Chaplin and Editing

In article <C0CA1BAB.79D7%dbpearson@charter.net>, David B. Pearson
<dbpearson DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote:

> It changes things quite a bit. The edits to the later reissue of THE KID is
> even more serious, as it greatly alters the film's ending.

Please explain. I remember some scenes between Edna and the
artist/father being cut out, but I don't remember what their importance
was, or how they would effect the ending.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Connie, it just seems to me-- and I'm hereby acknowledging that this
is merely my guess and opinion-- that Chaplin made the film he wanted
back in 1925. He took all the time in the world, obsessed over every
detail, and only released it when he was satisfied that it was exactly
as he wanted it. In 1942, for whatever reason, money most likely, he
decided to make changes, but those changes weren't along the lines of
"now I can finally make it the film I always wanted it to be-- NOW
it's finished and is a masterpiece." Instead, the changes seem to
have been made along the lines of "what can I get away with... what
can I do in order to pander to current tastes." (Except the
soundtrack. I do believe that was something he felt was truly good
and would have done it in 1925 if he could. And I like it too.)

I just honestly can't see him sitting there in 1942 watching the
original version and saying, "Jesus, what an idiot I was! I can't
believe I ever released the film like this! What was I thinking???
It's going to take a lot of work to fix this mess."

I see nothing wrong with thinking the original film is far superior to
the later version. (By the way, I don't mind the tinkering with his
other films nearly as objectionable. Also, I love his voice, I just
don't like it as a narrator to The Gold Rush.)

And remember, we don't know how the original cut would have fared in
1942. For all we know, it might have done better business than the
recut. Chaplin was not infallible, you know.

But it's his film, and he's more than welcome to make whatever changes
he wanted. It's just that, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this
thread, its audience today would prefer the original version and it's
too bad that the estate doesn't allow a better copy of that to be
released. It's not that today's audiences are better or smarter, it's
simply that today's audience for that film is the silent film fan, not
the general release audience. If the film got a major theatrical
rerelease today it just might be better to go with the 1942 version.
But it's not getting that kind of release, it's being seen by people
who want to see these films in as close to their original form as
possible.

Sorry for the long post.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

In article <1151715445.079805.252400.DeleteThis@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu"> wrote:

> Doug Sulpy wrote:

> > Some of the cuts, however, do not, and I have a hard time thinking of
> > the '40's reissue of "The Gold Rush" as anything other than
> > "butchered." The changes might not bother you, but surely you must
> > admit that a lot of people find that version of the film unwatchable.
> > Are they all being "presumptuous"?
>
> Not unless they say that Chaplin was an idiot to make those changes,
> and
> that they obviously destroyed the effect of the film.

Was he an idiot? No - I believe his actions were guided by the desire
to see the film be a commercial success in the re-release. Whether I
believe it was morally or artistically justified is another matter.

> If you say "I
> find it unwatchable,"
> that's not presumptuous.That's a fact. If you say the film is
> absolutely unwatchable,
> then you have to explain why so many people loved it in 1942, and
> didn't find it
> unwatchable at all.

I wouldn't say the film is "absolutely unwatchable" because someone,
somewhere with extraordinarily poor taste probably prefers the wretched
thing to the silent version.

> To me it's presumptuous to assume that your taste
> is shared by
> everyone--or should be--but we're all entitled to our preferences.

I don't assume my taste is shared by everyone. And everyone is entitled
to their preferences, that's true. However, I don't believe everyone's
opinion carries equal weight.

> I agree that original versions of films should be preserved, but I
> don't think you'll see
> artists refraining from revisiting their work any time soon.

Unfortunately true.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

On 6/30/06 7:34 PM, in article
1151714039.941265.314030.RemoveThis@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu" <constance.kuriyama.RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:

>
> David B. Pearson wrote:
>> On 6/29/06 4:03 PM, in article
>> 24871-44A4401A-1083.RemoveThis@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net, "George Shelps"
>> <G-HELPS.RemoveThis@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>>
>>>> My problem with people who claim
>>>> (hyperbolically) that Chaplin "buthered"
>>>> his films is that they assume their
>>>> judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
>>>> wrong. This just strikes me as
>>>> presumptuous.
>>>
>>> If that is presumptuous, then all film
>>> criticism is presumptuous---and what
>>> is the purpose of this group, except
>>> to worship at the altar?
>>>
>>
>> George,
>> Welcome back to the correct side of the fence.
>
> I'm not sure which side of which fence we're talking about,

The religion thread. In this one, George is the atheist.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

On 6/30/06 8:08 PM, in article
1151716093.710685.175130.TakeThisOut@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu" <constance.kuriyama.TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:

>
> David B. Pearson wrote:
>> On 6/29/06 3:25 PM, in article
>> 1151612727.455422.286710.TakeThisOut@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>> "constance.kuriyama@ttu.edu" <constance.kuriyama.TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> David B. Pearson wrote:
>>>> I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
>>>> later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made
>>>> changes
>>>> to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
>>>> today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
>>>> to prefer to release the originals as well.
>>>>
>>>> DBP
>>>
>>> How is that a problem? The original films were to some extent
>>> influenced by
>>> audience and period taste, so were the reissues, and so would reissues
>>> be now.
>>
>> This doesn't take into account that silent film viewing tastes are today
>> more in line with 1925 than 1942. Fans expect their silents to be so.
>
> Sure it does. Change can be cyclic. The fact that film buffs with a
> love of
> silents now dominate the Chaplin audience explains the current
> privileging of '25.

Time should not affect art. The 1925 is the original concept of the
artist. The '42 is an afterthought done to attempt to maximize profits
and "modernize" the work --- not unlike what Harold Lloyd's attempted
messing with his re-release of THE FRESHMAN in 1962.

>>> My problem with people who claim (hyperbolically) that Chaplin
>>> "buthered" his
>>> films is that they assume their judgment is correct and Chaplin's was
>>> wrong. This
>>> just strikes me as presumptuous.
>>
>> One can't have it both ways. Chaplin's '42 edit of the '25 is either the
>> self-butchery of a masterpiece, or a later correction to a defective work.
>> I prefer seeing it as the former. The '42 is clearly not an improvement.
>
> Nope. They are two versions of the same story, tweaked for different
> audiences
> by an artist who himself had changed. You can like one or the other, or
> both. You can also declare your preference to be absolute, as you just
> did,
> but you won't convince me by doing it.

You mean like what George Lucas' did to the first "Star Wars Trilogy?"
(Shudder). Few -- even now -- consider the "revisions" an improvement.

>>> Having compared the originals to the reissues to the degree presently
>>> possible,
>>> I consider his changes minor, and in some cases they could be
>>> reasonably
>>> considered improvements. In no case, as far as I can see, does the
>>> change
>>> completely destroy the effect of the film. or even seriously impair it.
>>
>> It changes things quite a bit. The edits to the later reissue of THE KID is
>> even more serious, as it greatly alters the film's ending.
>
> ?????. _The Kid_ has the same ending exactly in both edits. The '25
> _Gold Rush_ has a slightly more developed ending.

I'm talking about the major scene cut in the 1971 reissue between the
now wealthy actress mother and now famous artist father, regretting
their poor choices. That's even more damaging that the 42 GOLD RUSH
cuts. Removing that scene completely alters the intent of the 1921
ending.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

Doug Sulpy wrote:
> In article <C0CA1BAB.79D7%dbpearson@charter.net>, David B. Pearson
> <dbpearson RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>
> > It changes things quite a bit. The edits to the later reissue of THE KID is
> > even more serious, as it greatly alters the film's ending.
>
> Please explain. I remember some scenes between Edna and the
> artist/father being cut out, but I don't remember what their importance
> was, or how they would effect the ending.

Sure,

With the film in unedited form, THE KID is clearly a tragedy for
Charlie's Tramp. The scenes between Edna and the artist/father make it
clear they are still in love, but the loss of their son makes their
reunion impossible -- UNLESS they find the child. As we know, Edna
does. This leaves a CIRCUS-type ending: Edna, the artist, andJackie are
(finally) about to become a family group. As such, there is no place
for Charlie, and he must move on, alone.

With the Edna/Artist scene cut, the Artist remains the worthless cad
who abandons Edba in the backstory. As such, Charlie's future
relationship with Jackie remains ambiguous, changing the ending from a
heroic bittersweet one -- echoed in CIRCUS and CITY LIGHTS -- into
something semi-happy, but very unclear.

However, in context of the cuts in the '42 GOLD RUSH, the most damning
thing is, that in both cases, Chaplin the director has removed the two
major dramatic scenes that Chaplin the actor isn't in!
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David B. Pearson wrote:
> Doug Sulpy wrote:
> > In article <C0CA1BAB.79D7%dbpearson@charter.net>, David B. Pearson
> > <dbpearson.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It changes things quite a bit. The edits to the later reissue of THE KID is
> > > even more serious, as it greatly alters the film's ending.
> >
> > Please explain. I remember some scenes between Edna and the
> > artist/father being cut out, but I don't remember what their importance
> > was, or how they would effect the ending.
>
> Sure,
>
> With the film in unedited form, THE KID is clearly a tragedy for
> Charlie's Tramp. The scenes between Edna and the artist/father make it
> clear they are still in love, but the loss of their son makes their
> reunion impossible -- UNLESS they find the child. As we know, Edna
> does. This leaves a CIRCUS-type ending: Edna, the artist, andJackie are
> (finally) about to become a family group. As such, there is no place
> for Charlie, and he must move on, alone.
>
> With the Edna/Artist scene cut, the Artist remains the worthless cad
> who abandons Edba in the backstory. As such, Charlie's future
> relationship with Jackie remains ambiguous, changing the ending from a
> heroic bittersweet one -- echoed in CIRCUS and CITY LIGHTS -- into
> something semi-happy, but very unclear.
>
> However, in context of the cuts in the '42 GOLD RUSH, the most damning
> thing is, that in both cases, Chaplin the director has removed the two
> major dramatic scenes that Chaplin the actor isn't in!

David,

I think you're reading way more into what is actually in the original
(and also into what's not in the re-edit). I see nothing that indicates
a reunion is likely whether or not the kid is found. Is there even any
indication the artist knows of his son's existence? Dare I say (given
another thread) it takes a leap of *faith* to assume that the
artist/father will become part of the "family group" after the film is
over. There's nothing actually in either version to indicate he would.
The "regrets" concretized by the chance meeting at the party are so
obviously understood within the context of the rest of the story that
all Chaplin did was remove the sledge hammer. All possibilities exist
equally within either version.

Refresh my memory. How old is Jackie when the party scene happens? Is
it just before he and Edna are reunited? Or is it earlier? How much
earlier? Get my point? Like with City Lights, it's the honest ambiguity
that gives the story its power.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David Totheroh wrote:

> David,
>
> I think you're reading way more into what is actually in the original
> (and also into what's not in the re-edit). I see nothing that indicates
> a reunion is likely whether or not the kid is found. Is there even any
> indication the artist knows of his son's existence?

The removed scene plays out like this:

(The placement of this is immediately after Edna the social worker
first meets Jackie while feeling the heartache of her missing son...
about 30 minutes in.)

"The world welcomes fame."

(Iris in to a party for rich people.)

"The man -- now a painter of great prominence," (This title continues
the Woman/Man parallels established at the beginning of the film. A few
earlier, Edna had been reintoduced into the story with "The woman --
now an actress of great prominence.")

(The Artist is busy shaking hands.)

(Enter Edna.)

"Fate."

(Edna greets people.)

(Edna and the Artist see one another.)

(Edna agoes outside to a scenic balcony to get fresh air.)

(After a hesitation, the Artist follows.)

(He reaches out to touch her. She doesn't respond.)

(He pulls back. They think about their past, and feel regret. We know
this is going on because there is a fade to a book the size of a family
Bible with "The Past" on the cover, A man's hand opens the book to a
page titled REGRETS. Fade back Edna and the Artist stealing glances
into the camera looking glum.)

The Artist: "How may I atone for the suffering I've --"

(Enda sadly shakes her head.)

Enda: "It's too late now, unless the child --"

(Both bow heads.)

Fade out.

Running time of scene -- Three minutes, ten seconds.

> Dare I say (given
> another thread) it takes a leap of *faith* to assume that the
> artist/father will become part of the "family group" after the film is
> over.

No, that's the subtext to where the story's headed.

> There's nothing actually in either version to indicate he would.

Looks like he's ready to do the "right thing." As both Edna and he are
rich -- money is not an issue. That leaves the conclusion that he and
Edna will get back together. "It's too late now, unless the child --"
opens the door to this.

> The "regrets" concretized by the chance meeting at the party are so
> obviously understood within the context of the rest of the story that
> all Chaplin did was remove the sledge hammer. All possibilities exist
> equally within either version.

No. In the original, the ending is a happy/sad moment of triumph, as
Jackie is returned to where he belongs.

In the second, it looks like Charlie might be moving in to Ednas!

> Refresh my memory. How old is Jackie when the party scene happens?

About five.

> Is
> it just before he and Edna are reunited?

Depends on one's point of view. She'd just met Jackie.
But at that point in the story, Edna hadn't yet realized it.

> Or is it earlier?

Earlier than the police station reunion? Yes.

> How much
> earlier?

Not much. Looks about a week. Or a bit less.

> Get my point?

No.

> Like with City Lights, it's the honest ambiguity
> that gives the story its power.

Hmm... looks more like The Circus to me.
Despite than little moment of joy at the end, Charlie's heading back to
the road.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

David Totheroh wrote:
> David,
>
> I think you're reading way more into what is actually in the original
> (and also into what's not in the re-edit). I see nothing that indicates
> a reunion is likely whether or not the kid is found. Is there even any
> indication the artist knows of his son's existence? Dare I say (given
> another thread) it takes a leap of *faith* to assume that the
> artist/father will become part of the "family group" after the film is
> over. There's nothing actually in either version to indicate he would.
> The "regrets" concretized by the chance meeting at the party are so
> obviously understood within the context of the rest of the story that
> all Chaplin did was remove the sledge hammer. All possibilities exist
> equally within either version.
>
> Refresh my memory. How old is Jackie when the party scene happens? Is
> it just before he and Edna are reunited? Or is it earlier? How much
> earlier? Get my point? Like with City Lights, it's the honest ambiguity
> that gives the story its power.

And if one REALLY needed to cut a useless scene frpm "The Kid," why not
cut the totally meaningless bit with the angel-vamp? Do we really need
to see the Tramp flirting with -- an (literally) chasing sexually -- a
child, not much older than Jackie, dressing up in high heels?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

constance.kuriyama RemoveThis @ttu.edu wrote:
> David B. Pearson wrote:
> > I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
> > later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
> > to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
> > today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
> > to prefer to release the originals as well.
> >
> > DBP
>
> How is that a problem? The original films were to some extent
> influenced by
> audience and period taste, so were the reissues, and so would reissues
> be now.

> Connie K.

Actually I think the premise is ruinously viable today. Remember the
cut final stanza of Modern Times, Connie? Wasn't that decision made by
others, not Chaplin? Imagine Da Vinci's descendants brushing up ol'
Mona to suit a modern taste. Pure hubris.
Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

constance.kuriyama.DeleteThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> David B. Pearson wrote:
> > I think the problem with defending Charlie's choice to alter his films in
> > later years, is that the premise is still viable today. Chaplin made changes
> > to make the titles more accessible to modern audiences. If modern audiences
> > today prefer the originals, and CC were still alive, I think it likely he'd
> > to prefer to release the originals as well.
> >
> > DBP
>
> How is that a problem? The original films were to some extent
> influenced by
> audience and period taste, so were the reissues, and so would reissues
> be now.

> Connie K.

Actually I think the premise is ruinously viable today. Remember the
cut final stanza of Modern Times, Connie? Wasn't that decision made by
others, not Chaplin? Imagine Da Vinci's descendants brushing up ol'
Mona to suit a modern taste. Pure hubris.
Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

symphonyofhorror.RemoveThis@juno.com wrote:
> Why did Chaplin go back and massacre so many of his classics during his
> later years? Why did he think strech-printing would look good for "The
> Chaplin Revue"? Why did he choose to edit out sequences from "The Kid",
> "Modern Times" and "The Gold Rush"?

Because he could. :-) Perfectionist's curse perhaps, always tinkering.
Maybe he hoped to artistically "freshen up" films that looked outdated
by the forties due to the invention of sound films. Or, maybe purely
for the renumerative possiblities. I, like yourself, am very pleased
that technology allowed CC to add the musicals scores. They are just
another layer of Chaplin that makes the films richer.
Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing 

In article <1151891149.051333.283220.DeleteThis@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
David B. Pearson <pearson.DeleteThis@silent-movies.com> wrote:

> And if one REALLY needed to cut a useless scene frpm "The Kid," why not
> cut the totally meaningless bit with the angel-vamp? Do we really need
> to see the Tramp flirting with -- an (literally) chasing sexually -- a
> child, not much older than Jackie, dressing up in high heels?

As I said earlier, that is extremely creepy [not that I would want it
cut out, mind you - I don't want ANYTHING cut out!].

Thanks for the transcription of the "Kid" cuts. I think the "it's too
late now, unless the child --" line very clearly shows where the
characters were (originally) headed, and the meaning of the ending is,
indeed, changed by the omission of this scene [and I DID always just
think Charlie was moving in!].

I'll have to watch the film again, with that in mind.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin and Editing