Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

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

>>Connie K wrote:

>>>Mr. Shelps seems to think that
>>>everyone is adolescent but himself-- a
>>>classic case of projection.

>>No, mainly you...but Richard's effusive
>>praise of the adequate Cherrill did
>>seem to me to indicate a valentine crush,

>Not hard to see how someone with such
>a creepy obsession with Ann Coulter
>would see valentine crushes in others.

I've never written something as moony
as "she is perfection" about Coulter.

But as a matter of fact, I do maintain an
occasional e-mail correspondence with
AC---about our common political
views.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 31, 7:25 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>Connie K wrote:
> >>>Mr. Shelps seems to think that
> >>>everyone is adolescent but himself-- a
> >>>classic case of projection.
> >>No, mainly you...but Richard's effusive
> >>praise of the adequate Cherrill did
> >>seem to me to indicate a valentine crush,
> >Not hard to see how someone with such
> >a creepy obsession with Ann Coulter
> >would see valentine crushes in others.
>
> I've never written something as moony
> as "she is perfection" about Coulter.

You've been drooling over her for years. It's really embarassing to
watch.
>
> But as a matter of fact, I do maintain an
> occasional e-mail correspondence with
> AC---about our common political
> views.

I'm sure she pines for every missive.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:


>>>>No, mainly you...but Richard's
>>>>effusive praise of the adequate
>>>>Cherrill did seem to me to indicate a
>>>>valentine crush,

>>>Not hard to see how someone with
>>>such a creepy obsession with Ann
>>>Coulter would see valentine crushes in
>>>others.

>>I've never written something as moony
>>as "she is perfection" about Coulter.

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

On May 31, 8:39 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6....RemoveThis@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>>>No, mainly you...but Richard's
> >>>>effusive praise of the adequate
> >>>>Cherrill did seem to me to indicate a
> >>>>valentine crush,
> >>>Not hard to see how someone with
> >>>such a creepy obsession with Ann
> >>>Coulter would see valentine crushes in
> >>>others.
> >>I've never written something as moony
> >>as "she is perfection" about Coulter.
> >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.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 31, 7:16 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....RemoveThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:1180589895.940127.299320@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 12:56 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> >> > The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>
> >> > "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
> >> > actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
> >> > rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
> >> > carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
> >> > now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
> >> > those
> >> > bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
> >> > act it.'
> >> > "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
> >> > picture
> >> > that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
> >> > touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>
> >> > If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
> >> > to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
> >> > (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
> >> > flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
> >> > involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
> >> > catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.
>
> >> That sounds reasonable to me too. But this is the same guy who was
> >> telling interviewers he'd been born in France, so who knows whether he
> >> was telling the truth about this?
>
> >> --Shush--
>
> > Well, the story about being born in France (which doesn't occur in his
> > earliest
> > interviews, by the way) can be disproven, while the statement that he
> > accepts a degree of imperfection in his work is consistent with the
> > facts.
>
> > I wonder if that story about France originated with an inventive press
> > agent--
> > or was encouraged by one, since it dates from the time when Chaplin
> > began
> > employing press agents.
>
> > Connie K.
> > Connie K.
>
> For some reason, I want to say it originates in a comical "interview"
> Chaplin gave. I read about this interview in Glenn Mitchell's Chaplin
> Encyclopedia. Basically, Chaplin went through and had fun giving silly
> answers and ludicrous stories. He said something to the effect that when he
> entered films, he was encouraged to change his name because he might be
> confused with the "far more popular" comedian Charley Chase. This, of
> course, was just Chaplin having fun, but I can't remember if he said
> anything about being born in France.
>
> There was also that unauthorized biography published in the 20s that
> supposedly was filled with errors. It may have originated there.
> --
> Matt Barrywww.myspace.com/mattbarry84
> View my films at:www.grouper.com
> Read my essays and articles at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com

You might be right about the interview. Chaplin often didn't take
interviews
seriously and didn't consider himself bound by fact, especially in the
late teens and early twenties. You have to do your best to pick up
the tone
of ] what he's reported as saying. (The reporting probably isn't
always accurate
either.) The Vreeland interview is one of the more interesting,
however..

The Rose Wyler Lane book may have included some of his flights of
imagination, and it was about to be published at the point when
Chaplin realized that people were beginning to check up on
what he said. From that point on, his interviews tend to be more
cautious, though I wouldn't claim they were 100% true.

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

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:10:16 -0700, "constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriyama.DeleteThis@ttu.edu> wrote:

>On May 31, 7:16 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....DeleteThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> <constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180589895.940127.299320@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 30, 12:56 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu wrote:
>> >> > The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>>
>> >> > "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
>> >> > actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
>> >> > rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
>> >> > carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
>> >> > now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
>> >> > those
>> >> > bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
>> >> > act it.'
>> >> > "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
>> >> > picture
>> >> > that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
>> >> > touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>>
>> >> > If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
>> >> > to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
>> >> > (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
>> >> > flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
>> >> > involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
>> >> > catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.
>>
>> >> That sounds reasonable to me too. But this is the same guy who was
>> >> telling interviewers he'd been born in France, so who knows whether he
>> >> was telling the truth about this?
>>
>> >> --Shush--
>>
>> > Well, the story about being born in France (which doesn't occur in his
>> > earliest
>> > interviews, by the way) can be disproven, while the statement that he
>> > accepts a degree of imperfection in his work is consistent with the
>> > facts.
>>
>> > I wonder if that story about France originated with an inventive press
>> > agent--
>> > or was encouraged by one, since it dates from the time when Chaplin
>> > began
>> > employing press agents.
>>
>> > Connie K.
>> > Connie K.
>>
>> For some reason, I want to say it originates in a comical "interview"
>> Chaplin gave. I read about this interview in Glenn Mitchell's Chaplin
>> Encyclopedia. Basically, Chaplin went through and had fun giving silly
>> answers and ludicrous stories. He said something to the effect that when he
>> entered films, he was encouraged to change his name because he might be
>> confused with the "far more popular" comedian Charley Chase. This, of
>> course, was just Chaplin having fun, but I can't remember if he said
>> anything about being born in France.
>>
>> There was also that unauthorized biography published in the 20s that
>> supposedly was filled with errors. It may have originated there.
>> --
>> Matt Barrywww.myspace.com/mattbarry84
>> View my films at:www.grouper.com
>> Read my essays and articles at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com
>
>You might be right about the interview. Chaplin often didn't take
>interviews
>seriously and didn't consider himself bound by fact, especially in the
>late teens and early twenties. You have to do your best to pick up
>the tone
>of ] what he's reported as saying. (The reporting probably isn't
>always accurate
>either.) The Vreeland interview is one of the more interesting,
>however..
>
>The Rose Wyler Lane book may have included some of his flights of
>imagination, and it was about to be published at the point when
>Chaplin realized that people were beginning to check up on
>what he said. From that point on, his interviews tend to be more
>cautious, though I wouldn't claim they were 100% true.
>
>Connie K.

That's Rose Wilder Lane, and in that book only France was specified, not
Fontainebleu. Harry Geduld, the editor of the most recent reprint of CCOS,
states that the Fontainebleu location came from various articles and interviews
from the teens, and was finally 'scotched' by a 1927 French biography by Edouard
Ramond, who actually did the research and found that London was CC's birthplace.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 1, 4:03 pm, Phil P. <p....RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:10:16 -0700, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
>
>
> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> >On May 31, 7:16 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....RemoveThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180589895.940127.299320@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On May 30, 12:56 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> >> >> > The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>
> >> >> > "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
> >> >> > actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
> >> >> > rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
> >> >> > carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
> >> >> > now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
> >> >> > those
> >> >> > bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
> >> >> > act it.'
> >> >> > "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
> >> >> > picture
> >> >> > that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
> >> >> > touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>
> >> >> > If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
> >> >> > to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
> >> >> > (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
> >> >> > flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
> >> >> > involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
> >> >> > catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.
>
> >> >> That sounds reasonable to me too. But this is the same guy who was
> >> >> telling interviewers he'd been born in France, so who knows whether he
> >> >> was telling the truth about this?
>
> >> >> --Shush--
>
> >> > Well, the story about being born in France (which doesn't occur in his
> >> > earliest
> >> > interviews, by the way) can be disproven, while the statement that he
> >> > accepts a degree of imperfection in his work is consistent with the
> >> > facts.
>
> >> > I wonder if that story about France originated with an inventive press
> >> > agent--
> >> > or was encouraged by one, since it dates from the time when Chaplin
> >> > began
> >> > employing press agents.
>
> >> > Connie K.
> >> > Connie K.
>
> >> For some reason, I want to say it originates in a comical "interview"
> >> Chaplin gave. I read about this interview in Glenn Mitchell's Chaplin
> >> Encyclopedia. Basically, Chaplin went through and had fun giving silly
> >> answers and ludicrous stories. He said something to the effect that when he
> >> entered films, he was encouraged to change his name because he might be
> >> confused with the "far more popular" comedian Charley Chase. This, of
> >> course, was just Chaplin having fun, but I can't remember if he said
> >> anything about being born in France.
>
> >> There was also that unauthorized biography published in the 20s that
> >> supposedly was filled with errors. It may have originated there.
> >> --
> >> Matt Barrywww.myspace.com/mattbarry84
> >> View my films at:www.grouper.com
> >> Read my essays and articles at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com
>
> >You might be right about the interview. Chaplin often didn't take
> >interviews
> >seriously and didn't consider himself bound by fact, especially in the
> >late teens and early twenties. You have to do your best to pick up
> >the tone
> >of ] what he's reported as saying. (The reporting probably isn't
> >always accurate
> >either.) The Vreeland interview is one of the more interesting,
> >however..
>
> >The Rose Wyler Lane book may have included some of his flights of
> >imagination, and it was about to be published at the point when
> >Chaplin realized that people were beginning to check up on
> >what he said. From that point on, his interviews tend to be more
> >cautious, though I wouldn't claim they were 100% true.
>
> >Connie K.
>
> That's Rose Wilder Lane, and in that book only France was specified, not
> Fontainebleu. Harry Geduld, the editor of the most recent reprint of CCOS,
> states that the Fontainebleu location came from various articles and interviews
> from the teens, and was finally 'scotched' by a 1927 French biography by Edouard
> Ramond, who actually did the research and found that London was CC's birthplace.

Right. I was too lazy to check the middle name.

As I recall, Raymond found no birth record in France, but since
there's none in London
either, I wonder how he verified that.

And by the way, that's Fontainebleau. ;-)

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

rfcsac627n DeleteThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On Jun 1, 11:45 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6... DeleteThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

rfcsac6....TakeThisOut@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.

Since you, Connie, Moran, and Totheroh
chose to assault my character, motives,
and intellect because I didn't and
don't share your political worship of
Chaplin, I long ago decided to avoid
serious discussion with y'all....and
I now include Bachusio in that
"chaplinsta nostra."
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

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

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.

It's like those two old geezars in the nursing home who were always
at each other's throats. When one of them died, the other pined away
and died soon after.

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

On Jun 3, 7:20 am, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Constance Kuriyama 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.
>
> 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique