"Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography)

George Shelps wrote:
> I am not citing Steffens as being in agreement with my thesis. I am
> merely
> quoting his observation of Chaplin's
> anger and resentment.
>
No, what you said was:
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.

He's not alarmed. He understands CC completely.
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

shushfilmseznospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com (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..

I don't think China---which now has
a stock market, fer Gawd's sake---any
longer qualifies as a communist country.

I would call it authoritarian now. It's
much more like Japan was before WW2,
with a great deal of central control,
but allowing private enterprise.

Still dangerous, though.

But knowing of the likely consequences
to follow on an invasion of Taiwan,
I don't think it will risk a takeover.

North Korea is another story. The best
thing that can happen there--as in Cuba--
is the death of the dictator, Without
the fanatics in charge, I think North
and South Korea could reunify.


>. 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?

I don't know what will happen then.

But I don't think the confrontation will
be an ideological one.


>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.

I think Bush has made it clear that
this is not a war against Islam.


> 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.

I agree. But the example of a relatively
democratic Iraq with a reduced US
presence will give lie to this charge.







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

George Shelps wrote:
> rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com
>
> > No, what you said was:
> > 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.
>
> > He's not alarmed. He understands CC
> >completely.
>
> He sounded "alarmed" to me....but
> let's say I am wrong about that...what
> Steffens thought is separate from the
> behavior and he observed and reported.

No, it's not. Everyone has their reasons, Jean Renoir used to say.
You prefer to see Chaplin's "reasons" and behavior separately, when
they are fully intertwined.

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

George Shelps wrote:
> I don't think China---which now has
> a stock market, fer Gawd's sake---any
> longer qualifies as a communist country.
>
> I would call it authoritarian now. It's
> much more like Japan was before WW2,
> with a great deal of central control,
> but allowing private enterprise.

Or like Iraq under Saddam: authoritarian, with centralized control,
but with private enterprise.

George, how can you possibly whitewash a communist regime that
withholds basic human rights from over a billion people?

I never thought I'd see the day when *I'm* more of an anti-communist
hardliner than you are!



> > 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.
>
> I agree. But the example of a relatively
> democratic Iraq with a reduced US
> presence will give lie to this charge.

Oh-oh. Now we're fighting to make Iraq only "relatively" democratic?
And our troops won't get to go home eventually, their presence will
simply become "reduced"? Is this only your own viewpoint, or have you
just revealed the new party line?



--Shush--
Looking Forward to the '06 Elections
 >> Stay informed about: "Citizen Chaplin" (a definitive mini-psychobiography) 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

> Productive discussion results in both parties learning something from the
> exchange of information and ideas. When has that ever happened in a
> "discussion" with George?


Well, I have to give him some credit. One thing he constantly points
out is that while Chaplin was fiercely opposed to right-wing
totalitarianism, he was conspicuously quiet about the left-wing
variety. It's true.

George interprets that silence as support, which I think is a real
stretch, but he does have a point about Chaplin's double standard.




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

George Shelps wrote:

>
> 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.
>
Isolation? From Steffens in 1964:

"[I was given] the feeling of a house full of children, full of life
and humanity..."
And of Chaplin he wrote, "He looked marvelous. Vigorous, groomed,
genial, in a beautiful, dark-blue, satiny housejacked, his skin
freckled and youthful, his step bouncy, he came striding towards us
smiling broadly, his blue eyes large and free, phrases of welcome
bubbling around his grin. He gave me an immediate sense of
strength..."

That sure doesn't sound like CITIZEN CHAPLIN to me.

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

bachusio.TakeThisOut@rogers.com
wrote:

>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.

No, he blamed society for being cruel.

>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?

Chaplin had no problems with how the
Soviets ruled Eastern Europe or hiow
Mao ran China.

>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.

I think that's correct. A 70 year old
mega-millionaire whining about his
childhood is unseemly.

> 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,

No, just in his autobiography.

> 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.

You're right. Chaplin needed to compartmentalize to play a tramp
when he was a rich and powerful
entertainment mogul.

Also, who says that art reflects
the character of the artist? Many
great artists have had bad characters.


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

You're wrong. Shush has alteady
disagreed with me and no name-calling
resulted.







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

rfcsac627n RemoveThis @aol.com

>    No, what you said was:
>  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.

>    He's not alarmed. He understands CC
>completely.

He sounded "alarmed" to me....but
let's say I am wrong about that...what
Steffens thought is separate from the
behavior and he observed and reported.
I am concerned with the latter..







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

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

> Shush writes:
> > One thing he constantly points
> > out is that while Chaplin was fiercely opposed to right-wing
> > totalitarianism, he was conspicuously quiet about the left-wing
> > variety. It's true.
>
> I think this makes more sense if one sees it in context. There was a
> lot of anti-Communist rhetoric vented in the right-wing press in the
> thirties, forties, and fifties. Chaplin being a contrarian by nature,
> I wouldn't expect him to join in the chorus, even if he did have some
> doubts about Communist regimes.

But there was even more anti-Nazi rhetoric at the time, especially
in the post-Kristallnacht era that gave rise to THE GREAT DICTATOR.
Chaplin wasn't a contrarian about Nazism (to his credit), but he seemed
willing to give the Soviets the benefit of the doubt.

You mention he had some doubt about the communist regimes. I'd love
to agree with you about that, but I'm not aware of any evidence to
support it. Are you?



> There was a line in one draft if the _Dictator_ speech which explicitly
> rejected all "isms," and I think that comes closest to the spirit of
> Chaplin's attitude.

I wish he'd left that line in!



> He was leftist by inclination, but he wasn't an
> ideologue or joiner.

That's how I see him, too.



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

George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >>He sounded "alarmed" to me....but
> >>let's say I am wrong about that...what
> >>Steffens thought is separate from the
> >>behavior and he observed and reported.
>
> > No, it's not. Everyone has their
> >reasons, Jean Renoir used to say. You
> >prefer to see Chaplin's "reasons" and
> >behavior separately, when they are fully
> >intertwined.
>
> Whether or not I believe Chaplin's
> lifelong resentments are justifiable
> (I do not, just for the record) is separate
> from the existence of those resentments--which I maintain play
> a major role in Chaplin's political
> and social views and his identification
> with a character like the Tramp.
>

I wouldn't disagree with you--except for the justifiable part, of
course.

> But Chaplin's artistic talent transforms
> these base materials and produces
> a sublime cinematic effect---and his resentment and anger is transmuted
> into art.

That's true. If he hadn't been a genius he might have been a
criminal.

> The problem with you and the other
> Chaplin idolaters and jihadists here
> is that you maintain the childish
> notion that the humanism in Chaplin's
> art necessarily reflects a benevolent dimension in the man himself.
>
Oh, well. And we were getting along so well.
First you say CC's films reflect the man; then you say they don't.
Make up your mind. And as far as being benevolent is concerned: you
haven't exactly been a steaming pile of benevolence over the years,
have you, George?

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

George Shelps wrote:

> Of course, Dr Kuriyama prides herself
> on her factual precision, but can she
> give us a list of the organs of the
> "right wing press" during the 30s, 40s,
> and 50s? The Washington Post maybe?
> The New York Times perhaps?


I can give her a head start. SOCIAL JUSTICE (late 1930s-early 1940s)
was extremely anti-communist. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE was definitely a
right-wing paper, and most if not all of the Hearst papers were archly
anti-communist from around 1935 onward.




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

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> >Oh-oh. Now we're fighting to make
> >Iraq only "relatively" democratic?
>
> Of course...do you expect it to be
> a Jeffersonian democracy?

Well, yes, that's what Bush has been telling us his goal was. Are
you saying he's been lying to us?



> > And our troops won't get to go home
> >eventually, their presence will simply
> >become "reduced"?
>
> I expect that we will main a base there
> just as we did in Europe. I hope for it.

And if a "free and democratic Iraq" is against that, what then? Tell
the Iraqis that our promises of self-determination were all a con?



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

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>He sounded "alarmed" to me....but
>>let's say I am wrong about that...what
>>Steffens thought is separate from the
>>behavior and he observed and reported.

>    No, it's not. Everyone has their
>reasons, Jean Renoir used to say. You
>prefer to see Chaplin's "reasons" and
>behavior separately, when they are fully
>intertwined.

Whether or not I believe Chaplin's
lifelong resentments are justifiable
(I do not, just for the record) is separate
from the existence of those resentments--which I maintain play
a major role in Chaplin's political
and social views and his identification
with a character like the Tramp.

But Chaplin's artistic talent transforms
these base materials and produces
a sublime cinematic effect---and his resentment and anger is transmuted
into art.

The problem with you and the other
Chaplin idolaters and jihadists here
is that you maintain the childish
notion that the humanism in Chaplin's
art necessarily reflects a benevolent dimension in the man himself.







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