"Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography)

shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:

>>He both resented and envied William
>>Randolph Hearst on various levels.
>>By stealing Hearst's mistress, he
>>expressed the resentment.

>      Taking a mistress isn't an expression
>of resentment, it's an act of desire.

In this case, I think there was a competitive desire---envy--to
have Hearst's prize possession.

>Marion Davies wasn't with Chaplin for
>very long,

Makes my point that it was just an
ego game for CC.

> and she remained with Hearst
>before, during and after their affair, so
>how did Chaplin "steal" her?

>>By transforming himself into a
>>Hearst-like plutocrat as he aged, he
>>expressed the envy.

>      Chaplin was wealthy and (if only in
>the movie business) powerful, but that
>happened years before he ever met
>Hearst. Where's the envy?

His wealth at that point was dwarfed
by Hearst's.

>>He especially resented Hearst's
>>imperious manner, a trait many have
>>ascribed to Chaplin.

>      According to the definitive Nasaw
>biography, which you probably haven't
>read, Hearst did not have an "imperious
>manner."

But according to Chaplin, he did--at
least on that day. It's what CC believed
that influenced him,


> He was actually pretty shy and
>reclusive, and although he welcomed
>many celebrities to San Simeon between
>about 1927-1937, most of them were
>invited at Marion's request.

>>Thus, in many ways, CC was "Citizen
>>Chaplin."

>      Thus, in many ways, your pet theory
>is deeply flawed.

Even though CC himself acknowledges
that no other person made a greater
impression on him than Hearst?

> But at least it's a lot
>more compact than the zany theories
>your friend Lloyd puts out.

I think his '"Sennett's rage" theory is
both compact and brilliant.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > Chaplin was wealthy and (if only in
> >the movie business) powerful, but that
> >happened years before he ever met
> >Hearst. Where's the envy?
>
> His wealth at that point was dwarfed
> by Hearst's.

But envy doesn't necessarily follow from that. So again: where's the
envy? We don't see Chaplin attempting to build a lavish estate (a la
Harold Lloyd), or a sprawling business empire. What specific historical
evidence can you point to that shows Chaplin was consumed with envy?



> >>He especially resented Hearst's
> >>imperious manner, a trait many have
> >>ascribed to Chaplin.
>
> > According to the definitive Nasaw
> >biography, which you probably haven't
> >read, Hearst did not have an "imperious
> >manner."
>
> But according to Chaplin, he did--at
> least on that day.

But the way Chaplin tells the story, Hearst simply blew up in
frustration over Chaplin's knee-jerk contrarianism ("If I say it's
white, you say it's black!"). If you read the anecdote to the end, you
see that Chaplin's resentment over Hearst's manner disappeared almost
immediately, that he and Hearst apologized to each other, and that the
friendship went on.

I'm more pro-Chaplin than you are, but even I can see that Chaplin
was being the pain in the butt that day, not Hearst.



> > Thus, in many ways, your pet theory
> >is deeply flawed.
>
> Even though CC himself acknowledges
> that no other person made a greater
> impression on him than Hearst?

Your theory assumes that what Chaplin was impressed by were Hearst's
power and possessions. That's not necessarily true. It could have been
the man's charm, intelligence, taste, hospitality, or any combination
of such things.

Like Douglas Fairbanks (Chaplin's best friend at the time), Hearst
had a magnetic personality. The Nasaw biography shows that he had a
dynamic energy even in his teenage years, before he had any wealth of
his own or any business interests at all.




--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:
> I have posted and reposted this several times over the years. Here it
> is again:
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Chaplin himself" is an elusive topic that not even Chaplin himself was
> able to capture in "My Autobiography."
>
> He both resented and envied William Randolph Hearst on various levels.
>
> By stealing Hearst's mistress, he expressed the resentment.
>
> By transforming himself into a Hearst-like plutocrat as he aged, he
> expressed the envy.
>
> He especially resented Hearst's imperious manner, a trait many have
> ascribed to Chaplin. He angrily denounced him in these words:
>
>
> "Who does he think he is? Nero?
> Napoleon?" (pg. 315, MA)
>
>
>
> These were personae lurking in Chaplin.
>
> (Recall the photo of CC as Bonaparte and the ballet with the globe in
> GD:
>
> "Aut Caesar, aut Nullus, Emperor of the
> World."
>
>
> (Tim Durant, Chaplin's personal assistant, commented, "he's very
> self-centered, he's very egocentric. He's like Hitler, he wants to
> dominate and possess.")
>
> Stealing Marion had deep significance for him on all these levels, for:
>
> "If I were asked what personality in my life has made the deepest
> impression on me, I would say the late William Randolph
> Hearst." (pg. 308, MA)
>
> Thus, in many ways, CC was "Citizen Chaplin."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."

'He both resented and envied William Randolph Hearst---'
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

shushfilmseznospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:


>      But envy doesn't necessarily follow
>rom that. So again: where's the envy?
>We don't see Chaplin attempting to build
>a lavish estate (a la Harold Lloyd), or a
>sprawling business empire.

Lloyd didn't own his own studio or
have a major share in a film distribution
corporation. Chaplin was a genuine
media mogul----though not on Hearst's
level.

He didn't own a San Simeon but he
was certainly one of the wealthiest
entertainers of his time.


> What specific historical evidence can
>you point to that shows Chaplin was
>consumed with envy?

I don't have a copy of a psychiatric
evaluation, since that's what you seem
to be asking for...but I think he was
resentful of wealth and privilege yet
wanted to achieve it for himself---never
feeling secure at any time because
of this all-consuming desire to "get
even."

If you ever read the Ramparts article
by Peter Steffens, which I think is
very revealing, the author is alarmed
by the fact of Chaplin blistering
resentment about his past suffering
even in his 70s and wondered what
he was still getting even with.

Sydney Chaplin has also said that
his father was consumed by a sense
of hostile insecurity even though he
had "made it."


I think this was all symptomatic of a
festering sense of envy and resentment
that wealth alone could not cure.

>      I'm more pro-Chaplin than you are,

I am not anti-Chaplin. and I have been too tough on him here,
when he was actually no worse than
most talented artists.

My over-reaction is the resut of the
repellent behavior of certain
posters in this group when confronted
with opinions they dislike.

I have felt compelled at times to
overdo it against old Charlie when it
is really his jihadists here whom
I find so objectionable.

>but even I can see that Chaplin was
>being the pain in the butt that day, not
>Hearst.

Maybe so, but I am only interested in
the impact on Chaplin.


>      Your theory assumes that what
>Chaplin was impressed by were Hearst's
>power and possessions. That's not
>necessarily true. It could have been the
>man's charm, intelligence,
>taste,>hospitality, or any combination of
>such things.

Chaplin said flat-out that ~no one~
had made a greater impression on
him than Hearst.

And if if we look at Chaplin's later
greater and greater wealth and isolation,
we can see the Hearst pattern.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > What specific historical evidence can
> >you point to that shows Chaplin was
> >consumed with envy?
>
> I don't have a copy of a psychiatric
> evaluation, since that's what you seem
> to be asking for...

It's not. I'm just asking for evidence from the biographical record
that would convince anyone (other than yourself) that Chaplin was full
of envy.



> but I think he was
> resentful of wealth and privilege yet
> wanted to achieve it for himself---never
> feeling secure at any time because
> of this all-consuming desire to "get
> even."
>
> If you ever read the Ramparts article
> by Peter Steffens, which I think is
> very revealing, the author is alarmed
> by the fact of Chaplin blistering
> resentment about his past suffering
> even in his 70s and wondered what
> he was still getting even with.

Maybe if Steffens had grown up cold and hungry in a slum, he'd
understand how that would leave a lasting mark on a person. I think his
"alarm" is more revealing of Steffens than of Chaplin.



> Sydney Chaplin has also said that
> his father was consumed by a sense
> of hostile insecurity even though he
> had "made it."

Come on now. "Hostile" isn't Sydney's term, it's yours.



> I think this was all symptomatic of a
> festering sense of envy and resentment
> that wealth alone could not cure.

You started out claiming he had envy and resentment against Hearst.
Now it's envy and resentment against everyone?

Well, anyway, I think we can put the latest edition of "Citizen
Chaplin" to bed now. Maybe its next appearance will win you a convert.
You're about 0-4 so far, I'm afraid.



> I am not anti-Chaplin. and I have been too tough on him here,
> when he was actually no worse than
> most talented artists.
>
> My over-reaction is the resut of the
> repellent behavior of certain
> posters in this group when confronted
> with opinions they dislike.
>
> I have felt compelled at times to
> overdo it against old Charlie when it
> is really his jihadists here whom
> I find so objectionable.

But you find them stimulating, too, don't you? We have that effect
on you. Admit it. And you have that effect on us, too.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:

> If you ever read the Ramparts article
> by Peter Steffens, which I think is
> very revealing, the author is alarmed
> by the fact of Chaplin blistering
> resentment about his past suffering
> even in his 70s and wondered what
> he was still getting even with.
>

Absolutely not true. Here is the paragraph from RAMPARTS:

"Later in the visit, Chaplin summed up his feelings about Victorian
England, the country and time of his birth, in one word: >cruel<.
'Victorian England was a cruel place,' he said. 'It was a pitiless
time.' And again, speaking of his having arranged for the financial
security of his children: "Thank GOD, they are taken care of, and won't
have to go through..." He thumped the arm of his chair and even now, at
75, and here, on this 37-acre estate, anger rose into his cheeks. What
was he still getting even with?"
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> >You started out claiming he had envy
> >and resentment against Hearst. Now it's
> >envy and resentment against everyone?
>
> Hearst was a useful emotional symbol for him but I think Chaplin did
> indeed resent
> other peoples' wealth and status.

If your hypothesis was that Chaplin remained haunted by his early
years of privation, long after he became financially secure, I'd be
agreeing with you. There are plenty of examples to support that thesis.
But to conflate that insecurity into a lifelong stew of envy is
something else again.



> >Well, anyway, I think we can put the
> >latest edition of "Citizen Chaplin" to bed
> >now. Maybe its next appearance will win
> >you a convert. You're about 0-4 so far,
> >I'm afraid.
>
> With you? Yes. But I didn't post it to
> convince my entrenched opponents.
>
> And I don't think you effectively refuted
> it by your slapdash objections.

Well, I went easy on you this time. :)

And if there's a chorus of agreement with you out there, it's a
pretty quiet one. All I'm hearing are crickets in the distance.



> >>I have felt compelled at times to
> >>overdo it against old Charlie when it
> >>is really his jihadists here whom
> >>I find so objectionable.
>
> > But you find them stimulating, too,
> >don't you?
> > We have that effect on you. Admit it.
> >And you have that effect on us, too.
>
> "We?" "Us?" Do you wish me to group
> you with the slanderers, the smear
> artists, and slurmongers of amc?

No, by "we" and "us" I meant the folks that argue with you all the
time, even though we never change your mind and you never change ours.



> I used to term them the "Chaplinistas,"
> now I term them Chaplin jihadists.

Well, naturally. The right wing stopped believing the commies were
out to get us; now it's the Muslims. Your terminology here echoes that.



--Shush--
George Shelps' Loyal Opposition Since 1998
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
> George Shelps wrote:
>
> > If you ever read the Ramparts article
> > by Peter Steffens, which I think is
> > very revealing, the author is alarmed
> > by the fact of Chaplin blistering
> > resentment about his past suffering
> > even in his 70s and wondered what
> > he was still getting even with.
> >
>
> Absolutely not true. Here is the paragraph from RAMPARTS:
>
> "Later in the visit, Chaplin summed up his feelings about Victorian
> England, the country and time of his birth, in one word: >cruel<.
> 'Victorian England was a cruel place,' he said. 'It was a pitiless
> time.' And again, speaking of his having arranged for the financial
> security of his children: "Thank GOD, they are taken care of, and won't
> have to go through..." He thumped the arm of his chair and even now, at
> 75, and here, on this 37-acre estate, anger rose into his cheeks. What
> was he still getting even with?"

BTW, Steffens spends the next nine paragraphs answering his own
question, ending with, "Reading these experiences of his boyhood late
that night [from MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY], gave me entirely new eyes."

I won't call you a liar, George, but you are completely disingeneous.

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> >The right wing
> >stopped believing the commies were out
> >to get us;
>
> Because we defeated the commies.

Another case of declaring "Mission Accomplished" too soon. If the
Chinese make a move on Taiwan, or the North Koreans do something crazy,
we could be at war in a heartbeat... a *real* war that'd make Iraq look
like a chess match.

What happens ten or twenty years from now, when the US and China are
thirsty enough for the world's declining oil reserves to get into a
shoving match that neither side's willing to back down from?



> >now it's the Muslims. Your terminology
> >here echoes that.
>
> Nope. I respect Islam. I am referiing
> only to the extremists.

I hope your compatriots in the right wing are willing to clarify
that as well as you did. Al-Qaeda is telling the Arab world that we're
all "Crusaders," at war with Islam. The xenophobic rhetoric that
filters out of our media plays right into the terrorists' hands.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

shush wrote:

>Maybe if Steffens had grown up cold and
>hungry in a slum, he'd understand how
>that would leave a lasting mark on a
>person. I think his "alarm" is more
>revealing of Steffens than of Chaplin.

Maybe so, but some people with equally
distressing histories don't go through
life lamenting them.

However, justifiable or not, Chaplin
did hold a lifelong grudge and that's my
point.

>You started out claiming he had envy
>and resentment against Hearst. Now it's
>envy and resentment against everyone?
  
Hearst was a useful emotional symbol for him but I think Chaplin did
indeed resent
other peoples' wealth and status. He exempted himself because he was
(a)
a genius (b) entitled by virtue of economic
suffering in his early lfe.

    
>Well, anyway, I think we can put the
>latest edition of "Citizen Chaplin" to bed
>now. Maybe its next appearance will win
>you a convert. You're about 0-4 so far,
>I'm afraid.

With you? Yes. But I didn't post it to
convince my entrenched opponents.

And I don't think you effectively refuted
it by your slapdash objections.

>>I have felt compelled at times to
>>overdo it against old Charlie when it
>>is really his jihadists here whom
>>I find so objectionable.


>      But you find them stimulating, too,
>don't you?

No

> We have that effect on you. Admit it.
>And you have that effect on us, too.

"We?" "Us?" Do you wish me to group
you with the slanderers, the smear
artists, and slurmongers of amc?

I used to term them the "Chaplinistas,"
now I term them Chaplin jihadists.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZz--yawn--

Oh yeah, if Chaplin cops to the truth that his childhood was cruel
as an old man sitting on his estate, he's filled with resentment and
envy.
Because to assert that society should be ruled by principles other than
those
stemming from corporate-military hegemony means you are 'envious',
'resentful'.
trying to start 'class warfare'. Sound familiar?

Yep, Charles Chaplin, millionaire, was driven by envy - and as for that
little manner
of a childhood of deprivation and abandonment - he should never have
thought or spoke or felt anything about it - should have got over it
like a man. It wasn't so bad! Couldn't he hear how resentful he
sounded?

But then he spat on the concept of 'honour' all the time, according to
this poster's earlier 'ruminations'.

Are you getting the picture, folks?

Chaplin made intensely personal films, which are the subject of this
newsgroup.
The poster is able somehow to appreciate personal works of art by a man
he describes as envious, resentful, and who 'spat on honour'. Somehow
he's able to compartmentalize, i guess.

And if you disagree with his skewed 'interpretation' of fact he's got a
ready-made derogatory name for ya. Sound familiar, again?

And then if you..........
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZz--yawn--

Oh yeah, if Chaplin cops to the truth that his childhood was cruel
as an old man sitting on his estate, he's filled with resentment and
envy.
Because to assert that society should be ruled by principles other than
those
stemming from corporate-military hegemony means you are 'envious',
'resentful'.
trying to start 'class warfare'. Sound familiar?

Yep, Charles Chaplin, millionaire, was driven by envy - and as for that
little manner
of a childhood of deprivation and abandonment - he should never have
thought or spoke or felt anything about it - should have got over it
like a man. It wasn't so bad! Couldn't he hear how resentful he
sounded?

But then he spat on the concept of 'honour' all the time, according to
this poster's earlier 'ruminations'.

Are you getting the picture, folks?

Chaplin made intensely personal films, which are the subject of this
newsgroup.
The poster is able somehow to appreciate personal works of art by a man
he describes as envious, resentful, and who 'spat on honour'. Somehow
he's able to compartmentalize, i guess.

And if you disagree with his skewed 'interpretation' of fact he's got a
ready-made derogatory name for ya. Sound familiar, again?

And then if you..........
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

Shush wrote:

>>I used to term them the "Chaplinistas,"
>>now I term them Chaplin jihadists.

>      Well, naturally. The right wing
>stopped believing the commies were out
>to get us;

Because we defeated the commies.

>now it's the Muslims. Your terminology
>here echoes that.

Nope. I respect Islam. I am referiing
only to the extremists.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography)