Statute of Liberty scene = political statement, irony
Hanhuck
Kenneth Lynn? LOL! Pages 202-3: "The vision of hardship in The Immigrant has a
political dimension as well. At the end of the first part of the picture --
which Chaplin did not film until May 1917, after he had completed the second
part -- the arrival of the immigrants' ship in New York harbor occasions an
ironic comment. Just as the Statue of Liberty comes thrillingly into view and a
title card announces, "Arrival in the Land of Liberty," immigration inspectors
who have come aboard herd the passengers against a rail on the deck and rope
them off as if they were cattle. The faces of the confined are solemn. Welcome
to the Land of Liberty! The inclusion of this scene took a certain amount of
courage on Chaplin's part. Even before the assaults on civil liberties that
followed on the heels of Woodrow Wilson's request to the Congress on April 2,
1917, for a declaration of war against Germany, a wave of repressive sentiment
had been building. Thus a xenophobic literacy-test bill had passed the Congress
in February 1917, amid confident predictions that it would effectively shut off
the flow of immigration from southern and eastern Europe. ... Meanwhile, the
federal Committee on Public Information had busied itself with the task of
persuading the public that the war was an expression of one-hundred-percent
Americanism from which no true patriot would utter a word of dissent. ... Those
who spoke out against intolerance in wartime America often came under attack
themselves. It was admirable and more than a little surprising that Chaplin was
willing to take that risk, in view of his vulnerability as a foreigner who had
worked in the United States since 1913 without evincing the slightest interest
in applying for citizenship, and who seemed quite content, furthermore, to
forgo military service. ..."
(2) Ironic again that the movie _Chaplin_ (not my favorite by any stretch) had
a fairly lengthy scene in which brother Sid argued with Chaplin against the
inclusion of the Statue of Liberty scene.
(3) With respect to the Carlyle Robinson Statue of Liberty scene anecdote found
in David Robinson's CC bio, I believe CC means that the scene is political and
realistic but not "too much" so. Just one page prior to this anecdote (in the
paperback, p. 199) David Robinson writes "In a few takes around number 763
Chaplin invented a scene which was outrageous in its irony, and remains to this
day astounding. As the sequence appears in the finished film, we see a distant
view of the Statue of Liberty. A title announces 'Arrival in the Land of
Liberty'. On the deck of the boat the huddled masses stand -- and the
immigration authorities suddenly arrive to throw a rope around them, as if they
were so many cattle."
(4) In Theodore Huff's bio of CC, pp. 80-81, he writes: "Sentiment and social
satire are adroitly worked into the story. ... "The arrival in the Land of
Liberty." As the ship passes the Statue of Liberty, the passengers are shoved
and roped in like cattle, and Charlie takes a quizzical second look at the
statue."
Hannah
Hanhuck
Yes, I'd love a STATUTE of liberty since the ERA failed.
I love keyboarding at 2:30am. :)
hdh
RFCSAC627N
>As for the other writers, I place Chaplin's opinion above their opinion.
Chaplin's opinion?! You mean you're basing your view strictly on what CC
*may* have said to Joe Franklin at some point. That's it?
>Sean
>http://member.aol.com/SeMurph/index.html
>
>"I & I, in creation where one's nature neither honors nor forgives. I & I,
>one
>said to the other, no man sees my face and lives." B.Dylan
And maybe A HARD RAIN'S A- GONNA FALL is just a weather report. I seem to
recall Bob Dylan denying that his songs had any special meaning. (:
Richard Carnahan
SeMurph
>from
>Kenneth Lynn? LOL! Pages 202-3: "The vision of hardship in The Immigrant has
>a
If Lynn is righ tabout this, he must be right that woman in The Rink is
masterbating...
As for the other writers, I place Chaplin's opinion above their opinion. Too
bad he wasn't more forthright about the woman in The Rink.
DzubeG
point. I see the irony of the moment, not some political statement about
freedom in America, just a funny scene about being roped off as one enters
the"Land of the Free." Maybe that is what CC meant when he said it was
political but not so much so.
Deborah
David Totheroh
SeMurph wrote:
> >(1) Isn't it ironic (music, please) that Hannah finds support for her view
> >from
> >Kenneth Lynn? LOL! Pages 202-3: "The vision of hardship in The Immigrant has
> >a
>
> If Lynn is righ tabout this, he must be right that woman in The Rink is
> masterbating...
And if this is an example of what constitutes logic in Sean's mind, then it
becomes patently obvious just how much credence one might want to place in his
'astute' observations re. The Immigrant.
> As for the other writers, I place Chaplin's opinion above their opinion.
And in doing so, continue the blindness you have exhibited with The Immigrant, by
failing to see that it is your *highly* filtered interpretation of what he said,
not *Chaplin's* meaning, that defines what you call Chaplin's opinion, which in
turn supports your position. Pretty circular logic, if you ask me.
To bad Chaplin can't come back to tell you it is *you* who are reading too much
into his comment to Syd, or whoever, during the screening room conversation.
When so many different people from such vastly different perspectives all agree
that they see an ironic socio-political meaning in something, wouldn't it be a red
flag, sorry, a caution sign, (wouldn't want anyone reading any undue political
meaning) to reexamine the basis for your position, instead of putting on the
blinders and digging in your heals?
Take another look at Chaplin's words, taking into account the context of the
times, as well as what is known about Chaplin's personality and perspectives, and
then tell me which of the two *interpretations*, yours or everyone else's, of the
meaning of Chaplin's words best fits *all* the facts.
In its simplest terms, isn't it at least as likely that Chaplin's comment was "It
shocks you because you see too much political content in it," and not "It shocks
you because you see any political content in it."
David
Crooner
>
>
>SeMurph wrote:
>
>> >(1) Isn't it ironic (music, please) that Hannah finds support for her
view
>> >from
>> >Kenneth Lynn? LOL! Pages 202-3: "The vision of hardship in The Immigrant
has
>> >a
>>
>> If Lynn is righ tabout this, he must be right that woman in The Rink is
>> masterbating...
>
>And if this is an example of what constitutes logic in Sean's mind, then it
>becomes patently obvious just how much credence one might want to place in
his
>'astute' observations re. The Immigrant.
David, would it be possible to discuss the issues
WITHOUT demeaning Sean in the process?
~ Crooner
David Totheroh
----------
In article <6o0bbu$qfj$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Crooner"
<cro...@erols.com> wrote:
I'll tell ya what, Lou. I promise I'll be more careful about that sort of
thing as soon as I see some indication that you have stopped demeaning
Chaplin in every other reference you make to him. As in (but certainly not
limited to) the following most recent:
Leslie:
>>Yeah, but she makes more money than he does & I doubt if
>>Lou can deal with that...
Lou:
>To keep this on topic, neither would Charlie.
The fact is that Chaplin was attracted to the famous, and women whose means
were well above the norm of that time. I dare say it would have been next to
impossible to find any woman who made more than Chaplin did, but the fact of
who he was frequently attracted to indicates that he had no problems with
women who made some significant bucks. So once again you've come up with an
unsubstantiated, demeaning characterization of Chaplin.
And don't give me the "Lighten up. It's just a joke" crap.'Cuz that's a
little too much like telling a Pole or Black that ethnic jokes are just
jokes and the fact that they are also demeaning slurs is no big deal.
You may not even be aware of how much you do it. But you should be, and you
ought to think about it. You perpetuate an untrue, exaggerated stereotype of
Chaplin in just the same way ethnic jokes do about race.
David
Crooner
Crooner comment...
>Leslie:
>>>Yeah, but she makes more money than he does & I doubt if
>>>Lou can deal with that...
>
>Lou:
>>To keep this on topic, neither would Charlie.
>
>The fact is that Chaplin was attracted to the famous, and women whose means
>were well above the norm of that time. I dare say it would have been next
to
>impossible to find any woman who made more than Chaplin did, but the fact
of
>who he was frequently attracted to indicates that he had no problems with
>women who made some significant bucks. So once again you've come up with an
>unsubstantiated, demeaning characterization of Chaplin.
Do you purposely look for the slightest things to
argue about? Of ALL the women he's known, the only
woman of means CC came close to actually marrying
was Pola Negri. But by and large, Charlie, being the
egotist that he was, would be hard pressed to find
contentment in a woman who was more important than
he was (not that Pola was) & who wasn't subserviant to
him & didn't dote on him. The women he married reflected
this, with the possible exception of Paulette Goddard.
>And don't give me the "Lighten up. It's just a joke" crap.'Cuz that's a
>little too much like telling a Pole or Black that ethnic jokes are just
>jokes and the fact that they are also demeaning slurs is no big deal.
>
>You may not even be aware of how much you do it. But you should be, and you
>ought to think about it. You perpetuate an untrue, exaggerated stereotype
of
>Chaplin in just the same way ethnic jokes do about race.
But David my comment was as much a humorous slight
on Charlie as Leslie meant it to be against me. And she
was right about me. I think I'd be hard pressed to marry
one more important and prestigious than me. And I think I am
right about Charlie too.
~ Crooner
George Shelps
<<I'll tell ya what, Lou. I promise I'll be more careful about that sort
of thing as soon as I see some indication that you have stopped
demeaning Chaplin in every other reference you make to him.>>
Good God, what sort of infantilism is *this*???
"Disagree with my idealistic notions of X historical figure and you will
feel my wrath."
Wasn't this the basis for the Thirty Years War?
SeMurph
>*may* have said to Joe Franklin at some point. That's it?
I'm not refering to the Joe Franklin quote.
> And maybe A HARD RAIN'S A- GONNA FALL is just a weather report. I seem to
>recall Bob Dylan denying that his songs had any special meaning. (:
No, actually, I remember him saying that "if they knew what the songs were
about I'd get a arrested!"
Sean
SeMurph
>becomes patently obvious just how much credence one might want to place in
>his
>'astute' observations re. The Immigrant.
No, actually, it was a JOKE. You read too much into my reply. But, then
again, if Lynn is so certain that the woman in The Rink is masturbating, it
becomes patently obvious just how much credence one might want to place in his
'astute' observations re. The Immigrant. (I apologize for the plagarism, but
you did such a good job that I couldn't resist!)
>When so many different people from such vastly different perspectives all
>agree
>that they see an ironic socio-political meaning in something, wouldn't it be
>a red
>flag, sorry, a caution sign, (wouldn't want anyone reading any undue
>political
>meaning) to reexamine the basis for your position, instead of putting on the
>blinders and digging in your heals?
In other words: majority rules? It seems to me that most people thought the
world was flat once upon a time.
I'm not digging in my heels at all. I have nothing to lose by saying I'm
wrong. In fact if you look back upon my prior posts, you'll see that I do it
frequently. I came here to learn, not to pontificate. Back when I first began
posting here, I argued that I didn't see any diliberate social or political
statements in the Mutuals at all. However, after discussions here, and a
careful analysis of the Mutuals themselves, and reading books about them, I
have come to the conclusion that there is indeed social commentary in them. I
WAS WRONG. I ADMIT IT. However, I am not going to blind accept "majority
opinion" when it directly counters something the artist said himself?
>
>Take another look at Chaplin's words, taking into account the context of the
>times, as well as what is known about Chaplin's personality and perspectives,
This is where you make your mistake. What you are essentially saying is,
forget what CC SAID and guess instead about what he was THINKING. Sorry, but
mind reading is beyond my capacity. That's why I don't ask anyone else to
read his mind in order to prove my point. All I ask is that people read the
text on a literal basis -- unbiased by the opinions that have built up over the
last eighty years.
I don't understand this at all. What are you afraid of? Is Chaplin somehow
diminished in your eyes if he didn't intend this joke to be a political
statement? Does everything have to be profound in some way? I can accept him
both as a comedian and as a commentator -- sometimes together and sometimes
separately.
This whole discussion reminds me of the Vincent Bryan debate a couple of months
ago. Some people on this newgroup seemed to grow quite agitated at the
suggestion that CC employed gagmen and scenario writers while at Mutual. In
order to pooh-pooh any contribution by Bryan on the films (which is reasonably
well-documented), they argued that Bryan was little more than an addict Charlie
hired as a charity case. (Of course, he never did any real writing!) Now
people are pooh-poohing CC's own words because his statements don't gel with
the accepted opinion of Huff and Lynn. I contend that Charlie knows Charlie
better than they do. Better than I do either.
>In its simplest terms, isn't it at least as likely that Chaplin's comment
was
>"It
>shocks you because you see too much political content in it," and not "It
>shocks
>you because you see any political content in it."
>
Likely? No. Possible. Of course.. However, what I think he really meant was
that "It shocks you because you read too much into it."
SeMurph
>WITHOUT demeaning Sean in the process?
I don't mind. To me, the funny thing is that, after spending so much time
attacking Lynn's viewpoint, he uses Lynn to attack me! I guess Lynn isn't an
idiot after all. (If he's right about The Immigrant, perhaps he right that CC
was a secret communist party member answerable only to the central committee.
Where I grew up, we never expected good milk from a sick cow.) Hannah, bless
her heart, at least acknowlegded the irony when she quoted him!
Still, I have no problems with David. Nine times-out-of-ten I agree with him.
I accept him as a true and valuable authority on Chaplin. I view most of his
posts as authoritative. I just disagree with him here.
By the way, since I have had Huff and Lynn and others thrown at me, I want to
say this. While those authors may know more facts and gossip about CC's than
most of the people on this board, I have found the analysis of the films much
interesting and astute -- so thanks all.
(Please don't think I'm sucking up -- feel free to attack.)
SeMurph
The problem is that he never said it was political but not so much so. That
was an interpretation of his words.
Still, thanks for presenting this middle ground. Let me leap upon before I am
consumed!
Constance Kuriyama
Sean writes:
>I don't understand this at all. What are you afraid of? Is Chaplin somehow
>diminished in your eyes if he didn't intend this joke to be a political
>statement? Does everything have to be profound in some way? I can accept him
>both as a comedian and as a commentator -- sometimes together and sometimes
>separately.
I don't get the impression that anyone here is "afraid" of anything--least
of all an anti-intellectual argument on the lines of "_Huckleberry Finn_ is
just a story for boys.
>This whole discussion reminds me of the Vincent Bryan debate a couple of months
>ago. Some people on this newgroup seemed to grow quite agitated at the
>suggestion that CC employed gagmen and scenario writers while at Mutual. In
>order to pooh-pooh any contribution by Bryan on the films (which is reasonably
>well-documented), they argued that Bryan was little more than an addict Charlie
>hired as a charity case. (Of course, he never did any real writing!)
I did not find the suggestions about Bryan "reasonably well-documented."
On the contrary, they were highly speculative, and as I understood it
were offered by the poster as such. It rather reminded me of the kind
of constant speculation that goes on in certain circles about the
authorship of Shakespeare's plays--and was just as well supported.
What I always wonder is, why bother to speculate? Whether Bryan
contributed a gag or two to Chaplin's films or not seems to me a highly
trivial issue. But it is usually someone who wants to aggrandize the
contribution of a relatively minor figure who tries to lay claim to the
work of a major artist like Chaplin or Shakespeare.
Now
>people are pooh-poohing CC's own words because his statements don't gel with
>the accepted opinion of Huff and Lynn.
I think what they're pooh-poohing is your highly partial interpretation of
them.
>>"It
>>shocks you because you see too much political content in it," and not "It
>>shocks
>>you because you see any political content in it."
>>
>Likely? No. Possible. Of course.. However, what I think he really meant was
>that "It shocks you because you read too much into it."
Now if he'd said "because you read something into it," I'd agree with you.
But that's not what he said.
Connie K.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--CBK--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Words can defeat the imagination." --Charlie Chaplin
SeMurph
What aspect don't you find well-documented? That he indeed worked for Chaplin
as a scenario writer -- or that he contributions to CC's films?
I find the claims that he wrote the story The Floorwalker particularly
interesting since I structurally unique among the Mutuals in a number of ways.
In saying this, I'm not implying that The Floorwalker wasn't CC's vision. From
all reports, he wanted to set a film in a department store before he even
started his Mutual contract. Still, I find The Floorwalker to be a bit of an
anomaly. (Then again, so is One A.M. but for other more obvious reasons.)
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, sem...@aol.com (SeMurph) says:
>>I did not find the suggestions about Bryan "reasonably well-documented."
>
>What aspect don't you find well-documented? That he indeed worked for Chaplin
>as a scenario writer -- or that he contributions to CC's films?
I don't dispute that he worked for Chaplin--lots of people did. Nor do
I doubt that an idea or two of his might have made it (in some form)
into CC's films during his time there, as other people's ideas no doubt
did.
It's just that the specific arguments offered didn't seem to me
particularly convincing. It's fine to speculate, but there's no
definite evidence of his possible contribution.
>I find the claims that he wrote the story The Floorwalker particularly
>interesting since I structurally unique among the Mutuals in a number of ways.
>In saying this, I'm not implying that The Floorwalker wasn't CC's vision. From
>all reports, he wanted to set a film in a department store before he even
>started his Mutual contract. Still, I find The Floorwalker to be a bit of an
>anomaly. (Then again, so is One A.M. but for other, more obvious reasons.)
I don't find _Floorwalker_ anomalous. In fact, it contains quite a bit
of that social comment you're skeptical about. :) To me is very
Chaplineque both in conception and in execution. I don't need to
postulate influence from another person to account for it--though if
you're interested in that other person, the issue would obviously be
more critical.
Tracy Doyle
I know this is not going to show up in the proper location of the thread
- my apologies, but Connie's message did not show up on my server, thus
I fetched it from Dejanews and am posting my reply here.
Connie wrote:
> Sean writes:
>
> >This whole discussion reminds me of the Vincent Bryan debate a couple of months
> >ago. Some people on this newgroup seemed to grow quite agitated at the
> >suggestion that CC employed gagmen and scenario writers while at Mutual. In
> >order to pooh-pooh any contribution by Bryan on the films (which is reasonably
> >well-documented), they argued that Bryan was little more than an addict Charlie
> >hired as a charity case. (Of course, he never did any real writing!)
>
> I did not find the suggestions about Bryan "reasonably well-documented."
> On the contrary, they were highly speculative, and as I understood it
> were offered by the poster as such. It rather reminded me of the kind
> of constant speculation that goes on in certain circles about the
> authorship of Shakespeare's plays--and was just as well supported.
That Bryan worked for Chaplin in the capacity of a writer, whether of
gags or partial or complete scripts, is well documented. What is not
well documented is exactly what words were written, or if any story
lines or scenarios were suggested. I am a music researcher, not a film
expert. I brought the Bryan question to the forum here, hoping to learn
more about this former songwriter and his possible contribution, albeit
minor, to the film industry. Yes, I proposed some speculative ideas and
offered them as exactly that.
Connie, I do remember the post you made which suggested that Bryan was a
known addict and that Chaplin may have hired him as a charity case. I
have since discovered information which may somewhat confirm this. Here
is an article, in its entirety, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times,
July 12, 1923:
========= BEGIN =========
Song Writer Sent to Jail
Vincent Bryan’s Losing Fight Against Drug Habit
Draws Year’s Term Behind Bars
A name once familiar in every musical home, in every music store and
once blazoned on the silver screen as author, director and composer, was
scrawled yesterday on the blotter of a local court. It read “Vincent
Bryan — one year in the City Jail.”
Bryan, composer of popular songs of a decade past and author and
director of many a successful film, reached the bottom step yesterday of
a long descending road and turned his face to a new life, which must be
viewed sadly through prison bars. His sentence was the result of a long
and losing fight against the drug habit.
Arrested by Deputy Sheriffs Bell and Conly and State Inspector Peoples
last Saturday in the act of selling morphine, Bryan was tried before
Police Judge Crawford. He was found guilty on a drug selling charge. His
wife, Leota Bryan, was convicted of possessing drugs and was sentenced
to ninety days. Her sentence was suspended. Bryan’s will start today.
LIFE WRECKED
Narcotics are to blame, Bryan says, for the wreck of his life. The
promise he had of becoming rich and famous took wings when he began the
use of dope. He started the habit, he told the court, in New York years
ago when overwork and nervous strain had almost caused him to lose his
job. For a while drugs enabled him to do more and better work. Then he
and his wife became addicts, he said, though both believed that they
could quit at any time.
The inevitable awakening came. They faced the grim truth and admitted
they were helplessly in the grip of the drug habit. Attempt after
attempt to quit failed. Fear was followed by submission and poverty
stalked close behind the expensive drug.
BELIEVED CURED
They came to California and settled down to steady work. Bryan thought
he had cured the habit. He made good as a scenario writer for Chaplin,
for Lloyd and other stars and directed several pictures. But with making
good again came hard work, long hours and nervous strain. The craving
came back and he fell again. This time he did not break away.
All his success, his work, his ambition gave way to his craving. He lost
job after job and his money was spent. So that he might obtain the drug
he became a peddler, but his success in that line was short-lived. His
first sale, he told Deputy Bell, was the one which led to his arrest.
Hope that he may break away from the habit in jail has given him
courage. His adieu yesterday to his wife was cheerful and he promised
that in another year a new chapter should be written, a chapter
untainted by the specter of the “stuff.”
Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1923 Part II. pg 19 (columns 2 & 3)
============ END =============
What we have here is confirmation that Bryan was addicted to drugs long
before he was associated with films (I hesitate to say Chaplin because
he worked with other film companies in different capacities). The
article indicates, too, that Bryan spent a period of time drug-free,
before and after he came to Hollywood. This would be 1915, if these
following items are to be believed:
======== BEGIN ========
BRYAN, Vincent Patick, director and scenario writer, Lone Star Film; b.
St. Johns, Newfoundland, June 22, 1877; edc. pub. schls., N.Y.C.; stage
career, wrote “The Man From Now” for H. W. Savage, “The Queen of the
Moulin Rouge” for Tom Ryley, etc., 6 seasons with Primrose and
Dockstader Minstrels, wrote acts and vaud. sketches for Nat Wills, Lew
Dockstader, Montgomery and Stone, Gertrude Hoffman, Irene Franklin,
etc.; screen career, Keystone (“A Favorite Fool”), Essanay (“Carmen,”
“Police”), Lone Star (“The Floorwalker,” “The Fireman,” “The Vagabond,”
“One A.M.,” “The Count,” etc.). Song writer, wrote “He’s My Pal,” “Don’t
Take Me Home,” “Please GoWay and Let Me Sleep,” etc. Hght. 6 ft., wght.
165, blond hair and blue eyes. Home ad., 6229 Banner Place, Colegrove,
Los Angeles, Cal. Studio ad., 1025 Lillian Way, Los Angeles, Cal.
M.P.N. Studio News 10-21-16
BRYAN, Vincent Patrick, scenario writer, Essanay; b. St. Johns,
Newfoundland, June 22, 1877; educ. N.Y. City; early career, author
popular songs, parodies, vaud. sketches, musc. com., other stage
material; m. p. career since 1915 Keystone Studio ad., Essanay-Chaplin,
Los Angeles, Cal
M.P.N. Studio Directory 1-29-16
========== END ===========
Now, whether Chaplin knew about Bryan's drug history at the time he
hired him would be a matter of speculation, unless, perchance, Chaplin
had written something about this. IF the courtroom story is accurate and
Bryan indeed testified that he was clean when he arrived in California,
then Chaplin would have known a sober Bryan, regardless of his history
of addiction. His previous writing credits are a veritable "who's who"
of popular stage entertainment. He was not a slouch - he was an
extremely clever and capable writer. At the time he was hired by
Chaplin, there is little doubt that he was capable of doing whatever
writing he was asked to do. How long he was able to carry out his
duties, and at what point he began using drugs again, is not known.
Bryan was no longer working for Chaplin in 1918. It is possible (again,
speculation) that Chaplin dismissed him when he started using again.
>
> What I always wonder is, why bother to speculate?
Because speculation, postulation or theorization often leads to
discovery. Scientific investigation always begins with a theory, which
one sets out to prove or disprove. Bruce Long theorized that the
drug-addicted scenario writer, a former songwriter, sought for
questioning in the Wm. Desmond Taylor murder was former song writer
Harry Williams, who was also a gag writer and director. Bruce and I and
several music researchers collectively set out to investigate his
theory. I tripped across several other
songwriters-turned-scenario-writers in the process. One was Jean Havez,
the other was Bryan. It was a third researcher, one Nan Bostick, who
found the courtroom article listed above. Had Bruce not speculated as to
the identity of the scenario writer, I would not have looked for
songwriters in the film industry, I never would have posted an inquiry
about Bryan to this newsgroup, etc., etc. I have since written two
articles in The Rag Times, an international newsletter about ragtime
music and the people who made it, about songwriters in film.
And did you not speculate when you suggested that Bryan was Chaplin's
charity case? Are you not speculating when you suggest that Bryan's
contribution to Chaplin's films was insignificant?
> Whether Bryan
> contributed a gag or two to Chaplin's films or not seems to me a highly
> trivial issue.
Perhaps it is to you. But piecing together the biographies of
songwriters is what I do, and it is important, or at least interesting,
to music fans. Thanks in part to some of the lively discussion here, we
know much more about the lives of some of these songwriters, Bryan
included.
> But it is usually someone who wants to aggrandize the
> contribution of a relatively minor figure who tries to lay claim to the
> work of a major artist like Chaplin or Shakespeare.
Is that what you think I am trying to do? Hijack Chaplin's work?
Attribute his art, his talent and his success to Vincent Bryan? Sheesh
... was it something I said? I was only trying to determine what, if
anything, Bryan *contributed* to Chaplin's work in a very short period
of time, from 1916-17. It is obvious from his credits that he did
*something.* I did speculate that Bryan may have suggested or perhaps
even written or co-written the drug-addict scene in "Easy Street." This
in no way impugnes Chaplin's artistry, ability or talent, nor would I
ever attempt to "lay claim" to Chaplin's work. I'm truly sorry that you
feel that this is what I am attempting to do, and I will emphatically
and unoquivocably deny that it is my intention.
I thought perhaps that even though I am not a film historian that I
might have something to bring to the table here with this background
information I had on Bryan, and that Chaplin afficionados might be
interested. Conversely, I was also hoping that some of you here may have
been able to shed some light on exactly what Bryan did at the Chaplin
studios. Apparently, you saw through all that and recognized this to be
a takeover attempt. Hmmmm. Guess I'll just crawl away and let someone
else storm the castle. Drat! Foiled again.
Regards,
Tracy Doyle
--
To respond via e-mail, remove the characters "NospaM" from the address.
David Totheroh
SeMurph wrote:
> >I don't find _Floorwalker_ anomalous.
>
> I find it anomalous in a few ways. I find the plot more complicated than the
> plot of a "normal" Mutual. The extended setup delays CC's entry into the film
> much longer than usual for his films of the time. More importantly, Edna is
> reduced to little more than a bit player in The Floorwalker. This is the only
> Mutual, aside from One A.M., where there is no romantic interest.
> Additionally, while the theme of mistaken identity is a common Chaplin theme,
> this is his only film where this was a willful exchange agreed to by both
> parties. The detectives are used interestingly in the film as well. While
> "law enforcement" personnel are often used to force action or bring his stories
> to a close (like in The Count, The Rink and The Adventurer), they rarely
> monitor his activities as closely as they do in The Floorwalker. (Granted, it
> seems like there were always policemen in the Keystones, but the feel is
> different here.)
>
> The Floorwalker was one of the first Chaplin Mutuals I purchased as a Super 8mm
> collector. From the beginning I always thought it felt a little different from
> the others. Therefore, when I read that Bryan supplied the story for the film,
> to me, it was a case of "aha!" I could be wrong about Bryan supplying the
> "difference," but the film remains a little out of step to me.
I'm afraid I don't understand. From the evidence I am aware of, Bryan's
involvement might go back as far as Keystone, definitely included the later
Essanays, and several, if not most, of the Mutuals. If that's the case, why
*should* The Floorwalker be an anomaly, and if it is, what possible reason would
there be for attributing any difference to Bryan?
David
Crooner
>> But it is usually someone who wants to aggrandize the
>> contribution of a relatively minor figure who tries to lay claim to the
>> work of a major artist like Chaplin or Shakespeare.
>
>Is that what you think I am trying to do? Hijack Chaplin's work?
>Attribute his art, his talent and his success to Vincent Bryan? Sheesh
>... was it something I said? I was only trying to determine what, if
>anything, Bryan *contributed* to Chaplin's work in a very short period
>of time, from 1916-17. It is obvious from his credits that he did
>*something.* I did speculate that Bryan may have suggested or perhaps
>even written or co-written the drug-addict scene in "Easy Street." This
>in no way impugnes Chaplin's artistry, ability or talent, nor would I
>ever attempt to "lay claim" to Chaplin's work. I'm truly sorry that you
>feel that this is what I am attempting to do, and I will emphatically
>and unoquivocably deny that it is my intention.
Well, Tracy, perhaps some here are a bit jumpy when
Charlie is besmirched in anyway at all. But we DID
uncover some things about Bryan but perhaps not
quite enough, since CC was very secretive about his
working methods and about those who have helped him
behind the scenes.
>
>I thought perhaps that even though I am not a film historian that I
>might have something to bring to the table here with this background
>information I had on Bryan, and that Chaplin afficionados might be
>interested. Conversely, I was also hoping that some of you here may have
>been able to shed some light on exactly what Bryan did at the Chaplin
>studios. Apparently, you saw through all that and recognized this to be
>a takeover attempt. Hmmmm. Guess I'll just crawl away and let someone
>else storm the castle. Drat! Foiled again.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tracy Doyle
Tracy, you have a good sense of humor despite a somewhat
rude reaction to your honest quest at finding out things &
contributing things in this newsgroup. Hope you can continue
to contribute what things you do find out about Bryan & Chaplin.
Whatever more you uncover may prove to be very interesting
to even Chaplin experts; only because even the experts know so
little.
~ Crooner
SeMurph
I find it anomalous in a few ways. I find the plot more complicated than the
plot of a "normal" Mutual. The extended setup delays CC's entry into the film
much longer than usual for his films of the time. More importantly, Edna is
reduced to little more than a bit player in The Floorwalker. This is the only
Mutual, aside from One A.M., where there is no romantic interest.
Additionally, while the theme of mistaken identity is a common Chaplin theme,
this is his only film where this was a willful exchange agreed to by both
parties. The detectives are used interestingly in the film as well. While
"law enforcement" personnel are often used to force action or bring his stories
to a close (like in The Count, The Rink and The Adventurer), they rarely
monitor his activities as closely as they do in The Floorwalker. (Granted, it
seems like there were always policemen in the Keystones, but the feel is
different here.)
The Floorwalker was one of the first Chaplin Mutuals I purchased as a Super 8mm
collector. From the beginning I always thought it felt a little different from
the others. Therefore, when I read that Bryan supplied the story for the film,
to me, it was a case of "aha!" I could be wrong about Bryan supplying the
"difference," but the film remains a little out of step to me.
Sean
SeMurph
>gags or partial or complete scripts, is well documented.
Fabulous post. I was surprised to see that Bryan had also worked on some of
the Essanays (and for Lloyd.)
You have probably already read the references to Bryan in Gill's liner notes
for the Mutual DVDs, but here goes for those who haven't seen them:
"Vincent Bryan was another unsung hero as Chaplin's chief scenario writer, gag
man, and assistant director, and with Rollie Totheroh, the comedians right-hand
man. Bryan had been a popular librettist and songwriter, collaborator on the
Ziegfield Follies and highly regarded act and sketch writer for such vaudeville
starts as Nat Wills, Lew Dockstader, Montgomery and Stone, Gertrude Hoffman and
Irene Franklin.
Bryan wrote the script of THE FLOORWALKER and may have worked as writer and
co-director on at least ten Chaplin Mutuals. Maverick Terrel was staff, but
both Bryan and Terrel kept religiously in the background and never received
official credit for their work.
Terry Ramaye commented in Photoplay magainze in 1917 that "now Mr. Chaplin
indulges in a couple of scenario writers and a retimue of Sunday secretaries,
both salaried and freelance. Waking and sleeping, Mr. Chaplin and his staff
are forever in pursuit of the next story."
Credit any spelling or grammatical mistakes to me. I had a long day. I would
also like to add that, despite the assistance of Bryan, Terrel, Totheroh and
the other people who worked for him, Chaplin remained a true autuer. In fact,
he was probably the truest autuer in the history of cinema.
SeMurph
>*should* The Floorwalker be an anomaly, and if it is, what possible reason
>would
>there be for attributing any difference to Bryan?
I always thought The Floorwalker was structured a little differently than the
other Mutuals -- even before I would have used the word structured! I only
made a connection with Bryan after I read that he wrote The Floorwalker. As I
said in my earlier post, Bryan's "influence" might not have had much to do with
it, but one the other hand, it might explain the differences.
I don't think anyone will ever know what the various writers who Chaplin used
ended up contributing to the films. They have all died and took their secrets
to the grave.
By the way, I remember reading that Albert Austin used to anger sometimes
Chaplin by publicly taking credit for some gags in the films, but I can't seem
to find that quote anywhere. Does anyone else remember it?
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>Tracy Doyle responds....
>
>>> But it is usually someone who wants to aggrandize the
>>> contribution of a relatively minor figure who tries to lay claim to the
>>> work of a major artist like Chaplin or Shakespeare.
>>
>>Is that what you think I am trying to do? Hijack Chaplin's work?
Did I say that was what I thought you were trying to do?
But why *are* you interested in investigating Bryan's contribution to Chaplin's
work, if it is not to create a more impressive cv for a relatively obscure
(if interesting) figure?
>>Attribute his art, his talent and his success to Vincent Bryan? Sheesh
>>... was it something I said? I was only trying to determine what, if
>>anything, Bryan *contributed* to Chaplin's work in a very short period
>>of time, from 1916-17. It is obvious from his credits that he did
>>*something.*
If you're talking about the list of pictures cited in the short bio you
quoted, those are the ones that were made while he was there. Who compiled
the bio, and why did they include those titles?
One could make a much longer list of CC pictures for Henry Bergman, since
he was at the studios for years and perhaps contributed in a small way to
many more pictures than Bryan. But we don't know that. All we know for
sure is that he acted in a number of them. That contribution can be
documented.
I did speculate that Bryan may have suggested or perhaps
>>even written or co-written the drug-addict scene in "Easy Street." This
>>in no way impugnes Chaplin's artistry, ability or talent, nor would I
>>ever attempt to "lay claim" to Chaplin's work. I'm truly sorry that you
>>feel that this is what I am attempting to do, and I will emphatically
>>and unoquivocably deny that it is my intention.
>
>
>Well, Tracy, perhaps some here are a bit jumpy when
>Charlie is besmirched in anyway at all.
In the first place, Tracy didn't besmirch CC.
In the second place, no one here is jumpy--except maybe Tracy.
But we DID
>uncover some things about Bryan but perhaps not
>quite enough, since CC was very secretive about his
>working methods and about those who have helped him
>behind the scenes.
Of course, Lou takes the line that CC was *hiding* the contributions of
others--nasty fellow that he was! We can always count on Lou for a sunny
and positive view of CC.
>>I thought perhaps that even though I am not a film historian that I
>>might have something to bring to the table here with this background
>>information I had on Bryan, and that Chaplin afficionados might be
>>interested. Conversely, I was also hoping that some of you here may have
>>been able to shed some light on exactly what Bryan did at the Chaplin
>>studios. Apparently, you saw through all that and recognized this to be
>>a takeover attempt. Hmmmm. Guess I'll just crawl away and let someone
>>else storm the castle. Drat! Foiled again.
I never heard of Bryan until you introduced the topic. I was interested
in what you had to say. I was not convinced that his contribution was
as extensive as you were suggesting.
And contrary to your remarks elsewhere, I did not make any statement
to the effect that speculation is invariably bad, or that I was not
speculating, etc., etc., etc.
But there is a fairly long history of CC offering positions or
accommodations to people who benefited far more from the relationship
than he did, so my speculation, if you choose to call it that, has
a factual basis.
>Tracy, you have a good sense of humor despite a somewhat
>rude reaction to your honest quest at finding out things &
>contributing things in this newsgroup.
I beg your pardon, Lou. I was not rude. I was merely trying
to explain the reasons for my skepticism.
Hope you can continue
>to contribute what things you do find out about Bryan & Chaplin.
>
>Whatever more you uncover may prove to be very interesting
>to even Chaplin experts; only because even the experts know so
>little.
I'd be interested in anything in the way of additional factual
information that Tracy uncovers.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, sem...@aol.com (SeMurph) says:
>>I don't find _Floorwalker_ anomalous.
>
>I find it anomalous in a few ways. I find the plot more complicated than the
>plot of a "normal" Mutual. The extended setup delays CC's entry into the film
>much longer than usual for his films of the time. More importantly, Edna is
>reduced to little more than a bit player in The Floorwalker. This is the only
>Mutual, aside from One A.M., where there is no romantic interest.
In certain ways this film is like _New Janitor_, which has a similar
melodramatic plot and no romantic interest. I don't feel that this makes it
anomalous.
>Additionally, while the theme of mistaken identity is a common Chaplin theme,
>this is his only film where this was a willful exchange agreed to by both
>parties. The detectives are used interestingly in the film as well. While
>"law enforcement" personnel are often used to force action or bring his stories
>to a close (like in The Count, The Rink and The Adventurer), they rarely
>monitor his activities as closely as they do in The Floorwalker. (Granted, it
>seems like there were always policemen in the Keystones, but the feel is
>different here.)
Charlie's activities are monitored very closely in _Police_, to the point
where he can't shake the policeman played by John Rand, and also in _A
Dog's Life_ and _The Kid_.
>The Floorwalker was one of the first Chaplin Mutuals I purchased as a Super 8mm
>collector. From the beginning I always thought it felt a little different from
>the others. Therefore, when I read that Bryan supplied the story for the film,
>to me, it was a case of "aha!" I could be wrong about Bryan supplying the
>"difference," but the film remains a little out of step to me.
I'm still not persuaded that "Bryan supplied the story for the film," though
he may well have had some input.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, sem...@aol.com (SeMurph) says:
>By the way, I remember reading that Albert Austin used to anger sometimes
>Chaplin by publicly taking credit for some gags in the films, but I can't seem
>to find that quote anywhere. Does anyone else remember it?
As I recall, this was mentioned in the Rollie interview, but it was Rollie
who seemed annoyed by this. He didn't seem to believe Austin's claims
had any foundation. Tell me if I'm wrong, David.
Chaplin was usually amused by people who claimed that he had taken their
ideas, though the lawsuits must have become an annoyance.
Tracy Doyle
>
> In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>
> >Tracy Doyle responds....
> >
> >>
>
> Did I say that was what I thought you were trying to do?
That is the way it appeared to me. Perhaps I read more into it than was
there.
>
> But why *are* you interested in investigating Bryan's contribution to Chaplin's
> work, if it is not to create a more impressive cv for a relatively obscure
> (if interesting) figure?
Because I am researching Vincent Bryan. Pure and simple. I would like to
find out what he did in his life besides write "In My Merry Oldsmobile,"
vaudeville sketches, libretti, and shooting morphene and peddling dope.
Were I interested in creating credits which are not there, I would be a
novelist and not a researcher. Yes, he is obscure, particularly during
and after his Chaplin years - but he created quite a flap in 1922 when
he blew town in the wake of the murder mystery of the decade. Here, I am
only trying to ascertain what he did during the years he was associated
with the Chaplin Mutuals. I am also researching other aspects of his
life, having nothing to do with CC. There is no benefit to me or to my
research to inflate the reputation of Bryan. To do so would only
discredit me as a researcher. He is an interesting character, though,
and his problems struck me as particularly "modern."
>
> >>Attribute his art, his talent and his success to Vincent Bryan? Sheesh
> >>... was it something I said? I was only trying to determine what, if
> >>anything, Bryan *contributed* to Chaplin's work in a very short period
> >>of time, from 1916-17. It is obvious from his credits that he did
> >>*something.*
>
> If you're talking about the list of pictures cited in the short bio you
> quoted, those are the ones that were made while he was there. Who compiled
> the bio, and why did they include those titles?
The bio was printed in Motion Picture News. As I have no first-hand
knowlege of how the information was gathered, I would assume (as a
former reporter) that those listings were compiled from submssions by
either the subject (Bryan himself) or by the studio personnel. The
references to issue and date are included beneath the bio and the
directory listing.
>
> One could make a much longer list of CC pictures for Henry Bergman, since
> he was at the studios for years and perhaps contributed in a small way to
> many more pictures than Bryan. But we don't know that. All we know for
> sure is that he acted in a number of them. That contribution can be
> documented.
That Bryan did some writing for Chaplin can also be documented, and I am
not claiming that he had any greater influence (or great influence, for
that matter) than a Bergman, a Mineau, a Purviance or whomever. I am
only trying to uncover what Bryan's contribution (not necessarily
influence - big difference) was to the Mutuals. In fact, I think Bryan
had far less input than even his credits indicate. I have also just run
across a reference which indicates he was directing for Fun-Art films in
1917.
>
> In the second place, no one here is jumpy--except maybe Tracy.
Perhaps - I am a bit sensitive when I feel I have been accused of having
an ulterior motive.
>
> Of course, Lou takes the line that CC was *hiding* the contributions of
> others--nasty fellow that he was! We can always count on Lou for a sunny
> and positive view of CC.
My two cents - CC hired certain people for staff positions. Bryan was
one of those on his staff and he was hired as a writer. CC would have no
obvious reason to expound on the fact that his staffers did their jobs,
unless they were particularly "anomalous," either positively or
negatively.
>
> I never heard of Bryan until you introduced the topic. I was interested
> in what you had to say. I was not convinced that his contribution was
> as extensive as you were suggesting.
Well, hope you are still interested. I did trip across something rather
interesting lately, and I am now watching a number of the Mutuals for
verification.
>
> And contrary to your remarks elsewhere, I did not make any statement
> to the effect that speculation is invariably bad, or that I was not
> speculating, etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps I misunderstood this statement:
> > What I always wonder is, why bother to speculate?
You posed the question, I answered it, IMHO.
>
> But there is a fairly long history of CC offering positions or
> accommodations to people who benefited far more from the relationship
> than he did, so my speculation, if you choose to call it that, has
> a factual basis.
There are also a number of biographical resources which indicate that
Bryan co-wrote the first few Mutuals with Chaplin. Also, Bryan was a
well-known and respected writing talent, so each of our speculations
have a factual basis. Here's another reference:
> Photoplay, June 1916: "Charlie Chaplin's first comedy under the
> near-million-dollar contract will enjoy the prosaic title of "The
> Floor Walker." Vincent Bryan, who quit writing popular songs
> for the more lucrative vocation of creating Keystone comedy
> scenarios, is given blame with Charlie for the script."
>
> Hope you can continue
> >to contribute what things you do find out about Bryan & Chaplin.
> >
> >Whatever more you uncover may prove to be very interesting
> >to even Chaplin experts; only because even the experts know so
> >little.
>
> I'd be interested in anything in the way of additional factual
> information that Tracy uncovers.
>
> Connie K.
Thanks for the interest, both to Connie and Lou. I have a few more
stones to turn, and I think I will be able to better determine something
which Bryan did during his year-or-so at Mutual. I will be coming here
for an opinion. Lively group, here!
Tracy
Tracy Doyle
>
> I'm still not persuaded that "Bryan supplied the story for the film," though
> he may well have had some input.
>
Photoplay, June 1916: "Charlie Chaplin's first comedy under the
near-million-dollar contract will enjoy the prosaic title of "The
Floor Walker." Vincent Bryan, who quit writing popular songs
for the more lucrative vocation of creating Keystone comedy
scenarios, is given blame with Charlie for the script."
Tracy
David Totheroh
SeMurph wrote:
> >In certain ways this film is like _New Janitor_, which has a similar
> >melodramatic plot and no romantic interest. I don't feel that this makes it
> >anomalous.
>
> I haven't seen this film is quite a long while. I will have to check it out.
>
> >Charlie's activities are monitored very closely in _Police_, to the point
> >where he can't shake the policeman played by John Rand, and also in _A
> >Dog's Life_ and _The Kid_.
> >
> I find The Floorwalker situation to be different. It might be nothing more
> than a "feeling."
>
> In talking about The Floorwalker, I was comparing it mainly to the other
> Mutuals -- which are my main area of interest. I contend it is, in many ways,
> unique among them.
Sean, my question, which you have not yet answered as far as I am aware, is why
you see Floorwalker as unique and, originally at least, ascribed this to the fact
that Bryan supplied the story, when he was on the payroll for several other, if
not most, Mutuals as well? What do you think he did for the rest of them, and how,
or why, would they be different if he contributed to them as well?
David
SeMurph
>who seemed annoyed by this. He didn't seem to believe Austin's claims
>had any foundation. Tell me if I'm wrong, David.
I'm not sure I read this Rollie interview. However, it is possible that I read
an excerpt in another context.
SeMurph
>melodramatic plot and no romantic interest. I don't feel that this makes it
>anomalous.
I haven't seen this film is quite a long while. I will have to check it out.
>Charlie's activities are monitored very closely in _Police_, to the point
>where he can't shake the policeman played by John Rand, and also in _A
>Dog's Life_ and _The Kid_.
>
I find The Floorwalker situation to be different. It might be nothing more
than a "feeling."
In talking about The Floorwalker, I was comparing it mainly to the other
Mutuals -- which are my main area of interest. I contend it is, in many ways,
unique among them.
>I'm still not persuaded that "Bryan supplied the story for the film," though
>he may well have had some input.
My source is, of course, Gill. I would like to know what his source is. That
might solve the riddle once and for all.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, dick...@NospaMoro.net (Tracy Doyle) says:
>Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not persuaded that "Bryan supplied the story for the film," though
>> he may well have had some input.
>>
>Here's a clue, FWIW:
>
>Photoplay, June 1916: "Charlie Chaplin's first comedy under the
>near-million-dollar contract will enjoy the prosaic title of "The
>Floor Walker." Vincent Bryan, who quit writing popular songs
>for the more lucrative vocation of creating Keystone comedy
>scenarios, is given blame with Charlie for the script."
>
>Tracy
This must be Gill's basis for the conclusion he draws.
May be true, and it *would* be interesting to know to what
degree.
My son and I were discussing rumors (which apparently run rife)
about the authorship of the script for _Good Will Hunting_ the
other day. Rumor has it that the Oscar winners wrote a script
which was radically different from the one seen in the movie--in which
case who should get credit for the finished product?
I'd be inclined to treat the _Photoplay_ story as a rumor, and hope
to find confirmation for it somewhere. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, dick...@NospaMoro.net (Tracy Doyle) says:
>Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>>
>> >Tracy Doyle responds....
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Is that what you think I am trying to do? Hijack Chaplin's work?
>>
>> Did I say that was what I thought you were trying to do?
>
>That is the way it appeared to me. Perhaps I read more into it than was
>there.
I was trying to explain (in general terms) why I'm inclined to take a
long look at any claim that someone else made a major contribution to the
work of an important artist, since Sean seemed to think that I was
reacting defensively to your original post.
If I was, it was only on the basis of some discouraging experiene.
But I have an open mind on Bryan--or for that matter on Bergman or
Albert Austin.
Connie K.
Tracy Doyle
>
> In a previous article, dick...@NospaMoro.net (Tracy Doyle) says:
> >
> >Photoplay, June 1916: "Charlie Chaplin's first comedy under the
> >near-million-dollar contract will enjoy the prosaic title of "The
> >Floor Walker." Vincent Bryan, who quit writing popular songs
> >for the more lucrative vocation of creating Keystone comedy
> >scenarios, is given blame with Charlie for the script."
> >
>
> This must be Gill's basis for the conclusion he draws.
It very well could be. I don't know at this point what articles may have
run in other, more trade-oriented journals. I'll have a chance to get
down to southern California this fall, and I hope to look into this a
little further.
>
> My son and I were discussing rumors (which apparently run rife)
> about the authorship of the script for _Good Will Hunting_ the
> other day. Rumor has it that the Oscar winners wrote a script
> which was radically different from the one seen in the movie--in which
> case who should get credit for the finished product?
I plead complete ignorance regarding modern film, music, etc. I don't
even watch TV. I would think that if someone other than the credited
writers actually wrote a very different script than the one which won
the Oscar, there would be some kind of a lawsuit involved. Unless, of
course, the changes were introduced by the cast during filming (rather
common for Robin Williams, I understand, as it was also for the Marx
Bros., etc.), in which case the independent nature of the cast would be
duly noted, although "who wrote which words" would remain largely
undocumented, and the credited writers would still be considered
responsible.
>
> I'd be inclined to treat the _Photoplay_ story as a rumor, and hope
> to find confirmation for it somewhere. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
Hope I can find something when I'm down in LA area later.
SeMurph
>about the authorship of the script for _Good Will Hunting_ the
>other day. Rumor has it that the Oscar winners wrote a script
>which was radically different from the one seen in the movie--in which
>case who should get credit for the finished product?
The Writers Guild has set rules for determining authorship. I heard that other
writers had been involved in this script, but since the other writer(s) were
not credited, they must not have written the 51%. (Believe me, any writer --
unless extremely well-paid -- would have went to arbitration for credit on a
script like that!)
>I'd be inclined to treat the _Photoplay_ story as a rumor, and hope
>to find confirmation for it somewhere. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
I definitely believe the Photoplay story. Friendly, not gossipy, Items like
that tend to be little more than rehashes of press releases.
SeMurph
>you see Floorwalker as unique
One of my earlier posts gave four or five reasons why I find it unique among
the Mutuals.
, and originally at least, ascribed this to the
>fact
>that Bryan supplied the story, when he was on the payroll for several other,
>if
>not most, Mutuals as well? What do you think he did for the rest of them, and
>how,
>or why, would they be different if he contributed to them as well?
No reason other than coincidence. When I originally heard about Bryan, I only
knew of his connection to The Floorwalker. I had no idea he worked with
Chaplin at both Keystone and Essanay. I must thank Tracey for that
information. (Once again, the newsgroup proves its usefulness.) For all I
know, he might've written or contributed to the scripts for The New Janitor,
Police and the other films Connie mentioned.
I do not strongly hold to the theory that Bryan was responsible for my
preceived "uniqueness" of The Floorwalker. If I were discussing the film with
less rabid fans, I probably wouldn't even mention Bryan's "influence" at all
since it cannot be accurately gauged and measured. I do, however, find it
interesting to speculate among the Chaplin experts here about the role of
Chaplin's "silent" writers.
Crooner
>>But we DID uncover some things about Bryan but perhaps
>>not quite enough, since CC was very secretive about his
>>working methods and about those who have helped him
>>behind the scenes.
>
>Of course, Lou takes the line that CC was *hiding*
>the contributions of others--nasty fellow that he was!
>We can always count on Lou for a sunny and positive view of CC.
How's this for a sunny & positive view of CC -- He was the
greatest one man show of them all. But still, an argument can
be made that CC seldom gave credit to his staff & colleagues.
I do remember one time when CC credited his asst music
director of CITY LIGHTS, but that I think was rare. Plus his AUTOBIOGRAPHY
doesn't talk much about his staff and
colleagues. And in the FILMS REVIEW article CHAPLIN'S
COLLABORATORS we read: "Chaplin consistently minimized
the contributions of his assistants..."
That's all I was saying.
But no matter, I still think CC is the greatest.
~ Crooner
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, sem...@aol.com (SeMurph) says:
>>I'd be inclined to treat the _Photoplay_ story as a rumor, and hope
>>to find confirmation for it somewhere. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>I definitely believe the Photoplay story. Friendly, not gossipy, Items like
>that tend to be little more than rehashes of press releases.
Well, if it *was* a press release, than CC himself must have approved it.
So much for insinuations that he never acknowledged the work of his
collaborators.
And if it *wasn't* a press release, then no telling where it originated.
In either case, confirmation, and particularly more information, would be
highly desirable.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
It's another one of those loose criticisms that is often
made of Chaplin, but his acknowledgement of contributors
was probably not all that different from prevailing
practice at the time. Credits in older films are quite
sparse.
And see Sean's comment that the mention of Bryan in
_Photoplay_ was probably based on a press release.
That would certainly involve acknowledgment by CC.
As for MA, he doesn't say much about his films in general,
including his own contributions to them.
George Shelps
, <<if it *was* a press release, than CC himself must have approved
it.>>
Did he personally approve all press
releases?
<<So much for insinuations that he never acknowledged the work of his
collaborators. >>
"Never" isn't the right word. "Seldom,"
maybe. Lou has the FILMS IN REVIEW
article, what's the POV there, Lou?
<<And if it *wasn't* a press release, then no telling where it
originated.
In either case, confirmation, and particularly more information, would
be highly desirable.>>
Sure would be...but it wouldn't diminish
Chaplin's genius. He went about as far as you can go with Capra's "one
man, one film," but film *always* requires delegation and collaboration
on some level.
Crooner
of members of his staff...
Constance Kuriyama wrote ...
>It's another one of those loose criticisms that is often
>made of Chaplin, but his acknowledgement of contributors
>was probably not all that different from prevailing
>practice at the time.
Loose criticism doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate.
I would say that of Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel & Chaplin, it's
Chaplin who says less than the others about their staffs,
their films and their staffs' contributions.
Keaton was wonderful in many of his interviews he gave in
his later years. Always commenting on his films & recalling
specific events in them. He would comment on his working
methods and those who assisted in writing.
Lloyd, I seem to recall, says much the same in his book AN
AMERICAN COMEDY. Though, I don't have the book any more
so I can't verify. But I seem to recall that he may have even made
a reference to Charlie's quiet. And then he went into a description
of how CC worked very much like the other two great comics of
the silent screen. And if it's not in that book, then I read it
somewhere else.
Chaplin's best interview I think is the Richard Meryman
interview from LIFE. There he does finally open up a bit
about his working methods.
>Credits in older films are quite sparse.
I seem to recall that Buster Keaton's features would always
have the writers credited. So they weren't THAT sparse.
>And see Sean's comment that the mention of Bryan in
>_Photoplay_ was probably based on a press release.
Fine, but the anomaly doesn't have to disprove a general
point and/or growing attitude.
>
>That would certainly involve acknowledgment by CC.
>
>As for MA, he doesn't say much about his films in general,
>including his own contributions to them.
Well, he's selective about the films he does discuss. The
political films DICTATOR & VERDOUX, are among those he
discusses. Along with THE GOLD RUSH and LIMELIGHT too.
~ Crooner
Crooner
Lou has the FILMS IN REVIEW
article, what's the POV there, Lou?
____________________
The title alone tells the story...CHAPLIN'S COLLABORATORS,
Were of More Help to Him Than He Has Ever Acknowledged.
It's in the Jan 1962 issue of FILMS IN REVIEW.
I don't think it's as scathing as one might suspect. But what it
tries to do is to catalog the various collaborators of Charlie's,
who haven't gotten the credit they deserve for their work.
There are however some jabs at CC. For instance,
Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast, asst director on THE GOLD
RUSH, "says that when he and Eleanor Boardman went to
see Chaplin's sound-reissue of THE GOLD RUSH, he
remarked, as they walked into the theater: 'I bet Charlie has
removed my name from the credits.' Chaplin had."
~ Crooner
Tracy Doyle
>
> When I originally heard about Bryan, I only
> knew of his connection to The Floorwalker. I had no idea he worked with
> Chaplin at both Keystone and Essanay. I must thank Tracey for that
> information. (Once again, the newsgroup proves its usefulness.) For all I
> know, he might've written or contributed to the scripts for The New Janitor,
> Police and the other films Connie mentioned.
(Thanks for the acknowledgement - I hope I can continue to make useful
contributions.)
Once again, here is a listing from M.P.N Studio News, 10-21-16:
BRYAN, Vincent Patick, director and scenario writer, Lone Star Film; b.
St. Johns, Newfoundland, June 22, 1877; edc. pub. schls., N.Y.C.; stage
career, wrote "The Man From Now" for H. W. Savage, "The Queen of the
Moulin Rouge" for Tom Ryley, etc., 6 seasons with Primrose and
Dockstader Minstrels, wrote acts and vaud. sketches for Nat Wills, Lew
Dockstader, Montgomery and Stone, Gertrude Hoffman, Irene Franklin,
etc.; screen career, Keystone ("A Favorite Fool"), Essanay ("Carmen,"
"Police"), Lone Star ("The Floorwalker," "The Fireman," "The Vagabond,"
"One A.M.," "The Count," etc.). Song writer, wrote "He’s My Pal," "Don’t
Take Me Home," "Please Go Way and Let Me Sleep," etc. Hght. 6 ft., wght.
165, blond hair and blue eyes. Home ad., 6229 Banner Place, Colegrove,
Los Angeles, Cal. Studio ad., 1025 Lillian Way, Los Angeles, Cal.
M.P.N. Studio News 10-21-16
Again, this is probably a listing which was submitted either by
Chaplin's studios or Bryan himself. Even if it weren't a studio release,
wouldn't the studio execs have to approve such a listing? This would
indicate that Bryan did some kind of writing for "Police" and "Carmen."
And what about the studio address on Lillian Way?
>
> I do not strongly hold to the theory that Bryan was responsible for my
> preceived "uniqueness" of The Floorwalker. If I were discussing the film with
> less rabid fans, I probably wouldn't even mention Bryan's "influence" at all
> since it cannot be accurately gauged and measured. I do, however, find it
> interesting to speculate among the Chaplin experts here about the role of
> Chaplin's "silent" writers.
Perhaps "influence" is the wrong word here. That would imply that he
re-directed Chaplin's artistic thought. I don't think so. At best, Bryan
was a co-writer. What I take that to mean, as a writer myself, is that
*at the very most,* Chaplin would have described his idea, the plot, the
outcome, and Bryan would work out the details. He may have come up with
some ideas, but their inclusion in any film would be contingent upon
Chaplin's approval. That is why I would consider anything that Bryan did
for Chaplin as a contribution, rather than an influence. Additionally,
his stint with CC was rather short - about 1-1/2 to 2 years, maximum.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>bq...@yfn.ysu.edu:
>
>, <<if it *was* a press release, than CC himself must have approved
>it.>>
>
>Did he personally approve all press
>releases?
I can't imagine a control freak of this order not approving them. ;)
As far as I know, he did review and approve all press releases.
><<So much for insinuations that he never acknowledged the work of his
>collaborators. >>
>
>"Never" isn't the right word. "Seldom,"
>maybe. Lou has the FILMS IN REVIEW
>article, what's the POV there, Lou?
Well, this goes along with the fact that he seldom discussed how
his films were made--either in terms of his own contribution or
anyone else's.
><<And if it *wasn't* a press release, then no telling where it
>originated.
>
>In either case, confirmation, and particularly more information, would
>be highly desirable.>>
>
>
>Sure would be...but it wouldn't diminish
>Chaplin's genius. He went about as far as you can go with Capra's "one
>man, one film," but film *always* requires delegation and collaboration
>on some level.
I think he took that for granted. But considered himself, to invoke
Sean's guidelines, to be responsible for far more than 51% of the
finished product.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>On Charlie Chaplin & whether he is generous with his praise
>of members of his staff...
>
>Constance Kuriyama wrote ...
>>It's another one of those loose criticisms that is often
>>made of Chaplin, but his acknowledgement of contributors
>>was probably not all that different from prevailing
>>practice at the time.
>
>Loose criticism doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate.
In this case I'd say it's just somewhat misleading.
>I would say that of Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel & Chaplin, it's
>Chaplin who says less than the others about their staffs,
>their films and their staffs' contributions.
Well, perhaps that's because the contributions *were* less--
which is not to say that they didn't exist.
Keaton was a team player, and he actually gave credits to
people as director when he pretty obviously directed
himself. So he sometimes gave credit where credit wasn't
due. I'm not sure that's a better policy, though it's
certainly more chummy.
But it was partly Keaton's willingness to cooperate with lesser
lights that finally undid him. So maybe CC was less
generous with credits, but his egoism allowed him to keep
firm control of his work and survive as a major--indeed
unique--figure in film history.
Therefore, I don't think his relative lack of interest in crediting
contributions is necessarily a fault.
>Keaton was wonderful in many of his interviews he gave in
>his later years. Always commenting on his films & recalling
>specific events in them. He would comment on his working
>methods and those who assisted in writing.
Buster was interested in techniques--fascinated by them--so it's
natural that he'd like to talk about him.
To Chaplin, the mechanics--including, I suspect, story generation--
were means to an end. And the process was often so painful for him
that it is understandable why he might prefer to forget about it.
Furthermore, from some accounts we have (such as Tully's) the process
of story-generation was so convoluted that I'd doubt he could remember
precisely how it developed. I got confused just flipping through the
various forms of the _Dictator_ speech on the ld.
<snip>
>>Credits in older films are quite sparse.
>
>I seem to recall that Buster Keaton's features would always
>have the writers credited. So they weren't THAT sparse.
And CC always credited the photography. Maybe what you credit
depends on what you think should be credited.
Keaton did rely more on others to develop his stories.
>>And see Sean's comment that the mention of Bryan in
>>_Photoplay_ was probably based on a press release.
>
>Fine, but the anomaly doesn't have to disprove a general
>point and/or growing attitude.
Of course not. Maybe it just signals an anomalous
situation. That's what Tracy is trying to find out.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says
>There are however some jabs at CC. For instance,
>Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast, asst director on THE GOLD
>RUSH, "says that when he and Eleanor Boardman went to
>see Chaplin's sound-reissue of THE GOLD RUSH, he
>remarked, as they walked into the theater: 'I bet Charlie has
>removed my name from the credits.' Chaplin had."
And why? Nobody knows for sure.
d'Arrast is known to have developed an intense resentment of
Chaplin because he wouldn't support a project d'Arrast brought
to him. Was d'Arrast right to be resentful, or was CC right to
refuse. Who knows?
However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin
behind his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a
friend very much.
Much the same problem attends Robert Florey's early idealization
and late criticism of CC. Both Florey and d'Arrast had sizable
egos, and both had ample reason to envy and resent CC.
Again it comes down to believing what you want to believe.
My own feeling is that CC often took advantage of people who were
busily trying to take advantage of him, and that he was often taken
advantage of himself. I find the whole spectacle quite amusing.
Crooner
>>Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast, asst director on THE GOLD
>>RUSH, "says that when he and Eleanor Boardman went to
>>see Chaplin's sound-reissue of THE GOLD RUSH, he
>>remarked, as they walked into the theater: 'I bet Charlie has
>>removed my name from the credits.' Chaplin had."
Constance Kuriyama wrote
>And why? Nobody knows for sure.
I guess, this is why some of us think there's validity to
the existence of the Charlie-Can-Do-No-Wrong attitude.
How can you possibly rationalize the omission of a contributor
to a work of art?
>d'Arrast is known to have developed an intense resentment of
>Chaplin because he wouldn't support a project d'Arrast brought
>to him. Was d'Arrast right to be resentful, or was CC right to
>refuse. Who knows?
Regardless of this skirmish in an unrelated matter. Does this
give Charlie the right to take his name off a work he
contributed in? Of course not.
>However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin
>behind his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a
>friend very much.
This still doesn't give Charlie the right to take his name off.
It reeks of vengefulness or ego on Charlie's part. Take your pick.
~ Crooner
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>>>There are however some jabs at CC. For instance,
>>>Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast, asst director on THE GOLD
>>>RUSH, "says that when he and Eleanor Boardman went to
>>>see Chaplin's sound-reissue of THE GOLD RUSH, he
>>>remarked, as they walked into the theater: 'I bet Charlie has
>>>removed my name from the credits.' Chaplin had."
>
>
>Constance Kuriyama wrote
>
>>And why? Nobody knows for sure.
>
>I guess, this is why some of us think there's validity to
>the existence of the Charlie-Can-Do-No-Wrong attitude.
>How can you possibly rationalize the omission of a contributor
>to a work of art?
Because the names of most contributors to films were routinely
omitted?
Because the film had undergone significant alterations
in the reissue, and there were new people to credit?
(I consider this one of the likelier explanations.)
And there your go slandering people again, Lou. Just can't
keep your nasty little fingers from pecking it out, can you? ;)
>>d'Arrast is known to have developed an intense resentment of
>>Chaplin because he wouldn't support a project d'Arrast brought
>>to him. Was d'Arrast right to be resentful, or was CC right to
>>refuse. Who knows?
>
>Regardless of this skirmish in an unrelated matter. Does this
>give Charlie the right to take his name off a work he
>contributed in? Of course not.
I'm glad you're so confident. Who said d'Arrast had the "right" to
be credited in the first place, given general practices in
Hollywood, then and now, though things are much better now.
It's possible d'Arrast was under contract specifying his title/
credit for the first version, but he was obviously not under
contract for the reissue. That alone might be a plausible reason
for dropping his name, and one he was probably well aware of.
>>However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin
>>behind his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a
>>friend very much.
>
>This still doesn't give Charlie the right to take his name off.
>It reeks of vengefulness or ego on Charlie's part. Take your pick.
How about ego and vengefulness on d'Arrast's part? I assure you
there was plenty of that. I'd hate to put myself in the position of
defending a prick like d'Arrast in order to attack CC, but by now
I believe you'd stoop to anything.
George Shelps
<<It's possible d'Arrast was under contract specifying his title/ credit
for the first version, but he was obviously not under contract for the
reissue.>>
Why "obviously?" I've never known an example where credits where
changed
on a reissue except for contractual reasons, or for reasons of copyright
renewal (Chaplin's films had renewal
notices inserted)
<< That alone might be a plausible reason for dropping his name, and one
he was probably well aware of.
However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin behind
his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a friend very much.>>
He did the work. Removing his name was petty.
===This still doesn't give Charlie the right to take his name off. It
reeks of vengefulness or ego on Charlie's part. Take your pick.===
<<How about ego and vengefulness on d'Arrast's part? I assure you there
was plenty of that. I'd hate to put myself in the position of defending
a prick like d'Arrast in order to attack CC, but by now I believe you'd
stoop to anything.>>
*Anything,* Connie?
Anyway, credits are vitally important in the film business, just as your
vitae are in your field. But I think d'Arrast was one among many who
came into Chaplin's orbit and were flung out rather disillusioned by the
great man....Marlon Brando on COUNTESS was a recent
example. On the other hand, Martha
Raye and Jack Oakie worked with him
very happily. (I love hearing about Martha calling him "Chuck." I'd
like to have seen the look on his face when he heard that)
d'Arrast was a director of some talent
and he and Florey may have been two of his most talented co-directors.
Perhaps therein lies the clash of egos.
Crooner
the sound reissue of THE GOLD RUSH...
>Because the names of most contributors to films were routinely
>omitted?
But according to d'Arrast, his name was in the '25 silent version.
And if anything, by the time the 42 sound version came out,
there were many more people credited for things in other movies.
And again, we're not talking about anything insignificant,
as a goffer, but an asst director.
>Because the film had undergone significant alterations
>in the reissue, and there were new people to credit?
>
>(I consider this one of the likelier explanations.)
I don't quite understand. Wasn't this still the film that
d'Arrast acted as asst director? But now, it's with sound
(and minor plot alterations). And any friction that
the two of them engaged in should have no consideration
as to whether d'Arrast is credited in the reissue or not.
~ Crooner
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> Connie:
>
> <<It's possible d'Arrast was under contract specifying his title/ credit
> for the first version, but he was obviously not under contract for the
> reissue.>>
>
> Why "obviously?" I've never known an example where credits where
> changed
> on a reissue except for contractual reasons, or for reasons of copyright
> renewal (Chaplin's films had renewal
> notices inserted)
>
> << That alone might be a plausible reason for dropping his name, and one
> he was probably well aware of.
> However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin behind
> his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a friend very much.>>
>
> He did the work. Removing his name was petty.
I'd have to call this a misleading interpretation. Remember, there were
three assistant directors on that film. Along with d'Arrast, Chuck Riesner
and Eddie Southerland also served in that capacity. I don't think I've ever
seen the original title cards for TGR so I don't know for sure who was
given credit on the '25 version, therefore I can't say for sure if *any* of
them were removed. The only report we have, so far (does anyone know for
sure who the original title card credits?), is d'Arrast's reported comment
to Eleanor Boardman. Was it Chaplin's personal feelings for all three of
them that caused none of them to be credited in 1942? The production
credits on the '42 version look very much like the credits on all his other
early silent features to me, Chaplin as writer/director, Totheroh
photography; with the addition of credits for music and editing (new for
'42) as well as Alf as production manager.
If I recall correctly from Grandpop's stories, it was Southerland who was
most actively involved in TGR, the others he hardly mentioned.
> ===This still doesn't give Charlie the right to take his name off. It
> reeks of vengefulness or ego on Charlie's part. Take your pick.===
How about c, none of us knows for sure. This is another clear case to me of
attitude coloring perception. Which versions of the films have you seen
with original titles so that you know what was on them to be removed? Or
are you willing to accept the report of d'Arrast's comment on its face with
no corroboration?
> <<How about ego and vengefulness on d'Arrast's part? I assure you there
> was plenty of that. I'd hate to put myself in the position of defending
> a prick like d'Arrast in order to attack CC, but by now I believe you'd
> stoop to anything.>>
>
> *Anything,* Connie?
>
> Anyway, credits are vitally important in the film business, just as your
> vitae are in your field. But I think d'Arrast was one among many who
> came into Chaplin's orbit and were flung out rather disillusioned by the
> great man....Marlon Brando on COUNTESS was a recent
> example. On the other hand, Martha
> Raye and Jack Oakie worked with him
> very happily. (I love hearing about Martha calling him "Chuck." I'd
> like to have seen the look on his face when he heard that)
>
> d'Arrast was a director of some talent
> and he and Florey may have been two of his most talented co-directors.
> Perhaps therein lies the clash of egos.
Anyone who claims that an assistant or associate director on a Chaplin film
was a "co-director" doesn't have a very clear understanding of the dynamics
of a Chaplin production, IMO.
David
Feuillade
> d'Arrast was a director of some talent
He was considerably more than that.
"Laughter" and "Topaze" are brilliant films.
The latter of the two is available on video (and the former bloody well should
be), and I would advise any film buff to check it out -- among other things, it
has John Barrymore's best performance on film.
Tom Moran
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran.index.html
My 100 Best Films List:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran21.index.html
Silent Film Screenings in New York City:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran17.index.html
Bruce Long
<cro...@erols.com> wrote:
...
> The title alone tells the story...CHAPLIN'S COLLABORATORS,
> Were of More Help to Him Than He Has Ever Acknowledged.
>
> It's in the Jan 1962 issue of FILMS IN REVIEW.
The article is also reprinted in the book "Hollywood: The
Golden Era", by Jack Spears (Castle, 1971). A very nice
book which reprints many of Spears' articles from
Films In Review, including chapters on Max Linder, Norma
Talmadge, Colleen Moore, Marshall Neilan, Robert Florey,
Mary Pickford's Directors, etc.
Bruce Long
Crooner
>How about c, none of us knows for sure. This is another clear case to me of
>attitude coloring perception. Which versions of the films have you seen
>with original titles so that you know what was on them to be removed? Or
>are you willing to accept the report of d'Arrast's comment on its face with
>no corroboration?
Of course, getting the authentic, original title cards from the
1925 GOLD RUSH would suffice & settle it. At this point,
we only have d'Arrast's comment to go by.
~ Crooner
dsu...@concentric.net
Kuriyama) wrote:
> In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>
> >Tracy Doyle responds....
> >
> >>> But it is usually someone who wants to aggrandize the
> >>> contribution of a relatively minor figure who tries to lay claim to the
> >>> work of a major artist like Chaplin or Shakespeare.
> >>
> >>Is that what you think I am trying to do? Hijack Chaplin's work?
>
> Did I say that was what I thought you were trying to do?
>
> But why *are* you interested in investigating Bryan's contribution to
Chaplin's
> work, if it is not to create a more impressive cv for a relatively obscure
> (if interesting) figure?
Hmm. Perhaps because it's an area of Chapliniana that hasn't been explored
before? Or perhaps we should talk some more about, say, Chaplin's
politics?
Anyway. Great post, Tracy!
I have only one thing to add - Bryan doesn't appear to have written "Don't
Take Me Home," at least, my record of it is credited to Harry Von Tilzer
(he's also the co-author, not sole author, of "He's Me Pal"... the third
tune listed I've never heard of...)
Okay... TWO things to add..
Even if the original outline of "The Floorwalker" surfaced in Bryan's
handwriting... so? Are some people really so fanatical about Chaplin that
95% of the credit for his films isn't enough? And, beyond that, is the
storyline of "The Floorwalker" anything to really be proud of? -- I mean,
it seems like a glorified Keystone, really! (I've been studying this one,
and I'll have more to say about it in a couple of weeks).
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>Connie:
>
><<It's possible d'Arrast was under contract specifying his title/ credit
>for the first version, but he was obviously not under contract for the
>reissue.>>
>
>Why "obviously?" I've never known an example where credits where
>changed
>on a reissue except for contractual reasons, or for reasons of copyright
>renewal (Chaplin's films had renewal
>notices inserted)
Well, d'Arrast wasn't involved in any way with the work on the reissue.
It would seem to follow that he wasn't under contract and wasn't paid
for work he didn't do.
><< That alone might be a plausible reason for dropping his name, and one
>he was probably well aware of.
>However, d'Arrast was known to make snide remarks about Chaplin behind
>his back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe such a friend very much.>>
>
>He did the work.
Which work? Nothing on the reissue.
>Removing his name was petty.
Not necessarily. You and Lou seem to have an uncanny capacity for reading
CC's mind. Would you care to share your secrets with us?
>===This still doesn't give Charlie the right to take his name off. It
>reeks of vengefulness or ego on Charlie's part. Take your pick.===
>
><<How about ego and vengefulness on d'Arrast's part? I assure you there
>was plenty of that. I'd hate to put myself in the position of defending
>a prick like d'Arrast in order to attack CC, but by now I believe you'd
>stoop to anything.>>
>
>*Anything,* Connie?
Anything. Lou talks affable, but he plays low down and dirty.
I'm still waiting for some clue as to why he "loves" CC.
>Anyway, credits are vitally important in the film business, just as your
>vitae are in your field. But I think d'Arrast was one among many who
>came into Chaplin's orbit and were flung out rather disillusioned by the
>great man....Marlon Brando on COUNTESS
Since all these people were egomaniacs themselves, including Brando,
I see no reason to take their side.
>d'Arrast was a director of some talent
>and he and Florey may have been two of his most talented co-directors.
>Perhaps therein lies the clash of egos.
Both d'Arrast and Florey would be lucky to be considered second-rate.
The basis for their resentment of CC is rather obvious.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, cro...@erols.com ("Crooner") says:
>Constance Kuriyama on why d'Arrast's name was omitted from
>the sound reissue of THE GOLD RUSH...
>
>>Because the names of most contributors to films were routinely
>>omitted?
>
>But according to d'Arrast, his name was in the '25 silent version.
Well, that's the version he actually worked on.
>And if anything, by the time the 42 sound version came out,
>there were many more people credited for things in other movies.
>And again, we're not talking about anything insignificant,
>as a goffer, but an asst director.
In fact Henry Bergman and Albert Austin occasionally functioned
as assistant directors. This is well known. Neither one of them
was ever credited for it, though they were credited for *some* of
their acting appearances in *some* films.
I don't think this was a slight, or a reflection of pettiness,
and I don't think either one of them complained about it. It
was just a reflection of CC's assessment of whether their contribution
to the work in question was significant enough to be credited.
And I just watched _Sons of the Desert_ and some Stooges films
of the forties. No assistant directors were credited, though
I'm sure _Sons_ involved one or more. I'd say d'Arrast was
lucky to be credited the first time. And the list of credits
in both films was remarkably basic and short. This was
the normal practice in the forties.
>>Because the film had undergone significant alterations
>>in the reissue, and there were new people to credit?
>>
>>(I consider this one of the likelier explanations.)
>
>I don't quite understand. Wasn't this still the film that
>d'Arrast acted as asst director? But now, it's with sound
>(and minor plot alterations).
Well, it was mainly the addition of sound that necessitated
additional credits. No one was credited for the recutting,
though cutters were certainly involved in the mechanics of
it. So to keep the list of credits short in keeping with
prevailing practice, the focus would necessarily go on
those who had actually worked on the reissue.
To me, this is just common sense.
Now, of course, everyone, including the smallest bit
player, would have to be credited.
And any friction that
>the two of them engaged in should have no consideration
>as to whether d'Arrast is credited in the reissue or not.
It may well not have. The friction at that date is
purely conjectural. D'Arrast was on basically good
terms with CC in 1931-2, when he accompanied him on his
travels in the south of France, though he was making
unflattering comments about CC in the late twenties,
when Crocker joined the crew. Crocker, however, didn't
seem to share d'Arrast's negative assessment of his boss--
even though CC was temporarily dissatisfied with him.
The difference here is temperament. Crocker seems to have
had an easygoing, laid-back personality. D'Arrast was
egoistic and competitive, which led to a resentment of CC
that Crocker didn't feel.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
>G-H...@webtv.net writes:
>
>> d'Arrast was a director of some talent
>
>He was considerably more than that.
>
>"Laughter" and "Topaze" are brilliant films.
>
>The latter of the two is available on video (and the former bloody well should
>be), and I would advise any film buff to check it out -- among other things, it
>has John Barrymore's best performance on film.
Lots of directors have had talent and produced one or two fine films without
ever breaking into the top rank. That's probably what rankled with
d'Arrast.
George Shelps
>Anyone who claims that an assistant or
>associate director on a Chaplin film was a
>"co-director" doesn't have a very clear
>understanding of the dynamics of a
>Chaplin production, IMO.
You know, as I pressed the "Send Button," I thought, "Somebody is going
to tell me
I don't know what I'm talking about because I called d'Arrast a
"co-director,"
Thanks, David, you win First Prize: a
plastic Derby Doll.
(I am also asking for trouble for using the
phrase "don't know what I'm talking about" as a substitute for "doesn't
have a very
clear understanding." but I was in an
"extremist" mood.)
Now, to the substance: Chaplin hired experienced, established directors
like
Sutherland, d'Arrast, or Florey presumably
because he needed an objective, professional eye on hand while he was
immersed in playing the scence and, additionally, to shoot scenes in
which Chaplin did not appear or in which he had no creative interest.
I have seen a photograph, for example
(I think it may have been in FILMS IN REVIEW...Lou?) of Florey sitting
in a
director's chair and Chaplin in his Verdoux
get-up appearing to be seeking a reaction from Florey.
The directorial function is technical as well as creative, and I was
using the term in the first sense. "Assistant director" (as some film
savvy
person might confirm) is more in the realm of leg man for the production
without ny
independent directorial function. "Associate director" doesn't have any
definition that I'm aware of, so I chose the
term "co-director," to indicate that, at times, these collaborators
actually
*directed.*
On LIMELIGHT the "Associate Director" was the young Robert Aldrich who
was just beginning a major career. Aldrich once commented on his
experience with Chaplin in an interview, but I don't have the piece.
Feuillade
But first quotes George:
>> d'Arrast was a director of some talent
>> and he and Florey may have been two of
>> his most talented co-directors. Perhaps
>> therein lies the clash of egos.
> Both d'Arrast and Florey would be lucky to be
> considered second-rate.
About d'Arrast this is clearly untrue -- as anyone who has seen his films can
attest.
As I have seen two of his most famous films in theatrical settings, I think
that even George underrestimates him. He had more than "some talent."
I would suggest that Connie rent "Topaze" with John Barrymore (not to be
confused with the Hitchcock film "Topaz," from the Leon Uris novel) to see for
herself.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) says:
>Well, it was mainly the addition of sound that necessitated
>additional credits. No one was credited for the recutting,
>though cutters were certainly involved in the mechanics of
>it.
I see according to David T. that they were credited, which I
didn't remember. That only strengthens the argument that
the changes in credits favored those who had actually worked
on the reissue:
>So to keep the list of credits short in keeping with
>prevailing practice, the focus would necessarily go on
>those who had actually worked on the reissue.
Connie K.
George Shelps
<<Anything. Lou talks affable, but he plays low down and dirty.
I'm still waiting for some clue as to why he "loves" CC.>>
And *you* asked *me* to tone down my
rhetoric?
I think Lou's affection for Chaplin and his films has been expressed
numerous times. Just because he doesn't approve
(or rationalize) everything Chaplin said or did doesn't mean he doesn't
love Chaplin.
George Shelps
<<Well, d'Arrast wasn't involved in any way with the work on the
reissue. It would seem to follow that he wasn't under contract and
wasn't paid for work he didn't do. >>
Please! The reissue of CITY LIGHTS involved no significant changes in
the content. d'Arrast's work remained in the film. His credit should
not have been deleted and Chaplin would not have gotten away with this
today.
==Removing his name was petty.==
<<Not necessarily. You and Lou seem to have an uncanny capacity for
reading CC's mind. Would you care to share your secrets with us? >>
Would you share yours? I was responding to your speculation that
Chaplin removed
the name because of snide remarks that
d'Arrast had made, and that, therefore,
Chaplin didn't "owe" him the credit anymore. If that's why he
removed it,
it was petty. At best, it was unfair.
===Anyway, credits are vitally important in the film business, just as
your vitae are in your field. But I think d'Arrast was one among many
who came into Chaplin's orbit and were flung out rather disillusioned by
the great man....Marlon Brando on COUNTESS===
<<Since all these people were egomaniacs themselves, including Brando, I
see no reason to take their side.>>
Who's "taking their side?" I also cited Raye and Oakie (which you
snipped) as
collaborators who loved working with Chaplin. I was simply citing the
ego-bruising aspect of working with Chaplin that is documented by the
responses and reactions of lesser egomaniacs. These ego clashes may
indeed have given both sides the sense of having been treated unjustly.
But since
Chaplin was the boss, he could step over the line of backbiting and
affect the career prospects of his antagonists. Common enough conduct
of the rich and the powerful in Hollywood.
===d'Arrast was a director of some talent
and he and Florey may have been two of his most talented co-directors.
Perhaps therein lies the clash of egos===
<<Both d'Arrast and Florey would be lucky to be considered second-rate.
The basis for their resentment of CC is rather obvious.>>
Well, second rate compared to Chaplin makes a lot of major directors
second rate. Both Florey and d'Arrast did interesting work.
--
George Shelps
<<As I have seen two of his most famous films in theatrical settings, I
think that even George underrestimates him. He had more than "some
talent." >>
I understated the matter because I didn't
want to start an off-topic discussion of
d'Arrast. Sarris thinks very highly of him.
And I saw the late Bill Everson's print of TOPAZE. Chaplin was
fortunate to have him on board.
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> DTot...@aol.com:
>
> >Anyone who claims that an assistant or
> >associate director on a Chaplin film was a
> >"co-director" doesn't have a very clear
> >understanding of the dynamics of a
> >Chaplin production, IMO.
>
> You know, as I pressed the "Send Button," I thought, "Somebody is going
> to tell me
> I don't know what I'm talking about because I called d'Arrast a
> "co-director,"
>
> Thanks, David, you win First Prize: a
> plastic Derby Doll.
And perhaps you can explain why you think sarcasm is the appropriate
response for correcting your self-admitted error.
> (I am also asking for trouble for using the
> phrase "don't know what I'm talking about" as a substitute for "doesn't
> have a very
> clear understanding." but I was in an
> "extremist" mood.)
Why make excuses now for what is, unfortunately, far more common than not.
:-)
> Now, to the substance: Chaplin hired experienced, established directors
> like
> Sutherland, d'Arrast, or Florey presumably
> because he needed an objective, professional eye on hand while he was
> immersed in playing the scence and, additionally, to shoot scenes in
> which Chaplin did not appear or in which he had no creative interest.
Good, let's do deal with substance! This discussion, as far as I was aware,
was about The Gold Rush. Florey is a different case (which I will address
later in this post). As well as being a vaudeville and film actor, Riesner
is credited as having been an assistant (not assistant director) for the
First Nationals before becoming co-assistant director for The Gold Rush,
but in no way was he an "experienced, established director." Likewise,
Sutherland had an acting career with Sennett, but prior to Woman of Paris
(where he was an assistant, not assistant director), had no directing
experience that I am aware of. According to the CHAPLIN ENCYCLOPEDIA,
"Sutherland admitted having contributed in only a functional way to Gold
Rush, emphasizing that Chaplin had directed himself." He did go on from
that project to become a director in sound films. D'Arrast, as far as I am
aware, also had no previous directorial experience prior to being hired as
a research assistant for Woman of Paris, and then as co-assistant director
for The Gold Rush. Again according to CHAPLIN ENCYCLOPEDIA, citing Jack
Spears, "D'Arrast's friendship with Chaplin paled in later years,
especially when Chaplin reportedly declined to help in the financing and
distribution of some d'Arrast projects. Chaplin is claimed to have thought
at least one of them too similar to his own work, the result not of
conscious imitation, but of Chaplin's influence upon his former colleague."
This is apparently the lead-in information to the story with Eleanor
Boardman at the '42 re-issue.
As George correctly indicates below, 'assistant director' is indeed more
"in the realm of leg man for the production without any independent
directorial function." So much for those three being hired as "experienced,
established directors."
> I have seen a photograph, for example
> (I think it may have been in FILMS IN REVIEW...Lou?) of Florey sitting
> in a
> director's chair and Chaplin in his Verdoux
> get-up appearing to be seeking a reaction from Florey.
Is that a different one than the one I am familiar with in which Chaplin
appears to be asking Florey who the hell he thinks he is interfering with
Chaplin's idea of how the shot is supposed to work? For all I know, he
might just as well have been asking if lunch had given him gas too. I've
got a picture of myself in Attenborough's chair on the set of Chaplin
talking to Lord Richard. Does that mean I should get co-directing credit?
Don't you think it is at least a little ridiculous to be claiming you can
discern that kind of information from a *photograph*?
> The directorial function is technical as well as creative, and I was
> using the term in the first sense. "Assistant director" (as some film
> savvy
> person might confirm) is more in the realm of leg man for the production
> without ny
> independent directorial function. "Associate director" doesn't have any
> definition that I'm aware of, so I chose the
> term "co-director," to indicate that, at times, these collaborators
> actually
> *directed.*
The term "associate director" had a significant enough meaning to Florey
for him to have penned the following letter to Tim Lyons, as printed in
LIMELIGHT, V. II, No. 1: "You credit me as being Chaplin's assistant. This
is an error. At that time I had been directing pictures for more than 20
years. I had just finished 5 films at Warner Bros., was preparing another
for RKO, and writing an original story for Dick Powell which I would direct
the following year (Universal). I was visiting Chaplin, one afternoon when
he told me about his idea - or rather Orson Welles's - of a comedy on the
French BlueBeard Landru. Chaplin wanted to know if I would accept to be his
ASSOCIATE director (NOT his assistant) the making of Verdoux being a gamble
- C. Chaplin in a comedy of murders! - he didn't want to waste too much
time shooting nor to invest a large amount of money in such an undertaking.
He needed another director constantly behind the camera while he was in
front of it. In the first place the screen directors' guild would not have
allowed me to work as an assistant, I was not paid to that effect, and we
hired a first and a second assistant to work with us. The RKO film being
postponed for several months, I accepted Chaplin's offer and worked from
the start to the finish of VERDOUX as an associate director being credited
as such, on the screen, on the call sheets, and all the publicity
materials. Consequently, I would appreciate a rectification."
As it turns out, the publicity materials in France incorrectly listed
Florey as assistant director (whether, or why, Chaplin would have had any
involvement or responsibility for the error is unknown), pretty obviously
contributing to Florey's later expressed negative feelings about his
involvement in that project. Not that this has anything to do with the
topic of credits for The Gold Rush, but it does indicate some people in the
know feel a very clear definition and distinction between the roles of
'associate' and 'assistant' exists. Florey's correct credits have remained
on all versions of the film I have seen.
David
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> bq...@yfn.ysu.edu:
>
> <<Well, d'Arrast wasn't involved in any way with the work on the
> reissue. It would seem to follow that he wasn't under contract and
> wasn't paid for work he didn't do. >>
>
> Please! The reissue of CITY LIGHTS involved no significant changes in
> the content. d'Arrast's work remained in the film.
To my knowledge, d'Arrast had *no* involvement in City Lights. His work
does not remain in that film because it wasn't there in the first place. I
believe the film in question is The Gold Rush.First, I am yet to be
convinced that d'Arrast ever got original credit. I'm not saying he didn't,
I simply don't know. As George himself stated, the position of assistant
director quite typically was that of a "leg man" with very limited or
possibly no creative input (see Sutherland's assessment of his own role on
the film). As such, it would be far more atypical to give screen credit to
someone in that position than not at that time. Add to that the fact that
on TGR the position was shared by 3 individuals, and any screen credit
would have been a very generous gesture, if indeed it originally existed,
but certainly not something to be expected.
> His credit should
> not have been deleted and Chaplin would not have gotten away with this
> today.
Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present a
balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is his
intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin for not
meeting *today's* standards in an action that *might* have taken place 56
years ago is beyond my comprehension. It seems far more consistent with
someone desiring to cast aspersions without substantiation to me, but what
do I know.
> ==Removing his name was petty.==
>
No George, your 'superior' judgmental attitude, based on the evidence you
apparently have, is what is petty.
David
George Shelps
DTot...@aol.com:
<<No George, your 'superior' judgmental attitude, based on the evidence
you apparently have, is what is petty.>>
If he removed a credit out of pique, it's petty.
Spare me your Sixties' cant.
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present a
balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is his
intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based on an
imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my comprehension.
It seems far more consistent with
someone desiring to cast aspersions without substantiation to me, but what
do I know.
Spare *all* of us your 'superior' judgmental attitude.
David
Robert Birchard
GR, however it is my undertanding that Sutherland and D'Arrast worked as
"associate" directors on the film, NOT as assistant directors.
The job of the assistant director is not a creative one, it is an
administrative function. The Assistant director keeps the shooting
schedule, see that the extras are hired and ready, pushes the crew to
get its shot quota and keeps the paperwork for the company. It was
rarely common for Assistant directors to receive screen credit before
1930.
Sutherland and D'Arrast worked in another capacity, shooting
some scenes CC wasn't in, standing by the camera to approve takes, etc.
Florey served in this capacity on some CC films as did Robert
Aldrich on Limelight.
One might argue that The Gold Rush and The Circus were
better-staged than the average CC film and that this phenomenon might be
due to the presence of Sutherland and D'Arrast--but it would be
difficult to prove at this late date.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Robert Birchard
>
> Once again, here is a listing from M.P.N Studio News, 10-21-16:
>
> BRYAN, Vincent Patick, director and scenario writer, Lone Star Film; b.
> St. Johns, Newfoundland, June 22, 1877; edc. pub. schls., N.Y.C.; stage
> career, wrote "The Man From Now" for H. W. Savage, "The Queen of the
> Moulin Rouge" for Tom Ryley, etc., 6 seasons with Primrose and
> Dockstader Minstrels, wrote acts and vaud. sketches for Nat Wills, Lew
> Dockstader, Montgomery and Stone, Gertrude Hoffman, Irene Franklin,
> etc.; screen career, Keystone ("A Favorite Fool"), Essanay ("Carmen,"
> "Police"), Lone Star ("The Floorwalker," "The Fireman," "The Vagabond,"
> "One A.M.," "The Count," etc.). Song writer, wrote "He’s My Pal," "Don’t
> Take Me Home," "Please Go Way and Let Me Sleep," etc. Hght. 6 ft., wght.
> 165, blond hair and blue eyes. Home ad., 6229 Banner Place, Colegrove,
> Los Angeles, Cal. Studio ad., 1025 Lillian Way, Los Angeles, Cal.
> M.P.N. Studio News 10-21-16
>
> Again, this is probably a listing which was submitted either by
> Chaplin's studios or Bryan himself. Even if it weren't a studio release,
> wouldn't the studio execs have to approve such a listing? This would
> indicate that Bryan did some kind of writing for "Police" and "Carmen."
> And what about the studio address on Lillian Way?
> >
> > I do not strongly hold to the theory that Bryan was responsible for my
> > preceived "uniqueness" of The Floorwalker. If I were discussing the film with
> > less rabid fans, I probably wouldn't even mention Bryan's "influence" at all
> > since it cannot be accurately gauged and measured. I do, however, find it
> > interesting to speculate among the Chaplin experts here about the role of
> > Chaplin's "silent" writers.
>
> Perhaps "influence" is the wrong word here. That would imply that he
> re-directed Chaplin's artistic thought. I don't think so. At best, Bryan
> was a co-writer. What I take that to mean, as a writer myself, is that
> *at the very most,* Chaplin would have described his idea, the plot, the
> outcome, and Bryan would work out the details. He may have come up with
> some ideas, but their inclusion in any film would be contingent upon
> Chaplin's approval. That is why I would consider anything that Bryan did
> for Chaplin as a contribution, rather than an influence. Additionally,
> his stint with CC was rather short - about 1-1/2 to 2 years, maximum.
It may be impossible at this late date to de-cipher what any of
CC's collaborators may or may not have contributed, but piecing together
the list of collaborators is a fascinating exercise.
Despite the fact that CC wrote, directed, and starred in his own
films, I can tell you from personal experience that it is virtually
impossible for one person to make movie by himself. Bryan was
undoubtedly one of several "gag men" attached to the CC unit over the
years, and his contributions may have been signifigant or they may not.
Recently PBS did a special on Caeser's Writers--those who wrote for
Sid Caeser's "Your Show of Shows" in the 1950's--it was quite
interesting to see the dynamics of this group so many years later. I
suspect CC had a similar group who worked with him--as did Lloyd,
Keaton, Langdon, et. al.
George Shelps
<<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
comprehension.>>
Down, boy! The "motive" was originally proposed by Connie, and I didn't
see you barking at *her.*
>However, d'Arrast was known to make
>snide remarks about Chaplin behind his
>back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe
>such a friend very much.
<<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
comprehension. It seems far more consistent with someone desiring to
cast aspersions without substantiation to me, but what do I know.>>
Not much--when it comes to my motives,
Mr T. The whole topic began when Lou
presented d'Arrast's account. Everybody
contributed opinions based on this premise. If his story is true, and
if Chaplin removed the credit out of pique, then it
*was* petty. To me, that's a reasonable
conclusion.
Your attitude continues to rankle me:
(1) You seem to regard this as a *fan*
group where any criticism of Chaplin is
verboten.
(2) The only criticism permitted is that which meets a test of
documentation
the standards of which are constantly
shifting in order to provide you with an
opportunity to flame the critic.
(3) You have started on an aggressive
campaign to hector such critics---which Lou has pointed out. This
campaign
began after I nailed you for your misleading post about Lita's second
book.
<<Spare *all* of us your 'superior' judgmental attitude.>>
This from the spewer who compared
me to "four slandering scum!"
David Totheroh
Robert Birchard wrote:
> I have no specific knowledge to offer re D'Arrast's contribution to
> GR, however it is my undertanding that Sutherland and D'Arrast worked as
> "associate" directors on the film, NOT as assistant directors.
I'd be very interested to know the source of your understanding. Along with
Chuck Riesner, the two you mention have *always* been credited as assistant
directors NOT as associate directors in any material I have seen, even by
David Robinson, who knows the difference (he does credit Florey as
associate director for Verdoux), *and* who had access to the call sheets.
> The job of the assistant director is not a creative one, it is an
> administrative function. The Assistant director keeps the shooting
> schedule, see that the extras are hired and ready, pushes the crew to
> get its shot quota and keeps the paperwork for the company. It was
> rarely common for Assistant directors to receive screen credit before
> 1930.
>
> Sutherland and D'Arrast worked in another capacity, shooting
> some scenes CC wasn't in, standing by the camera to approve takes, etc.
Again, I'm curious as to the source of your information. It directly
contradicts Sutherland's own account of his role on the film, and Chaplin's
praise of it. In Unknown Chaplin, Sutherland is heard from a 1959 taped
interview saying Chaplin called his work on the Chilkoot Pass scene "the
greatest executive feat I've ever seen." He goes on to say, "Don't kid
yourself, Chaplin directed himself," and further describes his role as
being functional rather than creative. Sounds like your definition of an
assistant to me.
> Florey served in this capacity on some CC films as did Robert
> Aldrich on Limelight.
Florey worked only on Verdoux to the best of my knowledge.
> One might argue that The Gold Rush and The Circus were
> better-staged than the average CC film and that this phenomenon might be
> due to the presence of Sutherland and D'Arrast--but it would be
> difficult to prove at this late date.
Actually, not so difficult. But you've got the wrong guys for The Circus,
so your theory that the better staging is due to them doesn't hold water.
Both d'Arrast and Sutherland were gone from the Chaplin Studio by then, and
Harry Crocker held the position of assistant director on that film.
D'Arrast was directing on his own at that time. A Gentleman of Paris,
produced by Paramount, starring Adolph Menjou, directed by Harry d'Abbadie
d'Arrast, was released in 1927 (could this be the project CC refused to
back 'cuz he saw it as a ripoff?).
Upon hearing that Crocker was now filling the position he once held at the
studio, Sutherland gave Crocker this frequently cited advice about Chaplin:
"If you're smart you enter Chaplin on your books as a son-of-a-bitch. He
isn't always one, but he can be one on occasion. I thought it better to
start off with that appellation of him in mind, then when he behaves badly
it doesn't come as quite the shock it might otherwise be, and all his good
behavior comes as quite a pleasant surprise."
While it may be true that Chaplin gets too much credit for too many aspects
of his films, I don't think it serves anyone's purpose to assign undue
credit inaccurately to people who undoubtedly contributed to Chaplin's
work.
David
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> DTot...@aol.com:
>
> <<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
> a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
> his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
> on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
> comprehension.>>
>
> Down, boy! The "motive" was originally proposed by Connie, and I didn't
> see you barking at *her.*
First of all, I am not your, or anyone's *boy*. Secondly, you may notice
that my problem was your "judgmental implication" based on an imagined
motive. Connie presented the motive as a possible reason for an action
which at that point had been accepted as a given. It has since been shown
that there is questionable basis at best to even believe the action took
place. For you to continue to present a "judgmental implication" based on a
posited motivation for an action you don't even know happened *is* still
beyond my comprehension, given that you want me to believe your intent is a
balanced, reasonable assessment."
> >However, d'Arrast was known to make
> >snide remarks about Chaplin behind his
> >back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe
> >such a friend very much.
>
> <<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
> a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
> his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
> on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
> comprehension. It seems far more consistent with someone desiring to
> cast aspersions without substantiation to me, but what do I know.>>
>
> Not much--when it comes to my motives,
> Mr T. The whole topic began when Lou
> presented d'Arrast's account. Everybody
> contributed opinions based on this premise. If his story is true, and
> if Chaplin removed the credit out of pique, then it
> *was* petty. To me, that's a reasonable
> conclusion.
>
> Your attitude continues to rankle me:
>
> (1) You seem to regard this as a *fan*
> group where any criticism of Chaplin is
> verboten.
*If* criticism is based on hypothetical, insupportable or already disproven
premises, I will continue to point that out. It has nothing to do with
criticism being verboten (to use *your* Germanic term), it has everything
to do with expecting that criticism to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Or
do you feel that your criticisms are somehow above reproach?
> (2) The only criticism permitted is that which meets a test of
> documentation
> the standards of which are constantly
> shifting in order to provide you with an
> opportunity to flame the critic.
I think in this particular case a simple standard of *any* evidence beyond
one self-serving statement would suffice.
> (3) You have started on an aggressive
> campaign to hector such critics---which Lou has pointed out. This
> campaign
> began after I nailed you for your misleading post about Lita's second
> book.
You're a little behind the curve here, George. My "hectoring" was simply
pointing out where I felt errors had been made. Lou has admitted that he
made an error and that his "defensive ego" kept him from seeing the issue
as opposed to the personality. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting you, Lou.)
I believe a search through DejaNews, apparently one of your favorite
pastimes these days, will show that what you call "an aggressive campaign
to hector such critics" would more appropriately be seen as an attempt to
keep the discussions here based on something approaching accuracy, an
activity I have pursued since long before your arrival here (although I
will admit your presence has kept me and others quite busy along those
lines).
> <<Spare *all* of us your 'superior' judgmental attitude.>>
>
> This from the spewer who compared
> me to "four slandering scum!"
No George, I compared your *tactic* to that of "four slandering scum!" When
are you going to get that it's not about you, it's about what is said and
the manner in which it is said?
David
Crooner
David Totheroh responds to George...
>> (3) You have started on an aggressive campaign
>> to hector such critics---which Lou has pointed out.
>> This campaign began after I nailed you for your
>> misleading post about Lita's second book.
>
>You're a little behind the curve here, George. My
>"hectoring" was simply pointing out where I felt errors
>had been made. Lou has admitted that he made an error
>and that his "defensive ego" kept him from seeing the issue
>as opposed to the personality. (I hope I'm not
>misrepresenting you, Lou.)
>
David, my friend, it's far better to let things that have passed,
remain past. But, in the interest of answering your question: No,
I wouldn't suggest that my defensive ego was the culprit as much
as your aggressive ego that had been on my tail for weeks -- for
any and all reasons.
And, sorry, I still agree with George's point #3. Until I see
some changes in you.
~ Crooner
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
>bq...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
>
>But first quotes George:
>
>>> d'Arrast was a director of some talent
>>> and he and Florey may have been two of
>>> his most talented co-directors. Perhaps
>>> therein lies the clash of egos.
>
>> Both d'Arrast and Florey would be lucky to be
>> considered second-rate.
>
>About d'Arrast this is clearly untrue -- as anyone who has seen his films can
>attest.
>
>As I have seen two of his most famous films in theatrical settings, I think
>that even George underrestimates him. He had more than "some talent."
>
>I would suggest that Connie rent "Topaze" with John Barrymore (not to be
>confused with the Hitchcock film "Topaz," from the Leon Uris novel) to see for
>herself.
If I can get it. No guarantee of that.
But that's not exactly what I meant. As you'll see from another post,
I don't doubt that he may have done an excellent film (or two), or
that Florey's _Life and Death of a Hollywood Extra_ isn't an
excellent short film, for that matter.
Neither of them is a director of the first rank. Would you put
them in the same class with Ford, Hitchcock, Chaplin?
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>bq259yfn.ysu.edu:
>
><<Anything. Lou talks affable, but he plays low down and dirty.
>
>I'm still waiting for some clue as to why he "loves" CC.>>
>
>And *you* asked *me* to tone down my
>rhetoric?
I fail to see anything overstated in my rhetoric. Lou has indeed said
many times that he "loves" Chaplin, but all he talks about at length and
in detail is what he objects to about Chaplin.
Everyone here, including you, has been more specific about what they
like about Chapin's films, and about him as well.
So why doesn't Lou give us a break for his unremitting complaints and
tell us precisely and specifically what he *likes* about Chaplin?
It would be a more constructive and appropriate contribution to this
newsgroup than what he's given us so far.
>I think Lou's affection for Chaplin and his films has been expressed
>numerous times.
Solely in the abstract--at least in recent memory.
Just because he doesn't approve
>(or rationalize) everything Chaplin . . .
Ho hum!
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>bq...@yfn.ysu.edu:
>
><<Well, d'Arrast wasn't involved in any way with the work on the
>reissue. It would seem to follow that he wasn't under contract and
>wasn't paid for work he didn't do. >>
>
>Please!
Please what? Are you trying to *provoke* me, Mr. Shelps? ;)
The reissue of CITY LIGHTS involved no significant changes in
>the content. d'Arrast's work remained in the film. His credit should
>not have been deleted and Chaplin would not have gotten away with this
>today.
Okay smart guy! ;)
If d'Arrast's contribution was so important, why is it that assistant
directors are rarely credited in early films--although almost all of the
features must have involved one or more of them?
And as David points out, there's no evidence but his say-so that he was
credited in the first place. But assuming he was, then Sutherland must
have been credited also. However, Sutherland was not credited in the
reissue, even though his work remained in the film. Do we hear
Sutherland complaining about this? No, we do not. Why not? Probably,
because Sutherland felt that what Chaplin did was not unusual or
exceptionable.
As for "today," that has nothing to do with what people did in the
forties--as anyone who looks at the credits in older films can see.
>=3D=3DRemoving his name was petty.=3D=3D
>
><<Not necessarily. You and Lou seem to have an uncanny capacity for
>reading CC's mind. Would you care to share your secrets with us? >>
>
>Would you share yours? I was responding to your speculation that
>Chaplin removed
>the name because of snide remarks that
>d'Arrast had made, and that, therefore,
>Chaplin didn't=A0"owe" him the credit anymore. If that's why he
>removed it,
>it was petty. At best, it was unfair.
Now George, I don't claim to be able to read Chaplin's mind. I merely
mentioned the fact that d'Arrast's own behavior may have contributed to
his falling out of favor. He was far from being a sweet and sympathetic
type. I did not claim that this was definitely the case.
But if it were, I wouldn't consider CC "petty" for dropping the credit.
When so many people are involved in making a film, and so few are credited,
it's partly a matter of whim in any case.
These ego clashes may
>indeed have given both sides the sense of having been treated unjustly.
>But since
>Chaplin was the boss, he could step over the line of backbiting and
>affect the career prospects of his antagonists. Common enough conduct
>of the rich and the powerful in Hollywood.
Well, niether one of us knows if he did this, so why continue to
argue about something that probably never happened?
Feuillade
>feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
>
>> bq...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
>>> Both d'Arrast and Florey would be
>>> lucky to be considered second-rate.
>>
>> About d'Arrast this is clearly untrue --
>> as anyone who has seen his films
>> can attest.
>>
>> As I have seen two of his most famous
>> films in theatrical settings, I think
>> that even George underrestimates
>> him. He had more than "some talent."
>>
>> I would suggest that Connie rent
>> "Topaze" with John Barrymore (not
>> to be confused with the Hitchcock
>> film "Topaz," from the Leon Uris
>> novel) to see for herself.
>
> If I can get it. No guarantee of that.
It was pretty widely distributed by CBS/FOX (the same people who distribute the
Chaplin films).
> But that's not exactly what I meant.
> As you'll see from another post,
> I don't doubt that he may have done
> an excellent film (or two), or that
> Florey's _Life and Death of a
> Hollywood Extra_ isn't an excellent
> short film, for that matter.
>
> Neither of them is a director of the
> first rank. Would you put them in the
> same class with Ford, Hitchcock,
> Chaplin?
I think you're confusing quantity with quality.
d'Arrast did not make nearly as many films as a Ford or a Hitchcock. But by
that standard, Harold Lloyd would be considered a better filmmaker than Chaplin
-- an idea I doubt would find many adherents here.
Many people would consider Terrence Malick one of the best and most influential
directors alive, even though his reputation rests on just two films made in the
70s (his first film in 20 years will released soon).
Judging him by the quality of the films of his that I've seen, I would say that
d'Arrast was a brilliant director. So yes, I would say he is first-rate.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>
>DTot...@aol.com:
>
><<No George, your 'superior' judgmental attitude, based on the evidence
>you apparently have, is what is petty.>>
>
>If he removed a credit out of pique, it's petty.
>
>Spare me your Sixties' cant.
Am I missing something?
Since when is saying someone has a judgmental attitude "sixties cant"?
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
><<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
>a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
>his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
>on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
>comprehension.>>
>
>Down, boy! The "motive" was originally proposed by Connie, and I didn't
>see you barking at *her.*
>
>>However, d'Arrast was known to make
>>snide remarks about Chaplin behind his
>>back. Maybe CC decided he didn't owe
>>such a friend very much.
I don't think there's any mystery to why I wasn't barked at for this.
I was not passing judgment on CC. I was merely pointing out that
d'Arrast was not entirely lovable--certainly not lovable enough to go
out of one's way to credit for a rather different version of a film he'd
worked on 18 years ago.
It does amuse me how much confidence you put in quotes.
A quote is only effective if you respect its meaning.
><<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
>a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
>his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
>on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
>comprehension. It seems far more consistent with someone desiring to
>cast aspersions without substantiation to me, but what do I know.>>
>
>Your attitude continues to rankle me:
Everything rankles you that interferes with your uninhibited conjectures.
>(1) You seem to regard this as a *fan*
>group where any criticism of Chaplin is
>verboten.
Ho,hum! You seem to feel that if you say this
often enough, some sucker will believe it.
There's been plenty of criticism of CC's films, and of some of
the things he did, on this group. I've expressed some of them
myself. But if a criticism seems to me unreasonable, I won't
hesitate to dispute it. It's known as a sense of fair play,
George.
And your assumption that some definite distinction exists
between a fan group and a movies group has
no basis in fact. Alt.movies.scorsese consists of
people who admire Scorsese's films. How much time time
do they waste harping on Marty's drug experiences, his
four marriages, etc? Not much--if they're smart.
>(2) The only criticism permitted is that which meets a test of
>documentation
>the standards of which are constantly
>shifting in order to provide you with an
>opportunity to flame the critic.
Exactly how are the standards of documentation invoked here
constantly shifting?
Basically, the appeal is for a respect for facts.
But of course you've often expressed your contempt for facts,
because they interfere too much with your theories.
George Shelps
<<If d'Arrast's contribution was so important, why is it that assistant
directors are rarely credited in early films--although almost all of the
features must have involved one or more of them?>>
I didn't say d'Arrast's contribution was
important. I was responding to your
cascade of rationalizations about why
he should have had, deserved to have had, or should have expected to
have had, his credit removed on THE GOLD RUSH reissue.
We have a statement by d'Arrast immediately considered discreditable.
Why?
<<And as David points out, there's no evidence but his say-so that he
was credited in the first place. But assuming he was, then Sutherland
must have been credited also. However, Sutherland was not credited in
the reissue, even though his work remained in the film. Do we hear
Sutherland complaining about this? No, we do not. Why not? Probably,
because Sutherland felt that what Chaplin did was not unusual or
exceptionable.>>
Sutherland was a working director at the time while d'Arrast was on the
outs with the Hollywood establishment. Maybe the credit would have
helped him.
<<As for "today," that has nothing to do with what people did in the
forties--as anyone who looks at the credits in older films can see.>>
The Hollywood guilds and unions are stronger today and credit is
contractually
required in these days of decentralized
production. In Chaplin's day, usually
only the department heads were typically
credited. Chaplin could not have deleted
a credit so easily today for reasons above.
<<Now George, I don't claim to be able to read Chaplin's mind. I merely
mentioned the fact that d'Arrast's own behavior may have contributed to
his falling out of favor. He was far from being a sweet and sympathetic
type. I did not claim that this was definitely the case.>>
Oh, *definitely* is the loophole then? OK, no,you did not claim that
Chaplin was
definitely pissed at d'Arrast....and removed his credit. But there was
a tone that communicated, "if this was the reason,
it was justified." To that I respond, "If this was the reason, it was
petty." Conditional, nothing definite, OK?
<<But if it were, I wouldn't consider CC "petty" for dropping the
credit. When so many people are involved in making a film, and so few
are credited, it's partly a matter of whim in any case. >>
==These ego clashes may
indeed have given both sides the sense of having been treated unjustly.
But since
Chaplin was the boss, he could step over the line of backbiting and
affect the career prospects of his antagonists. Common enough conduct of
the rich and the powerful in Hollywood.===
<<Well, niether one of us knows if he did this, so why continue to argue
about something that probably never happened?>>
OK, let's drop it.
George Shelps
<<it has everything to do with expecting that criticism to be able to
stand up to scrutiny. Or do you feel that your criticisms are somehow
above reproach?>>
Make all the criticisms you wish. You long ago discredited yourself in
my eyes as a serious commentator on my contributions here. And, no, I
don't feel my "criticisms
are somehow above reproach." Just above your level of slimy
insinuation.
Such as below:
<<No George, I compared your *tactic* to that of "four slandering scum!"
When are you going to get that it's not about you, it's about what is
said and the manner in which it is said?>>
Oh, gee. Only my message and my manner but not *me.* Boy**, what a
relief!
**does not refer to you.
George Shelps
<<I don't think there's any mystery to why I wasn't barked at for this.
I was not passing judgment on CC. I was merely pointing out that
d'Arrast was not entirely lovable--certainly not lovable enough to go
out of one's way to credit for a rather different version of a film he'd
worked on 18 years ago.>>
Proves my point. Speculation is OK when other people agree with it.
David doesn't care what you speculate about, as long as it tallies with
his own prejudices. When it doesn't, it's a "bad thing."
<<It does amuse me how much confidence you put in quotes.
A quote is only effective if you respect its meaning. >>
Try it yourself.
<<Ho,hum! You seem to feel that if you say this often enough, some
sucker will believe it.
There's been plenty of criticism of CC's films, and of some of the
things he did, on this group. I've expressed some of them myself. But if
a criticism seems to me unreasonable, I won't hesitate to dispute it.
It's known as a sense of fair play, George.>>
Thank you for the ethics lesson. Fair play for the critic (a real
person) takes second place to fair play for Chaplin (a figure from film
history). I like your sense of priorities.
<<And your assumption that some definite distinction exists between a
fan group and a movies group has no basis in fact. Alt.movies.scorsese
consists of people who admire Scorsese's films. How much time time do
they waste harping on Marty's drug experiences, his four marriages, etc?
Not much--if they're smart.>>
I'm sure they don't waste time concocting
rationalizations and apologies for them either.
==(2) The only criticism permitted is that which meets a test of
documentation
the standards of which are constantly
shifting in order to provide you with an opportunity to flame the
critic.===
<<Exactly how are the standards of documentation invoked here constantly
shifting?>>
They shift according to the needs of the flamer. If someone had said,
hey, d'Arrast's credit was removed from THE GOLD RUSH reissue, and
Chaplin
and d'Arrast had some conflicts...I'll bet
d'Arrast was offended...someone on your side of the fence would say,
well, how do we know what d'Arrast thought? Where's your documentation?
In this case, we know what he thought. So the argument shifts to,
that's merely his say so. And then, maybe it isn't really true. And,
then, who really knows? And, then, who really cares?
It would be laughable if it weren't accompanied by personal attacks.
<<Basically, the appeal is for a respect for facts.
But of course you've often expressed your contempt for facts, because
they interfere too much with your theories.>>
Not true. Nowhere do I say this. What I have said is that facts
concerning cultural issues (other than basic historical data) are
inseparable from interpretation and the worldview of the communicator.
Constance Kuriyama
David Totheroh (DTot...@aol.com) writes:
> George Shelps wrote:
>
>> DTot...@aol.com:
>>
>> <<Why anyone who claims the goal of his posting here is only to present
>> a balanced, reasonable assessment of Chaplin, as George has claimed is
>> his intent, would make such a judgmental implication about Chaplin based
>> on an imagined motive for which he has no evidence is beyond my
>> comprehension.>>
>>
>> Down, boy! The "motive" was originally proposed by Connie, and I didn't
>> see you barking at *her.*
>
Of course, George wasn't trying to *provoke* you by calling you that.
Secondly, you may notice
> that my problem was your "judgmental implication" based on an imagined
> motive. Connie presented the motive as a possible reason for an action
> which at that point had been accepted as a given.
And not at all a *bad* reason. I guess I just don't see failure to
pander to a dick as "petty." And d'Arrast, IMO, really was a dick,
whether he made a good film or two or not.
<snip>
>> (1) You seem to regard this as a *fan*
>> group where any criticism of Chaplin is
>> verboten.
>
> *If* criticism is based on hypothetical, insupportable or already disproven
> premises, I will continue to point that out. It has nothing to do with
> criticism being verboten (to use *your* Germanic term),
You don't suppose George used that locution to *provoke* us, do you?
Let's hope he's not given up insinuating that we're Communists only to begin
insinuating that we're Nazis.
it has everything
> to do with expecting that criticism to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Or
> do you feel that your criticisms are somehow above reproach?
If so, discussion is futile.
<snip>
> No George, I compared your *tactic* to that of "four slandering scum"!
As I mentioned, some people find it impossible to grasp this distinction.
A criticism of their arguments is a criticism of them, in their eyes.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
Robert Birchard (bbir...@earthlink.net) writes:
>
> One might argue that The Gold Rush and The Circus were
> better-staged than the average CC film and that this phenomenon might be
> due to the presence of Sutherland and D'Arrast--but it would be
> difficult to prove at this late date.
I wouldn't want to try it.
I find most of CC's work from the Mutuals onward quite well-staged.
To me, the "average" of CC's work in this respect is consistently high
until we get to the soundies, and then matters get much more complicated.
But neither Sutherland or d'Arrast worked on _The Circus_. On that film
CC's assistant was Harry Crocker, who had no previous film experience,
and who never became a director. I'm afraid we'll have to give Rollie and/
or CC credit for whatever superior staging might be in _Circus_.
To me GR is pure Chaplin at his best. Sutherland oversaw much of the
mechanics of assembling and organizing the extras for the Chilkoot Pass
scene, but it is Chaplin's conception and Rollie's photography that make
it effective and memorable.
Connie K.
David Totheroh
Feuillade wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Judging him by the quality of the films of his that I've seen, I would say that
> d'Arrast was a brilliant director. So yes, I would say he is first-rate.
>
Having not seen any of d'Arrast's work (other than AWOP and TGR) I am in no
position to comment on the quality of his other work, one way or the other.
As to its relevance to this thread, I think it is important to restate that none
of that work had been done *prior* to his work with Chaplin. The claim that
Chaplin hired "excellent, experienced directors" as collaborators is unsupported
by the evidence for TGR. Now, if you'd like to claim that working with Chaplin was
the training that helped *create* several "excellent, experienced directors,"....
A fun aside, I have a page from an autograph book with allegedly Chaplin's
signature including a note indicating it was signed at the premiere of Dry
Martini, a d'Arrast film released in 1928.
David
George Shelps
<<You don't suppose George used that locution to *provoke* us, do you?
Let's hope he's not given up insinuating that we're Communists only to
begin insinuating that we're Nazis.>>
OK, Connie. This is utter garbage and you know it. "Verboten" happens
to be Germanism that has entered English usage and it is in my
dictionary as such.
===No George, I compared your *tactic* to that of "four slandering
scum"!====
<<As I mentioned, some people find it impossible to grasp this
distinction. A criticism of their arguments is a criticism of them, in
their eyes.>>
It is not an "argument" to say that I use the
tactics of "slandering scum."
It's just a smear.
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> bq...@yfn.ysu.edu:
>
> <<I don't think there's any mystery to why I wasn't barked at for this.
> I was not passing judgment on CC. I was merely pointing out that
> d'Arrast was not entirely lovable--certainly not lovable enough to go
> out of one's way to credit for a rather different version of a film he'd
> worked on 18 years ago.>>
>
> Proves my point. Speculation is OK when other people agree with it.
> David doesn't care what you speculate about, as long as it tallies with
> his own prejudices. When it doesn't, it's a "bad thing."
I have never objected to speculation when clearly presented as such, or
when it doesn't stupidly contradict known reality. So if that's your point,
consider it proven. So what?
But let's see if an analogy might help you understand my objection to what
you did a bit more clearly.
You presented a hypothetical, for which we have insufficient or
contradictory information to base a decision as to its factual nature. You
then posited a motive for actions leading from that hypothetical, and then
made a judgment as to that action. In other words "If he removed a credit
out of pique, it's petty."
Now for the analogy: If George were a Nazi and posted as he has here, it
would be perfectly understandable.
Do you begin to see why I think this form of speculation is inappropriate?
David
Feuillade
> Make all the criticisms you wish. You
> long ago discredited yourself in my
> eyes as a serious commentator on my
> contributions here. And, no, I don't
> feel my "criticisms are somehow above > reproach." Just above your level of
> slimy insinuation.
My, my -- what a sense of Deja Vu I'm feeling here.
How long is it before George starts calling David a "fathead"?
Anybody taking bets?
SeMurph
>storyline of "The Floorwalker" anything to really be proud of? -- I mean,
>it seems like a glorified Keystone, really! (I've been studying this one,
>and I'll have more to say about it in a couple of weeks).
I will be interested in hearing your views on "The Floorwalker." Personally, I
feel it is much more sophisticated an a Keystone -- at least in execution.
Sean
http://member.aol.com/SeMurph/index.html
"I & I, in creation where one's nature neither honors nor forgives. I & I, one
said to the other, no man sees my face and lives." B.Dylan
SeMurph
>outcome, and Bryan would work out the details.
That was probably the case with "The Floorwalker." By all accounts, the short
was inspired by an actual department store CC visited in New York.
SeMurph
The why really isn't important. If his work earned recognition on the original
release, it would be extremely unfair to remove his name from the reissue
regardless of the circumstances. How could any post-1925 falling out between
the two men affect d'Arrst's previous work?
Crooner
>tell us precisely and specifically what he *likes* about Chaplin?
Okay, fair enough. Chaplin is the most endearing movie icon that
has been with me since I was a child. He touches me in my inner
being, more so than any other figure in the arts or the movies.
I feel his disappointments and his pain; he was so human. Put a
decent pair of clothes on him, and he was one of us. In hopes, in
dreams, in sorrows. He's the one who always was looking for someone
to show affection toward him; but was usually left empty-handed.
But his defeats would simply not overwhelm him. With dogged
determination, he'd simply kick up his heels and jauntily walk
toward that next faraway adventure with a undefeated,
"I'm-going-to-find-my-ideal-anyway" attitude.
He could make me die laughing with just a slight facial expression.
When he is singing as the waiter in MODERN TIMES, and suddenly
he can't find his cuffs which he used as crib notes with the song
written on them, well, That indescribable look of panic is brilliant.
And then he goes into a "stalling-for-time" dance as he vainly searches
for the cuffs -- this too is also brilliant.
But most of Chaplin's pantomime is brilliant. So how can I tell you
of ALL of those looks and actions? But most of the great comedians
were inspired by those very same artful bits of business and learned
from the Master -- they learned from the Chaplin School of
Comedy. And his influence is still felt today. He is the
grandfather of comedy. Actually it would be better to call him
the "great" grandfather of comedy, because Chaplin WAS great &
had influenced the great comedians of the past. And when modern-day
comedians have been influenced by some of those great comedians,
well, remember, Chaplin influenced them. And after all is said
and done, even amid generations of comedians, there is only one Charlie.
The influence still touches ordinary people today when we seek escape
from the world's ills & find enjoyment in his comic antics in a
darkened theater or on television.
I find that I really can't do justice in conveying how great
CC was. I can't even adequately describe a simple gag from
MT. So how can I explain his genius? If one hasn't seen a
Chaplin picture, there's just no way to describe the artistry,
the precision of the movements, the facial expressions that
tell the audience exactly what is on his impish mind, the sadness
he evokes -- most times mixed with humor. How can one
describe them?
The closest an author can come to properly describing Charlie's art
is Dan Kamin, author of CHARLIE CHAPLIN'S ONE MAN SHOW.
It's a wonderful book. And yet, it pales in comparison to actually
seeing the artistry of this very human, very lovable, sometimes
roguish vagabond. Which is why I've always said, that most
of our petty arguments would simply fall by the wayside, if
ever we could all take in a Charlie Chaplin picture together.
~ Crooner
SeMurph
>omitted?
>
Not in the case of d'Arrast. His contribution was recognized initially.
>Because the film had undergone significant alterations
>in the reissue, and there were new people to credit?
In cases like that, it is customary to keep the people originally listed in the
credits and then add the new contributors.
I have some experience in these matters. I recently edited a feature which
underwent substantial revisions and some reshoots after the initial finish.
The revisions brought in a number of new professionals, yet everyone was
credited, even those whose work was completely undone or altered, because they
had helped bring us to the point to make the final "fixes."
I have also seen the mean-spirited side of "credits." It seems like on every
film I have worked on, there is a power struggle between the director,
producer(s), and writer(s) which tends to heat up when the subject of credits
finally arise. One day I even found myself threatening to walk off a film
because I thought someone's proper credit was being denied. Another time I had
to object because the producers wanted to give me too much credit.
SeMurph
>> and he and Florey may have been two of his most talented co-directors.
>> Perhaps therein lies the clash of egos.
>
>was a "co-director" doesn't have a very clear understanding of the dynamics
>of a Chaplin production, IMO.
>
From what I read, it seems that Florey and Chaplin seemed to have very
different ideas about the responsibilities of the assistant or associate
director. I agree with you, David, I don't think anyone else "directed" on a
Chaplin project!
SeMurph
>1925 GOLD RUSH would suffice & settle it. At this point,
>we only have d'Arrast's comment to go by.
Good point. However, since I see there are about thirty more posts on this
thread ahead of me, I doesn't look like this issue will be put to rest so
easily...
SeMurph
>It would seem to follow that he wasn't under contract and wasn't paid
>for work he didn't do.
Do you think there would have been a reissue of The Gold Rush if it hadn't been
for the efforts of the people who made it in 1925? The film didn't materialize
out of thin air. Was Rollie credited in the 1942 reissue? If so, why? Did he
shoot some new scenes? What about Georgia Hale? Did she offer any "new"
contribution?
SeMurph
>pander to a dick as "petty." And d'Arrast, IMO, really was a dick,
>whether he made a good film or two or not.
Of course, this is all mindless speculation, but...
Connie, please examine why personality should have anything to do with why a
person should receive credit on a film? Credit should be solely based on work,
not on the "whim" of the employer depending on whose been naughty or nice in
their personal dealings. (The various creative guilds arose in Hollywood to
combat this very problem!) IMHO, if it is true that CC removed d'Arrast's
name in 1942 after including it in 1925 -- and there is no irrefutable
evidence that is (so why are we even talking about this?) -- then I think
someone else might be the "dick" in this equation.
Connie, I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm sure you wouldn't be
happy if your boss stole away your credit and recognition because of something
you said years after the work was completed. Come on, work is work --
friendship and personality be damned.
SeMurph
>d'Arrast was not entirely lovable--certainly not lovable enough to go
>out of one's way to credit for a rather different version of a film he'd
>worked on 18 years ago.
What did Rollie do on the reissue to earn his credit?
SeMurph
>have been credited also. However, Sutherland was not credited in the
>reissue, even though his work remained in the film. Do we hear
>Sutherland complaining about this? No, we do not. Why not? Probably,
>because Sutherland felt that what Chaplin did was not unusual or
>exceptionable.
(DISCLAIMER: This whole discussion and ensuing character assassination is
pointless had d'Arrast or Sutherland not been credited in the 1925 release.)
Since we're getting into the business of mindreading, let me speculate that
Sutherland might well have been hurt and disappointed. This silence proves
absolutely nothing. Perhaps he simply want to get into an argument with
someone more famous and more powerful than him.
(Forgive this excursion into mindreading, as I confess in an earlier
discussion, I don't feel I am as skilled at it as other people on this board.)