Obvious Warning: Spoilers of a 1923 film ahead. If you don't like spoilers, don't read and go buy the damn box set already.
I'm going to blow your mind. Are you ready? Charlie Chaplin invented "Sex and the City". Stay with me here.
I'm about to admit something so horrible I may have to go into hiding. When I lived in Orlando I didn't have cable for about a year. My nerd roommates (in a situation which mimicked "The Big Bang Theory
" years before it existed) had DVDs and I did not as I was a musician and why should I care much about film? So I had many late night hours of TV to fill. And the WB or whatever the hell it was at the time ran heavily edited reruns of Sex and the City. In a situation akin to being held at gunpoint I watched the series for the first time.Even worse I kinda liked it, its asinine but basically the essence of woman porn. I just could never figure out why they made most of the show about the most unlikeable character possible (Carrie Bradshaw) with the most unlikeable and hard to look at actress possible (the foot faced Sarah Jessica Parker). Sarah Jessica Parker's acting consists of pretending to patronize everyone around her regardless of the emotion needed for the scene. That and to whine. I'd like to throw things at her if I ever ran into her.
But for the lucky out there who have never seen the show (I'm guessing its a lot; old timer men don't tend to watch that crap) its basically about 4 annoying women varying from ugly to tolerable dating men who are all quite hideous while wearing horrendous 'fashions' and running through New York City whining and sexing. Thankfully I was spared the graphic ugly people sex scenes.
Now by this point you are probably going "Holy Hell what does this have to do with Charlie Chaplin or A Woman of Paris?" Lots. I had never seen A Woman of Paris before last night (one of the few Chaplin features still on my list) and I quite enjoyed it. But from the moment we got past the meller this comparison was all I could think of. Only instead of ugly people and ugly fashions we get some decent looking people and clothing. And instead of terrible acting and terrible writing we get again some pretty decent stuff.
Production
I haven't read everything there is to read about A Woman of Paris, though I do have the jist. Charlie Chaplin had been wildly popular since his debut in 1914. Wishing for better control (and percentages of) his films he joined his best friend Douglas Fairbanks, and Doug's wife Mary Pickford (also known as Charlie's mortal enemy) to form United Artists in 1919. D.W. Griffith eventually joined the fold and the young company was the first 'real' independent studio in the hey day of the 'Studio Controlled Era'. They would either sink or swim depending how wise the move would turn out to be.
Immediately there were issues. Charlie and Mary both owed films to their old studios. Mary finished with no problem but Charlie had severe mental issues (re: women and mother) at the time and it took him forever to finish up his contract. Meanwhile D.W. Griffith also owed a ton of films and percentages to old contracts. The only free person was Doug, who went about making a films which would set the high point of his career. Mary also turned in her first films including "Pollyanna" which was a huge hit. Griffith finally put in "Way Down East" which would be really his only hit while with UA. But Charlie had done nothing.
"The Kid" had been finished for awhile but Charlie had to hide it from both his soon to be ex wife's (Mildred Harris) attorneys and his former studio. It finally came out in 1921 and was a hit. Though UA had done well with everyone's first films they were soon in need of more money, and Chaplin chose to go perhaps the most irritating route possible (or so Griffith felt, pressure was on him to pick up the slack): release a film that had nothing to do with him.
Charlie had directed, written, and produced since his earliest days, including "The Kid". He wanted to do something 'dramatic' and also give Edna Purviance another leading role. The two had been off and on for years, but she was also one of his favorite leading women up to that time (he kept her on his payroll until her death in 1958.) So he made "A Woman of Paris". Which has no slapstick comedy, is quite serious, begins and ends mellerdramatically, and does not feature him at all (beyond a brief cameo as a porter which is very hard to spot.)
Predicatably a 'Charlie Chaplin' film promoted as 'Not featuring Chaplin or comedy' just confused the hell out of people. A title card was put in the beginning to explain the situation, and flyers were reportedly handed out at the premiere. Most people feel had the crowds not been told Chaplin was behind it they would have enjoyed it. I think the biggest mistake is his name is so blatantly promoted and huge that you never would think of it as 'Edna Purviance and Adolphe Menjou'. In an era when the name and posters sold it all well...this was a terrible decision. Needless to say it floped, even though it didn't deserve to.
Synopsis
The film opens and ends very meller dramatic. But everything in between is pure Sex and the City 1923. Its like Sex and the City with a backstory and a more outlandish ending! Chaplin supposedly based it on his brief romance with Peggy Hopkins Joyce...a woman who would put Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan to shame. Delightful!
Edna Purviance plays Marie St. Clair a girl from a 'very unhappy' home. She plans to marry Jean Millet (the whitey copy of Rudolph Valentino sans all sex appeal, Carl Miller) 'tomorrow' but her evil father locks her out. They go to Jean's house where his father kicks them out, presumably for being immoral. They go to the train station to leave and marry that night, but Jean being slightly effeminate and all needs to go home and pack before he can leave. While home his father dies and he tries to tell Marie who stops short of hearing the news and leaves on the train broken hearted.
Marie apparently took up whoring to some degree and we see her in Paris very well dressed at an exquisite restaurant. She is now a much prettier Carrie Bradshaw. She's dating her obvious benefactor the 'most eligible bachelor' Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou) who is essentially Mr. Big in the story, only much more handsome and witty.
Marie lives the good life with her equally well dressed and sexy friends (she only has two, so we'll cut out the butch one and say they're Charlotte and Samantha). Revel being a dick gets engaged to some heiress or other, saying he and Marie can carry on as they have. She's heartbroken and her friend invites her to a wild party where people are drunk and undressing. She goes but picks the wrong studio, where *gasp* Jean and his overbearing widow of a mother now live and he now paints (I think he's the Aidan of the story, and she's Bunny.) They're both shocked by how sexy and fancy Marie has become. Marie hires Jean to paint her.
The next day they meet and Big arrives, well aware there's another man there. Days pass as Jean paints Marie and in the end we see the portrait is of her 'as she was' (pre whore). Stuff happens, Jean proposes to her and Mommy overhears. Marie goes home and tells Big she's gonna leave him. Jean meanwhile promises mother he 'didn't mean it' as she doesn't want him marrying 'the girl Marie's turned into.' Unfortunately Marie walks in on this conversation and leaves devastated. Jean stops short of killing his mother and waits outside Marie's apartment almost all night. Marie doesn't acknowledge him and calls Big to go to dinner the next night (meanwhile her Samantha friend has gone out to dinner with him, but he didn't go home with her). Jean goes home and decides the only sane thing to do is load a gun and leave the house when his mother interrupts what is presumably a suicide.
After telling Samantha off, Marie leaves with Big for dinner. Jean is outside and considers shooting Big but doesn't. Instead he 'follows that car' and arrives at the restaurant where Marie is already quite gloomy. He sends over a note about how he wants to 'see her one last time.' Big laughs it off and invites him to join them, basically humiliating the shit out of him. He tries to fight but ends up leaving to the lobby, where he promptly shoots himself and lands head first in the fountain...dead. A crowd gathers and Marie faints.
More stuff happens, including Mother deciding to try to kill Marie, but she doesn't when she finds her weeping over Jean's body. Then the most Hays era tacked on ending ever has Marie and Mother opening a home for orphans (at least 5 or so of them) and working with the local 'Father' (the fat Priest-y kind). Marie is still single and unmarried. She and one of the kids goes to get something or other, as Big and his buddy drive by. The two don't realize they've crossed paths and the film ends.
Sex and the City Comparisons
It really is a good film. The best bits are the 'grown up wit' bits that you really do not see in many of Chaplin's films (or at least he has such a charm it never comes off witty and sophisticated; the Tramp is dignified but humbled). When Big and Marie go to dinner for the first time we see a woman who looks like Mae West circa 1976, with a man who looks like a bored, even more effeminate version of Jean. They ask who Marie and Big are. The woman remarks he's 'the most wealthy eligible bachelor in town'. On the other side (after Mae waves at Big) Marie asks who they are. Big replies, "The richest old maid in town" and that he didn't know who the fellow is.
Another straight out of 2004 bit has Big and Marie arguing over what she wants and why she should leave him. She says she wants 'children, a man, and a man's respect'. He says he knows what she wants and toys with her gorgeous pearls. Pissed, Marie tears them off and throws them out the window. A hobo finds them and starts to wander off with them. Marie freaks out and chases the hobo in her high heels and finery. She gives him some cash and marches back in with the broken strand of pearls, and a broken heel for good measure. Big is so beside himself he's basically convulsing on the couch with laughter.
The moment it dawned on me that this was a film meant to speak to women, yet written by a man who thinks he knows it all but doesn't, is when Marie is in bed the morning after the first dinner we see with Big. Her Samantha friend waltzes in, dripping in finery and furs, carrying roses. She tells Marie to get out of bed and enjoy life. Marie asks how she's so damned cheery in the morning. Samantha takes off her fur coat to reveal she's been out (and up) all night. Marie grabs her and chides her, in bed, then playfully spanks her in what looks like a soon to be tickle fight. Come on Charlie...women in 1923 didn't do that let alone 2003! Men never change. Later scantily clad drunk women start a pillow fight at a party, which also features a woman unwrapped to nothing by a fat drunk gentleman (much to the delight and shock of everyone). One of the best bits of comedy comes from one of the girls in the audience stealing a monocle, and dropping it in shock when the formerly wrapped girl is fully nude.
The women run around in some of the finest fashions 1923 has to offer, complete with tons of fur and feathers and sparkles. They sit and gab about men in their fabulous and impossible to afford apartments (well impossible unless Big pays for it; which in 1923 was okay to admit) while smoking and being waited on by maids. The morning after the proposal from Jean, Marie is receiving a massage in her apartment. Charlotte comes and gives her all the gossip about Big and Samantha the night before, right before Samantha shows up. The banter and play of the scene is quite modern.
In fact the only thing that would turn this film off being marketed as such is the insane ending. I refuse to believe it's as Chaplin envisioned it as its just SO tacked on. And if it is, well, its a shame. The overall message of the film seems to be 'love or money', but the easy 1923 way out is taken: women love servitude (also seen in Four Horsemen)! I doubt it. Why not just end it with Marie going back to her fabulous life and starting over again? Or better yet pulling a Garbo and making her a drunk bag lady? Something better than THAT!
And though it may be extremely cliche while breaking the rules of 'love over money', even having her end with Big would have made more sense. He turned Samantha away and seemed to be coming round to his feelings for Marie before the death at dinner thing. He seemed concerned about her when Jean died. Yet we never hear from him again. Poor people don't like being told marrying for money is indeed a good idea. But it still would have been better and less false than THAT ending!
A Woman of Paris is on DVD. Buy it.
1 comments:
Wow that’s a lot of bus riding. No one can question your devotion to CC. I don’t think I’d ride 5 hours for anything less than a re-discovered print of “Four Devils” although I’m pretty sure my local public transportation system is a lot better than LA’s, it would probably just take me 3 hours. Pretty harsh blaming CC for “Sex in the City.” For a film that supposedly nobody saw, “A Woman of Paris” was quite influential in Hollywood so you are probably right. I think Mauritz Stiller deserves credit for inventing the sophisticated sex comedy in film at least 5 or six years earlier but “A Woman of Paris” was the one that everyone seems to have imitated to some degree. Nonetheless is not the point of “Sex in the City” that a “foot faced” (hilarious description) clothes horse gets to have her cake and eat it too? I would say that “A Woman of Paris” is about a good girl who because of fate (i.e. a run of bad luck and unlikely coincidences) ends up a kept woman when she really just wants to be a good girl. I don’t even think CC is all that interested in Marie, Pierre is the guy he identifies with. From what little I know about CC’s personal life, Pierre is precisely the sort of urbane and sophisticated man of the world that CC aspired to be. He is so much more appealing than Jean that it seems crazy that Marie would even consider leaving him. Just imagine this film if one substituted CC’s pal W. R. Hearst for Adolphe Menjou or some other ugly rich guy. Despite the film’s modernity, Marie is a 19th Century heroine, more like Sue’s orphan in “Mysteries of Paris” or Nancy in “Oliver Twist” than the randy free agents in “Sex In The City”. In this context the silly ending seems inevitable, Marie will naturally seek redemption because deep down she is a good girl. Supposedly one of the endings CC considered had her going to a lepers’ colony. Maybe CC was knuckling under to audience expectations or censorship, but this is pretty consistent with the sentimental romanticism that characterizes his work in this period. You can take the boy out of Victorian England, but you can’t take Victorian England out of the boy.
Post a Comment