Chaplin and Editing

David B. Pearson wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
> > In article , David B. Pearson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Please explain. I remember some scenes between Edna and the
> > artist/father being cut out, but I don't remember what their importance
> > was, or how they would effect the ending.
>
> Sure,
>
> With the film in unedited form, THE KID is clearly a tragedy for
> Charlie's Tramp. The scenes between Edna and the artist/father make it
> clear they are still in love, but the loss of their son makes their
> reunion impossible -- UNLESS they find the child.

I don't see how finding or not finding the child makes any difference
in their
relationship, except that *something* good could come of it, and I
think
that's all she means. I don't see any indication that they're still in
love or
ready to resume the relationship. But if the child is found, her desire
to mother
him will be satisfied, and his father can assume some responsibility
for
raising him as well, and thus atone for his former bad conduct.

As we know, Edna
> does. This leaves a CIRCUS-type ending: Edna, the artist, andJackie are
> (finally) about to become a family group. As such, there is no place
> for Charlie, and he must move on, alone.

I give you credit for creative interpretation, but you are making up
this ending,
just as one of my students (and Doug) made up the ending of the Kid,
Woman, and Tramp living together happily ever after. Neither of
these scenarios is in the film. The question of how Charlie would (or
wouldn't) fit
into the Woman's and Kid's new life is the last point the film makes
about class distinctions. Unlike _The Circus_, _The Kid_ is not about a
frustrated romance. It deals with entirely different issues.

My feeling about the party scene is that it is a digression in the
direction of
_A Woman of Paris_. Chaplin was thinking about some of the
implications of
extramarital relationships, and that worked its way into the film
whether it was
essential or not. When he revisited the film, the scene probably struck
him as
tangential and digressive, as well as overly obvious.

> With the Edna/Artist scene cut, the Artist remains the worthless cad
> who abandons Edba in the backstory. As such, Charlie's future
> relationship with Jackie remains ambiguous, changing the ending from a
> heroic bittersweet one -- echoed in CIRCUS and CITY LIGHTS -- into
> something semi-happy, but very unclear.
>
> However, in context of the cuts in the '42 GOLD RUSH, the most damning
> thing is, that in both cases, Chaplin the director has removed the two
> major dramatic scenes that Chaplin the actor isn't in!

What's damning about it? That's a good argument that they were weaker
scenes to begin with.

Connie K.

Deborah wrote:
> 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.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> Actually I think the premise is ruinously viable today. Remember the
> cut final stanza of Modern Times, Connie? Wasn't that decision made by
> others, not Chaplin? Imagine Da Vinci's descendants brushing up ol'
> Mona to suit a modern taste. Pure hubris.
> Deborah

As I recall, that decision was made by Chaplin before the 1935 general
release, but David Shepard happened on a print which still retainnned
it in
the archives. Its status would therefore be the same as the scenes
Chalplin
cut from _Limelight_ after the premiere.

Connie K.