Oddity in King of NY
jim
quite a bit to say also knows Chaplins lines and lipsyncs them while they
are interacting? BTW is that his real life son Michael?
Thanks,
Jim F.
David Totheroh
> In "A King of New York", has anyone noticed that the young boy that has
> quite a bit to say also knows Chaplins lines and lipsyncs them while they
> are interacting? BTW is that his real life son Michael?
Yes, and yes. ;-)
Rick Deerfield
I always laugh when I hear (or read) someone praise Michael's
performance in KONY. I think it's awful and stiff. The lip-synching
hurts that film more than anything else.
Rick D
"jim" <JFa...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<xjNLb.119363$Cs3.19...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
George Shelps
JFa...@optonline.net (jim) wrote:
Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
technical boners and leave them in
the films. Even the ending of CITY
LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
shoulder shots of the Tramp and
the Flower Girl.
__________________________________
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
RFCSAC627N
>Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
>technical boners and leave them in
>the films. Even the ending of CITY
>LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
>shoulder shots of the Tramp and
>the Flower Girl.
Imagine Kasey Kasem saying, "And that's just >one< of George Shelps's
Greatest Hits. You won't find this CD in any store. Just send $24.95 (plus
$9.95 for rush delivery) to:
GOLDEN OLDIES
P.O. Box 1952
Salem, Mass."
Constance Kuriyama
Here I thought it was just a broken record.
Actually, I think George has a malicious computer progam that automaticaly
recycles all of his derogatory comments, triggered by keywords in other
people's posts. I can't believe that a normal human being could stay awake
through all that repetition, much less one with a giant, Mensa-certified brain.
Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
Constance Kuriyama
> JFa...@optonline.net (jim) wrote:
>
>>In "A King of New York", has anyone
>>noticed that the young boy that has quite
>>a bit to say also knows Chaplins lines
>>and lipsyncs them while they are
>>interacting? BTW is that his real life son
>>Michael? Thanks,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
>>Jim F.
>
> Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
> technical boners and leave them in
> the films. Even the ending of CITY
> LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
> shoulder shots of the Tramp and
> the Flower Girl.
OK, editing expert. Just how could that
sequence be matched and still be as
effective? Let's have particulars.
We could always get rid of the flower,
or shoot the two of them simultaneously
in profile, or the Flower Girl could
stuff the flower in Charlie's mouth,
a la Carmen. This would not only
eliminate the flower's change in position,
but also give Lloyd F. a more clear-cut
sign of rejection.
If you want a continuity error, you
have a stronger case in Carlie's
instantaneous change of clothes
when he washes up from work.
As for Michael's lip sync, it's an
obvious flaw which Chaplin left in
for reasons unknown. As I see it,
Michael had no great talent, so
pushing him harder might have been
useless or counterproductive.
George Shelps
>Actually, I think George has a malicious
>computer progam that automaticaly
>recycles all of his derogatory comments,
>triggered by keywords in other people's
>posts. I can't believe that a normal
>human being could stay awake through
>all that repetition, much less one with a
>giant, Mensa-certified brain.
I was responding to a new poster
asking a question about a glaring
technical flaw in A KING IN NEW
YORK.
Just because you're deaf, dumb,
and blind to Chaplin's weaknesses
as a director doesn't mean everyone
else has to remain ignorant.
George Shelps
>>Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
>>technical boners and leave them in
>>the films. Even the ending of CITY
>>LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
>>shoulder shots of the Tramp and
>>the Flower Girl.
>OK, editing expert. Just how could that
>sequence be matched and still be as
>effective? Let's have particulars.
Re-shoot it after seeing the dailies.
Make the flower remain in the same
position on the reverse angle.
Elementary film-making 101.
>We could always get rid of the flower,
>or shoot the two of them simultaneously
>in profile, or the Flower Girl could
>stuff the flower in Charlie's mouth,
>a la Carmen. This would not only
>eliminate the flower's change in position,
>but also give Lloyd F. a more clear-cut
>sign of rejection.
What does Lloyd have to do with this?
I don't agree with his view on CL.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >>Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
> >>technical boners and leave them in
> >>the films. Even the ending of CITY
> >>LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
> >>shoulder shots of the Tramp and
> >>the Flower Girl.
>
> >OK, editing expert. Just how could that
> >sequence be matched and still be as
> >effective? Let's have particulars.
>
> Re-shoot it after seeing the dailies.
>
> Make the flower remain in the same
> position on the reverse angle.
>
> Elementary film-making 101.
Check your own dailies.
If left in the same position, the flower blocks the view of part of
the girl's face. That's why it moves. But Chaplin wants it in a more
central
position when the camera is on him because of its symbolic importance.
So you accept a minor discontinuity in the interest of preserving
something more important.
That's editing 201.
As for film-watching 101, "The central portions of the screen are
generally
reserved for the most important visual elements. This area is
instinctively regarded by most people as the intrinsic center of
interest. . . . We
*expect* dominant visual elements to be placed there"(Giannetti,
_Understanding Movies_, p.43). In the reverse shot, the girl's face
has to take priority.
So what were you doing looking at that flower? ;-)
> >We could always get rid of the flower,
> >or shoot the two of them simultaneously
> >in profile, or the Flower Girl could
> >stuff the flower in Charlie's mouth,
> >a la Carmen. This would not only
> >eliminate the flower's change in position,
> >but also give Lloyd F. a more clear-cut
> >sign of rejection.
>
> What does Lloyd have to do with this?
> I don't agree with his view on CL.
Just considering the advantages(?)of another
treatment. Hint: it was a joke.
I know you don't agree with Lloyd's strange
view of _City Lights_.
Connie K.
Burbank74
technical boners and leave them in
the films. Even the ending of CITY
LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
shoulder shots of the Tramp and
the Flower Girl. >>
There's an even worse one in CITY LIGHTS that no one ever picks up on. It's
when Charlie returns to the stables at the end of his shift as a street
cleaner. He has on the white pants of the uniform and there is a cut to a
medium shot of him washing up - and all of a sudden he's wearing his black
"tramp" pants.
For what it's worth I only picked up on this after the umpteeth viewing. I
think these sort of things generally prove Charlie's test - that if you're
picking up on these things then you're not watching him.
Shush
> >>From: G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
> >>Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
> >>technical boners and leave them in
> >>the films. Even the ending of CITY
> >>LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
> >>shoulder shots of the Tramp and
> >>the Flower Girl.
>
> Actually, I think George has a malicious computer progam that automaticaly
> recycles all of his derogatory comments, triggered by keywords in other
> people's posts.
George has no shortage of criticisms about Chaplin and I usually
disagree with them, but on this point he's completely correct. I
happened to catch a bit of "The Great Dictator" on TCM the other
night, and was embarrassed at how much it looks like a B-movie
sometimes.
There's an interesting passage in the new Vance book, in which
Chaplin addresses this kind of thing. He recalls someone else's movie,
where an entire train station was recreated just for one little
sequence, and is aghast at the profligacy of such an expense. He adds
that when *he* needed something like that, he'd just use a backdrop,
knowing it'd look cheap and phony, but he didn't care. He even
suggests that it'd be "poetic!"
Chaplin was a very idiosyncratic filmmaker, and not always for the
better.
--Shush--
- - - - - - - - - - -
"I lived through both German and Soviet occupation. When I hear
President Bush say that those who are not with us are against us, I
hear alarm bells."
--George Soros
George Shelps
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>If left in the same position, the flower
>blocks the view of part of the girl's face.
>That's why it moves. But Chaplin wants
>it in a more central
>position when the camera is on him
>because of its symbolic importance. So
>you accept a minor discontinuity in the
>interest of preserving something more
>important.
I don't "accept" it. It's a distraction.
The shot could have been reframed
so that the flower would not block
the girl.
Chaplin probably didn't
reshoot it because he didnt like
working with Cherrill and probably
thought she couldn't repeat the performance.
Constance Kuriyama
> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>> >>From: G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps)
>> >>Chaplin had a tendency to commit major
>> >>technical boners and leave them in
>> >>the films. Even the ending of CITY
>> >>LIGHTS has mismatched over-the-
>> >>shoulder shots of the Tramp and
>> >>the Flower Girl.
>
>>
>> Actually, I think George has a malicious computer progam that automaticaly
>> recycles all of his derogatory comments, triggered by keywords in other
>> people's posts.
>
>
> George has no shortage of criticisms about Chaplin and I usually
> disagree with them, but on this point he's completely correct.
Whether he's right or not, it's the endless repetition that we were
ribbing him about. At least he could think of some NEW criticisms
occationally.
And there are a number of rough edges in Chaplin's films, but I
don't think the flower in _City Lights_ is one of them. It's an
accepted discontinuity in a peripheral detail, which became clear
to me when I analyzed the sequence instead of just experiencing it.
He probably knew about the other one in the washup sequence also,
but that one is less justified aesthetically.
I
> happened to catch a bit of "The Great Dictator" on TCM the other
> night, and was embarrassed at how much it looks like a B-movie
> sometimes.
There are many things wrong with _Dictator_; the miracle is that
it's still worth watc watching.
>
> There's an interesting passage in the new Vance book, in which
> Chaplin addresses this kind of thing. He recalls someone else's movie,
> where an entire train station was recreated just for one little
> sequence, and is aghast at the profligacy of such an expense. He adds
> that when *he* needed something like that, he'd just use a backdrop,
> knowing it'd look cheap and phony, but he didn't care. He even
> suggests that it'd be "poetic!"
>
> Chaplin was a very idiosyncratic filmmaker, and not always for the
> better.
>
>
>
> --Shush--
>
> - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> "I lived through both German and Soviet occupation. When I hear
> President Bush say that those who are not with us are against us, I
> hear alarm bells."
>
> --George Soros
I've seen many slicker movies that are far less worth watching.
I'm with Aristotle. Production values are low on my priority list.
George Shelps
>Shush wrote:
>>George has no shortage of criticisms
>>about Chaplin and I usually disagree
>>with them, but on this point he's
>>completely correct.
>Whether he's right or not, it's the endless
>repetition that we were ribbing him
>about. At least he could think of some
>NEW criticisms occationally.
Your control-freak tendency is getting
the better of you again.
I know I have raised the point before,
but I was responding to a newbie
and I can't determine whether or not
he has been following the debates
here for the last several years....likely
he hasn't, and so I chose to repeat
my criticism.
(Be careful, Connie, or will re-post
"Citizen Chaplin.")
>>I happened to catch a bit of "The Great
>>Dictator" on TCM the other night, and
>>was embarrassed at how much it looks
>>like a B-movie sometimes.
>There are many things wrong with
>_Dictator_; the miracle is that it's still
>worth watching.
 Â
That's true...and that's my general
purpose in mentioning these flaws---besides the pleasure I get
out of irritating you, of course, LOL---
What's most fascinating about Chaplin
is how weak he was as film craftsman
and how great his films are..
>I've seen many slicker movies that are
>far less worth watching.
Very true.
> I'm with Aristotle. Production values are
>low on my priority list.
But Aristotle never saw a film. Production
values ~do~ have an esthetic role
to play in film which they do not in
the theatre.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >Actually, I think George has a malicious
> >computer progam that automaticaly
> >recycles all of his derogatory comments,
> >triggered by keywords in other people's
> >posts. I can't believe that a normal
> >human being could stay awake through
> >all that repetition, much less one with a
> >giant, Mensa-certified brain.
>
> I was responding to a new poster
> asking a question about a glaring
> technical flaw in A KING IN NEW
> YORK.
>
> Just because you're deaf, dumb,
> and blind to Chaplin's weaknesses
> as a director doesn't mean everyone
> else has to remain ignorant.
It's debatable who's blind here, and how
did dumb get into the mix? I'm all too
voluble for your taste, evidently.
As for being deaf, that would hardly
matter on the internet. But in fact I
hear quite well. ;-)
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
This one probably was accidental, but was left in on the assumption that
no one would notice. And after all, Charlie's clothes are not the focus of
that sequence, but the exchange of soap and cheese. If you notice the
sartorial details you aren't following the logic of the gag. I didn't notice
it until someone posted here who did. And for that matter I didn't notice
the flower until I read Kerr. I was too busy studying the facial expressions.
But eventually I decided to study the sequence watching the flower, and that's
when it began to look like a calculated error.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>Shush wrote:
>
>>>George has no shortage of criticisms
>>>about Chaplin and I usually disagree
>>>with them, but on this point he's
>>>completely correct.
>
>>Whether he's right or not, it's the endless
>>repetition that we were ribbing him
>>about. At least he could think of some
>>NEW criticisms occationally.
>
> Your control-freak tendency is getting
> the better of you again.
Nope. I just catch on fast, and get bored with
repetition. I dislike repeating myself also.
> I know I have raised the point before,
> but I was responding to a newbie
> and I can't determine whether or not
> he has been following the debates
> here for the last several years....likely
> he hasn't, and so I chose to repeat
> my criticism.
>
> (Be careful, Connie, or will re-post
> "Citizen Chaplin.")
I'll probably ignore it. I was easily lured
away from that "Definitive Versions" thread,
which was getting quite repetitive, by
the novelty of discussing cocaine injections.
>>>I happened to catch a bit of "The Great
>>>Dictator" on TCM the other night, and
>>>was embarrassed at how much it looks
>>>like a B-movie sometimes.
>
>>There are many things wrong with
>>_Dictator_; the miracle is that it's still
>>worth watching.
>
> That's true...and that's my general
> purpose in mentioning these flaws---besides the pleasure I get
> out of irritating you, of course, LOL---
I was't in the least irritated. The moving flower is one of
*my* hobby horses.
> What's most fascinating about Chaplin
> is how weak he was as film craftsman
> and how great his films are..
And one could call Bellows weak as a draftsman, but the running
paint was deliberately left unretouched.
>>I've seen many slicker movies that are
>>far less worth watching.
>
> Very true.
>
>> I'm with Aristotle. Production values are
>>low on my priority list.
>
> But Aristotle never saw a film. Production
> values ~do~ have an esthetic role
> to play in film which they do not in
> the theatre.
Aristotle called it "spectacle," and it is important in the theater. Many a
Broadway show depends on it. He thought plot was most important, characters
next, then thought, then verbal adornment, then music, last and definitely
least, spectacle. Many films actually reverse this order, but they aren't
the ones I care about most.
On the other hand, I hate the chintzy, drab, cluttered, *ordinary* look of many
indy films--realism with a vengeance. Chaplin did far better that. Even when
he operates on the cheap his films have an imaginary consistency, which may
be what he meant by "poetic."
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>If left in the same position, the flower
>>blocks the view of part of the girl's face.
>>That's why it moves. But Chaplin wants
>>it in a more central
>>position when the camera is on him
>>because of its symbolic importance. So
>>you accept a minor discontinuity in the
>>interest of preserving something more
>>important.
>
> I don't "accept" it. It's a distraction.
That was an impersonal "you"; you personally
can do whatever you want.
> The shot could have been reframed
> so that the flower would not block
> the girl.
Difficult. Then it would deviate from the standard
reverse shot, show more of Charlie's face. Better
to let the flower drop a couple of inches.
> Chaplin probably didn't
> reshoot it because he didnt like
> working with Cherrill and probably
> thought she couldn't repeat the performance.
Or chose it out of a number of options and
accepted the shift in the flower's position.
Too bad we'll probably never know.
George Shelps
>>The shot could have been reframed
>>so that the flower would not block
>>the girl.
>Difficult. Then it would deviate from the
>standard reverse shot, show more of
>Charlie's face. Better to let the flower
>drop a couple of inches.
Oh, come on. Chaplin simply cut together two non-matching reverse
angles
and thought the public wouldn't notice.
When I was less visually sophisticated,
I didn't notice it either. He expected that
the general audience would focus on the
characters and he was probably right.
The obvious wire that holds him up in
the boxing scene is another example
of the same thing.
I doubt that he anticipated CITY
LIGHTS would receive the level of
scrutiny that characterizes film
study today and he didn't care what
his professional colleagues thought
about his craftsmanship. He was
CHAPLIN! after all. What else
mattered?
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >>The shot could have been reframed
> >>so that the flower would not block
> >>the girl.
>
> >Difficult. Then it would deviate from the
> >standard reverse shot, show more of
> >Charlie's face. Better to let the flower
> >drop a couple of inches.
>
> Oh, come on. Chaplin simply cut together two non-matching reverse
> angles
> and thought the public wouldn't notice.
But I don't think the non-match was an accident--unlike quite a
few in the shorter films, or the instant costume change.
> When I was less visually sophisticated,
> I didn't notice it either. He expected that
> the general audience would focus on the
> characters and he was probably right.
>
> The obvious wire that holds him up in
> the boxing scene is another example
> of the same thing.
Those visible wires may or may not have been visible
on original release prints. But one might just as well
accuse Keaton of sloppy film technique because it's
obvious that he's suspended by a wire when he's
propelled off the ladder in _Cops_. Oddly, no one
ever says that, though Kerr does mention it in passing.
> I doubt that he anticipated CITY
> LIGHTS would receive the level of
> scrutiny that characterizes film
> study today and he didn't care what
> his professional colleagues thought
> about his craftsmanship. He was
> CHAPLIN! after all. What else
> mattered?
Very little. :-)
Connie K.
David Totheroh
>
> >>The shot could have been reframed
> >>so that the flower would not block
> >>the girl.
>
> >Difficult. Then it would deviate from the
> >standard reverse shot, show more of
> >Charlie's face. Better to let the flower
> >drop a couple of inches.
>
> Oh, come on. Chaplin simply cut together two non-matching reverse
> angles
> and thought the public wouldn't notice.
>
> When I was less visually sophisticated,
> I didn't notice it either. He expected that
> the general audience would focus on the
> characters and he was probably right.
>
> The obvious wire that holds him up in
> the boxing scene is another example
> of the same thing.
Thankfully the technicians who shot and processed these films were
more fluent than you with the capabilities of their medium. As has
been pointed out by others far more knowledgeable than myself, the
process of producing release prints at that time would have, and did,
erase virtually all vestiges of the support wires. Unfortunately, the
translation to video, bypassing the intermediate steps required for
producing release prints, reveals not only the skill of the
technicians to get sharp, crisp images, but as a byproduct fails to
eliminate the image of the wire. Had the budget allowed, I have no
doubt the producers of the videos would have erased the wires and
given today's audiences the same viewing experience theatergoers of
1931 had. Perhaps you'd prefer a somewhat 'degraded' print had been
used as source material, but I happen to think the choice to use the
best possible source materials available (original camera neg. or 1st
gen. fine grain) outweighs the one disadvantage you cite. I will
concede it also risks an ignorant interpretation like the one you've
given below, however.
George Shelps
>>The obvious wire that holds him up in
>>the boxing scene is another example
>>of the same thing.
>Thankfully the technicians who shot and
>processed these films were more fluent
>than you with the capabilities of their
>medium. As has been pointed out by
>others far more knowledgeable than
>myself, the process of producing release
>prints at that time would have, and did,
>erase virtually all vestiges of the support
>wires.
Uh-uh. Even when you can't see the support wire, you can see the area
where
the wire is attached being lifted
unnaturally. (I know you are citing
the Robert Harris quote that I supplied)
> Unfortunately, the translation to video,
>bypassing the intermediate steps
>required for producing release prints,
>reveals not only the skill of the
>technicians to get sharp, crisp images,
>but as a byproduct fails to eliminate the
>image of the wire. Had the budget
>allowed, I have no doubt the producers
>of the videos would have erased the
>wires and given today's audiences the
>same viewing experience theatergoers of
>1931 had. Perhaps you'd prefer a
>somewhat 'degraded' print had been
>used as source material, but I happen to
>think the choice to use the best possible
>source materials available (original
>camera neg. or 1st gen. fine grain)
>outweighs the one disadvantage you
>cite. I will concede it also risks an
>ignorant interpretation like the one
>you've given below, however.
Ignorant interpretations? Nah, I wouldn't
dare challenge you, amc's Village
Idiot,
Constance Kuriyama
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> >>The obvious wire that holds him up in
> >>the boxing scene is another example
> >>of the same thing.
>
> >Thankfully the technicians who shot and
> >processed these films were more fluent
> >than you with the capabilities of their
> >medium. As has been pointed out by
> >others far more knowledgeable than
> >myself, the process of producing release
> >prints at that time would have, and did,
> >erase virtually all vestiges of the support
> >wires.
>
> Uh-uh. Even when you can't see the support wire, you can see the area
> where
> the wire is attached being lifted
> unnaturally. (I know you are citing
> the Robert Harris quote that I supplied)
It was the wires you were complaining about, George.
Shifting your ground won't do. If you weren't so eager
to find fault, you wouldn't have to resort to the
Shelps shuffle so often--or so transparently. If I were
you, I'd think twice before calling someone else a
Village Idiot.
It's also obvious that Keaton is supported
by some apparatus in _Cops_, whether we can see the
wire or not. So what? Both stunts are impossible
without support, and given the technology of the
time, all signs of artifice can't be eliminated.
Such criticisms are based on the premise that
Chaplin's films (and all films, by nature) must
be realistic. Kerr explicitly says this when he
objects to the mockup train in _Dictator_.
This is nonsense. Films have no obligation whatsoever
to be realistic. What is realistic about a dictator
called the Phooey, a country called Ptomania? Such a
place needs a real train? Give me a break.
Connie K.
George Shelps
>>Uh-uh. Even when you can't see the
>>support wire, you can see the area
>>where the wire is attached being lifted
>>unnaturally. (I know you are citing
>>the Robert Harris quote that I supplied)
>It was the wires you were complaining
>about, George. Shifting your ground
>won't do. If you weren't so eager to find
>fault, you wouldn't have to resort to the
>Shelps shuffle so often--or so
>transparently. If I were you, I'd think
>twice before calling someone else a
>Village Idiot.
No "shuffle." The wires and where
they are attached are the same problem.
David said my interpretation was "ignorant" and I am sick of his insults
and intend to reply in kind whenever
he resorts to that style---as well as you.
Maybe you two juveniles will
learn that a negative comment about
Chaplin does not warrant a personal
attack or an insult to the intelligence
of the critic.
>It's also obvious that Keaton is supported
>by some apparatus in _Cops_, whether
>we can see the wire or not. So what?
>Both stunts are impossible without
>support, and given the technology of the
>time, all signs of artifice can't be
>eliminated.
I don't remember the Keaton gag but
he isn't exempt from the same criticism.
>Such criticisms are based on the
>premise that Chaplin's films (and all
>films, by nature) must be realistic. Kerr
>explicitly says this when he objects to
>the mockup train in _Dictator_.
No, it's based on Chaplin's well-known
sloppiness. Perhaps we ask too much
of him, but because he is such a genius,
his blatant lapses stand out as sore
thumbs.
>This is nonsense. Films have no
>obligation whatsoever to be realistic.
>What is realistic about a dictator called
>the Phooey, a country called Ptomania?
>Such a place needs a real train? Give
>me a break.
The mock-up train deflates the comedy
because it ~too~ patently phony.
Shush
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >I will concede it also risks an
> >ignorant interpretation like the one
> >you've given below, however.
>
> Ignorant interpretations? Nah, I wouldn't
> dare challenge you, amc's Village
> Idiot
What happened to that standard of yours, against questioning a
poster's character, motives, or intelligence, George? You just called
David an idiot, and if I'm not mistaken you called Richard one the
other day in the silents newsgroup. (If you're about to say that David
called you an idiot first, please don't, because all he said was that
your interpretation was ignorant, and that's not the same thing at
all.)
Come to think of it, you've also been announcing that people's
opposition to your views simply comes from their being in that
Chaplin-Can-Do-No-Wrong club. When you do that, you're questioning
their motives.
--Shush--
----------------------------------
"I lived through both German and Soviet occupation. When I hear
President Bush say that those who are not with us are against us, I
hear alarm bells."
--- George Soros
George Shelps
shushfilm...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>David Totheroh wrote:
>>>I will concede it also risks an
>>>ignorant interpretation like the one
>>>you've given below, however.
>>Ignorant interpretations? Nah, I
>>wouldn't dare challenge you, amc's
>>Village Idiot
>Â Â Â Â Â Â What happened to that standard of
>yours, against questioning a poster's
>character, motives, or intelligence,
>George? You just called David an idiot,
>and if I'm not mistaken you called
>Richard one the other day in the silents
>newsgroup. (If you're about to say that
>David called you an idiot first, please
>don't, because all he said was that your
>interpretation was ignorant, and that's
>not the same thing at all.)
"All he said" was that I putting forth an
"ignorant interpretation?"
Sorry, I consider it an insult to my intelligence.
But perhaps it was overkill. I
do loathe Totheroh, frankly, and as
with Richard, I don't feel the necessity
to be polite any longer.
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Come to think of it, you've also been
>announcing that people's opposition to
>your views simply comes from their
>being in that Chaplin-Can-Do-No-Wrong
>club. When you do that, you're
>questioning their motives.
I don't question ~your~ motives, but
I do believe that Connie, David and others
are Chaplin zealots and that's not
questioning their motives, that's a fact.
If they could restrain themselves, they
would get the same from me.
But they've never been able to do it.
George Shelps
>This doesn't excuse continutity errors
>and such in Chaplin, but at most, they
>are annoying quirks that take away
>nothing from the overall effect. I look at
>them as artifacts of the production
>process that can safely be ignored.
>Contemporary? Not at all! Does it
>matter? Not at all!
I agree with your statement in general.
But the continuity errors exist and I do
think they are worth pointing out, because
they are so pervasive in Chaplin's films
and stem from his narrow apprenticeship
in the medium. I think we're supposed
to talk of the totality of Chaplin and
he does have his limitations as well
as his genius.
His errors do mar certain scenes and the movies would be better without
them
even though they are not plentiful
enough to detract from the overall
effect.
You will notice that the Chaplin zealots
quickly step to stomp on anything
that disturbs their fantasies of CC's
godlike status.
RFCSAC627N
>Rockinghorse winner wrote:
>
>>This doesn't excuse continutity errors
>>and such in Chaplin, but at most, they
>>are annoying quirks that take away
>>nothing from the overall effect. I look at
>>them as artifacts of the production
>>process that can safely be ignored.
>>Contemporary? Not at all! Does it
>>matter? Not at all!
>
>I agree with your statement in general.
>
>But the continuity errors exist and I do
>think they are worth pointing out, because
>they are so pervasive in Chaplin's films
>and stem from his narrow apprenticeship
>in the medium. I think we're supposed
>to talk of the totality of Chaplin and
>he does have his limitations as well
>as his genius.
>
>His errors do mar certain scenes and the movies would be better without
>them
>even though they are not plentiful
>enough to detract from the overall
>effect.
>
Have you ever read the books FILM FLUBS? There are at least two volumes of
them. They detail a great number of mistakes in a great many successful or
highly-regarded films.
Fact is, making a movie is a little like making a puzzle piece by piece.
Those pieces don't always fit together when the puzzle is finished.
In the editing process, a wise director--from CC to Scorscese--will go for
performance over matching a physical detail every time. If you're noticing the
water lever in a glass during a restaurant scene, you've already failed as a
director, anyway.
>You will notice that the Chaplin zealots
>quickly step to stomp on anything
>that disturbs their fantasies of CC's
>godlike status.
>
The only zealot I know around here is George Shelps. That zealotry negates
whatever Mensa might have to offer.
Richard Carnahan
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >>Uh-uh. Even when you can't see the
> >>support wire, you can see the area
> >>where the wire is attached being lifted
> >>unnaturally. (I know you are citing
> >>the Robert Harris quote that I supplied)
>
> >It was the wires you were complaining
> >about, George. Shifting your ground
> >won't do. If you weren't so eager to find
> >fault, you wouldn't have to resort to the
> >Shelps shuffle so often--or so
> >transparently. If I were you, I'd think
> >twice before calling someone else a
> >Village Idiot.
>
> No "shuffle." The wires and where
> they are attached are the same problem.
It's there in black and white. You specifically objected to wires. And
if the wires weren't visible in the original release prints, the
harness would be
far less noticeable.
> David said my interpretation was "ignorant" and I am sick of his insults
> and intend to reply in kind whenever
> he resorts to that style---as well as you.
I had the impression that David was reacting to your suggestion that
you were a more sophisticated cineast because you were looking at that
flower instead of more important matters.
> Maybe you two juveniles will
> learn that a negative comment about
> Chaplin does not warrant a personal
> attack or an insult to the intelligence
> of the critic.
And maybe one day you'll realize that a condescending attitude
irritates others, whether it's directed at Chaplin or at some other
poster. You accuse me of this, but don't see it in yourself.
> >It's also obvious that Keaton is supported
> >by some apparatus in _Cops_, whether
> >we can see the wire or not. So what?
> >Both stunts are impossible without
> >support, and given the technology of the
> >time, all signs of artifice can't be
> >eliminated.
>
> I don't remember the Keaton gag but
> he isn't exempt from the same criticism.
Of course he is. Kerr says nothing negative about it, but rattles on
about the train and the flower.
> >Such criticisms are based on the
> >premise that Chaplin's films (and all
> >films, by nature) must be realistic. Kerr
> >explicitly says this when he objects to
> >the mockup train in _Dictator_.
>
> No, it's based on Chaplin's well-known
> sloppiness. Perhaps we ask too much
> of him, but because he is such a genius,
> his blatant lapses stand out as sore
> thumbs.
I don't consider disregard for inappropriate realism sloppiness.
Actually Chaplin put considerable effort into capturing the flavor of
Nazi grandiosity, without literally replicating it. I think the Hynkel
sets are
excellent--one of the greatest strengths of the film. The ghetto is
more stylized, but it conveys the sense of domesticity and community
that Chaplin wants well enough.
The sign marking the Osterlich border faces the wrong way so *we* can
see it, in flagrant disregard of realism. Chaplinland is a fantasy
world. It comments on reality, but doesn't try to copy it.
_Dictator_ has its problems. It's long and slow-paced. Much of the
dialogue is undistinguished. The cinematography, which is influenced
by the requirements of sound, makes it look more like an average
studio film than a Chaplin film. I'm convinced that Struss and Chaplin
didn't mix, however good they were independently. Sound speed takes
the zip out of the slapstick. While _Dictator_ has some truly
brilliant strokes in it, overall it is ponderous and unwieldy, and
leans heavily on its historical importance. I rather like the idea of
ending it with a speech, but the speech isn't quite up to the
challenge.
> >This is nonsense. Films have no
> >obligation whatsoever to be realistic.
> >What is realistic about a dictator called
> >the Phooey, a country called Ptomania?
> >Such a place needs a real train? Give
> >me a break.
>
> The mock-up train deflates the comedy
> because it ~too~ patently phony.
I'd like to see someone explain how a real train would make that
sequence any
funnier. Or how consistent it would be for a character named Napaloni
to step out of one. Should a cartoonist incorporate photographs of
cars into a
comic strip?
When I read Kerr, it surprised me that he would be bothered by such
stuff,
when there were more serious matters to discuss.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
> G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > David Totheroh wrote:
> > >I will concede it also risks an
> > >ignorant interpretation like the one
> > >you've given below, however.
> >
> > Ignorant interpretations? Nah, I wouldn't
> > dare challenge you, amc's Village
> > Idiot
>
>
> What happened to that standard of yours, against questioning a
> poster's character, motives, or intelligence, George? You just called
> David an idiot, and if I'm not mistaken you called Richard one the
> other day in the silents newsgroup. (If you're about to say that David
> called you an idiot first, please don't, because all he said was that
> your interpretation was ignorant, and that's not the same thing at
> all.)
>
> Come to think of it, you've also been announcing that people's
> opposition to your views simply comes from their being in that
> Chaplin-Can-Do-No-Wrong club. When you do that, you're questioning
> their motives.
>
>
>
> --Shush--
You forgot to mention that he has frequently called my character into
question by labeling me a "relativist," although it seems that I'm
also dogmatic and a control freak, and have a teenage fanzine
mentality. What a bundle of contradictions I am! I wonder if I'd
qualify for the Guiness Book of World Records.
But I'll say in George's defense that he seems to be *trying* to be
more civil. It doesn't come easily, but with a bit of good will
anything is possible.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
> On 15 Jan 2004 12:42:58 -0800, shushfilm...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>
>> There's an interesting passage in the new Vance book, in which
>>Chaplin addresses this kind of thing. He recalls someone else's movie,
>>where an entire train station was recreated just for one little
>>sequence, and is aghast at the profligacy of such an expense. He adds
>>that when *he* needed something like that, he'd just use a backdrop,
>>knowing it'd look cheap and phony, but he didn't care. He even
>>suggests that it'd be "poetic!"
>
>
> different philosophies are operating here. Chaplin comes from the stage,
> where suspension of belief was *not* a major consideration.
>
> It is the modern innovation of creating alternate realities on screen, down to
> the smallest detail, that we now take for granted. But, it is not the only
> way to do things. Some modern film makers have rebelled against this
> assumption. Directors like David Lynch and Quentin Tarantino have made their
> careers going against this trend, making films that rely on artifice.
There has always been a strain of film that emphasized artifice rather than
realism--sometimes called formalist. Chaplin mixes the two, which is fairly
common, but he's essentially a formalist.
> Personally, I don't think it matters since everyone watching a movie already
> knows it is just a movie. What matters is how the action touches the deeper
> parts of the viewer's psyche.
>
> It's telling that the least artful of current fare, reality shows, are the
> most superficial. Say what you will, 99% of the current crop of movies will
> be forgotten 100 years hence, yet Chaplin's movies are almost all watchable,
> in spite of their rough edges.
>
> It seems like the main value by which people judge movies nowadays is how REAL
> it was. We criticize a movie by saying it wasn't convincing, or we praise it
> by noting how real the special effects were, or how the actors didn't even
> seem like they were acting. Why is this such an important value? I
> experience reality every day of my life, first hand and on the news. What I
> value is ART -- an experience that will lift me up and help me to make sense
> of my reality.
>
> This doesn't excuse continutity errors and such in Chaplin, but at most, they
> are annoying quirks that take away nothing from the overall effect. I look at
> them as artifacts of the production process that can safely be ignored.
> Contemporary? Not at all! Does it matter? Not at all!
I rarely notice them unless someone points them out, but for some reason
they get inordinate attention in Chaplin's films. Since they've come up
in this group I've been noticing them more often, and as Richard points out,
they are quite common in films other than Chaplin's
But I suspect I was better off when I wasn't noticing them, because they
have nothing to do with the film's meaning. I'd say many of them are
excusable, because eliminating them would consume more resources than they
are worth.
Shush
> Have you ever read the books FILM FLUBS? There are at least two volumes of
> them. They detail a great number of mistakes in a great many successful or
> highly-regarded films.
I don't mind the occasional flub, especially those that I wouldn't
have even noticed if someone hadn't pointed them out to me.
But Chaplin undermines himself sometimes with indifferent
filmmaking, especially in the later features. In "The Great Dictator,"
it's not just the phony train at the train station. It's the way he'll
stage a Hynkel scene with a dozen stormtroopers lined up in front of a
painted backdrop of a building, rather than stage it with *fifty*
stormtroopers in front of an actual building.
It's the way the shipyard gag in "Modern Times" is spoiled because
he's using blatantly obvious process work to show the ship sinking
into the water. Keaton had used the same gag in a silent two-reeler,
and it worked far better for Keaton, because Buster went to the
trouble of having an actual boat sliding into actual water.
These things aren't as easy to shrug off as an unintentional flub,
because they're deliberate. There's no way to plausibly justify them.
--Shush--
George Shelps
>>No "shuffle." The wires and where
>>they are attached are the same problem.
>It's there in black and white. You
>specifically objected to wires. And if the
>wires weren't visible in the original
>release prints, the harness would be
>far less noticeable.
No. Actually, I noticed the harness
first of all, not the wires. I used
the term "wires" as a catch-all for the
whole trick.
<snip analysis of TGD, much of
which I agree with>
>>The mock-up train deflates the comedy
>>because it ~too~ patently phony.
>I'd like to see someone explain how a
>real train would make that sequence any
>funnier. Or how consistent it would be
>for a character named Napaloni to step
>out of one. Should a cartoonist
>incorporate photographs of cars into a
>comic strip?
A real train would not have made it
funnier, but a less cartoon-like train
would not have called attention to
its phoniness and detracted from the
slapstick.
>When I read Kerr, it surprised me that he
>would be bothered by such stuff,
>when there were more serious matters to
>discuss.
Because---despite your attempts at
pooh-poohing it---Chaplin's technical
sloppiness rivals Ed Wood's...and that's
a bit of a shock to find in one of the
cinema's greatest film-makers.
George Shelps
>You forgot to mention that he has
>frequently called my character into
>question by labeling me a "relativist,"
>although it seems that I'm also dogmatic
>and a control freak,
Most relativists are. Since they really
don't believe in anything, they get
very huffy and defensive when their
personal "house of cards" is threatened.
> and have a teenage fanzine mentality.
Regarding Chaplin, the man, yes.
>What a bundle of contradictions I am! I
>wonder if I'd qualify for the Guiness Book
>of World Records.
You surely qualify for the Usenet
Film Newsgroup Hall of Flames.
Constance Kuriyama
> rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N) wrote:
>
>> Have you ever read the books FILM FLUBS? There are at least two volumes of
>> them. They detail a great number of mistakes in a great many successful or
>> highly-regarded films.
>
>
> I don't mind the occasional flub, especially those that I wouldn't
> have even noticed if someone hadn't pointed them out to me.
>
> But Chaplin undermines himself sometimes with indifferent
> filmmaking, especially in the later features. In "The Great Dictator,"
> it's not just the phony train at the train station. It's the way he'll
> stage a Hynkel scene with a dozen stormtroopers lined up in front of a
> painted backdrop of a building, rather than stage it with *fifty*
> stormtroopers in front of an actual building.
Never even noticed. But I'm thankful I couldn't see those clownish thugs
running around in red pants.
Chaplin spent a bundle on _Dictator_, so I think we can grant him a few
economies.
> It's the way the shipyard gag in "Modern Times" is spoiled because
> he's using blatantly obvious process work to show the ship sinking
> into the water. Keaton had used the same gag in a silent two-reeler,
> and it worked far better for Keaton, because Buster went to the
> trouble of having an actual boat sliding into actual water.
Having a real boat is rather important in a film called _The Boat_. It
would be extravagant in a film called _Modern Times_, especially
considering the fact that Chaplin was using his own money, and Keaton wasn't.
But Keaton is typically more inclined to realism than Chaplin, and that's
even true of his character, who is an adolescent "boy," whereas the Tramp is
mythical and symbolic.
But instead of complaining about that few seconds, why not praise the
excellent process work in the factory, and in the scene where the
paddy wagon crashes. My students are invariably impressed by that one.
> These things aren't as easy to shrug off as an unintentional flub,
> because they're deliberate. There's no way to plausibly justify them.
>
>
>
> --Shush--
They are deliberate, and they can be justified, because narrative film has no
obligation whatsoever to be realistic.
Connie K.
Feuillade
> Shush (shus...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> It's the way the shipyard gag in
>> "Modern Times" is spoiled because
>> he's using blatantly obvious process
>> work to show the ship sinking
>> into the water. Keaton had used
>> the same gag in a silent two-reeler,
>> and it worked far better for Keaton,
>> because Buster went to the
>> trouble of having an actual boat
>> sliding into actual water.
> Having a real boat is rather important
> in a film called _The Boat_. It
> would be extravagant in a film called
> _Modern Times_, especially
> considering the fact that Chaplin was
> using his own money, and Keaton
> wasn't.
Not really.
If you look at the film again you'll see that the "boat" Chaplin sinks is only
the shell of the boat.
All it would have cost is the wood needed to build a shell, which I can't see
costing all that much. It's not like he would have had to build a passenger
liner.
I'm with Shush on this one. That process shot has bothered me for 30 years,
and it takes away from the effectiveness of the gag.
Tom Moran
"I would like to put a ban on 14-year-old boys and
not allow them to see any movies.''
-- Robert Altman
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>No "shuffle." The wires and where
>>>they are attached are the same problem.
>
>>It's there in black and white. You
>>specifically objected to wires. And if the
>>wires weren't visible in the original
>>release prints, the harness would be
>>far less noticeable.
>
> No. Actually, I noticed the harness
> first of all, not the wires. I used
> the term "wires" as a catch-all for the
> whole trick.
Uh huh. Obviously, I can't dispute your
account of your mental processes.
> <snip analysis of TGD, much of
> which I agree with>
>
>>>The mock-up train deflates the comedy
>>>because it ~too~ patently phony.
>
>>I'd like to see someone explain how a
>>real train would make that sequence any
>>funnier. Or how consistent it would be
>>for a character named Napaloni to step
>>out of one. Should a cartoonist
>>incorporate photographs of cars into a
>>comic strip?
>
> A real train would not have made it
> funnier, but a less cartoon-like train
> would not have called attention to
> its phoniness and detracted from the
> slapstick.
I don't think that happened. I think Walter
Kerr's mind was wandering, and that he
didn't notice this on the first viewing.
>>When I read Kerr, it surprised me that he
>>would be bothered by such stuff,
>>when there were more serious matters to
>>discuss.
>
> Because---despite your attempts at
> pooh-poohing it
Speaking of pooh-poohing.
---Chaplin's technical
> sloppiness rivals Ed Wood's...and that's
> a bit of a shock to find in one of the
> cinema's greatest film-maker.
You exaggerate.
But why should cinema's greatest
film-maker be a dedicated realist?
Von Stroheim's neurotic obsession
with realism didn't make his films
better than Chaplin's.
In fact it was probably a
liability.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>You forgot to mention that he has
>>frequently called my character into
>>question by labeling me a "relativist,"
>>although it seems that I'm also dogmatic
>>and a control freak,
>
> Most relativists are. Since they really
> don't believe in anything, they get
> very huffy and defensive when their
> personal "house of cards" is threatened.
If you truly don't believe in anything you
can't be dogmatic. It won't wash.
>> and have a teenage fanzine mentality.
>
> Regarding Chaplin, the man, yes.
I'm impressed by the originality
of your interpretation. Dead wrong, but
inventive.
>>What a bundle of contradictions I am! I
>>wonder if I'd qualify for the Guiness Book
>>of World Records.
>
> You surely qualify for the Usenet
> Film Newsgroup Hall of Flames.
Compared to you I'm a model of
geniality.
George Shelps
>They are deliberate, and they can be
>justified, because narrative film has no
>obligation whatsoever to be realistic.
Their lack of "realism" is not the
problem, it is their cheapness and
filmsiness relative to the ~imagistic~
requirements of the scene.
George Shelps
>>No. Actually, I noticed the harness
>>first of all, not the wires. I used
>>the term "wires" as a catch-all for the
>>whole trick.
>Uh huh. Obviously, I can't dispute your
>account of your mental processes.
Gee, sorry. I should have realized that
the Contradiction Police would be
on duty as usual and written "wire
and wire harness" instead of wire.
>>Chaplin's technical
>>sloppiness rivals Ed Wood's...and that's
>>a bit of a shock to find in one of the
>>cinema's greatest film-maker.
>You exaggerate.
>But why should cinema's greatest
>film-maker be a dedicated realist?
It's not a question of realism, it's
a question of the appropriate
imagery. The physical is more
of a factor in films than on the stage.
For example, you can't cast very
easily against type and you can't
get away with cardboard sets because
the image they create must have
a meaning in the way a stage set
does not. Sets are part of the
language of the medium.
>Von Stroheim's neurotic obsession
>with realism didn't make his films
>better than Chaplin's.
>In fact it was probably a
>liability.
See above. Chaplin undermines
the overall impact of the scene
by committing technical blunders
which---in film--take on their
own meaning.
And the shadow of Norman Lloyd
on the background "plate" in
LIMELIGHT is as bad as anything
in Ed Wood's films.
George Shelps
>>Most relativists are. Since they really
>>don't believe in anything, they get
>>very huffy and defensive when their
>>personal "house of cards" is threatened.
>If you truly don't believe in anything you
>can't be dogmatic. It won't wash.
Non-belief, lacking any anchor, often
resorts to the ~style~ of dogmatism
for defensive purposes when dealing
with a presumed absolutist.
Constance Kuriyama
Well, apparently, he *did* sink the shell of a boat. The footage had to come
from somewhere. The question is, why did he opt for back projection instead of
shooting on site?
The answer is probably that the process shot was easier to control, and could
be retaken repeatedly, which was Chaplin's method, at minimal additional cost.
It would be less efficient, and a nuisance, to keep reshooting with the real
boat shell.
Keaton, on the other hand, was usually satisfied with a few takes at most.
The problem in his case was getting the boat to sink.
> I'm with Shush on this one. That process shot has bothered me for 30 years,
> and it takes away from the effectiveness of the gag.
That's what happens when you expect realism in a Chaplin film. :-) But it is
interesting that other process work in the same film is much better.
Connie K.
> Tom Moran
>
> "I would like to put a ban on 14-year-old boys and
> not allow them to see any movies.''
> -- Robert Altman
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>Most relativists are. Since they really
>>>don't believe in anything, they get
>>>very huffy and defensive when their
>>>personal "house of cards" is threatened.
>
>>If you truly don't believe in anything you
>>can't be dogmatic. It won't wash.
>
> Non-belief, lacking any anchor, often
> resorts to the ~style~ of dogmatism
> for defensive purposes when dealing
> with a presumed absolutist.
Whatever.
Your problem in my case is that you
don't like some of what I think.
So prove me wrong. I'm convincable
with facts, but theories and assertions
stink.
Constance Kuriyama
>I wrote:
>>But why should cinema's greatest
>>film-maker be a dedicated realist?
>
> It's not a question of realism, it's
> a question of the appropriate
> imagery. The physical is more
> of a factor in films than on the stage.
You're still talking about realism.
And in realist drama, the physical is
extremely important, down to the last detail
of costume and setting.
> For example, you can't cast very
> easily against type and you can't
> get away with cardboard sets because
> the image they create must have
> a meaning in the way a stage set
> does not. Sets are part of the
> language of the medium.
Also true in stage realism. The theater can
cater to a more intellectual audience and
indulge more aggressively in antirealism.
Film depends on a popular audience, and they
expect realism, so films cater more to that
expectation.
>>Von Stroheim's neurotic obsession
>>with realism didn't make his films
>>better than Chaplin's.
>
>>In fact it was probably a
>>liability.
>
> See above. Chaplin undermines
> the overall impact of the scene
> by committing technical blunders
> which---in film--take on their
> own meaning.
Only if you see them and expect
something else.
> And the shadow of Norman Lloyd
> on the background "plate" in
> LIMELIGHT is as bad as anything
> in Ed Wood's films.
It took you to point that out.
Nobody else had noticed, but I
certainly notice the cheapness
of an Ed Wood film, so there's
a different level of violation
of realism involved there.
I think I was paying attention
to what Norman Lloyd was saying.
What were you doing looking at
the background?
George Shelps
>>All it would have cost is the wood
>>needed to build a shell, which I can't
>>see costing all that much. It's not like
>>he would have had to build a passenger
>>liner.
>Well, apparently, he *did* sink the shell
>of a boat. The footage had to come from
>somewhere. The question is, why did he
>opt for back projection instead of
>shooting on site?
No, I don't think so. The shell looks like a
miniature, blown up via the process
screen.
George Shelps
>Your problem in my case is that you
>don't like some of what I think.
>So prove me wrong. I'm convincable
>with facts, but theories and assertions
>stink.
I don't like your smorgasbord empiricism,
as I used to call it,
George Shelps
>It's not a question of realism, it's
>a question of the appropriate
>imagery. The physical is more
>of a factor in films than on the stage.
>You're still talking about realism.
>And in realist drama, the physical is
>extremely important, down to the last
>detail of costume and setting.
No. Realism in films is always
partly symbolic. Poetic realism.
The physical is important in that
it gives rise to a symbol linked
to the physical and certain physical
errors in film-maker can degrade the
symbolism.
It's sort of what Bazin was talking
about in "What is Cinema?"
>>And the shadow of Norman Lloyd
>>on the background "plate" in
>>LIMELIGHT is as bad as anything
>>in Ed Wood's films.
>It took you to point that out.
I point it out because I otherwise
think LIMELIGHT is a wonderful
movie, and I wish Chaplin had taken
the time to fix flaws like that---and
the dreadful treadmill scene with Calvero
and Terry after she recovers.
>Nobody else had noticed, but I
>certainly notice the cheapness
>of an Ed Wood film, so there's
>a different level of violation
>of realism involved there.
Wood could make the semblance
of a professional film when he
wanted to, but, like Chaplin, he
was obsessed with his own creative
ego---as paltry as that was in his
case.
>I think I was paying attention
>to what Norman Lloyd was saying.
>What were you doing looking at
>the background?
Because it's a movie, not a play.
I always let the visual dictate my
perception of the aural.
David Totheroh
> And the shadow of Norman Lloyd
> on the background "plate" in
> LIMELIGHT is as bad as anything
> in Ed Wood's films.
Yep, why Chaplin would hire a lighting slouch like that Struss guy is
a real mystery.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >>All it would have cost is the wood
> >>needed to build a shell, which I can't
> >>see costing all that much. It's not like
> >>he would have had to build a passenger
> >>liner.
>
> >Well, apparently, he *did* sink the shell
> >of a boat. The footage had to come from
> >somewhere. The question is, why did he
> >opt for back projection instead of
> >shooting on site?
>
> No, I don't think so. The shell looks like a
> miniature, blown up via the process
> screen.
Yes, it could be a miniature. I'll have to take a
new look at it. That would be most economical of
all.
If properly photographed and screened, though,
it shouldn't have such a flat look.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> >It's not a question of realism, it's
> >a question of the appropriate
> >imagery. The physical is more
> >of a factor in films than on the stage.
> >You're still talking about realism.
>
> >And in realist drama, the physical is
> >extremely important, down to the last
> >detail of costume and setting.
>
> No. Realism in films is always
> partly symbolic.
I know you're trying to make a distinction,
and there may be one, but realism in, say,
Ibsen and Chekov always entails symbolism.
Realism in the hands of a major playright
is always poetic.
> Poetic realism.
> The physical is important in that
> it gives rise to a symbol linked
> to the physical and certain physical
> errors in film-maker can degrade the
> symbolism.
Well, to get down to specifics, I don't see
how the back projection of the sinking
hull in _Modern Times_ degrades the
symbolism of the film, though it's the
weakest process work in it. Or how Norman
Lloyd's shadow on a projection screen
weakens the substance of _Limelight_, which
is a very Aristotelian film in that the plot is
more important than either dialogue or
visuals--good or bad. Music takes on a new
importance there as well.
> It's sort of what Bazin was talking
> about in "What is Cinema?"
Which essay?
> >>And the shadow of Norman Lloyd
> >>on the background "plate" in
> >>LIMELIGHT is as bad as anything
> >>in Ed Wood's films.
>
> >It took you to point that out.
>
> I point it out because I otherwise
> think LIMELIGHT is a wonderful
> movie, and I wish Chaplin had taken
> the time to fix flaws like that---and
> the dreadful treadmill scene with Calvero
> and Terry after she recovers.
>
> >Nobody else had noticed, but I
> >certainly notice the cheapness
> >of an Ed Wood film, so there's
> >a different level of violation
> >of realism involved there.
>
> Wood could make the semblance
> of a professional film when he
> wanted to, but, like Chaplin, he
> was obsessed with his own creative
> ego---as paltry as that was in his
> case.
He had problems with money, I understand, and
was forced to use the cheapest methods.
> >I think I was paying attention
> >to what Norman Lloyd was saying.
> >What were you doing looking at
> >the background?
>
> Because it's a movie, not a play.
> I always let the visual dictate my
> perception of the aural.
The visual is always important in films,
but not always paramount. It's a flexible
meduim.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
>
> >Your problem in my case is that you
> >don't like some of what I think.
>
> >So prove me wrong. I'm convincable
> >with facts, but theories and assertions
> >stink.
>
> I don't like your smorgasbord empiricism,
> as I used to call it
You don't like empiricism period. You're a
rationalist by nature.
Connie K.
George Shelps
ckur...@ttacs.ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>>>Your problem in my case is that you
>>>don't like some of what I think.
>>>So prove me wrong. I'm convincable
>>>with facts, but theories and assertions
>>>stink.
>>I don't like your smorgasbord
>>empiricism, as I used to call it
>You don't like empiricism period. You're
>a rationalist by nature.
Yes, that's fair to say. It came by way of
graduate work I did studying phenomenology and the intuition of
essences.
Empiricism seems to me antithetical
to the study of art and culture. It seems
appropriate in its natural sphere, the
sciences. My view about the arts
and culture is that---"anything goes,"
as long as new light is shed.
George Shelps
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>>>It's not a question of realism, it's
>>>>a question of the appropriate
>>>>imagery. The physical is more
>>>>of a factor in films than on the stage.
>>>You're still talking about realism.
>>>And in realist drama, the physical is
>>>extremely important, down to the last
>>>detail of costume and setting.
>>No. Realism in films is always
>>partly symbolic.
>I know you're trying to make a
>distinction, and there may be one,
Yes, realism and symbolism are
always intertwined in movies.
> but realism in, say, Ibsen and Chekov
>always entails symbolism. Realism in
>the hands of a major playright is always
>poetic.
But it's not inherent in the theatre medium.
>>Poetic realism.
>>The physical is important in that
>>it gives rise to a symbol linked
>>to the physical and certain physical
>>errors in film-maker can degrade the
>>symbolism.
>Well, to get down to specifics, I don't see
>how the back projection of the sinking
>hull in _Modern Times_ degrades the
>symbolism of the film, though it's the
>weakest process work in it.
Because it introduces an element of
cartoonishness in a film which is striving
to be a comedy of social comment
set in an industrial context.
> Or how Norman Lloyd's shadow on a
>projection screen weakens the substance
>of _Limelight_, which is a very
>Aristotelian film in that the plot is more
>important than either dialogue or
>visuals--good or bad. Music takes on a
>new importance there as well.
It doesn't weaken the substance of the
film as a whole, but it requires us to
consider that Lloyd is not a real character but an actor standing in
front of a
blown-up photo.
LIMELIGHT is as a close as Chaplin
came to a tragic film and I think that
boners like that undermine the elegaic
tone.
It was so easy to fix, I can't think it
was anything but Chaplin's egotism
that allowed it in. The assistant director
was the very technically astute Robert
Aldrich and I can't believe that Aldrich
would have missed pointing out something like that to CC.
>>It's sort of what Bazin was talking
>>about in "What is Cinema?"
>Which essay?
"The Ontology of the Photographic
Image."
>>Wood could make the semblance
>>of a professional film when he
>>wanted to, but, like Chaplin, he
>>was obsessed with his own creative
>>ego---as paltry as that was in his
>>case.
>He had problems with money, I
>understand, and was forced to use the
>cheapest methods.
Yes, but he also skimped where he
didn't have to. He thought that his
creative talent would take the audience
past that. I think that's what CC thought, too. (Not making any other
comparison
between the "worst" film-maker of all
time and Chaplin.)
>>>I think I was paying attention
>>>to what Norman Lloyd was saying.
>>>What were you doing looking at
>>>the background?
>>Because it's a movie, not a play.
>>I always let the visual dictate my
>>perception of the aural.
>The visual is always important in films,
>but not always paramount. It's a flexible
>meduim.
I think the visual orders our ~correct~
perception of the aural. Truffaut once said, "What is said, but not
shown, in a
movie is lost on the spectator."
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
<snip>
> >I know you're trying to make a
> >distinction, and there may be one,
>
> Yes, realism and symbolism are
> always intertwined in movies.
>
> > but realism in, say, Ibsen and Chekov
> >always entails symbolism. Realism in
> >the hands of a major playright is always
> >poetic.
>
> But it's not inherent in the theatre medium.
I'm not sure it's inherent in film, either.
A picture, even one partly produced by
technical means, is not the same as the
thing depicted.
And theater always has a physical, concrete
dimension. Film is more capable of creating
the *illusion* of reality because of its
ability to deal with large spaces.
> >>Poetic realism.
>
> >>The physical is important in that
> >>it gives rise to a symbol linked
> >>to the physical and certain physical
> >>errors in film-maker can degrade the
> >>symbolism.
>
> >Well, to get down to specifics, I don't see
> >how the back projection of the sinking
> >hull in _Modern Times_ degrades the
> >symbolism of the film, though it's the
> >weakest process work in it.
>
> Because it introduces an element of
> cartoonishness in a film which is striving
> to be a comedy of social comment
To me it looks washed out rather than cartoonish,
and the factory scenes are not realistic but are
highly symbolic.
> > Or how Norman Lloyd's shadow on a
> >projection screen weakens the substance
> >of _Limelight_, which is a very
> >Aristotelian film in that the plot is more
> >important than either dialogue or
> >visuals--good or bad. Music takes on a
> >new importance there as well.
>
> It doesn't weaken the substance of the
> film as a whole, but it requires us to
> consider that Lloyd is not a real character but an actor standing in
> front of a
> blown-up photo.
>
> LIMELIGHT is as a close as Chaplin
> came to a tragic film and I think that
> boners like that undermine the elegaic
> tone.
>
> It was so easy to fix, I can't think it
> was anything but Chaplin's egotism
> that allowed it in. The assistant director
> was the very technically astute Robert
> Aldrich and I can't believe that Aldrich
> would have missed pointing out something like that to CC.
Actually, all he's been quoted as saying is that he
didn't understand Chaplin's method at first, but in
retrospect thought he was right.
The shadow spoils the effect only if you *notice*
it, and in addition let it bother you.
> >>It's sort of what Bazin was talking
> >>about in "What is Cinema?"
>
>
> >Which essay?
>
> "The Ontology of the Photographic
> Image."
I'm hazy on it. Will reread. But Bazin never complains
about the weaknesses in Chaplin's films as far as I
can recall. Rather, he speaks of "the pleasure of
watching perfection."
<snip>
> >The visual is always important in films,
> >but not always paramount. It's a flexible
> >meduim.
>
> I think the visual orders our ~correct~
> perception of the aural. Truffaut once said, "What is said, but not
> shown, in a
> movie is lost on the spectator.
Well, it didn't order me to look at the background--and usually doesn't.
Connie K.