Given its ultra-short running time, this slapstick comedy is pretty good. At a time when cinema was still in its infancy and the camera enjoyed less movement than the audience that watched its output, British pioneer R. W. Paul fashions a highly comical short that uses the limitations of the new technology to his advantage. The premise is simple. Two men playing chess argue over whether one of the men has cheated by covertly moving one of his pieces and the argument quickly escalates into blows. As the camera remains static, however, we don't see any of the action once the men are fighting on the floor other than the occasional flailing fist or piece of dislodged clothing being hurled into the air. It's a minute long, so what have you got to lose?
6 Reviews
Cleverly Done
Snow Leopard1 April 2002
This little comedy is simple but cleverly done, with creativity and a good pace. The action starts with two chess players who are concentrating on their game, when a disagreement over a move suddenly escalates into slapstick. From there it builds nicely, and the use of props and off-screen action works quite well. R.W. Paul made several of these resourceful ultra-short movies, and this one is particularly well-constructed.
Intellectual pretensions deflated by slapstick ruckus (spoiler in last paragraph)
the red duchess8 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.
The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.
What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.
What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them.
The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.
What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.
What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them.
That's Funny
Cineanalyst5 January 2008
I'd seen this very brief film (just about a minute long) a couple times before, and I remember chuckling. I see it again and am surprised to find myself somewhat laughing at it again. It's different for everyone, I suppose, but most of the early primitive films aren't very entertaining in themselves. In my comments on "A Trip to the Moon" (Le Voyage dans la lune) (1902), I mentioned how it was the earliest film that I found a good deal of amusement and entertainment in watching. R.W. Paul made this film the following year--the same year that "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) introduced some genuine dramatic excitement to the screen. The story film, as well as screen comedy, and the art form itself were very much in their infancy. Don't confuse my comments as discouragement from watching the early films, though. They are historically and cinematically interesting and enriching to those who take the journey.
Anyhow, the story is two men playing chess; one of them cheats, they argue and then come to blows. The painted picturesque backdrop is effective, as others have mentioned. The situation of order and intellectual activity turning to chaos and brute violence isn't very amusing in itself. The filmic innovation of having much of the fight occur offscreen, however, is quite funny. Cecil Hepworth had previously explored the comedic possibilities of offscreen space in "Explosion of a Motor Car" (1900), but I prefer this later film.
This short film is one stationary shot, but R.W. Paul also co-invented the multi-shot film, such as in "Come Along Do!" and "The Launch of H.M.S. Albion" (both 1898). Here, however, he shows the effectiveness of one shot and how to use it and offscreen space to advantage. Paul's camera may very well have been immobile, too; that is, it was likely connected to the stand so that it couldn't pan or tilt, unlike in the films of James H. White, or in "Desperate Poaching Affray" and "The Great Train Robbery".
Anyhow, the story is two men playing chess; one of them cheats, they argue and then come to blows. The painted picturesque backdrop is effective, as others have mentioned. The situation of order and intellectual activity turning to chaos and brute violence isn't very amusing in itself. The filmic innovation of having much of the fight occur offscreen, however, is quite funny. Cecil Hepworth had previously explored the comedic possibilities of offscreen space in "Explosion of a Motor Car" (1900), but I prefer this later film.
This short film is one stationary shot, but R.W. Paul also co-invented the multi-shot film, such as in "Come Along Do!" and "The Launch of H.M.S. Albion" (both 1898). Here, however, he shows the effectiveness of one shot and how to use it and offscreen space to advantage. Paul's camera may very well have been immobile, too; that is, it was likely connected to the stand so that it couldn't pan or tilt, unlike in the films of James H. White, or in "Desperate Poaching Affray" and "The Great Train Robbery".
Unlike many early one-gag shorts, it is actually funny
Tornado_Sam2 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While this is not one of my very favorite early short films, it deserves at least a 7-star rating--which is relatively high, especially for such an early film. Why? Well, many early comedies featured one gag--and the gag was neither creative nor funny (check out the guy who gets sprayed by the hose). But this one, while simplistic, actually got me laughing hard the first time I saw it. This is partly because the gag is actually creative--not an old-fashioned joke which hasn't aged well over the years. Secondly, the action carried below frame is very clever and is what really makes the joke hilarious.
The film is a simple set-up in which two men play chess, become involved in an argument when one tries to cheat, and have a lively fist-fight. It is a good gag which still is funny today. Paul was not only humorous, he also made the first short to use different scenes--a year before Georges Melies's "Cinderella"!
The film is a simple set-up in which two men play chess, become involved in an argument when one tries to cheat, and have a lively fist-fight. It is a good gag which still is funny today. Paul was not only humorous, he also made the first short to use different scenes--a year before Georges Melies's "Cinderella"!
Clever use of limited audience view to use a device that is commonplace now
bob the moo2 March 2008
I watched this film on a DVD that was rammed with short films from the period. I didn't watch all of them as the main problem with these type of things that their value is more in their historical novelty value rather than entertainment. So to watch them you do need to be put in the correct context so that you can keep this in mind and not watch it with modern eyes. With the Primitives & Pioneers DVD collection though you get nothing to help you out, literally the films are played one after the other (the main menu option is "play all") for several hours. With this it is hard to understand their relevance and as an educational tool it falls down as it leaves the viewer to fend for themselves, which I'm sure is fine for some viewers but certainly not the majority. What it means is that the DVD saves you searching the web for the films individually by putting them all in one place but that's about it.
Two men play chess and get into an argument that turns into a fight in this film but that is not really what is interesting about it. Essentially it is a physical comedy and it uses the "old" gag where we don't see the fight or the blows as they occur off or almost off camera. What we see is one protagonist or items such as cloths flying into shot as a result of the action we can't see. It is a simple device but cleverly done here long before it became common place to see light entertainers do the same gag on television. It is clever because Paul uses the space out of shot more than he does the shot itself.
It is not mind-blowing perhaps but it is interesting to see a film do this. The others I have seen have been 100% about seeing action on the screen whether it is a car, a snowball fight or a train and to have Paul do the opposite to comedic effect is a nice touch and testament to his imagination and touch for comedy.
Two men play chess and get into an argument that turns into a fight in this film but that is not really what is interesting about it. Essentially it is a physical comedy and it uses the "old" gag where we don't see the fight or the blows as they occur off or almost off camera. What we see is one protagonist or items such as cloths flying into shot as a result of the action we can't see. It is a simple device but cleverly done here long before it became common place to see light entertainers do the same gag on television. It is clever because Paul uses the space out of shot more than he does the shot itself.
It is not mind-blowing perhaps but it is interesting to see a film do this. The others I have seen have been 100% about seeing action on the screen whether it is a car, a snowball fight or a train and to have Paul do the opposite to comedic effect is a nice touch and testament to his imagination and touch for comedy.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
