Why is it alt."movies".chaplin and alt."comedy".laurel-hardy?
Scott Olsen
Opinions?
ScotJohn96
> Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin....?
Because a.m.c. is such an amusing place. ;-)
Another Scott
Elizabeth
Scott Olsen wrote:
>Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin or alt.movies.laurel-hardy?
>
>Opinions?
Laurel & Hardy are funnier. Now, what's my prize for getting the right
answer???
Elizabeth /*\
Ivor Loader
JimNeibr
Laurel and Hardy do comedy and Chaplin just made movies
------
This intrigues in that so many silent film aficianados don't care for Chaplin,
believe him to be overrated, etc. That has always puzzled me. Having become a
silent film buff as a result of the comedies, which I discovered as a kid, I
still find Chaplin to be far and away the most interesting. This is certainly
not to belittle Keaton, Lloyd, or Laurel and Hardy (all of whom I find
wonderful -- I will admit that I laugh more at Laurel and Hardy, but do believe
Chaplin to be the better artist, if that makes any kind of sense). There is a
certain quality to Chaplin that causes his work to reach me emotionally, as
well as my sense of humor.
What is it about Chaplin that causes so many learned silent movie buffs to
dismiss him as overrated? I really would like to know your opinions (and
please, do not bother responding with the sort of
"he-was-a-commie-who-liked-young-chicks" attitude that caused me to leave the
Chaplin newsgroup last year).
I think Chaplin is the single most important filmmaker in the history of
American movies (with respectful apologies to D.W. Griffith fans).
Opinions are sought ---
thanks,
Jim
Joe Libby
Smart aleckiness aside, I do agree with Jim that Chaplin was highly
influential as a filmmaker. One need only see the superb film "Life is
Beautiful" to see how Chaplin's influence continues even today.
Best,
Joe Libby
Sagebrush Productions Web Page:www.inergy.com/jlibby/welcome.html
Joe Bevilacqua
character. It all just feels a little too calculated for my tastes. Keaton,
on the other hand, I empathize with fully. He is a real person and I believe
everything he is doing and that happens to him. I also think Keaton may have
been a better straight actor than Chaplin too. Chaplin's style is that of a
clown and it is quite affected. He is very impressive and you spend your
time thinking "Wow, this guy is talented" and he surprises you a lot but all
the while you are well aware you are watching a clown entertain you. Keaton,
on the other hand, was equally brilliant and surprised you at every turn but
he makes it look easy. THAT's talent. The guy who does it with such ease,
you forget he is putting on a show for you. I believe the same can be said
of very early Laurel and Hardy. There was a natural quality to their
clowning that seemed real. It wasn't until later that they started parodying
themselves and I think they lost a lot of their charm once they did.
BoggsArt <bogg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990426204326...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> ...Perhaps...I dunno, I'm just talking off the top of my face...but,
perhaps
> it's because Chaplin is everything the rest of us aren't...He moves like a
> "ballet dancer" (as Larson E Whipsnade would say)...he almost always
overcomes
> whatever conflict comes his way...he manages to get the best of whoever he
> scraps with...
>
> Comedians like Laurel & Hardy, and Buster Keaton, on the other hand, are
"he
> who gets slapped"...they usually end up at the bottom of whatever heap
life
> dumps upon them...People can relate to that a lot easier, they can
sympathize
> easier with Stan & Ollie, or Buster...
>
> On the other hand, maybe Chaplin just kicked people in the butt too
much...
> "Excuse me, please - my ear is full of milk"
> -Oliver Hardy
BoggsArt
Chrislark
Scott Olsen asks:
Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin or alt.movies.laurel-hardy?
Opinions?
Chris Hall suggests:
Actually, "alt.politics.chaplin" would be more accurate.
Bruce Calvert
bogg...@aol.com (BoggsArt) wrote:
> ...Perhaps...I dunno, I'm just talking off the top of my face...but, perhaps
> it's because Chaplin is everything the rest of us aren't...He moves like a
> "ballet dancer" (as Larson E Whipsnade would say)...he almost always overcomes
> whatever conflict comes his way...he manages to get the best of whoever he
> scraps with...
>
> Comedians like Laurel & Hardy, and Buster Keaton, on the other hand, are "he
> who gets slapped"...they usually end up at the bottom of whatever heap life
> dumps upon them...People can relate to that a lot easier, they can sympathize
> easier with Stan & Ollie, or Buster...
Plus, Chaplin strove to make "Art" as well as make us laugh. Starting in the
1920's he only released a film every few years. Stan and Babe routinely
cranked out finely-crafted comedy shorts and features from 1927 into the
1940's.
--
Bruce Calvert
Visit the Internet Silent Film Still Archive
http://www2.crosswinds.net/dallas/~bcalvert/home.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
shus...@yahoo.com
> This intrigues in that so many silent film aficianados don't care for Chaplin,
> believe him to be overrated, etc. That has always puzzled me. Having become
> a silent film buff as a result of the comedies, which I discovered as a kid, I
> still find Chaplin to be far and away the most interesting. This is certainly
> not to belittle Keaton, Lloyd, or Laurel and Hardy (all of whom I find
> wonderful -- I will admit that I laugh more at Laurel and Hardy, but do
> believe Chaplin to be the better artist, if that makes any kind of sense).
> There is a certain quality to Chaplin that causes his work to reach me
> emotionally, as well as my sense of humor.
>
> What is it about Chaplin that causes so many learned silent movie buffs to
> dismiss him as overrated? I really would like to know your opinions (and
> please, do not bother responding with the sort of
> "he-was-a-commie-who-liked-young-chicks" attitude that caused me to leave the
> Chaplin newsgroup last year).
We miss you, Jim! Come back and see us sometime! The "Chaplin Was a
Child-Molesting Commie Bastard" crowd keeps dwindling, by the way.
I think Chaplin gets passed over by some people because for most us, a
comedy movie is like dessert. We just want it to be rich and satisfying and
fun. But Chaplin wanted his films to be more like a full meal: some comedy,
some romance, some drama, and a taste of The Human Condition. That's great if
that's what you're hungry for. But if you just want something fun and simple
to laugh at, a Keaton or a Lloyd or a Laurel and Hardy are as tempting as a
triple-layer chocolate cake with ice cream on the side.
I love Chaplin and I think his films are mostly masterpieces. But I can
understand why someone would rather watch "Should Married Men Go Home" instead
of "Modern Times." Right now, I would too! Tomorrow I may not.
--Shush--
Elizabeth
face...but, perhaps
>it's because Chaplin is everything the rest of us aren't...He moves like a
>"ballet dancer" (as Larson E Whipsnade would say)...he almost always
overcomes
>whatever conflict comes his way...he manages to get the best of whoever he
>scraps with...
>
>Comedians like Laurel & Hardy, and Buster Keaton, on the other hand, are
"he
>who gets slapped"...they usually end up at the bottom of whatever heap life
>dumps upon them...People can relate to that a lot easier, they can
sympathize
>easier with Stan & Ollie, or Buster...
>
>"Excuse me, please - my ear is full of milk"
>-Oliver Hardy
Good point, and probably the central truth behind the bias. Also, Chaplin
tends to be perceived as being at the top of the heap artistically, and
anyone occupying that position automatically attracts a bit of resentment.
Which is ironic because, in terms of on-screen character, it's a heap of
underdogs!
I've always liked Chaplin just fine (I was just being a smartypants L&H
partisan with my response to the original alt.comedy/alt.movies question,
although I do indeed find them funnier); I haven't watched enough of Chaplin
recently to give a really well-considered opinion, but "off the top of my
face," he seems a bit precious and/or egotistical in comparison to Laurel &
Hardy. Joe B's insightful comments immediately reminded me of Dick Van
Dyke's statement: "Chaplin is great, a genius -- but with Chaplin I can
always see the technique showing. Lord knows it's a great technique, and I
admire it very much -- but with Stan the technique never shows. _Never_.
And that to me is proof that he is a better craftsman than Chaplin -- an
infinitely better craftsman."
I like Laurel & Hardy partly because the relationship between them is so
funny and interesting. It gives their movies a type of complexity that's
different from the complexities of Chaplin's movies.
Is there a tendency for men to prefer Laurel and Hardy and women Chaplin?
Chaplin is a more obviously "romantic" figure, attractive to women but
perhaps annoying to some men. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
(Gentlemen, quiz your wives/girlfriends/mothers/sisters!) Personally I
prefer Laurel & Hardy, but I suspect I'm an anoma -- a llama -- anonyma --
"ANOMALY???"
"Yes, that's right, I'm an anenome."
Elizabeth /*\
Eric Perlin
>Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin or
>alt.movies.laurel-hardy?
Possibly because Chaplin's films often had serious undertones.
Limelight was a great film, but it was not really a comedy.
I have another question: did you notice that there are _no_
newsgroups for either Scooby-Doo or The New Munsters? Know what
both of those shows have in common? They apparently _must_ be
considered excellent by _someone,_ because they have both been used
as replacement programs by 2 stations in my area that yanked L&H
films off the air.
(For the record, it was WPIX that replaced L&H with Scooby Doo in
the late 1970's, and WOR that replaced L&H with The New Munsters
about 10 years later.)
Elizabeth
Eric Perlin wrote:
>I have another question: did you notice that there are _no_
>newsgroups for either Scooby-Doo or The New Munsters? Know what
>both of those shows have in common? They apparently _must_ be
>considered excellent by _someone,_ because they have both been used
>as replacement programs by 2 stations in my area that yanked L&H
>films off the air.
>
>(For the record, it was WPIX that replaced L&H with Scooby Doo in
>the late 1970's, and WOR that replaced L&H with The New Munsters
>about 10 years later.)
As a matter of fact I didn't notice that there were no Scooby-Doo or New
Munsters newsgroups. I'm not quite sure how this escaped my attention.
I think we should all start making voodoo dolls of program directors who
pull Laurel and Hardy off the air. If sticking pins in the voodoo dolls
seems too mean, we can at least dunk them in water and bump their heads
against walls.
Elizabeth /*\
BoggsArt
>prefer Laurel & Hardy, but I suspect I'm an anoma -- a llama -- anonyma --
>"ANOMALY???"
>"Yes, that's right, I'm an anenome."
>
>Elizabeth /*\
>
>
synononym...is...cinnamin...
Elizabeth
llama -- anonyma --
>>"ANOMALY???"
>>"Yes, that's right, I'm an anenome."
>>
>>Elizabeth /*\
BoggsArt wrote:
>That's a synononym! You know what a synononym is...a
>synononym...is...cinnamin...
>"Excuse me, please - my ear is full of milk"
>-Oliver Hardy
No, no, NO!!! A cinnamon is a word that means the same thing but doesn't
look like itself. What you have here is a word that looks like each other
but means the opposite -- a HARMONICA!
Elizabeth /*\
Ivor Loader
a policeman. Laurel and Hardy didn't need any of these, all they required
to do great comedy was themselves.
IvorL
JimNeibr
opinions on a subject is to ask people who care enough about said subject.
That is why I posted it in here rather than the Chaplin newsgroup where the
"He-was-a-commie" crowd bored me enough to drive me out.
Laurel and Hardy will always be funnier. And their lack of pretention perhaps
makes them equally great artists. But I can now understand the opinions of
those who do not necessarily enjoy the Chaplin films, but at the same time can
objectively appreciate his work from an artistic perspective.
Jim
Catweazle
Undoubtedly, both Chaplin and L&H have given incredible things to the world
of comedy. I remember thinking how amazing it was the first time I saw the
shot of Fred Karno's troupe going out to America and there is Stan and there
is Charlie and they were both going to take the world by storm and, OK, Stan
wouldn't do it for a while, but still. *And* they were both Brits. :>)
As for comparison, I'd have to say that Chaplin demands a little study. For
sheer beauty of execution, I would choose him. For laughs, I would choose
L&H.
Elizabeth
JimNeibr wrote:
>> What is it about Chaplin that causes so many learned silent movie buffs
to
>> dismiss him as overrated? I really would like to know your opinions (and
>> please, do not bother responding with the sort of
>> "he-was-a-commie-who-liked-young-chicks" attitude that caused me to leave
the
>> Chaplin newsgroup last year).
Shush wrote:
>We miss you, Jim! Come back and see us sometime! The "Chaplin Was a
>Child-Molesting Commie Bastard" crowd keeps dwindling, by the way.
I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why there would be
Chaplin-bashing in a Chaplin newsgroup. Anyone care to alleviate my
perplexity?
Elizabeth /*\
P.S. If it's because some people don't have anything better to do with
their time, I have one of those little looms for weaving potholders that I'd
be glad to lend out.
bobmorr...@my-dejanews.com
Mary Beth Lewinsky
Monica Lewinsky is whut th' CIA an' th' KGB used t'refer t'as a "honey trap"
-a temppress thet is used t'blackmail th' enemah. Th' only mahstery
surroun'in' Lewinsky is t'whut extent did she cooperate an' t'whut extent was
she manipulated by Tripp an' Goldberg? Not surprisin'ly, th' only "insider"
who has gone public t'talk about Lewinsky an' Tripp is Goldberg, th' old pro
who has evidently survived a dirty trick o' two unner th' tutelage of Richard
Nixon, as enny fool kin plainly see. Like th' Lewinsky affair, th' consissent
element of th' Willey incident is th' dirty tricks thet prodooced it. One kin
ress assured thet eff'n th' Willey incident was at all credible, Starr'd haf
indicked Julie Hiatt Steel fo' perjury an' then, he'd haf had a clear,
unadulterated case of perjury aginst th' President of th' United States, who
denied th' Willey allegashuns unner oath, wifout qualificashun. But Starr's
office obviously knows thet these charges is not credible o' they'd haf been
pursued even mo'e aggressively than th' relatively mino' Lewinsky
allegashuns. Indeed, simple logic betrays th' frivolity of th' Willey
allegashuns, not t'menshun th' secret dirty tricks of th' Lewinsky matter. Is
it not safe t'assoom thet when Lewinsky is discouraged fum speakin' t'th'
media, thar is an ulterio' motive at play o' does ennybody seriously believe
thet Starr's office is simply tryin' t'spare th' President th' embarrassment?
Th' truth ultimately surfaces an' while cunnin' lawyers an' liars kin explain
it all away, it invariably survives. Th' simple fack of th' matter is thet
eff'n th' Willey allegashuns were serious, Isikoff'd haf promoted then so
passhunately, thet he'd haf delivahed th' media fantasy t'prodooce th' Billy
Bob Woodward of th' 90's. Th' public relashuns blitz t'criminalize th'
President of th' United States don't even pass th' laugh test, an' it kinnot
postibly be cornfused wif a legitimate investigashun which has no ajunda
beyond th' determinashun t'expose th' truth. Eff'n we an' most of th' media
were not in a posishun t'judge th' credibility of repo'ts about th'
semen-stained dress, it is on account o' most varmints had nothin' t'do wif
th' schemin' t'prodooce a "honey trap". But less not git carried away hyar
an' claim thet th' Willey allegashuns is enny mo'e credible simply on account
o' we is not privy t'ev'ry sin'le detail regardin' th' plot t'destroy th'
Clinton Presidency. We may not knows ev'rythin', but we stan' firm on whut is
exceedin'ly obvious.
Footnote; When Starr indicked Steele t'covah up th' illegitimacy of th' anti
Clinton witch hunt, he highlighted th' absolute terro' an' tyrrenny unleashed
in th' name of th' law, when unreasonable varmints manipulate th' legal
system, dawgone it. http://www.angelfire.com/va/spresly/isikoff.html
Sunshine
wrote:
>In article <19990426003152...@ng14.aol.com>,
> scotj...@aol.com (ScotJohn96) wrote:
>> Scott Olsen <Scott...@worldnet.att.net> asked:
>>
>> > Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin....?
>>
>> Because a.m.c. is such an amusing place. ;-)
>>
>> Another Scott
>> http://www.angelfire.com/va/spresly/isikoff.html
> Mary Beth Lewinsky
What in the hell are you blabbering about????????????????????
Leslie Evans
>
> JimNeibr wrote:
> >> What is it about Chaplin that causes so many learned silent movie buffs
> to
> >> dismiss him as overrated? I really would like to know your opinions (and
> >> please, do not bother responding with the sort of
> >> "he-was-a-commie-who-liked-young-chicks" attitude that caused me to leave
> the
> >> Chaplin newsgroup last year).
>
> I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why there would be
> Chaplin-bashing in a Chaplin newsgroup. Anyone care to alleviate my
> perplexity?
>
Well, Elizabeth, if you'd ask *them* they'd tell you they provide
"balance" for those of us who are known as "the Charlie Can Do No Wrong
Crowd". However, from what my pychological radar can pick up, one of
them is pissed that Charlie could get any young woman he wanted and he
is not able to; the other resents him having been a rich man who
embraced socialist ideas. This second one also seems to be nostalgic for
the glory days of the Cold War. There are also a couple of women in the
Anti-Chaplin Army, and I'm not sure what their problem is. Maybe
Charlie was prettier than they are?
Leslie (not as pretty as young Charlie, but my butt is just as cute!)
BoggsArt
>P.S. If it's because some people don't have anything better to do with
>their time, I have one of those little looms for weaving potholders that I'd
>be glad to lend out.
>
...Pom-Pom!
tomc...@mediaone.net
Chaplin was a divisive figure. The battle lines drawn in the Chaplin
newsgroup are a good example of the emotion his politics and personal
shortcomings generate. To be fair to Chaplin's detractors, ( in the
Chaplin newsgroup) I believe they are great fans of his work who have
legitimate problems with his politics and lifestyle. I used to be a
regular in the Chaplin news group, but was also driven out by the
venom and personal attacks directed at the posters. I will always
prefer the gentle world of Stan and Ollie on the screen and in the
newsgroups...
BoggsArt
>newsgroup are a good example of the emotion his politics and personal
>shortcomings generate. To be fair to Chaplin's detractors, ( in the
>Chaplin newsgroup) I believe they are great fans of his work who have
>legitimate problems with his politics and lifestyle. I used to be a
>regular in the Chaplin news group, but was also driven out by the
>venom and personal attacks directed at the posters. I will always
>prefer the gentle world of Stan and Ollie on the screen and in the
>newsgroups...
Then again, there's always the forties films...
:)
ScotJohn96
>> Monica Lewinsky is whut th' CIA an' th' KGB used t'refer t'as a "honey trap"
>> -a temppress thet is used t'blackmail th' enemah.
<snip>
>> Footnote; When Starr indicked Steele t'covah up th' illegitimacy of th'
anti
>> Clinton witch hunt, he highlighted th' absolute terro' an' tyrrenny
unleashed
>> in th' name of th' law, when unreasonable varmints manipulate th' legal
>> system, dawgone it.
Suns...@hotmail.com (Sunshine) responded:
> What in the hell are you blabbering about????????????????????
That was an excerpt from Mr. Morrison's one-man show, AN EVENING WITH LONESOME
RHODES. :-)
Scott (who's just another face in the crowd)
Elizabeth
>>> I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why there would be
>>> Chaplin-bashing in a Chaplin newsgroup. Anyone care to alleviate my
>>> perplexity?
Leslie wrote:
>>Well, Elizabeth, if you'd ask *them* they'd tell you they provide
>>"balance" for those of us who are known as "the Charlie Can Do No Wrong
>>Crowd". However, from what my pychological radar can pick up, one of
>>them is pissed that Charlie could get any young woman he wanted and he
>>is not able to; the other resents him having been a rich man who
>>embraced socialist ideas. This second one also seems to be nostalgic for
>>the glory days of the Cold War. There are also a couple of women in the
>>Anti-Chaplin Army, and I'm not sure what their problem is. Maybe
>>Charlie was prettier than they are?
>>
>>Leslie (not as pretty as young Charlie, but my butt is just as cute!)
Tom C. wrote:
>Chaplin was a divisive figure. The battle lines drawn in the Chaplin
>newsgroup are a good example of the emotion his politics and personal
>shortcomings generate. To be fair to Chaplin's detractors, ( in the
>Chaplin newsgroup) I believe they are great fans of his work who have
>legitimate problems with his politics and lifestyle. I used to be a
>regular in the Chaplin news group, but was also driven out by the
>venom and personal attacks directed at the posters. I will always
>prefer the gentle world of Stan and Ollie on the screen and in the
>newsgroups...
Thanks, Leslie and Tom. Sounds logical, although the whole thing still
strikes me as odd. If Chaplin's politics and /or love life had been
different, he would have been a different person and his movies would have
been different. How can you have one without the other? The human being
and the work are indivisible -- to a large extent, anyway. (And besides,
even though he ended up a rich man, he sure didn't start out that way --
seems to me he came by his socialistic views honestly.)
Disapproving of Chaplin's politics or lifestyle but admiring his work seems
strange to me -- personally I have trouble sustaining admiration for the
work of anyone whose politics or personal life rub me the wrong way. But
everyone has different thresholds of tolerance. And I suppose there are
artists whose work I admire, whose personal lives make me wince just a
little but not enough to jump ship.
In any case, it's a shame when unreasonable people drive reasonable people
away, as apparently happened in this newsgroup.
The jealousy factor is an interesting one. It does seem that people can be
drawn to others who have qualities they wish they had (e.g. the ability to
attract hordes of young women) and then resent them for having those very
qualities.
In the case of Chaplin fans who are insecure about their own appearance,
particularly the attractiveness of their butts, I still think that
Loopy-Loom potholders are the answer, because they can stitch a lot of
potholders together into a colorful garment that is sure to win admiring
gazes. Whenever I wear one of these, no one can take their eyes off my
butt. (And I can sit comfortably on a radiator for hours!)
Elizabeth /*\
Elizabeth
> I think Chaplin gets passed over by some people because for most us, a
>comedy movie is like dessert. We just want it to be rich and satisfying and
>fun. But Chaplin wanted his films to be more like a full meal: some comedy,
>some romance, some drama, and a taste of The Human Condition. That's great
if
>that's what you're hungry for. But if you just want something fun and
simple
>to laugh at, a Keaton or a Lloyd or a Laurel and Hardy are as tempting as a
>triple-layer chocolate cake with ice cream on the side.
> I love Chaplin and I think his films are mostly masterpieces. But I can
>understand why someone would rather watch "Should Married Men Go Home"
instead
>of "Modern Times." Right now, I would too! Tomorrow I may not.
I like this analogy a lot! But I think the Laurel & Hardy cake is
mysteriously vitamin-fortified.
Elizabeth /*\
Ray Tucker
wrote:
>Why wasn't it alt.comedy.chaplin or alt.movies.laurel-hardy?
>
>Opinions?
>
I think one reason is that the overall public perception (however
inaccurate) is that while Chaplin was involved with every aspect of
his filmaking, Stan Laurel was primarily a comic screen personality
with little involvement behind the cameras (hopefully this perception
is changing, but old ideas die hard)
I recently watched the 'Young Frankenstein' LD supplement and they
made a big deal that the film was previewed numerous times and
repeatedly re-edited based on audience reaction to get the most out of
each joke. This is treated as something new and radical, but we all
know that this kind of thing was business as usual for Stan.
meadowl...@my-dejanews.com
> > ...Perhaps...I dunno, I'm just talking off the top of my face...but, perhaps
> > it's because Chaplin is everything the rest of us aren't...He moves like a
> > "ballet dancer" (as Larson E Whipsnade would say)...he almost always overcomes
> > whatever conflict comes his way...he manages to get the best of whoever he
> > scraps with...
> >
> > Comedians like Laurel & Hardy, and Buster Keaton, on the other hand, are "he
> > who gets slapped"...they usually end up at the bottom of whatever heap life
> > dumps upon them...People can relate to that a lot easier, they can sympathize
> > easier with Stan & Ollie, or Buster...
>
> Plus, Chaplin strove to make "Art" as well as make us laugh. Starting in the
> 1920's he only released a film every few years. Stan and Babe routinely
> cranked out finely-crafted comedy shorts and features from 1927 into the
> 1940's.
Chaplin also became enamored with his own success, and became self conscious
in his artistic attempts to live up to the genius label assigned to him by
the critics; Do think his work suffered greatly as a result. Stan Laurel on
the other hand, crafted his work in accordance with his own inner artistic
and comic sensibilities - without a hint of Laurel & Hardy's popularity among
the masses until both he and Babe ventured 'out of the fishbowl' and took
their first trip to London in the mid-1930's. That awareness hadn't corrupted
his approach to comedy in the ensuing years as much as L&H's loss of autonomy
(like Buster Keaton) at the big Hollywood Studios in the 1940's, which
Chaplin never had to contend with.