Charlie Chaplin

[Snowflake]

Ah, Chaplin! Well, for a fascinating look into the man and how he created his timeless character of the tramp (swanky before swank was coined), you might want to seek out the excellent Kevin Brownlow documentary, the Unknown Chaplin. His films were not born out of genius, they evolved, slowly and painfully while he waited and worked through gags to find the one that fit.

Of the acknowledged 3 great silent comedians, I also prefer Keaton, who is truly timeless (his affinity for cocktails, though damaging to him personally and professionally when he lost control, he was a mighty man with a shaker). Keaton's films play as well today for modern audiences, probably better than they did in the 1920s because they are not nealry as sentimental and they are constructed masterfully. Steamboat Bill Jr. and The General are but two examples.

Harold Lloyd to me is also preferable to Chaplin, at least in the full length films. Once he found his character, seeing him in the theater is a great experience. Safety Last is a classic, as are Dr. Jack and The Freshman, nice touches all the way around.

Chaplin comes in third for me, but this is not a dig. I simply prefer him when he was a little more raw, a naughty character, not above tweaking authority (Mutuals and Essanay's - he is especially charming with his leading lady Edna Purviance). I cannot watch The Gold Rush nor City Lights any longer (in particular, after seeing the above-reference Unknown Chaplin). Too much sentiment and bathos for my taste. Again, Keaton preferred, less sentimental. Maybe I just don't have that slapstick comedy gene so needed to appreciate some of his stuff, I feel there is so much that is self-conscious. That said, I do LOVE the wicked sense of humor in Monsieur Verdoux - much in the vein of Ealing's Kind Hearts and Coronets - not to be missed, but I digress.

Chaplin is important, no question, pioneer, absolutely! Worth watching today, yes. For cool, give me Buster anyday!

Snow

[Boss Angeles]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Ah, Chaplin! Well, for a fascinating look into the man and how he created his timeless character of the tramp (swanky before swank was coined), you might want to seek out the excellent Kevin Brownlow documentary, the Unknown Chaplin. His films were not born out of genius, they evolved, slowly and painfully while he waited and worked through gags to find the one that fit.

Of the acknowledged 3 great silent comedians, I also prefer Keaton, who is truly timeless (his affinity for cocktails, though damaging to him personally and professionally when he lost control, he was a mighty man with a shaker). Keaton's films play as well today for modern audiences, probably better than they did in the 1920s because they are not nealry as sentimental and they are constructed masterfully. Steamboat Bill Jr. and The General are but two examples.

Harold Lloyd to me is also preferable to Chaplin, at least in the full length films. Once he found his character, seeing him in the theater is a great experience. Safety Last is a classic, as are Dr. Jack and The Freshman, nice touches all the way around.

Chaplin comes in third for me, but this is not a dig. I simply prefer him when he was a little more raw, a naughty character, not above tweaking authority (Mutuals and Essanay's - he is especially charming with his leading lady Edna Purviance). I cannot watch The Gold Rush nor City Lights any longer (in particular, after seeing the above-reference Unknown Chaplin). Too much sentiment and bathos for my taste. Again, Keaton preferred, less sentimental. Maybe I just don't have that slapstick comedy gene so needed to appreciate some of his stuff, I feel there is so much that is self-conscious. That said, I do LOVE the wicked sense of humor in Monsieur Verdoux - much in the vein of Ealing's Kind Hearts and Coronets - not to be missed, but I digress.

Chaplin is important, no question, pioneer, absolutely! Worth watching today, yes. For cool, give me Buster anyday!

Snow

Loved unknown chaplin. im addicted to that and hollywood:the pioneers, 6 hr doc on silent film. city lights makes me cry.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

For cool, give me Buster anyday!

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.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Boss Angeles

Loved unknown chaplin. im addicted to that and hollywood:the pioneers, 6 hr doc on silent film. city lights makes me cry.

Kevin Brownlow, Patrick Stanbury (and the late David Gill) of Photoplay Productions are, to me, GODs. If you have an opportunity to see any of the silent films they restore or any of their documentaries on early film, do not miss them. Browlonw's trilogy on Silnet Film, The Parade's Gone By, The Warm The West and the Wilderness and Behind the Mask of Innocence are all MUST reads for anyone with an interest in this period of filmmaking. For another eye-opener, also try Brownlow's Cinema Europe, a six part series on European silent film, it sure opened my eyes!

Okay, off my film geek soapbox (until I get to the chaplin post Tref left last night )

Snow

[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

[mousepod]

Tref, Snowflake - thank you. Not only have you constructed an articulate and interesting debate, but you've got me programming my movie viewing for the next several weeks. I'm hauling out my Chaplins and Keatons, and I'm placing a preorder for this November release:

[Boss Angeles]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Kevin Brownlow, Patrick Stanbury (and the late David Gill) of Photoplay Productions are, to me, GODs.
Snow

Stay on your soapbox, im sick of Disneyland. I had the chance to thank kevin in person and tell him how much his projects have meant to me. He told some cool stories about interviewing the silent stars back in the 70s and how they were in shabby hollywood apartments. he has so much b roll is isnt funny but cant get any of it cleared for dvd. get the laser if you can.

Chaplin's last moment in city lights where she touches his hand and asks if its him tears me up every time i see it, and it did the same thing to einstein at the premiere.

Here's a fun site that tracks the shooting locations then and now for chaplin films and they even recreate them!

http://jerre.com/then&now/public/films/City_Lights/

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Boss Angeles

Stay on your soapbox, im sick of Disneyland. I had the chance to thank kevin in person and tell him how much his projects have meant to me. He told some cool stories about interviewing the silent stars back in the 70s and how they were in shabby hollywood apartments. he has so much b roll is isnt funny but cant get any of it cleared for dvd. get the laser if you can.

Chaplin's last moment in city lights where she touches his hand and asks if its him tears me up every time i see it, and it did the same thing to einstein at the premiere.

Here's a fun site that tracks the shooting locations then and now for chaplin films and they even recreate them!

http://jerre.com/then&now/public/films/City_Lights/

How did you happen to meet KB? Does he live in Los Angeles?

You are right about the ending to CL. The Tramp was never so real ... it is so beautiful ... the single greatest moment in acting.

I have been thinking about doing a Chaplin film site day for years but keep putting it off (though, in regard to Laurel and Hardy, I did recently visit the hillside stairs from their film, The Music Box!) Perhaps, one day I will. I think it would make for a fun day trip.

Next year Chaplin's Switzerland home will be open to the public for the very first time. I have every hope of being there, though it will be expensive.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Tref

How did you happen to meet KB? Does he live in Los Angeles?

Well, no clue on how Boss met Brownlow (I've only traded faxes with Brownlow, I do know he refuses to have email!)

Brownlow lives and works in London. He does visit LA for projects and research (and was honored by the American Cinematographers - I think it was them) within the last 2 years. He has come out for the annual Cinecon convention (Labor Day weekend in LA) and for other functions. One of a Cinecon's I attended in th 90's, Pat Stanbury was there. I expect either Pat or Brownlow were out when they showed Brownlow's restoration on The Eagle about 5 years back. Brownlow was also in LA last fall for something (may have been the DeMille thing) at the American Cinemateque (Egyptian).

Hmmm, I see I am having a problem with ()'s today.....must be because I had to be at work at an ungodly hour!

Snow

[Boss Angeles]

We were introduced last October at the opening of "In the Picture," a 90 day museum display and photography exhibit from Turner Classic Movies at The Grove shopping center. He is a very meek and kind man. I can't claim to know him and my excitement to meet him (after 3 Martinis) may have scared him a bit.

http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/M...,84636,00.html