyes are also remarkably inattentive when watching early films, a reminder of the much higher degree of attention that films of the silent era required of their audiences. I cannot imagine why the reviewer remains confused by the presence of the little boy (presumably the son of the house). Even in such a short film, did he really manage not to notice the little boy sneaking out (evidently going to tell his mother what was going on)? The film was part of a whole series - "The Adventures of Jones" - shot by James White in 1899-1900 which is in fact way ahead of its time. It is perhaps the first comedy series to feature really identifiable characters (even if the name "Jones" remains somewhat generic). This does not begin to become common in films until about 1906. Moreover the stories - although still simple one-shots - are not simply "gags" but have an important element of situational comedy based on the characters developed in the course of the series. Jones is a very bourgeois gent but he is a bit of a nogood boyo - a drinking man (the subject of at least two of the other films) and an inveterate womaniser. But he is a rather charming fellow in his way, not just the stereotypical "dude". The wife is long-suffering but she too is far from being the stereotypical termagant.
What I like about this film particularly is the refreshing lack of any moralising or moral-pointing. Jones, even when found out, does not appear particularly repentant and, as for the pretty cook, it is she (and not the wife) who overturns the table as she makes her exit (my favourite moment in the film - which the other reviewer again seems to have missed). And the title ensures that the audience is left thinking a bit about the aftermath. Did Mrs. Jones really get a divorce? Unlikely perhaps. Did Jones go off with the pretty cook? Even more unlikely. But I hope at least that wretched little sneak of a boy got a good spanking from his mother for hanging around in the kitchen and a good thrashing from his father for telling tales.
Why was the Jones series not continued with? It remains a bit of a mystery. If Charles Musser is right in his conjecture that White himself played the part of Jones, it may well have been Edison's insufferable and humourless manager, Gilmore, who put an end to it. We know he disapproved of "executive staff" getting involved in acting because there was a row over White playing the fire chief in the first version of Life of an American Fireman.
"Jones" was revived a couple of years later by Edwin Porter but only for the space of one film, How John Lost his Roll, a bit heavy-handed in its humour and chiefly memorable for its animated title-sequences. D. W. Griffith would revive "Jones" for a series of comedies (with John Cumpson in he role) but, alas, humour was not Griffith's strongpoint. It was not until the 1910s and the emergence of John Bunny and Flora Finch at Vitagraph (some of which are now beginning to reappear) that "The Adventures of Jones" would have a worthy continuation. Since when "situation comedy" has never ceased to be an important element of film (and nowadays more commonly television series).
Modern eyes are also remarkably inattentive when watching early films, a reminder of the much higher degree of attention that films of the silent era required of their audiences. I cannot imagine why the reviewer remains confused by the presence of the little boy (presumably the son of the house). Even in such a short film, did he really manage not to notice the little boy sneaking out (evidently going to tell his mother what was going on)? The film was part of a whole series - "The Adventures of Jones" - shot by James White in 1899-1900 which is in fact way ahead of its time. It is perhaps the first comedy series to feature really identifiable characters (even if the name "Jones" remains somewhat generic). This does not begin to become common in films until about 1906. Moreover the stories - although still simple one-shots - are not simply "gags" but have an important element of situational comedy based on the characters developed in the course of the series. Jones is a very bourgeois gent but he is a bit of a nogood boyo - a drinking man (the subject of at least two of the other films) and an inveterate womaniser. But he is a rather charming fellow in his way, not just the stereotypical "dude". The wife is long-suffering but she too is far from being the stereotypical termagant.
What I like about this film particularly is the refreshing lack of any moralising or moral-pointing. Jones, even when found out, does not appear particularly repentant and, as for the pretty cook, it is she (and not the wife) who overturns the table as she makes her exit (my favourite moment in the film - which the other reviewer again seems to have missed). And the title ensures that the audience is left thinking a bit about the aftermath. Did Mrs. Jones really get a divorce? Unlikely perhaps. Did Jones go off with the pretty cook? Even more unlikely. But I hope at least that wretched little sneak of a boy got a good spanking from his mother for hanging around in the kitchen and a good thrashing from his father for telling tales.
Why was the Jones series not continued with? It remains a bit of a mystery. If Charles Musser is right in his conjecture that White himself played the part of Jones, it may well have been Edison's insufferable and humourless manager, Gilmore, who put an end to it. We know he disapproved of "executive staff" getting involved in acting because there was a row over White playing the fire chief in the first version of Life of an American Fireman.
"Jones" was revived a couple of years later by Edwin Porter but only for the space of one film, How John Lost his Roll, a bit heavy-handed in its humour and chiefly memorable for its animated title-sequences. D. W. Griffith would revive "Jones" for a series of comedies (with John Cumpson in he role) but, alas, humour was not Griffith's strongpoint. It was not until the 1910s and the emergence of John Bunny and Flora Finch at Vitagraph (some of which are now beginning to reappear) that "The Adventures of Jones" would have a worthy continuation. Since when "situation comedy" has never ceased to be an important element of film (and nowadays more commonly television series).
helpful•10
- kekseksa
- Dec 15, 2015
Details
- Runtime1 minute
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
![Why Mrs. Jones Got a Divorce (1900)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI5YjIzMGEtYzY0Ny00MTk2LTk5ODItZTQ4ZTEwZDRkZTdmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzg5OTk2OA@@._V1_QL75_UX90_CR0,1,90,133_.jpg)
Top Gap
By what name was Why Mrs. Jones Got a Divorce (1900) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer