_Shoulder Arms_ Again

On Mar 27, 11:49 pm, d....DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> what had been done.
>
> The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> differ in details in this sequence.
>
> During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> Connie K.

It appears there's some conflating (or perhaps extrapolation) of
unrelated stories going on here. What I know to be true, according to
Pam Paumier, is that the film that caused the phone calls and other
attempted contacts to be made (by lawyers, not Charlie) with Rollie
was A Dog's Life. The issue was that someone was screening A Dog's
Life (I believe it was in Spain in about 1956 or 7) and challenging
Chaplin's copyright based on the fact that 'their' version was
different from the official (so called Rollie) version of that film.

Interestingly to me, Chaplin never had, or at least never expressed
that I'm aware of, any reservations with the editing of the "Rollie"
versions of any of the First Nationals until the potential legal
consequences were raised. In any case, it was A Dog's Life, not
Shoulder Arms.

(I've wondered, since learning this information from Mme Paumier a
little over 10 years ago now, how much this legal challenge in the mid
'50s contributed to Chaplin's decision to release The Chaplin Revue in
1959.)

As a P.S., this all happened YEARS before anything like answering
machines existed. How would Rollie have known who was calling, or what
they were calling about?
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 28, 1:49 am, d....DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> and the David Shepard version.
>
By which I'm assuming you mean the version that was on DVD as part of
"The First National Collection."

If that is the case, then you've got the order wrong.

It would be:

1) The Pathe Reissue
2) The "Chaplin Revue" version
3) The "First National Collection" version

And we all know what's in Denmark. :)

> According to his argument, the _Chaplin Revue_ version was
> the same as the version prepared by Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s,
> because the film arrived very late and was the last one that Chaplin
> and Eric James composed music for (according to Eric James).
>
Is the argument here that Chaplin had no time to make any changes of
any kind, and that the "Chaplin Revue" version is *identical* with the
Rollie cut of the 1940s?

Is there any way of proving this, one way or another?

> This paper also accepted the story that Chaplin was unhappy
> with Rollie's editing, and further argued that Chaplin had been
> too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to pay attention to Rollie's
> work, and so was surprised when he saw what had been done.
>
We'll probably never know definitively whether he was unhappy with
Rollie's editing or just unhappy that what he was seeing wasn't the
film that he had originally released.

Rollie may have done a bang-up job of editing by any objective
standard and Chaplin still could have been displeased with the
results, simply because it wasn't the film he originally put together.
>
> The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> differ in details in this sequence.
>
They differ in all sorts of ways all through the film, judging by my
viewings of the Pathe version and the "Chaplin Revue" versions on both
VHS and DVD.

But then, the "Chaplin Revue" version on VHS is not identical with the
same film on DVD, as I've pointed out before.
>
> During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties.
>
"Approved" is a loaded word. We don't know if he actually approved of
Rollie's cut, or merely accepted it as a fait accompli because he
thought at the time that there was nothing he could do about it. It's
quite possible that the alternatives he thought he faced at the time
were:

a) Accept Rollie's cut as the only extent version of the film.
b) Accept the fact that the film did not exist at all.

If those were indeed his choices, accepting Rollie's version, whatever
doubts he might have had about it, may have seemed at the time to be
the lesser of two evils.

It's important to note that Chaplin went to his grave not knowing that
a print of the original 1918 version was still in existence. Things
might have been very different if he had known that.

> I agree that David Shepard has created another version of the film
> which is carefully thought out and in certain respects closer to the
> original release version than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
I still haven't seen the "First National Collection" version.

Sniff, sniff...

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 28, 8:52 am, "Feuillade" <Feuill....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:49 am, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
> > I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> > held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> > War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> > and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> > I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> > since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> > discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> > conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> > Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> > have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> > he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> > currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> > and the David Shepard version.
>
> By which I'm assuming you mean the version that was on DVD as part of
> "The First National Collection."
>
> If that is the case, then you've got the order wrong.
>
> It would be:
>
> 1) The Pathe Reissue
> 2) The "Chaplin Revue" version
> 3) The "First National Collection" version

If strict chronology was the issue, you're right. But in this case
the most generally known "official" version was discussed first,
then the Pathe version, which contains different and additional
material, and finally the Shepard version. The order was determined
by how easily the differences could be demonstrated.

> And we all know what's in Denmark. :)
>
> > According to his argument, the _Chaplin Revue_ version was
> > the same as the version prepared by Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s,
> > because the film arrived very late and was the last one that Chaplin
> > and Eric James composed music for (according to Eric James).
>
> Is the argument here that Chaplin had no time to make any changes of
> any kind, and that the "Chaplin Revue" version is *identical* with the
> Rollie cut of the 1940s?

Pretty much.

> Is there any way of proving this, one way or another?

Not that I know of. I'm not even sure why the film was "sent late,"
or by whom. As far as I know it had been in the vault in London
since the mid-fifties, along with other film that Chaplin kept.

> > This paper also accepted the story that Chaplin was unhappy
> > with Rollie's editing, and further argued that Chaplin had been
> > too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to pay attention to Rollie's
> > work, and so was surprised when he saw what had been done.
>
> We'll probably never know definitively whether he was unhappy with
> Rollie's editing or just unhappy that what he was seeing wasn't the
> film that he had originally released.
>
> Rollie may have done a bang-up job of editing by any objective
> standard and Chaplin still could have been displeased with the
> results, simply because it wasn't the film he originally put together.
>
> > The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> > tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> > differ in details in this sequence.
>
> They differ in all sorts of ways all through the film, judging by my
> viewings of the Pathe version and the "Chaplin Revue" versions on both
> VHS and DVD.

Yes. The paper was limited to 15 minutes, so there was no time
to go into full detail. The chase sequence in the woods is a very
good illustration if the choice of examples is limited.

> But then, the "Chaplin Revue" version on VHS is not identical with the
> same film on DVD, as I've pointed out before.
>
>
>
> > During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> > grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> > tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> > that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> > wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> > As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> > the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> > and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> > further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> > Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> > I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> > his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties.
>
> "Approved" is a loaded word. We don't know if he actually approved of
> Rollie's cut, or merely accepted it as a fait accompli because he
> thought at the time that there was nothing he could do about it. It's
> quite possible that the alternatives he thought he faced at the time
> were:
>
> a) Accept Rollie's cut as the only extent version of the film.
> b) Accept the fact that the film did not exist at all.
>
> If those were indeed his choices, accepting Rollie's version, whatever
> doubts he might have had about it, may have seemed at the time to be
> the lesser of two evils.

True. But of course if he had been *too* disappointed with the results
he could have decided not to let the film be shown. It seems that
things weren't that bad.

Connie K.

> It's important to note that Chaplin went to his grave not knowing that
> a print of the original 1918 version was still in existence. Things
> might have been very different if he had known that.
>
> > I agree that David Shepard has created another version of the film
> > which is carefully thought out and in certain respects closer to the
> > original release version than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> I still haven't seen the "First National Collection" version.
>
> Sniff, sniff...
>
> Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 28, 3:00 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:49 pm, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> > held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> > War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> > and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> > I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> > since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> > discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> > conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> > Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> > have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> > he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> > currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> > and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> > _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> > Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> > and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> > for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> > that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> > argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> > pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> > what had been done.
>
> > The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> > tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> > differ in details in this sequence.
>
> > During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> > grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> > tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> > that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> > wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> > As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> > the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> > and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> > further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> > Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> > I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> > his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> It appears there's some conflating (or perhaps extrapolation) of
> unrelated stories going on here. What I know to be true, according to
> Pam Paumier, is that the film that caused the phone calls and other
> attempted contacts to be made (by lawyers, not Charlie) with Rollie
> was A Dog's Life. The issue was that someone was screening A Dog's
> Life (I believe it was in Spain in about 1956 or 7) and challenging
> Chaplin's copyright based on the fact that 'their' version was
> different from the official (so called Rollie) version of that film.
>
> Interestingly to me, Chaplin never had, or at least never expressed
> that I'm aware of, any reservations with the editing of the "Rollie"
> versions of any of the First Nationals until the potential legal
> consequences were raised. In any case, it was A Dog's Life, not
> Shoulder Arms.
>
> (I've wondered, since learning this information from Mme Paumier a
> little over 10 years ago now, how much this legal challenge in the mid
> '50s contributed to Chaplin's decision to release The Chaplin Revue in
> 1959.)
>
> As a P.S., this all happened YEARS before anything like answering
> machines existed. How would Rollie have known who was calling, or what
> they were calling about?

If he had answered one call and been unhappy with the drift of it,
he could have decided to ignore further calls until the caller gave
up. That's how people handled nuisance calls before the advent
of answering machines. The insistent frequency of such calls is
usually a dead giveaway.

Do you have any idea why _Shoulder Arms_ would have been
sent later than the two other films, and by whom? I assume alll
three of the films were already in the vault in London by the time
Chaplin started work on _Chaplin Revue_.

And by the time Chaplin started doing the music, the editing would
already have been completed, no? So perhaps _Shoulder Arms_
was the last film to be processed by the lab.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a detailed account anywhere of
how these films were put together by Chaplin.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 28, 11:28 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 3:00 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 11:49 pm, d... RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > wrote:
>
> > > I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> > > held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> > > War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> > > and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> > > I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> > > since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> > > discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> > > conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> > > Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> > > have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> > > he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> > > currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> > > and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> > > _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> > > Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> > > and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> > > for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> > > that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> > > argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> > > pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> > > what had been done.
>
> > > The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> > > tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> > > differ in details in this sequence.
>
> > > During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> > > grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> > > tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> > > that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> > > wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> > > As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> > > the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> > > and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> > > further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> > > Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> > > I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> > > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> > > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> > > his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> > > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> > > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> > > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > > Connie K.
>
> > It appears there's some conflating (or perhaps extrapolation) of
> > unrelated stories going on here. What I know to be true, according to
> > Pam Paumier, is that the film that caused the phone calls and other
> > attempted contacts to be made (by lawyers, not Charlie) with Rollie
> > was A Dog's Life. The issue was that someone was screening A Dog's
> > Life (I believe it was in Spain in about 1956 or 7) and challenging
> > Chaplin's copyright based on the fact that 'their' version was
> > different from the official (so called Rollie) version of that film.
>
> > Interestingly to me, Chaplin never had, or at least never expressed
> > that I'm aware of, any reservations with the editing of the "Rollie"
> > versions of any of the First Nationals until the potential legal
> > consequences were raised. In any case, it was A Dog's Life, not
> > Shoulder Arms.
>
> > (I've wondered, since learning this information from Mme Paumier a
> > little over 10 years ago now, how much this legal challenge in the mid
> > '50s contributed to Chaplin's decision to release The Chaplin Revue in
> > 1959.)
>
> > As a P.S., this all happened YEARS before anything like answering
> > machines existed. How would Rollie have known who was calling, or what
> > they were calling about?
>
> If he had answered one call and been unhappy with the drift of it,
> he could have decided to ignore further calls until the caller gave
> up. That's how people handled nuisance calls before the advent
> of answering machines. The insistent frequency of such calls is
> usually a dead giveaway.
>
> Do you have any idea why _Shoulder Arms_ would have been
> sent later than the two other films, and by whom? I assume alll
> three of the films were already in the vault in London by the time
> Chaplin started work on _Chaplin Revue_.
>
> And by the time Chaplin started doing the music, the editing would
> already have been completed, no? So perhaps _Shoulder Arms_
> was the last film to be processed by the lab.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think there's a detailed account anywhere of
> how these films were put together by Chaplin.
>
> Connie K.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL film elements had been shipped before
or during Rollie's trip to England in Feb or March of 1953. His job
was to deliver and organize materials for the new film vaults in
Denham. Rollie was completely retired upon his return (I believe he
stayed in England for 4 to 6 weeks).

As far as I know, all the editing on the preservation (as Rollie saw
the work) of the First Nationals was completed prior to beginning work
on Monsieur Verdoux, although I guess it is possible that some of that
work happened between Verdoux and Limelight.

How the films were handled or delivered to Chaplin after they got to
England, I don't know. Why Shoulder Arms was only available "late" (if
it was) relative to the other films he used in Chaplin Revue, I have
no idea. As I said, as far as I know, ALL the film materials Chaplin
chose to retain were in England by April of 1953.
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 28, 2:33 pm, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:28 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
>
>
> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 3:00 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 11:49 pm, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> > > > held in Kyoto, Japan. The toopic this year was "Chaplin and
> > > > War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> > > > and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> > > > I will say more about the conference as a whole laater, but
> > > > since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> > > > discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> > > > conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> > > > Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> > > > have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> > > > he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> > > > currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> > > > and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> > > > _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> > > > Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> > > > and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> > > > for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> > > > that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> > > > argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> > > > pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> > > > what had been done.
>
> > > > The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> > > > tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> > > > differ in details in this sequence.
>
> > > > During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> > > > grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> > > > tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> > > > that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> > > > wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> > > > As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> > > > the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> > > > and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> > > > further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> > > > Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> > > > I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> > > > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > > > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> > > > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> > > > his mind, On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> > > > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > > > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> > > > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> > > > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > > > Connie K.
>
> > > It appears there's some conflating (or perhaps extrapolation) of
> > > unrelated stories going on here. What I know to be true, according to
> > > Pam Paumier, is that the film that caused the phone calls and other
> > > attempted contacts to be made (by lawyers, not Charlie) with Rollie
> > > was A Dog's Life. The issue was that someone was screening A Dog's
> > > Life (I believe it was in Spain in about 1956 or 7) and challenging
> > > Chaplin's copyright based on the fact that 'their' version was
> > > different from the official (so called Rollie) version of that film.
>
> > > Interestingly to me, Chaplin never had, or at least never expressed
> > > that I'm aware of, any reservations with the editing of the "Rollie"
> > > versions of any of the First Nationals until the potential legal
> > > consequences were raised. In any case, it was A Dog's Life, not
> > > Shoulder Arms.
>
> > > (I've wondered, since learning this information from Mme Paumier a
> > > little over 10 years ago now, how much this legal challenge in the mid
> > > '50s contributed to Chaplin's decision to release The Chaplin Revue in
> > > 1959.)
>
> > > As a P.S., this all happened YEARS before anything like answering
> > > machines existed. How would Rollie have known who was calling, or what
> > > they were calling about?
>
> > If he had answered one call and been unhappy with the drift of it,
> > he could have decided to ignore further calls until the caller gave
> > up. That's how people handled nuisance calls before the advent
> > of answering machines. The insistent frequency of such calls is
> > usually a dead giveaway.
>
> > Do you have any idea why _Shoulder Arms_ would have been
> > sent later than the two other films, and by whom? I assume alll
> > three of the films were already in the vault in London by the time
> > Chaplin started work on _Chaplin Revue_.
>
> > And by the time Chaplin started doing the music, the editing would
> > already have been completed, no? So perhaps _Shoulder Arms_
> > was the last film to be processed by the lab.
>
> > Unfortunately, I don't think there's a detailed account anywhere of
> > how these films were put together by Chaplin.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, ALL film elements had been shipped before
> or during Rollie's trip to England in Feb or March of 1953. His job
> was to deliver and organize materials for the new film vaults in
> Denham. Rollie was completely retired upon his return (I believe he
> stayed in England for 4 to 6 weeks).
>
> As far as I know, all the editing on the preservation (as Rollie saw
> the work) of the First Nationals was completed prior to beginning work
> on Monsieur Verdoux, although I guess it is possible that some of that
> work happened between Verdoux and Limelight.
>
> How the films were handled or delivered to Chaplin after they got to
> England, I don't know. Why Shoulder Arms was only available "late" (if
> it was) relative to the other films he used in Chaplin Revue, I have
> no idea. As I said, as far as I know, ALL the film materials Chaplin
> chose to retain were in England by April of 1953.

That's pretty much what I thought, but more precise as to date.

I would guess that Chaplin had time to edit the film, and that
only the composition of the music was rushed.

I doubt that Rollie would have omitted the "three on a match" gag
without
consulting Chaplin. I've seen the superstition crop up in films of the
'thirties,
so it was still within memory in the 'forties, but by the late
'fifties it was gone,
because I never heard of it until I read about _Shoulder Arms_. My
guess
is that Chaplin cut this gag, along with other material that he
considered
dated in the films he revisited for reissue.

The only way to find out what Rollie did and what Chaplin did would be
to
find a print of the version shown to soldiers in World War II and
compare it
to the _Revue_ version[s]. I don't know if any of these prints
survive, or
where one would find them if they do.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

Two corrections of details in my first post:

1. _Shoulder Arms_ was the first film that Chaplin worked on
with James, not the last, but it did arrive late, so that James
felt that Chaplin had little time in which to do much editing.

2. Hooman did think that Chaplin might have done some minor
"tweaking" of the film, but made no substantial changes.
Therefore it was Rollie who removed the "third man on a match"
gag in the 1940s without Chaplin's knowledge.

And an addition:

According to Hooman, James recalled Chaplin saying that he had not
seen _Shoulder Arms_ for twenty years (since he had it screened while
working on _The Great Dictator_). Until the film arrived,
Chaplin worked with James on the music based solely on his memory, and
James was surprised at how accurate his memory was
and how well the music fit when the film did arrive.

Connie K.

On Mar 28, 1:49 am, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> held in Kyoto, Japan. The topic this year was "Chaplin and
> War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> I will say more about the conference as a whole later, but
> since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> what had been done.
>
> The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> differ in details in this sequence.
>
> During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> his mind. On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:
> Two corrections of details in my first post:
>
> 1. _Shoulder Arms_ was the first film that Chaplin worked on
> with James, not the last, but it did arrive late, so that James
> felt that Chaplin had little time in which to do much editing.
>
> 2. Hooman did think that Chaplin might have done some minor
> "tweaking" of the film, but made no substantial changes.
> Therefore it was Rollie who removed the "third man on a match"
> gag in the 1940s without Chaplin's knowledge.

I never knew what was up with the three-on-a-match deal until I looked
it up recently. I think that the Wikipedia entry might be mistaken
however:

"Three on a Match (also known as Third on a match) is a supposed
superstition among soldiers during the First World War. The
superstition goes that if three soldiers lit their cigarettes from the
same match, one of the three would be killed or that the man who was
third on the match would be shot. Since then it has been considered
bad luck for three people to share a light from the same match.

The idea was that when the first soldier lit his cigarette the enemy
would see the light, when the second soldier lit his cigarette the
enemy would take aim, and when the third soldier lit his cigarette the
enemy would fire.

There was in fact no such superstition during the First World War. The
superstition was alleged to have been invented about a decade later by
the Swedish match tycoon Ivar Kreuger in an attempt to get people to
use more matches but it appears he merely made very shrewd use of the
already existing belief which may date to the Boer War."

If there wasn't any such superstition during WWI, why would Chaplin
have bothered to put it in his WWI comedy?
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 29, 4:27 pm, "WaverBoy" <waver....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
>
> <constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > Two corrections of details in my first post:
>
> > 1. _Shoulder Arms_ was the first film that Chaplin worked on
> > with James, not the last, but it did arrive late, so that James
> > felt that Chaplin had little time in which to do much editing.
>
> > 2. Hooman did think that Chaplin might have done some minor
> > "tweaking" of the film, but made no substantial changes.
> > Therefore it was Rollie who removed the "third man on a match"
> > gag in the 1940s without Chaplin's knowledge.
>
> I never knew what was up with the three-on-a-match deal until I looked
> it up recently. I think that the Wikipedia entry might be mistaken
> however:
>
> "Three on a Match (also known as Third on a match) is a supposed
> superstition among soldiers during the First World War. The
> superstition goes that if three soldiers lit their cigarettes from the
> same match, one of the three would be killed or that the man who was
> third on the match would be shot. Since then it has been considered
> bad luck for three people to share a light from the same match.
>
> The idea was that when the first soldier lit his cigarette the enemy
> would see the light, when the second soldier lit his cigarette the
> enemy would take aim, and when the third soldier lit his cigarette the
> enemy would fire.
>
> There was in fact no such superstition during the First World War. The
> superstition was alleged to have been invented about a decade later by
> the Swedish match tycoon Ivar Kreuger in an attempt to get people to
> use more matches but it appears he merely made very shrewd use of the
> already existing belief which may date to the Boer War."
>
> If there wasn't any such superstition during WWI, why would Chaplin
> have bothered to put it in his WWI comedy?

I don't know, but there's a great version of the life story of Kreuger
played
by the amazing Warren William in the pre-code THE MATCH KING. It
includes
the 3 on a match story. Check it out when they show on TCM!

Bill Coleman
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> Two corrections of details in my first post:
>
> 1. _Shoulder Arms_ was the first film that Chaplin worked on
> with James, not the last, but it did arrive late, so that James
> felt that Chaplin had little time in which to do much editing.
>
> 2. Hooman did think that Chaplin might have done some minor
> "tweaking" of the film, but made no substantial changes.
> Therefore it was Rollie who removed the "third man on a match"
> gag in the 1940s without Chaplin's knowledge.
>
> And an addition:
>
> According to Hooman, James recalled Chaplin saying that he had not
> seen _Shoulder Arms_ for twenty years (since he had it screened while
> working on _The Great Dictator_). Until the film arrived,
> Chaplin worked with James on the music based solely on his memory, and
> James was surprised at how accurate his memory was
> and how well the music fit when the film did arrive.
>
> Connie K.

Unfortunately, *someone's* memory isn't all that accurate, unless for
some reason David Robinson just made stuff up. From pg. 520 of
Chaplin, His Life and Art: "The early part of 1943 passed pleasantly,
without trouble. Oona and her mother spent a lot of time at the house;
so did young Charles and Sydney, who were now approaching draft age.
In the weeks after Christmas, Chaplin screened City Lights, The
Circus, The Idle Class and Shoulder Arms at the studio for the
O'Neills and other friends."

And on pg.522: "They [Charlie and Oona] returned to Beverly Hills on
26 July [1943]... Brigadier-General Osborn, Director of the Special
Services Division of the army, had requested that Chaplin might make
prints of Shoulder Arms available to the Armed Forces Institute Film
Services. Chaplin was delighted that his 25-year-old picture was still
reckoned to have a value for morale, and Totheroh set about revising
and restoring a perfect new negative. In January [1944] Chaplin saw
the new print, as well as The Gold Rush, in the company of Oona and a
party of friends, and decided that it would be a good idea to do the
same for all his old films, in each case assembling the negatives to
obtain a good protection print for special use if required at any
time. The negatives, when placed in proper order, were to be deposited
with Pathé's Hollywood laboratory. Totheroh spent most of the next
year or so [1944-45] preparing these definitive negatives and library
prints of the First National films."

Knowing that Robinson had free access to all studio records, a couple
of things become clear. 1) Of all the First National "library
prints" (or so-called Rollie versions), the one film that we KNOW
Chaplin saw (and, one can infer from the context, also approved of)
was Shoulder Arms. 2) Either Chaplin's memory wasn't as good as James
thought, or someone else misremembered what happened.

It also means that Chaplin viewed a version of Shoulder Arms in 1943
that predated Rollie's work on the new negatives, and almost exactly a
year later, in January of 1944, he viewed the 'Army' version, and on
that basis decided to create new negatives for the rest of the First
Nationals. It would be pretty difficult for me to infer from those
facts that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Rollie's work. Now, I guess
it IS possible that Rollie duplicated his efforts, and re-revised the
'Army' version again, creating yet another version perhaps less than a
year later [sometime in '44 or '45] that Chaplin didn't see until the
mid 1950s, but somehow I doubt it.




>
> On Mar 28, 1:49 am, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
> > I've just returned from the second Chaplin Conference to be
> > held in Kyoto, Japan. The topic this year was "Chaplin and
> > War," so there were a number of references to both _Dictator_
> > and _Shoulder Arms_.
>
> > I will say more about the conference as a whole later, but
> > since the topic of _Shoulder Arms_ has been extensively
> > discussed here, I think one of the papers delivered at the
> > conference might be of general interest to posters.
>
> > Hooman Mehran, one of the editors of the Chapin volumes which
> > have been published in the past two years, read a paper in which
> > he argued that there were three versions of _Shoulder Arms_
> > currently available: The _Chaplin Revue_ version, the Pathe reissue,
> > and the David Shepard version. According to his argument, the
> > _Chaplin Revue_ version was the same as the version prepared by
> > Rollie Totheroh in the 1940s, because the film arrived very late
> > and was the last one that Chaplin and Eric James composed music
> > for (according to Eric James). This paper also accepted the story
> > that Chaplin was unhappy with Rollie's editing, and further
> > argued that Chaplin had been too preoccupied in the mid 1940s to
> > pay attention to Rollie's work, and so was surprised when he saw
> > what had been done.
>
> > The paper placed particular emphasis on the episode of Charlie as
> > tree being chased through the woods. The three versions all do
> > differ in details in this sequence.
>
> > During a conversation later in the conference, the author told me that a
> > grandson of Rollie (I think that's you, David.) told him that Chaplin
> > tried to call Rollie for days, and Rollie ignored the rings, explaining
> > that it was Charlie wanting to discuss _Shoulder Arms_, and that he
> > wasn't interested in discussing it.
>
> > As I recall discussions here, posters pointed out differences between
> > the Revue and MK2 versions, as well as differences between the Shepard
> > and Pathe versions, and there was some assumption that Chaplin made
> > further changes for _Revue_. Also, I seem to recall that David thought
> > Chaplin was upset by something other than the editing of the film, but
> > I can't recall if it was ever very clear what that other issue was.
>
> > I'd like to know what others can contribute on this topic. I find it
> > hard to believe that Chaplin would not have been aware of what Rollie was
> > doing with _Shoulder Arms_ in the 1940s, whatever else may have been on
> > his mind. On the other hand, a man of seventy might not remember details
> > of changes in a film that he had approved in his fifties. I agree that
> > David Shepard has created another version of the film which is carefully
> > thought out and in certain respects closer to the original release version
> > than _Revue_, but is of course not the same thing.
>
> > Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: _Shoulder Arms_ Again 

On Mar 29, 12:56 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu> wrote:
> Two corrections of details in my first post:
>
> 1. _Shoulder Arms_ was the first film that Chaplin worked on
> with James, not the last, but it did arrive late, so that James
> felt that Chaplin had little time in which to do much editing.
>
> 2. Hooman did think that Chaplin might have done some minor
> "tweaking" of the film, but m