Tech Mystery – 1928 Chaplin Movie Shows Lady Using Mobile Phone

A fuss is on over the internet about a video on YouTube that speculates about the possibility of time travel! A Charlie Chaplin film clip showing a woman using a mobile phone has left viewers stumped; because by then World’s First Mobile Phone was yet to be invented! The baffling scene is found in the extras section of Charlie Chaplin`s 1928 movie ‘The Circus’, Daily Mail reported Wednesday. It shows members of the public attending the premiere of the film at Manns Chinese Theater in Hollywood.

Circus was released in 1928 and the footage shows a person who resembles a woman, dressed in a hat and a cloak and speaking into a device that appears to be too small for any electronic device of that era. The footage was played several times in a slow motion but the face is not very distinguishable.

Movie buffs appear to be as perplexed as others and have not come up with any rational explanation for the footage yet. The woman in the footage certainly appears to be talking and her hand is positioned in the same way as a person holding a cell phone.

The bizarre anachronism was unearthed by film buff George Clark on his Charlie Chaplin box set. He says he has shown it to more than 100 people and still no one can come up with a convincing explanation. Some viewers have suggested she is listening to a portable radio close to her face, although this would not explain why she appears to be talking.

Others say she may be displaying signs of schizophrenia and covering her face to hide the fact that she is talking aloud to herself. It has also been suggested that she is simply trying to hide her face from the camera so she is not filmed. The first device that could be likened to a mobile phone was Motorola’s original ‘Walkie-Talkie‘ which was developed in the 1940s, but that was the size of a man’s arm and still came more than a decade after the Chaplin film.

Woman Seen Using Mobile Phone In 1928 Charlie Chaplin Movie – Time Traveler?

In the absence of any rational explanation for the footage yet, different people are presenting different theories about it. While some accept the explanation provided by George Clarke others do not believe in its possibility. Then there is a third group of people who prefer to think that it was some kind of listening device of that era. What do you think?