Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

POLICE

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug Sulpy

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to

Hi,
I'd taken this to e-mail, but I thought I'd open up the topic for
discussion, in an attempt to beat some life into this dead horse of a
newsgroup.

One thing that surprised me on my most recent trip to the Library of
Congress was that, while they don't have original prints of Chaplin's
films, they do have copyrights on the stories of (some of) them,
submitted by the film companies a week or two before the release of
each film.

Perhaps the most fascinating is this description for "Police":

"POLICE"
Essanay-Chaplin Comedy
Featuring Charles Chaplin.

Charles Chaplin, a convict, is given five dollars and released from
prison. He meets a man of the church who makes him weep for his sins,
but while he is weeping takes the five dollars away from him.

Chaplin is held up by a foot-pad and finds it is his former
cellmate. He is inveigled into joining him in robbing a house. They
put a police officer out of commission with a mallet and stack up the
silverware. They then start upstairs, but are met by a young woman who
implores them to leave because her mother is ill and she fears the
shock will kill her.

Chaplin's heart is touched but the food-pad insists on ransacking
the house. This results in a battle between the foot-pad and Chaplin.
A squad of police arrives. The foot-pad makes his escape but the
police capture Chaplin. The woman of the house, however, saves him by
telling the police he is her husband. She gives him a dollar and he
leaves. He goes to a lodging house and in order to save his dollar
from thieves puts it in his mouth, swallowing it while he sleeps.

A crook robs the men in the lodging house but Chaplin takes the money
from him. This starts a battle. Chaplin flees and in order to do a
good turn to the woman who had saved him from the police, he leaves
the money in her mail box.

******

As you can see, this is significantly different from any available
print of "Police", and I believe it represents Chaplin's original
intentions for the film before it was butchered in order to harvest
footage for "Triple Trouble."

Opinions?

sh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to
dsu...@concentric.net (Doug Sulpy) wrote:

> One thing that surprised me on my most recent trip to the Library of
> Congress was that, while they don't have original prints of Chaplin's
> films, they do have copyrights on the stories of (some of) them,
> submitted by the film companies a week or two before the release of
> each film.
>
> Perhaps the most fascinating is this description for "Police"


Do you remember the date on this? I wonder if it was filed near the
time Chaplin finished his cut (December?), or near the time Essanay
released it (March). If it's the latter, then this is a real puzzle.

> As you can see, this is significantly different from any available
> print of "Police", and I believe it represents Chaplin's original
> intentions for the film before it was butchered in order to harvest
> footage for "Triple Trouble."
>
> Opinions?


I'm not sure which version sounds better. Without knowing how that
battle in the flophouse played out, it's hard to say which one would
have been the better version.

I don't think Essanay pulled any footage from "Police" specifically
for the purpose of setting aside footage to use in "Triple Trouble." If
they had, then "Triple Trouble" probably would have been assembled and
released a whole lot sooner. And the missing footage of the flophouse
fight and Charlie's return to Edna's house would have been fitted into
it somehow.

Essanay never used it in that short, or in the compilation features
"Essanay-Chaplin Revue of 1916" or "Chase Me Charlie," so my guess is
that Essanay managed to lose that footage somehow. I can picture Leo
White rummaging through the Essanay vault in 1918, looking for Chaplin
scraps to use in "Triple Trouble," and turning up the flophouse variant
and the kitchen scene, but nothing else that was new. Maybe that's all
the company still had... or maybe White just didn't look long enough!


--Shush--


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Doug Sulpy

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 21:08:58 GMT, sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

>dsu...@concentric.net (Doug Sulpy) wrote:

>> Perhaps the most fascinating is this description for "Police"...


>
> Do you remember the date on this? I wonder if it was filed near the
>time Chaplin finished his cut (December?), or near the time Essanay
>released it (March). If it's the latter, then this is a real puzzle.

It's dated May 12, 1916, with a note that the film is to be released
May 27th. However, "Carmen" is dated as received on April 6th (with a
release date of April 9th) and the description matches Shepard's
reconstruction rather than the 4 reel release (even though the
description specifically says: "in 4 acts"). I suspect what happened
is that the story descriptions were prepared for the original cuts of
the films, and (mistakenly) never revised when submitted to the LOC.

>
> I'm not sure which version sounds better. Without knowing how that
>battle in the flophouse played out, it's hard to say which one would
>have been the better version.

This confuses me. Doesn't the flophouse sequence in "Triple Trouble"
resolve itself?

> I don't think Essanay pulled any footage from "Police" specifically
>for the purpose of setting aside footage to use in "Triple Trouble."

Well, we have a very clear description of the "Triple Trouble"
flophouse sequence being in "Police" two years before "Triple Trouble"
was released. Even if this doesn't describe the original cut of
"Police" (and I think it does), it's obvious the material was intended
for that film.

> If
>they had, then "Triple Trouble" probably would have been assembled and
>released a whole lot sooner.

Well, that's a really good point. Why, exactly, did it take Essanay
two YEARS to come up with "Triple Trouble"? Is it that they just
didn't think of raiding the vaults 'til 1918?

> And the missing footage of the flophouse
>fight and Charlie's return to Edna's house would have been fitted into
>it somehow.

Assuming the description is correct, it does appear the "Charlie
returns to Edna's house" footage is completely gone. However, the
existence of that scene DOES explain why the last shot of "Police" (as
it stands now) can exist (with Charlie leaving Edna's house). As we
see it now, he's leaving her house after the robber scene, but it
seems that at one time he was leaving her house after depositing some
money in her mailbox.

> Essanay never used it in that short, or in the compilation features
>"Essanay-Chaplin Revue of 1916" or "Chase Me Charlie," so my guess is
>that Essanay managed to lose that footage somehow.

Yeah... but the mystery remains -- if they butchered "Police" (and
everyone believes they did) they must have done so in order to harvest
footage from it for some later use. So -- as I said earlier -- why
wait two years to do so?

> I can picture Leo
>White rummaging through the Essanay vault in 1918,

.... yelling "fire! fire! fire!"...

> looking for Chaplin
>scraps to use in "Triple Trouble," and turning up the flophouse variant
>and the kitchen scene, but nothing else that was new. Maybe that's all
>the company still had... or maybe White just didn't look long enough!

I wonder what Charlie must have thought about "Triple Trouble."
Obviously, he was angry enough about "Carmen" to sue -- but "Triple
Trouble" made it into the official filmography in "My Autobiography"
(unless that was simply the work of some editor, lifting the
information from Huff or somewhere). Hmm.

D.


Chaplin Enthusiast

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to
Fascinating stuff, please kept it coming...

A Chaplin Enthusiast

David Totheroh

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> Hi,
> I'd taken this to e-mail, but I thought I'd open up the topic for
> discussion, in an attempt to beat some life into this dead horse of a
> newsgroup.
>

> One thing that surprised me on my most recent trip to the Library of
> Congress was that, while they don't have original prints of Chaplin's
> films, they do have copyrights on the stories of (some of) them,
> submitted by the film companies a week or two before the release of
> each film.
>

> As you can see, this is significantly different from any available
> print of "Police", and I believe it represents Chaplin's original

> intentions for the film before it was butchered in order to harvest
> footage for "Triple Trouble."
>
> Opinions?

Thanks Doug. This *is* fascinating. It sure makes the story of Police
lots more 'complete' (and reflects His Regeneration to some extent, too).
It would also explain the problem some people have had with the
differences between the doss house sequences in Police and Triple Trouble
being so similar but with significant differences. The first scene (as
seen in Police) takes place immediately following Chaplin's release from
prison, the second (from Triple Trouble) would have been some X days
later after the robbery. Same doss house setting, some 'residents' the
same, some different.

But your find raises some questions in my mind. You say these copyright
summaries were normally registered a few weeks prior to the actual
release of the films. I assume these were filed by the producer, not the
artist. Was there a filing date on this one? Was it as close to the
release date as you indicate? If so, Chaplin would have been long gone to
Mutual and I wonder why Essanay wouldn't have 'edited' the summary to
more closely match their film editing. If the summary was produced and
registered earlier, it would have obviously been closer to Chaplin's
intent.

Of course, I guess it's also possible that an initial film release *did*
reflect Chaplin's intent, and that those prints were recalled and the
film was cannibalized by Essanay at a later date, leaving only what we
are familiar with now.

David Totheroh

unread,
Nov 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/2/99
to

Doug Sulpy wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 21:08:58 GMT, sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >dsu...@concentric.net (Doug Sulpy) wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps the most fascinating is this description for "Police"...
> >
> > Do you remember the date on this? I wonder if it was filed near the
> >time Chaplin finished his cut (December?), or near the time Essanay
> >released it (March). If it's the latter, then this is a real puzzle.
>
> It's dated May 12, 1916, with a note that the film is to be released
> May 27th. However, "Carmen" is dated as received on April 6th (with a
> release date of April 9th) and the description matches Shepard's
> reconstruction rather than the 4 reel release (even though the
> description specifically says: "in 4 acts"). I suspect what happened
> is that the story descriptions were prepared for the original cuts of
> the films, and (mistakenly) never revised when submitted to the LOC.

As my earlier questions implied, this date makes the issue very curious
indeed. I'd have to agree with you that the only explanation that makes any
sense at all is what you suggest, and that Essanay was just not all that
careful about the LOC submissions.

>
> >
> > I'm not sure which version sounds better. Without knowing how that
> >battle in the flophouse played out, it's hard to say which one would
> >have been the better version.
>
> This confuses me. Doesn't the flophouse sequence in "Triple Trouble"
> resolve itself?
>
> > I don't think Essanay pulled any footage from "Police" specifically
> >for the purpose of setting aside footage to use in "Triple Trouble."
>
> Well, we have a very clear description of the "Triple Trouble"
> flophouse sequence being in "Police" two years before "Triple Trouble"
> was released. Even if this doesn't describe the original cut of
> "Police" (and I think it does), it's obvious the material was intended
> for that film.
>
> > If
> >they had, then "Triple Trouble" probably would have been assembled and
> >released a whole lot sooner.
>
> Well, that's a really good point. Why, exactly, did it take Essanay
> two YEARS to come up with "Triple Trouble"? Is it that they just
> didn't think of raiding the vaults 'til 1918?

I'll bet the answer to this can be found in the dates of the court
decisions in the Carmen cases (although I don't have that information at
hand right now). Essanay would likely not have taken the chance of mucking
around with Chaplin product (other than straight reissues or compilations
which were not in question legally) until that case had been resolved, and
they were relatively assured they wouldn't be liable for damages.

>
>
> > And the missing footage of the flophouse
> >fight and Charlie's return to Edna's house would have been fitted into
> >it somehow.
>
> Assuming the description is correct, it does appear the "Charlie
> returns to Edna's house" footage is completely gone. However, the
> existence of that scene DOES explain why the last shot of "Police" (as
> it stands now) can exist (with Charlie leaving Edna's house). As we
> see it now, he's leaving her house after the robber scene, but it
> seems that at one time he was leaving her house after depositing some
> money in her mailbox.
>
> > Essanay never used it in that short, or in the compilation features
> >"Essanay-Chaplin Revue of 1916" or "Chase Me Charlie," so my guess is
> >that Essanay managed to lose that footage somehow.
>
> Yeah... but the mystery remains -- if they butchered "Police" (and
> everyone believes they did) they must have done so in order to harvest
> footage from it for some later use. So -- as I said earlier -- why
> wait two years to do so?

I'd bet Police, as Chaplin intended, reflected his wishes to do a longer if
not feature length film. The Essanay News of July as premonition of things
to come 8 or so months later. But that still didn't fit Spoor's concept of
what comedy was supposed to be, so he had his editors hack it down to 2
reels. The harvest was actually more like a pruning, and the cuttings
became useable in a new hybrid with the court's permission granted by
extension from Carmen.

>
>
> > I can picture Leo
> >White rummaging through the Essanay vault in 1918,
>
> .... yelling "fire! fire! fire!"...
>
> > looking for Chaplin
> >scraps to use in "Triple Trouble," and turning up the flophouse variant
> >and the kitchen scene, but nothing else that was new. Maybe that's all
> >the company still had... or maybe White just didn't look long enough!
>
> I wonder what Charlie must have thought about "Triple Trouble."
> Obviously, he was angry enough about "Carmen" to sue -- but "Triple
> Trouble" made it into the official filmography in "My Autobiography"
> (unless that was simply the work of some editor, lifting the
> information from Huff or somewhere). Hmm.

At the time, a telegram was used in a Mutual ad in which Chaplin disclaimed
any responsibility for Triple Trouble. It left the distinct impression that
he was less than pleased. I'll see if I can dig it up for a quote.


sh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to
dsu...@concentric.net (Doug Sulpy) wrote:

> Doesn't the flophouse sequence in "Triple Trouble" resolve itself?

Well, you're right. It feels to me as if it's either a rough cut, or
that there's stuff missing from it. But it may well have been a sequence
Chaplin considered complete. It's certainly put together better than "A
Night Out" had been earlier that year!


I had written:


> > I don't think Essanay pulled any footage from "Police"
> >specifically for the purpose of setting aside footage to use in
> >"Triple Trouble."
>
> Well, we have a very clear description of the "Triple Trouble"
> flophouse sequence being in "Police" two years before "Triple Trouble"
> was released. Even if this doesn't describe the original cut of
> "Police" (and I think it does), it's obvious the material was intended
> for that film.

I always used to be dubious about that argument, but you're winning
me over with that copyright summary! I'd have to agree now that the
"Triple Trouble" flophouse scene was originally part of "Police." But I
still doubt that the *reason* for its being yanked out was to provide
material for "Triple Trouble." I don't think anyone conceived of making
"Triple Trouble" until 1918.

> Why, exactly, did it take Essanay two YEARS to come up with "Triple
> Trouble"? Is it that they just didn't think of raiding the vaults 'til
> 1918?

Well, they did raid the vaults for "Chase Me Charlie" and "The
Essanay-Chaplin Revue" in 1916-17, although out-takes probably weren't
involved.

The obvious thing to do with the extra flophouse footage would be to
stick it into one of those films, but this wasn't done. Why not?
Well, it's possible that the material was simply forgotten or lost until
somebody (Leo White?) discovered it in 1918 and built a whole new film
around it. Evidently, the "Charlie Returns to Edna's House" footage
remained lost or forgotten even then.

> ...The mystery remains -- if they butchered "Police" (and


> everyone believes they did) they must have done so in order to harvest
> footage from it for some later use. So -- as I said earlier -- why
> wait two years to do so?

Chaplin's cut of "Police" must have run long... two-and-a-half or
three reels... and for whatever reason Essanay cut it down to the usual
two-reel length before release (2050 feet, in fact). Maybe they just
didn't want to release a comedy short that was longer than two reels?

Of course, they blew "Carmen" up to *four* reels, but that was so it
could be marketed as a feature. A short is a whole different animal.
Three-reel comedies were rare in 1916.

Anyway, some or all of the material cut out of "Police" was saved,
but since it wasn't used for well over two years, I'm guessing it was
just tossed into the vault and forgotten until then.

> I wonder what Charlie must have thought about "Triple Trouble."

I wonder how many people even saw it. A dying Essanay released its
last few films in 1918, and its distributor, General Film, limped along
only a few months into the next year before it too went under.

(Contrary to what Glenn Mitchell says, I think the film must have
been distributed by General Film rather than V-L-S-E, as the latter
seems to have been defunct after 1916. But either way, "Triple Trouble"
probably didn't get a whole lot of bookings, and frankly, we're lucky
the thing even exists anymore.)

sh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to
dtot...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Thanks Doug. This *is* fascinating. It sure makes the story of Police
> lots more 'complete' (and reflects His Regeneration to some extent,
> too). It would also explain the problem some people have had with the
> differences between the doss house sequences in Police and Triple
> Trouble being so similar but with significant differences. The first
> scene (as seen in Police) takes place immediately following Chaplin's
> release from prison, the second (from Triple Trouble) would have been
> some X days later after the robbery. Same doss house setting, some
> 'residents' the same, some different.


David, do you remember a video that somebody made called "The Chaplin
Puzzle"? I never did see it, but I understand it was an attempt to
integrate the "Triple Trouble" flophouse sequence into "Police," on the
theory that it did indeed belong there. I've heard that it was a failed
experiment, or at least an imperfect one. Does the "Chaplin Puzzle"
chronology match the synopsis Doug turned up?

Katherine White

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to
Thanks, guys! You've really piqued my curiosity now...I haven't seen
'Police' in awhile, and I'm all fired up to watch it again after some of
the info you've provided. Very interesting!

Kathy :-)


David Totheroh

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

Don McGlynn is the somebody. Don is based in Copenhagen most of the year
and his primary interest is jazz. He's done several documentaries on Jazz
legends of the 20s 30s 40s era.

As I recall Don's theory or contention was that both Poloice and footage
from Triple Trouble were shot with the longer Life project in mind. Don was
the first person that I knew about who had found and considered the
implications of the Essanay News report of the feature length project.

I'd say "failed" is far too strong, and even "imperfect" overstates as far
as I'm concerned. The first half of Puzzle is a very good documentary of
all of the what was then PD material from Chaplin's work. And we get
Paulette's hubby as narrator, too. Most of the criticism I remember was
along the lines of 'who is he to second guess what Chaplin's intentions
were." With Doug's LOC information now available, it may turn out that Don
was fairly astute at second guessing...or perhaps not. I'll take a look at
Puzzle again later today and report back soon.


Constance Kuriyama

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

(sh...@my-deja.com) writes:
> dtot...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Doug. This *is* fascinating. It sure makes the story of Police
>> lots more 'complete' (and reflects His Regeneration to some extent,
>> too). It would also explain the problem some people have had with the
>> differences between the doss house sequences in Police and Triple
>> Trouble being so similar but with significant differences. The first
>> scene (as seen in Police) takes place immediately following Chaplin's
>> release from prison, the second (from Triple Trouble) would have been
>> some X days later after the robbery. Same doss house setting, some
>> 'residents' the same, some different.
>
>
> David, do you remember a video that somebody made called "The Chaplin
> Puzzle"? I never did see it, but I understand it was an attempt to
> integrate the "Triple Trouble" flophouse sequence into "Police," on the
> theory that it did indeed belong there. I've heard that it was a failed
> experiment, or at least an imperfect one. Does the "Chaplin Puzzle"
> chronology match the synopsis Doub turned up?

David may see it differently, but I found _Chaplin Puzzle_ totally
unconvincing. It tries to integrate the _Triple Trouble_ footage
(all of it) into _Police_, but this doesn't work, mainly because the
two flophouse sequences are incompatible with one another. When
Leo White patched together _Triple Trouble_, he wanted to incorporate
some bits from _Police_, and to facilitate this he inserted some
shots which are *supposed* to be Charlie's former cellmate into the
flophouse sequence. However, if you look closely you will see that
the man wearing the cellmate's suit is a different actor, made up
in a futlie attempt to look like the actor who played the part in
_Police_.

The chronology of _Chaplin Puzzle_ is not at *all* like the synopsis
Doug has found.

Connie K.
--
"Art walks the fine line between the real and the unreal."--Chicamatsu

Constance Kuriyama

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

(sh...@my-deja.com) writes:

> dsu...@concentric.net (Doug Sulpy) wrote:
>
>> One thing that surprised me on my most recent trip to the Library of
>> Congress was that, while they don't have original prints of Chaplin's
>> films, they do have copyrights on the stories of (some of) them,
>> submitted by the film companies a week or two before the release of
>> each film.
>>
>> Perhaps the most fascinating is this description of "Police."

<snip>



>> As you can see, this is significantly different from any available
>> print of "Police", and I believe it represents Chaplin's original

>> intentions for the film before it was butchered in order to harvest
>> footage for "Triple Trouble."
>>
>> Opinions?


>
>
> I'm not sure which version sounds better.

IMO, the existing version is clearly better, which is why I doubt that
the synopsis Doug has found represents Chaplin's intended release version.
It's very interesting stuff, certainly, and obviously represents *someone's*
intention at some stage of the film's history. It might be an alternate
version Chaplin was considering, or it might be an alternate version
Essanay was planning to release, perhaps because someone there thought the
longer flophouse sequence was superior. It's worth noting that they were
planning to release the film, and filed this synopsis, at a point when
Chaplin's lawsuit re _Burlesque_ was still being adjudicated. Perhaps
they were planning to release the film in this altered form, but backed
off because of the ongoing litigation. Unless we can *prove* that this
synopsis represents Chaplin's intended version, I'd hesitate to draw any
conclusions from it about the existing film.

I think it is significant that while Chaplin raised vociferous
objections to what Essanay did to _Burlesque_, and even discussed this
years later in his _Autobiography_, he never uttered a word of complaint
about _Police_. I think this makes it highly unlikely that Essanay
"butchered" the film, or that the release version differs substantially
from his intentions.

Evidently in both versions of the film Edna has given Charlie a large
coin as a reward. To me it makes no sense for
him to go to a flophouse, steal money, and give some to her.

In the existing film, she clearly tries to reform him, and gives him
the money partly for that purpose. If he steals the money he repays her
with, the point about the inspiring power of beauty (which Chaplin would
revisit in _Easy Street_) is lost.

Furthermore, I don't think the Charlie of the longer flophouse sequence is
compatible with the more gallant Charlie of _Police_, who becomes the
scourge of crooked clergymen and rescues Edna and her sick mother.

> I don't think Essanay pulled any footage from "Police" specifically

> for the purpose of setting aside footage to use in "Triple Trouble." If


> they had, then "Triple Trouble" probably would have been assembled and
> released a whole lot sooner.

I agree.

As for the suggestion that _Police_ was cut down from a longer
film, I don't think that flies either. The two flophouse sequences
are absolutely incompatible with one another. It's possible they
were alternate conceptions.

Doug Sulpy

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to
On 3 Nov 1999 20:38:50 GMT, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:

>David may see it differently, but I found _Chaplin Puzzle_ totally
>unconvincing. It tries to integrate the _Triple Trouble_ footage
>(all of it) into _Police_, but this doesn't work, mainly because the
>two flophouse sequences are incompatible with one another.

Not if you place them in the order of:
a. Charlie kicked out of flophouse because he's penniless
b. Meets "foot-pad", Edna sequence (Charlie gets money)
c. Charlie returns to the flophouse / thief segment.

> When
>Leo White patched together _Triple Trouble_, he wanted to incorporate
>some bits from _Police_, and to facilitate this he inserted some
>shots which are *supposed* to be Charlie's former cellmate into the
>flophouse sequence. However, if you look closely you will see that
>the man wearing the cellmate's suit is a different actor, made up
>in a futlie attempt to look like the actor who played the part in
>_Police_.

I did think something looked fishy there. I'll have to look at both of
them again.

D.


Constance Kuriyama

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

David Totheroh (dtot...@aol.com) writes:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:

>> Well, that's a really good point. Why, exactly, did it take Essanay
>> two YEARS to come up with "Triple Trouble"? Is it that they just
>> didn't think of raiding the vaults 'til 1918?
>
> I'll bet the answer to this can be found in the dates of the court
> decisions in the Carmen cases (although I don't have that information at
> hand right now). Essanay would likely not have taken the chance of mucking
> around with Chaplin product (other than straight reissues or compilations
> which were not in question legally) until that case had been resolved, and

> they were relatively assured they wouldn't be liable for damage.

This also may throw light on _Police_. It was (according to Doug's dates)
to be released after Chaplin lost his initial case, but during the appeals
process.

>> I wonder what Charlie must have thought about "Triple Trouble."
>> Obviously, he was angry enough about "Carmen" to sue -- but "Triple
>> Trouble" made it into the official filmography in "My Autobiography"
>> (unless that was simply the work of some editor, lifting the
>> information from Huff or somewhere). Hmm.
>
> At the time, a telegram was used in a Mutual ad in which Chaplin disclaimed
> any responsibility for Triple Trouble. It left the distinct impression that
> he was less than pleased. I'll see if I can dig it up for a quote.

Fascinating. Please indicate source. To my knowledge, no such disclaimer was
ever issued about _Police_.

Doug Sulpy

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to
On 3 Nov 1999 21:23:17 GMT, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:

>.... It's worth noting that they were


>planning to release the film, and filed this synopsis, at a point when

>Chaplin's lawsuit re _Burlesque_ was still being adjudicated...

Well, here's the timeline:
a. "Carmen" released April 9th.
b. Chaplin's suit announced (May 6th, Moving Picture World)
c. "Police" released May 27th.
d. Essanay reported as winner in suit (July 8th, Moving Picture
World)

[Moving Picture World dates from Mitchell]

> Perhaps
>they were planning to release the film in this altered form, but backed
>off because of the ongoing litigation.

Why? If they weren't afraid to release "Carmen" (which was far, FAR
more tampered with than "Police") why would they have been hesitant to
monkey with "Police"? More likely someone realized that if they
removed the long flophouse scene from "Police" (and re-inserted the
shorter one) they'd have a good third of *another* "manufactured"
Chaplin film to play with.

>I think it is significant that while Chaplin raised vociferous
>objections to what Essanay did to _Burlesque_, and even discussed this
>years later in his _Autobiography_, he never uttered a word of complaint
>about _Police_.

Well, come on -- just WATCH the two. The four reel "Carmen" is a
boring, embarrassing mess, and the two-reel "Police" (re-edited or
not) is a near-masterpiece. If they monkeyed with the film, they
certainly didn't ruin it.

>Evidently in both versions of the film Edna has given Charlie a large
>coin as a reward. To me it makes no sense for
>him to go to a flophouse, steal money, and give some to her.

Perhaps the Tramp made the moral distinction of stealing from a thief,
as opposed to stealing from an innocent young woman and her sick
mother. Also, note that the coin he hides in his mouth in the "Triple
Trouble" flophouse scene IS the large coin that Edna gives him, not
the small coin he steals from the thief in "Police."

>Furthermore, I don't think the Charlie of the longer flophouse sequence is
>compatible with the more gallant Charlie of _Police_, who becomes the

>scourge of crooked clergymen...

Actually, I think he becomes the scourge of the honest clergyman, if I
remember right, and the crooked one gets away altogether.

> and rescues Edna and her sick mother.

One more thing -- whoever wrote the synopsis, and to whatever version
of the film it refers, it does specifically mention a scene where
Charlie returns to Edna's and leaves the money in her mailbox. Doesn't
this imply the scene did exist at some point, and doesn't it's
existence validate the LOC synopsis?

D.


David Totheroh

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

> David Totheroh (dtot...@aol.com) writes:
> > Doug Sulpy wrote:
>

> >> Well, that's a really good point. Why, exactly, did it take Essanay
> >> two YEARS to come up with "Triple Trouble"? Is it that they just
> >> didn't think of raiding the vaults 'til 1918?

Here's Spoor's own PR hype, from a 2 page Moving Picture World ad of Aug. 3,
1918:

<<
COMING!
A Brand New
CHARLIE CHAPLIN
Comedy
"TRIPLE TROUBLE"
NOT a Reissue---NOT a Rehash
But a NEW Film
Bubbling over with Chaplin fun!
ESSANAY-CHAPLIN BRAND
George Kleine System
Distributors


To the Exhibitors:-

If you bought a piece of real estate and foresaw that its value would
quadruple if you held it a certain length of time, what would you do?

Certainly you would hold it. That's just what we did with "Triple Trouble."

Essanay made this picture with Charlie Chaplin when he was at the zenith of
his laugh-making powers. We knew its value then. We knew there would come a time
when it would be worth many times its weight in gold.

We held this negative in our vaults for the most opportune time of release,
which we believe is NOW.

There has been only one new Chaplin film in several months. The public is
eager for a NEW Chaplin comedy and will welcome "Triple Trouble" with open arms.

Were we right in holding this laughing-nugget back for the propitious moment?

We were!

Yours truly,

ESSANAY FILM MFG. CO.

Geo. K. Spoor (signed)

President.

>>

See why I don't place too much credence in PR stuff?

>
> >
> > I'll bet the answer to this can be found in the dates of the court
> > decisions in the Carmen cases (although I don't have that information at
> > hand right now). Essanay would likely not have taken the chance of mucking
> > around with Chaplin product (other than straight reissues or compilations
> > which were not in question legally) until that case had been resolved, and

> > they were relatively assured they wouldn't be liable for damage.
>
> This also may throw light on _Police_. It was (according to Doug's dates)
> to be released after Chaplin lost his initial case, but during the appeals
> process.

I think we need to look at the whole timeline:

1. Carmen synopsis filed with LOC Apr. 6 (Doug)
2. Carmen released Apr. 9 (from Doug from LOC)
3. "The VLSE announced the immediate release of Essanay's new 4 reel production"
(Moving Picture World Apr. 15)
4. Carmen released Apr. 22 (Robinson)
5. Chaplin files request for injunction, no date given (Moving Picture World May
6))
6. "Chaplin case has hearing" on Apr. 24, decision withheld (Moving Picture World
May 6)
7. "Essanay Sues Chaplin" "countersuit has been commenced" "filed Monday, Apr 24"
(Moving Picture World May 6)
8. Chaplin case "argued before Judge Hotchkiss of the Supreme Court, NYC" May 12
(Moving Picture World May 27)
9. Police synopsis filed with LOC May 12 (Doug)
10. At the end of an article describing Essanay's countersuit, it is reported
that "Judge Hotchkiss dismissed the application" by Chaplin for an injunction
against Essanay "in a decision rendered Monday, May 22" (Moving Picture World
June 3)
11. "No injunction For Chaplin" "Hotchkiss denied the application of Chaplin for
an injunction to restrain VLSE" on May 24 [sic], appeal filed by Burkan, no date
given (Moving Picture World June 10)
12. Police released May 27 (Doug from LOC and Robinson)
13. Chaplin loses appeal, no date given (Moving Picture World July 8)
14. Moving Picture World reports nothing more on the court cases, and a search of
the NY court records for the resolution of the countersuit came up empty (me).

So what do we have? First off, I'd say the Carmen release date estimate from the
LOC synopsis is probably just that, since both MPW and Robinson have a later
date, and the 9th was a Sunday, not a typical release date. The clincher for me
is the fact that Chaplin filed for his injunction on the Monday (the 24th)
immediately after Saturday the 22nd. An injunction usually seeks immediate
relief, so it makes no sense that CC would wait two full weeks to file.

The Police synopsis is filed the same day as the Carmen case is heard, more than
three weeks after Chaplin filed the Carmen suit but before any decision had been
rendered, expressing Essanay's intent to release in 2 weeks. That's not an
indication to me that Essanay was much concerned with how the Carmen case might
impact on Police. Then, only five days after the initial Carmen decision is
rendered, and the same length after Burkan files the appeal, Essanay goes ahead
and releases Police. That doesn't seem like enough time to reconsider and re-edit
the film for a Friday release, based on a previous Monday court ruling, to me.

I think the timing of Triple Trouble makes more sense in light of Essanay's
financial situation than anything else. Max Linder was hired, either late in 1916
or early 1917 as I recall, in order to resuscitate Essanay's comedy reputation.
After 3 films, Linder left to go back to Europe, and even with Linder's
involvement, Essanay's comedy reputation continued its slide, and their financial
situation with it. By 1918, it is perfectly understandable that Essanay would try
to capitalize once again on the name of their most successful departed star.

>
>
> >> I wonder what Charlie must have thought about "Triple Trouble."
> >> Obviously, he was angry enough about "Carmen" to sue -- but "Triple
> >> Trouble" made it into the official filmography in "My Autobiography"
> >> (unless that was simply the work of some editor, lifting the
> >> information from Huff or somewhere). Hmm.
> >
> > At the time, a telegram was used in a Mutual ad in which Chaplin disclaimed
> > any responsibility for Triple Trouble. It left the distinct impression that
> > he was less than pleased. I'll see if I can dig it up for a quote.
>

> Fascinating. Please indicate source. To my knowledge, no such disclaimer was
> ever issued about _Police_.

Sorry, I should have said First National, not Mutual. But the point remains the
same.

From an ad printed in Moving Picture World, Aug. 10, 1918- under the headline
"Charlie Chaplin Wires Vehement Denial" the following telegram is reproduced:

HY LOSANGELES CALIF JUL 26
J D WILLIAMS FIRST NATIONAL EXHIBITORS CIRCUIT
SIX AND EIGHT WEST FORTYEIGHT ST NEWYORK

TRADE PAPERS ANNOUNCING ESSANAY ISSUE OF TRIPLE TROUBLE AS A NEW CHAPLIN PICTURE
JUST ARRIVED ON THE COAST THIS IS NOT A NEW CHAPLIN BUT FROM THE ADVERTISING
LAYOUT IN TRADE REVIEW MUST BE NOTHING BUT THE DISCARDED PORTIONS OF POLICE THE
LAST PICTURE MADE BY CHARLIE CHAPLIN FOR ESSANAY FIRST NATIONAL SHOULD STOP THESE
MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND ADVERTISING WHICH MUST BE STAMPED OUT

CHAPLIN

David Totheroh

unread,
Nov 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/3/99
to

Doug Sulpy wrote:

I agree. Robin Hood would have been role model to both the Tramp and to
Chaplin.

>
> >Furthermore, I don't think the Charlie of the longer flophouse sequence is
> >compatible with the more gallant Charlie of _Police_, who becomes the
> >scourge of crooked clergymen...
>
> Actually, I think he becomes the scourge of the honest clergyman, if I
> remember right, and the crooked one gets away altogether.
>
> > and rescues Edna and her sick mother.
>
> One more thing -- whoever wrote the synopsis, and to whatever version
> of the film it refers, it does specifically mention a scene where
> Charlie returns to Edna's and leaves the money in her mailbox. Doesn't
> this imply the scene did exist at some point, and doesn't it's
> existence validate the LOC synopsis?

The logic here is a bit too circular for me, but I think the synopsis is valid
for reasons I've stated previously.


sh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/4/99
to
do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:

> I think it is significant that while Chaplin raised vociferous
> objections to what Essanay did to _Burlesque_, and even discussed this
> years later in his _Autobiography_, he never uttered a word of

> complaint about _Police_. I think this makes it highly unlikely that


> Essanay "butchered" the film, or that the release version differs
> substantially from his intentions.

I don't think we can draw that conclusion from Chaplin's silence. I
don't know of any complaint from him about the revisions made to his
films after the "Carmen" case, and there were plenty of things worth
complaining about. Leaving "Police" off the table, we still have "Chase
Me Charlie," "The Essanay-Chaplin Revue of 1916," "National
Association's All-Star Picture," "Triple Trouble" and the WH Productions
re-issues of the Keystones... and this only takes us up to 1918!


> Evidently in both versions of the film Edna has given Charlie a large
> coin as a reward. To me it makes no sense for him to go to a
> flophouse, steal money, and give some to her.

But remember, he'd just invaded Edna's house and tried to rob her. He
deserved to be taken away by the police, but instead she saved him from
them. She even gives him money (a silver dollar?)... so clearly, he owes
her something after all that. It makes perfect sense to me that he
would make a gesture like giving her the money he swiped from the miser.


> As for the suggestion that _Police_ was cut down from a longer
> film, I don't think that flies either. The two flophouse sequences

> are absolutely incompatible with one another.

Not necessarily. Here's a possible solution to the puzzle:

1. Charlie gets the silver dollar from Edna and goes to a flophouse.
(LOC synopsis)
2. (Missing footage: somehow Charlie loses the dollar.)
3. Inside, he realizes the dollar is gone. ("Police")
4. He tries to bluff his way in anyway, and is kicked out. ("Police")
5. (Missing footage: outside, he discovers his dollar again.)
6. (Missing footage: Charlie re-enters, and somehow manages to get into
the sleeping quarters without having to spend his dollar.)
7. Charlie finds a bed and settles in, popping the dollar in his mouth
for safe-keeping. ("Triple Trouble")
8. Charlie ultimately swallows the dollar but steals the miser's money
and a fight ensues. ("Triple Trouble")
9. Charlie flees the flophouse, returns to Edna's, and leaves the money
in her mailbox. (LOC synopsis)

If this is the way "Police" originally played out, Essanay did a
clever job of cutting it all down. The only continuity problem in the
version we have today is this: why does Charlie go to a flophouse in the
first place, when he already knows the preacher stole all his money? The
LOC synopsis makes more sense because Charlie's just been given a dollar
by Edna; it's night-time already, so finding a flophouse is the logical
thing to do.

sh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/4/99
to
dtot...@aol.com wrote:


Yep. And the only primary source we have that mentions "Life" is
another of Essanay's PR announcements... that's why I don't believe
"Life" was ever really a project, or that Chaplin had any intention of
making any such feature in 1915.

Doug Sulpy

unread,
Nov 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/4/99
to
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 07:36:46 GMT, sh...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Not necessarily. Here's a possible solution to the puzzle:
>
>1. Charlie gets the silver dollar from Edna and goes to a flophouse.
> (LOC synopsis)
>2. (Missing footage: somehow Charlie loses the dollar.)
>3. Inside, he realizes the dollar is gone. ("Police")
>4. He tries to bluff his way in anyway, and is kicked out. ("Police")
>5. (Missing footage: outside, he discovers his dollar again.)
>6. (Missing footage: Charlie re-enters, and somehow manages to get into
> the sleeping quarters without having to spend his dollar.)
>7. Charlie finds a bed and settles in, popping the dollar in his mouth
> for safe-keeping. ("Triple Trouble")
>8. Charlie ultimately swallows the dollar but steals the miser's money
> and a fight ensues. ("Triple Trouble")
>9. Charlie flees the flophouse, returns to Edna's, and leaves the money
> in her mailbox. (LOC synopsis)

I think it makes more sense to have the Preacher scene, then the
"kicked out" flophouse scene, then Charlie meets the foot-pad, Edna,
then back to the flophouse (since he now has money). Only thing is --
the Essanay synopsis CLEARLY doesn't mention the "Charlie gets kicked
out of the flophouse because he has no money" scene. That, and the
fact that it would put the film over the length of a two-reeler
indicates to me that the shorter flophouse scene might not have been
in the final cut, but reinstated by Essanay when they trimmed the
longer flophouse scene.

D.


Constance Kuriyama

unread,
Nov 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/4/99
to

Doug Sulpy (dsu...@concentric.net) writes:
> On 3 Nov 1999 21:23:17 GMT, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>.... It's worth noting that they were
>>planning to release the film, and filed this synopsis, at a point when
>>Chaplin's lawsuit re _Burlesque_ was still being adjudicated...
>
> Well, here's the timeline:
> a. "Carmen" released April 9th.
> b. Chaplin's suit announced (May 6th, Moving Picture World)
> c. "Police" released May 27th.
> d. Essanay reported as winner in suit (July 8th, Moving Picture
> World)

Which stage of the suit? Chaplin took it all the way to the
Supreme Court, I believe, and he certainly appealed the first
decision.



> [Moving Picture World dates from Mitchell]
>
>> Perhaps
>>they were planning to release the film in this altered form, but backed
>>off because of the ongoing litigation.
>
> Why? If they weren't afraid to release "Carmen" (which was far, FAR
> more tampered with than "Police") why would they have been hesitant to
> monkey with "Police"?

Because the suit over _Carmen_ was in litigation, and the outcome was
uncertain. If Chaplin won on the final appeal, they'd be liable both
for _Carmen_ and for _Police_.

More likely someone realized that if they
> removed the long flophouse scene from "Police" (and re-inserted the
> shorter one) they'd have a good third of *another* "manufactured"
> Chaplin film to play with.

This is certainly possible, but I'm not sure it's more likely.



>>I think it is significant that while Chaplin raised vociferous
>>objections to what Essanay did to _Burlesque_, and even discussed this
>>years later in his _Autobiography_, he never uttered a word of complaint
>>about _Police_.
>

> Well, come on -- just WATCH the two. The four reel "Carmen" is a
> boring, embarrassing mess, and the two-reel "Police" (re-edited or
> not) is a near-masterpiece. If they monkeyed with the film, they
> certainly didn't ruin it.

It's precisely the quality of the product that makes me skeptical of
the claims of non-Chaplin meddling.

>>Evidently in both versions of the film Edna has given Charlie a large
>>coin as a reward. To me it makes no sense for
>>him to go to a flophouse, steal money, and give some to her.
>

> Perhaps the Tramp made the moral distinction of stealing from a thief,
> as opposed to stealing from an innocent young woman and her sick
> mother. Also, note that the coin he hides in his mouth in the "Triple
> Trouble" flophouse scene IS the large coin that Edna gives him, not
> the small coin he steals from the thief in "Police."

I've just watched this again--it looks like *two* large coins to me.
Furthermore, he has another coin which he drops on the floor and then
picks up quickly to distract the pickpocket while he grabs the loot.
Where did he get that one?

>>Furthermore, I don't think the Charlie of the longer flophouse sequence is
>>compatible with the more gallant Charlie of _Police_, who becomes the
>>scourge of crooked clergymen...
>
> Actually, I think he becomes the scourge of the honest clergyman, if I
> remember right, and the crooked one gets away altogether.

True! I was thinking of intent, not ironic fact.

>> and rescues Edna and her sick mother.
>
> One more thing -- whoever wrote the synopsis, and to whatever version
> of the film it refers, it does specifically mention a scene where
> Charlie returns to Edna's and leaves the money in her mailbox. Doesn't
> this imply the scene did exist at some point, and doesn't it's
> existence validate the LOC synopsis?

I'm not claiming that the LOC synopsis doesn't reflect *some* version
of the film which Chaplin had in mind at some point. I'm just not
convinced that it reflects his final conception.

Constance Kuriyama

unread,
Nov 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/4/99
to

(sh...@my-deja.com) writes:

> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>> I think it is significant that while Chaplin raised vociferous
>> objections to what Essanay did to _Burlesque_, and even discussed this
>> years later in his _Autobiography_, he never uttered a word of
>> complaint about _Police_. I think this makes it highly unlikely that
>> Essanay "butchered" the film, or that the release version differs
>> substantially from his intentions.
>
> I don't think we can draw that conclusion from Chaplin's silence. I
> don't know of any complaint from him about the revisions made to his
> films after the "Carmen" case, and there were plenty of things worth
> complaining about. Leaving "Police" off the table, we still have "Chase
> Me Charlie," "The Essanay-Chaplin Revue of 1916," "National
> Association's All-Star Picture," "Triple Trouble" and the WH Productions
> re-issues of the Keystones... and this only takes us up to 1918!

He seems to have accepted tampering with his films on re-release as an
inevitable evil for which he wouldn't be held responsible, but
he did complain about both _Carmen_ and _Triple Trouble_. Why not
about _Police_?



>> Evidently in both versions of the film Edna has given Charlie a large
>> coin as a reward. To me it makes no sense for him to go to a
>> flophouse, steal money, and give some to her.
>

> But remember, he'd just invaded Edna's house and tried to rob her.

That's because he needed money. After she gives him the silver dollar
(or double eagle?), he doesn't.

He
> deserved to be taken away by the police, but instead she saved him from
> them. She even gives him money (a silver dollar?)... so clearly, he owes
> her something after all that.

Not really. He saved her (and her mother) from serious damage, both
to their pocketbook and possibly to life and limb.

>> As for the suggestion that _Police_ was cut down from a longer
>> film, I don't think that flies either. The two flophouse sequences
>> are absolutely incompatible with one another.
>

> Not necessarily. Here's a possible solution to the puzzle:
>
> 1. Charlie gets the silver dollar from Edna and goes to a flophouse.
> (LOC synopsis)
> 2. (Missing footage: somehow Charlie loses the dollar.)
> 3. Inside, he realizes the dollar is gone. ("Police")
> 4. He tries to bluff his way in anyway, and is kicked out. ("Police")
> 5. (Missing footage: outside, he discovers his dollar again.)
> 6. (Missing footage: Charlie re-enters, and somehow manages to get into
> the sleeping quarters without having to spend his dollar.)
> 7. Charlie finds a bed and settles in, popping the dollar in his mouth
> for safe-keeping. ("Triple Trouble")
> 8. Charlie ultimately swallows the dollar but steals the miser's money
> and a fight ensues. ("Triple Trouble")

> 9. Charlie flees the flophouse, returns to Edna's, and leaves the money
> in her mailbox. (LOC synopsis)

Absolutely not.

Before we make up any more films for Chaplin, wouldn't it be a good idea
to *look at the footage again*? There are a number of details there
which make it clear that *all* of the flophouse footage was filmed at
a different time from the rest of the _Police_ footage. I'll take this
up in another post.



> If this is the way "Police" originally played out, Essanay did a
> clever job of cutting it all down. The only continuity problem in the
> version we have today is this: why does Charlie go to a flophouse in the
> first place, when he already knows the preacher stole all his money? The
> LOC synopsis makes more sense because Charlie's just been given a dollar
> by Edna; it's night-time already, so finding a flophouse is the logical
> thing to do.

No, he's definitely trying to bluff his way in, as are other potential
"customers."

0 new messages