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.
He did do better in acting than 'Mabel's Strange Predicament', which is not also one of his and Mabel's better collaborations. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is a long way from a career high, but does have historical significance for obvious reasons.
'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and a good deal of other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. The comedy, though more frequent and knockabout, is amusing really at best and not enough to be hilarious.
For someone who was new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is not bad at all.
While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on, though his style and Tramp character was still evolving and not properly found or settled yet (the promise is big though), and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick. Mabel's acting and directing contribution is more than competent and she holds her own.
Although the humour, charm and emotion was done better and became more refined later, 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' does have moments where it is very humorous, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.
In conclusion, interesting and worthwhile but not one that makes one leap out of their chair. 6/10 Bethany Cox
He did do better in acting than 'Mabel's Strange Predicament', which is not also one of his and Mabel's better collaborations. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is a long way from a career high, but does have historical significance for obvious reasons.
'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and a good deal of other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. The comedy, though more frequent and knockabout, is amusing really at best and not enough to be hilarious.
For someone who was new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' is not bad at all.
While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on, though his style and Tramp character was still evolving and not properly found or settled yet (the promise is big though), and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick. Mabel's acting and directing contribution is more than competent and she holds her own.
Although the humour, charm and emotion was done better and became more refined later, 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' does have moments where it is very humorous, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.
In conclusion, interesting and worthwhile but not one that makes one leap out of their chair. 6/10 Bethany Cox