Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

On May 24, 6:22 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> bachu....RemoveThis@rogers.com
> wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, it's good to see some
> >>discussion about Chaplin around here.
> >>The George Shelps Show gets old fast.
> >>--Shush--
> >>>Amen.
> >As a cautionary lesson against anyone
> >engaging the sorry Troll, let's note that
> >his entry into this thread consisted of an
> >ad hominem insult, thoroughly
> >unprovoked by anyone going "off-topic".
>
> This is false.

Thanks George. Nice of you to warn us of the (lack of) veracity of
what you were about to say next.

>
> There was just one brief shot at Kuriyama's hero worship of
> Chaplin---which is
> well-established here and
> commented on by others, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com
wrote:

>>      Anyway, it's good to see some
>>discussion about Chaplin around here.
>>The George Shelps Show gets old fast.
>>--Shush--

>>>Amen.

>As a cautionary lesson against anyone
>engaging the sorry Troll, let's note that
>his entry into this thread consisted of an
>ad hominem insult, thoroughly
>unprovoked by anyone going "off-topic".

This is false.

There was just one brief shot at Kuriyama's hero worship of
Chaplin---which is
well-established here and
commented on by others, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 21, 10:15 pm, bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com wrote:
> On May 21, 4:33 pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
>
>
> <constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > On May 21, 12:34 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> > > I don't know that I'd agree with you about the flipped gender
> > > boundaries in MODERN TIMES as typical in his films, though.
> > Consider _The Kid_, for starters. Edna is initially helpless and
> > confused, but once she's freed from the obligation of raising a child,
> > her career flourishes, and she's able to buy her son back in the end.
> > Charlie, on the other hand, becomes the single parent and caregiver,
> > assuming both a maternal and a paternal role.
> > Or consider _The Gold Rush_. Big JIm and, later, Hank Curtis,
> > protect and rescue Charlie, who then assumes the traditionally
> > female roles of cook and housekeeper. Georgia, too, is dominant
> > relative to Charlie in that she is less attracted to the male
> > charracters than they are to her. She has the power of choice, and
> > exploits it, whereas Charlie finds himself in the typical female
> > position of waiting and hoping that he'll be noticed.
> > Or consider the closing scenes of _City Lights_. The Blind Girl was
> > disadvantaged because she was blind and poor, not because she was
> > female. All it takes to empower her is her eyesight, and a little
> > money. At the end of the film, she is clearly in control of her life,
> > whereas Charlie is powerless, totally dependent on her response to
> > learning who he is.
>
> Hannah in The Great Dictator was more feisty and combative (slamming
> Nazis
> with a frying pan) than the nebbish Jewish Barber character, too,
> wasn't she?

I would say so. She also intervenes to prevent the men from
getting involved in Schultz's harebrained assassination plot.

> And in Verdoux, the film in which many say Chaplin's supposed
> misogynist tendencies
> come to the fore, the two most prominent female characters are
> survivors - the dynamic
> and indestructible Martha Raye, and the prostitute who attains wealth
> by marrying a munitions
> dealer, and who watches as the killer Verdoux is condemned to death.
>
> The brassy advertising exec who has Shadov jumping through hoops in A
> King
> in New York and Sophia Loren as the stowaway who gets what she wants
> in
> Countess from Hong Kong continue Chaplin's line of dynamic, assertive
> female leads.

In these last two cases the men's desires (sexual or monetary) work
against them, leaving them open to manipulation by the women.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 21, 1:34�pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> > Paulette's character is presented as a rather
> > tomboyish, piratical character who takes the initiative, providing
> > food, shelter, and jobs for herself  and the Tramp, whereas the
> > Tramp is relatively passive and inefffectual.  This kind of play with
> > conventional gender boundaries is very typical of Chaplin's films.
>
>    Paulette's character is an interesting one, but really all of
> Chaplin's features have interesting female leads in them. Until his
> divorce from Mildred Harris, all we ever got was Edna Purviance
> standing around looking pretty, existing simply to be flirted with or
> rescued. But around the time of THE KID, suddenly the women are much
> more compelling characters. I think it's a strength of Chaplin's
> mature films that he never gets much credit for. In that respect, he's
> miles ahead of Keaton and Lloyd.
>
>    I don't know that I'd agree with you about the flipped gender
> boundaries in MODERN TIMES as typical in his films, though. What does
> strike me as typical is that the woman isn't necessarily needy for the
> hero's affection and leadership.

This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
LIGHTS. He gets his licks in in subversive ways, as befits a man of
his low status, to the great satisfaction of all the powerless and
disenfranchised viewers over the years.

As to the sloppiness of his technique, Chaplin's career ran so long
that he could reflect and make revisionist comments on his early work
decades later, so I take the "imperfection as art" argument as
posturing on his part. I've never looked at a masterpiece and thought
that it could be improved upon, like I think when I see that flower
move in CITY LIGHTS. However, the tone of the scene is perfection. So,
if I have to sacrifice one or the other, I'll take substance over
technique every time. Few directors could pull off both, like John
Ford did with THE SEARCHERS.

Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 26, 2:47 am, Deborah <Dzu... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 1:34?pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu wrote:
> > > Paulette's character is presented as a rather
> > > tomboyish, piratical character who takes the initiative, providing
> > > food, shelter, and jobs for herself ?and the Tramp, whereas the
> > > Tramp is relatively passive and inefffectual. ?This kind of play with
> > > conventional gender boundaries is very typical of Chaplin's films.
>
> > ? ?Paulette's character is an interesting one, but really all of
> > Chaplin's features have interesting female leads in them. Until his
> > divorce from Mildred Harris, all we ever got was Edna Purviance
> > standing around looking pretty, existing simply to be flirted with or
> > rescued. But around the time of THE KID, suddenly the women are much
> > more compelling characters. I think it's a strength of Chaplin's
> > mature films that he never gets much credit for. In that respect, he's
> > miles ahead of Keaton and Lloyd.
>
> > ? ?I don't know that I'd agree with you about the flipped gender
> > boundaries in MODERN TIMES as typical in his films, though. What does
> > strike me as typical is that the woman isn't necessarily needy for the
> > hero's affection and leadership.
>
> This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
> previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
> status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
> will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
> if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
> Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
> unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
> LIGHTS. He gets his licks in in subversive ways, as befits a man of
> his low status, to the great satisfaction of all the powerless and
> disenfranchised viewers over the years.
>
> As to the sloppiness of his technique, Chaplin's career ran so long
> that he could reflect and make revisionist comments on his early work
> decades later, so I take the "imperfection as art" argument as
> posturing on his part.

This all may be true enough, but the particular "revisionist comment"
that started this discussion was apparently made in 1921.

> I've never looked at a masterpiece and thought
> that it could be improved upon, like I think when I see that flower
> move in CITY LIGHTS. However, the tone of the scene is perfection. So,
> if I have to sacrifice one or the other, I'll take substance over
> technique every time. Few directors could pull off both, like John
> Ford did with THE SEARCHERS.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 26, 2:47 am, Deborah <Dzu....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 1:34?pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> > > Paulette's character is presented as a rather
> > > tomboyish, piratical character who takes the initiative, providing
> > > food, shelter, and jobs for herself ?and the Tramp, whereas the
> > > Tramp is relatively passive and inefffectual. ?This kind of play with
> > > conventional gender boundaries is very typical of Chaplin's films.
>
> > ? ?Paulette's character is an interesting one, but really all of
> > Chaplin's features have interesting female leads in them. Until his
> > divorce from Mildred Harris, all we ever got was Edna Purviance
> > standing around looking pretty, existing simply to be flirted with or
> > rescued. But around the time of THE KID, suddenly the women are much
> > more compelling characters. I think it's a strength of Chaplin's
> > mature films that he never gets much credit for. In that respect, he's
> > miles ahead of Keaton and Lloyd.
>
> > ? ?I don't know that I'd agree with you about the flipped gender
> > boundaries in MODERN TIMES as typical in his films, though. What does
> > strike me as typical is that the woman isn't necessarily needy for the
> > hero's affection and leadership.
>
> This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
> previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
> status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
> will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
> if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
> Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
> unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
> LIGHTS. He gets his licks in in subversive ways, as befits a man of
> his low status, to the great satisfaction of all the powerless and
> disenfranchised viewers over the years.
>
> As to the sloppiness of his technique, Chaplin's career ran so long
> that he could reflect and make revisionist comments on his early work
> decades later, so I take the "imperfection as art" argument as
> posturing on his part. I've never looked at a masterpiece and thought
> that it could be improved upon, like I think when I see that flower
> move in CITY LIGHTS. However, the tone of the scene is perfection. So,
> if I have to sacrifice one or the other, I'll take substance over
> technique every time. Few directors could pull off both, like John
> Ford did with THE SEARCHERS.
>
> Deborah- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As much as I like Ford and THE SEARCHERS, the end of that film has
always bothered me a little. I'm talking about the scene where John
Wayne is chasing down Natalie Wood and the location abruptly changes
from Monument Valley to Bronson Canyon. Of course Ford often mixed
locations. In a dissolve (as in STAGECOACH) he'd switch from
Chatsworth to Utah and back again. But the use of that B-movie
favorite location the Bronson cave in THE SEARCHERS has always stood
out for me far more than the often-discussed flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 24, 8:51 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 6:22 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > bachu....RemoveThis@rogers.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >> Anyway, it's good to see some
> > >>discussion about Chaplin around here.
> > >>The George Shelps Show gets old fast.
> > >>--Shush--
> > >>>Amen.
> > >As a cautionary lesson against anyone
> > >engaging the sorry Troll, let's note that
> > >his entry into this thread consisted of an
> > >ad hominem insult, thoroughly
> > >unprovoked by anyone going "off-topic".
> > This is false.
> Thanks George. Nice of you to warn us of the (lack of) veracity of
> what you were about to say next.
> > There was just one brief shot at Kuriyama's hero worship of
> > Chaplin...

Yeah, it's considerate of him to start providing disclaimers at
the beginning of his posts - not that they're necessary for anyone
familiar with his history -

As with his comment here in which one sentence is contradicted
by the next - it's 'false' that he entered the thread with an ad
hominem
insult, because it was only a 'brief' one.

Folks, that ain't an argument - it's the illogical nattering of one
who, as they
used to say in the Old South, has gone 'soft in the haid'.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Deborah wrote:

> This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
> previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
> status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
> will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
> if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
> Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
> unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
> LIGHTS.


I'm glad you're still with us, Deborah!

An interesting pattern in Chaplin's films is Charlie's status as an
outsider. All through the Keystones, he's not particularly an outsider
at all; he's usually shabby and volatile, but so were most of the
Keystone comics (Chester Conklin's "Walrus," Syd's "Gussle," etc.).
He's seldom if ever depicted as a bum.

In the Essanays and Mutuals, there are a lot of films where he's
got a steady job, but he's increasingly depicted as being down and out
in other films. He's a tramp in about half of the First Nationals.

In the features, he's basically always a tramp, wandering around,
snatching the odd job here and there, in and out of prison. Charlie's
role as an outsider is a dominant theme of the last features.

It's just interesting to me that as Chaplin the actor became more
and more financially secure and universally accepted, the character he
played became more and more the direct opposite of that.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>But the use of that B-movie favorite
>location the Bronson cave in THE
>SEARCHERS has always stood out for
>me far more than the often-discussed
>flowers in CITY LIGHTS.

For once, I agree with you---though
it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
able to identify the cave as Bronson
Canyon (I had a friend photograph
me heaving a rock from the cave
once upon a time...)
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 26, 5:34 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Deborah wrote:
> > This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
> > previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
> > status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
> > will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
> > if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
> > Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
> > unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
> > LIGHTS.
>
> I'm glad you're still with us, Deborah!
>
> An interesting pattern in Chaplin's films is Charlie's status as an
> outsider. All through the Keystones, he's not particularly an outsider
> at all; he's usually shabby and volatile, but so were most of the
> Keystone comics (Chester Conklin's "Walrus," Syd's "Gussle," etc.).
> He's seldom if ever depicted as a bum.
>
> In the Essanays and Mutuals, there are a lot of films where he's
> got a steady job, but he's increasingly depicted as being down and out
> in other films. He's a tramp in about half of the First Nationals.
>
> In the features, he's basically always a tramp, wandering around,
> snatching the odd job here and there, in and out of prison. Charlie's
> role as an outsider is a dominant theme of the last features.
>
> It's just interesting to me that as Chaplin the actor became more
> and more financially secure and universally accepted, the character he
> played became more and more the direct opposite of that.
>

Fascinating. That's not my take at all. I'll give you the first three
features, Gold Rush, Circus and City Lights, but after that I see the
progression being just the opposite. In Modern Times he's a regular
blue collar factory worker until driven insane by the repetition of
his work. And after that he takes 'regular' jobs as a night watchman,
factory worker (again) and a waiter. In Dictator he's a small business
owner until PTSD from his war experience gets him hospitalized. In
Verdoux he's a bank teller and then an entrepreneur personel investor.
Limelight has him as a long-time entertainer, more retired and down on
his luck than "wandering around, snatching the odd job here and
there." In King he's deposed royalty, hardly a bum. And in Countess
he's gainfully employed as a ships steward.

Rollie always used to say that City Lights was the beginning of the
end of the Tramp character. I didn't agree, seeing so much of the
Tramp in Modern Times and in the Little Barber. But the more I think
about it, if you look at it in terms of the character's back story,
Rollie had a good and valid point.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 26, 9:29 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:47 am, Deborah <Dzu....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:34?pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> > > > Paulette's character is presented as a rather
> > > > tomboyish, piratical character who takes the initiative, providing
> > > > food, shelter, and jobs for herself ?and the Tramp, whereas the
> > > > Tramp is relatively passive and inefffectual. ?This kind of play with
> > > > conventional gender boundaries is very typical of Chaplin's films.
>
> > > ? ?Paulette's character is an interesting one, but really all of
> > > Chaplin's features have interesting female leads in them. Until his
> > > divorce from Mildred Harris, all we ever got was Edna Purviance
> > > standing around looking pretty, existing simply to be flirted with or
> > > rescued. But around the time of THE KID, suddenly the women are much
> > > more compelling characters. I think it's a strength of Chaplin's
> > > mature films that he never gets much credit for. In that respect, he's
> > > miles ahead of Keaton and Lloyd.
>
> > > ? ?I don't know that I'd agree with you about the flipped gender
> > > boundaries in MODERN TIMES as typical in his films, though. What does
> > > strike me as typical is that the woman isn't necessarily needy for the
> > > hero's affection and leadership.
>
> > This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
> > previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
> > status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
> > will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
> > if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
> > Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
> > unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
> > LIGHTS. He gets his licks in in subversive ways, as befits a man of
> > his low status, to the great satisfaction of all the powerless and
> > disenfranchised viewers over the years.
>
> > As to the sloppiness of his technique, Chaplin's career ran so long
> > that he could reflect and make revisionist comments on his early work
> > decades later, so I take the "imperfection as art" argument as
> > posturing on his part.
>
> This all may be true enough, but the particular "revisionist comment"
> that started this discussion was apparently made in 1921.

One could argue that his later dismissal of elaborate technique was
retrospective self-justification, but that gets harder to accept when
the statement was made in 1921,

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that gender was in any way a
leveling factor, only that Charlie, in relation to assertive women
and
more powerful men, tends to assume a conventionally feminine role.

One remnant of this in _'verdoux_ is the episode in which he
prepares
a meal for the girl who is destined to become the mistress of a
munitions
manufacturer. Earlier, it is obvious that he was in the habit of
preparing
Lydia's breakfast, since he absent-mindedly starts to set the
table for her the morning after he's done her in.

Connie K.

> >I've never looked at a masterpiece and thought
> > that it could be improved upon, like I think when I see that flower
> > move in CITY LIGHTS. However, the tone of the scene is perfection. So,
> > if I have to sacrifice one or the other, I'll take substance over
> > technique every time. Few directors could pull off both, like John
> > Ford did with THE SEARCHERS.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

bachusio wrote:

>>There was just one brief shot at
>>Kuriyama's hero worship of Chaplin...

>Yeah, it's considerate of him to start
>providing disclaimers at the beginning of
>his posts - not that they're necessary for
>anyone familiar with his history -

As if you know the "histoy" of the ten
years I've been posting here...and even
your co-slanderer Tom Moran has commented on Dr K's 'hero
worship" of Chaplin, he even created
a :"Charlie Can Do No Wrong" Club
in her honor.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 26, 6:09 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >But the use of that B-movie favorite
> >location the Bronson cave in THE
> >SEARCHERS has always stood out for
> >me far more than the often-discussed
> >flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
>
> For once, I agree with you---though
> it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
> able to identify the cave as Bronson
> Canyon (I had a friend photograph
> me heaving a rock from the cave
> once upon a time...)

Oh my gosh, Richard. As George said, that is indeed an insider's
observation! Unless one really knows the territory, it fits. It does
not stand out like the Colorado Rockies did substituting for Fort
Smith, Arkansas in TRUE GRIT. Now if the Duke's hat had kept shifting
position in his close-up, like the infamous flower in CL, I'd notice
it! By the way, it's on HDTV right now, so I'm off to admire Ford at
his best.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique