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. From his post-Essanay period after leaving Keystone, 'Behind the Screen' is not one of his very best but is one of his best early efforts and among the better short films of his. It shows a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career, from 1914, The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. Something that can be seen in the more than worthwhile 'Behind the Screen'. The story is more discernible than usual and is never dull, in fact it is quite eventful without being too busy. The romance is sweet enough and the chemistry is definitely there, part of me felt though that it was not needed.On the other hand, 'Behind the Screen' looks pretty good, not incredible but it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work and not churning out countless shorts in the same year of very variable success like he did with Keystone. Appreciate the importance of his Keystone period and there is some good stuff he did there, but the more mature and careful quality seen here and later on is obvious.While not one of his most hilarious or touching, 'Behind the Screen' is still very funny with some clever, entertaining and well-timed slapstick, didn't mind that the pathos wasn't there as it was not the right kind of story. It moves quickly and there is no dullness in sight. The ending is one of the best and funniest ones of Chaplin's early work.Chaplin directs more than competently, if not quite cinematic genius standard yet. He also, as usual, gives an amusing and expressive performance and at clear ease with the physicality of the role. The supporting cast acquit themselves well, particularly Eric Campbell. Edna Purviance is charming and her chemistry with Chaplin is beautiful, even if it did feel she was there to provide the "obligatory" love interest.Overall, very enjoyable. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This was a concept that already existed 100 years from now (or almost hundred years) and here we see Charlie Chaplin's take on it in this 20-minute black-and-white short film. I wonder how much his personal experiences from very early in his career contributed to that. Then again, even if he was possibly at his peak in 1916, it was still early in his career as he wasn't even 30 when he made this and yet the probably biggest film star on the planet. Edna Purviance as his romantic interest and Eric Campbell as the antagonist, who looks so huge next to the tiny Chaplin, are frequent Chaplin collaborators and both are here on board again as well. I thought this was one of Chaplin's better films and enjoyed watching it for the most part. My favorite scene was probably the one with his co-worker's sandwich. Thumbs up.

From 1916, this is one of Charlie Chaplin's more entertaining short films in my opinion. Chaplin is a stage assistant named David, who works under the oppressive Goliath. Problems arise when the other stage hands go on strike, leaving the work for David while Goliath torments him. One reason this film appeals to me is that, not only go you get Chaplin's usual funny schtick, but you also get a glimpse into a film studio of the time. I love seeing the simplicity of the studio sets, the single boxy film camera, and even the use of a trap door for one hilarious bit. I always love the back-and-forth between Chaplin and frequent collaborator Eric Campbell and this is one of their better shows. For that extra chuckle, the film even includes a pie fight in the finale. You can't go wrong with one of Chaplin's funnier early efforts such as BEHIND THE SCREEN.

Spoilers herein.The world's best filmmakers (to my mind: Welles, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa) thought Chaplin among the world's best. And usually we think they mean the films of 1925-40, over which he labored and in which he controlled nearly every aspect. But I think the earlier ones have tremendous cleverness and energy as well -- even genius that embodied more risk in the type of humor. That's because by 1925, he was already worrying over what was funny, but a decade earlier was just intuitively _being_ funny and in a sometimes more incisive manner.Sure, this one has piethrowing. And lots of pratfalls. And the standard class commentary. But it has -- for the first time I know -- some fairly sophisticated humor about itself. After all, the thing that made Chaplin's later work so deep was its self-awareness and the trunk of that tree is self-reference. So I consider this film, right here, to be the birth of modern film humor.Oddly, this film is accessible on DVD as an extra on the execrable `Cat's Meow,' whose story involves a Chaplin-like character. That film is the converse of self-reference: is supposed to be (in fact has all its value in) self-reference but is not.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.