 |
|
|
|
Next: Charlie on a trampoline - Outtake?
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 886
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>movies>chaplin (more info?)
|
|
|
Richard Carnahan wrote:
>>>Lloyd made the decision of a
>>>businessman, not an artist. And I doubt
>>>if even Paramount would have released
>>>a Lloyd silent after '29. They would
>>>have found some excuse to scuttle it.
>>The point is, Lloyd not Paramount
>>made the decision. And 'scuttling"
>>it would no doubt have violated his
>>distribution agreement.
> The argument was whether Chaplin,
>as an employee (not a business partner)
>of a major studio, could have made CITY
>LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES as silent
>films during the 1930s. The point is he
>could not.
Chaplin would never have been an
employee of a studio at that stage
of his career, but if he were releasing
via Paramount or Warners, they would
have allowed him to make the movie
his own way. He had sufficient clout. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2005
Posts: 53
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:06 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1151023741.694040.300770 DeleteThis @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> The argument was whether Chaplin, as an employee (not a business
> partner) of a major studio, could have made CITY LIGHTS and MODERN
> TIMES as silent films during the 1930s. The point is he could not.
That's your opinion, not fact.
George said it well:
" Any studio would have
released his films, silent or not. They
might have grumbled, but Chaplin was
a world-class superstar then and would
have prevailed."
I doubt that any of the other silent comics would have WANTED to
continue to make silent films. They would have wanted to stay "with the
times," and would have had a very real (and justifiable) fear that
audiences would have rejected a silent film, which would have done harm
to their careers. Unlike Lloyd, Keaton and Laurel & Hardy, though,
Chaplin NEEDED to maintain his silence to maintain his character -
realizing that the Tramp wouldn't be the Tramp anymore once he started
talking.
As for Harold Lloyd going to sound for "business" not "artistic"
reasons - well, I don't know where you're getting that from. In the
appended interview in "An American Comedy" he clearly says they wanted
to make sound films because the audiences enjoyed them, and also says
that remaking "Welcome Danger" as a sound film was HIS idea (not the
studios). |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 03, 2006
Posts: 170
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> Let's take this hypothetical.
>
> Charlie wakes up one morning and says:
>
> "I have a great new comedy idea. I'm going to make this film about The
> Tramp, all gussied up and visiting a spa to try and dry out, but his
> liquor supply is thrown into the well!"
>
> Is that an artistic decision, or a business decision?
If it's 1930-something and THE CURE already exists, I'd call that a
remake. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2005
Posts: 53
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1151028343.018216.197270 DeleteThis @b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Carnahan <rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
>
> > As for Harold Lloyd going to sound for "business" not "artistic"
> > reasons - well, I don't know where you're getting that from. In the
> > appended interview in "An American Comedy" he clearly says they wanted
> > to make sound films because the audiences enjoyed them, and also says
> > that remaking "Welcome Danger" as a sound film was HIS idea (not the
> > studios).
>
> That sure sounds like a business decision to me.
Well, that's an interesting viewpoint.
Let's take this hypothetical.
Charlie wakes up one morning and says:
"I have a great new comedy idea. I'm going to make this film about The
Tramp, all gussied up and visiting a spa to try and dry out, but his
liquor supply is thrown into the well!"
Is that an artistic decision, or a business decision? >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 988
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doug Sulpy 6/23/06 4:11 PM
> "I have a great new comedy idea. I'm going to make this film about The
> Tramp, all gussied up and visiting a spa to try and dry out, but his
> liquor supply is thrown into the well!"
>
> Is that an artistic decision, or a business decision?
Well, nowadays the studio he worked for would be owned by a chain of spas.
JN >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 87
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David B. Pearson wrote:
> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
> to prefer to release the originals as well.
>
> DBP
How is that a problem? The original films were to some extent
influenced by
audience and period taste, so were the reissues, and so would reissues
be now.
My problem with people who claim (hyperbolically) that Chaplin
"buthered" his
films is that they assume their judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
wrong. This
just strikes me as presumptuous.
Having compared the originals to the reissues to the degree presently
possible,
I consider his changes minor, and in some cases they could be
reasonably
considered improvements. In no case, as far as I can see, does the
change
completely destroy the effect of the film. or even seriously impair it.
Connie K. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 87
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Shush wrote:
Waver Boy wrote:
> > The parts he made herky-jerky sure as hell DON'T work well in any way.
> > It completely ruins the tempo of the films.
>
> I haven't seen THE CHAPLIN REVUE in ages, but the first time I saw
> it, 30 years ago, the stretch-printing didn't bother me at all. The
> audience I saw it with was in hysterics, so I doubt it bothered them
> either.
I in fact don't know what parts of _Revue_ this refers to. Since
stretch printing involves
*repeating* the same frame, why would it produce a jerk, which is what
happens
when a frame (usually more than one) is omitted?
I have the old Key Video of _Revue_, which is the stretch printed
version, and the
only effects I can see are occasional slow speed, and blurring when a
frame with a
blur in it is repeated.. I see no jerks at all. And I don't think the
magic of the films
was lost, or their rhythm destroyed, because this was the first video
of Chaplin I bought, and I immediately proceeded to buy all the rest.
Connie K. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 886
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>My problem with people who claim
>(hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
>his films is that they assume their
>judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
>wrong. This just strikes me as
>presumptuous.
If that is presumptuous, then all film
criticism is presumptuous---and what
is the purpose of this group, except
to worship at the altar? >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 29, 2006
Posts: 141
|
(Msg. 39) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
>Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>My problem with people who claim
>(hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
>his films is that they assume their
>judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
>wrong. This just strikes me as
>presumptuous.
Why? They're not thinking they're better than Chaplin, they're
agreeing with him. It's just that they're agreeing with him when he
originally released the films, not when he had second thoughts and
perhaps panicked.
For example, I don't think I'm better than Chaplin, I think he created
a masterpiece with the original release of The Gold Rush and I'd like
to see that restored to its full glory (the Brownlow reconstruction is
at least a step in the right direction).
If thinking he got it right in 1925 is presumptuous, then so is
thinking he got it right in 1942-- you're agreeing with him either
way.
If The Beatles had gotten together in the late 70's and reissued their
albums backwards and with the sounds of car horns randomly mixed in,
would it be wrong to think they were stupid for doing that? I know
that's a rather extreme example, but it's not too far off from how
lots of people feel about what Chaplin did. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 02, 2006
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 40) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 6/29/06 4:03 PM, in article
24871-44A4401A-1083.DeleteThis@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net, "George Shelps"
<G-HELPS.DeleteThis@webtv.net> wrote:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>> My problem with people who claim
>> (hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
>> his films is that they assume their
>> judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
>> wrong. This just strikes me as
>> presumptuous.
>
> If that is presumptuous, then all film
> criticism is presumptuous---and what
> is the purpose of this group, except
> to worship at the altar?
>
George,
Welcome back to the correct side of the fence. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 886
|
(Msg. 41) Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
dbpearson.RemoveThis@charter.net (David B. Pearson) wrote:
>>Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>>My problem with people who claim
>>>(hyperbolically) that Chaplin
>>>"buthered" his films is that they
>>>assume their judgment is correct and
>>>Chaplin's was wrong. This just strikes
>>>me as presumptuous.
>>If that is presumptuous, then all film
>>criticism is presumptuous---and what
>>is the purpose of this group, except
>>to worship at the altar?
>George,
>Welcome back to the correct side of the
>fence.
Connie and David Totheroh are always
pulling this....You'd think a PhD would
welcome critical appraisals of all
aspects of Chaplin, but her role here
has always been the apply the ruler
to our knuckles when we deviate from
the properly worshipful attitude toward her
hero. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 02, 2006
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 42) Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:07 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 6/29/06 3:25 PM, in article
1151612727.455422.286710.RemoveThis@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu" <constance.kuriyama.RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
>
> David B. Pearson wrote:
>> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
>> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
>> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
>> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
>> to prefer to release the originals as well.
>>
>> DBP
>
> How is that a problem? The original films were to some extent
> influenced by
> audience and period taste, so were the reissues, and so would reissues
> be now.
This doesn't take into account that silent film viewing tastes are today
more in line with 1925 than 1942. Fans expect their silents to be so.
> My problem with people who claim (hyperbolically) that Chaplin
> "buthered" his
> films is that they assume their judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
> wrong. This
> just strikes me as presumptuous.
One can't have it both ways. Chaplin's '42 edit of the '25 is either the
self-butchery of a masterpiece, or a later correction to a defective work.
I prefer seeing it as the former. The '42 is clearly not an improvement.
> Having compared the originals to the reissues to the degree presently
> possible,
> I consider his changes minor, and in some cases they could be
> reasonably
> considered improvements. In no case, as far as I can see, does the
> change
> completely destroy the effect of the film. or even seriously impair it.
It changes things quite a bit. The edits to the later reissue of THE KID is
even more serious, as it greatly alters the film's ending. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 30, 2006
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 43) Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:38 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1151612727.455422.286710 DeleteThis @b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu"> wrote:
> My problem with people who claim (hyperbolically) that Chaplin
> "buthered" his
> films is that they assume their judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
> wrong. This
> just strikes me as presumptuous.
>
> Having compared the originals to the reissues to the degree presently
> possible,
> I consider his changes minor, and in some cases they could be
> reasonably
> considered improvements. In no case, as far as I can see, does the
> change
> completely destroy the effect of the film. or even seriously impair it.
>
> Connie K.
Welcome back to the fun, Connie. :-)
I agree that some of the cuts might actually improve the films
(although that statement, too, assumes that our judgement of the film
is "correct" - in this case, though, we happen to AGREE with Charlie's
decision).
Some of the cuts, however, do not, and I have a hard time thinking of
the '40's reissue of "The Gold Rush" as anything other than
"butchered." The changes might not bother you, but surely you must
admit that a lot of people find that version of the film unwatchable.
Are they all being "presumptuous"?
That said, my own opinion is that a filmmaker does not have the moral
right to alter their films from their original release - period. I
don't care if the changes hurt or help the film - I don't want to see
the film changed, and if it HAS been changed, I want to see it
restored. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 87
|
(Msg. 44) Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Fred wrote:
> >Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> >
> >My problem with people who claim
> >(hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
> >his films is that they assume their
> >judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
> >wrong. This just strikes me as
> >presumptuous.
>
> Why? They're not thinking they're better than Chaplin, they're
> agreeing with him. It's just that they're agreeing with him when he
> originally released the films, not when he had second thoughts and
> perhaps panicked.
Well, they're agreeing with him in a way that usually involves
dismissing
his later cuts as an act of poor judgment. I don't see any reason to
believe that he panicked. when he recut any of these films. He had his
reasons for making the changes. and I assume he knew more about
his business than I do.
>
> For example, I don't think I'm better than Chaplin, I think he created
> a masterpiece with the original release of The Gold Rush and I'd like
> to see that restored to its full glory (the Brownlow reconstruction is
> at least a step in the right direction).
>
> If thinking he got it right in 1925 is presumptuous, then so is
> thinking he got it right in 1942-- you're agreeing with him either
> way.
How about thinking he got it right both times? My point is that given
the
broader context in which he was releasing the films, each version was
right for its time and place. It's fine to prefer either version, but I
don't see
any reason to say that either version is absolutely superior. IIf you
like
'25 better, then for you it's superior, but that doesn't mean that
Chaplin and
his audience had no taste in 1942.
Connie K.
> If The Beatles had gotten together in the late 70's and reissued their
> albums backwards and with the sounds of car horns randomly mixed in,
> would it be wrong to think they were stupid for doing that? I know
> that's a rather extreme example, but it's not too far off from how
> lots of people feel about what Chaplin did. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 87
|
(Msg. 45) Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin and Editing [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
David B. Pearson wrote:
> On 6/29/06 4:03 PM, in article
> 24871-44A4401A-1083.TakeThisOut@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net, "George Shelps"
> <G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> >
> >> My problem with people who claim
> >> (hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
> >> his films is that they assume their
> >> judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
> >> wrong. This just strikes me as
> >> presumptuous.
> >
> > If that is presumptuous, then all film
> > criticism is presumptuous---and what
> > is the purpose of this group, except
> > to worship at the altar?
> >
>
> George,
> Welcome back to the correct side of the fence.
I'm not sure which side of which fence we're talking about, but
some film (and literary) criticism IS presumptuous, though by
no means all of it.
The most presumptuous criticism is the kind that assumes that
some art is absolutely superior to other art, and that the critic is
an infallible judge of which is which.
A great deal of criticism is concerned with classifying, analyzing,
and
explaining art, not with arbitrary value judgments.
Connie K. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Shoulder Arms editing question - So, I've been reading the SA posts with great fascination - great stuff, folks!! Here's my question, and you can take it where you want... When Shoulder Arms was made, how was it edited? I mean physically here - was there a moviola to worrk with, or wa...
Chaplin on the net - Hi, Do you know where I can find Chaplin's movies on the net? Thank you
Chaplin in NY? - Did Chaplin ever film in New York? Where and what films?
Chaplin on TCM tonight - Starts @8:00 pm runs until 6:15 am. Looks like it shows each of the four recent Warner DVD films (not sure which version of Gold Rush) preceded by a documentary of each film. Bruce
White Chaplin DVD Box - I was at Best Buy tonight, and noticed that Madacy has re-released two of their Chaplin DVD's in a box set, and guess what- they're in white boxes that look suspiciously similar to the new ones from Warner Home Video. Does this mean every Chaplin DVD.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
