Ebert on "City Lights"
Yair Solan
Just found something on the Internet that might interest you folks...
Roger Ebert recently reviewed "City Lights" and it available for viewing on
the 'net.
The address is --
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/old_movies/ctylight.html
Yair Solan
"The World of Charley Chase" --
http://home.att.net/~phenix/charley.htm
DSPB
All well and good, Yair...but, what does Michael Medved-
....OKAY, OKAY, PUT THE GUNS DOWN, EVERYBODY !
dsu...@concentric.net
In article <67s6dd$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Yair Solan"
<phe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Just found something on the Internet that might interest you folks...
>
> Roger Ebert recently reviewed "City Lights" and it available for viewing on
> the 'net.
>
> The address is --
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/old_movies/ctylight.html
>
Interesting that Ebert sees the flower girl accepting The Tramp at the
end. I always saw the ending as ambivilent.
Crooner
dsulpy comments...
>Interesting that Ebert sees the flower girl accepting The Tramp at the
>end. I always saw the ending as ambivilent.
I find that conclusion SO strange, yet not uncommon. I took about four
novices to see their first Chaplin film in CITY LIGHTS. And the two women
there thought that the former blind girl accepted Charlie. I never saw that
at all! To me, she did NOT accept him. Notice there was NEVER a trace of
a smile from the girl -- but a startled wretched look. And Charlie always
had that what-will-she-think-of-me-now look. The last close up is Charlie's
& he attempts a smile
which I think is what prompts some to think she did accept him. But Charlie
is too gallant to denote an expression of dismay toward the object of his
love. And so he braves a smile.
--
Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
____________________________________________________________
The Video Archivist Web Page http://www.erols.com/crooner
ICQ Internet # 113571
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DzubeG
> dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
>Interesting that Ebert sees the flower girl accepting The Tramp at the
>end. I always saw the ending as ambivilent.
I was surprised by this also. I see the flower girl's reaction as tender, but
also as disappointed and pitying. If she did accept the tramp, the ending
wouldn't be as poignant. Didn't Charlie write somewhere about how the tramp
didn't get the girl in CL?
Deborah
JimNeibaur
I still recall Ebert affixing a four-star rating to Animal House and The Blues
Brothers -- which, in essence, states that Roger thinks those films should rank
as high as City Lights (or nearly so).
I don't know that his opinion is quite as valid as the non-professionals in
this newsgroup who know a great deal more about the subject.
Jim
Constance Kuriyama
"Crooner" (cro...@erols.com) writes:
> dsulpy comments...
>
>>Interesting that Ebert sees the flower girl accepting The Tramp at the
>>end. I always saw the ending as ambivilent.
>
> I find that conclusion SO strange, yet not uncommon. I took about four
> novices to see their first Chaplin film in CITY LIGHTS. And the two women
> there thought that the former blind girl accepted Charlie. I never saw that
> at all! To me, she did NOT accept him. Notice there was NEVER a trace of
> a smile from the girl -- but a startled wretched look.
I see rather more in her response than that--she does realize rather quickly
what it's cost him to help her, and there's more than a hint of gratitude and
sympathy in her response.
That's not the same as love, but it is positive.
People can read what they want (or are predisposed to think) into open
endings. I frequently encounter students who view CC's endings optimistically,
and are sure that's how the film ended.
And Charlie always
> had that what-will-she-think-of-me-now look. The last close up is Charlie's
> & he attempts a smile
> which I think is what prompts some to think she did accept him. But Charlie
> is too gallant to denote an expression of dismay toward the object of his
> love. And so he braves a smile.
I take the smile to reflect his real pleasure in finding her fully recovered.
But the finger is still apprehensively locked between the teeth.
Connie K.
SeMurph
>there's more than a hint of gratitude and
>sympathy in her response.
>
>That's not the same as love, but it is positive.
Remember, in The Gold Rush, the dance hall girl feel in love with the tramp out
of pity. I think CC say pity and sympathy as the only a person established in
the viable world could begin to fall in love with the tramp. (This theory only
applies to the later films.)
Sean
MRS QT
>And the two women
>there thought that the former blind girl accepted Charlie. I never saw that
>at all! To me, she did NOT accept him. Notice there was NEVER a trace of
>had that what-will-she-think-of-me-now look. The last close up is Charlie's
>& he attempts a smile
>which I think is what prompts some to think she did accept him. But Charlie
>is too gallant to denote an expression of dismay toward the object of his
>love. And so he braves a smile.
>Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
Gosh - doesn't anyone here recognize the double meaning in the line "Yes, now I
can see"????? She means that she now knows that her illusion of the rich
handsome gentlemen was just that - an illusion. She realizes that her
benefactor obviously gave up everything he had for her - and her bubble was
burst. But she was in love with Charlie from before she could see, she just
didn't realize how small she had become by judging people by what they look
like.....my my - how reality really teaches us lessons.
Lori :)
AZquints
JIMN wrote:
>>I don't know that his opinion is quite as valid as the non-professionals in
this newsgroup who know a great deal more about the subject.<<
I concur! Ebert isn't truly a bad critic, but he's incredibly erratic. At times
he writes skillfully and insightfully (and, no, not just when I agree with his
opinions). Other times, he misses the boat entirely. I'm not surprised he holds
the simplistic belief that the tramp "wins" the girl at the end of CL. (I agree
the ending is much more enigmatic.) Ebert, during a single infamous episode of
Sneak Previews, once gave a thumbs-down to BLUE VELVET and thumbs-up to BENJI
THE HUNTED! Plus, I recall a show from the early 80s wherein he and Siskel
debated who was America's greatest active comedian. Siskel -- correctly, IMO --
chose Woody Allen. Ebert lobbied for Mel Brooks -- a choice which looks worse
and worse as the years pass.
-Mark
Constance Kuriyama
Yes, she does mention that her mysterious admirer is "more than" wealthy,
so there's something to build on when discovering that he actually wasn't
wealthy.
But the question is still open as to whether her appreciation for this
is enough to build a relationship on, especially given the new gap between
her status and his.
I think Chaplin hopes that we'll savor the ironies of the situation in which
Charlie has placed himself. He encouraged her illusion, partly because it
was flattering to himself and he liked playing the millionaire. Now he
has to deal with the consequences of his indulgence in this illusory
pleasure--whatever they may be. But we can be sure that they won't be the
same as they would have been if he had actually been wealthy.
Connie K.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--CBK--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Words can defeat the imagination." --Charlie Chaplin
Crooner
Three reasons why Virginia DOES NOT end up with Charlie in CITY LIGHTS...
1) There is no woman I know of that would contemplate having a serious
relationship with a bum. Period. (The moviemaker Chaplin often had to
think how to write his stories so that a pretty woman WOULD be interested in
a tramp.)
2) Charlie would have to explain to her why he kept up this pretense that
he was rich. One of the top priorities in a relationship is TRUST.
Evidently, Charlie broke that trust in deceiving her. And Virginia's lofty
image of her benefactor comes painfully crashing down.
3) Virginia in no way gestures romantically or lovingly towards Charlie.
No embrace, no kiss, no nothing. Just a reserved, distant, pitiful yet
appreciative
I-can't-believe-this-is-my-benefactor glaze.
I'm sure there are more, but I tend to think point 1 can't be debated.
--
Crooner ~ says HAVE A HAPPY & HEALTHY NEW YEAR!
Crooner
To & Fro over the classic ending of CITY LIGHTS...
First me...
>
>>1) There is no woman I know of that would contemplate having a serious
>>relationship with a bum. Period. (The moviemaker Chaplin often had to
>>think how to write his stories so that a pretty woman WOULD be interested
in
>>a tramp.)
Then Hannah...
>I don't know about this one ... <sigh>. Charlie's more of a vagabond than a
>bum. The bum-word reeks of JMilton's irritating remark that the blind girl
>should have been able to tell he was a tramp by smelling him. Are we
talking a
>fling with the Tramp or commitment? He's definitely fling material, and
with a
>woman like the gamin in _Modern Times_, something more serious could
develop.
>I think in today's market, Chaplin would be pressured to film sequels to
_The
>Kid_, _The Gold Rush_, _CL_, and _MT_, all pretty much with the same
subtitle,
>_Do They Or Don't They?_.
Take a good look at Charlie at the end of CITY LIGHTS.
He is MORE wretched looking here than in any other film
I can recall. I think the term "bum" suits him here;
maybe not in other movies. He even has parts of his
underware falling off him.
The gamin in MODERN TIMES -- well, the dictionary
definition for gamin is "street urchin." Charlie & the
gamin have more plausibility in getting together; because
they are of the same social class. Same as in THE IMMIGRANT.
Charlie & Edna can get married because they were both
of the same class: immigrants.
Georgia & THE GOLD RUSH is probably the biggest romantic stretch
that Charlie created. However, I can go along with the two
of them being together if only for that last screen kiss
(which is missing from the sound version).
>>2) Charlie would have to explain to her why he kept up this pretense that
>>he was rich. One of the top priorities in a relationship is TRUST.
>>Evidently, Charlie broke that trust in deceiving her. And Virginia's
lofty
>>image of her benefactor comes painfully crashing down.
>
>His enjoyment in playing the rich benefactor is outweighed by her blind
cure,
>her improved status, and his sacrifices. The physical and material image of
her
>benefactor may come "crashing down," but the Tramp's inner qualities are
the
>same as, or better than, those she imagined him to possess. Plus, at least
he
>wasn't some limousine liberal do-gooder whose family would never have
accepted
>her and with whom she would never have been happy. <g>
Your point duly noted, and it may be a good one too.
But still we have Virginia who has been elevated to a
higher social strata &, human nature the way it is, I'm
sure Virginia would be forever truly grateful to
Charlie for his kindness, but to go out with him
in a romantic way -- don't think so. And if that is so,
why do I bother to get dressed up to go out with anyone?
It's going to be rags for me from now on.
>
>>3) Virginia in no way gestures romantically or lovingly towards Charlie.
>>No embrace, no kiss, no nothing. Just a reserved, distant, pitiful yet
>>appreciative
>>I-can't-believe-this-is-my-benefactor glaze.
>
>I do think there is love mixed with appreciation in her look, but I agree
that
>he is not what she thought he was or what she wants. That's why it's not
only
>the Tramp who is unmasked but also the blind girl to herself.
Ditto, Agree with you there.
Hanhuck
>From: "Crooner" <cro...@erols.com>
>1) There is no woman I know of that would contemplate having a serious
>relationship with a bum. Period. (The moviemaker Chaplin often had to
>think how to write his stories so that a pretty woman WOULD be interested in
>a tramp.)
I don't know about this one ... <sigh>. Charlie's more of a vagabond than a
bum. The bum-word reeks of JMilton's irritating remark that the blind girl
should have been able to tell he was a tramp by smelling him. Are we talking a
fling with the Tramp or commitment? He's definitely fling material, and with a
woman like the gamin in _Modern Times_, something more serious could develop.
I think in today's market, Chaplin would be pressured to film sequels to _The
Kid_, _The Gold Rush_, _CL_, and _MT_, all pretty much with the same subtitle,
_Do They Or Don't They?_.
>2) Charlie would have to explain to her why he kept up this pretense that
>he was rich. One of the top priorities in a relationship is TRUST.
>Evidently, Charlie broke that trust in deceiving her. And Virginia's lofty
>image of her benefactor comes painfully crashing down.
His enjoyment in playing the rich benefactor is outweighed by her blind cure,
her improved status, and his sacrifices. The physical and material image of her
benefactor may come "crashing down," but the Tramp's inner qualities are the
same as, or better than, those she imagined him to possess. Plus, at least he
wasn't some limousine liberal do-gooder whose family would never have accepted
her and with whom she would never have been happy. <g>
>3) Virginia in no way gestures romantically or lovingly towards Charlie.
>No embrace, no kiss, no nothing. Just a reserved, distant, pitiful yet
>appreciative
>I-can't-believe-this-is-my-benefactor glaze.
I do think there is love mixed with appreciation in her look, but I agree that
he is not what she thought he was or what she wants. That's why it's not only
the Tramp who is unmasked but also the blind girl to herself.
It's like we're talking about the Mona Lisa smile. I *do* so love this movie!
Hannah (who after reading Ebert's *entire* online review thinks we gave him a
rough time -- he drools over Chaplin)
=============================
"Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense." -- Mark Twain
George Shelps
>Charlie's more a vagabond than a bum.
--Hannah
According to my dictionary, "vagabond" may be characterized as follows:
"A person who wanders from place to place with no fixed abode, a tramp,
an idle, disreputable or shiftless person."
"Bum" appears as
"a vagrant, hobo, tramp, or beggar; any
shiftless or irresponsible person."
No mention of personal hygiene, though.
Take *that* Joyce Milton!
Seriously, folks, "City Lights" is not social realism....or, in
deference to the Chaplinistas, "socialist realism."
JimNeibaur
George stated:
Seriously, folks, "City Lights" is not social realism....or, in
deference to the Chaplinistas, "socialist realism."
--------
But I did notice the rich dude had to get drunk to be nice to the poor dude.
Jim
SeMurph
>>Charlie's more a vagabond than a bum.
I think CC's description of the tramp from his autobiography is still the best:
"I began to explain the character: 'You know this fellow is many-sided, a
tramp, a gentleman, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow, always hopeful of
romance and adventure. He would have you believe he is a scientist, a muscian,
a duke, a polo-player. However, he is not above picking up cigarette butts or
robbing a baby of its candy. And, of course, if the occasion warrants it, he
will kick a lady in the rear -- but only in extreme anger!'"
I think this quote shows that CC didn't view the tramp as a bum. In his early
shorts, I feel the tramp is presented more or less as a vagabond by choice -- a
free-spirit who could live like the rest of us, but decided to march to the
beat of his own drum. However, it is true that Chaplin let the character
evolve into a more complex victim of social injustice or inequality. By the
end of City Lights, I would say that the tramp was closer to being a bum than
the carefree vagabond of old.
Sean
Constance Kuriyama
Apt. But contrary to George's insinuation about our lack of taste, I'm sure
we're all delighted it's not socialist realism.
Hanhuck
>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>In a previous article, jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) says:
>
>>George stated:
>>
>>Seriously, folks, "City Lights" is not social realism....or, in
>>deference to the Chaplinistas, "socialist realism."
>>
>>--------
>>
>>But I did notice the rich dude had to get drunk to be nice to the poor dude.
>
>>
>>Jim
>
>Apt. But contrary to George's insinuation about our lack of taste, I'm sure
>we're all delighted it's not socialist realism.
>
>Connie K.
What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than oxymoronic? I don't think George
insinuated we lack taste but rather that we manipulate CC's movies to fit what
George believes is our leftist ideology and sensibility (I thought I'd give
mind-reading a try too, George <g>).
Viewing the erratic millionaire as a metaphor for the boom and bust cycle has
always been a bit of a stretch for me, but I do think there's something to the
millionaire's changing attitude toward the Tramp.
Hannah
George Shelps
Hannah writes that I believe that certain contributors "manipulate CC's
films to
fit...leftist ideology and sensibility."
Yes, you are correct. I was certainly not questioning anyone's *taste.*
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>
>>In a previous article, jimne...@aol.com (JimNeibaur) says:
>>
>>>George stated:
>>>
>>>Seriously, folks, "City Lights" is not social realism....or, in
>>>deference to the Chaplinistas, "socialist realism."
>>>
>>>--------
>>>
>>>But I did notice the rich dude had to get drunk to be nice to the poor dude.
>>
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>>Apt. But contrary to George's insinuation about our lack of taste, I'm sure
>>we're all delighted it's not socialist realism.
>>
>>Connie K.
>
>What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than oxymoronic?
It's actually an extremely ugly style or art promoted in the Soviet Union
and Communist China to supposedly further the cause of revolution. I've
seen (and read) quite a few samples of it. Just look at some Soviet or
Maoist statuary and you'll get the idea--big, blockish, and coarsely modeled.
Deplorable stuff.
I don't think George
>insinuated we lack taste
I'm never quite sure what George is up to these days, but since he implied
that we liked that kind of stuff (jokingly, perhaps), it seemed to me that
he had little respect for our aesthetic discrimination.
but rather that we manipulate CC's movies to fit what
>George believes is our leftist ideology and sensibility (I thought I'd give
>mind-reading a try too, George <g>).
Mind-reading seems to be a popular avocation these days. Maybe I'll take
it up myself.
Feuillade
bq...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
>In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>> What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than
>> oxymoronic?
>
> It's actually an extremely ugly style or art promoted
> in the Soviet Union and Communist China to
> supposedly further the cause of revolution.
> I've seen (and read) quite a few samples of it.
> Just look at some Soviet or Maoist statuary and
> you'll get the idea--big, blockish, and coarsely
> modeled.
>
> Deplorable stuff.
Not necessarily.
Some first rate works of literature from the Soviet period qualify as
"Socialist Realism," primary among them, of course, being Mikhail Sholokov's
"The Quiet Don."
Any artistic movement is capable of being caricatured by its antagonists (as
any readings of articles about, to take just two examples, Surrealism and Bebop
will appreciate), but that doesn't hide the fact that some works of so-called
Socialist Realism were quite good. Gladkov's "Cement" also comes to mind.
Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
Not intentionally, evidently. And presumably jokingly. But I can't imagine
how anyone who liked Chaplin (leftist or not) would confuse his work with
socialist realism.
Hanhuck
>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>Hanhuck said:>What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than oxymoronic?
Connie replied:
>It's actually an extremely ugly style or art promoted in the Soviet Union
>and Communist China to supposedly further the cause of revolution. I've
>seen (and read) quite a few samples of it. Just look at some Soviet or
>Maoist statuary and you'll get the idea--big, blockish, and coarsely modeled.
Oh, that's what that's called. I've always called it Soviet Yuk. It's not too
far removed from Albert Speer Yuk.
Hanhuck
>From: feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
>Some first rate works of literature from the Soviet period qualify as
>"Socialist Realism," primary among them, of course, being Mikhail Sholokov's
>"The Quiet Don."
The things one can learn on the Chaplin NG! The Sholokov book has been sitting
in my bookshelf for several years -- I think I'll read it now.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
>bq...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
>
>>In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>
>>> What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than
>>> oxymoronic?
>>
>> It's actually an extremely ugly style or art promoted
>> in the Soviet Union and Communist China to
>> supposedly further the cause of revolution.
>> I've seen (and read) quite a few samples of it.
>> Just look at some Soviet or Maoist statuary and
>> you'll get the idea--big, blockish, and coarsely
>> modeled.
>>
>> Deplorable stuff.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
>Some first rate works of literature from the Soviet period qualify as
>"Socialist Realism," primary among them, of course, being Mikhail Sholokov's
>"The Quiet Don."
>
>Any artistic movement is capable of being caricatured by its antagonists (as
>any readings of articles about, to take just two examples, Surrealism and Bebop
>will appreciate), but that doesn't hide the fact that some works of so-called
>Socialist Realism were quite good. Gladkov's "Cement" also comes to mind.
>
>Tom Moran
OK, I agree that the literature can be much better than the sculpture
because it is, after all, a form of realism. Most of the sculpture (and
painting) I've seen isn't particularly realistic, though it somehow
passed for it to the converted.
All the literature I've read is Chinese, not Russian. Some of it is
readable, but even the best Chinese works tend toward heavy didacticism,
and in that respect aren't like true realist literature.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, han...@aol.com (Hanhuck) says:
>>From: bq...@yfn.ysu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>
>>Hanhuck said:>What is "socialist realism" anyway, other than oxymoronic?
>
>Connie replied:
>
>>It's actually an extremely ugly style or art promoted in the Soviet Union
>>and Communist China to supposedly further the cause of revolution. I've
>>seen (and read) quite a few samples of it. Just look at some Soviet or
>>Maoist statuary and you'll get the idea--big, blockish, and coarsely modeled.
>
>Oh, that's what that's called. I've always called it Soviet Yuk. It's not too
>far removed from Albert Speer Yuk.
>
>Hannah
Exactement! A fascist is a fascist is a fascist--even when he calls
himself a socialist.
George Shelps
Originally, I put the term "socialist realism" in quotes....by way of
indicating that I was playfully caricaturing the term, but while the
actual artistic movement in the Soviet Union eventually became staid and
boring, there were some pictures
made in the 30s that may have had some of the qualities that Renoir was
developing in French cinema of the same period.
In actuality, the term came to be defined in reaction to the period of
artistic experimentation in the silent era. When
Stalin's hacks took a gander at what
Eisenstein did with the collectivization
of agriculture in "Old and New," that was the ballgame.
According to the Party Line, "the basic
criterion for evaluating the art qualities
of a film is the requirement that it be
presented in a form which can be
understood by millions."
Then Stalin appointed the notorious
Boris Shumyatsky to head State film organization. Shumyatsky's
principal
activity in the mid-30s seemed to have been making Eisenstein's life
miserable,
until the latter found a way to adapt his
style to the new order of things in
"Alexander Nevsky."
Feuillade
bq...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
> OK, I agree that the literature can be much
> better than the sculpture because it is, after all,
> a form of realism. Most of the sculpture (and
> painting) I've seen isn't particularly realistic,
> though it somehow passed for it to the converted.
>
> All the literature I've read is Chinese, not Russian.
> Some of it is readable, but even the best Chinese works
> tend toward heavy didacticism, and in that respect
> aren't like true realist literature.
I've always thought of Socialist Reallism as being an exclusively Soviet
phenomenon of the Stalinist era, so I'm not sure Chinese literature qualifies.
Tom Moran
Feuillade
han...@aol.com writes:
>
>>From: feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
>
>> Some first rate works of literature from the
>> Soviet period qualify as"Socialist Realism," primary
>> among them, of course, being Mikhail Sholokov's
>> "The Quiet Don."
>
> Sholokov book has been sitting in my bookshelf for
> several years -- I think I'll read it now.
Just keep in mind, if you're reading the older (Random House) edition, that
it's *severely* cut.
Abridged, in fact -- although they don't say that.
Enough words have been cut from that edition to make a novel three times the
length of "The Great Gatsby."
A newer editon just came out in hardcover, and is pretty much complete, in a
slightly better translation.
Tom Moran
SRoweCanoe
So was Norman Rockwell an example of American-style Socialist Realism?
Actually, probably not; as there is a bit too much nostalgia in Rockwell for
the Socialist Realism style. But I'm sure that with a slight bit of party
discipline he could have done quite well in that style.
I'm more familiar with soviet socialist realism in art and "comerical" art
than I am with scuplture, literature, or film. And it allways struck me as an
interesting sibling to Rockwell, and other 1920s and 30s reaction to
impressionism and romanticism, abstractionism, etc.
Several good books out on the subject.
Steven Rowe
George Shelps
Norman Rockwell would have been disqualified from the Socialist Realism
category for his "bourgeois idealism."
Too many Thanksgiving scenes...
SRoweCanoe
In article <68m6e9$mcb$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, G-H...@webtv.net
(George Shelps) writes:
Ah, Comrade George, but there are large groups here at the dinner table, a
stunning example of solidarity of the masses! And what better than a large
turkey dinner to solidfy the concept of all recieving what they need, based on
what they can provide. (ie: pot luck thanksgiving).
(is a ;) really necessary?) Steven R
Hanhuck
>From: feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
>han...@aol.com writes:
>> The things one can learn on the Chaplin NG! The
>> Sholokov book has been sitting in my bookshelf for
>> several years -- I think I'll read it now.
>
>Just keep in mind, if you're reading the older (Random House) edition, that
>it's *severely* cut.
>
>Abridged, in fact -- although they don't say that.
>
>Enough words have been cut from that edition to make a novel three times the
>length of "The Great Gatsby."
>
>A newer editon just came out in hardcover, and is pretty much complete, in a
>slightly better translation.
Hmm, let's see. Mine is _And Quiet Flows the Don_ by Mikhail Sholokhov,
translated by Stephen Garry, paperback by Vintage International, 1989.
Feuillade
han...@aol.com writes:
>> From: feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
>
>> han...@aol.com writes:
>
>>> The things one can learn on the Chaplin
>>> NG! The Sholokov book has been sitting in
>>> my bookshelf for several years -- I think I'll
>>> read it now.
>>
>> Just keep in mind, if you're reading the older
>> (Random House) edition, that it's *severely* cut.
>>
>> Abridged, in fact -- although they don't say that.
>>
>> Enough words have been cut from that edition
>> to make a novel three times the
>> length of "The Great Gatsby."
>>
>> A newer editon just came out in hardcover, and
>> is pretty much complete, in a slightly better
>> translation.
>
> Hmm, let's see. Mine is _And Quiet Flows the Don_
> by Mikhail Sholokhov, translated by Stephen Garry,
> paperback by Vintage International, 1989.
What you have is the first half of the abridged translation. The second half
was published as a separate volume under the title "The Don Flows Home to the
Sea."
The more recent edition is in hardcover, and is a revision of the Robert
Daglish translation that came out in the 1980s. It's in one volume, and
restores the cuts made in the previous translation.
Tom Moran
George Shelps
"And Quiet Flows the Don" was filmed in 1957 by Sergei Gerasimov. A
notable
series of Soviet films in the 30s was the "Maxim Gorki Trilogy,"
directed by Mark Donskoi. Because it dealt with an author approved by
the Party, Donskoi's was able to transcend socialism with humanism in
this cinematic adaptation of Gorki's autobiographical works.
George Shelps
Ah, yes, Comrade Canoe, superficially
you may be correct that Rockwell
depicts (or seems to depict) "a
stunning example of the solidarity of the masses" at the Thanksgiving
table.
And it is possible that "pot luck" populism may be at work here.
But what about the Father? He may have owned a hot dog stand and
habitually
denied free hot dogs to tramps and vagrants. Thus, the scene at the
Thanksgiving table would, in reality,
represent the false consciousness of
patriarchal capitalism.
Robert Birchard
George Shelps wrote in part:
>
> And it is possible that "pot luck" populism may be at work here.
>
> But what about the Father? He may have owned a hot dog stand and
> habitually
> denied free hot dogs to tramps and vagrants.
There has been a lot of speculation about the relationship of the
man and the kid with the hot dog based on the most superficial evidence.
Maybe the man was not the kid's father, but an Adventurer in the
employ of the Tibetan secret service out drumming up candidates for
Lamaship. That hot dog may have been the last solid food that kid would
get before being Shanghaied with The Fatal Mallet. Charlie was probably
having A Busy Day and mistook Those Love Pangs for Laughing Gas and The
Vagabond was about to take The Count when The Cure became obvious In The
Park on A Busy Day. Tired of Making A Living and unwilling to Work, The
Star Boarder pursued His Favorite Pastime, a Recreation that offered
Dough and Dynamite. He would steal the kid's hot dog, although none
dare call it stealing.
The baby was a product of Mabel's Strange Predicament. Her Tango
Tangles on A Night Out led to Twenty Minutes Of Love with The New
Janitor at His Trysting Place after A Night At The Show where they saw
Charlie Chaplin's Burlesque On Carmen.
Getting Acquainted with Gentlemen of Nerve was the sort of
Recreation Her Friend The Bandit pursued. He was often seen on Easy
Street with Mabel At The Wheel. The Bond between them gave each A Day's
Pleasure on Pay Day, but once The Gold Rush was over she sat in the
Limelight Behind The Screen and remembered her friend Tillie's Puctured
Romance with Monsieur Verdoux. Oh, Cruel, Cruel Love.
During Mabel's Married Life she dreamed of a Champion, A Film
Johnnie who was more important than The Property Man--she saw herself as
A Woman of Paris parading down Fifth Avenue with A King In New York.
Under the City Lights he would confess His Prehistoric Past Between
Showers. But as luck would have it thay got Caught In The Rain on their
way to The Rink, and as the floodtide rose thay soon found themslves By
The Sea as The Floorwalker, The Fireman, The Pilgrim, and The Immigrant
floated by at One A. M.
"Shoulder Arms," said the Police as The Rounders went down for the
third time.
This may have been Mabel's Busy Day, but she always looked on the
Sunnyside. She rememberd that time in The Bank just before she went on A
Jitney Elopement. Her boyfriend was known in West Hollywood as The
Masquerader and he was Caught In A Cabaret dressed as A Woman before he
could make the withdrawl to he buy tickets to The Circus.
The Kid that resulted from this loveless match led A Dog's Life at
first, but he soon found himself in Triple Trouble when his mother was
run over during the Kid Auto Races, he was kidnapped by the Tibetan
Secret Service, and Charlie stole his hot dog.
And his problems did not end there, as his dreams of Making A Living
were to be dashed when he would fall flat on his flute, thus ending His
Musical Career.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
ScotJohn96
Well, that's Life.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) says:
Both Chinese and Japanese literature have historically picked up Western
trends from Russia, so what is Socialist Realism in Russia and has recognizbly
the same style in China is still Socialist Realism--at least I'd say so.
Sinified, perhaps.
Constance Kuriyama
In a previous article, G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) says:
>Norman Rockwell would have been disqualified from the Socialist Realism
>category for his "bourgeois idealism."
>Too many Thanksgiving scenes...
Overall, much too bourgeois to qualify as Socialist Realism.
No outsized pseudo-heroics, either.
Hanhuck
>From: Robert Birchard <bbir...@earthlink.net>
> There has been a lot of speculation about the relationship of the
>man and the kid with the hot dog based on the most superficial evidence.
In these Modern Times, one can be sent to one's death like Monsieur Verdoux
based on skimpier evidence than that Freak-y Joan Barry put on in her paternity
suit.
LOL