Tweet Charlie Chaplin question for you.

Hi all,

I'm wondering, does anyone know what type of advertisement (poster, post cards, newspaper ad, etc) would have been available in Russia around 1912 that would feature Charlie Chaplin (or impersonators)? Any thoughts or information would be a big help. Thanks!!

Laura

None in 1912. Chaplin didn't make his first film until late 1913, and it wasn't released until 1914. He did come to America touring in the Fred Karno group in 1910, but went right back to England after the tour was over for awhile.

Thanks for replying to my post. I realize that he hadn't started making films at that time but was his image already circulating to any extent through the vaudeville scene? There is a Russian artist who drew a picture of Chaplin and the artwork is dated 1912. I'm wondering how she could have become aware of him at such an early date. To my knowledge the first Chaplin film was screened in Soviet Russia in 1919.

Was it Madame Blavatsky? That would explain it.

It is by the Constructivist artist Varvara Stepanova.

It is by the Constructivist artist Varvara Stepanova.

I found an article about Varvara Stepanova's work (in a website called monoskop,org) where it's reported that she made a series of linocuts depicting Chaplin in 1922. By that time Chaplin was world famous, and everyone was familiar with the Little Tramp character. I believe the date 1912, wherever it was you saw it, must have been a typo for 1922.

The 1922 Kino-Fot series is different than the image I am looking at. There is a separate singular work from when she was a student that is dated 1912. I wonder about the date myself, but it seems plausible, just strangely early. It's such an intriguing mystery.

The 1922 Kino-Fot series is different than the image I am looking at. There is a separate singular work from when she was a student that is dated 1912. I wonder about the date myself, but it seems plausible, just strangely early. It's such an intriguing mystery.

Are you sure that the 1912 image is intended to represent Charlie Chaplin? Or is it a man with a derby and a cane who (coincidentally, perhaps) resembles the character Chaplin created at Keystone, some two years later? In 1912 Chaplin was a moderately successful stage comedian, known to audiences in the U.K. and in parts of America where the Karno troupe had appeared, but he had not yet made any movies, and was unknown in Russia and the rest of the non-English speaking world.

Max Linder may have already been popular in Russia by then, are you sure it isn't him?

Greta

I agree with Greta, Max Linder was already a top star in 1912, and Chaplin later said he based some of his act on him. Max was much more debonair than Charley, so it would make sense it's him.

There is a Russian artist who drew a picture of Chaplin and the artwork is dated 1912.

Is that date in the artwork itself, or dated as such by your source? Could you possibly upload the image for us?

As already noted, if it's supposed to represent his tramp character (derby, moustache, cane, etc.) then it cannot be as early as 1912.

Thanks for your input. The image is named 'Charlie Chaplin with papirosa.' I believe papirosa is a colloquial term for a cheap homemade type of a cigarette. I will try to upload a copy of the image but I am having trouble with some files on my computer. The image is very Chaplin-esque, but is faceless and without much detail. The figure is standing with his legs crossed, wearing a bowler hat, and has a cane and is smoking a cigarette.

The date seems to have been given by the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. I haven't seen the original but it is not dated on the work in the reproduction. Would you agree that 1915 would be a more plausible date?

The date seems to have been given by the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. I haven't seen the original but it is not dated on the work in the reproduction. Would you agree that 1915 would be a more plausible date?

The year 1915 marked the beginning of the "Chaplin Craze," so yes, 1915 or any date after that would be plausible. For the reasons noted above, 1912 is almost certainly an error.