Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS

>From: James Neibaur jneibaur.TakeThisOut@wi.rr.com

>> From CHARLIE: THE LIFE AND ART OF CHARLIE CHAPLIN:
>>
>> "When I saw CITY LIGHTS I realized what a deep filmmaker he was, because I
>> felt that that film said more about love than so many purportedly serious
>> investigations of the subject. Emotionally it lives out feelings of real
>> love..."
>
>But then right after that he said, "but not nearly as good as 'I'll Take
>Sweden'" only they cut that part out.
>

Isn't it more of Allen >prefering< Hope as a comedian, not that he thinks
Hope is actually superior to CC. I've probably laughed more at Peter Sellers
than I have CC, but then I grew up watching most of Peter Sellers movies first
run in theaters.

Richard Carnahan
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

in article 20041222192047.21770.00002270.RemoveThis@mb-m14.aol.com, RFCSAC627N at
rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote on 12/22/04 6:20 PM:

> Isn't it more of Allen >prefering< Hope as a comedian, not that he thinks
> Hope is actually superior to CC. I've probably laughed more at Peter Sellers
> than I have CC, but then I grew up watching most of Peter Sellers movies first
> run in theaters.

I would think that would be it, but he has been quoted as calling Bob Hope
the greatest comedy talent of the past 100 years. I love Bob Hope, but come
on.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

James Neibaur (jneibaur@wi.rr.com) writes:
> in article 20041222192047.21770.00002270.TakeThisOut@mb-m14.aol.com, RFCSAC627N at
> rfcsac627n.TakeThisOut@aol.com wrote on 12/22/04 6:20 PM:
>
>> Isn't it more of Allen >prefering< Hope as a comedian, not that he thinks
>> Hope is actually superior to CC. I've probably laughed more at Peter Sellers
>> than I have CC, but then I grew up watching most of Peter Sellers movies first
>> run in theaters.
>
> I would think that would be it, but he has been quoted as calling Bob Hope
> the greatest comedy talent of the past 100 years. I love Bob Hope, but come
> on.
>
> JN
>

If I recall correctly, Woody began his career in stand-up, and it strikes me
that he was praising Hope as a comedian, and comparing him to other people
who were primarily comedians.

Chaplin was not primarily a comedian; he was a creator of great comic films.
He had many abilities that Hope didn't have, but Hope was a master of
comic performance, including live performance, which Chaplin tended to
avoid, Hope had rapport with his audience, poise, impeccable timing and
delivery.

That's why Woody said Hope's use of gag writers was irrelevant. Hope was not a
creator of comedy but an exceptional performer of it.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

In article <cqdrc6$4dd$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
<do481.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> Chaplin was not primarily a comedian; he was a creator of great comic films.

What?! I think this can be said of Harold Lloyd, perhaps, but not of
Chaplin.
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

Woody Allen in 1998: ""If I wanted a weekend of pure pleasure, it would
be to have a half dozen Bob Hope films and watch them. He is a great,
great talent, a guy who has been able to combine a thin story with
great jokes."

Regarding Woody on Chaplin and "City Lights," he says in the Schickel
documentary that he only realized Chaplin was "a great actor" when he
watched "City Lights" carefully. I wonder why it took him so long to
figure that out?
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

I think part the perceived "problem" I have with Allen's comments is he
does not realize that there is a much broader spectrum of appreciation
for silent film comedy in general today than there was 30 or 40 years
ago, due mainly to the wide availability of titles and the ability to
re-watch the films again and again in excellent-quality copies on VHS
or DVD, and find new things in them on repeat viewings. So while
critics might have taken his comments very seriously 30 years ago, I
personally find them way too general (then and now).
In a famous interview in the early 1970s, Allen stated "The four great
comedies are THE NAVIGATOR, THE GENERAL, THE GOLD RUSH, and CITY
LIGHT", as if this was a provable fact.
At that time, those films were the most highly regarded and
widely-circulated silent comedies. But to me, that statement sounds
outrageously bold. I'm sure it sounded extremely bold in the early
1970s too, but even moreso today because (again) of the much wider
availability of silent comedies to view and choose from and form
opinions around.
I wasn't around in the early 1970s so please correct me if I'm wrong
regarding the film availability issue. I don't want to come across as
arrogant in making assumptions like this. I'm basing that on the fact
that in 1972, if you wanted to see "Modern Times", the majority of
people had to wait until Chaplin revived it for theatrical re-release.
Today, I can pop the DVD in the player and watch it whenever I want.
Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

in article 1103820321.095919.86700 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, Candace at
ulysses DeleteThis @mscomm.com wrote on 12/23/04 10:45 AM:

> Woody Allen in 1998: ""If I wanted a weekend of pure pleasure, it would
> be to have a half dozen Bob Hope films and watch them. He is a great,
> great talent, a guy who has been able to combine a thin story with
> great jokes."

I agree

> Regarding Woody on Chaplin and "City Lights," he says in the Schickel
> documentary that he only realized Chaplin was "a great actor" when he
> watched "City Lights" carefully. I wonder why it took him so long to
> figure that out?

I noticed Chaplin was a great actor the first time I spooled an 8mm print of
The Rink about 35 years ago. I was around 12 or so. Before that I thought
he was simply funny.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

Doug Sulpy (dsulpy@ptd.net) writes:
> In article <cqdrc6$4dd$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <do481 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>> Chaplin was not primarily a comedian; he was a creator of great comic films.
>
> What?! I think this can be said of Harold Lloyd, perhaps, but not of
> Chaplin.

I think of a comedian as someone whose primary talent is to make people
laugh. Chaplin was primarily an actor/artist who wanted to move his audience,
either to laugh or to experience some other response, and to achieve that
goal he developed other abilities besides acting.

Most people consider Lloyd an actor who eventually found his niche in
comedy. Chaplin began working in comedy earlier than Lloyd, but I don't
think that makes him primarily a comedian.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

Constance Kuriyama Dec 23, 2:40 pm show options

Newsgroups: alt.movies.chaplin
From: d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) - Find messages by
this author
Date: 23 Dec 2004 22:40:44 GMT
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2004 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


Doug Sulpy (dsu...@ptd.net) writes:



> In article <cqdrc6$4d...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Constance Kuriyama
> <d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Chaplin was not primarily a comedian; he was a creator of great
comic films.


> What?! I think this can be said of Harold Lloyd, perhaps, but not of
> Chaplin.
>I think of a comedian as someone whose primary talent is to make
people
>laugh. Chaplin was primarily an actor/artist who wanted to move his
audience,
>either to laugh or to experience some other response, and to achieve
that
>goal he developed other abilities besides acting.

The difference to me is that Chaplin could make anything funny just by
the way he goes about it. Watching him eat something, for instance, is
one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Or the way he handles props
in a film like "The Pawnshop." Or my favorite bit (which no one has
ever mentioned): How he pretends to be slightly hard of hearing when
someone tells him something he doesn't want to hear, such as when the
circus owner tells him his act is "awful" in THE CIRCUS, or when his
wife in PAY DAY asks him to hand over his paycheck.
He's naturally funny, and has an ingrained idea of what is funny. His
ability to conceive dozens and dozens of gags for a single film is
amazing. On top of all this, he was also one of the best storytellers
in cinema (e.g. THE KID, CITY LIGHTS).
Harold Lloyd, on the other hand, needed the aid of a strong team of gag
writers. I am not degrading him for this fact. His films are hilarious
and remain extremely fresh and clever today. But there is simply a
difference between the approach that Chaplin took, and the approach
Lloyd took. It took Lloyd many, many films before he finally found his
*character*, and his character was usually second to the gags in his
films, most of which were conceived by other writers.
There was once a review of "Speedy" that summed it up well. It went on
to say that as funny as Harold Lloyd's film was, there is no doubt that
if you were to just put Chaplin and Lloyd up on a stage with no script
or props, it would be Chaplin who would get 90% of the laughs.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

Matt Barry wrote:

> Harold Lloyd, on the other hand, needed the aid of a strong team of
gag
> writers. I am not degrading him for this fact. His films are
hilarious
> and remain extremely fresh and clever today. But there is simply a
> difference between the approach that Chaplin took, and the approach
> Lloyd took. It took Lloyd many, many films before he finally found
his
> *character*, and his character was usually second to the gags in his
> films, most of which were conceived by other writers.
> There was once a review of "Speedy" that summed it up well. It went
on
> to say that as funny as Harold Lloyd's film was, there is no doubt
that
> if you were to just put Chaplin and Lloyd up on a stage with no
script
> or props, it would be Chaplin who would get 90% of the laughs.


But most of Lloyd's best films were produced by himself, and
although he did use a number of directors and gagmen, they all came and
went from picture to picture. Lloyd himself (and his director of
photography) were the only people the films all had in common, and
those films have a high batting average for quality.

Keaton relied heavily on gag-writers and other directors throughout
*his* prime, but no one ever holds that against him.

Lloyd did make a lot of films using a character other than the
"glasses" guy, but I don't see that as a negative. You could level the
same charge at Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. They were all successful
and busy comedians before adopting characters they'd ultimately have
even greater success with.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

I agree completely that Lloyd was the main driving force behind his
films. He was a great organizer of talent. Plus a brilliant comic
actor. No doubt about that.
I think that the statement that has been put forth many times before
(and one that I agree with personally) is that Chaplin was the more
natural "funnyman" of the two. Lloyd could organize a comedy production
like no one else, hiring excellent gag men and technicians and
supporting players, plus give a really good performance to boot. But
taking that all away, I think Chaplin was more *innately* funny. This
is really just my opinion of course. I'm a huge fan of Harold Lloyd; I
find his films excrutiatingly funny and admire his work as a producer
and organizer. But if it came down to who I would rather watch play
with props or do comic pantomime or even just make extremely subtle
facial gestures, there's no doubt for me that I'd rather watch Chaplin
do those things.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

"He's naturally funny, and has an ingrained idea of what is funny."

I agree with you, Matt. I was watching "The Count" last night and it's
seriously underrated. The scene with Charlie eating the spaghetti and
the watermelon was hilarious! His expressions and little nuances are
priceless.

I love Lloyd too, but he usually doesn't provoke instantanous laughter
just by appearing on the screen. For instance, when Charlie first
appears in "The Gold Rush," even before the bear shows up, it's just
funny because of his manner, expressions and walk. Chaplin just had
this innate and unique screen presence which retains its vibrancy even
80 years after the fact.

Lloyd and Keaton are masters, but they can't just stand there and make
you double over in stitches like CC did, seemingly without effort.
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS 

Matt Barry wrote:

> I agree completely that Lloyd was the main driving force behind his
> films. He was a great organizer of talent. Plus a brilliant comic
> actor. No doubt about that.
> I think that the statement that has been put forth many times before
> (and one that I agree with personally) is that Chaplin was the more
> natural "funnyman" of the two. Lloyd could organize a comedy
production
> like no one else, hiring excellent gag men and technicians and
> supporting players, plus give a really good performance to boot. But
> taking that all away, I think Chaplin was more *innately* funny. This
> is really just my opinion of course. I'm a huge fan of Harold Lloyd;
I
> find his films excrutiatingly funny and admire his work as a producer
> and organizer. But if it came down to who I would rather watch play
> with props or do comic pantomime or even just make extremely subtle
> facial gestures, there's no doubt for me that I'd rather watch
Chaplin
> do those things.


I agree with you. I prefer Chaplin over everybody. It's just that I
like Lloyd too and feel he gets unfairly dismissed sometimes, along the
lines of "He was just an actor pretending to be a comedian."
--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS