a Chaplin convert?

The other day, I got a message from my friend David Kalat (author of some
well worth reading works on Mabuse, Fantomas and Godzilla, and some terrific
Mabuse DVD audio commentaries too), where he refers back to a conversation
we had about the current "rediscovery" of Chaplin, and how those changing
popular attitudes (this must be like the third Chaplin "rediscovery" in my
lifetime, and I'm not that old!) are more a sign of their times. I thought
it was interesting reading and David has some very good points to make, so
with his OK (and as an attempt to focus this group back to Chaplin!!), I'll
post it below. It also makes an interesting follow-up to David Robinson's
take on Chaplin's popurarity -- or lack thereof -- in the UK, and IMO the
Chaplin "attitude" David describes also mirrors a popular "contempt" for
Disney among many film buffs I know. Anyways --

"I've also been watching some Chaplin, to re-assess my attitude towards
him. I watched the Gold Rush (silent version), and the stuff on the
Slapstick Encyclopedia (The Rink, Night at the English Music Hall).
I've been thinking about it all, and I think what happened was that I
formed my opinion of Chaplin when I was a young teenager, when a
retrospective of his works and some documentaries about his filmmaking
were shown on public television around 1984 or so. My attitudes were
pretty unsophisticated back then, and I bought into some of the "if
it's popular it can't be good, if it's good it can't be popular" kind
of thinking that I now reject. As a staunch Buster Keaton fan, at a
time when Keaton was not as well known or celebrated in pop culture as
he is now (all praise David Shepard) I resented how Chaplin stole all
the attention. Chaplin here in the US is an absolutely ubiquitous
icon, and his image is recognized to a much greater extent than his
films are actually shown or seen. In other words, Chaplin is famous
for being famous, much like Elvis or Marilyn Monroe on Betty Boop for
that matter--Betty Boop cartoons are virtually impossible to see, yet
her image is sold everywhere to fans who have almost no idea what she
is. So I saw Chaplin's fame as a mark of shame--proof that if the
masses accepted him, and did so without even really caring what his
films were, then I was above it all by rejecting him after actually
seeing his films. Now, much older and wiser, I can go back and
recognize the folly in that thinking. I still find his films a little
maudlin, a little tear-jerky, in a way that is not so much to my taste
(the emotional vacuum in Keaton or Harry Langdon appeals to me more)
but I can't say that Gold Rush isn't a masterpiece, deserving of every
word of praise ever said about it." -- David Kalat


Uli

"Doug Sulpy" <dsulpy.TakeThisOut@optonline.net> wrote

> > ...IMO the
> > Chaplin "attitude" David describes also mirrors a popular "contempt" for
> > Disney among many film buffs I know. Anyways --
>
> I don't see the connection. Please explain.

The connection I see is that both CC and Disney are dismissed by many as
sentimental -- an aspect of their work, incidentally, that one could try
trace back to 19th century European cultural influences (Dickens, Grimm).
While those elements are definitely there, IMHO many people fail to see
there's other aspects beyond them, maybe even balancing them. There's
certainly very dark elements in many Disney feature films (even in fairly
recent blockbusters) that most 'imitators' like Don Bluth don't seem to be
able to understand or aim at. And of course there's nothing sentimental in
many early b/w Mickey Mouse, or pretty much any Donald Duck cartoon.
A certain jealousy that many non-film buffs would equate animation with
Disney (ignoring Jones, Avery, Fleischer and other giants and pioneers of
animation) may also be a part, much as (like David K. describes) the image
of Chaplin dominates a popular conception of silent comedy, maybe even
silent film as a whole.

Uli