DTotheroh wrote:
>Let me see if I've got this right. After
>delivering a box office bomb (his first >work as a director), Chaplin
set him up
>with Pickford for a project he developed
>which she thought "too strange" to
>produce, he then got fired from 2 other
>directing jobs. You say he didn't have
>much of a sense of humor (totally
>consistent with the primary reason Rollie
>reports he thought AWotS was a dog).
>Every report of those who viewed the
>film report an incomprehensible mess,
>yet you tell us it's unreasonable to
>assume AWotS might well not be a
>significant work of art simply because
>Sternberg LATER directed important
>films. Is that close?
"Later" being one year later.
I don't care what Chaplin's employee (Rollie) or a documentary
film-maker (John Grierson) thought of the film.
I believe also that Chaplin suppressed
the film because he didn't like the way
Edna came across.
All of which almost killed Sternberg's career completely---a pretty good
early
example of Hollywood cruelty.
Sternberg--one year later--made
UNDERWORLD, which was a smash
hit (the first gangster film) and he went on
for eight years to direct many memorable
pictures, THE LAST COMMAND, THE
DOCKS OF NEW YORK, THE BLUE
ANGEL, MOROCCO, SHANGHAI
EXPRESS...wonderful movies.
I think it is reasonable to infer that
A WOMAN OF THE SEA was an
example of his talent in latent
form right before this explosion
of creativity,
Attempting to justify its suppression
is just Chaplin-can-do-no-wrongism
at its worst.
__________________________________
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
>> Stay informed about: _Woman of the Sea_-- More Info