Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

On Jun 3, 12:58 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:30 pm, bachu... RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:01 am, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 11:45 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> > > > rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>You've been drooling over her for
> > > > >>>years. t's really embarassing to watch.
> > > > >>Never wrote about her in the same
> > > > >>breathless style you used about Cherrill.
> > > > >You did here
> > > > Not in your gushing fanzine style.
> > > LOL! Let it go. Let....it....go.
>
> > Aw. Now see what you gone and done?
>
> > Sorry to say I told you so - but by engaging the Troll in
> > any way, all that happens is that he brings everything down to his
> > asinine, infantile, barbaric level.
>
> > Kuriyama posts an opinion about Chaplin's films - the Troll attacks
> > her maturity.
> > You post an opinion about Chaplin's films - he casts a bizarre
> > aspersion on you.
>
> > In between he defecates a few typical lies and falsehoods.
>
> > All the Troll knows how to do is snap, snarl, and lie. It's of a
> > piece
> > with his violent, barbaric ideology, which is at present creating
> > widows, orphans,
> > amputees by the hundreds every month.
>
> > And for who knows what reason, and to what end?
>
> > No need to wonder - the Troll and his glib fellow travelers come up
> > with a fresh new reason every fortnight.
>
> > But really, since 75% of the public has registered that they've seen
> > through the evil deceptions of the warmongers - and the resident Troll
> > has stated his intention to contribute nothing here but puerile
> > babytalk -
> > isn't it really best to shun him like the sad and sorry disgrace he
> > is?
>
> If there's anything we should have learned long ago, it's that Mr.
> Shelps is incapable of letting things go. Nursing grudges, fighting
> with and defaming his "enemies" gives him an excuse for living.
>

He's like Richard Nixon without the upside. Ans it doesn't matter if
you ignore him or engage him -- I've done both -- he's still there.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>If there's anything we should have
>>learned long ago, it's that Mr. Shelps is
>>incapable of letting things go. Nursing
>>grudges, fighting with and defaming his
>>"enemies" gives him an excuse for living.

>He's like Richard Nixon without the
>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
>both -- he's still there.

Neat bit of lying there, Dickie. You
and your pals pervert every topic
line into a personal attack or a politicall
jibe,
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 10:57 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:20 am, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> > Sorry, lady, but you and your confreres
> > (with new ones like Bachusio and old
> > smear artists llike Moran) keep shifting
> > the debate to the ad hominem whenever
> > I disclose a viewpoint about Chaplin
> > that you don't find congenial.
> As evidenced by the first two posts in this thread?

Yeah, it's pathetic, isn't it?

Two people here express reasonable viewpoints
about Chaplin's work in this very thread, and the Troll
lobs ad hominems at them for no reason - then has the
nerve to baselessly accuse others of doing exactly that.

To make such an assertion in the very same place
where it's so obviously disproven...well, that isn't dishonesty -
it's utter lunacy: the evidence of a mental problem.

Let this serve as evidence of what happens as a result of
engaging the Troll on any level. It's time to pull the chain
and flush, people.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 9:01 am, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >>If there's anything we should have
> >>learned long ago, it's that Mr. Shelps is
> >>incapable of letting things go. Nursing
> >>grudges, fighting with and defaming his
> >>"enemies" gives him an excuse for living.
> >He's like Richard Nixon without the
> >upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
> >ignore him or engage him -- I've done
> >both -- he's still there.
>
> Neat bit of lying there, Dickie.

I have never lied to you. You just can't recognize the obvious truth.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

rfcsac627n DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:

>>>He's like Richard Nixon without the
>>>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
>>>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
>>>both -- he's still there.

>>Neat bit of lying there, Dickie.

>I have never lied to you. You just can't
>recognize the obvious truth.

The "obvious truth" is that I cannot
present views on Chaplin which differ
from yours or Kuriyama's or Totheroh's
or Moran's without provoking a personal
or political retaliation,.

Invariably, Totheroh, for example, will dredge up the charge that I am
deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting some issue....it's like
clockwork,

It happened here in this thread over
the question of Chaplin's difficulty with
Vriginia Cherrill and the discontinuities
in the final scene in CITY LIGHTS.

Kuriyama weighed in with her pet
theory that Chaplin's failures as a
craftsman were the intentional introduction of "imperfection" to
simulate real life, or don't matter,
or don't exist...take your pick.

I begged to differ....and for that
reason the blunderbusses were
fired, the usual overkill ensued,
and pretty soon Bachusio (the
political troll) was bringing up
Iraq!!!

Apparently, my comment about
Kuriyama's "hero worship" of Chaplin
ranklled. Well, I am not the first
to say it and i think it is the best
explanation for her blindess to such
an obvious Chaplin blemish.

If you can't look at Chaplin's work
in all its dimensions---successful
and unsuccessful--then you can''t
arrive at a true appreciation of his
contribution to world cinema,
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 11:35 am, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>>He's like Richard Nixon without the
> >>>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
> >>>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
> >>>both -- he's still there.
> >>Neat bit of lying there, Dickie.
> >I have never lied to you. You just can't
> >recognize the obvious truth.
>
> The "obvious truth" is that I cannot
> present views on Chaplin which differ
> from yours or Kuriyama's or Totheroh's
> or Moran's without provoking a personal
> or political retaliation,.
>
> Invariably, Totheroh, for example, will dredge up the charge that I am
> deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting some issue....it's like
> clockwork,
>
> It happened here in this thread over
> the question of Chaplin's difficulty with
> Vriginia Cherrill

Yes it is like clockwork. My perception is that you can't stand being
questioned by any of those you have classified as your enemies here
(and there seem to be more and more as time goes on, as your recent
interactions with Shush will attest). This thread is a perfect case in
point. When you stated that you remembered reading somewhere that
Cherrill had trouble playing blind, I observed that your recollection
was directly contradicted by everything I had read or heard, observed
that it was another piece of a pattern I have detected with you, and
so asked you for a citation or source for your recollection. There was
no equivalent of your "Davey dumb" or any of the other infantile
namecalling that so many here have been subjected to by you.Yet your
response, unfortunately also typical, was to cry foul.

All that was needed to shut me up was to simply supply the citation
and prove my observation wrong and your recollection valid, or admit
the error. Instead, you admitted only that you're not here for any
serious discussion about Chaplin, at least not with those you've
declared to be your enemies. It's unfortunate, because I'd really like
to learn more about how others have perceived those who worked with
Chaplin and the environment they operated in. But that doesn't happen
when you rationalize by, at best, trying to shoehorn generalities into
specific preconceived 'conclusions' you've already drawn, as in
"Chaplin was having difficulty working with Cherrill" so it must have
been because she was "having trouble playing blind", only because you
said so and in spite of the fact that it's contradicted by virtually
the virtually every other observation in the historical record on the
point. But then, if you're not interested in serious discussion,
reality doesn't matter much, does it?

> and the discontinuities
> in the final scene in CITY LIGHTS.
>
> Kuriyama weighed in with her pet
> theory that Chaplin's failures as a
> craftsman were the intentional introduction of "imperfection" to
> simulate real life, or don't matter,
> or don't exist...take your pick.
>
> I begged to differ....and for that
> reason the blunderbusses were
> fired, the usual overkill ensued,
> and pretty soon Bachusio (the
> political troll) was bringing up
> Iraq!!!
>
> Apparently, my comment about
> Kuriyama's "hero worship" of Chaplin
> ranklled. Well, I am not the first
> to say it and i think it is the best
> explanation for her blindess to such
> an obvious Chaplin blemish.
>
> If you can't look at Chaplin's work
> in all its dimensions---successful
> and unsuccessful--then you can''t
> arrive at a true appreciation of his
> contribution to world cinema,

And if you continually try to rewrite history, then it's all just
fiction anyway. And what kid of "true appreciation" of the historic
reality "of [Chaplin's] contribution to world cinema" can come from
that?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>>Invariably, Totheroh, for example, will
>>dredge up the charge that I am
>>deliberately fabricating or
>>misrepresenting some issue....it's like
>>clockwork,

>>It happened here in this thread over
>>the question of Chaplin's difficulty with
>>Vriginia Cherrill

>Yes it is like clockwork. My perception is
>that you can't stand being questioned by
>any of those you have classified as your
>enemies here

Wrong. I can't stand being accused of
deliberate falsfification, and misrepresentation----which you habitually
do.


> (and there seem to be more and more
>as time goes on, as your recent
>interactions with Shush will attest). This
>thread is a perfect case in point. When
>you stated that you remembered reading
>somewhere that Cherrill had trouble
>playing blind, I observed that your
>recollection was directly contradicted by
>everything I had read or heard, observed
>that it was another piece of a pattern I
>have detected with you,

Exactly what I object to. There is no
"pattern.' That's just a slur.


> and so asked
>you for a citation or source for your
>recollection. There was no equivalent of
>your "Davey dumb" or any of the other
>infantile namecalling that so many here
>have been subjected to by you.

Hardly ranking with the malice of "fascist"
and "traitor"

>Yet your response, unfortunately also
>typical, was to cry foul.

I did not "cry foul" except to your
insinuation that I was delibeately
fabricating a fact.


>All that was needed to shut me up was
>to simply supply the citation and prove
>my observation wrong and your
>recollection valid, or admit the error.
>Instead, you admitted only that you're
>not here for any serious discussion about

>Chaplin, at least not with those you've
>declared to be your enemies. It's
>unfortunate, because I'd really like to
>learn more about how others have
>perceived those who worked with
>Chaplin and the environment they
>operated in. But that doesn't happen
>when you rationalize by, at best, trying to
>shoehorn generalities into specific
>preconceived 'conclusions' you've

>already drawn, as in "Chaplin was
>having difficulty working with Cherrill" so
>it must have been because she was
>"having trouble playing blind", only
>because you said so and in spite of the
>fact that it's contradicted by virtually the
>virtually every other observation in the
historical record on the point. But then, if
>you're not interested in serious
>discussion, reality doesn't matter much,
>does it?

I might be wrong about Cherrill, but
I was simply seeking an explanation of
why Chaplin would permit such an
obvious technical glitch in so crucial

a scene...and I seemed to recall
his troubles with Cherrill being in the
nature of disatisfaction with her
performance...and, no, I do not recall
where I read this,.

So if Chaplin decided to use mismatched
shots because Cherrill was so good
in one of them and he wanted to
capture that quality, then the error
makes sense to me--though it's
still a flaw in the sequence.



>>If you can't look at Chaplin's work
>>in all its dimensions---successful
>>and unsuccessful--then you can''t
>>arrive at a true appreciation of his
>>contribution to world cinema,

>And if you continually try to rewrite
>history, then it's all just fiction anyway.
>And what kid of "true appreciation" of the
>historic reality "of [Chaplin's] contribution
>to world cinema" can come from that?

And there you go again...QED
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 11:35 am, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> If you can't look at Chaplin's work
> in all its dimensions---successful
> and unsuccessful--then you can''t
> arrive at a true appreciation of his
> contribution to world cinema,

You have no interest in viewing Chaplin's work in any dimension. You
are interested only in slime-and-whine.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

rfcsac627n.DeleteThis@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:

>>If you can't look at Chaplin's work
>>in all its dimensions---successful
>>and unsuccessful--then you can''t
>>arrive at a true appreciation of his
>>contribution to world cinema,

>You have no interest in viewing Chaplin's
>work in any dimension. You are
>interested only in slime-and-whine.

That is simply a flat lie.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 6:06 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> confusio wrote:
> >Two people here express reasonable
> >viewpoints about Chaplin's work in this
> >very thread, and the Troll lobs ad
> >hominems at them for no reason - then
> >has the nerve to baselessly accuse
> >others of doing exactly that.
>
> They've been doing it for almost
> a decade, and resorting to the same
> kind of poisonous ad hominems that
> you are addicated to.
>
> I pointed out that Kuriyama's endless
> rationalizations of all things Chaplin
> indicate "hero worship." I am not the
> only one to believe that.

And yet she had not "rationalized" anything here in this thread. She
quite clearly supplied an interview from the historical record that
illuminated a previously discussed point. If one were as thin skinned
as you, the claim could easily be made that in this context, the use
of the term "rationalizations" qualifies as an ad hominem in and of
itself.

>
> And Carnahan's assertion that Virginia
> Cherrill is 'perfection" as the blind
> girl is not "reasonable," it is over-the-top
> schoolboy gushing.

Is it? What are the flaws in her depiction that make the performance
as a blind girl unconvincing in any way? What actor has ever done it
any better than that?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 3, 7:46 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >What are the flaws in her depiction that
> >make the performance as a blind girl
> >unconvincing in any way?
>
> Not unconvincing...quite competent,
> but not a tour-de-force of any kind
> and not "perfection."
>
> > What actor has ever done it any better
> >than that?
>
> Patty Duke Oscar Winner
> Al Pacino Oscar Winner

I guess I'm just not as awed by Academy votes as you are.

Besides, Duke playing Keller was hardly just a typical blind girl. I'd
bet, without having any way of proving it, that those votes had to do
with more than just portraying blindness. As to Pacino, sorry, I found
him TOTALLY unconvincing as a blind girl.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

confusio wrote:

>Two people here express reasonable
>viewpoints about Chaplin's work in this
>very thread, and the Troll lobs ad
>hominems at them for no reason - then
>has the nerve to baselessly accuse
>others of doing exactly that.

They've been doing it for almost
a decade, and resorting to the same
kind of poisonous ad hominems that
you are addicated to.

I pointed out that Kuriyama's endless
rationalizations of all things Chaplin
indicate "hero worship." I am not the
only one to believe that.

And Carnahan's assertion that Virginia
Cherrill is 'perfection" as the blind
girl is not "reasonable," it is over-the-top
schoolboy gushing.

However, in neither case is there the
same sort of malice that is evident in the
scurrilous attacks on me found in your
posts.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

David Totheroh wrote:

>What are the flaws in her depiction that
>make the performance as a blind girl
>unconvincing in any way?

Not unconvincing...quite competent,
but not a tour-de-force of any kind
and not "perfection."

> What actor has ever done it any better
>than that?

Patty Duke Oscar Winner
Al Pacino Oscar Winner
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique