There is a degree of formalism in this, the first short subject between collaborators Pierre Étaix and Jean-Claude Carrière. They would make use of many of the same techniques in their later works: the exaggerated sounds, the gracefulness of Étaix' movements, the musical motif and the essential tragedy of the story redeemed by concentration.
Given that by the time this short subject came out, the comedy short subject was essentially dead as a regular part of the movie program, we can see the nostalgia for the lost form here, as well as the sense that the partnership is seeing if they can work in movie comedy. The short subject had often been used as a testing ground for the studios for their talent. This is the same thing.
Étaix is often compared to Tati and Keaton, but that, I think, is an error, an advertising idea for an audience unfamiliar with silent clowning in the movies, to tell the audience that this is more of the same. Tati and Keaton offered images of people out of step with the world: Keaton because he didn't understand, but would struggle through anyway and Tati because he didn't care. Étaix can get along with the world very well most of the time. It's the occasional indignities that we all suffer that are the stuff of his comedy: the pen that doesn't work, the stamps that stick together... stuff very real and current for his audience, even if half a century later people don't understand what he is dealing with.
I find this short competent and the gags nicely done, but not extraordinary. Like many a work of art hailed as groundbreaking and trend-setting, it arises out of a tradition and inserts itself into the public consciousness as novel because they are simply unfamiliar with the earlier work. This movie was essentially nostalgic when it came out and looking at it today, it seems quaint. However, it did the spadework for its creators to move into features, where the public consciousness and profits lay. And, like many another short subject, it certainly doesn't bore us with plot or claims of deep emotion or eternal truths. It demonstrates that brevity is the soul of wit.
Given that by the time this short subject came out, the comedy short subject was essentially dead as a regular part of the movie program, we can see the nostalgia for the lost form here, as well as the sense that the partnership is seeing if they can work in movie comedy. The short subject had often been used as a testing ground for the studios for their talent. This is the same thing.
Étaix is often compared to Tati and Keaton, but that, I think, is an error, an advertising idea for an audience unfamiliar with silent clowning in the movies, to tell the audience that this is more of the same. Tati and Keaton offered images of people out of step with the world: Keaton because he didn't understand, but would struggle through anyway and Tati because he didn't care. Étaix can get along with the world very well most of the time. It's the occasional indignities that we all suffer that are the stuff of his comedy: the pen that doesn't work, the stamps that stick together... stuff very real and current for his audience, even if half a century later people don't understand what he is dealing with.
I find this short competent and the gags nicely done, but not extraordinary. Like many a work of art hailed as groundbreaking and trend-setting, it arises out of a tradition and inserts itself into the public consciousness as novel because they are simply unfamiliar with the earlier work. This movie was essentially nostalgic when it came out and looking at it today, it seems quaint. However, it did the spadework for its creators to move into features, where the public consciousness and profits lay. And, like many another short subject, it certainly doesn't bore us with plot or claims of deep emotion or eternal truths. It demonstrates that brevity is the soul of wit.
