Sterling again, though without the goatee, and the gulf betwen him and Chaplin and Arbuckle is certainly... notable. Fatty has by far the lesser role of the three of them here, but it's still nice having him around. The three comedians are rivals for a hat-check girl's affections at the local dance hall. Fatty and Sterling are musicians, Charlie is a suave drunk. There's no nore to it than that, but it's different enough to be very watchable.
Chaplin is the very model of subtlety, understatement and poise- he is without his moustache here, and he just looks like he did in all those old newsreel films: young, fresh, innocent and English, with a hell of a head of hair and wildly excited eyes. He has a couple of fight scenes with Sterling and here at least the great gesticulator is... good. Sterling takes a good fall, a spinning eye-catching collapse and back up again. The fight scenes momentarily becomes dances themselves. But wherever he is and whatever he is doing, you can't help watching Chaplin. We are watching him with hindsight of course because of what he became, but even if you're judging him on what he is, you're watching someone who shouldn't have been allowed to fill the same screen as Ford Sterling. He is so clearly putting the older comedian to shame with every movement he makes.
Showing posts with label Charles Chaplin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Chaplin. Show all posts
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Monday, 9 April 2012
Easy Street (Chaplin 1917)
One more chance then.
And I'm glad I watched 'Easy Street', because this is great. I think the first thing to say is that it's got a structure, a satisfying structure- beginning, middle, end. And the humour has a resonance because of that.
Charlie, the tramp, is inspired by religion (and Edna)- he becomes a cop on the unruly Easy Street, lorded over by bully Eric Campbell. Taming the bully, he transforms Easy Street and brings hope (and religion) (and Edna) to the community. Yeah, so stripped bare like that it sounds a bit corny, but it works just fine. The heart of the film is the encounter with Campbell, and this is so well done. The initial scene between them is one long take- the cop patrolling his new beat, becoming aware of this huge bruiser of a man prowling around, and then the cop's attempts to act nonchalant as his movements are aggressively mirrored- it isn't hilarious, but it's so beautifully done, really precise and powerful. Each situation in the film develops from the last- structure again. The final scene is a ludicrously rose-tinted glasses view of the world of course, but that's okay- it's charming, and by this point in the film you're ready to embrace it.
There's something genuine too in the transformation of Charlie's character here- on the simplest level he gets his redemption when he returns the collection box to the church, but there is genuine development in his worldview too. At the onset, he is is his own universe- his hunger and his poverty: there is nothing beyond that. He grows from exisiting for himself to his moment of misguided 'charity' with the bully's wife, and from here to his attainment of 'power', a power he uses over the community as a unifying force. That's what the love of a good woman can do. I think the film's implying that that's what religion can do as well, but I'm not sold on the sincerity of this implication.
And I'm glad I watched 'Easy Street', because this is great. I think the first thing to say is that it's got a structure, a satisfying structure- beginning, middle, end. And the humour has a resonance because of that.
Charlie, the tramp, is inspired by religion (and Edna)- he becomes a cop on the unruly Easy Street, lorded over by bully Eric Campbell. Taming the bully, he transforms Easy Street and brings hope (and religion) (and Edna) to the community. Yeah, so stripped bare like that it sounds a bit corny, but it works just fine. The heart of the film is the encounter with Campbell, and this is so well done. The initial scene between them is one long take- the cop patrolling his new beat, becoming aware of this huge bruiser of a man prowling around, and then the cop's attempts to act nonchalant as his movements are aggressively mirrored- it isn't hilarious, but it's so beautifully done, really precise and powerful. Each situation in the film develops from the last- structure again. The final scene is a ludicrously rose-tinted glasses view of the world of course, but that's okay- it's charming, and by this point in the film you're ready to embrace it.
There's something genuine too in the transformation of Charlie's character here- on the simplest level he gets his redemption when he returns the collection box to the church, but there is genuine development in his worldview too. At the onset, he is is his own universe- his hunger and his poverty: there is nothing beyond that. He grows from exisiting for himself to his moment of misguided 'charity' with the bully's wife, and from here to his attainment of 'power', a power he uses over the community as a unifying force. That's what the love of a good woman can do. I think the film's implying that that's what religion can do as well, but I'm not sold on the sincerity of this implication.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
The Rink (Chaplin 1916)
Well that's enough Chaplin for a while.
I don't have a prejudice against Chaplin, and if anything I've gone into these Mutual films expecting perhaps a little too much, but just like 'The Immigrant', I found 'The Rink' pretty tiresome. Brilliant, yeah of course- but tiresome. Someone explain to me why, because as with 'The Immigrant' I can't really explain it. I'm not enjoying the character at all- the character circa 1916 anyway, with the tendency to kick people in the pants and throw punches all over the place, but with the tendency towards tendeness and sentimentality thrown into the mix as well. Give me one or the other. And so I can appreciate what Chaplin is doing here, but I'm not enjoying it at all.
With a day job as an incompetent waiter in a swanky restaurant, feuding with his bosses and his colleagues, Charlie spends his free time at the skating rink next door, causing mayhem, getting into fights, flirting with the girls. There's no particular plot beyond that- he makes out with Edna, he tangles with Eric Campbell. The little bits of business, the hat and cane stuff, can be appreciated by anyone- here Chaplin is irresistible. Tellingly this stuff is detatched from the character and the film- it is just business, it's pantomime. You could watch it over and over again and love it just as much. Some of the skating rink stuff is lively and fun. And beyond that I'm struggling. So I'm going to pass. I'll revisit ths stuff one day.
I don't have a prejudice against Chaplin, and if anything I've gone into these Mutual films expecting perhaps a little too much, but just like 'The Immigrant', I found 'The Rink' pretty tiresome. Brilliant, yeah of course- but tiresome. Someone explain to me why, because as with 'The Immigrant' I can't really explain it. I'm not enjoying the character at all- the character circa 1916 anyway, with the tendency to kick people in the pants and throw punches all over the place, but with the tendency towards tendeness and sentimentality thrown into the mix as well. Give me one or the other. And so I can appreciate what Chaplin is doing here, but I'm not enjoying it at all.
With a day job as an incompetent waiter in a swanky restaurant, feuding with his bosses and his colleagues, Charlie spends his free time at the skating rink next door, causing mayhem, getting into fights, flirting with the girls. There's no particular plot beyond that- he makes out with Edna, he tangles with Eric Campbell. The little bits of business, the hat and cane stuff, can be appreciated by anyone- here Chaplin is irresistible. Tellingly this stuff is detatched from the character and the film- it is just business, it's pantomime. You could watch it over and over again and love it just as much. Some of the skating rink stuff is lively and fun. And beyond that I'm struggling. So I'm going to pass. I'll revisit ths stuff one day.
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Mabel's Strange Predicament (Normand / Chaplin 1914)
This was a tiny joy and I really wasn't expecting it to be. Perhaps that's the thing- it's all about expectations. The Chaplin Mutuals were going to be masterpieces, the Chaplin Keystones were going to be simple-minded, barbaric slugfests. And it was silly of me to be thinking like that, even subconsciously. A lot of the other Kesytones I've seen I've really enjoyed. And I really enjoyed this one. Smile on my face all the way through. Lousy DVD print though- French intertitles, inappropriate music, and I'm not even sure the whole thing was there. But the film itself? I loved it.
And such a great, simple farce idea- Mabel is locked out of her hotel room in her pyjamas. After an encounter with an amorous drunk (Chaplin really doesn't seem to be playing a tramp here, it's just the same costume isn't it?) she ends up under Chester Conklin's bed while his wife is out of the room. So simple, and so pregnant with possibilities for the aspiring slapstick hound.
Charlie is actually rather more than a bit player here- whether it's a question of the presentation of the surviving material or not I couldn't say, but his amount of screentime seems pretty much equal with Mabel's: he has whole scenes to himself and he makes the most of them. He is hypnotic for all manner of reasons. Mabel herself is extraordinarily cute, but I've seen her better than this- she is outshone in the scene she shares with Chaplin in the hotel corridor. I'm not buying her the way I'm buying Chaplin. Her movements belong to another age, Chaplin's belong to every age. And I like Mabel Normand, don't get me wrong.
And such a great, simple farce idea- Mabel is locked out of her hotel room in her pyjamas. After an encounter with an amorous drunk (Chaplin really doesn't seem to be playing a tramp here, it's just the same costume isn't it?) she ends up under Chester Conklin's bed while his wife is out of the room. So simple, and so pregnant with possibilities for the aspiring slapstick hound.
Charlie is actually rather more than a bit player here- whether it's a question of the presentation of the surviving material or not I couldn't say, but his amount of screentime seems pretty much equal with Mabel's: he has whole scenes to himself and he makes the most of them. He is hypnotic for all manner of reasons. Mabel herself is extraordinarily cute, but I've seen her better than this- she is outshone in the scene she shares with Chaplin in the hotel corridor. I'm not buying her the way I'm buying Chaplin. Her movements belong to another age, Chaplin's belong to every age. And I like Mabel Normand, don't get me wrong.
The Immigrant (Chaplin 1917)
Edna Purviance was so much more appealing here, back in 1917, than she was in 'The Kid'. Even if I hadn't heard the stories of alcoholism there's a freshness to her here that's a treat to see- fundamentally she's still in there for drama rather than comedy, but there's a twinkle in her eye here and she makes the performance memorable.
This is a much lauded Chaplin Mutual, and it's very well done, and I didn't care for it as much as I wanted to, which is why I'm wasting words on Edna Purviance while I try and figure out why it didn't hit home for me.
One or two of the ideas seemed a little milked. A little stretched. Breaking point beckons. Maybe even three of the ideas. The lurching of the boat from side to side. The card game. Charlie's problems with the bill in the restaurant in the promised land. These were all great ideas, and maybe it's just me- really, maybe it's just me- but I was watching them thinking: enough already. Move on. Perhaps this is the great drawback of watching these things on DVD- they were crafted for large audiences, of course they were, and what can be expertly paced for a huge room of hysterical punters isn't going to work so well in a more intimate one-on-one encounter.
I watched this and 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' over the course of the same day, and 'The Immigrant' isn't the film I'd be watching on DVD again out of choice. Not given those two options it isn't. This is a far more 'brilliant' film in every way, but I found myself struggling to care about it.
The little touches though- ah, they make it worthwhile. Charlie catching a fish in the opening scene, his shuffling in the card game, some of the pantomime stuff in the restaurant (especially with his hat)- these are beautiful, beautiful moments. I'd just rather snip them out of the film and watch them in isolation if that's okay with you. That okay? We'll do that and say no more about it. And if some great auditorium somewhere decides to showcase the Chaplin Mutuals, maybe I'll give it another chance then.
This is a much lauded Chaplin Mutual, and it's very well done, and I didn't care for it as much as I wanted to, which is why I'm wasting words on Edna Purviance while I try and figure out why it didn't hit home for me.
One or two of the ideas seemed a little milked. A little stretched. Breaking point beckons. Maybe even three of the ideas. The lurching of the boat from side to side. The card game. Charlie's problems with the bill in the restaurant in the promised land. These were all great ideas, and maybe it's just me- really, maybe it's just me- but I was watching them thinking: enough already. Move on. Perhaps this is the great drawback of watching these things on DVD- they were crafted for large audiences, of course they were, and what can be expertly paced for a huge room of hysterical punters isn't going to work so well in a more intimate one-on-one encounter.
I watched this and 'Mabel's Strange Predicament' over the course of the same day, and 'The Immigrant' isn't the film I'd be watching on DVD again out of choice. Not given those two options it isn't. This is a far more 'brilliant' film in every way, but I found myself struggling to care about it.
The little touches though- ah, they make it worthwhile. Charlie catching a fish in the opening scene, his shuffling in the card game, some of the pantomime stuff in the restaurant (especially with his hat)- these are beautiful, beautiful moments. I'd just rather snip them out of the film and watch them in isolation if that's okay with you. That okay? We'll do that and say no more about it. And if some great auditorium somewhere decides to showcase the Chaplin Mutuals, maybe I'll give it another chance then.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
The Kid (Chaplin 1921)
No question that Chaplin was blessed by the presence of Jackie Coogan here- 'The Kid' is unthinkable without him, and that much-abused word 'chemistry' is evident in every scene they share together. 'The Kid' is a blend of slapstick and sentiment as we all know, but it's important to note I think just how affecting the sentiment can be. My wee seven year old companion was snuffling beside me. The two lead perforamnces seem so modern as well- so fresh and full of vigour. And I think that rather shows up Edna Purviance I'm afraid, who is Dramatic Silent Actress here and no more. Granted, that's all Chaplin really asked of her, but watching the film 90 years on there's no question who's been left behind.
It's a long, long time since I've watched a Chaplin film and I don't recall 'The Kid' being a particular favourite back in the day, but I enjoyed it, and the scenes that worked the best- the fantastic streetfight scene in particular- are absolute showstopers. The dream scene towards the end though? You can keep that. There's self-indulgence writ large for you. Charles Reisner plays Chaplin's striking fight opponent.
It's a long, long time since I've watched a Chaplin film and I don't recall 'The Kid' being a particular favourite back in the day, but I enjoyed it, and the scenes that worked the best- the fantastic streetfight scene in particular- are absolute showstopers. The dream scene towards the end though? You can keep that. There's self-indulgence writ large for you. Charles Reisner plays Chaplin's striking fight opponent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)