Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

On May 26, 8:34 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm glad you're still with us, Deborah!

Thank you, Shush.

> It's just interesting to me that as Chaplin the actor became more
> and more financially secure and universally accepted, the character he
> played became more and more the direct opposite of that.
>
> --Shush--

I don't know that I agree. To me, it wasn't the character of the tramp
that increased the distance between the two, but CC's success. In
other words, the tramp didn't move away from CC by getting more
downtrodden, CC moved away from the tramp by getting richer and more
famous.

Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 27, 12:41 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that gender was in any way a
> leveling factor, only that Charlie, in relation to assertive women
> and
> more powerful men, tends to assume a conventionally feminine role.

Yes he does. It's a simple observation. I think it only works because
of his lack of status. Without that, his submissiveness wouldn't make
sense or be palatable, especially for the times.

Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 27, 7:47 pm, Deborah <Dzu....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 6:09 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > Richard Carnahan wrote:
> > >But the use of that B-movie favorite
> > >location the Bronson cave in THE
> > >SEARCHERS has always stood out for
> > >me far more than the often-discussed
> > >flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
>
> > For once, I agree with you---though
> > it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
> > able to identify the cave as Bronson
> > Canyon (I had a friend photograph
> > me heaving a rock from the cave
> > once upon a time...)
>
> Oh my gosh, Richard. As George said, that is indeed an insider's
> observation! Unless one really knows the territory, it fits. It does
> not stand out like the Colorado Rockies did substituting for Fort
> Smith, Arkansas in TRUE GRIT. Now if the Duke's hat had kept shifting
> position in his close-up, like the infamous flower in CL, I'd notice
> it! By the way, it's on HDTV right now, so I'm off to admire Ford at
> his best.

I don't see it as an insider's observation. The Bronson caves are
probably the most utilized exterior movie location outside a studio.
It's only five minutes from Hollywood Blvd., so Ford, Wayne and Wood
could easily have had lunch at Musso & Frank's during the shoot.
It's been used in hundreds of movies, and I recognized it from
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and numerous TV shows and B westerns
long before I knew it was "Bronson Canyon."
Here's one of many sites devoted to the caves: http://www.moviesites.org/bronson.htm
BTW, I watched the end of THE SEARCHERS tonight and it seems even
more glaring in HD.

And welcome back, too, Deborah.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 27, 11:56�pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't see it as an insider's observation.  The Bronson caves are
> probably the most utilized exterior movie location outside a studio.
> It's only five minutes from Hollywood Blvd., so Ford, Wayne and Wood
> could easily have had lunch at Musso & Frank's during the shoot.
>   It's been used in hundreds of movies, and I recognized it from
> INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and numerous TV shows and B westerns
> long before I knew it was "Bronson Canyon."
>   Here's one of many sites devoted to the caves:  http://www.moviesites.org/bronson.htm
>   BTW, I watched the end of THE SEARCHERS tonight and it seems even
> more glaring in HD.

Glaring? Well, you're a better man than I am Gunga Din. To me, a cave
is a cave is a cave. But since it was a purposeful location shoot by
Ford, can we call it technical sloppiness or indifference like the CL
flower? I don't think so. I think Ford blended it seamlessly -
lighting, color, etc. He just didn't bank on location savvy viewers
like you. Thanks for the new bit of trivia - Bronson Cave - I won't
forget it. Just like I don't let the flower bit ruin CITY LIGHTS for
me, I hope you don't let the location switch interfere with your
delight in THE SEARCHERS. In HD it is gorgeous! I always get a little
thrill when Duke says "Let's go home, Debbie." Sigh, I'd go, I'd
go.
>
>   And welcome back, too, Deborah

Thank you Richard. I'm happy to drop in.

Deborah
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 28, 12:06 am, Deborah <Dzu....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 11:56?pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see it as an insider's observation. ?The Bronson caves are
> > probably the most utilized exterior movie location outside a studio.
> > It's only five minutes from Hollywood Blvd., so Ford, Wayne and Wood
> > could easily have had lunch at Musso & Frank's during the shoot.
> > ? It's been used in hundreds of movies, and I recognized it from
> > INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and numerous TV shows and B westerns
> > long before I knew it was "Bronson Canyon."
> > ? Here's one of many sites devoted to the caves: ?http://www.moviesites.org/bronson.htm
> > ? BTW, I watched the end of THE SEARCHERS tonight and it seems even
> > more glaring in HD.
>
> Glaring? Well, you're a better man than I am Gunga Din. To me, a cave
> is a cave is a cave. But since it was a purposeful location shoot by
> Ford, can we call it technical sloppiness or indifference like the CL
> flower? I don't think so.

I've never viewed the flower scene in CL as sloppiness. I frankly
never noticed the error until it was pointed out here some time ago.
CC, I'm sure, just wanted to keep the damn flowers in the damn shot at
all times. Things like this happen in movies all the time.

I think Ford blended it seamlessly -
> lighting, color, etc. He just didn't bank on location savvy viewers
> like you. Thanks for the new bit of trivia - Bronson Cave - I won't
> forget it. Just like I don't let the flower bit ruin CITY LIGHTS for
> me, I hope you don't let the location switch interfere with your
> delight in THE SEARCHERS. In HD it is gorgeous! I always get a little
> thrill when Duke says "Let's go home, Debbie." Sigh, I'd go, I'd
> go.
>

I hear THE SEARCHERS looks even better on the HD disc, which offers
even better high deflinition than broadcast HD. But the caves and the
snow scenes obviously photographed on a soundstage have always stood
out to me.

But none of this detracts from what are two of the most sublime
endings in movie history.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Deborah (DzubeG@aol.com) writes:
> On May 26, 6:09 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>> >But the use of that B-movie favorite
>> >location the Bronson cave in THE
>> >SEARCHERS has always stood out for
>> >me far more than the often-discussed
>> >flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
>>
>> For once, I agree with you---though
>> it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
>> able to identify the cave as Bronson
>> Canyon (I had a friend photograph
>> me heaving a rock from the cave
>> once upon a time...)
>
> Oh my gosh, Richard. As George said, that is indeed an insider's
> observation! Unless one really knows the territory, it fits. It does
> not stand out like the Colorado Rockies did substituting for Fort
> Smith, Arkansas in TRUE GRIT. Now if the Duke's hat had kept shifting
> position in his close-up, like the infamous flower in CL, I'd notice
> it! By the way, it's on HDTV right now, so I'm off to admire Ford at
> his best.

Someone's hat shifing in a single close-up wouldn't be quite the same,
though it would be amusing enough.

I saw _The Searchers_ some time ago and didn't notice any problem with
the location shift, but then I don't see any reason why that rose has
to be sticking up in front of the girl's face, either, just to keep
its position consistent. Or why anyone would assume that a nervous man
holding a flower wouldn't move it around. The change of costume in the
lunch break scene is much more obvious, and you'll see that only if you're
noticing what Charlie's wearing.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Deborah (DzubeG@aol.com) writes:
> On May 26, 10:29 am, David Totheroh <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> This all may be true enough, but the particular "revisionist comment"
>> that started this discussion was apparently made in 1921.
>
> Fair enough. Rather than posturing then, of which Chaplin did plenty
> in his lifetime, allow me to call this comment Chaplin's defensive
> rationalization for those sloppy bits.

That might suit better if anyone in 1921 had criticied his films for being
sloppy. As far as I know this criticism surfaced later, when film technique
got more polished in general. In the context of the interview, he simply
volunteers the information that he'd "hate a picture that was perfect."
You could see it as an *excuse*, I suppose, but people who make excuses are
usually motivated by criticism.

Actually the appreciation of minimalist or imperfect art is an old idea that
Chaplin might have picked up in any number of places. In the same interview
he mentions that he dabbles in poetry. In fact he did dabble in poetry, and
while he never became much of a poet verbally, people who dabble in poetry
usually read it as well, and this idea is a conventional theme in lyric
poetry, i.e.

Give me a look, five me a face
That makes simplicity a grace;
Robes loosely flowing, hair as free:
Such sweet neglect more taketh me
Than all th'adulteries of art;
They strike mine eyes, but not my heart.
Ben Jonson, ca. 1602

He would have had to look no further than the _Oxford Book of English Verse_ to
find that one.

Connie K.


> Does that suit better? But
> please don't think I'm bashing this moment in film, it is truly one of
> the very best, and as I said before, perfect in tone.
>
> I wonder if CC would want to go back and tweak his films if he had
> lived to know they would be available for repeated home viewing, or
> maybe the artist would finally put down the brush or chisel and leave
> well enough alone.
>
>
> Deborah
>
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

(bachusio@rogers.com) writes:
> On May 24, 8:51 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 6:22 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>
>> > bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >> Anyway, it's good to see some
>> > >>discussion about Chaplin around here.
>> > >>The George Shelps Show gets old fast.
>> > >>--Shush--
>> > >>>Amen.
>> > >As a cautionary lesson against anyone
>> > >engaging the sorry Troll, let's note that
>> > >his entry into this thread consisted of an
>> > >ad hominem insult, thoroughly
>> > >unprovoked by anyone going "off-topic".
>> > This is false.
>> Thanks George. Nice of you to warn us of the (lack of) veracity of
>> what you were about to say next.
>> > There was just one brief shot at Kuriyama's hero worship of
>> > Chaplin...
>
> Yeah, it's considerate of him to start providing disclaimers at
> the beginning of his posts - not that they're necessary for anyone
> familiar with his history -
>
> As with his comment here in which one sentence is contradicted
> by the next - it's 'false' that he entered the thread with an ad
> hominem
> insult, because it was only a 'brief' one.
>
> Folks, that ain't an argument - it's the illogical nattering of one
> who, as they
> used to say in the Old South, has gone 'soft in the haid'.

I see Mr. Shelps is resurrecting his accusation of "hero worship."
Innovation has never been his strong suit.

Actually he's just annoyed that Chaplin's remark in this early interview
undercuts his pet argument that Chaplin was a technical imbecile.

For more illogical nattering, try his next post in which he first
calls Tom Moran a "slanderer," and then cites an old post of Tom's to
support his charge of "hero worship."

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 28, 12:14 pm, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> > As with his comment here in which one sentence is contradicted
> > by the next - it's 'false' that he entered the thread with an ad
> > hominem
> > insult, because it was only a 'brief' one.
> > Folks, that ain't an argument - it's the illogical nattering of one
> > who, as they
> > used to say in the Old South, has gone 'soft in the haid'.
> I see Mr. Shelps is resurrecting his accusation of "hero worship."
> Innovation has never been his strong suit.

Yeah, but more telling is that he rebukes you for not
acting like a "grown woman" (as if he'd know) in the same thread that
he
later claims that everyone can avoid his molestations if
they'll only stay 'on-topic'.

All you did to rate a personal insult was to express an on-topic
opinion about Chaplin's films - the raison d'etre of this group.

Proof positive that his thuggish behavior is reflexive and a logical
outgrowth of his deranged death cult ideology - and to be avoided
much as the potentially violent behavior of an unhinged street person
is to be avoided.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 28, 1:14 pm, d... DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> (bachu...@rogers.com) writes:
> > On May 24, 8:51 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> >> On May 24, 6:22 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> >> > bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >> Anyway, it's good to see some
> >> > >>discussion about Chaplin around here.
> >> > >>The George Shelps Show gets old fast.
> >> > >>--Shush--
> >> > >>>Amen.
> >> > >As a cautionary lesson against anyone
> >> > >engaging the sorry Troll, let's note that
> >> > >his entry into this thread consisted of an
> >> > >ad hominem insult, thoroughly
> >> > >unprovoked by anyone going "off-topic".
> >> > This is false.
> >> Thanks George. Nice of you to warn us of the (lack of) veracity of
> >> what you were about to say next.
> >> > There was just one brief shot at Kuriyama's hero worship of
> >> > Chaplin...
>
> > Yeah, it's considerate of him to start providing disclaimers at
> > the beginning of his posts - not that they're necessary for anyone
> > familiar with his history -
>
> > As with his comment here in which one sentence is contradicted
> > by the next - it's 'false' that he entered the thread with an ad
> > hominem
> > insult, because it was only a 'brief' one.
>
> > Folks, that ain't an argument - it's the illogical nattering of one
> > who, as they
> > used to say in the Old South, has gone 'soft in the haid'.
>
> I see Mr. Shelps is resurrecting his accusation of "hero worship."
> Innovation has never been his strong suit.
>
He has a strong suit? :)
>
> Actually he's just annoyed that Chaplin's remark in this early interview
> undercuts his pet argument that Chaplin was a technical imbecile.
>
I think we both know who the imbecile is.
>
> For more illogical nattering, try his next post in which he first
> calls Tom Moran a "slanderer," and then cites an old post of Tom's to
> support his charge of "hero worship."
>
Aparently he thinks that some slander is less slanderous than others.

Just ignore him. He won't go away, but he'll be as impotent on this
newsgroup as...

Well, never mind. :)

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>Actually he's just annoyed that Chaplin's
>remark in this early interview undercuts
>his pet argument that Chaplin was a
>technical imbecile.

i do not think Chaplin was a technical
imbecile. I do think he was weak in
certain areas of film craftsmanship and
often downright clumsy.

>For more illogical nattering, try his next
>post in which he first calls Tom Moran a
>"slanderer," and then cites an old post of
>Tom's to support his charge of "hero
>worship."

Moran's slanders of me are politically motivated; with respect to
Kuriyama, he
shares a political viewpoint, and therefore
his criticism in her case is likely to be unbiased by extaneous animus.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 28, 7:12 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....DeleteThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <d....DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>
> news:f3f024$1lg$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
>
>
> > Deborah (Dzu...@aol.com) writes:
> >> On May 26, 6:09 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> >>> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >>> >But the use of that B-movie favorite
> >>> >location the Bronson cave in THE
> >>> >SEARCHERS has always stood out for
> >>> >me far more than the often-discussed
> >>> >flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
>
> >>> For once, I agree with you---though
> >>> it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
> >>> able to identify the cave as Bronson
> >>> Canyon (I had a friend photograph
> >>> me heaving a rock from the cave
> >>> once upon a time...)
>
> >> Oh my gosh, Richard. As George said, that is indeed an insider's
> >> observation! Unless one really knows the territory, it fits. It does
> >> not stand out like the Colorado Rockies did substituting for Fort
> >> Smith, Arkansas in TRUE GRIT. Now if the Duke's hat had kept shifting
> >> position in his close-up, like the infamous flower in CL, I'd notice
> >> it! By the way, it's on HDTV right now, so I'm off to admire Ford at
> >> his best.
>
> > Someone's hat shifing in a single close-up wouldn't be quite the same,
> > though it would be amusing enough.
>
> > I saw _The Searchers_ some time ago and didn't notice any problem with
> > the location shift, but then I don't see any reason why that rose has
> > to be sticking up in front of the girl's face, either, just to keep
> > its position consistent. Or why anyone would assume that a nervous man
> > holding a flower wouldn't move it around. The change of costume in the
> > lunch break scene is much more obvious, and you'll see that only if you're
> > noticing what Charlie's wearing.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> In defense of CITY LIGHTS, I'd never noticed the "flower continuity error",
> even after multiple viewings, until it was pointed out to me.

That's been my contention for a loooong time. Of course there are
those who claim to have noticed the position of the flower on first
viewing in a theatrical setting without having heard about it
previously. Frankly, unless they are professional editors, I don't buy
it.

I've always thought it would be an interesting experiment to take an
audience of regular filmgoers, show them City Lights and then poll
them afterwards and see if any of them mention the supposed continuity
error. My money would be on 'no' even if the interviewer went so far
as to ask if there were anything particularly jarring about the
closing scene. I might lose in a couple of cases, but if it were more
than even one percent I'd be real surprised.

>
> I'll have to look for the costume change in the lunch break scene, now.

I'd give that one less than 1/4 of one percent.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 28, 9:12 pm, "Matt Barry" <bar....RemoveThis@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> "Constance Kuriyama" <d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>
> news:f3f024$1lg$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
>
>
> > Deborah (Dzu...@aol.com) writes:
> >> On May 26, 6:09 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> >>> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >>> >But the use of that B-movie favorite
> >>> >location the Bronson cave in THE
> >>> >SEARCHERS has always stood out for
> >>> >me far more than the often-discussed
> >>> >flowers in CITY LIGHTS.
>
> >>> For once, I agree with you---though
> >>> it is a bit of "inside baseball" to be
> >>> able to identify the cave as Bronson
> >>> Canyon (I had a friend photograph
> >>> me heaving a rock from the cave
> >>> once upon a time...)
>
> >> Oh my gosh, Richard. As George said, that is indeed an insider's
> >> observation! Unless one really knows the territory, it fits. It does
> >> not stand out like the Colorado Rockies did substituting for Fort
> >> Smith, Arkansas in TRUE GRIT. Now if the Duke's hat had kept shifting
> >> position in his close-up, like the infamous flower in CL, I'd notice
> >> it! By the way, it's on HDTV right now, so I'm off to admire Ford at
> >> his best.
>
> > Someone's hat shifing in a single close-up wouldn't be quite the same,
> > though it would be amusing enough.
>
> > I saw _The Searchers_ some time ago and didn't notice any problem with
> > the location shift, but then I don't see any reason why that rose has
> > to be sticking up in front of the girl's face, either, just to keep
> > its position consistent. Or why anyone would assume that a nervous man
> > holding a flower wouldn't move it around. The change of costume in the
> > lunch break scene is much more obvious, and you'll see that only if you're
> > noticing what Charlie's wearing.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> In defense of CITY LIGHTS, I'd never noticed the "flower continuity error",
> even after multiple viewings, until it was pointed out to me.
>
> I'll have to look for the costume change in the lunch break scene, now.
> --
> Matt Barryhttp://mysite.verizon.net/mattbarry84
> View my films at:www.grouper.com
> Read my essays and articles at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com


As far as I know Walter Kerr was the first to notice it and label it a
continuity error.
I think Kerr should have looked at the sequence more closely. Given
the shot-reverse shot
set up, the position of the flower is optimal for both close-ups.

I never noticed it until I read Kerr, nor did I notice the consume
change until someone
posted on it here. But since it started coming up on this newsgroup
I've seen a lot of continuity
errors and bad shot matches in other directors' films.

Connie K.


Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique