Monday, June 28, 2010

Charlie Chaplin: The Circus

The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica is running a mini Chaplin fest this week and next week.  Despite having to take 5 hours of bussing that includes almost being stranded in the most ghetto parts of LA if I'm 5 minutes late, well, I'm going (if anyone would like to donate me a car...particularly a Jaguar...I'd kiss your face).  But due to such restrictions I've had to limit my selection of the 10 day festival to 5, possibly 4 due to a Hollywood Heritage event the same night as Limelight.  Despite these humongous limitations I've decided I'd write articles for each of the films I've seen, some for the first time and some not.  Let the proselytizing begin!


The Circus and The Gold Rush were run on the same night...a night I was certain would be the greatest night ever as those are both wonderful films.  The Circus made me laugh so hard I almost peed myself the first time I watched it, and The Gold Rush warmed my heart so much it was felt for days.  Unfortunately circumstances made sure that well...the magic would be ruined in the least. 

"Hey honey we have a squealing crying 6 month old baby...I think I know what will calm him down...let's take him to that Charlie Chaplin screening tonight!"  "Oh honey you are just so brilliant!"

Yes that really happened.  Well I don't know if the conversation did but yes someone really had the balls to bring a very young baby to a movie...a silent movie.  I've seen people bring young children before and usually I was right in my fears it would not go well (except one kid at a Keaton screening; he laughed harder than everyone God bless him!)  I wouldn't take a 6 year old to any normal theatre at 7pm, why do it for a special artistic screening?  Idjit.

Naturally the baby had the squeal and moan about half way through The Circus.  Thankfully it shut up after that.  You know how everyone feels about the kid in "The Pilgrim"?  That's how I, and probably half the theatre, felt that night.  Poor kid, stupid parents.

It did pull me out of the experience a bit...but I got over it.  The Circus is almost legendary in the Chaplin canon.  It won him a special Oscar (as everyone felt he was going to win by a mile and thus was removed from the general competition) and became one of the highest grossing silents of all time.  Yet it took almost 2 years to make due to many problems in Chaplin's life including the death of his beloved mother and the scandalous ending of his marriage to Lita Grey.  Grey didn't go out easy, she slandered him left and right in the press.  Rumor has it his hair went gray after that ordeal.  Oh and there was a fire that destroyed the set.  You know...the usual stuff.

The Ladies

The Circus is interesting to me as it is very different than many of Chaplin's other features.  The Tramp is almost meaner in this film than any other feature.  The theme is almost like the 'hurt nerd triad' if you mix it with The Gold Rush and City Lights.  The Gold Rush shows a man hopelessly in love with a girl he can never get, a girl who breaks his heart for fun but he does eventually end up winning in either version of the film.  In City Lights he could pretty much have the girl, but circumstance won't allow.  In The Circus he very well could have the girl, but feels he couldn't, so he steps aside...kind of.

I wanted to explore this in "The Gold Rush" but its as good here as it would be there.  I would like to know where exactly poor Chaplin came up with such resounding portrayals of men who could not get the girl.  He entered film at 25, and was in the prime of his life during the prime of his career.  Though the Tramp isn't exactly Valentino, Chaplin was quite handsome out of costume.  His sexual exploits were legendary and well, we just won't go into that here.  He had a thing for young women, and could usually get them.  He dated and married a slew of gorgeous women, with very little complaint (at least until the divorces).  Where in God's name did he come up with such deep stirring portrayals of a man who could not have the girl?  In real life he could have any girl!

Maybe it was commentary on his disastrous marriages, which were usually disastrous because he rushed into them with women too young to make good decisions. But while those divorces played out he had another slew of gorgeous fawning women on his arm.  Maybe it was the eternal playing out of his lost idyllic love Hetty Kelly.  Or maybe he just couldn't always get his way like one would assume (according to Chaplin Mabel Normand turned him down several times.)  Whatever it was he touched on something deep, and if you ever want to relive to the deepest parts of your psyche (male or female) just put on one of those 3 films.


Plot Summary

The Circus is quite interesting in this respect.  Chaplin's Tramp is as poor as ever (sneaking hot dogs from unsuspecting toddlers in a hilarious opening scene) and while being chased by police he accidentally crashes a circus and brings down the house.  The evil circus owner offers to give him a tryout, but finds he's not very funny.  He's kicked out and told not to come back.

Meanwhile the Tramp has met the star attraction, the stepdaughter of the evil circus owner (who likes to beat her).  In a huge break from his other films the Tramp actually yells at her when he meets her; she stole his bread (her father had forbidden her from eating dinner for not performing well enough the night before.)  However he feels bad and sneaks her a boiled egg before his tryout.

After failing his tryout he doesn't have the heart to tell her, and she excitedly runs off to perform.  He stands outside looking through a hole in the tent to watch her.  Apparently the stagehands are striking, and the Tramp is offered the job on the spot.  He gladly accepts.  His first duty is to carry a stack of plates, which he promptly messes up and again interrupts the show (and again brings down the house.)  Realizing his appeal the Circus owner hires him, but orders that he be kept in the dark as to why he's actually working there.

The Tramp falls madly in love with the girl, and she lets slip (not knowing she's let anything slip) he's the reason the house is packed every night.  He immediately orders a raise and demands the stepfather no longer treat her like shit.  His wishes are granted and all seems well.

One night the girl gets her fortune read.  She's told she'll marry a 'dark handsome man' who is 'close to her'.  The Tramp overhears this and goes insane with happiness.  He buys a pinky ring off one of the clowns intending to ask her to marry him.  She leaves the room and when she comes back she tells the fortune teller 'its happened!'...only she means the sexy tightrope walker she just met.

The Tramp is devastated and has literal fantasies about beating the shit out of the poor unsuspecting guy.  He vows to learn to tightrope walking just like the guy so he can impress the Girl.  Things happen and the owner demands he walks the tightrope one night when the usual guy is late.  He agrees to do it and everyone is certain he'll be killed (the owner reassures a clown, "Don't worry, I got him insured!")  To protect himself he bribes one of the stagehands to tie a safety rope around his waist.

The Tramp begins his act, confident the rope is working.  He does outlandish things like walking on the tightrope with his hands!  All is well and good...until the harness falls off and he realizes it.  A nail-biting scene ensues which sincerely rivals Harold Lloyd's climb in "Safety Last".  The Tramp is about to fall to his death, while trying to impress a girl, and then MONKEYS start climbing all over him (one bites his nose several times.)  To make matters worse one pulls down his pants...making more mischief.  By the grace of God the Tramp makes it to the bike and down the rope, safe at last.

He quits the circus and goes back to his hobo ways.  The girl runs away and finds him begging to let her 'come with him'.  He refuses as he has nothing to offer her.  She breaks down crying.  He goes back to the circus and pulls the tightrope guy away, telling him that he must marry the girl.  The guy agrees and the pair are married, with the help of the Tramp.  The 3 return to the Circus and all are offered their jobs back.  The Tramp agrees to come, but instead of hopping on the wagon he just stays behind...eventually walking off into the distance...alone.

Food

The biggest difference between this film and his others is the Tramp's attitude towards the girl.  Instead of that immediate love we usually see, he actually YELLS at her.  While discussing City Lights I mentioned how those who accuse the Tramp of wanting to be a fighting little guy who could cut you any moment were wrong.  One exception: he'd cut your ass over food.  In almost every feature he'll do anything for food; including fighting people bigger and stronger than him (such as the fellow prisoner in Modern Times, or the butler in City Lights.)  The one and only time I believe he let someone get more food than himself (ladies excluded) was in "The Gold Rush" when he let Big Jim take the better part of the cooked shoe.  Of course Big Jim could (and actually did plan on trying to) eat him...so it was a wise choice.

In The Circus there are many funny bits with food.  The baby 'feeding' the Tramp his hot dog, The Tramp's huge purchase of hot dogs after 'finding' the wallet, the chasing of the chicken for the egg, and the tossing of the lunch to the girl who was up on a swing (resulting in the inevitable pie in the face moment.)

Jealousy

His relationship with the girl is also a bit different.  It could be said of the films it was one of the few times the Tramp seemed to fall into that 'brother zone'...something that wouldn't really happen again until A King in New York (and even then he did get the girl...for awhile at least.)  He helps the girl, and when he has the influence he sees to it she's treated like a Princess.  He spends $5 ($50 in today's money) on a ring for her.

It's a little hard to tell if she thought much before the 'new' guy came in.  There's no real moment, only the fact the two talk a lot...like friends.  When the new guy arrives some of the best bits occur.  She insists the Tramp watch his act, much to his displeasure.  Its even more insulting when you consider up to this point he was the star of the circus, and now this guy was coming in with a mind blowing act.  And for all the money and power he had acquired it apparently meant nothing to this girl...here she was swooning for 'that' guy.

Before the guy's act begins we see the Tramp jealously watching the couple flirt and be lovey dovey.  In what has to be one of the best scenes (at least in the sentimentalist vein) he imagines himself leaving his body, beating the shit out of the guy, and kicking sawdust on him for good measure.  There isn't a man or woman in this world who hasn't felt that way at one point in their lives.

The act begins and the Tramp openly hopes he'll fall a few times.  He also seems disappointed when the guy does well.  And he seems to begrudge the fact that the guy's act was impressive.  The sheer jealousy is just...PERFECTION!  The Great Dictator is probably some of the best acting we ever got from Chaplin, but this...this was right up there.

What makes the film all the more interesting is the Tramp seems to have a chance at the girl long after the fact.  But now he doesn't have money or a job...and he knows she loves 'that guy'.  Yet much like giving her his lunch he becomes selfless one more time, and tells the guy to go rescue her.  He also gives the guy the ring he bought...a very deep statement.  This is literally the only such feature where Chaplin doesn't get the girl at all...very unusual (though given the divorce maybe he just didn't want to.)


The Greatest Comedic Bit of All Time

Comedically The Circus basically has its masterpiece.  While I don't think its his best feature, or even in the running, it is very strong.  The lion cage scene combined with the tightrope scene seem to be Chaplin's 'Lloyd moment'...you're thrilled into laughing.  If City Lights is Chaplin's sentimental love masterpiece then The Circus is his comedic masterpiece...all because of one scene: the monkeys.

Obviously trickery was used.  I'm guessing a split screen.  But as I mentioned in The Great Dictator discussion nothing freaks me out more than heights and the potential from falling from heights.  I'll fly, I'll go to the top of a building, but I would not walk a fucking tighrope.  You could harness me...I would not do it!  This is Chaplin's 'clock moment'...his 'holy crap is he gonna make it?' moment.

While you're sitting there wondering if this poor SOB will splatter himself trying to impress the girl; the monkeys enter.  As the Tramp dressed for the performance he and the clown accidentally opened a trunk that contained several pissed off monkeys.  The monkeys apparently made their way up the tightrope poles and decided that "Hey...let's go climb that guy!"

At least 3 jump on his head.  One goes for the nose which makes me really appreciate Chaplin's dedication to the scene (how would you like your work to involve having monkeys bite your face for a few hours?)  And as you sit laughing at this 'Holy crap no way!'...the pants hit!  One rogue monkey pulls them down...meaning this poor guy is now harness-less, many stories above the ground, untrained, being bit by monkeys, probably about to piss himself, and now not only is he pants-less, but he has to get the pants off if he doesn't want to trip and die.

The first time I watched The Circus I had to replay this scene about 5 times.  It hurt from laughing so much.  Though there are many funny bits in every Chaplin film I could rattle off for hours, I will go above and beyond to declare this the funniest damn thing ever.  I'd also like to note it plays up the final sentimentalist bit: the poor guy is trying to win over the girl he loves...and now he's pants-less and probably going to die.  Its like being a 13 year old pantsed in front of a school assembly...you just feel so bad for him (between laughs.)

Other comedic bits seem a bit more poignant all around.  When the Tramp is brought in for his tryout he's told 'well...be funny!'  He does a little awkward bit that is quite hilarious, but 'not funny' in the terms of the film.  He fumbles through two tryouts, which are also hilarious.  Later, especially the ending, one gets the feel like its commentary on Chaplin's life at the time.  "Be funny!"  "I lead a charmed life (before falling in a barrel!)" "Come Along!"  And all he was left with was the same ol same ol, alone and back to life as it was.  He didn't get the girl and the world he knew (silents) was going away.

The Circus has been released on DVD, click here to purchase.

Charlie Chaplin: The Great Dictator

The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica is running a mini Chaplin fest this week and next week.  Despite having to take 5 hours of bussing that includes almost being stranded in the most ghetto parts of LA if I'm 5 minutes late, well, I'm going (if anyone would like to donate me a car...particularly a Jaguar...I'd kiss your face).  But due to such restrictions I've had to limit my selection of the 10 day festival to 5, possibly 4 due to a Hollywood Heritage event the same night as Limelight.  Despite these humongous limitations I've decided I'd write articles for each of the films I've seen, some for the first time and some not.  Let the proselytizing begin!



Alright we're goin out of order!  I wanted to write the reviews the nights of but 1) thanks to the bus I got home at 1am both nights and 2) well that inbred lizard monster.  Also I was just plain tired.  But they will be coming.  For now, we do...The Great Dictator!

Charlie Chaplin is a genius.  He is also a God.  There is no use denying either.  The Great Dictator was his first 'official' talkie (following two not really talkies: City Lights and Modern Times).  People thought he was crazy for making a silent in 1931...and absolutely out of his mind when he did it in 1936.  By 1940 they were certain he couldn't pull it off again.  Sure his two final silents had been successful...but could the Tramp talk?  Or more importantly, would the Tramp be involved at all?

People ask 'Who was against talkies?'  One answer: Charlie Chaplin.  Others had their qualms, but he literally abhorred them.  He spent again a literal 12 years ignoring them.  He swore up and down they would never 'take'.  And he hated the 'early' technology (1928 to about 1933)...with decent reasoning: the sound was tinny and distorted...and making the damn films was very limiting.  The Tramp would have had to stand by a flower vase, not moving or falling at all.  Many silent stars were done in by the early technology, with many coming off funnier sounding than they were...or scared bosses not caring and firing them anyways.  But Charlie was his own boss.  He could do whatever the hell he pleased.

And it worked!  Both City Lights and Modern Times were major hits, and very arguably his masterpieces.  They were also the goodnight kiss to silents, even Japan started in on talkies after 1936.  Modern Times probably wasn't the final silent of the silent era ever, but it was by a wide margin the final silent in America.  And it was brilliant.  Charlie's God status was reaffirmed; and he made gobs of money.  They may have thought he was crazy, but it surely put Secrets to shame.

The Wars

I find World War 1 and World War 2 interesting times in American history.  Seems we can't remember anything before the Civil Rights moment these days...seriously go ask a random person what WW1 was about...they won't know.  I can't recall it being taught in school at all.  Maybe it was, but very little time was given to it.

WW2 is generally summarized as 'the War where the big bad Nazis killed millions of Jews and the US saved everyone while France sucked.'  Actually WW2 was essentially caused by WW1, as Germany was thrown into a deep depression by the first WW.  France wasn't so prissy, they were just strung thin from the first WW.  Why did all the Americans go to France after WW1 and be all artisty and 'the lost generation'?  Because 1) France was liberal and 2) the Dollar was worth quite a bit there...you could hire a maid for essentially 30 cents a day.  Thus poor artists like the Fitzgeralds had no problem going there and living the good life in a gorgeous country.

The US entry into WW2 is a little less stellar.  Winners write the history books right?  Right.  Hitler rose to power through the 20s and was full out leader of Germany by 1933.  He never really hid his hate of the Jews or 'non Aryans' which included dark haired people (such as himself), gypsies, gays, Jews, and interestingly enough Catholics.  In fact he kinda built his platform on it.  To destitute Germans who were widely unemployed and having to pay for bread with wheelbarrows of marks well...it sounded like a reasonable solution (think: terrorists Muslims to today's unemployed Americans.)

When Hitler became Chancellor, America (who had become 'the World leader' after WW1 for the first time in our nation's history) took notice.  William Randolph Hearst went over and met Hitler, finding him quite a dictator.  Mary Pickford went over (she and Doug met many world leaders in their travels) and thought he 'seemed okay' and that 'Germany was improving' vs the last time she had seen it (she and Doug did honeymoon there in 1920, while Germany was in the depths of its new Depression.)

Many Americans agreed with Mary's stance: Hitler didn't seem so bad.  In fact well into 1939 the US went 'eh whats the harm?  No war!'  Sure the reasons for not wanting War were well...reasonable (WW1 had been devastating to our country as well...watch The Big Parade to get the idea)...but antisemitism wasn't helping either.  I have a I believe "Look" magazine from 1935.  They mention 'the growing conflict in Europe' and most of the concerns from readers and the writers themselves were for the Catholics...not the Jews.  But if the Catholics were okay then well...no harm no foul by the American mindset of the time!



The Tramp
 
Hollywood obviously had a lot of Jewish folks from its earliest days (in 1909 Hollywood one could find rental signs that said, "No dogs, no Jews, no actors".)  Charlie knew these people.  Many like to whisper that Charlie had Jewish blood himself, but he always refused to comment saying it would play into the hands of anti semites.    Hitler accused him of being Jewish, but most biographers agree he wasn't Jewish at least in generational terms.

Since the earliest days of Keystone Comedies the authorities against the little guy had been a running theme.  Usually the cops vs a Tramp.  In almost every Chaplin feature (and many shorts) there is at least one (if not several) scene(s) where the Tramp accidentally encounters a glaring officer, only to try and wander away regardless if he was doing something wrong or not.  The underlying message seemed to be 'poverty is a crime' as the Tramp could get glared at even if he was behaving himself.

So I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that to kill the Tramp well...Charlie went for the ultimate: The Tramp would take on the Nazis.  Sure he wouldn't be the Tramp in name, and he would be very blatantly Jewish (the character is named 'The Jewish Barber').  But he would be the same 'little fellow'...only in sound and in what is Germany without being called Germany.  I don't think this could have been any more brilliant if he tried.

Sure you damn heretics can praise Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton all you want...but neither man so wonderfully mixed political satire, timely messages, and comedy as Chaplin did.  I am not aware of any film where either man even came close (feel free to prove me wrong.)  People want to hang me for calling Sasha Baron Cohen the new Chaplin...but when he pulled Borat and Bruno well...I felt he at least came as close as anyone will for many decades if not centuries.

How does one convey how deep this was?  Charlie Chaplin's Tramp was universally recognized, he was very likely more famous than Jesus during a very religious time in Western history.  Today it would be like Ronald McDonald, Santa Claus, or Mickey Mouse.  Imagine that.  Now imagine any of the 3 taking on Hitler.  There was some Disney propaganda (though I believe it included Donald Duck, not Mickey) though they waited until 1943.  Ronald wouldn't exist for another 20 years, and I'm not aware of any real Santa effort...or Jesus.  This famous figure, this person everyone knew from Russia to Colorado to Switzerland...was going to take on Hitler.  And did I mention it was 1938?

Though Hitler had been stirring up trouble, most agree WW2 started in September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.  Chaplin already had the script down, and a week after War was declared he began filming.  Happily ever after right?

Nope.  The US was not yet at War with Germany.  To speak out against Hitler was a bad thing.  "Why poke the monkey?  We don't want war!"  So...for making a film decrying Hitler and his actions against the Jews, Charlie Chaplin was criticized and told several times he should not finish the film.  But he was his own man with his own Studio and own company...he could do as he pleased.  And he did.  After the Fall of France he changed the ending to the speech we now have.  Rumor has it (though not yet at War) a representative of the White House was sent to encourage Chaplin to finish the film.  "The Great Dictator" opened in December 1940...a year before the US would join WW2.



Plot

The Great Dictator is easily his talkie masterpiece.  And though I have declared "A King in New York" his ballsiest film before well...I think Great Dictator tops it by a hair (mostly because it predated the US, while King came at the end of the McCarthy issues.)  At times its just...jaw dropping.  "Holy crap...he said this...and we didn't even fully KNOW yet!"  I tried several times during the screening to imagine being in 1940 and not knowing what we do now.  Its just...wow.  Seriously speechless.

In The Great Dictator the Tramp is an unnamed Jewish Barber, who is also a veteran of WW1 for 'Tomainia' (Germany).  In combat he saved Commander Schultz (Reginald Gardiner) and is severely injured in a plane crash.  He spends the next 20 or so years in a Veteran's Hospital, believing he has only been there 'a few weeks' though he has been there since WW1.  In that time Germany has gone under a great Depression, and elected an extremely fascist party: the Double Crossers.  The Double Cross is led by Adenoid Hynkel (Chaplin impersonating Adolf Hitler) and his minions Garbitsch (Joseph Goebbels, played by Henry Daniell) and Herring (Hermann Göring, played by Billy Gilbert). 

Jews are persecuted mostly for fun, with Storm Troopers trodding through the Ghettos and destroying the Jews lives.  Concentration Camps are gaining about 5,000 to 10,000 people a day as 'there is a lot of dissidents'.  When told of a factory strike Hynkel orders all of the employees shot, until Garbitsch recommends he lets them live to train new replacements, then shoot them.  They also eventually plan to kill everyone with dark hair (with a note made that Hynkel has dark hair.)

The Tramp finally goes home, to reopen his barber shop, and meets Hannah (Paulette Goddard).  He is unaware of the changes that have taken place, and fights Stormtroopers over the painting of 'Jew' on his window.  Hannah saves him and fills him in.  She wishes the Jews would fight back, and she practices what she preaches (usually with a very heavy pot to the head.)  She and the Tramp fall in love.

The Stormtroopers continue to harass the ghetto, and almost end up hanging the Tramp.  They are stopped by their commander, who ends up being Commander Schultz.  Schultz orders that this part of the ghetto is to be left alone.  Things appear to return to normal and the Tramp and Hannah plan to go on a date.

Meanwhile Hynkel plans to invade Osterlich (Austria) but has to find funding to do so.  The only person who can finance the invasion is a Jew, so to sweeten the deal Hynkel makes a speech about leaving the Jews alone 'until the loan is secured' anyways.  The Jewish man refuses, but the invasion is still planned.  Hynkel goes back to harping on the Jews and orders Schultz to a concentration camp for telling him its a bad idea (in what could be considered Chaplin's first line of dialogue that was personally felt).  Schultz escapes and stays in the ghetto.  As The Tramp and Hannah attempt their first date something like Kristallnacht starts and there is a price on both the Tramp and Schultz's heads.  The Tramp's barber shop is burned down to the ground.

The next day Schultz and the Tramp are captured and sent to a concentration camp. Hannah and the other Jews flee to Austria, 'land of the free' (no one realized where Hitler came from I guess?)  Meanwhile Bacteria (Italy) has put their troops on the border of Austria, intending to invade.  Hynkel is frantic and orders a meeting with Benzino Napaloni (Mussolini, played by Jack Oakie).  The two dictators try to out impress the other, with Hynkel coming off as bumbling and Benzino coming off as charasmatic.  After a food fight they sign a treaty, with both countries agreeing to not invade Austria.  Of course Garbage immediately plans otherwise and Hynkel is sent on a 'duck hunting trip' so he can appear to not know about the invasion.

Meanwhile the Tramp and Schultz escape the Concentration camp, dressed in Officer's clothes.  At the same time Hynkel is mistakenly taken in by the Stormtroopers; who think he is the Tramp.  This plays out well when the duo reach a village as the Tramp is also taken to be Hynkel.  He's led to give a radio address and does so, taking off the belief of 'hope'.  In Austria Hannah hears him, and it appears everyone believes that the invasion is over or the facist regime is over...its not really clear after that.


Greatness

 Again: wow.  Silent stars had a tendency to get typecast.  Many believe Mary didn't go on as she could not escape 'the little girl'.  Well...putting the little girl in a concentration camp probably would have done it!  The Tramp is as charming as ever in his one and only talkie.  He only puts on the 'full garb' a few times, and his clothes look a little less shabby than usual.  But he is the Tramp.

The few love scenes seem almost more poignant than any other Chaplin film.  Sure City Lights is definitely the 'Chaplin in love' masterpiece, but The Great Dictator puts an adorable and touching layer on that type of relationship.  For once the Tramp isn't really a tramp...he's a veteran and a barber and a Jew.  There is no reason he and Hannah should not be together...except for that whole genocide thing.  There weren't many lovey scenes; but the few there were added that human layer to the story.  It also makes one think, many years on, just what it was like to be in Germany and a Jew at such a time.  America is troubled in this day and age, but no matter what we agree or disagree on we can still go live our lives.  No one is going to paint our windows or be able to harass us in the streets (the internet is another matter apparently.)  The world may appear to be falling apart right now with the War(s), oil spill, rising inbred hicks of the south and their Palins, and the very ramptant unemployment.  But if I meet a gorgeous man tomorrow nobody will try and beat us in the streets if we go on a date.  Very touching.

The comedy of this film is also top notch.  You almost feel bad its like "Nazis...and slapstick!"  When the Stormtroopers come looking for the Tramp and Schultz, the Tramp immediately jumps into a chest when he hears a knock on the door.  The second time this happens the Tramp and two other men all go for the chest.  While preparing for his date with Hannah he preps himself using a bald man's head as a mirror.

Even the Nazis pull out the slapstick.  Hynkel is as clumsy as The Tramp, only he gets mad every time something goes wrong (like a running 'pen won't come out of the ink well' gag or pulling the medals and buttons off of Herring's shirt.)  The food fight between Hynkel and Benzino is pure genius..right down to the 'of course' pie in the reporter's face.  Hynkel's attempt at seduction is also quite hilarious...I like to think of it as Chaplin pulling a 'Valentino as one would expect Valentino'.  Also as one must always note there is even a 'down the pants' scene: this time Hynkel pouring water down his pants (and later in his ear).

We do get a few bits of 'wink wink nudge nudge' naughty Chaplin humor too.  As the Tramp is attempting to figure out how to fly the plane Schultz asks, "Gas?" meaning the status of the gas tank.  Tramp replies, "Terrible, it kept me up all night!"  Hynkel poses with a baby for a photographer.  When he hands it back to its mother he wipes his hand, implying the baby's diaper was leaking.  When Hynkel is bragging to Benzino about his barber shop, he claims glass walls and a glass ceiling noting the glass wall, "Shows a view of the mountains."  Benzino inquiries about what one sees with the glass ceiling.  Hynkel replies nonchalantly, "The ballroom."

There are a few iconic scenes that are always discussed, with good reason.  I think more than anything they show the natural grace of Chaplin.  Chaplin's slapstick ability was pure witchcraft.  His timing was perfection.  One famous scene involves Hynkel dancing with a balloon shaped like the globe...which pops in the end.  Another involves him shaving a customer to the tune of Hungarian Dance No. 5.  Both were reportedly done in one take.  I have two things that make me cringe: heights and sharp things.  Straight razor shaving in general?  OMGZ ahh!  Straight razor shaving to the tune of music which involves going slow than really fast?  HOLY CRAP AHHH!

Hitler and the Tramp

Chaplin's Hitler is...just so dead on.  A lot of people like to deride the acting talent of silent stars, saying they didn't know how to do anything beyond their one trick (character).  Chaplin had continually made films as the Tramp, which rarely changed the actual character behind the Tramp (he's a touch meaner in The Circus and a touch poorer in City Lights...but thats about it).  You didn't see a Charlie Chaplin film and find him doing a great romantic thing like the Sheik, or swashbuckling like Robin Hood.  In fairness the Tramp in The Great Dictator is one of the first real deviations...he's 'The Tramp' in look and mannerisms, but he has a completely different back story, attitude, and description.

But Chaplin as HITLER!  Holy God!  Its like Mary Pickford as Sadie Thompson...does not compute.  But he does it just so well.  Louise Brooks (who dated him briefly in the 20s) mentioned his impersonations as perfection...except the one she thought he did of her which he called 'the Follies girl' (she cried, he quit doing it.)  The voice, the force, the mannerisms, the attitude...pure Hitler.  When we first see 'Hynkel' its while he gives a speech in close up.  Chaplin is much more handsome than Hitler, but thats about the only difference.  You could very easily mistake this performance as bonafide footage of Hitler.

Chaplin did not speak German, so he used gibberish that sounded German.  Words like 'sauerkraut' are used quite a bit.  In one seen he blasts the bumbling Herring and the word 'banana' slips out.  Herring apologizes and asks, 'Der Banana?'  Hynkel goes on to ramble about 'Ja der banana...'  Its pretty brilliant.  With all my love to the Germans, the German language is pretty hilarious sounding.  There are moments when this pure gibberish is literally side splittingly funny.

Something remarkable to remember about this film is that the concentration camps did not start until 1939...so though the idea was known, the full effects of these 'camps' were not.  Chaplin later said had he known, he could not have made the film.  Still the seriousness is conveyed, its implied if one goes to the concentration camp they might not make it out.  One scene does have The Tramp receiving a letter from Hannah in Austria...somehow I doubt prisoners were given mail though maybe they were.  The few bits of the camp look a lot nicer and a lot cheerier than the real camps turned out to be (they looked akin to a prison cell...complete with human dignity.)

And though the atrocities against the Jews do have their humorous moments (like the slapstick escapes from the Stormtroopers) many of them are just as touching, especially some of the first scenes we see of the ghetto.  I think one of the greatest scenes in the whole film comes when The Tramp has to hide on the roof with Hannah (moments after attempting their first date) while the Stormtroopers burn his barbershop down.  Hannah talks a lot, but the Tramp doesn't.  Its very very touching.

The Speech

The final 10 minute or so speech is said ad nauseum to be considered 'an out of character plea'.  While I do believe most people are mimicking the internet, I agree with that assessment.  Every now and then a Chaplin verse would seem to sneak into his films, such as the words from Rupert Macabee in A King in New York regarding communism and religion.  Though I have yet to see the documentary, "The Tramp and the Dictator", it apparently shows that Chaplin had a different ending before the fall of France to the Nazis.

The plea seems to be years ahead of its time, like John Lennon's 'Imagine'.  The speech mimics Modern Times on his belief that while machines were good, we were losing humanity to them.  That cleverness without kindness is no good at all.  That we must believe in humanity and hope, and the bettering of ourselves as a civilization.  If you have any doubt that Charlie Chaplin was a God at all, well, this should fix that.

The 30s had to be a very intriguing time to live through.  From the end of WW1 onward the World only seemed to get better...people really did believe War could be abolished for good.  As a society we believed we'd become more technologically and culturally advanced, that there was nowhere to go but 'up'.  And indeed many things seemed to support that...the radio rose to prominence, records became more accessible, and the first true TV and TV broadcasts occurred at the end of the 20s.  Any and everything Tesla did was at least 80 years ahead of his time (including what was essentially an internet styled thing in the 1910s!)

Then the stock market crashed.  Talkies came.  The entire civilized world seemed to undergo an economic depression.  And all of a sudden all the technology, culture, and glamour of the 20s seemed like it would be gone forever...or at least on hold for an indefinite time.  Had the stock market not crashed, lord knows how far we would have advanced without being 'put on hold' for almost 2 decades.  This is what I feel was being conveyed in that speech.  The hope that we could overcome the troubles of the time and go back to progressing as an entity.  The speech is something one must see on the big screen to fully appreciate.

Reception

You know I had one other thought I wondered about while watching this movie.  Douglas Fairbanks.  He and Chaplin had been dear friends for years...and Doug was an obsessive world traveler.  After his divorce from Mary he essentially wandered for 5 years, to all sorts of places around the world (giving us the unfortunately dated "Around the World in 80 minutes" series).  Doug had gone to Germany several times in his life.

Doug died in December 1939...just a few months into filming of "The Great Dictator".  I have yet to hear if he had anything to say on it, but probably not.  Its just a shame he never got to see the finished product.

There's one other person's reaction more people wonder about: Hitler's.  IMDB is no source at all.  But according to "The Tramp and the Dictator" Hitler did see it twice.  Unfortunately his thoughts were not recorded.  Or maybe fortunately...they probably involved putting out a hit on the Tramp.

What makes me sick about this period in time is The Great Dictator was well received.  It reportedly became Chaplin's highest grossing film.  But only in a few years Chaplin would be derided as a Communist and a whore monger over Joan Barry (well...he did like the ladies.)  His next film, Monsieur Verdoux, was released in 1947 and received a lot of negative press because of those very issues.  Only a few years later his visa would be revoked while he was promoting Limelight.  The FBI was obsessed with 'getting Chaplin' through the 40s and 50s.  And somewhere in the shuffle everyone forgot just what he did with "The Great Dictator".


You can buy The Great Dictator here.  And you can hear and see Chaplin's final speech here.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Speaking of Vamps



Helen Gardner's website has been updated with some pretty spiffy stuff.  The site is run by her granddaughter, Dorin Gardner Schumacher.  Schumacher is currently working on a biography of the Grandmother she never knew, as well as giving lectures on her life and collecting memorabilia.

Helen Gardner was pretty awesome.  She was an extremely early 1910s star and due to her timing she reached a lot of firsts before anyone.  She was the first ''vamp'' (though the word was not yet in use, but the mannerisms are similar) performing in such films as "Cleopatra" in 1912.  Cleopatra was also one of the first 'feature' films (in an era where most films were under 10 minutes), running 6 reels long.  Luckily most of it survives and it runs on TCM every now and then.

Helen Gardner was also very arguably the first female producer in film.  In 1912 she formed Helen Gardner Picture Players and created her own studio in New Jersey.  This predates Mary Pickford by 2 years and Clara Kimball Young by 4.


Of course being such an early pioneer kind of did her in, like it did to many of the early greats (including the illustrious Mr. Griffith).  She slowed her film output by 1915, and much like Theda Bara made one last go in the 20s with "Sandra" in 1924.  Surprisingly Dorin reports that of the 62 films Gardner starred in at least 18 survive...pretty good for a 1910s star!

The new site has youtube clips, a blog, a twitter, and a facebook page.  Obviously Dorin has figured out the best ways to promote a silent star!  I suggest you all go there, join all her pages and newsletter, and eagerly sit and wait for her book...which sounds like it will be a fascinating look at very early Hollywood.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Could we ever find the films of Theda Bara?


I get a lot of interesting (and sometimes terrifying) google search terms.  As is to be expected, 10% of the whole are some variation of 'Was Rudolph Valentino gay?' (no, no he wasn't) and another 10% are 'Was so and so gay? (anyone from Mary Pickford to Olive Thomas to June Mathis)'.  Sometimes they are interesting though.  The other day someone asked, "Could Theda Bara's films be rediscovered?"  I decided some pondering was in order over that very question.

Theda Bara is without question one of the most famous women ever.  Sure Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin ruled the 10s and ruled film much longer than Theda, yet more people would know her face or name than that of Mary Pickford.  And its not like she even really had to do anything: Theda passed in 1955, and whether she fretted over her legacy or not I've never really seen much evidence that she worked hard to foster it.  Yet that vamp, that soul sucking gorgeous sexy woman, lives on.  Her Cleopatra, her 'Vampire', her dark eyes and wild hair...everyone knows those images.  Quite impressive for someone who all but retired in 1919, and who only has 3 feature films still known to exist.

To give you an idea where this falls on 'normies' radars I own a Theda Bara print overshirt (you can see it on halapickford.com).  I get a lot of compliments over it.  One girl near my own age complimented it, and when told it was Theda Bara said, "Oh like from the 30s?"  1915 gave her that 'does not compute' look.  Yet still I bet if I showed her that image of Theda in her Cleopatra garb she would have recognized it 'from somewhere'.


How or why Theda's image has lived on I have no clue.  Sex sells I guess.  While she wasn't the first vamp (Helen Gardener took that cake) she was the first to be given that term, and the first to be wildly associated with such a revolutionary sexual image (mind you this was at a time when women couldn't vote, birth control was illegal, and bare knees were scandalous.)  Theda's vamp came from the theory that women could take 'vitality' from men via sex, and if they ever figured it out the male species would be in trouble.  Unfortunately for men we did figure it out, and haven't really looked back since (minus the 50s, but come on it was the 50s!  And Elizabeth Taylor has to count for something...)

While Mary's little girl was so famous it would make Michael Jackson's "Thriller" look 'mild'; Theda was one of the first pop icon sensations of her own.  The good Edwardian girl existed before Mary.  But the Vamp as we know it did not exist before Theda Bara.

So we have this woman, a pop icon that all vamps since have been based on.  A woman who could easily be a fashion icon today and millions of Hot Topic kids could and have worshiped.  Miss Arab Death is still as mesmerizing as ever.  Yet...we can't see her.  We can't ''get'' what she was about...the lost films of Theda Bara are some of the most lamented losses in film history.

So...what happened to begin with?  Well Theda's fame came mostly between 1915 and 1919, when all but her last 3 films were made.  She was wildly popular, but this was also in an era of loose distribution and the thought that a film was akin to a newspaper, i.e. you watch it for one run and why would you ever need it again?

Then WW1 happened and Theda fell out of popularity.  Rumors of a comeback happened for years but no one seemed to give thought to saving her or other early stars films.  She made one last feature and 2 shorts (which we have all of), but then she disappeared again.




In 1934 (as Theda was vowing a talkie comeback) Cecil B DeMille watched her 1917 version of Cleopatra to prep for his own soon to be filmed version.  It was the last time anyone would note having seen the film.  In 1937 the FOX Vaults exploded and burned to the ground (nitrate had a tendency/still has a tendency to do that) destroying their entire film history.  That's why Theda Bara, Miriam Cooper, Raoul Walsh, and Valeska Surrat have such horrible survival rates: most of their films were made at FOX.  And most of FOX's silents died a fiery death in 1937.

So...by 1937 if anything else existed it would be in private hands.  Screenings of "A Fool There Was" took place (mostly as a 'haha old timers' thing...like watching Land of the Lost from the 70s now) but no other films of hers seem to be noted.  Film preservation was in its infancy and MOMA notoriously destroyed a few films (including "Flaming Youth" and some Douglas Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith films.  LOC would go on to destroy some Pickford films) not realizing these were the last copies ever.  No stories exist of any association destroying Theda films, but who knows what was floating around.


About the same time, circa early 40s, Theda Bara and Charles Brabin had a neighborhood kid they adored and even tried to adopt: Joan Craig.  Theda had never given up hopes of coming back (despite being in her 50s by this time) and as horrible films based on silent stars lives were all the rage at the moment (Marilyn Miller, Pearl White, Rudolph Valentino and Al Jolson would get the treatment) Theda decided she'd join in.

A film version of her life was planned a few times but always scrapped.  Theda adored Joan and decided to train her to play herself in said film (much like Mary Pickford's own wishes about Shirley Temple...I'll give you a moment to process that).  Brabin and Theda had kept their own film archives in the basement of their Beverly Hills home.  Why worry about the 1937 explosion when they had their own archive?

Well turns out they hadn't taken their films out in awhile.  Theda had decided Joan should watch her old films to get into character.  When the vault was opened Theda and Brabin found their films had turned to dust: can after can was opened only to be mush or dust.  Needless to say she was devastated.  Now if anything existed it was in private hands somewhere.


Silent film seen a resurgence of popularity in the 60s and 70s as the hippies realized these old stars were all about to die off.  Theda had been long gone but her image was extremely popular with the younger crowd.  Mind you this was in the days before DVDs and even VHS.  If you owned a film you owned a reel.  Silent film collecting became popular, and for awhile it flowed well...until studios tried to bust people for ''bootlegging'' these films from the 20s.  Even Mary Pickford referred to that resurgence as 'bootleggers' in her interview with Kevin Brownlow, despite the now obvious view that those very people were the last to keep silent film alive.

A few collectors were prosecuted or fined, and all of a sudden everyone seemed to go quiet.  A lot of these types tended to hoard or be secretive anyways, and for the sincere film fans the fear they could be prosecuted didn't exactly open them up to selling or trading, even when VHS and Laserdisc came around.  Even now Brownlow's "Hollywood" (an epic documentary about silent film complete with clips and interviews) can't legally be released on DVD, the studios want royalties for these films they tend to forget exist and for the most part they will never make money on (and never intend to really make money on.)

So that means since Theda's death there are 4 possible survival methods.  1) A hoarder/collector has some of her films and either is unaware of it or does not wish to share.  2) Some collector somewhere has some of her films and is either fearful or wants lots of money.  3) Some studio or archive has her films somewhere unmarked and unknown...waiting for their big reveal.  Or 4) Her films are somewhere random in this world (such as an attic or under a pool or building or landfill) and have yet to be found.


The hoarder/collector method is one people pray on the most.  "Beyond the Rocks" was thought lost until a crazy old rich guy died and his random film collection was given to the Dutch Film Institute.  Its unclear if he knew what he had or if he wanted to keep it for himself.  Either way it was 'refound' and re-released in 2005.  Many Olive Thomas films have also been found this way (Olive's film fame took place the same time as Theda's, however she was not signed with FOX). 

While collectors can be an odd bunch the 'fearful' method seems insane in this day and age.  All Theda's films are public domain, and all her lost ones were made before 1923 and are thus automatically public domain.  Nobody would have a copyright claim to them so thus no one could be prosecuted for owning or releasing them.  As for money this could go back to the crazy hoarder theory, and it is a popular wish as well.  The George Eastman house owns the few seconds of Cleopatra that still survives (literally a head turn).  For this few seconds of film they charge $10,000 to use it in any media such as a documentary or film.  So far only one thing has used it, the documentary "The Woman with the Hungry Eyes" which has not yet seen a DVD release. 

Number 3 could be perhaps the most likely scenario of all.  Film archives all over the world are severely underfunded.  The big 'New Zealand Find' wasn't really a ''find''...the 75 films were already in New Zealand's archives.  But New Zealand's archive is underfunded and thus they have been ordered to only restore their own native films, and do a ship out deal for any others (which is exactly what they did with those 75).  It appears they were not aware just what rarities they had until it was pointed out.

Add to this many film archives are secretive, continuing that great collector tradition.  Certain unnamed archives (national ones at that) are thought to be extremely secretive and possibly hiding the knowledge of holding a film, particularly one of Theda's as hers are the most sought after.  This could either be extremely crazy, or extremely dead on.  Either way no one knows for sure.  Camille was thought to be in this circumstance until it was found to be Clara Kimball Young's version instead.  Rumors that a certain archive has "Madam Du Barry" still run rampant; though the archive claims its Pola Negri's version.

Whether some secretive hoarding is going on or not, the 'there but not found' scenario is the most likely.  Many Olive Thomas films have also been found this way.  A lot of these archives just don't know what they have, and they don't have the money to figure it out let alone restore everything.  "Cleopatra" could be languishing in some unknown tin somewhere in some archive right under our noses...but until the archives get some funding or donations we'll never know. 

Finally the 4th option is in a similar vein with similar probability.  MANY silent films have been found in the damndest places, including under a swimming pool and in attics.  Why?  Lord knows.  A lot of these reveals happen in Canada, random European countries, and Australia.  Many of these were the 'last of the line' distribution channels and orders were to throw the films away when done with them.  So they were buried or done away with; if not kept by a crafty projectionist (and thus going to attic infamy.)

One thing I wonder is just how likely this is for Theda Bara in particular?  No one mentions what kind of foreign distribution FOX had.  And even worse 1915 to 1918 was basically World War 1 for most of Europe.  While our films did get overseas, this was surely a trying time.  More than anything everyone writes of Theda's popularity in the US, never in foreign markets.  I kinda think the chances her films are somewhere random in Australia or Russia is slim to none.  Of course they could have made their way after the War.  Or they could have been literally bootlegged.  Or they could be buried in some attic right here in the US.  Films do indeed turn up in the damndest places.


So...Could Theda Bara's films be rediscovered?  Well there is always the chance in hell.  And any of the above scenarios could very well play out.  But...is it likely?  Will we have an amazing Theda Bara rediscovery...ever?

Theda was wildly popular for her 4 years.  And she made many important films including "Romeo and Juliet", "Cleopatra", "Carmen", "Salome", and "Madam Du Barry".  Many prints were out there, but it was at such a random time in film history.  Given the absolute explosion in 1937 those stray prints from 1915 to 1919 are all that may still be.  And they would have had to survive 2 World Wars, natural nitrate issues, and probably improper storage.  Its possible (hell a Pearl White film was just found as was a 1914 Mabel Normand film), but the odds are not high.

I think the only way we'll ever even HOPE to find a Theda Bara film is to put a priority out.  Some organized group would have to raise funds for film archives and make a very big publicity splash that 'Hey seriously...we'll give you money for  Theda films!'  Sure collectors know they could get a huge price for a Theda Bara film, but it does no good if the film is unmarked in a random archive or buried under a swimming pool somewhere.  And while film buffs know to mourn the loss of such films, Average Joe doesn't.  Average Joe didn't know films used to be in black and white, let alone silent...even if he knows the face of Theda Bara.

I have a lot of praise for Hugh Neely's "The Woman with the Hungry Eyes" which I've had the pleasure of seeing.  I also have praise for Eve Golden's Theda Bara biography, "VAMP".  But both also make me horribly sad, and should make every film and fashion fan horribly sad.  Theda Bara is so lost to us.  Her story and her films.  By the time anyone cared enough to think about it, most people who knew her were gone.  In fact no one knew of Joan Craig until "The Woman with the Hungry Eyes" came out in 2005, Craig had a random encounter with a woman who had seen the documentary.  She had no clue how priceless her Theda Bara story was.  Not much has been heard since then, though there was an auction of some of her Theda costumes and valuables (Theda gave her most of her film possessions before her death) that took place in 2008.  Craig is probably literally one of the last people to have actually known Theda in more than passing.  Sadly as said no biographies or documentaries have been updated since the discovery of Joan Craig.  "VAMP" is good, but very very thin.  Its all that could be found in 1996.

While we can appreciate the images of Theda Bara (and there are many) we can't even begin to grasp her importance without her films.  Of her surviving films only the very beginning of her career ("A Fool There Was" and "East Lynne) and very end of her career ("The Unchastened Woman", "Madam Mystery") still exist.  You can see there was a progress from the girl with the falling strap and confusion over the camera in "A Fool There Was" and the mature and comedic matron of "The Unchastened Woman".  While "A Fool There Was" is iconic and important to her history (even though she's barely in it), it is by no means a really good judge of her screen image or acting.  It's too static even for 1914.  But its all we have.  Its really the only 'vamping' we have of a woman known for vamping.  And frankly her vamping is fantastic in it.


But everything iconic is gone.  "Cleopatra" influenced everyone from DeMille to Elizabeth Taylor to Marilyn Monroe.  "Salome" was said to be even sexier.  And personally I mourn for what I am sure is the kitsch of "Madam Du Barry" and "Kathleen Mavourneen".  Theda could be freakin Marilyn Monroe iconic if we just HAD SOME OF HER FILMS!  Sure they could be stiff or horrible or dated even for their dates (FOX was known to be cheap and rush her in B pictures when not doing super productions as the above)...but we'll never know unless they're found.  A recreation with stills only goes so far.  And even those are sparse (one is being done for Cleopatra, nothing else seems to be out there.)

And I think that's what we mourn the most of Theda Bara.  We mourn the lost youth and films that Louise Brooks could have had, had she not been such a stubborn bitch.  We mourn the films we could have had, had Rudolph Valentino not gone on strike in 1923, or died at the height of his superstardom.  And we mourn for the infamously lost films of Lon Chaney.  But for all 3 of those we have the jist.  All 3 have decent survival rates, and their most iconic films still exist and can still be enjoyed today.

But not Theda Bara.  Her career ended when she grew tired of vamping and her popularity waned with the soon to be flapper filled world.  She made 43 films, 41 of those are features.  7 of those films are iconic classics, yet only 1 of the 7 exists.  Her only sin was being famous during the 1910s and working for FOX, something that would unforeseeabley wipe her legacy clean.

"Could Theda Bara's films be rediscovered?"  Maybe.  But its not very likely.  I need a drink now...

Charlie Chaplin: A Woman of Paris

The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica is running a mini Chaplin fest this week and next week.  Despite having to take 5 hours of bussing that includes almost being stranded in the most ghetto parts of LA if I'm 5 minutes late, well, I'm going (if anyone would like to donate me a car...particularly a Jaguar...I'd kiss your face).  But due to such restrictions I've had to limit my selection of the 10 day festival to 5, possibly 4 due to a Hollywood Heritage event the same night as Limelight.  Despite these humongous limitations I've decided I'd write articles for each of the films I've seen, some for the first time and some not.  Let the proselytizing begin!


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.

Charlie Chaplin: City Lights

Approaching the subject of his mightiness the almighty Holy Charlie Chaplin is a HUGE thing for me.  I've tried to a few times before, but it felt to vast.  A lot like D.W. Griffith its one of those subjects you feel you need years of study for.  Especially when you throw in the 'us hoity toity types want heavily worded opinions that only snobs can understanding; comparing Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd'.

Someone wrote me a few weeks ago saying that some message board had a comment calling Charlie too 'vulgar' for their liking, instead preferring Keaton.  They asked if I could write something as I write so 'eloquently'...a literal tall order indeed!

The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica is running a mini Chaplin fest this week and next week.  Despite having to take 5 hours of bussing that includes almost being stranded in the most ghetto parts of LA if I'm 5 minutes late, well, I'm going (if anyone would like to donate me a car...particularly a Jaguar...I'd kiss your face).  But due to such restrictions I've had to limit my selection of the 10 day festival to 5, possibly 4 due to a Hollywood Heritage event the same night as Limelight.  Despite these humongous limitations I've decided I'd write articles for each of the films I've seen, some for the first time and some not.  Let the proselytizing begin!


 Obvious Warning: Spoilers of a 1931 film ahead.  If you don't like spoilers, don't read and go buy the damn box set already.

City Lights is one of my most favorite movies ever, and it IS a masterpiece even if you are a Keaton or Lloyd heretic.  I'd seen it once before, and it moved me so deeply I felt it for days.  But I was certain my life would not be complete unless I could see it on the big screen.  I was totally right.

Many of the pretentious people who compare 'the Big 3' (as well as fans of either just Keaton or Lloyd) usually cite Charlie Chaplin's Tramp character as more 'vulgar' than the other two.  One person compared Keaton and Chaplin by saying Keaton's character fought if he had to, then went on his way...while Charlie's Tramp would probably cut you in your sleep just for fun.  That the Tramp 'liked' fighting.  I disagree.  And City Lights backs me up.

The Tramp is indeed a touch 'vulgar'...in that fun sort of way which makes Charlie all the more relatable to today's audiences.  In the opening scene he gets his pants caught on the sword of the statue during the national anthem, before getting caught in a position that has him 'thumbing his nose' (an old timey way to flip off people) via the statue.  Later while fighting the little urchin newspaper kids he essentially flips them off for all of a split second (as he puts his torn glove back on) before oggling a nude statue while pretending to be looking at a more modest piece.


He does get in fights, but usually in defense of himself or a lady...or what he drunkenly perceives as a lady in need (such as the dinner scene).  He can be a little brat, but he doesn't go out of his way to fight.  When he fights, there's usually a reason behind it in a good majority of his films.

One of the best examples of this comes straight from City Lights.  In the opening 'about town' scene the newspaper urchins pick a fight with him.  The Tramp shoos them off and goes about his day, dignity intact.  He may be poor but he's having a grand ol time, eye humping a statue and falling in love with the flower girl.

Later after he's released from doing a several month stint in jail (for a crime he didn't commit) he's a different man.  He walks downtrodden, as if he's invisible.  When the newspaper urchins pick on him this time he tries his best to ignore them, in a 'leave me alone' wounded puppy sort of way.  Finally they rip his undies, causing him to fight them off.  Once done he goes back to being invisible, head down, looking in the gutter where he sees the girl's flower sweepings thus setting up the famous ending.

Charlie always said the Tramp was a man who has an air about him even though he's obviously a bum.  He's a man who might have once had some wealth; he has manners and actions of a more upper class sort of man.  Despite being impoverished he goes about his business (through a good chunk of his films) in a dignified sort of way, such as the opening of "City Lights" or even "The Kid".  He walks tall, has his cane, and his little hat.  Since I haven't seen all of his shorts I may be going out on a limb with this statement but I can say through his features I think the only time we actually see him beaten down is "City Lights".  He goes to jail in "Modern Times" but actually prefers it to his life (well after a coke fueled binge he thwarted an escape attempt so he was treated well).  He faces starvation and almost certain death in "The Gold Rush" but even then he eats his shoes like a gent.  No, City Lights seems to be the only time he lost all that dignity.

When people say Charlie's Tramp LIKES to fight, he'd cut you even if he had his mansion, this is what they're missing out on.  The Tramp once had wealth or some sort of standing, and in many of his films he obtains it again and again...usually to be thwarted and have to gain it one more time (such as the drunk Millionaire ''forgetting'' him, or the cafe job in Modern Times).  Charlie's Tramp fights because he HAS to, and at the moment it is all he knows.  A great example of this in City Lights is when he drives the Millionaire's car, in the Millionaire's clothes, and pushes a bum out of the way for a cigar butt on the ground.  Hilarious, but poignant to understanding the Chaplin characterization.

The Tramp isn't 'vulgar' or 'looking for a fight', at least in the features.  If you've ever lived in fear of being one boot away from losing your home, your job, or your money well you would know how the Tramp feels (most silent film studiers seem to be doctorate holding rich kids; who either think Glasses was spot on or they have that emo link to Keaton).  A lot of people are in that position now just as they were in 1931.  If you've never had to fear having nothing to eat; well then you will never ''get'' The Tramp.  He fights because he's lost it all, and he'll probably go on to lose it all again during the course of the film.  He's optimistic ("The birds will sing tomorrow!") and keeps on going, but he's not stupid enough to think he could never fall again.  The first Depression era generation had this attitude: if you've known anyone who grew up in the 30s they likely had/have odd habits of drying out plastic bags or saving every last bit of ketchup for the same reason.  Mary Pickford had millions but was notoriously stingy (except with charity) as she lived in constant fear of seeing that impoverished life she had once known.  People have also said this of Chaplin, while others refute it (including Louise Brooks).

While City Lights is epic in its depiction of the Tramp its also epic in the 'best' of Chaplin.  To me there are two key things to any Chaplin film: when he falls in love, and when he gets smashed.  I LOVE his drunk characterizations, particularly how things seem to find their way down his pants (in this case, more booze.)


And while the comedy is golden ("Am I driving?"...the one line that makes you wish this was a talkie) its the sentimental that makes this film for me.  The first time I watched it I enjoyed the comedic bits, but kept waiting to see what would happen with the girl.  Chaplin was a sentimentalist to rival Griffith, yet everything comes off so damn sincere.  Charlie in love is perhaps one of the best things to see on screen (and considering he literally would chose leading ladies based on his infatuation of the moment well...all the more so).  And it kills everything 'vulgar' about the Tramp.

True the shorts Tramp was a little more vulgar about the ladies, but even then not anything more so than Keaton or Lloyd (especially Lloyd).  In the features the Tramp is pure love over lust.  In City Lights I think the best way this is shown is the oogling of the statue vs how sweetly he watches the blind girl, first at the park and later through the window (yes...no matter how stalkery that sounds.)  He's a freakin Tramp that just ''stole'' $10,000 (about $100,000 in today's money) in the eyes of the police and he knows he's going to jail.  Yet all he asks for his a kiss on the hand.  Hell you could ask for way more TODAY for that price, let alone one so literally steep.  He tried everything from sweeping up horse shit to being beaten in the face to legitimately earn money, and then even though he didn't steal it he knows this $10,000 will land him in jail for several months...all to rescue the girl he is madly in love with.

The last scene is the most epic one; the one that makes this film iconic.  The blind girl is no longer blind, and spots the poor trying to be invisible tramp being harassed by the urchins.  He spots her and stares like a mad man.  She feels bad for this 'tramp' and goes to give him a flower (to replace the one from the gutter) and a bit of money.  Handing him the money she realizes who he is.  "Yes I can see now..." and the film ends.  We don't know what happens next.  We're left to go "OMG" instead.

What's so freakin brilliant about Chaplin, and particularly City Lights, is he could play on your deepest emotions.  One critic noted that Chaplin spoke to the 'high school nerd who was stood up' in all of us.  Of course since critics are never women they don't count our reactions in.  I think most people relate to the gender on the screen, thus why men love John Wayne and women love (inexplicably) Sarah Jessica Parker.  Or in more classic terms its why you see all sorts of Westerns at Cinecon but rarely anything with a female lead that can't be purely oogled or rare.  Or why Mabel Normand/Greta Garbo screenings are so sparsely populated.

Charlie is one of the few leads that can reach beyond this.  When watching Rudolph Valentino I'm not relating to him; I'm more so hoping he'll save the day and be sexy and brooding while doing it.  Even when watching Harold Lloyd I'm not relating, but I do wish him well along the way (though I did scream while watching "Safety Last"...but who wouldn't?)  More than anything I can really get into a well acted vampy or flappery film, as its easier to relate to the woman lead as a woman.


But with Charlie I think every woman or man can step into that role in City Lights.  I'm not relating to Virginia Cherrill going "Oh that poor thing...yeah she better at least pay him back but who would sleep with a bum?"  I'm more relating to Charlie.  I can't speak for men but it seems to me I've seen more women in unrequited love than men (of course maybe I just know a lot of dreamers).  I've seen women who would do anything for a man who may or may not appreciate it, hoping he'll one day love them back.  I've also seen women hoping to be perfect (in money, looks, or success) enough for their love, and when they're not they'd be mortified to be put on the spot.  Sure men get rejected and put their heart on the line, but I'd bet dollars to donuts women could relate to the Tramp in this scene more than any man.  A man may get rejected, but only a woman (at least in this day and age) would sink their heart so deeply into something to have it turn out like this.  Men are too busy with Xboxs and Porn these days to think THAT deeply.  Maybe in the 30s (okay maybe they had Tijuana Bibles and Radio Shows...same difference), but not now.

Charlie's characterizations speak to the loser in all of us.  The most deep hidden away corners we have.  Mary Pickford could make you cry for Little Annie Rooney's Daddy, or gasp for the baby's crossing the Swamp in "Sparrows" (a film she noted as 'Even Charlie liked')...but none of us, even in the 20s, could as a mass population relate to such a thing.  Sure SOMEONE may have grown up on a baby farm, or had their Dad killed, but EVERYONE has felt like a loser outcast at some point; especially in love.

I think in all his films there are two grand moments in this vein.  In "The Gold Rush" the 'New Years Eve' scene can make you feel like a rejected 13 year old all over again.  And in City Lights the ending can shake you for days.

And that is why Charlie Chaplin is a genius never to be rivaled.  And why City Lights is a fucking masterpiece.  Literally no other words are needed.

You can buy City Lights here.  And for those wondering there is a Virginia Cherrill biography.  You can buy it here.