Esquire disses Chaplin

Well, VANITY FAIR picked THE GOLD RUSH and Keaton's THE GENERAL as
among the 50 greatest films of all time last month. So >there<,
ESQUIRE!

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

Sweety, you said a mouth full.

Kiss kiss
Miss Glamour
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

Richard writes:

> Well, VANITY FAIR picked THE GOLD RUSH and
> Keaton's THE GENERAL as among the 50 greatest
> films of all time last month. So >there<, ESQUIRE!

And yet "City Lights" was not on Vanity Fair's list.

And what was?

Bringing up Baby
It's a Gift
National Lampoon's Animal House
Toy Story
The Wild Bunch

None of which can hold a candle to "City Lights."

Not to mention the other great films they left off their list.

Tom Moran
Ignoring George Shelps since 2004
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

Lee writes:

> Although I would gripe myself with some of these, a lot
> of film critique is subjectively performed. However, when
> you look at a film like 'Toy Story', you *have to* confess
> that it covered new ground in digital realism.

Not really. A lot of lesser-known shorts paved the way.

> The same was true of 'Jurassic Park' - it changed the way
> films were made from that time on. Both these have earned
> a place in lists (even if we don't particularly like them).

You're describing a totally different criterion. A film may be a
historical landmark (like "The Jazz Singer") and still not be one of
the greatest films of all time.

There's a difference between having historical significance and being
of lasting artistic merit. "The Jazz Singer" changed films forever but
it still is a pretty bad picture by anybody's standards.

Tom Moran
Ignoring George Shelps since 2004.
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

Excellent point, Tom. Let's have a list of films that are considered
historical landmarks and/or extremely influential. I'd love to see
films like CITIZEN KANE, THE ROAD WARRIOR, THE JAZZ SINGER, NIGHT OF
THE LIVING DEAD, and FRANKENSTEIN all on the same list.
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

>Now that people in their thirties are running magazines, and films like
>Animal House and Caddyshack are considered classic screen comedy, I guess
>Star Wars is Year Zero in movie history.
>
>
>I no longer weep for the future, it is here.
>
>
>Yours in depressing skepticism,
>JN


It's not that surprising, really. Chaplin took quite a slam recently
when he was left off a list of the 50 great film directors in (I
believe) Entertainment Weekly(?). I don't understand this, really.

At the same time, the list itself sounds like a pretty silly idea, and
I probably wouldn't take it very seriously. I really hate to say this,
but I think the fact that they included Chaplin's name at all, even in
a negative light, suggests that he is still considered relevant enough
to at least get mentioned. I think it says much more about how useless
and unnecessary these magazines are if they have nothing better to
write about than completely fictitious things such as Chaplin's films
not being as good as they seem. Kind of like how channels like E! run
countless "best of" lists dreamt up by their marketing teams because
they have nothing better to show.

Chaplin's films are still very accessible and fresh for those actually
willing to sit down and watch them instead of just generalizing about
them.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

On 18 Sep 2005 10:18:28 -0700, "Feuillade" <Feuillade.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>There's a difference between having historical significance and being
>of lasting artistic merit.

I agree - but the criterion you were commenting on was the 'Greatest films of all time' and not the
'Greatest films of lasting artistic merit'. As I said, what one person defines as worthy of
greatness is different to another. Depending on how a person wants to define the words depends on
how they choose your list.

Lee
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

"Feuillade" (Feuillade@aol.com) writes:
> Richard writes:
>
>> Well, VANITY FAIR picked THE GOLD RUSH and
>> Keaton's THE GENERAL as among the 50 greatest
>> films of all time last month. So >there<, ESQUIRE!
>
> And yet "City Lights" was not on Vanity Fair's list.
>
> And what was?
>
> Bringing up Baby
> It's a Gift
> National Lampoon's Animal House
> Toy Story
> The Wild Bunch
>
> None of which can hold a candle to "City Lights."
>
> Not to mention the other great films they left off their list.
>
> Tom Moran
> Ignoring George Shelps since 2004

I think _The Wild Bunch_ is a terrific film, though not at
all in the same way as _City Lights_, but then I'm partial to
Peckinpah. The rest of that stuff wouldn't go on my list.

I like some anime, but I find computer animation butt ugly.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin 

James Neibaur (jneibaur@wi.rr.com) writes:
> I was thumbing through the latest issue of Esquire, and discovered a list of
> 77 things that are better in theory, "never quite as good as they seem."
>
> The list includes such revelations as "doin' it in a hot tub" and "handjobs
> in public," but the eleventh entry is "Charlie Chaplin's Silent Antics."
>
> Now that people in their thirties are running magazines, and films like
> Animal House and Caddyshack are considered classic screen comedy, I guess
> Star Wars is Year Zero in movie history.
>
> I no longer weep for the future, it is here.
>
> Yours in depressing skepticism,
> JN

How much of Chaplin's "Antics" do you suppose the giant intellect who wrote
this actually saw?

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: Esquire disses Chaplin