Third Eye Film Society Forum Index
Author Message

<  Third Eye Archives - Specialty Forums  ~  Silent Movies

lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:12 am Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Hmmm,... I can see some similarities in execution between Chaplin and Ray (although overall Ray is probably the better movie). The story sometimes gets overwhelmed by the "greatness" of the subject matter and the faults get soft-petalled because they're committed by a god on earth.

(I know I went into what I thought was wrong with Ray somewhere, but maybe it wasn't here...)

That said, I thought Chaplin was a good introduction into Charlie Chaplin's background, and a good reason to go find out more.
View user's profile Send private message
Ghulam
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:01 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 4742 Location: Upstate NY
From Ann Douglas's essay :

In a 1995 worldwide survey of film critics, Chaplin was voted the greatest actor in movie history. He was the first, and to date the last, person to control every aspect of the filmmaking process — founding his own studio, United Artists, with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith, and producing, casting, directing, writing, scoring and editing the movies he starred in. In the first decades of the 20th century, when weekly moviegoing was a national habit, Chaplin more or less invented global recognizability and helped turn an industry into an art. In 1916, his third year in films, his salary of $10,000 a week made him the highest-paid actor — possibly the highest paid person — in the world. By 1920, "Chaplinitis," accompanied by a flood of Chaplin dances, songs, dolls, comic books and cocktails, was rampant. Filmmaker Mack Sennett thought him "just the greatest artist who ever lived." Other early admirers included George Bernard Shaw, Marcel Proust and Sigmund Freud. In 1923 Hart Crane, who wrote a poem about Chaplin, said his pantomime "represents the futile gesture of the poet today." Later, in the 1950s, Chaplin was one of the icons of the Beat Generation. Jack Kerouac went on the road because he too wanted to be a hobo. From 1981 to 1987, IBM used the Tramp as the logo to advertise its venture into personal computers.
View user's profile Send private message
Marilyn
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:05 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 8210 Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
One of the coolest things I saw on the DVD of The Kid was the short documentary featuring Abbas Kiarostami talking about Chaplin. (That's a great feature of all of films in The Chaplin Collection.) They went to Tehran (this was 1995) and asked several people on the street who the person on a giant billboard was. All knew it was Chaplin; one imitated his walk. Silent films were a godsend to the world because you didn't need language to understand them. I'm sure Chaplin films get shown with great regularity in other countries. Why not here, where they were made?

_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:42 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Ghulam wrote:
From Ann Douglas's essay :


Although she doesn't have the recognition factor that Chaplin does today, Mary Pickford was just as popular - and as powerful - as Charlie Chaplin. And United Artists was very much a joint venture - not Chaplin getting a bunch of his buds together.

I'd say that

Quote:
In the first decades of the 20th century, when weekly moviegoing was a national habit, Chaplin more or less invented global recognizability and helped turn an industry into an art.


is a subjective statement. I totally agree that he was instrumental. I don't agree it was only him. (One example: Pickford and Fairbanks had massive crowds following them around their vacation in the Soviet Union in 1921 or so.)

And the annual salary thing bounced around several people. Harold Lloyd at one point could claim that. Roscoe Arbuckle could claim that. Heck, Mary Pickford could claim that. According to Wikipedia, she was making just under $10,000/yr in 1916 - directly comparable to Chaplin's salary.
View user's profile Send private message
Ghulam
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:43 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 4742 Location: Upstate NY
Here is the whole article for those who are interested :


http://tinyurl.com/d9y9p
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:04 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Thanks muchly, Ghulam - will take a look.

BTW, I just received the copy of Hitchcock's Downfall that I won on eBay (well, no one else bid...). It'll be my third Hitchcock silent, and it should be interesting to compare this to The Lodger and Blackmail. Also starring Ivor N.

Only thing - the seller was in the Netherlands, but I thought this was a UK DVD until I looked at the back and it started, "Rddy Berwick is een jongeman uit een respectabele en rijke familie." Oh, well...
View user's profile Send private message
MVerdoux
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:50 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 37 Location: NYC & NJ
Rod wrote:
Downey's Chaplin is terrific but the film around him is pretty pathetic.


There is no doubt that Attenborough's CHAPLIN is very flawed biopic on a number of levels.

Putting aside obvious lapses in drawing from facts - the film never shows you WHY Chaplin was so loved and revered. It's captures none of Chaplin's personal charisma as a human being - which had a good deal to do with his success on screen and his social popularity in real life. Downey does a good job with what he's got, and clearly the monumental amount of training to play a famous exacting Englishman has rubbed off on him and his subsequent work. But there are even things in his performance that don't quite work or ring true as Chaplin. (Interestingly I thought he was best playing Chaplin late in life.)

The film also deals WAY too much with his personal life - and not enough with his workaholic perfectionist ways and the production of the films which is very interesting. They went to the trouble of beautifully recreating several of the sets - but hardly used them. Apparently there was a whole sequence dealing with Edna and Mutual that was cut for length (sigh). It was probably one of the more worthwhile scenes in the film.

_________________
"We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost." - Charles Chaplin
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marj
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:18 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
Quote:
It's captures none of Chaplin's personal charisma as a human being - which had a good deal to do with his success on screen and his social popularity in real life.


Hi MVerdoux,

I really agree with your post with the exception of the above quote. I personally think Downey's own charisma, which frankly startled me, was what captured Chaplin's.

In fact, if there was anything wrong, I found it to be in not telling us more about Chaplin's troubles (not his boyhood-- they did that). I think the use of Chaplin's own autobiography and Attenborough's own love of the man may have gotten in the way of telling the darker side of Chaplin's life.

But I agree, unless one wanted a four hour movie I suppose this is one biopic where only the highlights could fit in.

One other point: I hope that those who see it, listen to the score. Much of it is taken from Chaplin's own music and IMO, was woven in quite nicely. And they're is a certain melancholy to it, underlying Chaplin's own life.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
MVerdoux
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:13 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 37 Location: NYC & NJ
Marj wrote:
I personally think Downey's own charisma, which frankly startled me, was what captured Chaplin's.


Downey very good - but not consistantly throughout the film.However, I place the overall blame on Sir Richard. The man should have sticked to acting (he's quite good at that - check out SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON) and never should have been allowed to tackle Chaplin's life.

Marj wrote:
In fact, if there was anything wrong, I found it to be in not telling us more about Chaplin's troubles (not his boyhood-- they did that). I think the use of Chaplin's own autobiography and Attenborough's own love of the man may have gotten in the way of telling the darker side of Chaplin's life.


I just can't agree....the film has far too much sorted and contrived stuff about his personal life and not enough balance with his phenominal work as a filmmaker. Not to mention the plethora of inaccuracies throughout the picture. One could argue artistic licence - but why do that when the factual material - which is available - is far more interesting? Also - while I adore many of the actors in the film, I thought most of the casting was rather poor.

I'm not 100% convinced that Attenborough "loves" Chaplin. I've heard that he's never found him funny....to which I respond "then why make a movie about him?" The other Richard (Schickle) who made a documentary recently about Charlie really shouldn't have been allowed to tackle Chaplin either (he doesn't like Chaplin at all and barely knows his work.)

Marj wrote:
One other point: I hope that those who see it, listen to the score. Much of it is taken from Chaplin's own music and IMO, was woven in quite nicely. And they're is a certain melancholy to it, underlying Chaplin's own life.


Actually most of the score is not Chaplin, but lukewarm soundalike Chaplin music by John Barry (who I often do like - for example, his score for THE IPCRESS FILE is exquisite.)I do remember cringing when they used Charlie's music for the ghastly mock silent film speedup slapstick during THE KID/Salt Lake City episode. They really should have gotten Carl Davis to orchestrate - since he KNOWS Chaplin's music and style and can arrange and compose Chaplin's own music and Chaplinlike music very well (see UNKNOWN CHAPLIN.)

_________________
"We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost." - Charles Chaplin
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marj
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:33 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
MVerdoux wrote:
Quote:
I just can't agree....the film has far too much sorted and contrived stuff about his personal life and not enough balance with his phenominal work as a filmmaker. Not to mention the plethora of inaccuracies throughout the picture.


I really should have been more specific. I meant whatever problems Chaplin may have had making movies, not his personal life.

But as to the score, Barry borrowed frequently from Chaplin and kind of worked a theme on Chaplin's music. And while I tend to find much of Barry's work mushy, for lack of a better word, I kind of liked the melancholy that underscored the film.

I think it's important to remember that a lot of us first saw this movie as novices to Chaplin and his movies. Yes, perhaps someone else could have done a better job with the score, but I'm aware of many people who never knew Chaplin wrote ANY of his own music and were genuinely surprised to hear it woven into the score of the film. Indeed, I know people who didn't know he wrote "Smile" before seeing this movie!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Marilyn
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:53 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 8210 Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
I haven't seen Chaplin, but I'm moved to for Downey's performance.

_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bocce
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:08 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 24 May 2004 Posts: 2428
i caught MODERN TIMES on tcm earlier this morning...

while still a silent in 1936, what really struck me was the radical difference in acting style between the real silent era stars and the post sound actors.

this is particularly apparent in paulette goddard's role. goddard really never did silents. her style evolved from soundstage acting. while chaplin remains the master of nuanced gesture, goddard's approach drops that necessary accoutrement of the silent film and, thus, appears more modern particularly in speech patterns.

what i mean here is: in pre sound silent acting there is a tendency to overwork the facial muscles when doing dialogue particularly when there was an intertitle (as tho the audience needed to lip read). with goddard, that artifice is gone and speech patterns seem more naturalistic.

maybe it's just me or maybe it's just this film or actress but, i swear, it comes across as a real definable change in acting style.
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:38 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Thanksgiving and Silents

The scene: a windy, desolate plain. Mist rolls over the moors, and a solitary bird caws in the distance.

A lone woman steps out of the shadows. Average height, in a tidy tweed suit, comfortable loafers, and a bun, she could have just stepped out of a Miss Marple mystery. She walks center stage, hits a mark, looks up.

"It's Thanksgiving," she starts, clears her throat for attention, then continues.

"The holiday starts in a couple of days, and Mama Wakasa turns 80 the following Monday, so I won't be around.

"What we've decided to do is to pause the calendar onthe Silents Forum. This gives people who have been waiting on Netflix deliveries have a chance to catch up on movies and mull over them, and everyone has a chance to digest their turkey and find the two SHEIK films. (Plus a couple of friends have a chance to check in and join the board.) We'll start up again with THE SHEIK / SON OF THE SHEIK on Monday, December 5th."

A pause.

"In the meantime, here are some other suggestions for silents:

"TCM will show a slew of Harold Lloyds on Nov 20th, starting at 8 pm (and some Lubitsch and Marx Bros earlier in the day). On Nov 27th, it's Lillian Gish in La Boheme at midnight (with quite a few other nonsilent goodies throughout the day). On Dec 4th, it's The Rag Man, with Jackie Cooper, and Exit Smiling, with Beatrice Lillie and Jack Pickford, Brother of Mary. Introductions by the ever-entertaining Robert Osborne. See "schedule" at http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/

"Kino sale: at the end of each year, Kino has a 25-30% sale of their video catalog. This isn't just silents, and it's not a bad way to pick up some gifts. www.kino.com

"Silent Clowns: this may be cutting it a bit close, but the Silent Clowns Film Series in NYC ends on December 4th with a showing of Laurel and Hardy films. (Actually, tomorrow they're doing Raymond Griffith, Lupino Lane and Lloyd Hamilton, comedians all.) Depending on timing, maybe the NYC folks can meet up for the showing... http://www.silentclowns.com/"
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:42 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
bocce wrote:
i caught MODERN TIMES on tcm earlier this morning...

while still a silent in 1936, what really struck me was the radical difference in acting style between the real silent era stars and the post sound actors.

this is particularly apparent in paulette goddard's role. goddard really never did silents. her style evolved from soundstage acting. while chaplin remains the master of nuanced gesture, goddard's approach drops that necessary accoutrement of the silent film and, thus, appears more modern particularly in speech patterns.

what i mean here is: in pre sound silent acting there is a tendency to overwork the facial muscles when doing dialogue particularly when there was an intertitle (as tho the audience needed to lip read). with goddard, that artifice is gone and speech patterns seem more naturalistic.

maybe it's just me or maybe it's just this film or actress but, i swear, it comes across as a real definable change in acting style.


I'm about to get kicked off this machine, but really quickly: If you look at Gloria Swanson's first talkie vs. Sunset Blvd, you'll notice the same thing. In the first few years of the talkies, there was a basic scramble to figure out just how to use sound (and it's not unfair at all to say that films probably lost about 10 years of advances due to the technical change), but 1936 is reasonable (at least in the US) for people to have started to get some facility with the new medium

I also don't think it's coincidence that musicals were some of the first sound pictures to be made (and we're all really fortunate that Ernst Lubitsch was making some of the first sound pictures.

Okay, gotta post before I lose this.
View user's profile Send private message
lady wakasa
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:25 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 5911 Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
bocce wrote:
what i mean here is: in pre sound silent acting there is a tendency to overwork the facial muscles when doing dialogue particularly when there was an intertitle (as tho the audience needed to lip read). with goddard, that artifice is gone and speech patterns seem more naturalistic.


BTW, a lot of time the audience was lipreading. Not hard to do - if you existed solely on a diet of silents, you would probably pick up some ability in that direction as well. If you watch Wings, I think it's Charles Rogers who clearly says, "Bastard!" during one of the dogfight scenes. And several stars clearly went through the silent version of the FCC's seven dirty words. (I'm not sure how often they were caught.)

You might want to check alt.movies.silent - there's a thread called "Who Has the Filthiest Mouth in Silent Movies ?" (The answer seems to be, "Go see What Price Glory?").

There's a movie (oh, I'm forgetting which one - maybe The Fighting Eagle?), based on a French story, in which the cast had to speak French dialogue. (They didn't have to understand what they were saying, but they had to speak it.) If I can find the tape, I'll try to get more information on this.

Okay, I really need to go now.
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 28 of 61
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 59, 60, 61  Next
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum