Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin

Considering that Sir Richard Attenborough had one of the
classic rags to riches tale to tell and botched it up big time
by representing one of the premiere artists of the 20th century
as a moody, insufferable bore, I don't feel that it's a great plus
that there are 'easter eggs' of cast members from "Chaplin"
talking of their experience of being involved in a failed film
experience.

Gary J.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 14, 2:07 am, "Rollo" <garyjohnson... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Considering that Sir Richard Attenborough had one of the
> classic rags to riches tale to tell and botched it up big time
> by representing one of the premiere artists of the 20th century
> as a moody, insufferable bore, I don't feel that it's a great plus
> that there are 'easter eggs' of cast members from "Chaplin"
> talking of their experience of being involved in a failed film
> experience.
>

>From stories I've heard, Chaplin was many things. And among them, he
frequently WAS moody AND insufferable. I never got the impression
(either from those stories or from Downey's performance) that he was a
bore.

As to 'Chaplin' being a "failed film" well, we've been through that
before. What I'll say again is that my personal experience is that for
every person who knew a bit about Chaplin beforehand and saw it as
"flawed" there were 2 or 3 or so who knew nothing about Chaplin who
were motivated to seek out his films as a result of watching
Attenborough's biopic. I consider that to be a measure of some
success. Was 'Chaplin' less than it could have been? Sure. What film
isn't?

Again from my personal experience, some of the most meaningful lessons
have come out of involvement in projects that were less than totally
successful. To me, it has been a "great plus" in my life to have had
access to interesting personalities in the context of attempts that
have "failed" to achieve all that they might have. To each his own.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

David,
This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
I read many critics that raved over his performance
but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.

And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
featuring Betty Hutton.
That movie lost me right then and there.

You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."

Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
I guess I'm just persnickery about this.

Gary J.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 14, 10:51 am, "Rollo" <garyjohnson....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David,
> This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> I read many critics that raved over his performance
> but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> featuring Betty Hutton.
> That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>

Oh please! Don't mention CHAPLIN and THE BUSTER KEATON STORY in the
same breath. CHAPLIN was as factually accurate as any screen
biography I've ever seen. KEATON was a complete fiction.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

Too late!
I mentioned it.
Neither film brings to the screen the true essence
of the performer so both films fail--factual or not.

Gary J.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 14, 10:51 am, "Rollo" <garyjohnson... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> David,
> This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> I read many critics that raved over his performance
> but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> featuring Betty Hutton.
> That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."

As I said before, for you and others who already knew something about
Chaplin the film didn't work very well. But also as I said, it served
to motivate many to do just what you say, that is go on to "discover
this versatile performer in his original milieu." Now, you may wish
that something else motivated them to get there. Personally, I don't
care what it is that kicks 'em in the ass to get their seats in the
seats in front of the original works. I don't even care if it was
Hollywood Babylon, as long as for whatever reason a new audience is
led to "discover" the delight and value to be had in the original
films of these great artists.

>
> Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> Gary J.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

David Totheroh wrote:

>But also as I said, it served to motivate
>many to do just what you say, that is go
>on to "discover this versatile performer in
>his original milieu."

Gary, David appeared in the film and that's why he defends it.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

"Rollo" <garyjohnson321 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176573111.673226.295620@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> David,
> This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> I read many critics that raved over his performance
> but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> featuring Betty Hutton.
> That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>
> Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> Gary J.
>
I posted some thoughts on it here back in June. You can read my thoughts on
the film on my blog http://filmreel.blogspot.com
Check out the June 2006 archives for the post called "Chaplin (1992)" if
you're interested, but I won't repost them here. I would also do a Google
Groups search for the whole discussion.

--
___
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 14, 12:51 pm, "Rollo" <garyjohnson... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> David,
> This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> I read many critics that raved over his performance
> but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> featuring Betty Hutton.
> That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>
> Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> Gary J.

Why "especially Keaton's"? Keaton had a relatively happy childhood
which
doesn't have a lot of dramatic possibilities, a fairly smooth career
development
until he landed at MGM, a long period of relative obscurity, and a
late
rediscovery of his work. I don't see a lot of narrative potential
there, except maybe
in his third marriage.

Chaplin's life, on the other hand, has too many dramatic possibilities
for one film,
so Attenborough tried to do too much and ended with a muddle.

Actually, I was relieved that the film wasn't considerably worse.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 14, 10:27 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:51 pm, "Rollo" <garyjohnson....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > David,
> > This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> > I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> > the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> > pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> > I read many critics that raved over his performance
> > but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> > And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> > set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> > That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> > featuring Betty Hutton.
> > That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> > You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> > Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> > in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> > I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> > Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> > nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>
> > Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> > lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> > I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> > Gary J.
>
> Why "especially Keaton's"? Keaton had a relatively happy childhood
> which
> doesn't have a lot of dramatic possibilities, a fairly smooth career
> development
> until he landed at MGM, a long period of relative obscurity, and a
> late
> rediscovery of his work. I don't see a lot of narrative potential
> there, except maybe
> in his third marriage.
>
> Chaplin's life, on the other hand, has too many dramatic possibilities
> for one film,
> so Attenborough tried to do too much and ended with a muddle.
>
> Actually, I was relieved that the film wasn't considerably worse.
>
> Connie K.

Were you in it too? ;-)
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

Someday someone needs to make a true film
recreation of the heyday of American Vaudeville.
Not the MGM musical versions where all everyone
wants to do is reach the Palace but WWI always
breaks out on their opening night. I'm thinking of
tales of the boards that every entertainer of that era
either recollected or put down in writing.

Tops among them for me would be Rudy Blesh's "Keaton."
Yes, I would agree that Keaton had a happy childhood
but it was also very unconventionable and in Blesh's
recreation, very colorful. Every subsequent biographers
of Keaton tries to downplay these tales and say they
were probably exagerated or they just dismiss them outright
because they can't find a newspaper article to corroborate
the fact that a small child was lifted out of a Kansas
boarding house and deposited safely in the street a mile
down the road.

These biographers miss the total essence of Keaton's
film work because factual or not his work is rife with
autobiographical references to his vaudeville childhood,
just as Chaplin's work is mainly a reference to his Victorian
childhood.

A history of Vaudeville could be told by following the Keaton's
act. The star of this tale wouldn't be Buster but his dad, Joe.
Starting out in medicine shows the Two Keatons enter vaudeville
in it's infancy. With the birth of Buster the act becomes the
Three Keatons and within 5 years they've hit the bigtime only
to eventually end up back in the smalltime after Joe feuds
with upper management. (A career arc that his subsequent
film career would take) In between that time are Joe's constant
attempts at publicity for the act, their fights with the Gerry
Society,
train wrecks, summers spent at the Actors Colony in Michigan
and the constant parade of acts as witnessed by the young Buster.

Gary J.
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 15, 2:26 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:27 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
>
>
>
>
> <constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 12:51 pm, "Rollo" <garyjohnson... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > David,
> > > This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> > > I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> > > the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> > > pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> > > I read many critics that raved over his performance
> > > but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> > > And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> > > set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> > > That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> > > featuring Betty Hutton.
> > > That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> > > You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> > > Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> > > in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> > > I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> > > Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> > > nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>
> > > Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> > > lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> > > I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> > > Gary J.
>
> > Why "especially Keaton's"? Keaton had a relatively happy childhood
> > which
> > doesn't have a lot of dramatic possibilities, a fairly smooth career
> > development
> > until he landed at MGM, a long period of relative obscurity, and a
> > late
> > rediscovery of his work. I don't see a lot of narrative potential
> > there, except maybe
> > in his third marriage.
>
> > Chaplin's life, on the other hand, has too many dramatic possibilities
> > for one film,
> > so Attenborough tried to do too much and ended with a muddle.
>
> > Actually, I was relieved that the film wasn't considerably worse.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> Were you in it too? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope -- she has no excuse.

(For the record, the Chaplin biopic STEEEEEENKS!!!!!)

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin 

On Apr 15, 1:26 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:27 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
>
>
> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 12:51 pm, "Rollo" <garyjohnson....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > David,
> > > This may have been hashed out before but not by me.
> > > I get that Chaplin was many things in life so why did
> > > the film concentrate on Downey continually looking
> > > pensive into the camera with his eyes all sullen?
> > > I read many critics that raved over his performance
> > > but to me it looked one-note. Like he needed a fix.
>
> > > And that scene when he first appears on a Mack Sennett
> > > set and begins doing tricks making the film crew laugh!!
> > > That is straight out of a Paramount 40's biography
> > > featuring Betty Hutton.
> > > That movie lost me right then and there.
>
> > > You say it was worth it if the movie attracked new fans?
> > > Not for me. Let them discover this versatile performer
> > > in his original milieu rather than this pale unversatile copy.
> > > I don't want this movie representing Chaplin, nor do I want
> > > Keaton being represented by "The Buster Keaton Story"
> > > nor Fields by "W.C. Fields and Me."
>
> > > Somewhere there are great movies to be made from these
> > > lives (especially Keaton's) but these aren't it.
> > > I guess I'm just persnickery about this.
>
> > > Gary J.
>
> > Why "especially Keaton's"? Keaton had a relatively happy childhood
> > which
> > doesn't have a lot of dramatic possibilities, a fairly smooth career
> > development
> > until he landed at MGM, a long period of relative obscurity, and a
> > late
> > rediscovery of his work. I don't see a lot of narrative potential
> > there, except maybe
> > in his third marriage.
>
> > Chaplin's life, on the other hand, has too many dramatic possibilities
> > for one film,
> > so Attenborough tried to do too much and ended with a muddle.
>
> > Actually, I was relieved that the film wasn't considerably worse.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> Were you in it too? ;-)

Certainly not! Why else would I say it was a muddle? :-)
 >> Stay informed about: Anthony Hopkins on Chaplin