Q about Chaplin music

Feuillade 10/10/05 11:20 PM

> Aneu Onomatos wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group's postings
>> for a while, but was afraid to start writing.
>
> A wise move on your part. :)
>
> Congratulations on your first post. We badly need new blood around
> here. Most of our blood is already on the walls.
>
> Tom Moran
>

I like discussions of specific films. I always seem to learn something,
even if it is regarding a film I have seen many, many times. I enjoy
reading the different opinions. We haven't done that in a while.

I especially enjoy discussions of films that are so rarely discussed, like a
Keystone, rather than the oft-discussed films like The Great Dictator (that
always go off on political tangents -- hard to get a political tangent out
of His Prehistoric Past, not that some wouldn't try). Of course it can be
argued, with merit, that there is far less to say about a Keystone short
than there is about a more pretigious film, but there's always something
worth discussing regarding Chaplin's art.

JN


JN
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

> I'm game for talking about the Keystones.
>
> I think they're interesting but inherently limited. The Chaplin character is
> a semi-demonic, amoral, annoying creature who's both predicatable and
> unpredictable.


This is true, and it's also true of every other male comedian at
Keystone (Conklin, Sterling and Syd Chaplin especially, and
occasionally Arbuckle and Swain too).

The remarkable thing about Chaplin is that no matter how sociopathic
and outrageous he behaves, there's something really appealing about
him. He's always charming, even when he's just thrown a brick at a
policeman or abused people in a restaurant. The other Keystoners *do*
most of the same things, but only Chaplin can raise hell and still be
cute somehow.

I'd also say that Chaplin left a certain influence behind when he
moved on to Essanay. I watched the Arbuckle-Normand-Sterling Keystone
THAT LITTLE BAND OF GOLD (1915) just recently, and it was amazing how
Chaplinesque Arbuckle's mannerisms were in it. And not just for one
little scene, either, but throughout the film! You'd almost swear he
was doing a Chaplin impression.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

James Neibaur (jneibaur@wi.rr.com) writes:
> Feuillade 10/10/05 11:20 PM
>
>> Aneu Onomatos wrote:
>>
>>> I've been reading this group's postings
>>> for a while, but was afraid to start writing.
>>
>> A wise move on your part. :)
>>
>> Congratulations on your first post. We badly need new blood around
>> here. Most of our blood is already on the walls.
>>
>> Tom Moran
>>
>
> I like discussions of specific films. I always seem to learn something,
> even if it is regarding a film I have seen many, many times. I enjoy
> reading the different opinions. We haven't done that in a while.
>
> I especially enjoy discussions of films that are so rarely discussed, like a
> Keystone, rather than the oft-discussed films like The Great Dictator (that
> always go off on political tangents -- hard to get a political tangent out
> of His Prehistoric Past, not that some wouldn't try). Of course it can be
> argued, with merit, that there is far less to say about a Keystone short
> than there is about a more pretigious film, but there's always something
> worth discussing regarding Chaplin's art.
>
> JN

I'm game for talking about the Keystones.

I think they're interesting but inherently limited. The Chaplin character is
a semi-demonic, amoral, annoying creature who's both predicatable and
unpredictable. You know he'll make a mess or make trouble, but you're never
sure exactly how, and the films hold your attention for that reason. Subtle
they aren't, though Chaplin's Keystones often have a kind of structural
elegance that is lacking in other Keystones I've seen.

_The Rounders_, for example, is a piece of geometric clockwork. Roscoe and
Charlie live on opposite sides of the same hall. They both have hostile
wives. A fight between the men is followed by a fight between the women. The
men team up, steal their wives' money, and run off together. The women
discover the theft, team up, and pursue the men together. The men settle
side by side in a restaurant. The women arrive and chastize them. The
men run away together, zig-zagging down a path side by side in a dancelike
pattern. The women pursue them side by side. The men steal a boat and lie
down in it side by side, where they sink slowly out of sight.

This kind of visual structure is a hallmark of Chaplin's films, though in
the features it is more nuanced and subtle. Anyone who thinks Chaplin lacks
a visual sense might consider looking at his films again. He has a highly
developed one that shows up very early.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Constance Kuriyama 10/12/05 6:24 PM

> I'm game for talking about the Keystones.
>
> I think they're interesting but inherently limited. The Chaplin character is
> a semi-demonic, amoral, annoying creature who's both predicatable and
> unpredictable. You know he'll make a mess or make trouble, but you're never
> sure exactly how, and the films hold your attention for that reason. Subtle
> they aren't, though Chaplin's Keystones often have a kind of structural
> elegance that is lacking in other Keystones I've seen.

The thing I love about the Chaplin Keystones is that within the primitive
roughhouse structure we can see a character with substance trying to emerge.
Some of the better Keystones can be incredibly funny, in a bluntly visceral
way. And, when compared to what others were doing in 1914, they really were
on a higher level, despite being artistically beneath what Chaplin would be
doing only a year later.

> _The Rounders_, for example, is a piece of geometric clockwork. Roscoe and
> Charlie live on opposite sides of the same hall. They both have hostile
> wives. A fight between the men is followed by a fight between the women. The
> men team up, steal their wives' money, and run off together. The women
> discover the theft, team up, and pursue the men together. The men settle
> side by side in a restaurant. The women arrive and chastize them. The
> men run away together, zig-zagging down a path side by side in a dancelike
> pattern. The women pursue them side by side. The men steal a boat and lie
> down in it side by side, where they sink slowly out of sight.
>
> This kind of visual structure is a hallmark of Chaplin's films, though in
> the features it is more nuanced and subtle. Anyone who thinks Chaplin lacks
> a visual sense might consider looking at his films again. He has a highly
> developed one that shows up very early.

I also like the set pieces provided in more ambitious Keystones like Dough
and Dynamite and His Trysting Place. The character's boorishness and the
frenetic slapstick are indeed within the framework of what you refer to as a
"visual elegance" that exhibited the very promise that Chaplin would deliver
with subsequent productions.

The fact that so much of Charlie's work is available, and we are able to
examine his consistent evolution as a comedian and filmmaker, makes
discussion of his work not only essential, but it is likely we would never
run out of things to say.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Shush wrote:

>>I think they're interesting but inherently
>>limited. The Chaplin character is a
>>semi-demonic, amoral, annoying
>>creature who's both predicatable and
>>unpredictable.

>      This is true, and it's also true of
>every other male comedian at Keystone
>(Conklin, Sterling and Syd Chaplin
>especially, and occasionally Arbuckle
>and Swain too).

Lloyd Fonvielle came up with a bold
creative hypothesis, that the Keystones
express Sennett's personality, which
he defined as Sennett's "rage."

You're bolstering this by affirming that
Chaplin shared traits with all the other
Sennett comics, i.e. "semi-demonic,
annoying...both predictable and unpredictable."

These shared traits reflect...Sennett?







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

George Shelps wrote:

> Shush wrote (after quoting Connie):
> >>The Chaplin character is a
> >>semi-demonic, amoral, annoying
> >>creature who's both predicatable and
> >>unpredictable.
>
> > This is true, and it's also true of
> >every other male comedian at Keystone
> >(Conklin, Sterling and Syd Chaplin
> >especially, and occasionally Arbuckle
> >and Swain too).
>
> Lloyd Fonvielle came up with a bold
> creative hypothesis, that the Keystones
> express Sennett's personality, which
> he defined as Sennett's "rage."
>
> You're bolstering this by affirming that
> Chaplin shared traits with all the other
> Sennett comics, i.e. "semi-demonic,
> annoying...both predictable and unpredictable."


No. Lloyd's bold creative hypothesis is garbage, and here's why.

The Keystone comedies don't reflect Sennett's personal psyche, they
reflect the demands of the movie marketplace at that time. The classic
Keystone era (1912-1915) existed in the context of the late nickelodeon
era, when most American movie theaters were still nickelodeons,
catering to a working-class and lower middle-class clientele. Those
patrons liked broad comedy. They liked slapstick violence, chaos, and
outrageous characters. This wasn't Sennett's invention. That kind of
comedy was all over the place in vaudeville, too, and in European
cinema, as well as in the comedies produced by most of Sennett's
competitors (Essanay's Snakeville series, Kalem's Ham and Bud series,
the films of Joker, Nestor and other studios, etc.).

As the marketplace matured, and moviegoing became a middle-class
pastime, filmmakers began diversifying their comedy offerings.
Vitagraph led the way, and before long Sennett and others followed
suit.

Throughout the 1920s, the public's comedy tastes were fragmented,
and Sennett (like Roach) produced series to meet those tastes. Just as
General Motors produced a different line of cars to satisfy each
segment of its market, Sennett simultaneously produced slapstick
comedies (the Ben Turpin and Billy Bevan series), domestic comedies
(the Smith Family series), situation comedies (the Ralph Graves and
Alice Day series), character-driven comedies (the Harry Langdon series,
then the Andy Clyde series), and a few years later even musical
comedies (the Bing Crosby series). Filmmaking was Sennett's business,
and the films he produced reflected his evolving business realities.

The people who assume that the Sennett comedies were all knockabout
slapstick aren't just oversimplifying things, they're flat-out wrong.
To then extrapolate psychological profiles out of that mistaken
conclusion makes them even more wrong.

As far as being consumed with "rage," Sennett's life shows no
indication of that. He wasn't a loud, rough person. There were no
scandals, public fights, drunken displays, and such in his personal
life. He was actually a quiet, private bachelor, devoted to his mother,
whose main interests besides his business were golf and horseback
riding.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

George Shelps 10/13/05 7:12 AM

> These shared traits reflect...Sennett?

An interesting conclusion, and probably pretty accurate.

JN
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

On 13 Oct 2005 09:18:41 -0700, "Shush" <shushfilmseznospam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>George Shelps wrote:
>
>> Shush wrote (after quoting Connie):
>> >>The Chaplin character is a
>> >>semi-demonic, amoral, annoying
>> >>creature who's both predicatable and
>> >>unpredictable.
>>
>> > This is true, and it's also true of
>> >every other male comedian at Keystone
>> >(Conklin, Sterling and Syd Chaplin
>> >especially, and occasionally Arbuckle
>> >and Swain too).
>>
>> Lloyd Fonvielle came up with a bold
>> creative hypothesis, that the Keystones
>> express Sennett's personality, which
>> he defined as Sennett's "rage."
>>
>> You're bolstering this by affirming that
>> Chaplin shared traits with all the other
>> Sennett comics, i.e. "semi-demonic,
>> annoying...both predictable and unpredictable."
>
>
> No. Lloyd's bold creative hypothesis is garbage, and here's why.
>
> The Keystone comedies don't reflect Sennett's personal psyche, they
>reflect the demands of the movie marketplace at that time. The classic
>Keystone era (1912-1915) existed in the context of the late nickelodeon
>era, when most American movie theaters were still nickelodeons,
>catering to a working-class and lower middle-class clientele. Those
>patrons liked broad comedy. They liked slapstick violence, chaos, and
>outrageous characters. This wasn't Sennett's invention. That kind of
>comedy was all over the place in vaudeville, too, and in European
>cinema, as well as in the comedies produced by most of Sennett's
>competitors (Essanay's Snakeville series, Kalem's Ham and Bud series,
>the films of Joker, Nestor and other studios, etc.).
>
> As the marketplace matured, and moviegoing became a middle-class
>pastime, filmmakers began diversifying their comedy offerings.
>Vitagraph led the way, and before long Sennett and others followed
>suit.
>
> Throughout the 1920s, the public's comedy tastes were fragmented,
>and Sennett (like Roach) produced series to meet those tastes. Just as
>General Motors produced a different line of cars to satisfy each
>segment of its market, Sennett simultaneously produced slapstick
>comedies (the Ben Turpin and Billy Bevan series), domestic comedies
>(the Smith Family series), situation comedies (the Ralph Graves and
>Alice Day series), character-driven comedies (the Harry Langdon series,
>then the Andy Clyde series), and a few years later even musical
>comedies (the Bing Crosby series). Filmmaking was Sennett's business,
>and the films he produced reflected his evolving business realities.
>
> The people who assume that the Sennett comedies were all knockabout
>slapstick aren't just oversimplifying things, they're flat-out wrong.
>To then extrapolate psychological profiles out of that mistaken
>conclusion makes them even more wrong.
>
> As far as being consumed with "rage," Sennett's life shows no
>indication of that. He wasn't a loud, rough person. There were no
>scandals, public fights, drunken displays, and such in his personal
>life. He was actually a quiet, private bachelor, devoted to his mother,
>whose main interests besides his business were golf and horseback
>riding.
>
>
>
>--Shush--


One of the best amc posts ever, Shush. Slapstick farce comedy was around long
before Sennett.

Phil
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Shush wrote:

> The Keystone comedies don't reflect Sennett's
> personal psyche, they reflect the demands of
> the movie marketplace at that time. The classic
> Keystone era (1912-1915) existed in the context
> of the late nickelodeon era, when most American
> movie theaters were still nickelodeons, catering
> to a working-class and lower middle-class clientele.
> Those patrons liked broad comedy. They liked
> slapstick violence, chaos, and outrageous characters.
> This wasn't Sennett's invention. That kind of
> comedy was all over the place in vaudeville, too,
> and in European cinema, as well as in the comedies
> produced by most of Sennett's competitors (Essanay's
> Snakeville series, Kalem's Ham and Bud series,
> the films of Joker, Nestor and other studios, etc.).

Not to mention the French Pathes from which, as Sennett, according to
Kevin Brownlow, once admitted, he stole most of his "original" ideas.

Listening to Lloyd on the subject of Mack Sennett is like listening to
Michael Jackson on the subject of raising children.

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Feuillade wrote:
> Shush wrote:
>
> > The Keystone comedies don't reflect Sennett's
> > personal psyche, they reflect the demands of
> > the movie marketplace at that time. The classic
> > Keystone era (1912-1915) existed in the context
> > of the late nickelodeon era, when most American
> > movie theaters were still nickelodeons, catering
> > to a working-class and lower middle-class clientele.
> > Those patrons liked broad comedy. They liked
> > slapstick violence, chaos, and outrageous characters.
> > This wasn't Sennett's invention. That kind of
> > comedy was all over the place in vaudeville, too,
> > and in European cinema, as well as in the comedies
> > produced by most of Sennett's competitors (Essanay's
> > Snakeville series, Kalem's Ham and Bud series,
> > the films of Joker, Nestor and other studios, etc.).
>
> Not to mention the French Pathes from which, as Sennett, according to
> Kevin Brownlow, once admitted, he stole most of his "original" ideas.
>
> Listening to Lloyd on the subject of Mack Sennett is like listening to
> Michael Jackson on the subject of raising children.

It reminded me of something a lot closer to home. It is exactly the
same mental process some use when discussing Chaplin's politics (Ken
Lynn and Joyce Milton come to mind), attributing it all to some basic
psycho-pathology (that is grounded much more in the theorist's own
perceptions and interpretations than in any real world evidence)
instead of far more obvious and logical explanations.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> George Shelps wrote:
>
>> Shush wrote (after quoting Connie):
>> >>The Chaplin character is a
>> >>semi-demonic, amoral, annoying
>> >>creature who's both predicatable and
>> >>unpredictable.
>>
>> > This is true, and it's also true of
>> >every other male comedian at Keystone
>> >(Conklin, Sterling and Syd Chaplin
>> >especially, and occasionally Arbuckle
>> >and Swain too).
>>
>> Lloyd Fonvielle came up with a bold
>> creative hypothesis, that the Keystones
>> express Sennett's personality, which
>> he defined as Sennett's "rage."
>>
>> You're bolstering this by affirming that
>> Chaplin shared traits with all the other
>> Sennett comics, i.e. "semi-demonic,
>> annoying...both predictable and unpredictable."
>
>
> No. Lloyd's bold creative hypothesis is garbage, and here's why.
>
> The Keystone comedies don't reflect Sennett's personal psyche, they
> reflect the demands of the movie marketplace at that time. The classic
> Keystone era (1912-1915) existed in the context of the late nickelodeon
> era, when most American movie theaters were still nickelodeons,
> catering to a working-class and lower middle-class clientele. Those
> patrons liked broad comedy. They liked slapstick violence, chaos, and
> outrageous characters. This wasn't Sennett's invention. That kind of
> comedy was all over the place in vaudeville, too, and in European
> cinema, as well as in the comedies produced by most of Sennett's
> competitors (Essanay's Snakeville series, Kalem's Ham and Bud series,
> the films of Joker, Nestor and other studios, etc.).
>
> As the marketplace matured, and moviegoing became a middle-class
> pastime, filmmakers began diversifying their comedy offerings.
> Vitagraph led the way, and before long Sennett and others followed
> suit.
>
> Throughout the 1920s, the public's comedy tastes were fragmented,
> and Sennett (like Roach) produced series to meet those tastes. Just as
> General Motors produced a different line of cars to satisfy each
> segment of its market, Sennett simultaneously produced slapstick
> comedies (the Ben Turpin and Billy Bevan series), domestic comedies
> (the Smith Family series), situation comedies (the Ralph Graves and
> Alice Day series), character-driven comedies (the Harry Langdon series,
> then the Andy Clyde series), and a few years later even musical
> comedies (the Bing Crosby series). Filmmaking was Sennett's business,
> and the films he produced reflected his evolving business realities.
>
> The people who assume that the Sennett comedies were all knockabout
> slapstick aren't just oversimplifying things, they're flat-out wrong.
> To then extrapolate psychological profiles out of that mistaken
> conclusion makes them even more wrong.
>
> As far as being consumed with "rage," Sennett's life shows no
> indication of that. He wasn't a loud, rough person. There were no
> scandals, public fights, drunken displays, and such in his personal
> life. He was actually a quiet, private bachelor, devoted to his mother,
> whose main interests besides his business were golf and horseback
> riding.
>
>
>
> --Shush--

Sennett's early films were, as he called them, farces, and farce is
populated with amoral characters and characterized by vigorous action.
Farces of this type did appeal Sennett's audience, and there is no reason to
assume that they were personal statements on his part. Farce is a highly
mechanical genre--which is why all the Keystone characters act pretty
much alike. They are all cogs in a laugh-generating machine.

Chaplin somehow stands out, in spite of the fact that he's acting like
everybody else. Maybe it's his cuteness--certainly that doesn't hurt.
Unlike Ford Sterling, Chaplin has a boyish look that makes what he does
seem playful rather than malicious. Arbuckle also has that quality
to a degree.

Maybe it's the subtlety and refinement of his performances that make
him seem different as well. His reaction to the sparring dummy in
_Mabel's Married Life_ is one example. He interacts elaborately with
the dummy, as if it were a real person, whereas most actors would just
give the dummy a boozy look and start fighting with it. This is alrealy
masterfully inventive comedy, and far beyond what the other comedians at
Keystone typically did. Nobody could milk more out of a single comic
situation than Chaplin.

And yes, other Keystoners probably did try to emulate Chaplin, because
it was obvious that audiences liked what he did.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

David Totheroh wrote:

>It reminded me of something a lot closer
>to home. It is exactly the same mental
>process some use when discussing
>Chaplin's politics (Ken Lynn and Joyce
>Milton come to mind), attributing it all to
>some basic psycho-pathology.

Chaplin's politics come from
a desire to "even the score" with the
traumas of his past by projecting
his resentments onto left-wing
figures like Lenin.

(Of course, there goes Davey,
converting the thread into a political
rant...)







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music 

Here's some more information on how this tune came to be associated
with "The Gentle Maiden," courtesy of Jeff Vance. When Chaplin was
composing the music for _Payday_, his secretary Rachel Ford contacted
the Music Research Bureau in London to see if they could identify the
song he remembered. After reviewing hundreds of songs for several
weeks, this was as close as they could come. They recognized that the
two songs were hardly identical, and suggested that perhaps Chaplin had
altered the song in his memory.

Chaplin gave a fuller version of the lyrics in the outtakes of _The
Gentleman Tramp_;

"They think that I'm drunk, but I ain't,
I'm only a little bit faint.
It's a feeling I feel,
That makes me so ill.
They tell me I'm drunk, but I ain't."

I don't even think those lyrics match the cadences of "The Gentle
Maiden."
They appear to me to be two different songs, one of which may be a
partial source for the other.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Q about Chaplin music