"Chaplin's Collaborators"

Matt Barry wrote:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:e13h77$gg6$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> > Zenk Jones (zjones@zaux.com) writes:
> >> On 4/5/06 6:33 PM, in article
> >> 1144279988.658254.34290.RemoveThis@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "Matt Barry"
> >> <mbarry1.RemoveThis@towson.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> >>>> "Matt Barry" (mbarry1@towson.edu) writes:
> >>>>> Shush wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a long article that discusses Chaplin's various assistant
> >>>>>> directors in some detail. Buried near the end is a tidbit that David
> >>>>>> T.
> >>>>>> may find amusing:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has anyone ever commented on the fact that many of these "associate
> >>>>> directors" as they were often called (Charles Reisner, Robert Florey)
> >>>>> were usually full-fledged directors on other peoples' films of the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>> period? I've often wondered, watching the films of Harold Lloyd, if
> >>>>> his
> >>>>> directors such as Fred Newmeyer and Sam Taylor weren't more than
> >>>>> "associate directors".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matt
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We'll never know for sure. Filmmaking is a profoundly collaborative
> >>>> business,
> >>>> and the director isn't always the key player in the process. But as for
> >>>> Chaplin's films, they have a distinctive quality which doesn't change
> >>>> with
> >>>> the assistant or associate director credits. The Chaplin films Reisner
> >>>> assisted with have no strong similarities to _Ssteamboat Bill_, for
> >>>> example.
> >>>>
> >>>> Connie K.
> >>>
> >>> True. I don't doubt that STEAMBOAT BILL is Keaton all the way, or at
> >>> least mostly Keaton. Reisner's responsibilities on that film were
> >>> probably very similar to those on the Chaplin films he worked on. It is
> >>> interesting, though, that Reisner receives full and single directorial
> >>> credit on that film though, which he simply never would have on a
> >>> Chaplin film.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>
> >> Keaton disliked having his name all over the credits, considering it
> >> unneeded and egotistical. He'd even poked fun at people like Thomas Ince
> >> doing this in "The Playhouse." As one can guess, this complicates
> >> figuring
> >> out what Buster actually did to no end.
> >>
> >> Harold Lloyd said he was once fooled by Buster's habit of tossing away
> >> his
> >> credits. He'd hired away one of Buster's "directors" thinking he'd scored
> >> a
> >> great coup, only to discover the guy he'd hired knew nothing about
> >> directing
> >> at all...
> >>
> >> DBP
> >
> > There's something to be said for taking full credit for directing your own
> > film when you ARE the director. The habit of credit swapping is well
> > established in film, but it sometimes obscures the actual creative
> > process.
> >
> > I'm inclined to think that the coherence of Lloyd's films is largely a
> > consequence of his defining his character and working out a formula, which
> > generally involves a spectacular chase sequence at the end. Any
> > *competent*
> > director could be plugged into this format and serve the purpose well
> > enough, though the partnership between Lloyd, Fred Newmeyer, and Sam
> > Taylor
> > was obviously significant. Nobody played so important a secondary role in
> > Chaplin's films as Newmeyer and Taylor did in Lloyd's.
> >
> > My impression is that both Keaton and Lloyd relied more on teamwork than
> > Chaplin, even sharing some of the same teammates, and therefore felt
> > comfortable with spreading credits around.
> >
> > Connie K.
>
> Even Chaplin's contemporaries seemed to acknowledge that he did most of the
> work on his own. Keaton and Lloyd were both admittedly more involved in a
> collaborative, team effort. Hal Roach criticized Stan Laurel for thinking he
> was Chaplin and could "do it all himself", and Frank Capra made the same
> comment about Harry Langdon. So even at the time, there was at least a
> perception that Chaplin was the sole creative force behind his films.

Well, that was certainly the image and perception that many were
willing to help Chaplin cultivate, and in relative terms I'm sure it
was meaningful. Just how accurate it was in an absolute sense is
certainly debatable.

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:e13h77$gg6$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Zenk Jones (zjones@zaux.com) writes:
>> On 4/5/06 6:33 PM, in article
>> 1144279988.658254.34290.DeleteThis@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "Matt Barry"
>> <mbarry1.DeleteThis@towson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>>> "Matt Barry" (mbarry1@towson.edu) writes:
>>>>> Shush wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a long article that discusses Chaplin's various assistant
>>>>>> directors in some detail. Buried near the end is a tidbit that David
>>>>>> T.
>>>>>> may find amusing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone ever commented on the fact that many of these "associate
>>>>> directors" as they were often called (Charles Reisner, Robert Florey)
>>>>> were usually full-fledged directors on other peoples' films of the
>>>>> same
>>>>> period? I've often wondered, watching the films of Harold Lloyd, if
>>>>> his
>>>>> directors such as Fred Newmeyer and Sam Taylor weren't more than
>>>>> "associate directors".
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll never know for sure. Filmmaking is a profoundly collaborative
>>>> business,
>>>> and the director isn't always the key player in the process. But as for
>>>> Chaplin's films, they have a distinctive quality which doesn't change
>>>> with
>>>> the assistant or associate director credits. The Chaplin films Reisner
>>>> assisted with have no strong similarities to _Ssteamboat Bill_, for
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> Connie K.
>>>
>>> True. I don't doubt that STEAMBOAT BILL is Keaton all the way, or at
>>> least mostly Keaton. Reisner's responsibilities on that film were
>>> probably very similar to those on the Chaplin films he worked on. It is
>>> interesting, though, that Reisner receives full and single directorial
>>> credit on that film though, which he simply never would have on a
>>> Chaplin film.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Keaton disliked having his name all over the credits, considering it
>> unneeded and egotistical. He'd even poked fun at people like Thomas Ince
>> doing this in "The Playhouse." As one can guess, this complicates
>> figuring
>> out what Buster actually did to no end.
>>
>> Harold Lloyd said he was once fooled by Buster's habit of tossing away
>> his
>> credits. He'd hired away one of Buster's "directors" thinking he'd scored
>> a
>> great coup, only to discover the guy he'd hired knew nothing about
>> directing
>> at all...
>>
>> DBP
>
> There's something to be said for taking full credit for directing your own
> film when you ARE the director. The habit of credit swapping is well
> established in film, but it sometimes obscures the actual creative
> process.
>
> I'm inclined to think that the coherence of Lloyd's films is largely a
> consequence of his defining his character and working out a formula, which
> generally involves a spectacular chase sequence at the end. Any
> *competent*
> director could be plugged into this format and serve the purpose well
> enough, though the partnership between Lloyd, Fred Newmeyer, and Sam
> Taylor
> was obviously significant. Nobody played so important a secondary role in
> Chaplin's films as Newmeyer and Taylor did in Lloyd's.
>
> My impression is that both Keaton and Lloyd relied more on teamwork than
> Chaplin, even sharing some of the same teammates, and therefore felt
> comfortable with spreading credits around.
>
> Connie K.

Even Chaplin's contemporaries seemed to acknowledge that he did most of the
work on his own. Keaton and Lloyd were both admittedly more involved in a
collaborative, team effort. Hal Roach criticized Stan Laurel for thinking he
was Chaplin and could "do it all himself", and Frank Capra made the same
comment about Harry Langdon. So even at the time, there was at least a
perception that Chaplin was the sole creative force behind his films.

Matt