New Chaplin "Silent Traces" Book

John Aldrich wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 11:36:22 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Shush wrote:
> >> hauber108 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Aldrich wrote:
> >> > > Exactly. It was intended to be epic (otherwise, why would Chaplin
> >> > > have gone to Truckee at all) but Chaplin simply could not pull it off.
> >> > > He may have had some things go against him that were out of his
> >> > > control, but I think it is obvious his reach exceeded his grasp.
> >> >
> >> > I doubt Chaplin was ever trying to make an "epic" out of
> >> > THE GOLD RUSH, even if he envisioned doing more sweeping location work
> >> > early on.
> >>
> >>
> >> Same here. I think the big exterior shots early in THE GOLD RUSH are
> >> only there to establish the setting, just as THE CIRCUS begins with all
> >> those exterior scenes in the midway and among big circus tents.
> >
> >I agree. And I think it's important to remember what it was that
> >inspired/motivated Chaplin to do the story in the first place. It
> >wasn't the Klondike gold rush, although CC chose to set the story in
> >that context. It was the Donner party story, and not even the saga of
> >their travel west, but the much more limited aspect of their isolated
> >entrapment (claustrophobic even) and the canibalism that resulted.
> >
> >And Chaplin's location choice is, in an odd way, yet another example of
> >his economic storytelling method. In the Sugar Bowl location, Chaplin
> >found not only a near perfect replica of the Chilcoot Pass, but also
> >the geographical, emotional inspiration of being literally within 5
> >miles of the historic Donner camps.
>
> Well, the fact is, he *did* choose to make TGR and not the Donner
> story. We can only judge TGR based on the film that Chaplin *made*,
> not the one he decided not to make.
>
> THE GOLD RUSH is what it is. It is not the story of the Donner Party
> and save for one scene of Big Jim imagining Charlie to be a chicken,
> there is no connection at all.
>
> --John

That's true in terms of plot.. The sense of loniliness, abandonment,
cold, hunger (for food and for love), danger, and being at the mercy of
a harsh and unforgiving environment is always present in the film,
though. The fate of the Donner party seems to have sugsgested the
underlying mood.

I read recently, by the way, that excavations of the Donner party site
hadn't turned up
any evidence of cannibalism, though plenty of animal bones were found.
The article
didn't mention any nails or metal eyelets that might have come from
boiled boots. :-)

Connie K.

constance.kuriyama.DeleteThis@ttu.edu wrote:

> I read recently, by the way, that excavations of the Donner party site
> hadn't turned up
> any evidence of cannibalism, though plenty of animal bones were found.

According to THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE DONNER PARTY, the most recent
excavations turned up many tiny bone fragments that were so weathered
and decayed that analysis couldn't tell whether they were human or
animal.

But there's overwhelming evidence of cannibalism in the Donner
Party, including the testimony of survivors and rescuers. Even a year
later, when Fremont's army passed through the area, heading east, there
were still unburied human remains scattered about that no one had
bothered to dispose of until then.



--Shush--