Some thoughts about deception . . .

External Since: Jul 16, 2003 Posts: 671

The ultimate conclusion of Waverboy's and Doug's argument
is that Chaplin himself perpetrated a fraud when he
released three of his First Nationals under their
original titles, with no acknowledgment that he had used
different takes.

This is a fallacious argument, exactly like saying that an
author who publishes a heavily revised version of a
work under the same title without drawing attention to
the extent of his or her revisions is perpetrating a fraud.
In fact the author is merely recasting the work for whatever
aesthetic, personal or practical reasons, and if Chaplin says
it's _Shoulder Arms_, then it IS _Shoulder Arms_. The fact that
more than one version exists does not make the second version
spurious or necessarily inferior. It merely means that the
text's boundaries have extended.

It appears to me that WB and Doug want to promote their
opinion of which version of these films is "original"
(dubiously equated to best), and profess that they are doing
this in defense of Chaplin, when actually they are devaluing
his judgment in favor of their own, and showing no knowledge
of current thought on texts and intertextuaity.

A text is a fluid entity. It does not have fixed boundaries
limited to one specific version, although some versions may
have more authority and interest than others, depending on
who created them.

Any version of a film created by Chaplin IS what he chose
to call it. Both '25 and '42 ARE _The Gold Rush_, and so,
with less authority, are the many bastardized, patchwork
versions of the film, including the better restorations,
which are often mistaken for the "original."

If Chaplin said the version of _Shoulder Arms_ in
_The Chaplin Revue_ was _Shoulder Arms_, which he did by
issuing it as such, then the estate is perfectly correct in
taking his word for it, and no one else, not even Doug or WB,
has the authority to say it isn't.

Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."

External Since: Jul 10, 2003 Posts: 886

do481.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)

>The ultimate conclusion of Waverboy's
>and Doug's argument is that Chaplin
>himself perpetrated a fraud

Did he actually use that word?

> when he released three of his First
>Nationals under their original titles, with
>no acknowledgment that he had used
>different takes.

Waverboy and Doug are the only ones
to be a bit shocked by that revelation.
I believe Shush was, too. And me.

>This is a fallacious argument, exactly like
>saying that an author who publishes a
>heavily revised version of a work under
>the same title without drawing attention
>to the extent of his or her revisions is
>perpetrating a fraud. In fact the author is
>merely recasting the work for whatever
>aesthetic, personal or practical reasons,
>and if Chaplin says it's _Shoulder Arms_,
>then it IS _Shoulder Arms_. The fact that
>more than one version exists does not
>make the second version spurious or
>necessarily inferior. It merely means that
>the text's boundaries have extended.

>It appears to me that WB and Doug want
>to promote their opinion of which version
>of these films is "original" (dubiously
>equated to best), and profess that they
>are doing this in defense of Chaplin,
>when actually they are devaluing his
>judgment in favor of their own, and
>showing no knowledge of current thought
>on texts and intertextuaity.

Yes, we know you and Totheroh believe
"Charlie can do no wrong," and all opinions have to have the imprimatur
of "current thought."

But your "religious beliefs" don't allow for the fact that film-makers
often make decisions on a purely commercial basis.
sometimes to the deteriment of their own work---and Chaplin could be
crasser than most when it came to money (example:
charging exorbitant rates for reissues
of his films, thus preventing them from
appearing in the US for decades).

>If Chaplin said the version of _Shoulder
>Arms_ in _The Chaplin Revue_ was
>_Shoulder Arms_, which he did by
>issuing it as such, then the estate is
>perfectly correct in taking his word for it,
>and no one else, not even Doug or WB,
>has the authority to say it isn't.

Anyone in the world has the authority to
say anything they want about cultural
artifacts. We have a copyright law that
encodes that idea, only giving to the author a ~limited~ period of
ownership.
This incorporates the notion that the artifact to some degree belongs to
a
broader world than the author's coffers
and the annuities of the heirs.

There is no evidence that Chaplin's "extended' versions were created
because
CC wanted to put out an esthetically
superior version of the films, It is more
probable that it was a strictly commercial
decision in light of the preservation
limitations of a bygone era.

Further, Chaplin did not approve of the
performance of CITY LIGHTS without
the original soundttrack, yet the Estate
approved that and encouraged it. And both you and I supported that
decision.

Therefore, when it wants to do so, the Estate can extrapolate and
manufacture
a decision without any link to Chaplin's
actual thinking. And so it could just
as easily decide that if CC were alive
today, he might wish to restore the original version of the FN's---given
today's upgraded restoration technology.

Or is this a case of "Association Chaplin can do no wrong?"

Thus, I think the critics have a legitimate
beef from the perspective of film cultural
history.