Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique

David Totheroh wrote:

> OK, my faith in your perceptive insight is (mostly, see below)
> restored.

Only "mostly"? I *knew* I shouldn't have edited out my analogy
between Jackie creating business opportunities for Charlie's window
repair scam in THE KID, and Dick Cheney creating business
opportunities for Halliburton in Iraq.

Damn that impulse to remain on-topic!



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 29, 10:31 pm, Deborah <Dzu....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 12:49 pm, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Deborah (Dzu...@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.
>
> Sloppy was my chosen word, and maybe stronger than what his
> contemporaries might have said. Even so, I cannot know the context of
> this comment, Connie, since you only posted Chaplin's words and not
> the question or conversation that provoked them. Given Chaplin's known
> perfectionism, it seems an odd point for him to make, unless he got
> wind of some of that apparently non-existant criticism.

The whole context of the remark is as follows:

"So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
those
bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
act it.'
"But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
picture
that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."

If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
(perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.

It sounds a bit contradictory at first, but may not be.

And let me join the others in welcoming you back.

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

constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu wrote:

> The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>
> "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
> actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
> rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
> carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
> now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
> those
> bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
> act it.'
> "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
> picture
> that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
> touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>
> If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
> to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
> (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
> flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
> involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
> catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.


That sounds reasonable to me too. But this is the same guy who was
telling interviewers he'd been born in France, so who knows whether he
was telling the truth about this?



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 29, 7:29 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >>No, there's no record, other than the
> >>fact that he tested Georgia Hale as
> >>a replacement.
> >Because of Cherrill's attitude, not
> >because of the work he had been able to
> >extract from her
>
> I recall reading that she was having
> difficulty playing "blind."

Well, either this is a case of your having information no one else
has, or it's a case of pre-conceived conclusion shaping recollection.
In fact, all reports I'm aware of point to the exact opposite. Son
Sydney is quoted in Robinson that the firing was the result of
Virginia asking to leave early for a hair appointment. This was
confirmed in interviews with Virginia herself. In the same interview
Cherrill talked about her nearsightedness making it easy for her to
"play blind."

Rollie said about the firing:
"The only thing I do know is, we did quite a few scenes with her and
Charlie said "Oh, this is impossible, I can't carry on with her!" We
were sitting in the projection room and I said, "Well one thing,
Charlie, she, I don't know whether her acting will come up to what you
expect of the girl, but she portrays the part of a blind girl to me
perfectly." And I said, "Her movements and everything, she's the girl,
I'm sure, Charlie, for your, this particular part as the blind girl."
So, he was gonna look around for another girl and we ran stuff that
we'd taken with her, not that I want to take the credit for it, but
just the same I said, "I don't think you're gonna find a girl that's
gonna portray a blind girl the way she's portraying the part now."

So, George, where was it that you read "that she [Virginia] was having
difficulty playing "blind"?" Or, as I suspect, is this a case of
convenient but faulty memory on your part?

>
> >>Just trying to put a rational face on a
> >>flaw in the scene. Maybe I'm wrong.
> >Maybe?
>
> Yeah, maybe.
>
>
>
> >>>>tt might have been a pragmatic
> >>>>decision. rather than a case of sloppy >>>>craftsmanship.
> .
> >>>Or it might have been, given the film's
> >>>almost universal reputation, simply a
> >>>most astute directorial decision.
> >>Not a chance.
> >You haven't explained, in ways
> >consistent with what is known about the
> >production realities of the shooting of
> >CL, why Chaplin wouldn't have reshot
> >his character's part of the final scene.
>
> Because he thought audiences wouldn't
> notice the discrepancy---and in terms
> of 1931 audience sophistication, he
> was probably right.

"[Lack of] audience sophistication", or a realistic understanding that
repeat viewings in private settings for the sake of technical study
were not part of the reality of how and why films were made at that
time?

Chaplin was indeed more than "probably right" in his assessment and
perception of what was important for his intended audience. I just
don't happen to agree with your 'superior' attitude about "audience
sophistication," especially as late in film history as 1931. I think
that contractual and technical differences (availability and
reproduction formats), that Chaplin couldn't have forseen at the time
are far more reasonable explanations for what you see as a flaw.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 30, 12:38�pm, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:
> On May 29, 10:31 pm, Deborah <Dzu....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 12:49 pm, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > wrote:
>
> > > Deborah (Dzu...@aol.com) writes:
> > > > On May 26, 10:29 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@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.
>
> > Sloppy was my chosen word, and maybe stronger than what his
> > contemporaries might have said. Even so, I cannot know the context of
> > this comment, Connie, since you only posted Chaplin's words and not
> > the question or conversation that provoked them. Given Chaplin's known
> > perfectionism, it seems an odd point for him to make, unless he got
> > wind of some of that apparently non-existant criticism.
>
>  The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>
>     "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
> actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
> rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
> carefully.  I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
> now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
> those
> bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
> act it.'
>    "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting.  I'd hate a
> picture
> that was perfect--it would seem machine made.  I want the human
> touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>
> If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it.  He seems to be
> to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
> (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
> flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
> involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
> catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.
>
> It sounds a bit contradictory at first, but may not be.
>
> And let me join the others in welcoming you back.
>
> Connie K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Connie, and thanks for the context. Insightful. It actually
does not sound contradictory to me. I've wondered if CC gave his all
during rehearsals, as he appeared to do in the CITY LIGHTS behind-the-
scene footage, but I guess he was saving something. So the quotation
refers to acting, to ensure the performance wouldn't be canned, i.e.
perfected out of all feeling. But he did say he liked all the
technical business worked out very carefully. I conclude at this
point, like Shush said, that he edited for performance over
continuity. I'll even go out on a limb and say: he may even have
chosen that cut to include the flower, since it was an important motif
in CL - continuity be damned. I just don't think, and I am loath to
say it, that the quotation lays to rest the question of intent for
that "non-existent" criticism of CC's technical lapses.

Deborah

P.S. When pondering this acting technique, one can see why Marlon
Brando did so poorly under CC's direction.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 30, 1:30�am, bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com wrote:

> There's simply no basis on which to presume that Chaplin's statement
> was a defense against criticism, non-existent or otherwise.  

I don't know whether this is true or not, but the original post by
Connie seemed to indicate that CC's statement addressed the issue of
technical mistakes by clarifying his intent as an artist.


>He made statements of similar tone throughout his life, affirming his belief
> in keeping things on a human dimension, disdaining what he called in the Fifties
> the 'the Magnavox eyes' induced by shooting in Cinemascope, or ridiculing in
> his Autobio the pretensions of directors shooting a scene from the perspective
> of a nostril.

Yes, I recall the scene in KINY where he finds the widescreen format
unwatchable. What would he think of the rectangular ratio on today's
TVs? I recall him stating somewhere a preference for the square
screen. I think this conservative(!) attitude of Chaplin's regarding
technology did not serve him well over time - as his later work
suffered from his Victorian sensibilities.

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

On May 30, 2:06 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 7:29 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote::
> > >>No, there's no record, other than the
> > >>fact that he tested Georgia Hale as
> > >>a replacement.
> > >Because of Cherrill's attitude, not
> > >because of the work he had been able to
> > >extract from her
> > I recall reading that she was having
> > difficulty playing "blind."
> Well, either this is a case of your having information no one else
> has, or it's a case of pre-conceived conclusion shaping recollection.
> In fact, all reports I'm aware of point to the exact opposite.

Of course they do. But let's not be surprised that the Troll makes
up his own facts to advance his 'argument'. A cursory google through
the newsgroup will reveal his long history of doing just that (when
he's not
personally insulting someone who dares to disagree with his opinion on
a long-dead movie comedian, as he's done in this thread).

That his lies are so easily disproven points to a mental condition
beyond
that of mere compulsive deception - why would anyone continually
advance
falsehoods knowing they'll be debunked?

It's part and parcel of his monomania. He has a few chosen obsessions
-
in this case a flower being 4 inches out of place in a 75 year old
film - and he
howls about them, dressing up his harangue with whatever fictions he
chooses
to invent that day.

Just like the dishevelled fellow ranting about aliens on the street
corner. Really,
the most merciful thing to do is ignore him.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

David Totheroh wrote:

>So, George, where was it that you read
>"that she [Virginia] was having difficulty
>playing "blind"?" Or, as I suspect, is this
>a case of convenient but faulty memory
>on your part?

Your grandfather's quote says that Chaplin exclaimed, "This is
impossible."
Rollie said she was good playing
"blind." That wasn't expressed by
Chaplin.

But your usual snide insinuations
are for naught, because I was attempting
find a rationale other than
careless indifference for the continuity
glitch at the end of CITY LIGHTS....
so maybe it really was pure
sloppiness after all, and not a desire
to preserve the best work of an
amateurish actress.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 30, 4:08 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >So, George, where was it that you read
> >"that she [Virginia] was having difficulty
> >playing "blind"?" Or, as I suspect, is this
> >a case of convenient but faulty memory
> >on your part?
>
> Your grandfather's quote says that Chaplin exclaimed, "This is
> impossible."
> Rollie said she was good playing
> "blind." That wasn't expressed by
> Chaplin.
>
> But your usual snide insinuations
> are for naught, because I was attempting
> find a rationale other than
> careless indifference for the continuity
> glitch at the end of CITY LIGHTS....
> so maybe it really was pure
> sloppiness after all, and not a desire
> to preserve the best work of an
> amateurish actress.

There is nothing amateurish about her performance on film. She is
perfection.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 30, 4:08 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >So, George, where was it that you read
> >"that she [Virginia] was having difficulty
> >playing "blind"?" Or, as I suspect, is this
> >a case of convenient but faulty memory
> >on your part?
>
> Your grandfather's quote says that Chaplin exclaimed, "This is
> impossible."
> Rollie said she was good playing
> "blind." That wasn't expressed by
> Chaplin.

You're right. And, as I said, son Syd said the reason, confirmed by
Virginia, that Charlie told Rollie "this is impossible" was because
she asked to leave early. In other words, it was the attitude and work
ethic, not the work product that motivated the firing. Nowhere in any
of the source materials I've read does anyone indicate that Virginia
was "having difficulty playing "blind"." In fact, quite the opposite
is true.

While it is true that what Rollie and C Robinson said was not directly
attributed to Chaplin, it is equally true that both of those people
had unquestioned influence on Chaplin's opinion. and Chaplin rehired
Cherrill to complete the role. That (along with D Robinson's analysis
that reshooting her pre-firing scenes wouldn't have been that big a
deal) is a pretty damn good indication that Chaplin concurred that
"playing "blind"" was not the problem.

>
> But your usual snide insinuations
> are for naught, because I was attempting
> find a rationale other than
> careless indifference for the continuity
> glitch at the end of CITY LIGHTS....
> so maybe it really was pure
> sloppiness after all, and not a desire
> to preserve the best work of an
> amateurish actress.

That wasn't a "snide insinuation." It was quite simply an attempt to
find a rationale for why you would post 'information' so diametrically
contrary to what all research has shown to be the case.

btw, your avoidance of even trying to answer my simple question, of
where it was that you supposedly read what you claimed, is far more
glaring than the position of the flower.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

On May 30, 12:56 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu wrote:
> > The whole context of the remark is as follows:
>
> > "So I like to save my acting spirit as much as possible. Some
> > actors insist on acting even when they're rehearsing. I want every bit
> > rehearsed thoroughly, all the technical details worked out very
> > carefully. I say, 'Now, so-and-so crosses the bridge at this point;
> > now I go over to the table; now I life up this cup.' Then, when all
> > those
> > bits of business have been gone through thoroughly, I say, 'Now we'll
> > act it.'
> > "But I don't want perfection of detail in the acting. I'd hate a
> > picture
> > that was perfect--it would seem machine made. I want the human
> > touch, so that you love the pcture for its imperfections."
>
> > If there's any defensiveness here, I don' t see it. He seems to be
> > to be drawing a distinction between one part of the process
> > (perfection of basic business--i.e. the way Cherrill handed him the
> > flower) and the overall effect of the scene as acted, which might
> > involve or even be enhanced by incidental imperfections, such as
> > catching his foot on the curb as he runs after Paulette.
>
> That sounds reasonable to me too. But this is the same guy who was
> telling interviewers he'd been born in France, so who knows whether he
> was telling the truth about this?
>
> --Shush--

Well, the story about being born in France (which doesn't occur in his
earliest
interviews, by the way) can be disproven, while the statement that he
accepts a degree of imperfection in his work is consistent with the
facts.

I wonder if that story about France originated with an inventive press
agent--
or was encouraged by one, since it dates from the time when Chaplin
began
employing press agents.

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

<constance.kuriyama RemoveThis @ttu.edu> wrote in message
news:1180456675.513407.180420@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 9:14 am, David Totheroh <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:51 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>
>> > lanhamflREM... RemoveThis @cox.net (Richard Lanham) wrote:
>> > >I think Chaplin put the flower
>> > >right where he wanted it. He is creating
>> > >a continuity of emotion and ideas, not a
>> > >documentary. The flower links these two
>> > >people; if it has to be repositioned to do
>> > >so, make it happen.
>>
>> > Unlikely. Probably Chaplin decided
>> > to use the shot which had the best
>> > work by the amateur Virginia Cherrill.
>>
>> > As we know, Chaplin was not satisfied
>> > with Cherrill's work and considered replacing her.
>>
>> Who's "we?" I know only that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Cherrill's
>> *attitude*. And although the number of takes per scene indicates it
>> wasn't easy, I don't think there's anything in the historical record
>> that indicates Chaplin wasn't satisfied with the work he was
>> eventually able to get from her.
>>
>> Remember also that not only did Chaplin "consider replacing her," he
>> DID replace her, and then rehired her. If he had been dissatisfied
>> with the "work," why would he have rehired Cherrill.
>>
>>
>>
>> > When he got a good take from
>> > her, he probably decided to use it even
>> > though it was a mismatch with the
>> > angle on the Tramp.
>>
>> That makes no sense at all. If he got a good take from Cherrill, why
>> not just reshoot the reverse angle on the Tramp to match? Unless of
>> course you believe Chaplin didn't think he could get the performance
>> he wanted out of himself. If there's anything we DO know about City
>> Lights, it's that Chaplin was willing to do virtually unlimited
>> retakes until he got what he wanted. The only rational conclusion is
>> that he did. (Of all his films, only The Kid and The Great Dictator
>> ranked higher in the ratio of film shot to film used.)
>>
>>
>>
>> > It might have been a pragmatic decision.
>> > rather than a case of sloppy craftsmanship...
>>
>> Or it might have been, given the film's almost universal reputation,
>> simply a most astute directorial decision.
>
> There is no evidence that Chaplin was dissatisfied with Cherrill's
> performance in this final scene. It was the initial flower-selling
> scene that racked up the record number of takes. That was the
> one Chaplin remembered with annoyance years later.
>
> According to Robinson, who had access to the studio records, this
> last sequence was completed in relatively few takes, and that's
> also the impression one gets in Chaplin's interview with Meryman.
>
> Anyone who looks *closely* at the scene can see that the shot of
> Charlie biting his finger apprehensively (one of Chaplin's coded
> gestures) requires the flower to be up, and the shot over his shoulder
> requires the flower to be out of the way. Even during shooting those
> involved must have been aware of this, and certainly they were aware
> of it during editing.
>
> Strict continuity is a realist expectation. Films are not necessarily
> realistic, which I think is what Richard is getting at when he says
> that Chaplin isn't making a documentary.
>
> Connie K.
>

My take on the positioning of the flower is that it is more or less standard
"cheating". As Connie points out, it works within the scene, and I don't
think it's noticeable enough that audiences would have caught it, even on a
big screen. I certainly never caught it on my own, and even when I watch the
film now, I never find myself thinking about that flower at all. I watched
the scene once with the intention of spotting the error after I was told
about it, but even on repeat viewings I'm so involved in the story by that
point that it never enters my mind while watching it.

--
Matt Barry
www.myspace.com/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique 

"Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180226082.073647.58670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Deborah wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting thread with a perspective to which I hadn't
>> previously given much thought. I think the equalizing factor is social
>> status rather than gender, however. Charlie is a tramp afterall - he
>> will always be perceived as the less powerful in a relationship, even
>> if the other person is a female street urchin or a saloon gal.
>> Notably, CC is never on equal footing with a powerful man of society,
>> unless he is seriously flawed like the drunken millionaire in CITY
>> LIGHTS.
>
>
> I'm glad you're still with us, Deborah!
>
> An interesting pattern in Chaplin's films is Charlie's status as an
> outsider. All through the Keystones, he's not particularly an outsider
> at all; he's usually shabby and volatile, but so were most of the
> Keystone comics (Chester Conklin's "Walrus," Syd's "Gussle," etc.).
> He's seldom if ever depicted as a bum.

Interesting too, is his attention to manners and dignity, such as his
reactions to Mack Swain slurpring down soup in HIS TRYSTING PLACE. I think
this placed his character in a unique position even early on, in relation to
the other Keystone clowns.

>
> In the Essanays and Mutuals, there are a lot of films where he's
> got a steady job, but he's increasingly depicted as being down and out
> in other films. He's a tramp in about half of the First Nationals.
>
> In the features, he's basically always a tramp, wandering around,
> snatching the odd job here and there, in and out of prison. Charlie's
> role as an outsider is a dominant theme of the last features.

I've wondered how "limited" Chaplin felt by the tramp character in these
later features, since there was less variation on the character from film to
film than in the earlier works. Of course, this also helped to establish a
sense of unity between the films as well, so that was an artistic advantage.

>
> 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--
>
--
Matt Barry
www.myspace.com/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
>
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique