New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:35:25 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Aldrich wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
> >> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
> >> convey their epic locales.
> >
> > I disagree with his premise, though. I've never considered THE GOLD
> >RUSH to be an epic. One magnificent long shot of miners climbing a
> >mountain face does not an epic make. The rest of the film stays
> >indoors, for the most part. It's actually more of an intimate film than
> >certain others that Chaplin did.
>
> Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
> have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
> He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
> control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp. So he
> wound up making a film that was more in his "wheelhouse" and decided
> to leave the grand scale filmmaking to those who were better able to
> pull it off.
>
> > I'm not sure I'd even call THE GENERAL an epic, though it's close.
> >To me, a film needs huge sets and thousands of extras to qualify as an
> >epic, but that's just me. Making a big deal about the extensive
> >location work on THE GENERAL is kind of a cheat, anyway, isn't it? That
> >film couldn't have been shot any other way, unless you wanted to
> >construct a fake locomotive and have it sit on Mack Sennett's
> >cyclorama, and then your results would be so hideous you'd never get to
> >make another film!
>
> Sure you could make THE GENERAL the way Chaplin made THE GOLD RUSH.
> Without the sweeping panaromas, without the authentic bridge collapse
> and without all the outdoor shots.. That's how Chaplin wouldn've made
> it...of course it wouldn't be THE GENERAL then, it would be SHOULDER
> ARMS, DIXIE STYLE.
>
> > I like THE GENERAL very much, but comparing it to THE GOLD RUSH is
> >like apples and oranges. One's about machines, the other's about
> >people. One's mainly indoors, the other's mainly outdoors. One's about
> >looking for happiness through wealth or love, the other's about a
> >rescue odyssey. Comedy is their only common ground.
>
> Agree completely. But, didn't this conversation begin with a
> discussion of Chaplin's use of locations -vs- Keaton's?

Yes indeedy. Are you saying that the opening shot in TGR is ineffective
in establishing a physical and emotional context for the story that
follows?
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 14:14:50 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Aldrich wrote:
> >> On 8 Nov 2006 12:53:54 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Aldrich wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Shush wrote:
> >> >> > 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 think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
> >> >> was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
> >> >> because of his desire for more and better location work.
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
> >> >> build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
> >> >> little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But if Chaplin hadn't been picky about his location work, he'd have
> >> >never gone 500 miles north and 7000 feet up a snow-covered mountain for
> >> >those GOLD RUSH shots in the first place. I think that the scrapping of
> >> >so much Truckee footage says more about Chaplin's capriciousness than
> >> >about indifference. It was his nature as a filmmaker to go back and
> >> >re-shoot sequences over and over, and you can't always do that with
> >> >location work. For one thing, those mountains around Truckee are as
> >> >green as Ireland six months of the year. In the end, he used some of
> >> >the original Truckee material and shot the do-overs in the studio.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are actually saying pretty much the same thing...and the upshot is
> >> that the kind of location work that Keaton did so well just wasn't
> >> Chaplins forte. The fake cabin exteriors say it all. Keaton would
> >> never do that.
> >>
> >> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
> >> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
> >> convey their epic locales.
> >>
> >> Not sure what difference the green mountains make...they would have
> >> been snow covered in any event.
> >
> >Sorry John, that was exactly one of the significant problems, and it
> >would have made a great deal of difference. Those mountains WEREN'T
> >covered with snow for too long after the 2 week late April shoot. In
> >fact, even by the end of that 2 weeks, the snow that was still there
> >was becoming a slushy mess.
> >
> >Another problem was that, although Chaplin knew he wanted something
> >about the cabin being blown to a new location, he hadn't worked out the
> >entire sequence yet. They tried many things, wind machines, teams of
> >horses hooked up to a cabin on skids, sliding it down a slope, etc.
> >Nothing worked to give the effect Chaplin was after. In fact, even
> >after filming much of that sequence on the La Brea stage, it wasn't
> >until after Monta Bell's suggestion on viewing some of the rushes that
> >Chaplin changed the whole concept such that he and Swain were unaware
> >of the motion. And that's when the whole thing fell into place, making
> >the sequence (in spite of your contention that "the fake cabin
> >exteriors say it all") one of the all-time most memorable scenes in the
> >history of cinema.
> >
> >You're right about one thing, Keaton never did a scene that integrated
> >miniatures and real life shots as memorably as Chaplin did in TGR, at
> >least not that I can think of.
>
> That's really putting an interesting spin on it, David.
>
> The whole point of using miniatures is to try to make it so it is not
> easily detectable, and in that regard, Chaplin fails miserably.

No spin intended. I was merely recounting what I know of the making of
TGR and how it was received. I've read lots of contemporaneous reviews
of TGR (both '25 and the '42 reissue) and I can't recall one that cites
the "miserable failure" of the miniature work or the "fakery" of the
cabin scenes.

>
> In reality, Keaton would never have allowed such obvious fakery in
> one of his films.

As Shush points out, the 'collapsing' hospital in Steamboat Bill is
about as obviously fake as is Auntie Em's ranch house spinning away in
the tornado in Wizard of Oz. And do the boulders in Seven Chances look
real to you? If so, there's really not much point in further
discussion.

Please understand, I'm NOT saying either of those Keaton scenes doesn't
work, and work very well, in the context of the comedies they serve.
But to imply they even approach realism because "Keaton would never
have allowed such obvious fakery in one of his films" is just plain
ludicrous (if not interesting spin).

>
> My comment about the "fake cabin exteriors" has to do with the fact
> that every time Charlie and Mack go outside the cabin it is painfully
> obvious that they are on a studio set and not on a location. You
> cannot convince me that this is a positive attribute....it makes "The
> Gold Rush"look at times like a cheap Christie two reeler, rather that
> an epic comedy from one of the era's most celebrated filmmakers.

As I said above, I find it interesting that of the myriad
contemporaneous reviews of TGR I don't remember one that cites the
production as "painfully obvious" in its fakery. I would contend that
your perception is more a function of VHS/DVD multiple viewing scrutiny
(and perhaps a need to prove a point vis a vis Keaton) than how the
film works with audiences in the context it was designed and created
for.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 8 Nov 2006 18:10:52 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:


>As I said above, I find it interesting that of the myriad
>contemporaneous reviews of TGR I don't remember one that cites the
>production as "painfully obvious" in its fakery. I would contend that
>your perception is more a function of VHS/DVD multiple viewing scrutiny
>(and perhaps a need to prove a point vis a vis Keaton) than how the
>film works with audiences in the context it was designed and created
>for.

I don't know about the "need to prove a point" part, but the rest of
your speculation is incorrect. The first time I saw TGR it was in a
theater and while I enjoyed the film, I was surprised at the obvious
miniature work in the cabin on the cliff sequence. I doubt there are
many people who,when they are honest about it, didn't have the same
response. In fact, I saw TGR in a theater probably 6 times before I
ever saw it on home video.

As far as contemporary reviews are concerned, that is a red herring
argument. Critics in the 1920s as a rule did not consider it part of
their responsibility to point out such things. The gawd-awful
miniature work in the climax of Pickford's SPARROWS was not mentioned
in contemporary reviews either. That doesn't mean that audiences did
not notice them at the time.

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

On 8 Nov 2006 17:15:43 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:

>
>John Aldrich wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 15:35:25 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Aldrich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
>> >> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
>> >> convey their epic locales.
>> >
>> > I disagree with his premise, though. I've never considered THE GOLD
>> >RUSH to be an epic. One magnificent long shot of miners climbing a
>> >mountain face does not an epic make. The rest of the film stays
>> >indoors, for the most part. It's actually more of an intimate film than
>> >certain others that Chaplin did.
>>
>> Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
>> have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
>> He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
>> control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp. So he
>> wound up making a film that was more in his "wheelhouse" and decided
>> to leave the grand scale filmmaking to those who were better able to
>> pull it off.
>>
>> > I'm not sure I'd even call THE GENERAL an epic, though it's close.
>> >To me, a film needs huge sets and thousands of extras to qualify as an
>> >epic, but that's just me. Making a big deal about the extensive
>> >location work on THE GENERAL is kind of a cheat, anyway, isn't it? That
>> >film couldn't have been shot any other way, unless you wanted to
>> >construct a fake locomotive and have it sit on Mack Sennett's
>> >cyclorama, and then your results would be so hideous you'd never get to
>> >make another film!
>>
>> Sure you could make THE GENERAL the way Chaplin made THE GOLD RUSH.
>> Without the sweeping panaromas, without the authentic bridge collapse
>> and without all the outdoor shots.. That's how Chaplin wouldn've made
>> it...of course it wouldn't be THE GENERAL then, it would be SHOULDER
>> ARMS, DIXIE STYLE.
>>
>> > I like THE GENERAL very much, but comparing it to THE GOLD RUSH is
>> >like apples and oranges. One's about machines, the other's about
>> >people. One's mainly indoors, the other's mainly outdoors. One's about
>> >looking for happiness through wealth or love, the other's about a
>> >rescue odyssey. Comedy is their only common ground.
>>
>> Agree completely. But, didn't this conversation begin with a
>> discussion of Chaplin's use of locations -vs- Keaton's?
>
>Yes indeedy. Are you saying that the opening shot in TGR is ineffective
>in establishing a physical and emotional context for the story that
>follows?

Not at all. In terms of location cinematography, that is probably the
most impressive shot in all of Chaplin's films.

However, I do think that is one reason the rest of TGR seems so
claustrophobic. It just doesn't deliver on the promise of that
opening shot (in terms of being a story set in Alaska during the gold
rush...of course, the film has many other compensating virtues).

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

"David Totheroh" <dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163024089.982239.209310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Aldrich wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 12:53:54 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Aldrich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Shush wrote:
>> >> > 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 think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
>> >> was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
>> >> because of his desire for more and better location work.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
>> >> build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
>> >> little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.
>> >
>> >
>> > But if Chaplin hadn't been picky about his location work, he'd have
>> >never gone 500 miles north and 7000 feet up a snow-covered mountain for
>> >those GOLD RUSH shots in the first place. I think that the scrapping of
>> >so much Truckee footage says more about Chaplin's capriciousness than
>> >about indifference. It was his nature as a filmmaker to go back and
>> >re-shoot sequences over and over, and you can't always do that with
>> >location work. For one thing, those mountains around Truckee are as
>> >green as Ireland six months of the year. In the end, he used some of
>> >the original Truckee material and shot the do-overs in the studio.
>>
>>
>> We are actually saying pretty much the same thing...and the upshot is
>> that the kind of location work that Keaton did so well just wasn't
>> Chaplins forte. The fake cabin exteriors say it all. Keaton would
>> never do that.
>>
>> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
>> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
>> convey their epic locales.
>>
>> Not sure what difference the green mountains make...they would have
>> been snow covered in any event.
>
> Sorry John, that was exactly one of the significant problems, and it
> would have made a great deal of difference. Those mountains WEREN'T
> covered with snow for too long after the 2 week late April shoot. In
> fact, even by the end of that 2 weeks, the snow that was still there
> was becoming a slushy mess.
>
> Another problem was that, although Chaplin knew he wanted something
> about the cabin being blown to a new location, he hadn't worked out the
> entire sequence yet. They tried many things, wind machines, teams of
> horses hooked up to a cabin on skids, sliding it down a slope, etc.
> Nothing worked to give the effect Chaplin was after. In fact, even
> after filming much of that sequence on the La Brea stage, it wasn't
> until after Monta Bell's suggestion on viewing some of the rushes that
> Chaplin changed the whole concept such that he and Swain were unaware
> of the motion. And that's when the whole thing fell into place, making
> the sequence (in spite of your contention that "the fake cabin
> exteriors say it all") one of the all-time most memorable scenes in the
> history of cinema.
>
> You're right about one thing, Keaton never did a scene that integrated
> miniatures and real life shots as memorably as Chaplin did in TGR, at
> least not that I can think of.
>

His use of miniatures to create a sense of space and depth in OUR
HOSPITALITY was pretty impressive, even though it fits into the category of
"invisible" special effect. But it adds a certain depth to the scene on the
waterfall that a flat backdrop may have lacked.

But I agree that the use of miniatures in THE GOLD RUSH is extremely
well-executed and obviously quite complex to pull off.
--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 15:35:25 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Aldrich wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
> >> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
> >> convey their epic locales.
> >
> > I disagree with his premise, though. I've never considered THE GOLD
> >RUSH to be an epic. One magnificent long shot of miners climbing a
> >mountain face does not an epic make. The rest of the film stays
> >indoors, for the most part. It's actually more of an intimate film than
> >certain others that Chaplin did.
>
> Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
> have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
> He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
> control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp. So he
> wound up making a film that was more in his "wheelhouse" and decided
> to leave the grand scale filmmaking to those who were better able to
> pull it off.
>
> > I'm not sure I'd even call THE GENERAL an epic, though it's close.
> >To me, a film needs huge sets and thousands of extras to qualify as an
> >epic, but that's just me. Making a big deal about the extensive
> >location work on THE GENERAL is kind of a cheat, anyway, isn't it? That
> >film couldn't have been shot any other way, unless you wanted to
> >construct a fake locomotive and have it sit on Mack Sennett's
> >cyclorama, and then your results would be so hideous you'd never get to
> >make another film!
>
> Sure you could make THE GENERAL the way Chaplin made THE GOLD RUSH.
> Without the sweeping panaromas, without the authentic bridge collapse
> and without all the outdoor shots.. That's how Chaplin wouldn've made
> it...of course it wouldn't be THE GENERAL then, it would be SHOULDER
> ARMS, DIXIE STYLE.
>
> > I like THE GENERAL very much, but comparing it to THE GOLD RUSH is
> >like apples and oranges. One's about machines, the other's about
> >people. One's mainly indoors, the other's mainly outdoors. One's about
> >looking for happiness through wealth or love, the other's about a
> >rescue odyssey. Comedy is their only common ground.
>
> Agree completely. But, didn't this conversation begin with a
> discussion of Chaplin's use of locations -vs- Keaton's?
>
> --John


I definite don't agree with Kerr (actually, I don't agree with him
about a lot of things) about either THE GENERAL or THE GOLD RUSH being
"epics." There's a lot more elements than just spectacular locations or
well-staged stunts that make something what I consider an "epic"...and
I'll say that there are very few epics that I actually enjoy to watch.
Certainly films that are only 7-8 reels like these two, and not based
on some sweeping literary property or religious source would be hard to
be classified as an epic. But I'd much rather watch either of them
multiple times (and in fact have) than INTOLERANCE or THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS. I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
early on.

Brent Walker
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

hauber108 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> John Aldrich wrote:
> > Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
> > have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
> > He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
> > control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp.
>
> I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
> THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
> early on.


Same here. I think the big exterior shots early in THE GOLD RUSH are
only there to establish the setting, just as THE CIRCUS begins with all
those exterior scenes in the midway and among big circus tents.

When we speak about THE GOLD RUSH being an epic, I keep thinking of
THE TRAIL OF '98 (1928), a really underrated adventure story with the
same setting. To me, *that's* pretty close to an epic, and all it has
in common with THE GOLD RUSH is snow.


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

Shush wrote:
> hauber108 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > John Aldrich wrote:
> > > Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
> > > have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
> > > He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
> > > control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp.
> >
> > I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
> > THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
> > early on.
>
>
> Same here. I think the big exterior shots early in THE GOLD RUSH are
> only there to establish the setting, just as THE CIRCUS begins with all
> those exterior scenes in the midway and among big circus tents.

I agree. And I think it's important to remember what it was that
inspired/motivated Chaplin to do the story in the first place. It
wasn't the Klondike gold rush, although CC chose to set the story in
that context. It was the Donner party story, and not even the saga of
their travel west, but the much more limited aspect of their isolated
entrapment (claustrophobic even) and the canibalism that resulted.

And Chaplin's location choice is, in an odd way, yet another example of
his economic storytelling method. In the Sugar Bowl location, Chaplin
found not only a near perfect replica of the Chilcoot Pass, but also
the geographical, emotional inspiration of being literally within 5
miles of the historic Donner camps.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 9 Nov 2006 09:24:44 -0800, hauber108.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>John Aldrich wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 15:35:25 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Aldrich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
>> >> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
>> >> convey their epic locales.
>> >
>> > I disagree with his premise, though. I've never considered THE GOLD
>> >RUSH to be an epic. One magnificent long shot of miners climbing a
>> >mountain face does not an epic make. The rest of the film stays
>> >indoors, for the most part. It's actually more of an intimate film than
>> >certain others that Chaplin did.
>>
>> Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
>> have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
>> He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
>> control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp. So he
>> wound up making a film that was more in his "wheelhouse" and decided
>> to leave the grand scale filmmaking to those who were better able to
>> pull it off.
>>
>> > I'm not sure I'd even call THE GENERAL an epic, though it's close.
>> >To me, a film needs huge sets and thousands of extras to qualify as an
>> >epic, but that's just me. Making a big deal about the extensive
>> >location work on THE GENERAL is kind of a cheat, anyway, isn't it? That
>> >film couldn't have been shot any other way, unless you wanted to
>> >construct a fake locomotive and have it sit on Mack Sennett's
>> >cyclorama, and then your results would be so hideous you'd never get to
>> >make another film!
>>
>> Sure you could make THE GENERAL the way Chaplin made THE GOLD RUSH.
>> Without the sweeping panaromas, without the authentic bridge collapse
>> and without all the outdoor shots.. That's how Chaplin wouldn've made
>> it...of course it wouldn't be THE GENERAL then, it would be SHOULDER
>> ARMS, DIXIE STYLE.
>>
>> > I like THE GENERAL very much, but comparing it to THE GOLD RUSH is
>> >like apples and oranges. One's about machines, the other's about
>> >people. One's mainly indoors, the other's mainly outdoors. One's about
>> >looking for happiness through wealth or love, the other's about a
>> >rescue odyssey. Comedy is their only common ground.
>>
>> Agree completely. But, didn't this conversation begin with a
>> discussion of Chaplin's use of locations -vs- Keaton's?
>>
>> --John
>
>
>I definite don't agree with Kerr (actually, I don't agree with him
>about a lot of things) about either THE GENERAL or THE GOLD RUSH being
>"epics." There's a lot more elements than just spectacular locations or
>well-staged stunts that make something what I consider an "epic"...and
>I'll say that there are very few epics that I actually enjoy to watch.
>Certainly films that are only 7-8 reels like these two, and not based
>on some sweeping literary property or religious source would be hard to
>be classified as an epic. But I'd much rather watch either of them
>multiple times (and in fact have) than INTOLERANCE or THE TEN
>COMMANDMENTS. I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
>THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
>early on.
>
>Brent Walker

I think it is important to realize that Kerr wasn't calling these two
films "epics", he was referring to them as "epic comedies" which, in
reality, is a genre that didn't exist before he coined the term. It
is a fallacy to confuse this with the epic film genre, such as The Ten
Commandments, etc.

And since Kerr basically invented the term while describing THE
GENERAL and THE GOLD RUSH as being unlike any other comedies of the
1920s (which they are), then it becomes self-defining. So, it would
follow that the point is not whether these two films blonged to an
existing genre, but rather that they created a genre of their own,
which I feel is correct.

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

On 9 Nov 2006 10:36:48 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>hauber108@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> John Aldrich wrote:
>> > Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
>> > have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
>> > He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
>> > control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp.
>>
>> I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
>> THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
>> early on.
>
>
> Same here. I think the big exterior shots early in THE GOLD RUSH are
>only there to establish the setting, just as THE CIRCUS begins with all
>those exterior scenes in the midway and among big circus tents.
>
> When we speak about THE GOLD RUSH being an epic, I keep thinking of
>THE TRAIL OF '98 (1928), a really underrated adventure story with the
>same setting. To me, *that's* pretty close to an epic, and all it has
>in common with THE GOLD RUSH is snow.
>
>
>--Shush--

You guys are missing the point. Again, you don't really get what Kerr
is describing unless you combine the word "epic" with "comedy". He
wasn't saying that THE GENERAL is in the same category as THE TRAIL OF
'98 (which I agree is a terrific film), he is saying that there really
hadn't been feature comedies of that type before...either in terms of
theme or setting.

The story of gold rush miners in Alaska and the capture of a
locomotive in the Civil War are in and of themselves epic stories,
buit with that as foundation, Chaplin and Keaton created *comedies*
that could not be mistaken as anything else but.

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

On 9 Nov 2006 11:36:22 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com>
wrote:

>
>Shush wrote:
>> hauber108 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > John Aldrich wrote:
>> > > Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
>> > > have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
>> > > He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
>> > > control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp.
>> >
>> > I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
>> > THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
>> > early on.
>>
>>
>> Same here. I think the big exterior shots early in THE GOLD RUSH are
>> only there to establish the setting, just as THE CIRCUS begins with all
>> those exterior scenes in the midway and among big circus tents.
>
>I agree. And I think it's important to remember what it was that
>inspired/motivated Chaplin to do the story in the first place. It
>wasn't the Klondike gold rush, although CC chose to set the story in
>that context. It was the Donner party story, and not even the saga of
>their travel west, but the much more limited aspect of their isolated
>entrapment (claustrophobic even) and the canibalism that resulted.
>
>And Chaplin's location choice is, in an odd way, yet another example of
>his economic storytelling method. In the Sugar Bowl location, Chaplin
>found not only a near perfect replica of the Chilcoot Pass, but also
>the geographical, emotional inspiration of being literally within 5
>miles of the historic Donner camps.

Well, the fact is, he *did* choose to make TGR and not the Donner
story. We can only judge TGR based on the film that Chaplin *made*,
not the one he decided not to make.

THE GOLD RUSH is what it is. It is not the story of the Donner Party
and save for one scene of Big Jim imagining Charlie to be a chicken,
there is no connection at all.

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

John Aldrich wrote:

>It was intended to be epic (otherwise,
>why would Chaplin have gone to Truckee
>at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it
>off.

Chaplin explicitly says he intended it to
be an epic ("My Autobiography")
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2006 23:46:41 GMT, do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
> >"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_?
>
> Well, *better* is a very subjective and not well defined term.
> However, there can be no argument that "Our Hospitality" has a much
> better use of it's setting and the physical sense of "place" than "The
> Gold Rush" does. Other than a few establishing shots at the
> beginning, "The Gold Rush" is pretty much an indoor film that is no
> more indicative of Alaska than it is of Minnesota . Whereas the
> Keaton film made use of it's location is many creative and awe
> inspiring ways.
>
> --John

_Our Hospitality_ is one of my favorite Keatons, so I would be the last
to
pass any negative judgment on it. But the sequence in which Buster is
pursued
by one of his adversaries and is tied to him by a rope involves some
obvious
process work and strategic cutting to produce a more or less realistic
effect.
To my eye this is no more realistic than many scenes in _The Gold
Rush_--Black
Larson's killing of the lawmen, for example, or the scene of the girls
playing
in the snow. Keaton likes to work in large spaces, acutal or
artificially created.
Chaplin prefers to work at closer range. Neither style is better than
the other.

I've never felt that realism in itself made a film better. Chaplin's
films are stylized,
even when he uses actual locations, and for that matter so are
Keaton's. Both of
them choose locations that suit the mood of their films, or build sets
when
reality doesn't provide a good match.

Neither makes films that are consistently realistic. The dreamlike
stunts in
_Sherlock Jr._ involve many unrealistic effects. The scaffold that
collapses just
after Buster crosses it on the motorcycle is obviously a miniature.
Some shots in the motorcycle sequence involve back projection, while
others rely purely on stunt work,
and therefore have a somewhat more realistic impact, but the premise of
such a long and eventful ride on the handlebars of a motorcycle is
blatantly
improbable.

To me all good films are like dreams--they are not literal records of
reality. And does
an epic have to be realistic? Are Homer's _Odyssey_, Vergil's
_Aeneid_, Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_, and Tolkein's _The Lord of the
Rings_ realistic? They create worlds of their own, just as _Our
Hospitality_ and _The Gold Rush_ do.

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