DbcultAccessing Vault...
4.9/10
Senior Film Conservator
A definitive 4.9/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. In the Park remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
Is this worth watching today? Honestly, only if you are a total nerd for film history or you have ten minutes to kill and want to see what people thought was funny over a hundred years ago.
If you are expecting the cartoon cat and mouse, you are going to be very confused. This is the human Tom and Jerry, a comedy duo that mostly just falls over and looks surprised.
Most modern viewers will probably find this pretty boring. But if you like seeing the roots of slapstick, it has a certain charm that is hard to ignore. 🌳
The whole thing takes place in a park that looks like it is about twenty feet wide. It has that flat, bright lighting that makes everything look like a stage play.
The baby in this movie is a total menace. I am not kidding; this kid is a nightmare.
He has a face that looks like he is already forty years old and mad about his taxes. He spends the whole time ruining the lives of the two lead actors.
Tom and Jerry—played by George Rufle and Frank Sherman—are just trying to exist. But the kid has other plans for them.
There is a moment where they try to play with him and it just goes south immediately. It is a lot of shoving and falling into the grass.
The physical comedy isn't as sharp as something like Butter Fingers. It feels a bit more... crunchy and unpolished.
You can tell they were just making it up as they went along. There is no real 'story' here, just a series of weird things that happen in a row.
It reminds me of Kids Wanted in the way it treats children as little agents of chaos. 🎢
I noticed that one of the hats falls off in a scene and the actor just leaves it there. Usually, they would edit that out now, but back in 1915, they just kept rolling.
It gives the movie this raw feeling that you don't get anymore. Everything is so perfect in movies today, but this feels like a home movie with a tiny budget.
The baby’s outfit is also incredibly distracting to look at. It is a giant pile of white lace and starch that looks very uncomfortable.
I wonder if the kid actually liked being in the movie. He looks mostly confused or like he wants to bite someone's hand off.
There is a chase scene that feels like it just goes in circles. It probably did because the park was so small.
If you've seen The Caveman, you know how these early comedies rely on just acting silly. This is exactly that, but with more trees.
It is much simpler than something like Oh, What a Man!. There is no big setup or clever twist.
Just a park, a very mean baby, and two guys who should have probably stayed home that day.
Sometimes the camera shakes a little bit during the wide shots. It makes me think the cameraman was laughing, or maybe the tripod was just broken.
The ending doesn't really feel like an ending. It just stops.
I kind of miss that about old movies. They didn't feel the need to wrap every little thing up with a big emotional speech.
The way Frank Sherman moves is kind of interesting to watch. He has this rubbery way of walking that feels like he is trying to be a cartoon character before they existed.
And George Rufle just seems tired. I would be tired too if I had to deal with a baby that mean for a whole afternoon.
The baby does this one thing with his arms where he just flails around. It isn't 'acting,' it is just a baby being a baby, but it actually works for the scene.
It is funny how different this is from Le défenseur. That one feels like it is trying to be a 'serious movie,' while this is just a lark.
You can almost hear the director shouting from behind the camera. 'Now fall over! Now look mad!'
There is a lady in the background of one shot who clearly isn’t an extra. She is just a regular person walking through the park in 1915.
She looks at the camera for a split second and then keeps walking. I love little details like that.
It makes the whole world of the past feel real for a second. Like, this wasn't a fancy set, it was just a Tuesday for them.
If you are into the history of the Van Beuren studio, you will find it neat. Most people will just be confused by the title.
'Wait, where is the mouse?' they will ask. Sorry, he hasn't been invented yet.
It has a similar energy to The Fighting Demon, just much smaller and sillier. The hats are the real stars because they stay on through so much nonsense.
I think the best way to watch this is with a noisy crowd. Silent movies are a bit weird when it is just you and the sound of your fridge humming.
It needs that shared energy of people laughing at a kid being a jerk. It isn't a masterpiece, it's just a joke that is over a century old.
And honestly? Some of the physical jokes still kind of land. 🌳
IMDb —
1921
Community
Log in to comment.
