Tweet Dislike Chaplin's work?

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

And then you'll have kids who want to see the new Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel. Run, now, while you can still be a single film buff!

Mary Miles Minter wrote:
I so dislike Chaplain way overrated.


If you introduce one of the great comedies to an audience by telling them at length that it's one of the funniest films ever made, it's going to bomb. Expectations are too high.

Chaplin's handicap is that our expectations have been set so high that people tend to fold their arms and think, "Okay, genius. Impress me." But run a Chaplin comedy for a group of kids who've never heard of him, and they'll be in hysterics.

Unlike Chaplin, other great comedians from Lloyd to Fields were neglected for decades until rediscovery made them seem fresh and new. Max Davidson's enjoying that process right now. Chaplin's never had the advantage of temporary obscurity.

I think another factor is sympathy. Chaplin's wealth and fame (and scandals and ego) are familiar parts of his story, and they don't engender a lot of love and sympathy. It's not easy to embrace the Little Tramp if you see him as a millionaire filmmaker in a little fake moustache. Other comedians, who struggled and suffered and went through a lot of hard times, naturally seem sympathetic when you know their life stories, and I think their reputations have been buffed a little as a result.


I have seen Charlies work and I just don't like it .I also should mention I am not a fan of talkie comedies of any kind .

.I also should mention I am not a fan of talkie comedies of any kind .

So...what do you laugh at then??

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

OK, that movie blew, but knock not the girls.

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

No, thank God! I have had to watch just about every movie based on a Jane Austen book, though. Funny that when watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (the one with Colin Firth) I got all excited when the title came up "Music by Carl Davis"

And Mike, it's a balance. I'll hopefully do what my dad did and rub off my good movie tastes on the little brats.

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

No, thank God! I have had to watch just about every movie based on a Jane Austen book, though. Funny that when watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (the one with Colin Firth) I got all excited when the title came up "Music by Carl Davis"

And Mike, it's a balance. I'll hopefully do what my dad did and rub off my good movie tastes on the little brats.

I was lucky enough to find a woman who loves Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, B-westerns and Horror movies, and has archiving and cataloguing skills as well. And, as much as she loves silent comedy and old movies, she's just not much of a Chaplin fan.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

No, thank God! I have had to watch just about every movie based on a Jane Austen book, though. Funny that when watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (the one with Colin Firth) I got all excited when the title came up "Music by Carl Davis"

And Mike, it's a balance. I'll hopefully do what my dad did and rub off my good movie tastes on the little brats.

I was lucky enough to find a woman...

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That much of that sentence was enough, Richard.

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

No, thank God! I have had to watch just about every movie based on a Jane Austen book, though. Funny that when watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (the one with Colin Firth) I got all excited when the title came up "Music by Carl Davis"

And Mike, it's a balance. I'll hopefully do what my dad did and rub off my good movie tastes on the little brats.

I was lucky enough to find a woman...

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That much of that sentence was enough, Richard.

Sez you bright boy, lets just see if you're smart enough to be able to understand Laurel and Hardy.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

You realize she may insist on your sitting through some SEX IN THE CITY 2.

Bob

No, thank God! I have had to watch just about every movie based on a Jane Austen book, though. Funny that when watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (the one with Colin Firth) I got all excited when the title came up "Music by Carl Davis"

And Mike, it's a balance. I'll hopefully do what my dad did and rub off my good movie tastes on the little brats.

I was lucky enough to find a woman...

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That much of that sentence was enough, Richard.

Sez you bright boy, lets just see if you're smart enough to be able to understand Laurel and Hardy.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

We'll see. About to go watch Towed in a Hole!

I was lucky enough to find a woman...

RICHARD M ROBERTS

That much of that sentence was enough, Richard.

www.sadtrombone.com

I know it's true for me. But hey, she went and saw Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood with me so I can't complain.

Well, I can complain that she's currently watching Law & Order SVU. Gosh I hate that show!

Very happy to report that I saw Towed in a Hole and loved it. Far better flick than The Music Box, in my opinion. Looking forward to seeing more.

Very happy to report that I saw Towed in a Hole and loved it. Far better flick than The Music Box, in my opinion. Looking forward to seeing more.

Faith n begorrah Jimmie boy, there's hope for you yet!

RICHARD M ROBERTS

she's just not much of a Chaplin fan.

You sure she's watching him at the right speed?

she's just not much of a Chaplin fan.

You sure she's watching him at the right speed?

Actually, she didn;t think he was funny at all because all she had seen of the Mutuals was David Shepards versions. Since I've shown her the prints at 24 fps with the Van Buren scores, she thinks he is funny in those.As I recall, her comment was something like "Chaplin can be funny when he his films are presented as comedies, not serious masterpieces". She also likes PAY DAY and THE GOLD RUSH, but she doesn't think he's any more brilliant than any number of other comedians she likes better.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

"Chaplin can be funny when he his films are presented as comedies, not serious masterpieces".

Excellent point.

Well, Chaplin's family has been rich enough to keep his films in release and in the public eye, but I think they are beginning to realize dimishing returns on his catalogue. The last DVD set of his films didn't sell well, and he's a harder sell even on the Festival circuit. As interest in silent films and black and white films in general continues to shrink, I think Chaplin is more and more just another one of those silent guys with a moustache to the general public...

There was a huge Chaplin retrospective playing at the Seattle International Film Festival last month, all from actual 35mm prints. If SIFF didn't think Charlie would be a good draw, that retrospective wouldn't have happened. There was also an international Chaplin conference in the U.S. last year.

His art continues to "last", as does Shakespeare's and Beethoven's.

As for interest in silent films and black-and-white films in general continuing to shrink, Charlie wouldn't suffer from that any more than L&H, who, if I'm not mistaken, also made silent and black-and-white films. Hardy in particular would suffer; just another monochrome guy with a derby hat and moustache. At least Laurel didn't have a moustache.

I'm new to Laurel and Hardy, and just received the 21 disc box set from the UK which covers most of their short films and supposedly the lion's share of their best features. I've been quite excited to explore these two, as their reputation is so good among fans of classic comedy. The prospect of getting to watch dozens of comedy classics for the first time is as exciting as it was for me to see Cops way back when and realize I had about 30 more Keaton classics to explore.

So I popped in The Music Box, as it's a short of theirs that is considered classic by many and of which I've heard much about. I was quite disappointed by it. Though there were some clever and amusing moments, particularly on the stairway, overall it just seemed way too broad and with a lot of howling and screeching as Hardy got smashed, stabbed and mashed through one accident or another. It veered too much into Stooges territory for me to really enjoy it, though it certainly wasn't down to that level.

When I show classic comedy to somebody else, I usually select carefully so first-timers will not be put off, but The Music Box had such a good reputation I just popped it in and watched this with my family before any of us had seen it. Unfortunately, I sat there feeling a bit embarrassed by it at times. I've recently shown lots of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd to my family to great effect, but for the most part, The Music Box just landed with a thud.

Perhaps this is just the "shock of sound" after seeing so many silents, or maybe The Music Box is not the Laurel and Hardy film to start out with after all. If you guys were just starting out with Laurel and Hardy, what films would you watch first to get into their groove?

You know, I have to admit I've always thought THE MUSIC BOX was overrated as well, And very methodical for a modern audience used to three-second jump cuts. Try TOWED IN A HOLE or HOG WILD. If your family or yourself don't react to those, you're hopeless.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Well, I appreciate the suggestions, and will give them a try. But I don't think the problem is an addiction to "three second jump cuts", and I resent the insinuation. Remember, I've been quite successful showing Chaplin, Keaton and LLoyd, and their work is hardly MTV. Their films are cut no faster than The Music Box and they are silent to boot. But there's been no problem at all with the pacing because those films worked. The problem with The Music Box wasn't pacing, it was just that it wasn't that funny - it was awfully broad in much of it, such as the histrionics of the professor at the end, and it seemed to rely too much on the Stooges-esque "comedy" of somebody getting hurt and shrieking in pain. A guy howling in pain after getting hurt may be fine once or twice in a short film of this length, but it seemed to be half the show here.

If that is representative of the brand of comedy that Laurel and Hardy represent, then I'm afraid they may not be my cup of tea. Though I am willing to entertain the idea that I may have been too hard on the film as the comedy felt so different than what I've been watching for the past month, and the addition of sound may have been a bit of a shock that blunted my enjoyment. Perhaps with more exposure to them I'll settle in and find appreciation. I'm hoping so, anyway. I have this big box set here and really want to like these guys.

I'm with you on THE MUSIC BOX. Like you, after I got this box set, I threw that one on for my girl and I to watch, due to its exalted reputation. Man...what a labored, unfunny, crushing disappointment. Luckily, the set also contains absolute gems like:

BIG BUSINESS
TWO TARS
YOU'RE DARN TOOTIN'
PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP
BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (what's left of it)
TOWED IN A HOLE

Those are my faves so far. I'm so far liking their silents better overall than their talkies, but I've got plenty of films left to get through in the set.

I'm new to Laurel and Hardy, and just received the 21 disc box set from the UK which covers most of their short films and supposedly the lion's share of their best features. I've been quite excited to explore these two, as their reputation is so good among fans of classic comedy. The prospect of getting to watch dozens of comedy classics for the first time is as exciting as it was for me to see Cops way back when and realize I had about 30 more Keaton classics to explore.

So I popped in The Music Box, as it's a short of theirs that is considered classic by many and of which I've heard much about. I was quite disappointed by it. Though there were some clever and amusing moments, particularly on the stairway, overall it just seemed way too broad and with a lot of howling and screeching as Hardy got smashed, stabbed and mashed through one accident or another. It veered too much into Stooges territory for me to really enjoy it, though it certainly wasn't down to that level.

When I show classic comedy to somebody else, I usually select carefully so first-timers will not be put off, but The Music Box had such a good reputation I just popped it in and watched this with my family before any of us had seen it. Unfortunately, I sat there feeling a bit embarrassed by it at times. I've recently shown lots of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd to my family to great effect, but for the most part, The Music Box just landed with a thud.

Perhaps this is just the "shock of sound" after seeing so many silents, or maybe The Music Box is not the Laurel and Hardy film to start out with after all. If you guys were just starting out with Laurel and Hardy, what films would you watch first to get into their groove?

You know, I have to admit I've always thought THE MUSIC BOX was overrated as well, And very methodical for a modern audience used to three-second jump cuts. Try TOWED IN A HOLE or HOG WILD. If your family or yourself don't react to those, you're hopeless.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Well, I appreciate the suggestions, and will give them a try. But I don't think the problem is an addiction to "three second jump cuts", and I resent the insinuation. Remember, I've been quite successful showing Chaplin, Keaton and LLoyd, and their work is hardly MTV. Their films are cut no faster than The Music Box and they are silent to boot. But there's been no problem at all with the pacing because those films worked. The problem with The Music Box wasn't pacing, it was just that it wasn't that funny - it was awfully broad in much of it, such as the histrionics of the professor at the end, and it seemed to rely too much on the Stooges-esque "comedy" of somebody getting hurt and shrieking in pain. A guy howling in pain after getting hurt may be fine once or twice in a short film of this length, but it seemed to be half the show here.

If that is representative of the brand of comedy that Laurel and Hardy represent, then I'm afraid they may not be my cup of tea. Though I am willing to entertain the idea that I may have been too hard on the film as the comedy felt so different than what I've been watching for the past month, and the addition of sound may have been a bit of a shock that blunted my enjoyment. Perhaps with more exposure to them I'll settle in and find appreciation. I'm hoping so, anyway. I have this big box set here and really want to like these guys.

I'm with you on THE MUSIC BOX. Like you, after I got this box set, I threw that one on for my girl and I to watch, due to its exalted reputation. Man...what a labored, unfunny, crushing disappointment. Luckily, the set also contains absolute gems like:

BIG BUSINESS
TWO TARS
YOU'RE DARN TOOTIN'
PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP
BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (what's left of it)
TOWED IN A HOLE

Those are my faves so far. I'm so far liking their silents better overall than their talkies, but I've got plenty of films left to get through in the set.

Me, too. Haven't gotten much further because I've been too busy. But Towed in a Hole and Two Tars really whet my whistle.

I gotta say, TWO TARS is absolute GENIUS. One of the greatest silent comedies evah.

OK, I tried to give CC another try. I watched a bunch of his shorts. Fell asleep during some.
That little tramp just irritates me almost as much as Keaton's stoneface.

I feel like Chaplin and Keaton just play clowns while at least Lloyds glass character is someone we (or at least I) can identify with.
What do I know? I know I'm in the minority in my dislike of these two.

OK, I tried to give CC another try. I watched a bunch of his shorts. Fell asleep during some.
That little tramp just irritates me almost as much as Keaton's stoneface.

I feel like Chaplin and Keaton just play clowns while at least Lloyds glass character is someone we (or at least I) can identify with.
What do I know? I know I'm in the minority in my dislike of these two.

I'd say you're beyond all help or redemption at this point.

Charlie, Buster and Harold...I couldn't do without any of them. Love 'em all, I do, for different reasons. Different flavours for different comedy moods. Charley Chase is nipping at their heels, and silent L&H are right up there too.

For what it's worth, my wife likes Laurel & Hardy, Charley Chase, Harold Lloyd, Harry Langdon and Buster Keaton. She does not like Chaplin. She likes Max Linder more than Chaplin...she likes Our Gang more than Chaplin.

I think Chaplin is the greatest single figure in silent films, he was a genius at what he did. I just don't cotton to the Little Tramp. The characters of Keaton, Langdon, Chase and L&H are far more appealing to me.

A friend of mine (Tom Weaver) used to have a huge number of film prints passing through his hands. He would get prints of everything in the Chaplin canon from Keystones through A KING IN NEW YORK. As he would thread the projector and the film would begin, he'd make one parting comment to the screen: "C'mon, Chaplin, make me laugh!" I think I understand what he was driving at.

The first time I saw a silent film was freshman year in high school. It was Chaplin's Shoulder Arm. There was an audible sigh from the whole class when the black and white opening credits and cheese piano music begun. Within seconds of it started there were chuckles.. then more.. and more. Until every single person in the class was laughing. Time flew by and when the bell rang none of us wanted to leave. Every time we went to this class we'd beg the teacher to show us more Chaplin movies. Chaplin was my gateway drug into all the classic silent films that I love today and I still enjoy watching Chaplin films over and over again. I saw Modern Times at the New Beverly in Hollywood recently and it continues to hold up as the years pass. From children to the elderly, everyone was laughing and enjoying the film. I think that is the only thing you can judge a comedy(or comedian) on, IS IT FUNNY, OR NOT? I personally believe(along with a theatre and class full of people) undoubtedly that Chaplin, and his films are.

Funnily enough, I can remember liking Chaplin when I was a kid but he was all we had. I guess I grew out of him.

I love Chase - silents and talkies.
L&H - Yep, sometimes.

I am of the opinion that "City Lights" is one of the finest pictures made. The final moments are very moving and every audience I have been with - even the young - have been quite moved. Still, this is only my opinion

The first time I saw a silent film was freshman year in high school. It was Chaplin's Shoulder Arm. There was an audible sigh from the whole class when the black and white opening credits and cheese piano music begun. Within seconds of it started there were chuckles.. then more.. and more. Until every single person in the class was laughing. Time flew by and when the bell rang none of us wanted to leave. Every time we went to this class we'd beg the teacher to show us more Chaplin movies. Chaplin was my gateway drug into all the classic silent films that I love today and I still enjoy watching Chaplin films over and over again. I saw Modern Times at the New Beverly in Hollywood recently and it continues to hold up as the years pass. From children to the elderly, everyone was laughing and enjoying the film. I think that is the only thing you can judge a comedy(or comedian) on, IS IT FUNNY, OR NOT? I personally believe(along with a theatre and class full of people) undoubtedly that Chaplin, and his films are.

I laugh at Chaplin. I also laugh at Larry Semon, Wheeler & Woolsey, Shemp Howard, Chico Marx... Chaplin is a great comedian, he's very funny, I just enjoy some other comic personalities better than Chaplin's Tramp.

I think the issue is more a case where Lloyd (the glasses character) and, especially, Keaton appear more "modern" to modern audiences. With much of his work coming in before the end of WWI, Chaplin comes off as much more Victorian (technically, I guess, post-Edwardian or early-Georgian) than those who hit their stride after him.

This is the critical difference..Chaplin was several years ahead of the other great comedians in his understanding of the potential of the medium, so like Griffith, there was a brief but important time when he was doing things both with performance and with directing and editing that no one else was doing and that made Chaplin the first movie superstar.

But-his great talent was in performance and editing, not in story structure. Even in his shorts, most of his great films are just great routines strung together. That problem was more obvious in his features.

So Chaplin made it much, much easier for everyone that came after. Lloyd and Keaton could absorb lessons by just buying a ticket, just like Chaplin absorbed Max Linder's ideas and greatly expanded on them. Lloyd and Keaton were much more into hanging gags on the clothes-line of a story, and thats something that Chaplin never really caught on to, he was more into making each scene work in the way he wanted. In other words, by the late 20s, other comics were zooming past Chaplin in the technical aspects of filmmaking, and it makes his films look old fashioned.

I think Chaplin is the greatest clown of the group in terms of performance and that makes him the most kid-friendly. Keaton has the best story structure and that makes his films, especially his features, the most fun to watch over and over. Lloyd, is well, the Third Genius. But here's my final point: Chaplin is the only one of the three who as a child went to bed hungry and sometimes didn't have a bed to go home to at all. This gives him a certain authenticity for the Tramp character-when he makes a joke about being hungry, I believe him-I'm looking at a face of a boy that had some real pain. That takes him into a social-condition kind of commentary that hungry people across the planet connected with then, and still do now.

I think the issue is more a case where Lloyd (the glasses character) and, especially, Keaton appear more "modern" to modern audiences. With much of his work coming in before the end of WWI, Chaplin comes off as much more Victorian (technically, I guess, post-Edwardian or early-Georgian) than those who hit their stride after him.

This is the critical difference..Chaplin was several years ahead of the other great comedians in his understanding of the potential of the medium, so like Griffith, there was a brief but important time when he was doing things both with performance and with directing and editing that no one else was doing and that made Chaplin the first movie superstar.

But-his great talent was in performance and editing, not in story structure. Even in his shorts, most of his great films are just great routines strung together. That problem was more obvious in his features.

So Chaplin made it much, much easier for everyone that came after. Lloyd and Keaton could absorb lessons by just buying a ticket, just like Chaplin absorbed Max Linder's ideas and greatly expanded on them. Lloyd and Keaton were much more into hanging gags on the clothes-line of a story, and thats something that Chaplin never really caught on to, he was more into making each scene work in the way he wanted. In other words, by the late 20s, other comics were zooming past Chaplin in the technical aspects of filmmaking, and it makes his films look old fashioned.

I think Chaplin is the greatest clown of the group in terms of performance and that makes him the most kid-friendly. Keaton has the best story structure and that makes his films, especially his features, the most fun to watch over and over. Lloyd, is well, the Third Genius. But here's my final point: Chaplin is the only one of the three who as a child went to bed hungry and sometimes didn't have a bed to go home to at all. This gives him a certain authenticity for the Tramp character-when he makes a joke about being hungry, I believe him-I'm looking at a face of a boy that had some real pain. That takes him into a social-condition kind of commentary that hungry people across the planet connected with then, and still do now.

Regarding gags, comedy sequences, plotline and characterization, you could make virtually the same argument about Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy together, and they came on the scene as an acknowledged comedy team at the height of the silent screen's sophistication in 1927...ten years on in WAY OUT WEST, perhaps their greatest film, Frank Nugent writing in The NY Times could conclude, "Shucks, we've gone and told you the story."

Watching Chaplin, most people with any knowledge of his career would reflect on his life and background. True, Chaplin as a child went to bed hungry...then as an adult he went to bed incredibly wealthy, with an extensive lineup of nubile teenage girls and beautiful actresses; although rich beyond his dreams he remained incredibly stingy and jealous of his perceived rivals even after their deaths, bordering perhaps on paranoia. During Keaton's oblivion years Buster received a flat $1000 from Chaplin for two weeks' work in LIMELIGHT. As a struggling vaudevillian in 1917, Stan Laurel was given an offer to appear in pictures produced by Chaplin (already a millionaire) and then never received another word...there's lots of similar stories we all know. Who's to say that the idea of LIMELIGHT didn't come out of Laurel's "7 or 8 hour visit" in 1948 to Chaplin's home to deliver a book, when they reminisced about old times rooming together in the Fred Karno troupe and Chaplin, according to Stan, "really came out of his shell"? Yet there isn't a single mention of Stan in the text of Chaplin's autobiography, only that one photo...and Chaplin never reached out to Stan again for the rest of Laurel's life.

While one can think of Chaplin's deprived childhood when watching the films, you also can't escape the person he grew up to become, either.

In the final analysis...of course..."what remains untouched" is the artist.

I am of the opinion that "City Lights" is one of the finest pictures made. The final moments are very moving and every audience I have been with - even the young - have been quite moved. Still, this is only my opinion

I'm with you. I tear up at the end of "City Lights" every time I see it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. (Of course, I also tear up at the end of "A Chump at Oxford.")