New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book

David Totheroh wrote:

>>As an experienced Kuriyama vet,I've
>>been reading this thread, knowing that
>>sooner or later the "real cheat"
>>will pop up, killing meaningful discussion.

>And sure enough, you just did.

Just couldn't resist confirming someone
else's accurate description of "Kuriyamaism"
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:

>>>>Fred wrote:

>>>First of all, are you trying to imply that
>>>Chaplin was more careful than the
>>>others?

>>That there was no careful planning,
>>say, on a Keaton film?

>      Relax, Fred. Connie wrote, "I didn't
>say that Chaplin did anything differently,
>by the way, or that his location shooting
>was better than anyone else's."

Nice try, Shush

But it's just another example of Connie's sophistry. She makes a verbal
feint
towards reasonableness and then
plumps for Chaplin being more "natural"
and eschewing the "big effects" of
Lloyd or Keaton.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

DT wrote:

>Unlike your ad hominem comments,

Just following on, and agreeing with,
Fred's comments.

> hers is wide open to further meaningful
>responses. You might have started by
>attempting to supply an actual quote as
>evidence that she, as you claim without
>support, was indeed "eschewing the "big
>effects" of Lloyd or Keaton."

Oh, come on. Connie habitually defends
Chaplin's "simplicity" as superior to
elaborate camera effects.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>>>As an experienced Kuriyama vet,I've
>>>>been reading this thread, knowing
>>>>that sooner or later the "real cheat"
>>>>will pop up, killing meaningful discussion.

>>>And sure enough, you just did.

>>Just couldn't resist confirming someone
>>else's accurate description of
>>"Kuriyamaism"

>Sorry, much as I agree with most of
>Fred's observations, a rereading of the
>posts (including the quote cited by Shush
>and the paragraph preceeding it) shows
>your characterization of his 'accurate
>description' in this case to be, bluntly,
>just plain wrong.

I'm sorry, you just haven't been reading
Connie very closely all these years, then.

Fred nails her tack exactly.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 19 Oct 2006 13:33:17 -0700, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Again, I'm not arguing that Chaplin's choices were more brilliant
>than anyone else's, but he generally went to some trouble to find ones
>that seemed right to him. Like everything else in his films, he was
>picky about the location work.

I'm sure he was picky. But were Keaton, Lloyd and the rest of
Hollywood totally arbitrary and random in their choices? When someone
points out that person A is picky it naturally implies that person B
(or every other person) *isn't* picky, or that person A is more picky.
And that's just not the case. Chaplin didn't do any better, or
exhibit any more brilliance than anyone else at the time. In fact, he
was overshadowed by a LOT of others. Laurel & Hardy are another great
example of better location work. Let's not forget, after all, that
Bengtson's first book was about Keaton, and there's nothing in it that
indicates that he was less picky or successful in his location work.

As I said, and you seem to agree, there's no reason to hand Chaplin
the "greatness in location work" Oscar. Was the rooftop scene
effective? Yep. But it could have been just as effective in a studio
or on other rooftops. What made the scene work was more the context
than the location, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT to say that the look
doesn't matter at all; just that he could have been competent and
meticulous elsewhere and it still would have worked (and that if he'd
have given Keaton the task of finding a location he'd have come up
with something good too).

My problem with Connie's view is that she seems to think that
Chaplin's location work reflected his genius, as if it was more
special than what other people were doing. I say he wasn't doing
anything better or more special.

And let's not forget how truly awful (fake) a lot of his studio work
was. If he really went to incredible trouble to get the perfect
location, why did he fail so badly at a lot of the studio stuff?

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 19 Oct 2006 15:01:27 -0700, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com>
wrote:
>
> a difference between (as a descriptive example) Keaton in The
>General and Chaplin in The Kid. Unlike your ad hominem comments, hers
>is wide open to further meaningful responses. You might have started by
>attempting to supply an actual quote as evidence that she, as you claim
>without support, was indeed "eschewing the "big effects" of Lloyd or
>Keaton." It's unfortunate (but understandable) that you chose to forgo
>the opportunity.

I think the cleverness of the rooftop scene in The Kid ends with
choosing that concept. In other words, it's clever and effective to
stage the chase on the roof, but it could have been shot almost
anywhere, including in the studio. I'll put Chaplin on a pedestal for
deciding on a rooftop chase, but not for brilliance in how it was
shot. Heck, I'll give Rollie more credit than Chaplin for that.

I hope it doesn't come across that I don't like that film, or that
scene or that I don't think Chaplin is a genius. Because that's not
how I feel. I just don't think Chaplin's use of locations is genius.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

Fred wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > Again, I'm not arguing that Chaplin's choices were more brilliant
> >than anyone else's, but he generally went to some trouble to find ones
> >that seemed right to him. Like everything else in his films, he was
> >picky about the location work.
>
> I'm sure he was picky. But were Keaton, Lloyd and the rest of
> Hollywood totally arbitrary and random in their choices? When someone
> points out that person A is picky it naturally implies that person B
> (or every other person) *isn't* picky, or that person A is more picky.
> And that's just not the case.

I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
end?

I wasn't trying to imply that Chaplin's location selections were
better than anyone's (I think Keaton's are generally much better). It's
just that Chaplin's notorious persnicketiness about filmmaking in
general extended to his choices for location shooting as well. That's
the only point I was making, other than sticking up for the location
work in THE KID, which impresses me more than it does you.


> Chaplin didn't do any better, or
> exhibit any more brilliance than anyone else at the time. In fact, he
> was overshadowed by a LOT of others. Laurel & Hardy are another great
> example of better location work.

What films are you thinking of? THE MUSIC BOX, definitely, but what
else?



> And let's not forget how truly awful (fake) a lot of his studio work
> was. If he really went to incredible trouble to get the perfect
> location, why did he fail so badly at a lot of the studio stuff?

Yeah. I don't like a lot of the studio-bound "exteriors" either,
though that stuff played better sixty years ago than it does now.
Inconsistency, thy name is Chaplin.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On Oct 19, 9:20 pm, Fred <f....TakeThisOut@hotmailx.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2006 15:01:27 -0700, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> .I think the cleverness of the rooftop scene in The Kid ends with
> choosing that concept. In other words, it's clever and effective to
> stage the chase on the roof, but it could have been shot almost
> anywhere, including in the studio

And the train falling into the river on the collapsing bridge in 'The
General' would've been
equally as effective if it was done with miniatures in the studio.
..
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

Fred (fwtep@hotmailx.com) writes:
> On 18 Oct 2006 04:34:17 GMT, do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>every one of them is carefully
>>planned and set up so that the sequence seems perfectly natural--so
>>natural, in fact, that it won't stand out as anyything special.
>
> One more thing. That type of response is a real cheat. There's no
> way anyone can win an argument (or have a meaningful conversation) if
> you're using tactics like that.

Like what, for Chrissake? All I said was that Chaplin's location work
was carefully done and inconspicuous. I wasn't aware that it was a
crime to have that opinion.


If I say "Keaton had big exciting
> location work," then you'd say "well, see, Chaplin was better because
> he used it subtly."

Where did I say that Chaplin was better?

But if, instead, I said "Keaton used locations
> subtly and very matter-of-factly," you'd say, "Chaplin was more
> artistic because he used the very obviousness of his location work as
> a stark contrast against his studio work."

I wouldn't say that. Why are you saying it?

> So tell me, which is the sign of the true artist, making it obvious or
> making it subtle?

There's also no point in having a conversation with someone who doesn't
bother to read posts. Please show me where I said in ANY post that
Chapiin's location work was better than anyone else's. It ain't there.
In fact i said exactly the opposite--that both Chapin's and Keaton's
location work was carefully done, but that Keaton liked to shooot somewhat
different subjects which might make the effect more noticable.

But if you want to think that Chaplin's location shooting is merely
ordinary, that's fine with me.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 23 Oct 2006 19:06:18 -0700, bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com wrote:

>
>
>On Oct 19, 9:20 pm, Fred <f....RemoveThis@hotmailx.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2006 15:01:27 -0700, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> .I think the cleverness of the rooftop scene in The Kid ends with
>> choosing that concept. In other words, it's clever and effective to
>> stage the chase on the roof, but it could have been shot almost
>> anywhere, including in the studio
>
>And the train falling into the river on the collapsing bridge in 'The
>General' would've been
>equally as effective if it was done with miniatures in the studio.
>.

That's a silly comparison. Creating the roofs in the studio would be
(or *could easily be*) identical to what was at the location. After
all, they'd be built the same way and in the same scale. There'd be
no difference except that it would be in a different place.
Substituting a miniature train in the Keaton gag would be entirely
different.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> Fred wrote:
>
>> Shush wrote:
>> > Again, I'm not arguing that Chaplin's choices were more brilliant
>> >than anyone else's, but he generally went to some trouble to find ones
>> >that seemed right to him. Like everything else in his films, he was
>> >picky about the location work.
>>
>> I'm sure he was picky. But were Keaton, Lloyd and the rest of
>> Hollywood totally arbitrary and random in their choices? When someone
>> points out that person A is picky it naturally implies that person B
>> (or every other person) *isn't* picky, or that person A is more picky.
>> And that's just not the case.
>
> I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
> taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
> every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
> end?
>
> I wasn't trying to imply that Chaplin's location selections were
> better than anyone's (I think Keaton's are generally much better). It's
> just that Chaplin's notorious persnicketiness about filmmaking in
> general extended to his choices for location shooting as well. That's
> the only point I was making, other than sticking up for the location
> work in THE KID, which impresses me more than it does you.
>
>
>> Chaplin didn't do any better, or
>> exhibit any more brilliance than anyone else at the time. In fact, he
>> was overshadowed by a LOT of others. Laurel & Hardy are another great
>> example of better location work.
>
> What films are you thinking of? THE MUSIC BOX, definitely, but what
> else?

Apart from the fact that the location virtually IS this film, what makes
it "better" than the roof sequence in _The Kid_? It seems to me that
all kinds of broad claims are being made here about unspecified location
work being "better" that all of Chaplin's location work.

I'm afraid i'm not sure what "better" means. Is it "better" to shoot an
entire film on location? Many of the Keystones were shot entirely on
location. Does that make them "better" than _The Gold Rush_?


>> And let's not forget how truly awful (fake) a lot of his studio work
>> was. If he really went to incredible trouble to get the perfect
>> location, why did he fail so badly at a lot of the studio stuff?
>
> Yeah. I don't like a lot of the studio-bound "exteriors" either,
> though that stuff played better sixty years ago than it does now.
> Inconsistency, thy name is Chaplin.

First it's "better," and then it's "awful." I'm puzzled. What, exactly,
are we talking about?

I actually like the studio work in Chaplin's films, though I wouldn't
claim it is "better" than, say, Lloyd's. But then I don't expect films
to be realistic, especially when there's a central character who comes
from nowhere and wears whiteface and a fake moustache. Chaplin had sets
built that suited his character.

Connie K.


>
>
>
> --Shush--
>
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 23 Oct 2006 22:50:14 GMT, do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:

>Fred (fwtep@hotmailx.com) writes:
>> On 18 Oct 2006 04:34:17 GMT, do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
>> Kuriyama) wrote:
>>
>>>every one of them is carefully
>>>planned and set up so that the sequence seems perfectly natural--so
>>>natural, in fact, that it won't stand out as anyything special.
>>
>> One more thing. That type of response is a real cheat. There's no
>> way anyone can win an argument (or have a meaningful conversation) if
>> you're using tactics like that.
>
>Like what, for Chrissake? All I said was that Chaplin's location work
>was carefully done and inconspicuous. I wasn't aware that it was a
>crime to have that opinion.

Now you're being silly on purpose. You know full well that my point
is that your implication was that Keaton (and everyone else) *wasn't*
careful and inconspicuous. If that's not your point, why mention it?
Your initial comments implied that Chaplin's location work was better
than average, and I simply said that's a rather extreme and
"idol-worshippy" statement.

Besides, it WASN'T inconspicuous if you ask me (opinion, of course)
because his studio stuff was so "studio-looking" that it made the
location stuff stand out.


>There's also no point in having a conversation with someone who doesn't
>bother to read posts. Please show me where I said in ANY post that
>Chapiin's location work was better than anyone else's. It ain't there.
>In fact i said exactly the opposite--that both Chapin's and Keaton's
>location work was carefully done, but that Keaton liked to shooot somewhat
>different subjects which might make the effect more noticable.
>
>But if you want to think that Chaplin's location shooting is merely
>ordinary, that's fine with me.

Here's one thing you said: "Chaplin does this so well that it is
virtually invisible,but this book makes it impossible to ignore."

To which I said there's no need to put him on a pedestal for something
he didn't do any better than anyone else. You say you never said
Chaplin's location work was better than anyone else's, to which I ask:
Then who *isn't* doing it "so well?" Saying someone does something
really well implies that other people don't, wouldn't you agree? "So
well" means "better than average." Who is average, in your opinion?

Your attitude towards others, Keaton for example is evident in your
point of comparison for location work. You compare a sequence for
Chaplin (the roof) with one single shot in The General, the bridge
collapse. Talk about stacking the deck!

And, by the way, after 19 years in the industry, on both coasts, I do
know a thing or two about what goes into location work-- from all ends
of production. I'm not saying that to brag, merely to let you know
that it's not something I've only read about, since you keep trying to
tell me how certain things aren't "particularly simple or easy to
achieve."

Fred

PS: Yes, I'll grant that there were cheapies, quickies and other
films made outside of the big studios that were pretty shoddy looking,
but when I say Chaplin's location work wasn't any better than anyone
else I obviously mean professional Hollywood films.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:

>Fred (fwtep@hotmailx.com) writes:


>>do481@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>>(Constance Kuriyama) wrote:


>>>every one of them is carefully
>>>planned and set up so that the
>>>sequence seems perfectly natural--so
>>>natural, in fact, that it won't stand out
>>>as anyything special.


>>One more thing. That type of response
>>is a real cheat. There's no way anyone
>>can win an argument (or have a
>>meaningful conversation) if you're using
>>tactics like that.


>Like what, for Chrissake? All I said was
>that Chaplin's location work was
>carefully done and inconspicuous. I
>wasn't aware that it was a crime to have
>that opinion.

Like saying that Chaplin's location work
is both "planned" and "perfectly natural,"
thus eliminating the basis for any
discussion.

No "crime," just your customary intellectual dishonesty.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book