New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book

"Fred" <fwtep RemoveThis @hotmailx.com> wrote in message
news:sja6j2pvrtns3ieov7ngpkb8f1umhb0ro5@4ax.com...
> On 16 Oct 2006 05:52:26 GMT, do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>"Darren" (dnemeth01@charter.net) writes:
>>>> Chaplin did film on location, and how skillfully actual
>>>> sites were blended with sets. Less obviously but just as importantly,
>>>> it
>>>> documents how elaborately sequences which flash by in a matter of
>>>> seconds
>>>> were created, and how much they involved the imaginative shaping and
>>>> manipulation of actual scenes and objects to create a convincing
>>>> fictitous
>>>> world. Chaplin does this so well that it is virtually invisible,but
>>>> this
>>>> book makes it impossible to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>> In those days nearly all exterior films that came out of Califonria were
>>> set
>>> on location.
>>>
>>> It is not unique to Chaplin.
>>>
>>> Darrn
>>
>>Of course not. But there's shooting on location and shooting on
>>location. There's an obvious difference between going to a soap
>>box race and improvising, which is just opportunistic, and
>>setting up complex sequences like the rooftop rescue in _The
>>Kid_. This book gives a hint of the effort and skill involved,
>>which is not something that's evident when watching the film.
>>
>>Connie K.
>
> I don't think Chaplin was doing anything any differently or any better
> than anyone else at the time for location shooting. As far as complex
> sequences like the rooftop, well, that was, what, about four shots?--
> not very complex, is it? And I'd hold up any Keaton or Lloyd location
> work as consistently equal or lightyears beyond what Chaplin was
> doing. He certainly wasn't putting in the "effort and skill" that they
> did. Don't get me wrong, I love Chaplin but I think his location work
> is one of very very few things that aren't anything special when
> compared to what others were doing.
>
> Fred

I have to agree that all three comedians were doing very brilliant work with
locations. Lloyd's handling of the New York shoot for SPEEDY is really
impressive. He really made the city into a character in the film, something
with Keaton really didn't do when given the opportunity to shoot scenes for
THE CAMERAMAN in New York.

Some of the locations that Chaplin and his location team managed to find are
really memorable, though. He seemed to have an eye for settings that at
first may appear drab or unremarkable, and find the beauty in them. I keep
mentioning the waterfront scenes with the shack in MODERN TIMES, and there
are whole sections of THE KID (the rooftop chase, the bridge, the street
scenes that were done on location) that have a very "real" feel to them and
photograph beautifully. Interestingly, THE CIRCUS makes use of an actual
amusement park which Chaplin worked quite well into the gags and narrative
at the opening of that film.

I'm not sure if he was doing things "differently" than Keaton or Lloyd, as
all three produced amazing results again and again. But as always, it's
interesting to compare and contrast their films.
--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On Oct 24, 1:41 am, Fred <f... DeleteThis @hotmailx.com> wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2006 19:06:18 -0700, bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 9:20 pm, Fred <f... DeleteThis @hotmailx.com> wrote:
> >> On 19 Oct 2006 15:01:27 -0700, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> .I think the cleverness of the rooftop scene in The Kid ends with
> >> choosing that concept. In other words, it's clever and effective to
> >> stage the chase on the roof, but it could have been shot almost
> >> anywhere, including in the studio
> >And the train falling into the river on the collapsing bridge in 'The
> >General' would've been
> >equally as effective if it was done with miniatures in the studio.
> >. That's a silly comparison. Creating the roofs in the studio would be
> (or *could easily be*) identical to what was at the location. After
> all, they'd be built the same way and in the same scale. There'd be
> no difference except that it would be in a different place.
> Substituting a miniature train in the Keaton gag would be entirely
> different.-

"Silly", huh?

The dramatic power that the outdoor, 'authentic' setting gives the
scene is in
the sense of vertigo and perpsective that could only come from the
chase being
conducted over real roofs, parallel to a real street - and the sense of
space: that the
Tramp's clambering over the roofs exists in relation to the cart with
the kid rattling along
below through the winding streets.

The rapidly shifting perspectives - mirroring the Tramp's (and our)
anxiety - could not
have been achieved with a bunch of rooftops slapped together on a set
in front of a
painted backdrop...

....Just as the power of the train collapsing into the river in The
General could not have
been achieved with miniatures, which would rob us of the authenticity
and drama of 'knowing' that
what we're seeing is real
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

Fred (fwtep@hotmailx.com) writes:
> On 23 Oct 2006 22:50:14 GMT, do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>Fred (fwtep@hotmailx.com) writes:
>>> On 18 Oct 2006 04:34:17 GMT, do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
>>> Kuriyama) wrote:
>>>
>>>>every one of them is carefully
>>>>planned and set up so that the sequence seems perfectly natural--so
>>>>natural, in fact, that it won't stand out as anyything special.
>>>
>>> One more thing. That type of response is a real cheat. There's no
>>> way anyone can win an argument (or have a meaningful conversation) if
>>> you're using tactics like that.
>>
>>Like what, for Chrissake? All I said was that Chaplin's location work
>>was carefully done and inconspicuous. I wasn't aware that it was a
>>crime to have that opinion.
>
> Now you're being silly on purpose. You know full well that my point
> is that your implication was that Keaton (and everyone else) *wasn't*
> careful and inconspicuous.

That was neither said nor implied, but it is simply a fact that Keaton
and Lloyd stage elaborate chase sequences using large objects, and this
IS conspicuous. However, I'm not complaining. I enjoy it like everybody
else. I just don't assume that bigger is necessarily better.


> If that's not your point, why mention it?

I didn't mention it--if by it you mean any implication about anyone NOT
being careful. In fact I said the opposite.


> Your initial comments implied that Chaplin's location work was better
> than average,

They implpied no such thing. You read that into what I said, which was
simply that JB's book made me aware of how much care and effort went
into Chaplin's location work.


and I simply said that's a rather extreme and
> "idol-worshippy" statement.

Yes, Mr. Shelps's smear campaign does have some effect. I'm surprised that
you are gullible enough to believe it, to the point where you invent
statements that I never made (or implied).


>
> Besides, it WASN'T inconspicuous if you ask me (opinion, of course)
> because his studio stuff was so "studio-looking" that it made the
> location stuff stand out.

That would be a different kind of conspicuous.

>>There's also no point in having a conversation with someone who doesn't
>>bother to read posts. Please show me where I said in ANY post that
>>Chapiin's location work was better than anyone else's. It ain't there.
>>In fact i said exactly the opposite--that both Chapin's and Keaton's
>>location work was carefully done, but that Keaton liked to shooot somewhat
>>different subjects which might make the effect more noticable.
>>
>>But if you want to think that Chaplin's location shooting is merely
>>ordinary, that's fine with me.
>
> Here's one thing you said: "Chaplin does this so well that it is
> virtually invisible,but this book makes it impossible to ignore."
>
> To which I said there's no need to put him on a pedestal for something
> he didn't do any better than anyone else. You say you never said
> Chaplin's location work was better than anyone else's, to which I ask:
> Then who *isn't* doing it "so well?" Saying someone does something
> really well implies that other people don't, wouldn't you agree? "So
> well" means "better than average." Who is average, in your opinion?

"So well" does not imply a comparison with anyone in particular. It
merely refers to my experience as a viewer. When I watch the sequence
I'm not aware of the mechanics of how it was done. This book simiply
lets me know that it was done so well that I didn't notice. That's
what I mean by inconspicuous.

On the other hand, when I see a train crash into a river this is a
big enough effect that I may start thinking about how it was done,
at least after I've finished watching the film. I never wondered about
the sequence on the roof until I read this book.


> Your attitude towards others, Keaton for example is evident in your
> point of comparison for location work. You compare a sequence for
> Chaplin (the roof) with one single shot in The General, the bridge
> collapse. Talk about stacking the deck!

You're still assuming that I'm making a comparison unfavorable to
Keaton. This "evident" attitude is entirely your invention.

As for it being one shot, yes it is, but it might have been done with
an eduted seqyebce, Keaton *chose* to do it in one shot, as he often
doees. I think it was a completelly appropriate choice.

> And, by the way, after 19 years in the industry, on both coasts, I do
> know a thing or two about what goes into location work-- from all ends
> of production. I'm not saying that to brag, merely to let you know
> that it's not something I've only read about, since you keep trying to
> tell me how certain things aren't "particularly simple or easy to
> achieve."

Nobody doubts your experience, which may give you a different perspective
from mine. I'm just glad when I begin to appreciate how much went into
an effective sequence.

Can't I say anything positive about Chaplin's films without being accused
of idoltry and of denigrating other film-makers?

You're being very unreasonable.

Connie K.


> Fred
>
> PS: Yes, I'll grant that there were cheapies, quickies and other
> films made outside of the big studios that were pretty shoddy looking,
> but when I say Chaplin's location work wasn't any better than anyone
> else I obviously mean professional Hollywood films.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 24 Oct 2006 23:05:29 GMT, do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:

>That was neither said nor implied, but it is simply a fact that Keaton
>and Lloyd stage elaborate chase sequences using large objects, and this
>IS conspicuous. However, I'm not complaining. I enjoy it like everybody
>else. I just don't assume that bigger is necessarily better.

Um, Hello! If you think big elaborate chase sequences using large
objects are all that Keaton and Lloyd do in their location work then I
guess they're much more subtle and clever than Chaplin.


>"So well" does not imply a comparison with anyone in particular. It
>merely refers to my experience as a viewer. When I watch the sequence
>I'm not aware of the mechanics of how it was done. This book simiply
>lets me know that it was done so well that I didn't notice. That's
>what I mean by inconspicuous.

OK, that's reasonable and I'm fine with it. Not that you're seeking
my approval or anything, I merely mention it for what it's worth.


>On the other hand, when I see a train crash into a river this is a
>big enough effect that I may start thinking about how it was done,
>at least after I've finished watching the film. I never wondered about
>the sequence on the roof until I read this book.

Do you have the Keaton book too? There's just as much interesting
stuff in that one too.


>Can't I say anything positive about Chaplin's films without being accused
>of idoltry and of denigrating other film-makers?

Like I said, the tone of what you wrote made it sound like Chaplin
deserved some special recognition above what everyone else deserved. I
was not alone in reading that tone into it (and I don't mean George
Shelps). I'm not out to get you; I think that this topic and the
"what is a hero" topic were the only ones where I've disagreed with
you.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

"Matt Barry" (barrys@bellatlantic.net) writes:
> "Fred" <fwtep.DeleteThis@hotmailx.com> wrote in message
> news:sja6j2pvrtns3ieov7ngpkb8f1umhb0ro5@4ax.com...
>> On 16 Oct 2006 05:52:26 GMT, do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
>> Kuriyama) wrote:
>>
>>>"Darren" (dnemeth01@charter.net) writes:
>>>>> Chaplin did film on location, and how skillfully actual
>>>>> sites were blended with sets. Less obviously but just as importantly,
>>>>> it
>>>>> documents how elaborately sequences which flash by in a matter of
>>>>> seconds
>>>>> were created, and how much they involved the imaginative shaping and
>>>>> manipulation of actual scenes and objects to create a convincing
>>>>> fictitous
>>>>> world. Chaplin does this so well that it is virtually invisible,but
>>>>> this
>>>>> book makes it impossible to ignore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In those days nearly all exterior films that came out of Califonria were
>>>> set
>>>> on location.
>>>>
>>>> It is not unique to Chaplin.
>>>>
>>>> Darrn
>>>
>>>Of course not. But there's shooting on location and shooting on
>>>location. There's an obvious difference between going to a soap
>>>box race and improvising, which is just opportunistic, and
>>>setting up complex sequences like the rooftop rescue in _The
>>>Kid_. This book gives a hint of the effort and skill involved,
>>>which is not something that's evident when watching the film.
>>>
>>>Connie K.
>>
>> I don't think Chaplin was doing anything any differently or any better
>> than anyone else at the time for location shooting. As far as complex
>> sequences like the rooftop, well, that was, what, about four shots?--
>> not very complex, is it? And I'd hold up any Keaton or Lloyd location
>> work as consistently equal or lightyears beyond what Chaplin was
>> doing. He certainly wasn't putting in the "effort and skill" that they
>> did. Don't get me wrong, I love Chaplin but I think his location work
>> is one of very very few things that aren't anything special when
>> compared to what others were doing.
>>
>> Fred
>
> I have to agree that all three comedians were doing very brilliant work with
> locations. Lloyd's handling of the New York shoot for SPEEDY is really
> impressive. He really made the city into a character in the film, something
> with Keaton really didn't do when given the opportunity to shoot scenes for
> THE CAMERAMAN in New York.

Nor did Chaplin ever do anything comparable. The Coney Island sequence is
another highlight of that film as a film about New York. The closest Keaton
comes is the gag about being trampled in New York in _Go West_--which is not
very close. Chaplin's cities, parks, and countrysidees are always generic.


> Some of the locations that Chaplin and his location team managed to find are
> really memorable, though. He seemed to have an eye for settings that at
> first may appear drab or unremarkable, and find the beauty in them. I keep
> mentioning the waterfront scenes with the shack in MODERN TIMES, and there
> are whole sections of THE KID (the rooftop chase, the bridge, the street
> scenes that were done on location) that have a very "real" feel to them and
> photograph beautifully.

The scene of Edna sitting alone in the park before she goes to the bridge
is really haunting, and quite beautiful. One gets a powerful sense of her
confusion, isolation, and desolation. I think only Chaplin, given his
painful childhood experience of parks, could have created that scene.

Connie K.


> Interestingly, THE CIRCUS makes use of an actual
> amusement park which Chaplin worked quite well into the gags and narrative
> at the opening of that film.
>
> I'm not sure if he was doing things "differently" than Keaton or Lloyd, as
> all three produced amazing results again and again. But as always, it's
> interesting to compare and contrast their films.
> --
> Matt Barry
> Visit my pages at:
> http://mbarry84.tripod.com
> http://filmreel.blogspot.com
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

Fred wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 23:05:29 GMT, do481 RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
> >That was neither said nor implied, but it is simply a fact that Keaton
> >and Lloyd stage elaborate chase sequences using large objects, and this
> >IS conspicuous. However, I'm not complaining. I enjoy it like everybody
> >else. I just don't assume that bigger is necessarily better.
>
> Um, Hello! If you think big elaborate chase sequences using large
> objects are all that Keaton and Lloyd do in their location work then I
> guess they're much more subtle and clever than Chaplin.

Did I say that was all they do? No, I didn't. But it's certainly
more characteristic of their films than Chaplin's--which is perfectly
OK. No two comedians have they same style, and things would
be far less interesting if they did.

> >"So well" does not imply a comparison with anyone in particular. It
> >merely refers to my experience as a viewer. When I watch the sequence
> >I'm not aware of the mechanics of how it was done. This book simiply
> >lets me know that it was done so well that I didn't notice. That's
> >what I mean by inconspicuous.
>
> OK, that's reasonable and I'm fine with it. Not that you're seeking
> my approval or anything, I merely mention it for what it's worth.
>
>
> >On the other hand, when I see a train crash into a river this is a
> >big enough effect that I may start thinking about how it was done,
> >at least after I've finished watching the film. I never wondered about
> >the sequence on the roof until I read this book.
>
> Do you have the Keaton book too? There's just as much interesting
> stuff in that one too.

It's definitely on my list. I haven't got all of the new books I want
yet. I've
tried without success to get the revised Robinson book. Instead I just
would up with a third copy.of the original version. Does anyone have
the
revised version and know exactly who published it and when?.

> >Can't I say anything positive about Chaplin's films without being accused
> >of idoltry and of denigrating other film-makers?
>
> Like I said, the tone of what you wrote made it sound like Chaplin
> deserved some special recognition above what everyone else deserved. I
> was not alone in reading that tone into it (and I don't mean George
> Shelps). I'm not out to get you; I think that this topic and the
> "what is a hero" topic were the only ones where I've disagreed with
> you.

Well, tone doesn't come through very well in newsgroup posts, and
sometimes
people post on impulse and get responses they aren't expecting. I was
surprised that what I thought was a harmless statement of a new
perception about
_The Kid_ would be taken as a criticism of someone other than Chaplin,
but evidently that
reading was possiible.

The rescue sequence has six camera set-ups on the rooftops, by the way,
and those shots are intercut with three shots of the orphenage truck.
It's straightforward cross-cutting,
but very effective.

I watched _The General_ again with Rodney's score, and I still think
(speaking of
subtlety) that Buster's heroism is very much tongue-in-cheek. He keeps
bungling up
to the very end, even while they're setting fire to the bridge, and is
lucky to escape
without being roasted alive.

Connie K.
..
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
> >taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
> >every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
> >end?
>
> I think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
> was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
> because of his desire for more and better location work.
>
> In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
> build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
> little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.


But if Chaplin hadn't been picky about his location work, he'd have
never gone 500 miles north and 7000 feet up a snow-covered mountain for
those GOLD RUSH shots in the first place. I think that the scrapping of
so much Truckee footage says more about Chaplin's capriciousness than
about indifference. It was his nature as a filmmaker to go back and
re-shoot sequences over and over, and you can't always do that with
location work. For one thing, those mountains around Truckee are as
green as Ireland six months of the year. In the end, he used some of
the original Truckee material and shot the do-overs in the studio.


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 20 Oct 2006 07:44:14 -0700, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Fred wrote:
>
>> Shush wrote:
>> > Again, I'm not arguing that Chaplin's choices were more brilliant
>> >than anyone else's, but he generally went to some trouble to find ones
>> >that seemed right to him. Like everything else in his films, he was
>> >picky about the location work.
>>
>> I'm sure he was picky. But were Keaton, Lloyd and the rest of
>> Hollywood totally arbitrary and random in their choices? When someone
>> points out that person A is picky it naturally implies that person B
>> (or every other person) *isn't* picky, or that person A is more picky.
>> And that's just not the case.
>
> I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
>taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
>every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
>end?

I think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
because of his desire for more and better location work.

In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.

--John
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 23 Oct 2006 23:46:41 GMT, do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
Kuriyama) wrote:

>"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> Shush wrote:
>>> > Again, I'm not arguing that Chaplin's choices were more brilliant
>>> >than anyone else's, but he generally went to some trouble to find ones
>>> >that seemed right to him. Like everything else in his films, he was
>>> >picky about the location work.
>>>
>>> I'm sure he was picky. But were Keaton, Lloyd and the rest of
>>> Hollywood totally arbitrary and random in their choices? When someone
>>> points out that person A is picky it naturally implies that person B
>>> (or every other person) *isn't* picky, or that person A is more picky.
>>> And that's just not the case.
>>
>> I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
>> taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
>> every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
>> end?
>>
>> I wasn't trying to imply that Chaplin's location selections were
>> better than anyone's (I think Keaton's are generally much better). It's
>> just that Chaplin's notorious persnicketiness about filmmaking in
>> general extended to his choices for location shooting as well. That's
>> the only point I was making, other than sticking up for the location
>> work in THE KID, which impresses me more than it does you.
>>
>>
>>> Chaplin didn't do any better, or
>>> exhibit any more brilliance than anyone else at the time. In fact, he
>>> was overshadowed by a LOT of others. Laurel & Hardy are another great
>>> example of better location work.
>>
>> What films are you thinking of? THE MUSIC BOX, definitely, but what
>> else?
>
>Apart from the fact that the location virtually IS this film, what makes
>it "better" than the roof sequence in _The Kid_? It seems to me that
>all kinds of broad claims are being made here about unspecified location
>work being "better" that all of Chaplin's location work.
>
>I'm afraid i'm not sure what "better" means. Is it "better" to shoot an
>entire film on location? Many of the Keystones were shot entirely on
>location. Does that make them "better" than _The Gold Rush_?

Well, *better* is a very subjective and not well defined term.
However, there can be no argument that "Our Hospitality" has a much
better use of it's setting and the physical sense of "place" than "The
Gold Rush" does. Other than a few establishing shots at the
beginning, "The Gold Rush" is pretty much an indoor film that is no
more indicative of Alaska than it is of Minnesota . Whereas the
Keaton film made use of it's location is many creative and awe
inspiring ways.

--John
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 12:53:54 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Aldrich wrote:
> >
> >> Shush wrote:
> >> > I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
> >> >taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
> >> >every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
> >> >end?
> >>
> >> I think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
> >> was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
> >> because of his desire for more and better location work.
> >>
> >> In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
> >> build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
> >> little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.
> >
> >
> > But if Chaplin hadn't been picky about his location work, he'd have
> >never gone 500 miles north and 7000 feet up a snow-covered mountain for
> >those GOLD RUSH shots in the first place. I think that the scrapping of
> >so much Truckee footage says more about Chaplin's capriciousness than
> >about indifference. It was his nature as a filmmaker to go back and
> >re-shoot sequences over and over, and you can't always do that with
> >location work. For one thing, those mountains around Truckee are as
> >green as Ireland six months of the year. In the end, he used some of
> >the original Truckee material and shot the do-overs in the studio.
>
>
> We are actually saying pretty much the same thing...and the upshot is
> that the kind of location work that Keaton did so well just wasn't
> Chaplins forte. The fake cabin exteriors say it all. Keaton would
> never do that.
>
> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
> convey their epic locales.
>
> Not sure what difference the green mountains make...they would have
> been snow covered in any event.

Sorry John, that was exactly one of the significant problems, and it
would have made a great deal of difference. Those mountains WEREN'T
covered with snow for too long after the 2 week late April shoot. In
fact, even by the end of that 2 weeks, the snow that was still there
was becoming a slushy mess.

Another problem was that, although Chaplin knew he wanted something
about the cabin being blown to a new location, he hadn't worked out the
entire sequence yet. They tried many things, wind machines, teams of
horses hooked up to a cabin on skids, sliding it down a slope, etc.
Nothing worked to give the effect Chaplin was after. In fact, even
after filming much of that sequence on the La Brea stage, it wasn't
until after Monta Bell's suggestion on viewing some of the rushes that
Chaplin changed the whole concept such that he and Swain were unaware
of the motion. And that's when the whole thing fell into place, making
the sequence (in spite of your contention that "the fake cabin
exteriors say it all") one of the all-time most memorable scenes in the
history of cinema.

You're right about one thing, Keaton never did a scene that integrated
miniatures and real life shots as memorably as Chaplin did in TGR, at
least not that I can think of.
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

On 8 Nov 2006 12:53:54 -0800, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>John Aldrich wrote:
>
>> Shush wrote:
>> > I'd say Chaplin was indeed pickier than the others. Who else was
>> >taking two years to make a film? Who else was shooting thirty takes of
>> >every tiny shot, before ultimately scrapping much of his work in the
>> >end?
>>
>> I think, based on what we know, that it is safe to assume that Chaplin
>> was not taking more time to make his features than anybody else
>> because of his desire for more and better location work.
>>
>> In fact, just the opposite is true. He went to all that trouble to
>> build sets and shoot location footage up around Truckee, CA and very
>> little of it made it into the final release prints of THE GOLD RUSH.
>
>
> But if Chaplin hadn't been picky about his location work, he'd have
>never gone 500 miles north and 7000 feet up a snow-covered mountain for
>those GOLD RUSH shots in the first place. I think that the scrapping of
>so much Truckee footage says more about Chaplin's capriciousness than
>about indifference. It was his nature as a filmmaker to go back and
>re-shoot sequences over and over, and you can't always do that with
>location work. For one thing, those mountains around Truckee are as
>green as Ireland six months of the year. In the end, he used some of
>the original Truckee material and shot the do-overs in the studio.


We are actually saying pretty much the same thing...and the upshot is
that the kind of location work that Keaton did so well just wasn't
Chaplins forte. The fake cabin exteriors say it all. Keaton would
never do that.

Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
convey their epic locales.

Not sure what difference the green mountains make...they would have
been snow covered in any event.

--John
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:

> Walter Kerr calls "The General" and "The Gold Rush" the two great epic
> silent comedy films, but look at the contrast in the way the two films
> convey their epic locales.

I disagree with his premise, though. I've never considered THE GOLD
RUSH to be an epic. One magnificent long shot of miners climbing a
mountain face does not an epic make. The rest of the film stays
indoors, for the most part. It's actually more of an intimate film than
certain others that Chaplin did.

I'm not sure I'd even call THE GENERAL an epic, though it's close.
To me, a film needs huge sets and thousands of extras to qualify as an
epic, but that's just me. Making a big deal about the extensive
location work on THE GENERAL is kind of a cheat, anyway, isn't it? That
film couldn't have been shot any other way, unless you wanted to
construct a fake locomotive and have it sit on Mack Sennett's
cyclorama, and then your results would be so hideous you'd never get to
make another film!

I like THE GENERAL very much, but comparing it to THE GOLD RUSH is
like apples and oranges. One's about machines, the other's about
people. One's mainly indoors, the other's mainly outdoors. One's about
looking for happiness through wealth or love, the other's about a
rescue odyssey. Comedy is their only common ground.


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book 

John Aldrich wrote:

> The kind of location work that Keaton did so well just wasn't
> Chaplins forte. The fake cabin exteriors say it all. Keaton would
> never do that.

Well, I agree that Keaton's better overall at realism than Chaplin
is (I think Lloyd beats them both), but Keaton has his share of phony
effects too. The waterfall rescue in OUR HOSPITALITY was staged with a
man-made waterfall on a back lot. The boulders that chase Buster down
the hill in SEVEN CHANCES were fakes, and boy, do they ever look like
it. The hospital that blows away in STEAMBOAT BILL JR., with Buster
inside it, doesn't look like it's blown away, it looks like a crane has
picked it up. The see-saw ladder on the fence in COPS doesn't fling
Buster into the air, he's clearly riding a wire.

Overall he was great with location shooting, though.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book