|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 12, 2021 12:19:22 GMT
Any good?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 12, 2021 12:28:48 GMT
I've not seen any Chaplin films which I should rectify but I've seen enough clips to recognise that he was an immense talent.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,776
|
Post by rayge on Mar 12, 2021 16:06:46 GMT
The Keystone comedies from 1914 and the Essanay ones from 1915 are generally great. In fact all of his shorts (one and two-reelers) that I've seen have their moments, but he stopped doing them in 1922. The longer films are patchy, with a tendency to sentimentality emerging too often for my taste. The Great Dictator and Gold Rush are the funniest of those I've seen (and let's face it, he was clown not an actor), with City Lights and Modern Times runners-up, but I'd give his later (than 1940) films a swerve. Stan and Buster were greater artists, THO.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Mar 12, 2021 16:44:11 GMT
Stan and Buster were greater artists, THO. I remember reading something about how much Chaplin was so wary of sharing any of the limelight with other artists. So much so that he never even mentioned Stan Laurel in his autobiography, despite two years of sharimg a room together while on tour in the US. I get the impression he wasn't well liked by any of the others of the era.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Mar 12, 2021 17:02:53 GMT
Just last night I watched a livestream (sponsored by the American Film Institute) of three of Chaplin's Mutual two-reelers - The Pawnshop, The Cure, and The Adventurer - with live piano accompaniment. They were all brimful of genius, and afterwards I ended up splurging on a box set of his Mutual films.
I really don't know his oeuvre that well, aside from the "big ones." I'm looking forward to doing something about that.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Mar 12, 2021 17:35:10 GMT
I know it sounds funny to say but I think he is undervalued. How can such an iconic figure be undervalued? well, I think he has as much to do as any other single film maker of what we mean when we say the word "movies". I won't say a word against other comedy geniuses but will stress that I think his reputation should encompass more than comedy. I understand that the way he incorporated pathos and social commentary is not to everyone's taste but I think it is worth mentioning that this probably factors into his monumental popularity of the day. take "The Kid".it is easy to think of it as cloying and overly sentimental because it IS. the thing is, I happen to think that cloying and overly sentimental is something that movies can do well. I love the ending of "The Circus". He is leaving the circus and he is leaving the woman he loves in the arms of another man. "The Circus is a comedy but he sticks the knife in a bit at the end. Comedies do that all the time now. I think he knew things like this made for deeper and more satisfying films. Me, I think he was right - sometimes.
I think Keaton had the greater comedic gift. Indeed, Buster made his living in his later years on sets making suggestions to directors what they could do to make their shows or commercials funnier. This may seem a sad state of affairs for a comedy genius but I mention it to point out that I think he had a gift. I don't think Chaplin had a gift - not like that. I think he had instincts but of a different type and I will endeavor to call this "cinematic". While I think Keaton had the greater comedic gift I think Chaplin had a greater narrative gift and a greater sense of who his audience was and what they wanted to see him do. Griffith is much admired despite his many obvious flaws due to how "modern" his films seemed and how early on. I think Chaplin kicking a cop in the pants is easier to assess nowadays than a cross burning presented as pageantry. sure, Chaplin eventually disappeared up his own ass. you can tell by the time he "improved" the Gold Rush that he was getting a pretty big head about himself. He took what was essentially a flawless comic film and thought it could be improved by mellifluous narration. I don't think it improves it at all. I think he wanted people to know that he wasn't the guy on the screen. Well, who gives a fuck? go ahead and hobnob with the upper classes on your spare time, Buddy. I think he slowly but surely lost sight of what his strength was. Now, some good came of this. I think "Modern Times" and "Great Dictator" are very powerful and that the anachronism of "the Little Tramp" finally giving in to the sound era was done in some clever ways and some heavy handed ways. it was interesting seeing the speech at the end of "Great Dictator" on social media in the TRUMP era. it IS heavy handed. It IS self important but Holy Shit, isn't it notable, if "the Little Tramp" was going to talk to America that THIS is what he would choose to say? I think Chaplin understood how powerful film as a medium could be as well as any of his contemporaries. He went from doing funny things in front of cameras to utilizing the evolving tools and techniques in ways that made for strong narratives and popular films. I do think he lost it along the way but I do enjoy "A King in New York" among his later films. He's older & wiser and I don't think as bitter as people thought at the time. "Limelight" was praised in certain quarters. I never liked it. it seems to say his time hasn't passed. "King.." seems to realize that it has. I think it's the sharper and more rewarding film.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Mar 12, 2021 17:45:39 GMT
I like your post, Snee, but I'm not sure about the idea of Chaplin not having Keaton's comic "gift" (and I've adored Keaton my whole life) - I was laughing my ass off last night.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Mar 12, 2021 17:49:01 GMT
well, you hear those stories of him setting around for days at a time (with people on the payroll) waiting for inspiration. Keaton could pull ideas out of his ass for hours. I mean it as a backhanded compliment. I think his gift was more to conceiving the film as a satisfying whole (especially as he moved into features) rather than Keaton's gift for the gag.
I LOVE Keaton but I've no problem saying that I think Chaplin is the superior film maker. In fact, I think he has as much a claim to forging the mold of what we think of as movies and moviegoing in the 20th century as any other single guy.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Mar 12, 2021 17:57:39 GMT
Gotcha.
|
|