[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Tref

And so it shall be ...

Woe is Chaplin. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with adding pathos and humanity to a movie anyway? I have never accepted that argument. Would you prefer to see Dumbo without the scene where he visits his mother in prison?

Yet, Chaplin takes these same lumps each time he is written about. Read a review on Amazon (or some such site) and see if somebody doesn’t start using the review page to talk up their man Keaton. I can't honestly say I understand why. Nobody ever does the same to Keaton. Could it be that Chaplin fans are simply more secure in their man, or do they know something that Keaton supporters do not? Most likey, they are as confused by it as I am. Could be they don't care. They know that Chaplin was more then just a brilliant comic. He was, in fact, to borrow a line from a great intellectual & poet from the 1920s, the only true genius film has ever produced.

Charlie was the first to show the movie-going world poverty as it really was. He was the first rebel. He was dangerous (Good Lord, the man was litterally kicked out of the United States!) His films were about the lower class struggle (Work, Pay Day, The Immigrant) and the unwanted (A Dog’s Life, The Kid.) In particular, recall the scene in The Kid when Edna is shown being thrown out of a Christian Charity home for having a child out of wedlock.“A woman whose only sin was motherhood.” Chaplin's films were about the people who would exploit (The Idle Class) and the people who were exploited (Modern Times, Easy Street).

But getting back to Keaton, I think a lot of what I asked in the first paragraph has to do with BK the man, himself. Buster was humble, brilliant, unassuming gentleman. And did I mention that he was humble? This was a quality that Chaplin most assuredly did not share. He was the toppermost of the top and he knew it. Even Groucho Marx conceded that Chaplin was undoubtably the funniest man he had ever seen. Charlie would have no doubt agreed. But let me lay all my cards on the table – it was not for nothing! That man could compose a sad song like no other. Ever heard "Smile"? Chaplin composed beautiful film scores, and even wrote a pop hit for Petula Clark in the 1960s. He choreographed ballets, conducted music, wrote several books on his life and philosphy, devised his own economic plan to end poverty and discussed peace with Ghandi and Einstein. Chaplin lived life like to the fullest. He saw the world for what it was and set out to make it better.

But, once again, I digress …

In Chaplin’s defense he did warn Keaton not to sign with MGM (as did just about everybody else) But BK did and after one pretty good flick (The Camerman) it was all over – for good. Forever. Never was Keaton allowed to make a film on his own terms -- and the year was only 1928!! Still, Buster lived long enough to see his work rightfully celebrated all over the world.

The last 50 years have not been kind to Chaplin. I love Keaton, don't get me wrong -- The General is all the masterpiece they claim it to be. Sherlock Jr. is pretty damn fine too. As is The Goat. But not once during any of those films do I feel any real connection with the characters on the screen. Keaton was the great mechanic -- he knew how to take apart and reassemble a gag to make it work like a clock. Consequently, when Keatons films are anything less then successful (like in Seven Chances or The Navigator) they can be rather difficult to watch all the way through. Maybe even a bit like staring at that same reassembled clock. And, truly, this is not easy for me to admit. I love Keaton. I own several of his DVD collections, but I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that time has not been kind to a few of them. Chaplin escapes this fate because he never was just about the gag in the first place. Keaton is never funnier then when his best moments are collected together in bits and pieces. Taken that same way, Chaplin is the one who suffers. His films are best taken as a whole. This is because Chaplin was not a gag man.

For me watching a Chaplin film is the same as going to see the Nutcracker Suite every Christmas or re-listening to your favorite symphonic piece. Chaplin is Art with a capital “A.” Chaplin is more then just great “slapstick” – indeed, I would never even use that word to describe his films, a Chaplin film is a spy glass on human emotions. Want proof? Watch the scene in Shoulder Arms, when Chaplin’s character discretely reads – by way of over the shoulder – the letter of a soldier who received a letter from home. We don’t have to read the letter to know what each line says. It is all revealed in Chaplin’s face. It is one of cinema’s great moments.

I want to go on, but I feel I am rambling and besides, it is getting really late. I need to go to bed. Maybe I will try and finish this later. Probably not.

But again sorry for rambling.

Hey Tref, excellent postings!

Any of my comments, were simply nothing more than my opinion. I'm not dissing or attacking Chaplin, but for me, while I enjoy some of the feature films, he is not my number 1 choice when I sit down to watch a silent comedy.

I agree, there is room for the human touch. A case in point, who cannot watch the sequence in The Kid when Jackie Coogan is being foreceably taken away from the only father he has known and not feel something. If they can, they are made of stone, not me, I weep every time. There is certainly room for sentiment and humanity in any film, be it comedy or drama. Back to Chaplin, I am sure I worded my last post poorly (I do tend to blather and lose my point if I don't watch it). With regard to Chaplin's feature films after 1921, I just feel a sense of self-consciousness in his later work, that does not appeal to me.

All of your examples above are perfect, but you are also referring to films made before his first feature in 1921. Arbuckle and Mabel Normand also had humanity and sweetness, even in their Keystones of 1915, so it was not new, but Chaplin certainly raised the bar because he was his own man in total control.

As for my using the term slapstick, that is certainly in many of Chaplin's films, and not just the early Keystones. That said, this is not a negative to me. My reference to myself with regard to the slapstick gene is something unique among film geeks, you either have it or you don't. It's a guy thing for the most part, go to any film convention, they'll watch and devour anything from John Bunny, Larry Semon, Lloyd Hamilton and Harry Langdon on up or down the hierarchy of comedy to the "big three" Chaplin, Keaton or Lloyd. I enjoy comedy, but that does not mean I can watch or enjoy every single comedian who left a scrap of film. I confess it, I will never get the appeal of Max Davidson, but hey, that's a flaw in me, many love Max, I don't. Ooops, I digress!

The last 50 years have not been kind to Chaplin.

Part of that may well have been caused by Chaplin himself. He continued to tinker with his films and since he owned them outright, release was strictly at his discretion. I do not find his re-releasing his silent classics with narration to be an improvement, but they were his movies! The same can be said for Mary Pickford who was horrified at the thought of what her films would be thought of by a latter generation and hid them for 60 years (thanks to Lillian Gish she did not destroy them). This case is now happily being rectified in the Mary Pickford Foundation releasing her restored films on DVD, again, I digress.

Back to Chaplin's work not being more readily available, the difference is Keaton's films were picked up (for better or worse) by Ramond Rohauer (same with Douglas Fairbanks) and Keaton's films were shown more and in the pre-VHS days, the only way you got to see these films was in college or an art house. Additionally, Keaton travelled with the films when they were re-discovered and so (case in point) he went to France (among other places) and got to witness firsthand the rediscovery of his work by a new generation. So late in life after so much struggle with his years of alcoholism Keaton got a boon to witness he was not redundant. Keaton was rediscovered and his "brand" of comedy seemed more suitable to the post-WWII age. Mechanic he may be, he constructed his gags with a payoff that always paid off. At least they do for me. Not every film was great, but I love Buster anyway. He also did have human moments in his films, albeit brief, but there was humanity in his work as well. Steamboat Bill Jr. and The Camerman and Our Hospitality come to mind.

To digress again, Harold Lloyd has as much sentiment and bathos in his films, Take apart Safety Last any day, his character is not an admirable guy, he lies to his girlfriend, he breaks the law, but it is still funny! The Freshman, filled with bathos, but it still works. Again, Lloyd owned his films and they have been locked up for decades, now he will have a re-appraisal as his films are slated for reissue in theatres and on DVD. I suspect his films may be a bit more dated, but his go-getter type may well appeal to the audience of today.

Anyway, to wind up my ramblings, I'm not dissing Chaplin. I admire many of his films, but I prefer is pre-1920 shorts and 4 reelers. I do love M. Verdoux (but I love black humor). But hey, it's just my opinion, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind and I don't look down upon anyone for their preferences in comedians! Hell, I love Rudolph Valentino, he was no artist and he was not John Gielgud (but better than he is given credit for), believe me, I get alot of dissing just for that! So we can agree to disagree in some respects. I like Chaplin, really, I do!

Snow