1942 version of Gold Rush

"Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
> I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
> Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
> watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
> stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.

I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.

> The ending in 1925, with Charlie kissing Georgia and the cameraman
> saying, "You've spoiled the picture!" is classic. It's like icing on
> the cake. Yet as you all know, CC inexplicably cuts the ending and
> leaves the audience with Georgia and himself strolling on deck with no
> kiss and a terribly compromised ending. There's no rhyme or reason to
> cutting the kiss and the close up.

The original ending is better, since it ties in with the initial association
of Georgia with picture-taking. The fade out is more understated and tacit.

> Why did Chaplin do this? Georgia doesn't discuss it in her book, nor
> does CC address it in his own Autobiography. Charlie still had cordial
> relations with Georgia when the revised version came out, so it doesn't
> seem logical he cut it because of strained feelings between he and
> Hale. What's the story behind this?

I don't believe it had anything to do with Chaplin's relationship with
Georgia. The re-release of _The Gold Rush_ had several motives, one of which
was financial. Chaplin spent a bundle on _Dictator_, and it was slow to
return his investment because of restricted foreign distribution during
the war.

He decided to prune _The Gold Rush_ to 74 minutes so it could be booked
on double bills, and if you think about it, everything he cut was
inessential--even that final kiss, nice as it is. The basic story
remains intact, and all of the great gag sequences are preserved.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
<do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> "Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
> > I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
> > Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
> > watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
> > stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>
> I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
> can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
> excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.

You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
that horrible narration. :-)

> I don't believe it had anything to do with Chaplin's relationship with
> Georgia.

Doesn't "The Unknown Chaplin" talk about how Charlie's love for Georgia
had cooled by then, causing the removal of the final scene? I think the
answer could well be something like that. According to Georgia, he
MEANT that kiss, so perhaps years later he TOO was evaluating the scene
in terms of real life, and simply thought: "God, I used to feel like
that? Get that out of there!".

> He decided to prune _The Gold Rush_ to 74 minutes so it could be booked
> on double bills, and if you think about it, everything he cut was
> inessential--even that final kiss, nice as it is.

Couldn't disagree more. I'd argue the original ending for "The Gold
Rush" was a perfect emotional wrap-up for the film, and cutting it was
a major mistake.

> The basic story
> remains intact, and all of the great gag sequences are preserved.

Well, you could say the same thing if he had cut out the last scene in
"The Circus" - maybe even "City Lights."

Doug
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

Is there anyone here who prefers the 1942 version to the original
version?
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

Doug Sulpy wrote:

>You and Chaplin might be the only two
>people on Earth who didn't hate that
>horrible narration. :-)

Doug, I'm also guilty as charged of
that "offense.." :)

I think it's fascinating to hear the
creator commenting on his work,
kind of like the DVD commentary of
today---even though it takes the form
of a narrator here.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

On 7 Dec 2004 10:59:33 -0800, "Candace" <ulysses.RemoveThis@mscomm.com> wrote:

>Is there anyone here who prefers the 1942 version to the original
>version?

After 40+ years, I'm still thinking it over. If it was a choice between saving
the last remaining print of either from an inferno, I guess I'd go with the
1925. But the '42 has a lot to recommend it, despite the narration that you
loathe so.
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:45:20 -0800, fromthefifties <> wrote:

>On 7 Dec 2004 10:59:33 -0800, "Candace" <ulysses DeleteThis @mscomm.com> wrote:
>
>>Is there anyone here who prefers the 1942 version to the original
>>version?
>
>After 40+ years, I'm still thinking it over. If it was a choice between saving
>the last remaining print of either from an inferno, I guess I'd go with the
>1925. But the '42 has a lot to recommend it, despite the narration that you
>loathe so.

Those last two posts were from my alter ego.
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

"Chaplin at 52 found Georgia's sudden romantic interest in the Tramp
too implausible, and decided to tone it down."

But Charlie had used this identical ploy previously, when he basically
hijacks Edna at the conclusion of "The Immigrant" and lugs her off to
get a wedding license. At least in "The Gold Rush" he knew Georgia for
a longer period, had danced with her, kissed her hand and conversed
with her (and placed her photo under his pillow... I love that scene!)
His acquaintance with Edna in "The Immigrant" consisted of a little
chat and a meal before the proposed marriage. I think it's more
implausible that he attempts to marry Edna than attempting to marry
Georgia.

Connie, so given your druthers, you'd prefer to watch the 1942 Gold
Rush over the original?
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

Doug Sulpy wrote:
> In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>
>>"Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
>>
>>>I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
>>>Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
>>>watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
>>>stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>>
>>I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
>>can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
>>excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.
>
>
> You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
> that horrible narration. :-)

Make that three.

:-)
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

>From: Smiley Anoniemke888getridofthis.DeleteThis@hotmail.com

>Doug Sulpy wrote:
>> In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
>> <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
>>>
>>>>I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
>>>>Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
>>>>watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
>>>>stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
>>>can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
>>>excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.
>>
>>
>> You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
>> that horrible narration. :-)
>
>Make that three.
>

I've always liked it, too. When I first saw THE GOLD RUSH, almost 40 years
ago, it was the '42 version. Adding narration to silent films was quite
commonplace at the time. SILENTS, PLEASE! had been a hit on television, as had
(gulp) FRACTURED FLICKERS. THE GREAT CHASE was playing in theaters, as was
HAROLD LLOYD'S WORLD OF COMEDY. All were heaving narrated. In fact, seeing
silent movies in their original uncut form was fairly rare.

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:03:31 +0100, Smiley
<Anoniemke888getridofthis.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Doug Sulpy wrote:
>> In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
>> <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
>>>
>>>>I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
>>>>Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
>>>>watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
>>>>stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
>>>can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
>>>excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.
>>
>>
>> You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
>> that horrible narration. :-)
>
>Make that three.
>
>:-)
And four....
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

"Candace" ulysses DeleteThis @mscomm.com writes:

> Is there anyone here who prefers the
> 1942 version to the original version?

Not me (unless you're talking strictly about picture quality).

But oddly enough, Candace, no one complained about it at the time -- not even
James Agee, who considered the 1942 reissue one of the best films of the year.


Tom Moran

"If exchange of ideas and contact with intelligent
minds is what one wants, one had better stay in
New York."
-- W.H. Auden
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>> "Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
>> > I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
>> > Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
>> > watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
>> > stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>>
>> I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
>> can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
>> excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.
>
> You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
> that horrible narration. :-)

Believe it or not, many of us who see that version first find it quite
satisfactory, and are merely pleasantly surprised to discover that there's
a slightly longer one.


>> I don't believe it had anything to do with Chaplin's relationship with
>> Georgia.
>
> Doesn't "The Unknown Chaplin" talk about how Charlie's love for Georgia
> had cooled by then, causing the removal of the final scene? I think the
> answer could well be something like that. According to Georgia, he
> MEANT that kiss, so perhaps years later he TOO was evaluating the scene
> in terms of real life, and simply thought: "God, I used to feel like
> that? Get that out of there!".

It's possible, as are many other conceivable explanations. But I don't
necessarily believe Georgia--especially after reading her book. Brownlow
apparently bought her story.

Some other possibilities:

1. The footage was unusable.
2. Chaplin at 52 was less keen on romantic endings than Chaplin at 36.
3. Ending with a kiss was trite by 1942.
4. Chaplin at 52 found Georgia's sudden romantic interest in the Tramp
too implausible, and decided to tone it down.


>> He decided to prune _The Gold Rush_ to 74 minutes so it could be booked
>> on double bills, and if you think about it, everything he cut was
>> inessential--even that final kiss, nice as it is.
>
> Couldn't disagree more. I'd argue the original ending for "The Gold
> Rush" was a perfect emotional wrap-up for the film, and cutting it was
> a major mistake.
>
>> The basic story
>> remains intact, and all of the great gag sequences are preserved.
>
> Well, you could say the same thing if he had cut out the last scene in
> "The Circus" - maybe even "City Lights."
>
> Doug

In the case of both _Circus_ and _City Lights_, the film would be
incomplete without the ending. Fading out as Charlie and Georgia join
hands and walk away from the camera produces an ending similar to the
endings of _The Tramp_, _The Circus_, and especially _Modern Times_,
though it clearly was not filmed with that intent, because the
composition isn't quite right for that purpose.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush 

RFCSAC627N wrote:
>>From: Smiley Anoniemke888getridofthis DeleteThis @hotmail.com
>
>
>>Doug Sulpy wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cp3tod$d9t$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
>>><do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Candace" (ulysses@mscomm.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure all of us would agree that Chaplins 1942 version of "The Gold
>>>>>Rush" is grossly inferior to the original 1925 version. I can hardly
>>>>>watch the 1942 version and even though I love Chaplin's voice, I can't
>>>>>stand him intruding upon the action with his narration in 1942.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it is *grossly* inferior to the '25 version, though I
>>>>can see reasons to prefer '25. '42 has better visual quality and an
>>>>excellent score, and the narration doesn't bother me.
>>>
>>>
>>>You and Chaplin might be the only two people on Earth who didn't hate
>>>that horrible narration. :-)
>>
>>Make that three.
>>
>
>
> I've always liked it, too. When I first saw THE GOLD RUSH, almost 40 years
> ago, it was the '42 version. Adding narration to silent films was quite
> commonplace at the time. SILENTS, PLEASE! had been a hit on television, as had
> (gulp) FRACTURED FLICKERS. THE GREAT CHASE was playing in theaters, as was
> HAROLD LLOYD'S WORLD OF COMEDY. All were heaving narrated. In fact, seeing
> silent movies in their original uncut form was fairly rare.
>
> Richard Carnahan

The first time I saw The Gold Rush I was four or five but can't remember
if it was the original or not.
The second time was when I bought it on LaserDisc. This turned out to be
the '42 reissue and I must say I was disappointed that it was not the
original (longer; I wondered what was missing) version.
However the picture quality was so much better than I expected.
Therefore it's still one of my favourites.
A couple of years later I saw the original in a 1920's cinema and this
year I bought the DVD with the '25 version as an extra.

:)
 >> Stay informed about: 1942 version of Gold Rush