Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

lanhamflREMOVE RemoveThis @cox.net (Richard Lanham) wrote:

>I think Chaplin put the flower
>right where he wanted it. He is creating
>a continuity of emotion and ideas, not a
>documentary. The flower links these two
>people; if it has to be repositioned to do
>so, make it happen.

Unlikely. Probably Chaplin decided
to use the shot which had the best
work by the amateur Virginia Cherrill.

As we know, Chaplin was not satisfied
with Cherrill's work and considered replacing her.

When he got a good take from
her, he probably decided to use it even
though it was a mismatch with the
angle on the Tramp.

It might have been a pragmatic decision.
rather than a case of sloppy craftsmanship...
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

"Constance Kuriyama" wrote in message

> Deborah (DzubeG@aol.com) writes:
>> 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.
>
> Someone's hat shifing in a single close-up wouldn't be quite the same,
> though it would be amusing enough.
>
> I saw _The Searchers_ some time ago and didn't notice any problem with
> the location shift, but then I don't see any reason why that rose has
> to be sticking up in front of the girl's face, either, just to keep
> its position consistent. Or why anyone would assume that a nervous man
> holding a flower wouldn't move it around. The change of costume in the
> lunch break scene is much more obvious, and you'll see that only if you're
> noticing what Charlie's wearing.
>
> Connie K.

In defense of CITY LIGHTS, I'd never noticed the "flower continuity error",
even after multiple viewings, until it was pointed out to me.

I'll have to look for the costume change in the lunch break scene, now.
--
Matt Barry
http://mysite.verizon.net/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

"Deborah" wrote in message

> On May 26, 10:39 pm, David Totheroh wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I would agree with Rollie, David. We know that CC was not comfortable
> with a talking tramp, so talkies take some credit for the descent of
> the tramp. I also think the historic times had something to do with it
> - a down-and-out tramp during the Depression may just have been too
> close to people's fears to be funny.
>
> Deborah
>

I always thought the Depression added a whole new dimension to Chaplin's
character, and that the two films he made during the decade gained a strong
relevance due to the times in which they were made. As to how audiences
responded, I believe both CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES did excellent box
office, which suggests they were a welcome return to pure physical comedy
that audiences may have been missing after several years of talking
comedies.
--
Matt Barry
http://mysite.verizon.net/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

On May 28, 10:51 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> lanhamflREM....DeleteThis@cox.net (Richard Lanham) wrote:
> >I think Chaplin put the flower
> >right where he wanted it. He is creating
> >a continuity of emotion and ideas, not a
> >documentary. The flower links these two
> >people; if it has to be repositioned to do
> >so, make it happen.
>
> Unlikely. Probably Chaplin decided
> to use the shot which had the best
> work by the amateur Virginia Cherrill.
>
> As we know, Chaplin was not satisfied
> with Cherrill's work and considered replacing her.

Who's "we?" I know only that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Cherrill's
*attitude*. And although the number of takes per scene indicates it
wasn't easy, I don't think there's anything in the historical record
that indicates Chaplin wasn't satisfied with the work he was
eventually able to get from her.

Remember also that not only did Chaplin "consider replacing her," he
DID replace her, and then rehired her. If he had been dissatisfied
with the "work," why would he have rehired Cherrill.

>
> When he got a good take from
> her, he probably decided to use it even
> though it was a mismatch with the
> angle on the Tramp.

That makes no sense at all. If he got a good take from Cherrill, why
not just reshoot the reverse angle on the Tramp to match? Unless of
course you believe Chaplin didn't think he could get the performance
he wanted out of himself. If there's anything we DO know about City
Lights, it's that Chaplin was willing to do virtually unlimited
retakes until he got what he wanted. The only rational conclusion is
that he did. (Of all his films, only The Kid and The Great Dictator
ranked higher in the ratio of film shot to film used.)

>
> It might have been a pragmatic decision.
> rather than a case of sloppy craftsmanship...

Or it might have been, given the film's almost universal reputation,
simply a most astute directorial decision.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

My, there certainly are a whole heck of a lot of sloppy craftsmen out
there:
http://www.everwonder.com/david/mistakes.html
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

David Totheroh wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > 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.


I didn't make myself very clear; I was talking about just the
Little Fellow, and how he changes from 1914 to 1936.

The Tramp does have a number of jobs in MODERN TIMES, but they're
always menial, unskilled-labor jobs, exactly the kind of work that
drifters take, and seldom for very long.

In contrast, go back to films like BEHIND THE SCREEN, THE PAWN SHOP
or THE RINK. Charlie is often doing unskilled labor here too, but he
does it with a zest that's missing in the 1930s films. He's having
fun. He's nearly fired in THE PAWN SHOP, and doesn't even care. And in
this period, he's not shuffling from one lousy job to another all in
the same film. He usually isn't just trying to scratch out a living.
Occasionally, as in THE FIREMAN, he's got a reasonably dignified job.
He's a skilled laborer in THE COUNT. In THE KID he's running his own
little business.

But by the 1930s, the Tramp has become a true tramp, and life isn't
such a joyful adventure anymore.



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

On May 29, 9:14 am, David Totheroh wrote:
> On May 28, 10:51 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > lanhamflREM....DeleteThis@cox.net (Richard Lanham) wrote:
> > >I think Chaplin put the flower
> > >right where he wanted it. He is creating
> > >a continuity of emotion and ideas, not a
> > >documentary. The flower links these two
> > >people; if it has to be repositioned to do
> > >so, make it happen.
>
> > Unlikely. Probably Chaplin decided
> > to use the shot which had the best
> > work by the amateur Virginia Cherrill.
>
> > As we know, Chaplin was not satisfied
> > with Cherrill's work and considered replacing her.
>
> Who's "we?" I know only that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Cherrill's
> *attitude*. And although the number of takes per scene indicates it
> wasn't easy, I don't think there's anything in the historical record
> that indicates Chaplin wasn't satisfied with the work he was
> eventually able to get from her.
>
> Remember also that not only did Chaplin "consider replacing her," he
> DID replace her, and then rehired her. If he had been dissatisfied
> with the "work," why would he have rehired Cherrill.
>
>
>
> > When he got a good take from
> > her, he probably decided to use it even
> > though it was a mismatch with the
> > angle on the Tramp.
>
> That makes no sense at all. If he got a good take from Cherrill, why
> not just reshoot the reverse angle on the Tramp to match? Unless of
> course you believe Chaplin didn't think he could get the performance
> he wanted out of himself. If there's anything we DO know about City
> Lights, it's that Chaplin was willing to do virtually unlimited
> retakes until he got what he wanted. The only rational conclusion is
> that he did. (Of all his films, only The Kid and The Great Dictator
> ranked higher in the ratio of film shot to film used.)
>
>
>
> > It might have been a pragmatic decision.
> > rather than a case of sloppy craftsmanship...
>
> Or it might have been, given the film's almost universal reputation,
> simply a most astute directorial decision.

There is no evidence that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Cherrill's
performance in this final scene. It was the initial flower-selling
scene that racked up the record number of takes. That was the
one Chaplin remembered with annoyance years later.

According to Robinson, who had access to the studio records, this
last sequence was completed in relatively few takes, and that's
also the impression one gets in Chaplin's interview with Meryman.

Anyone who looks *closely* at the scene can see that the shot of
Charlie biting his finger apprehensively (one of Chaplin's coded
gestures) requires the flower to be up, and the shot over his shoulder
requires the flower to be out of the way. Even during shooting those
involved must have been aware of this, and certainly they were aware
of it during editing.

Strict continuity is a realist expectation. Films are not necessarily
realistic, which I think is what Richard is getting at when he says
that Chaplin isn't making a documentary.

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

On May 29, 9:13 am, Shush wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> > Shush wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I didn't make myself very clear; I was talking about just the
> Little Fellow, and how he changes from 1914 to 1936.

OK, my faith in your perceptive insight is (mostly, see below)
restored.

>
> The Tramp does have a number of jobs in MODERN TIMES, but they're
> always menial, unskilled-labor jobs, exactly the kind of work that
> drifters take, and seldom for very long.
>
> In contrast, go back to films like BEHIND THE SCREEN, THE PAWN SHOP
> or THE RINK. Charlie is often doing unskilled labor here too, but he
> does it with a zest that's missing in the 1930s films. He's having
> fun. He's nearly fired in THE PAWN SHOP, and doesn't even care. And in
> this period, he's not shuffling from one lousy job to another all in
> the same film. He usually isn't just trying to scratch out a living.
> Occasionally, as in THE FIREMAN, he's got a reasonably dignified job.
> He's a skilled laborer in THE COUNT. In THE KID he's running his own
> little business.

(He said, reinforcing my prejudice that there's a very blurred fine
line between business and scam.)

>
> But by the 1930s, the Tramp has become a true tramp, and life isn't
> such a joyful adventure anymore.

Only parts of life aren't so joyful for him. Meeting the blind flower
seller's needs seems to give the Little Fellow great pleasure and joy.
And is there a more exuberant dive into a bath than the one in Modern
Times from the residence that ain't Buckingham Palace?

Doesn't a huge part of the magic that is the end of MT lie in the fact
that in the Little Fellow's own mind, even though lots of reality
sucks, the "adventure" always holds potential for real joy?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

David Totheorh wrote:

>Who's "we?" I know only that Chaplin
>was dissatisfied with Cherrill's *attitude*.
>And although the number of takes per

>scene indicates it wasn't easy, I don't
>think there's anything in the historical
>record that indicates Chaplin wasn't
>satisfied with the work he was eventually
>able to get from her.

No, there's no record, other than the
fact that he tested Georgia Hale as
a replacement.


>Remember also that not only did Chaplin
>"consider replacing her," he DID replace
>her, and then rehired her. If he had been
>dissatisfied with the "work," why would
>he have rehired Cherrill.

Because the proposed replacement,
Hale, was unsuitable?

>>When he got a good take from
>>her, he probably decided to use it even
>>though it was a mismatch with the
>>angle on the Tramp.

>That makes no sense at all. If he got a
>good take from Cherrill, why not just
>reshoot the reverse angle on the Tramp
>to match? Unless of course you believe
>Chaplin didn't think he could get the

>performance he wanted out of himself. If
>there's anything we DO know about City
>Lights, it's that Chaplin was willing to do
>virtually unlimited retakes until he got
>what he wanted. The only rational

>conclusion is that he did. (Of all his
>ilms, only The Kid and The Great
>Dictator ranked higher in the ratio of film
>shot to film used.)

Just trying to put a rational face on a
flaw in the scene. Maybe I'm wrong.


>>tt might have been a pragmatic decision.
>>>rather than a case of sloppy
>>craftsmanship...

>Or it might have been, given the film's
>almost universal reputation, simply a
>most astute directorial decision.

Not a chance.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

On May 29, 7:49 am, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheorh wrote:
> >Who's "we?" I know only that Chaplin
> >was dissatisfied with Cherrill's *attitude*.
> >And although the number of takes per
> >scene indicates it wasn't easy, I don't
> >think there's anything in the historical
> >record that indicates Chaplin wasn't
> >satisfied with the work he was eventually
> >able to get from her.
>
> No, there's no record, other than the
> fact that he tested Georgia Hale as
> a replacement.

Because of Cherrill's attitude, not because of the work he had been
able to extract from her.

>
> >Remember also that not only did Chaplin
> >"consider replacing her," he DID replace
> >her, and then rehired her. If he had been
> >dissatisfied with the "work," why would
> >he have rehired Cherrill.
>
> Because the proposed replacement,
> Hale, was unsuitable?

Exactly, because Hale could not produce the "work" sufficiently better
than what had come from Cherrill.

>
>
>
> >>When he got a good take from
> >>her, he probably decided to use it even
> >>though it was a mismatch with the
> >>angle on the Tramp.
> >That makes no sense at all. If he got a
> >good take from Cherrill, why not just
> >reshoot the reverse angle on the Tramp
> >to match? Unless of course you believe
> >Chaplin didn't think he could get the
> >performance he wanted out of himself. If
> >there's anything we DO know about City
> >Lights, it's that Chaplin was willing to do
> >virtually unlimited retakes until he got
> >what he wanted. The only rational
> >conclusion is that he did. (Of all his
> >ilms, only The Kid and The Great
> >Dictator ranked higher in the ratio of film
> >shot to film used.)
>
> Just trying to put a rational face on a
> flaw in the scene. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe?

>
> >>tt might have been a pragmatic decision.
> >>>rather than a case of sloppy
> >>craftsmanship...
> >Or it might have been, given the film's
> >almost universal reputation, simply a
> >most astute directorial decision.
>
> Not a chance.

You haven't explained, in ways consistent with what is known about the
production realities of the shooting of CL, why Chaplin wouldn't have
reshot his character's part of the final scene.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

On May 28, 12:49 pm, d... DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> Deborah (Dzu...@aol.com) writes:
> > On May 26, 10:29 am, David Totheroh wrote:
>
> >> This all may be true enough, but the particular "revisionist comment"
> >> that started this discussion was apparently made in 1921.
>
> > Fair enough. Rather than posturing then, of which Chaplin did plenty
> > in his lifetime, allow me to call this comment Chaplin's defensive
> > rationalization for those sloppy bits.
>
> That might suit better if anyone in 1921 had criticied his films for being
> sloppy. As far as I know this criticism surfaced later, when film technique
> got more polished in general. In the context of the interview, he simply
> volunteers the information that he'd "hate a picture that was perfect."
> You could see it as an *excuse*, I suppose, but people who make excuses are
> usually motivated by criticism.

Sloppy was my chosen word, and maybe stronger than what his
contemporaries might have said. Even so, I cannot know the context of
this comment, Connie, since you only posted Chaplin's words and not
the question or conversation that provoked them. Given Chaplin's known
perfectionism, it seems an odd point for him to make, unless he got
wind of some of that apparently non-existant criticism.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

Any reasonable director is going to cut for performance, not
continuity. There is no more technically gifted director than Martin
Scorsese working today, and his films are filled with "errors."
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>No, there's no record, other than the
>>fact that he tested Georgia Hale as
>>a replacement.

>Because of Cherrill's attitude, not
>because of the work he had been able to
>extract from her

I recall reading that she was having
difficulty playing "blind."


>>Just trying to put a rational face on a
>>flaw in the scene. Maybe I'm wrong.

>Maybe?

Yeah, maybe.

>>>>tt might have been a pragmatic
>>>>decision. rather than a case of sloppy >>>>craftsmanship.
..
>>>Or it might have been, given the film's
>>>almost universal reputation, simply a
>>>most astute directorial decision.

>>Not a chance.

>You haven't explained, in ways
>consistent with what is known about the
>production realities of the shooting of
>CL, why Chaplin wouldn't have reshot
>his character's part of the final scene.

Because he thought audiences wouldn't
notice the discrepancy---and in terms
of 1931 audience sophistication, he
was probably right.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's ""Imperfect"" Technique