Tweet Dislike Chaplin's work?

Question: Have the "dislikers" seen The Circus? I'm willing to say that if you don't find that one funny then you can pretty much forget about trying his other films.

By the way, while in general the Keystones may be primitive (if you'll pardon that harsh word), but I still find Kid Auto Races to be remarkably modern and funny.

Parts of The Circus are very funny, but in a calculated way- and the parts where his character is trying to "be funny" are excruciating in their un-funniness (to me at least)

Thank you! I feel the same way about The Circus. There's something about this film that makes me forget what I've seen just a few hours later - I think my brain is actively trying to flush it from my memory. And I'm no Chaplin hater.

One could say that Chaplin has been a victim of the backlash against the elitist film critics who helped to put him on his pedestal—the Paul Rothas who championed film as Art also felt it necessary to trash much of the “commercial” cinema (as if Chaplin and Griffith weren’t) that had no higher aim than to please audiences and along the way often accomplished much more. That Chaplin was one of several Artists who were, to put a delicate spin on it, considered to have been screwed over by Hollywood added moral outrage to their elitism. For all the damage that these myopias and errors have done, it’s not necessary to throw Chaplin (and Griffith, von Stroheim, Flaherty and Eisenstein) out with the bath water that these critics fouled—all of them have something special and irreplaceable to offer film history. Not every “canonical” artist or movie is likely to appeal to every picture fan, but we’ve all gleefully hashed out the people we love to hate; for some it’s Chaplin, for others it’s Dreyer and on and on. À chacun son goûte.

And the Beatles are OK, but I’d rather listen to Billy Jones & Ernest Hare.

-Harold

I so dislike Chaplain way overrated.

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.

Hmmmmm.....Lloyd was also incredibly wealthy and remained so throughout his life.

Hmmmmm.....Lloyd was also incredibly wealthy and remained so throughout his life.

I don't think Chaplin's wealth and fame necessarily make him less sympathetic. I think it's our high expectations that hurt him.

But I think that other comedians, whose screen success was followed by quite a bit of sadness or outright tragedy, reap a sympathy dividend from us. And the better you like someone, the greater he seems to be.

The comedians with the most ardent modern-day champions seem to be Arbuckle, Normand, Keaton, and Langdon, all of whom have that in common. For that matter, look at all the screen legends of history, those with the most dedicated followings: Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Rudolph Valentino, Jean Harlow, Clara Bow...

I think a lot of people who knew about Chaplin's life before seeing his work see the little tramp as a persona manufactured to conceal a thoroughly despicable womanizing, self-promoter. Those of us who saw his films first I believe are able to see just the little tramp. Chaplin may not have been the most warm and fuzzy person to appear on film, but there is a humanism in his work, a wish for people to be better than they are, that I find very compelling.

I first saw him long before I knew his background and I still didn't care for his films.

I first saw him long before I knew his background and I still didn't care for his films.

Same here.

I do believe there are souls ( though not on this forum, I'm sure) who revere Chaplin unquestioningly simply because they are told they should, because it's almost traditional to like Chaplin, and to look upon him as a "genius" if you like comedy. Just my opinion.

But run a Chaplin comedy for a group of kids who've never heard of him, and they'll be in hysterics.

Highly probable; but flattering to Chaplin's reputation--I'm not so sure. His huge worldwide popularity--sometimes in places so remote that a generator was needed to run the projector--strikes me as the common touch perhaps in excess.

the common touch perhaps in excess.

He certainly hit upon the smallest common denominator, which apparently turned out to be the kick up the butt.

But run a Chaplin comedy for a group of kids who've never heard of him, and they'll be in hysterics.

Highly probable; but flattering to Chaplin's reputation--I'm not so sure. His huge worldwide popularity--sometimes in places so remote that a generator was needed to run the projector--strikes me as the common touch perhaps in excess.

I beg your pardon, John, but perhaps you might wish to expand on this. Read as is it seems to indicate that you cannot expect excellence of anything meant to be appreciated by .... well, people.

Bob

I think a lot of people who knew about Chaplin's life before seeing his work see the little tramp as a persona manufactured to conceal a thoroughly despicable womanizing, self-promoter. Those of us who saw his films first I believe are able to see just the little tramp. Chaplin may not have been the most warm and fuzzy person to appear on film, but there is a humanism in his work, a wish for people to be better than they are, that I find very compelling.

Charles Dickens was often an unmitigated jerk, but he wrote great novels. (Well...Barnaby Rudge is mediocre.) You have to separate the art from the person. Or at least try.

That said, I can take or leave Chaplin and I usually prefer to leave him.

I beg your pardon, John, but perhaps you might wish to expand on this. Read as is it seems to indicate that you cannot expect excellence of anything meant to be appreciated by .... well, people. Bob

Children & people unfamiliar with western culture do not, I was suggesting, constitute a terribly sophisticated audience, & if their taste in comedy coincided with mine, it would give me pause. Although, I hasten to concede, art can appeal to different audiences on different levels--witness Alice & Looking Glass, written for children, but fascinating to me & other adults. Now, when evidence is presented that "children & people unfamiliar with western culture" tend to love Lubitsch, I'll revise my estimation of those groups.

I'd tell you more, but "Jersey Shore" is about to begin.

I think a lot of people who knew about Chaplin's life before seeing his work see the little tramp as a persona manufactured to conceal a thoroughly despicable womanizing, self-promoter. Those of us who saw his films first I believe are able to see just the little tramp. Chaplin may not have been the most warm and fuzzy person to appear on film, but there is a humanism in his work, a wish for people to be better than they are, that I find very compelling.

Charles Dickens was often an unmitigated jerk, but he wrote great novels. (Well...Barnaby Rudge is mediocre.) You have to separate the art from the person. Or at least try.

That said, I can take or leave Chaplin and I usually prefer to leave him.

The classic examples of the divide between men's lives and their works are Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss. Both sublime creative geniuses- and pigs.

Anybody from a third world country watching the little guy give any authority figure a kick in the butt is going to laugh. Charlie didn't do it first, but did it very well and very long. It would be great to set Chaplin on the shelf and focus on Arbuckle, Davidson, Chase, Lloyd, and others. Can we all agree not to mention Chaplin for 10 years, and let another generation discover him? What a great gift we would be giving..... Let's spend a lot of time examining the comedic talent of Edna Purviance, and not mention her co-star.

[silentfilm]

OK, should I avoid films by Erich von Stroheim, Louise Brooks, Frank Capra and Francis X. Bushman because they were jerks?

OK, should I avoid films by Erich von Stroheim, Louise Brooks, Frank Capra and Francis X. Bushman because they were jerks?

If you were to apply that principle there would be VERY few films left to watch. You'd probably end up with little more than Albert Schweitzer's home movies.

Stop penalizing Chaplin for being popular. Actually, his reputation has risen and fallen many times over the years. He was the best ambassador silent films ever had. Someone has to be popular and transcend the medium that gave birth to them. Think Louis Armstrong, Hitchcock and on and on. Let's not forget that many thought him crazy to stick with silent film after the Circus. He gave us many more masterpieces (including Monsieur Verdoux...yes, I said it). Think "Welcome Danger" by the equally wealthy Lloyd for some perspective. It took me three tries to get through that monstrosity. So bad they wouldn't even put it on the box set. As far as his personal life, we could use a few artists with his nerve today. By the way, I love Lloyd, but his honorary Oscar as "master comedian and good citizen" in the wake of Chaplin's exile was deserved artistically, but a sham politically. Lastly, I've got a book of 3D photos that illustrates that Harold, too, had a certain "interest" in younger women. It is not Chaplin's fault that the survival rate of silent films is abysmal. This is America. We throw out everything that happened yesterday. I was up and down the radio today and couldn't find Fred Allen anywhere. I suppose that's Chaplin's fault, too. You don't like him, don't watch.

Let's spend a lot of time examining the comedic talent of Edna Purviance, and not mention her co-star.

Hear! Hear!

I know of hardcore classical music fans who don't like Beethoven. And that's kind of the way it can be with Chaplin; his influence and importance cannot be avoided in the silent era, yet there are some who get overloaded with him, or never acquire the taste.

I love classic Hollywood cartoons, but watched so many in the 70s and 80s I needed a break. I haven't really watched them in 13-14 years, but just the other day I caught some Tom & Jerry and really enjoyed them. I didn't remember all of the story arcs and gags, so the sense of surprise was returned to me, or in some cases the sense of "eh" -- something not so great, but still informative in some way.

I have seen just about all of Chaplin and won't bore you by defending my favorites. I hadn't seem The Pilgrim until recently and learned that I really didn't miss anything there -- "eh." But the string that runs from Police through The Kid contains some genuinely impressive stuff -- minus The New Janitor -- and that's a long run. I like most of the features too, very well. Like Beethoven, Chaplin is still great even if you don't like his music.

spadeneal

It is probably Chaplin's sentimentality that made him fall from favour in the first place. The world doesn't seem to have time for it these days, which is perhaps a shame (and I mean in general life, not just in the movies).

Personally, I have yet to laugh out loud at Keaton or to get past the first disc on the big Harold Lloyd box available in the UK at the moment. For me. Chaplin has the ability to make me both laugh and cry. The Kid is, for me, one of the funniest movies of all kind - and also one of the most moving. He may not have been poor for long once he reached Hollywood, but he knew what it was like to be down and out, and what made those kind of people tick. His sentimentality may have been calculated, but it wasn't cold and calculating. Having watched the TCM fragments programme recently, the two scenes of The Way of All Flesh, though deadly serious, reminded me of Chaplin's sentimentality. You may not like being manipulated in that way, but if we ever see the whole of that film, half of the audience is going to bawl its eyes out at the end - in the same way that we do when Margaret O'Brien knocks the heads off those snowmen in Meet Me In St Louis - or, yes, when the The Kid is taken away from Chaplin in the film of the same name. I'm not even sure that it was his comedy that was Chaplin's greatest asset, I woud argue that it was his ability to bridge class, race, gender and even sexuality (some of those films from the teens are remarkably liberal) through one short film - or through The Great Dictator.

NO-one has mentioned (unless I missed a post) Monsieur Verdoux, one of my favourite Chaplin films. It's a remarkable piece of work, but rarely discussed these days, unlike the works that come either side of it. For me, it's his masterpiece.

I have seen just about all of Chaplin and won't bore you by defending my favorites. I hadn't seem The Pilgrim until recently and learned that I really didn't miss anything there -- "eh." But the string that runs from Police through The Kid contains some genuinely impressive stuff -- minus The New Janitor -- and that's a long run.

That's an interesting comment. I'm not great fan of "The New Janitor" - but I don't see how it could be considered worse than the other Keystones he was making at that time. What is there about "The New Janitor" that you don't like?

I have seen just about all of Chaplin and won't bore you by defending my favorites. I hadn't seem The Pilgrim until recently and learned that I really didn't miss anything there -- "eh." But the string that runs from Police through The Kid contains some genuinely impressive stuff -- minus The New Janitor -- and that's a long run.

That's an interesting comment. I'm not great fan of "The New Janitor" - but I don't see how it could be considered worse than the other Keystones he was making at that time. What is there about "The New Janitor" that you don't like?

Oops. It was late and I meant The Fireman. And even in regard to that, it is not so much the title itself as where it falls in his canon. He had already made The Floorwalker and Police and would go on to make The Vagabond after; The Fireman is simply a return to the formula that worked at Essanay, and it operates on a lesser tier than the things around it.

I have written about Monsiuer Verdoux on this list before; certainly it's an amazing, angry, commercially risky and deeply personal venture that addresses the demons, anxieties and insecurities absent from his other films, but very present in his personal life.

spadeneal

The Fireman isn't a bad comedy, it's just that it's a potboiler anyone could have made.

Stop penalizing Chaplin for being popular. Actually, his reputation has risen and fallen many times over the years. He was the best ambassador silent films ever had. Someone has to be popular and transcend the medium that gave birth to them. Think Louis Armstrong, Hitchcock and on and on. Let's not forget that many thought him crazy to stick with silent film after the Circus. He gave us many more masterpieces (including Monsieur Verdoux...yes, I said it). Think "Welcome Danger" by the equally wealthy Lloyd for some perspective. It took me three tries to get through that monstrosity. So bad they wouldn't even put it on the box set. As far as his personal life, we could use a few artists with his nerve today. By the way, I love Lloyd, but his honorary Oscar as "master comedian and good citizen" in the wake of Chaplin's exile was deserved artistically, but a sham politically. Lastly, I've got a book of 3D photos that illustrates that Harold, too, had a certain "interest" in younger women. It is not Chaplin's fault that the survival rate of silent films is abysmal. This is America. We throw out everything that happened yesterday. I was up and down the radio today and couldn't find Fred Allen anywhere. I suppose that's Chaplin's fault, too. You don't like him, don't watch.

I don't and I don't.

I did mention Monsieur Verdoux in my post of last evening. Limelight, for me, has always been one of my two favorites, along with City Lights. A King In New York, although flawed and a bit rushed, is a fascinating film with much to recommend it. Always a risk taker (taking on Hitler before it was fashionable) and not afraid to push his audience, funny as hell, and sentimental without being manipulative and mawkish, Chaplin took the greatest risks and pushed himself throughout his career. BTW, I'm surprised no one took me to task for slamming Welcome Danger. I know it has its defenders.

I'm certainly in agreement with those that say that Chaplin is at his most painful when he is self-aware, but I still find an immense amount of amusement out of his Mutual comedies. And no, I can't agree that just because Chaplin was so popular meant that he lacked subtlety—anyone who makes that statement aren't intimately acquainted with his methodology. What makes Chaplin great on so many levels is that not only is it the swift kick in the pants that makes the laugh, but the motions that lead up to and follow said kick.

And whatever you think of the end result, I don't believe the title of "genius" can ever really be taken away from him. Every time I consider the thought, I look back to his creative process via "Unknown Chaplin" and continue to be astonished.

OK, should I avoid films by Erich von Stroheim, Louise Brooks, Frank Capra and Francis X. Bushman because they were jerks?

If you were to apply that principle there would be VERY few films left to watch. You'd probably end up with little more than Albert Schweitzer's home movies.

Schweitzer??? Don't talk to me about that jerk!!!!

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

Oh please, which disadvantage? Since he was never forgotten NONE of his films are lost. How do the others whose films are completely lost & forgotten really benefit from "the advantage of obscurity"? Btw, even if their films still exist, they are sitting on archival shelves, and never being re-discovered simply because nobody can identify them.