Chaplin's "Modern Times" on Blu-ray/DVD - Nov. 16

[Jeffrey Vance]

Chaplin was always keen to perform additional editing to his old films in order to tighten the editing and make them more "playable" to new audiences. Chaplin, however, had very specific reasons for cutting the last verse of the gibberish song of MODERN TIMES for the 1954 re-issue. I'm sorry Mr. Robinson does not address this in his commentary. I don't think it's interesting to hear what Mr. Robinson thinks of the cut. I do think it's very interesting to understand Chaplin's reasoning for the edit. A missed opportunity. A pity.

Jeffrey Vance

[kndy]

But Jeffrey, WaverBoy and Doug, you are still going to give the new release a try. Right? Hehe...

[Doug Sulpy]

Well, Jeffrey... do tell us, then!

kndy... I wasn't planning on it, no – though if significant footage has been added to "The Rink" I may go for it.

And... just to beat a dead horse... but WHO, exactly, does the Chaplin Estate think made the versions of Chaplin's films that came out BEFORE "The Daddy Versions"... some kind of imposter? Really, those people's bone-headedness gets on my nerves and I'm not sure they deserve to make money on any new issues of his films that are anything OTHER than complete, 100% restorations (including the original First Nationals).

[WaverBoy]

But Jeffrey, WaverBoy and Doug, you are still going to give the new release a try. Right? Hehe...

Why would I waste money on a disc I would never watch? I've already seen the incomplete version of MODERN TIMES a zillion times, and thankfully I never need to see it again, thanks to the efforts of David Shepard & Co.

[kndy]

But Jeffrey, WaverBoy and Doug, you are still going to give the new release a try. Right? Hehe...

Why would I waste money on a disc I would never watch? I've already seen the incomplete version of MODERN TIMES a zillion times, and thankfully I never need to see it again, thanks to the efforts of David Shepard & Co.

Hehe...but you haven't seen it in HD.

2000 vs. 2010 comparisons (Screen Captures)

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompar ... ntimes.htm

[WaverBoy]

But Jeffrey, WaverBoy and Doug, you are still going to give the new release a try. Right? Hehe...

Why would I waste money on a disc I would never watch? I've already seen the incomplete version of MODERN TIMES a zillion times, and thankfully I never need to see it again, thanks to the efforts of David Shepard & Co.

Hehe...but you haven't seen it in HD.

Doesn't matter; it's perfectly watchable in SD, and if I watch it in HD, I'll be missing one of the best bits of the climax of the film. The chainsawing of this bit also disrupts the flow of the scene. If CITIZEN KANE were missing the final shot of the you-know-what going up in flames in its HD incarnation, I'd hang on to my SD and never give the HD a glance. Hey, it's only a minute's worth of footage, I know...

I cannot count myself among the people who value an incomplete Chaplin classic missing one of the best bits of the climax of the film in excellent picture quality over a complete Chaplin classic in very nice picture quality.

[sc1957]

The chainsawing of this bit also disrupts the flow of the scene.

While I understand that people who've seen a more complete version of the film may lament the 30 seconds or so that are missing, it in no way disrupts the flow of the film. The film cuts perfectly from the (abbreviated) singing to the "I did it!" scene in the dressing room. I'm sure that the many people who've never seen the film, or who don't have it memorized, will never miss the last verse.

On a lighter note, I loved the 10-minute documentary that followed the Cuban film projectionists to a town that had never seen a movie (in 1967). It takes a Wages of Fear journey on mountain roads, asks several peasants what they think a movie is ("I have 12 children, and who knows how many grandchildren, and I can't tell you what a movie is."), and then shows their wide-eyed response as they watch Modern Times until the little kids start falling asleep.

[Nick_M]

...the 30 seconds or so that are missing, it in no way disrupts the flow of the film.

I've only seen Modern Times twice- this summer in 35mm, and on TV when I was too young and clueless to really know about things like cuts. In other words, I don't know the film by heart, and I didn't know that it was cut until the announcement of the BD. Yet I still noticed that there was a strange and abrupt cut at the end of the song, just as the music and the movie were reaching the climax (how jarring!). If it wasn't a new print, I would've assumed it was just a nasty splice.

[Doug Sulpy]

The chainsawing of this bit also disrupts the flow of the scene.

While I understand that people who've seen a more complete version of the film may lament the 30 seconds or so that are missing, it in no way disrupts the flow of the film. The film cuts perfectly from the (abbreviated) singing to the "I did it!" scene in the dressing room. I'm sure that the many people who've never seen the film, or who don't have it memorized, will never miss the last verse.

On a lighter note, I loved the 10-minute documentary that followed the Cuban film projectionists to a town that had never seen a movie (in 1967). It takes a Wages of Fear journey on mountain roads, asks several peasants what they think a movie is ("I have 12 children, and who knows how many grandchildren, and I can't tell you what a movie is."), and then shows their wide-eyed response as they watch Modern Times until the little kids start falling asleep.

... "cuts perfectly..."?!!

The cut from the song into the dressing room is one of the worst hack-job edits I've ever SEEN. The only way it could be "smooth" is if you're watching the film with your eyes closed and the sound down.

I'm glad you enjoyed the thrilling "extra" about the Cuban film projectionists. Did you check out the one about other famous films that start with "M"? Or the half hour comparison of "Modern Times" to Italian neo-realist editing (it was presented by that group of famous Eskimo directors, whose names, unfortunately, escape me).

[Mike Gebert]

It's a somewhat crude edit, but hardly the only one in Chaplin's sound-era work. And I don't think it aids the "30 seconds ruin the movie" camp to be so sarcastic about an offhand comment about one of the extras.

[Rob Farr]

On a lighter note, I loved the 10-minute documentary that followed the Cuban film projectionists to a town that had never seen a movie (in 1967). It takes a Wages of Fear journey on mountain roads, asks several peasants what they think a movie is ("I have 12 children, and who knows how many grandchildren, and I can't tell you what a movie is."), and then shows their wide-eyed response as they watch Modern Times until the little kids start falling asleep.

Until the children were JOLTED AWAKE by that brutal jump cut!

[Doug Sulpy]

It's a somewhat crude edit, but hardly the only one in Chaplin's sound-era work. And I don't think it aids the "30 seconds ruin the movie" camp to be so sarcastic about an offhand comment about one of the extras.

Well, thank God I'm not in the "30 seconds ruin the movie" camp.

[WaverBoy]

The chainsawing of this bit also disrupts the flow of the scene.

While I understand that people who've seen a more complete version of the film may lament the 30 seconds or so that are missing, it in no way disrupts the flow of the film. The film cuts perfectly from the (abbreviated) singing to the "I did it!" scene in the dressing room. I'm sure that the many people who've never seen the film, or who don't have it memorized, will never miss the last verse.

It most certainly interrupts the flow of the scene. It always seemed abrupt to me, even when watching it as a kid, and I wondered why that was. And when I was finally able to see the complete version, I found out. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[WaverBoy]

It's a somewhat crude edit, but hardly the only one in Chaplin's sound-era work. And I don't think it aids the "30 seconds ruin the movie" camp to be so sarcastic about an offhand comment about one of the extras.

It's over a minute, not 30 seconds; it's some great stuff; and it's crudely, senselessly hacked out. I prefer my Chaplin classics complete.

[azjazzman]

It's over a minute, not 30 seconds; it's some great stuff; and it's crudely, senselessly hacked out. I prefer my Chaplin classics complete.

Since it was Chaplin himself that made the cut, the film is, in fact, complete.

And the truth is, in the longer version, the song *does* go on too long. Chaplin knew what he was doing, and I trust his judgement when it comes to comic timing.

[Shaynes3]

What I REALLY don't understand is why they didn't make the "approved" version the default with an option on the special feature menu to view the film with the cut verse back in place.

That SHOULD have made eveybody happy...

[Nick_M]

Since it was Chaplin himself that made the cut, the film is, in fact, complete.

That makes no sense. By that reasoning, Griffith's short version of The Birth of a Nation is complete since Griffith did the cutting! Authorized, yes; complete, no.

[Shaynes3]

Well, technically, any director created/approved/released version is A complete version - maybe not the MOST complete ever created/approved/released.

Since it was Chaplin himself that made the cut, the film is, in fact, complete.

That makes no sense. By that reasoning, Griffith's short version of The Birth of a Nation is complete since Griffith did the cutting! Authorized, yes; complete, no.

[azjazzman]

Well, technically, any director created/approved/released version is A complete version - maybe not the MOST complete ever created/approved/released.

Since it was Chaplin himself that made the cut, the film is, in fact, complete.

That makes no sense. By that reasoning, Griffith's short version of The Birth of a Nation is complete since Griffith did the cutting! Authorized, yes; complete, no.

Semantics aside, I think the fact that the Chaplin family has at least tried to respect Charlie's wishes is laudable.

I think it would have been cool if Criterion would have been allowed to use seamless branch authoring so that the user could choose either the longer or shorter version....or short of that include the longer version of the song as a bonus feature. But, jeez, since most of us who are that interested already have the longer song on the David Shepard disc, it seems the whining over this is much ado about nothing.

I really am convinced that a certain percentage of people out there just simply have to have something to get themselves worked up over or they just aren't happy.

[BrianG]

I too prefer the long version of the song. After recently rewatching my Image dvd I decided to skip the Criterion release. That money will instead be put toward some Kino or Flicker Alley sets on my want list.

[Doug Sulpy]

Semantics aside, I think the fact that the Chaplin family has at least tried to respect Charlie's wishes is laudable.

And who was that, again, who wished to release the film with the song intact in 1936? Oh, yeah. That's right. That was Chaplin, too.

I think it would have been cool if Criterion would have been allowed to use seamless branch authoring so that the user could choose either the longer or shorter version....or short of that include the longer version of the song as a bonus feature. But, jeez, since most of us who are that interested already have the longer song on the David Shepard disc, it seems the whining over this is much ado about nothing.

I really am convinced that a certain percentage of people out there just simply have to have something to get themselves worked up over or they just aren't happy.

Speaking for myself, I'm not happy that "Modern Times" (and some of the other, upcoming Chaplin films) are going to only be issued in butchered form on blu-ray (complete with those lame-ass mk2 "extras"). Nope. No part of me is happy seeing a classic film edited because the artist who made them decided to cut them up in his old age in an attempt to make them more "commercial." Nope, can't say I'm pleased about that at all, because it means I'm not going to BUY those blu-rays.

And I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting film fan could be satisfied with anything less than a complete, thorough restoration of Chaplin's films... as originally released because THAT'S the work of art. Anything else is simply defacement.

[Shaynes3]

Well, I DO have the complete version of MODERN TIMES with the whole song intact in at least three media, but I decided I'd buy the new Blu-ray disk for several reasons.

First, I completely agree that the song is better left intact, but can't work myself up into an indignant rage because of the brief cut - there is too much greatness even in the shortened film to consider that omission to be ruinous.

Second, I really like seeing my favorite films in the best quality possible and am willing to live with the cut for that reason (especially in view of the fact that I can see the film complete if I choose.)

Third, I have four grandchildren and I'd like to do what I can to show them that black and white and silent film can be great. Doing this with the best possible visual quality can do nothing but help the cause.

Sometime, I may take the deleted scene from the extras and try to edit it back into the feature and make a BD-R to put in the case with the Criterion release, but I will have to have a lot of spare time on my hand to go to that extreme!

[azjazzman]

Speaking for myself, I'm not happy that "Modern Times" (and some of the other, upcoming Chaplin films) are going to only be issued in butchered form on blu-ray

C'mon Doug. "Butchered"? Over the top much? Thanks for making my point for me. If you think the minor edit in Modern Times makes it "butchered", you simply have lost touch with reality.

No part of me is happy seeing a classic film edited because the artist who made them decided to cut them up in his old age in an attempt to make them more "commercial."

Disregarding Chaplin's artistic choice because he made it later in life is nonsensical. Does that mean we should not include "Limelight" in the Chaplin filmography? Is it even possible that Chaplin concluded somewhere between 1936 and 1956 that the song in MT went on too long and the first chance he had to fix it, he did?

And I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting film fan could be satisfied with anything less than a complete, thorough restoration of Chaplin's films... as originally released because THAT'S the work of art. Anything else is simply defacement.

Defacement? When it is done by the filmmaker himself? This last paragraph is just pompous baloney. The argument that Chaplin's wishes regarding the content of "Modern Times" should just be completely ignored is pretty bizarre. And just because that would be YOUR choice doesn't make it the RIGHT choice.

Give me a break. One way or the other, this is a pretty minor deal and would in no way impact the enjoyment of the film by 99.99% of the viewing audience. Only a few OCD Chaplin buffs would consider this a big deal.

And Steve Haynes makes a great point...the ability to see MT in the best picture quality possible far outweighs the minor issue of the edit.

[Rick Lanham]

I re-watched the Image DVD of MT last night. First I played the scene with the song. Then I watched Raksin's interview about working on the film's score.
I also paused on the lyrics on Charlie's cuff so that I would know more about the song.

I then played the movie in full and could enjoy the song and its last verse better since I could decipher more of the song's meaning. The last verse is the "pay off" of the song's little story.


My thought is that Charlie edited the film in the thirties and again in the fifties envisioning its presentation in a theater, not on video where the song could be replayed and more fully understood.

I hope that the next release (downloadable?) will have the full verse included.

Rick

[Doug Sulpy]

Disregarding Chaplin's artistic choice because he made it later in life is nonsensical.

...as opposed to preferring Chaplin's artistic choice because he made it later in life?

Is there anyone out there who wants to argue that Charlie Chaplin was a greater artist post-1940? Come on! Hands up! Some of you surely must prefer those incredibly funny moments in "A King in New York" (all two of them) to... say, "City Lights" or "The Circus"... no?

No?!

Then why should you in any way support the propagation of the changes he made to his films when he was past his prime?

Does that mean we should not include "Limelight" in the Chaplin filmography? Is it even possible that Chaplin concluded somewhere between 1936 and 1956 that the song in MT went on too long and the first chance he had to fix it, he did?

Huh? There's a difference between altering a classic film and making an entirely new one, so I don't see where "Limelight" (or any of the other later films) enters into this discussion.

And it is MORE than possible that "Chaplin concluded somewhere between 1936 and 1956 that the song in MT went on too long and the first chance he had to fix it, he did." That's not the point, either. Whatever the reason, obviously he felt the song should be shortened. I'm not arguing that he didn't. I'm arguing that I see no logical reason why the wishes of the artist-past-his-prime should be respected above the wishes of the artist-IN-his-prime.

And I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting film fan could be satisfied with anything less than a complete, thorough restoration of Chaplin's films... as originally released because THAT'S the work of art. Anything else is simply defacement.

Defacement? When it is done by the filmmaker himself? This last paragraph is just pompous baloney. The argument that Chaplin's wishes regarding the content of "Modern Times" should just be completely ignored is pretty bizarre. And just because that would be YOUR choice doesn't make it the RIGHT choice.

Give me a break. One way or the other, this is a pretty minor deal and would in no way impact the enjoyment of the film by 99.99% of the viewing audience. Only a few OCD Chaplin buffs would consider this a big deal.

And Steve Haynes makes a great point...the ability to see MT in the best picture quality possible far outweighs the minor issue of the edit.

Yes. I consider lopping a scene out of a classic film to be "defacement." I realize that, in your eyes, this is just "pompous boloney" from someone who's "OCD," makes "bizarre" statements and has "lost touch with reality," but at least I'm making arguments to support my opinion rather than simply lobbing insults.

Your statement: "the argument that Chaplin's wishes regarding the content of "Modern Times" should just be completely ignored is pretty bizarre" suggests that you have completely missed my point, because I DO believe that Chaplin's wishes should be respected... I just happen to believe that the Chaplin who made the film in 1936 should be THAT GUY.

As for picture quality... well, sure glad you (and people with similar opinions) didn't have a say in the new "Metropolis"... we would never have seen the extended version because, after all, the old version "looked nice."

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, I think we've reached the point of the NitrateVille rule that you can say the same damn thing twice, but not three times. Positions seem pretty clear to me-- either you can't abide the absence of this minute, or you're happy to have a great print even in an altered version. Let's move on.

[silentfilm]

I just think that it is strange that most "director's cut" versions of films are much longer, usually because the producer held back the director's excesses and made the film more quickly plotted, but in this case Chaplin actually shortened his film. Of course, he was also the producer.

Changes like this cut are not actually unprecedented. Harold Lloyd re-edited some of his features in later years.

I'm actually ashamed to admit that Modern Times is one of the few Chaplin films that I don't already have on DVD and/or film, so I'll definitely be getting this BluRay.

[azjazzman]

And it is MORE than possible that "Chaplin concluded somewhere between 1936 and 1956 that the song in MT went on too long and the first chance he had to fix it, he did." That's not the point, either. Whatever the reason, obviously he felt the song should be shortened. I'm not arguing that he didn't. I'm arguing that I see no logical reason why the wishes of the artist-past-his-prime should be respected above the wishes of the artist-IN-his-prime.

You've managed to miss the gist of what I am saying.

I'm saying that since the thrust of your argument is that the 1936 Chaplin is to be trusted more, would your position change if a document turned up that showed that during a 1936 screening he made a note to himself to shorten the song if and when the film ever got re-issued?

I don't know if that happened...but more to the point, you don't know that it didn't. Since the thrust of your argument rests on the idea that the 1956 Chaplin was somehow operating under impaired judgement, I say, how do we know this decision was made in 1956 and not earlier?

Clearly, we don't.

[Paul Penna]

Classical composers often revised their works, often more than once, and for various reasons. They'd revise orchestration to suit different orchestras or concert hall characteristics, for example. Stravinsky revised two of his most popular early ballets, Petrushka and The Firebird, with simplified orchestrations over thirty years after he'd written them. And yet the originals are frequently performed to this day, with no objections raised over their not representing his "final word," as are the revisions without being criticized.

Obviously, there are differences, as film is a fixed entity while music exists in a performance, of which there can be many. But the point is that artists can and do fiddle with their works over time, with various motivations and for various conditions, and while in differing states of their artistic consciousness, not to mention prowess. It's not unusual for them to completely disown some of their work. And yet, unless they manage to destroy it utterly, it survives and succeeding generations accept it, experience it, enjoy it. Scholarly analyses are written either disputing or supporting the artist's judgement of his own work. In other words, artists' revisions and changing judgements of their own works are commonplace in virtually all of the arts. Debates can and do rage over the relative values of the works judged on their own, but speculations about the supposed inviolability of one presumed authorial statement versus another are pretty much irrelevant.

[antifrodis]

I picked up the Modern Times Blu-Ray yesterday. The film looks better than I've ever seen it. For those who were wondering, the extras all seem to be in standard dvd quality including the missing last verse. No new transfers there. "The Rink" is the version from the more recent Mutual dvd release. It was very pixelated and definitely not HD quality. I don't recall the dvds looking like that. I got the disc for around $20.