Chaplin's Filmmaking Skills
Constance Kuriyama
As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
"primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
`Along with all this, Chaplin brings a craftsmanship that
has probably never been surpassed. He has a grasp of every
aspect of the moving picture, and by doing it all himself has
brough acting, direction and camera work into the unity
necessary for great art. The virtues of this kind of movie
making are being rediscovered by men like Sturges and Welles.
The photography in "The Gold Rush" of twenty years ago has
a natural, effortless grace easier on the eyes and sensibilities
than the heavily posed artfulness of this day. The scene in
which Big Jim, who has been starving for days, sees Charlie
as a plump chicken is stilll a beauty of camera maniulation--a
rare think, fantasy used with utter straightforwardness.'
I'm not sure what he means by the reference to Sturges and Welles,
who seem to me far more committed to "heavily posed artfulness"
than to simplicity, but his appreciation for the economy of
Chaplin's approach is one I happen to share.
Connie K.
--
CC on Hollywood, ca. 1948: "All people think of is opening new restaurants."
sh...@my-deja.com
>
> As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
> "primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
> support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
> of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
> Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
>
> `Along with all this, Chaplin brings a craftsmanship that
> has probably never been surpassed. He has a grasp of every
> aspect of the moving picture, and by doing it all himself has
> brough acting, direction and camera work into the unity
> necessary for great art. The virtues of this kind of movie
> making are being rediscovered by men like Sturges and Welles.
> The photography in "The Gold Rush" of twenty years ago has
> a natural, effortless grace easier on the eyes and sensibilities
> than the heavily posed artfulness of this day. The scene in
> which Big Jim, who has been starving for days, sees Charlie
> as a plump chicken is stilll a beauty of camera maniulation--a
> rare think, fantasy used with utter straightforwardness.'
I think "straightforward" is the key word there. Chaplin's directing
doesn't strike me as primitive, but it's certainly very simple and
straightforward. The direction is subordinate to the acting and writing,
which in Chaplin films is as it should be. In a Welles or Bunuel or
Eisenstein film... no.
And, incidentally, those three directorial legends all sought
Chaplin's company and recognized the quality of his filmmaking.
--Shush--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David Totheroh
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
> "primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
> support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
> of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
> Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
>
> `Along with all this, Chaplin brings a craftsmanship that
> has probably never been surpassed. He has a grasp of every
> aspect of the moving picture, and by doing it all himself has
> brough acting, direction and camera work into the unity
> necessary for great art. The virtues of this kind of movie
> making are being rediscovered by men like Sturges and Welles.
> The photography in "The Gold Rush" of twenty years ago has
> a natural, effortless grace easier on the eyes and sensibilities
> than the heavily posed artfulness of this day. The scene in
> which Big Jim, who has been starving for days, sees Charlie
> as a plump chicken is stilll a beauty of camera maniulation--a
> rare think, fantasy used with utter straightforwardness.'
>
> I'm not sure what he means by the reference to Sturges and Welles,
> who seem to me far more committed to "heavily posed artfulness"
> than to simplicity, but his appreciation for the economy of
> Chaplin's approach is one I happen to share.
>
And let's see what a couple of his contemporaries have to say.
Max Linder, on CC's directing:
<<Charlie directs with the most minute care. His studio, of course, is equiped
with all the most modern improvements, convenience and apparatus. But the
secret does not lie in the mechanical work. It is in the method. Charlie, as a
true humorist, has studied laughter, and has achieved a rare precision in
evoking it. He leaves nothing to the chance of improvisation. He rehearses
every scene until he is absolutely satisfied with it. He films every rehearsal,
and projects them several times, in order to pick out any fault or imperfection
that could prejudice the effect he is seeking. He starts over again until he is
satisfied, and he is himself harder to please than the most harshly critical of
his spectators.>>
(that new media have somewhat altered our perception on this point does not
change its validity for its time and the logistic reality of film presentation
within which Chaplin worked. He directed for theatrical film presentations, not
with repeated VHS home viewings in mind.)
Jean Renoir, on CC as author (in the context of Verdoux):
<<By thus giving up a formula which afforded him full security, and undertaking
squarely the critique of the society in which he himself lives, a dangerous job
if ever there was one, the author raises our craft to the level of the great
classical expressions of the human novel, and strengthens our hope of being
able to look upon it more and more as an art.>>
David
Constance Kuriyama
(sh...@my-deja.com) writes:
> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
>> "primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
>> support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
>> of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
>> Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
>>
>> `Along with all this, Chaplin brings a craftsmanship that
>> has probably never been surpassed. He has a grasp of every
>> aspect of the moving picture, and by doing it all himself has
>> brough acting, direction and camera work into the unity
>> necessary for great art. The virtues of this kind of movie
>> making are being rediscovered by men like Sturges and Welles.
>> The photography in "The Gold Rush" of twenty years ago has
>> a natural, effortless grace easier on the eyes and sensibilities
>> than the heavily posed artfulness of this day. The scene in
>> which Big Jim, who has been starving for days, sees Charlie
>> as a plump chicken is stilll a beauty of camera maniulation--a
>> rare think, fantasy used with utter straightforwardness.'
>
>
> doesn't strike me as primitive, but it's certainly very simple and
> straightforward. The direction is subordinate to the acting and writing,
> which in Chaplin films is as it should be. In a Welles or Bunuel or
> Eisenstein film... no.
I'd say Chaplin's use of the camera has the beauty of pure functionality,
and in addition to that there's the more elusive quality of "grace."
I find Chaplin's films beautifully, seductively photographed, but it's
extremely subtle and low-key--never the kind of self-conscious flashy
stuff that draws attention to itself.
> And, incidentally, those three directorial legends all sought
> Chaplin's company and recognized the quality of his filmmaking.
Eisenstein in particular is an interesting case, because he wrote
about Chaplin. Though he didn't take this up in his essay, I'm
sure he recognized that Chaplin's films, in a different way, were as
formalistic as his own, because his stage mentor Meyerhold and his
disciples were great admirers of Chaplin.
George Shelps
wrote:
>Eisenstein in particular is an interesting
>case, because he wrote about Chaplin.
>Though he didn't take this up in his
>essay, I'm sure he recognized that
>Chaplin's films, in a different way, were
>as formalistic as his own, because his
>stage mentor Meyerhold and his
>disciples were great admirers of Chaplin.
No two film-makers could be more dissimilar. Andre Bazin counterposed
them as two fundamentally different kinds of cinema. Eisenstein
perfectly exemplifies the director whose command of medium is itself an
independent esthetic object, whereas Chaplin's spartan style is purely
functional.
Chaplin was admired by Eisenstein for the precise reason that we all do:
he was great film-maker. But Eisenstein was a superior film stylist
and his silent films are probably the most stylistically influential
movies ever made.
Constance Kuriyama
George Shelps (G-H...@webtv.net) writes:
> do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance=A0Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
>>Eisenstein in particular is an interesting
>>case, because he wrote about Chaplin.
>>Though he didn't take this up in his
>>essay, I'm sure he recognized that
>>Chaplin's films, in a different way, were
>>as formalistic as his own, because his
>>stage mentor Meyerhold and his
>>disciples were great admirers of Chaplin.
>
> No two film-makers could be more dissimilar. Andre Bazin counterposed
> them as two fundamentally different kinds of cinema. Eisenstein
> perfectly exemplifies the director whose command of medium is itself an
> independent esthetic object, whereas Chaplin's spartan style is purely
> functional.
I'd say it's a bit more than purely functional, though functionality
is a major consideration. It's that "bit more" that makes it more
acutely pleasureable to watch than purely functional camera work.
It's one thing merely to photograph action, another thing to do it
in such a way that precisely the right nuance is communicated.
> Chaplin was admired by Eisenstein for the precise reason that we all do:
> he was great film-maker. But Eisenstein was a superior film stylist
> and his silent films are probably the most stylistically influential
> movies ever made.
Eistenstein is stylistically influential because his stlye is evident
and therefore imitable. (This is not a negative comment. I like his style,
though it think in its most excessive form it borders on the unwatchable.)
But when you can't figure out how someone did something, it's rather hard
to imitate them. That's why Peckinpah takes cues from Eisenstein in the
opening sequence of _The Wild Bunch_, but says Chaplin is in a class by
himself.
George Shelps
wrote:
>Eistenstein is stylistically influential
>because his stlye is evident and
>therefore imitable. (This is not a negative
>comment. I like his style, though it think
>in its most excessive form it borders on
>the unwatchable.) But when you can't
>figure out how someone did something,
>it's rather hard to imitate them.
Chaplin was intimitable because his style stemmed from his gifts as a
performing artist. It certainly easy to see how he "did it." But you
have to be a performing arts genius to replicate it.
Eisenstein expanded the expressive possiblities of the cinema. He
created new cinematic forms. This is valuable in itself.
> That's why Peckinpah takes cues from
>Eisenstein in the opening sequence of
>_The Wild Bunch_, but says Chaplin is in
>a class by himself.
He is. (Peckinpah's style was bit rough hewn and instinctive...so I am
not surprised he is drawn to Chaplin.)
Constance Kuriyama
> performing artist. It certainly easy to see how he "did it." But you
> have to be a performing arts genius to replicate it.
I don't disagree with you that Chaplin's gifts as a performer is part
of what made him inimitable--though Billy West obviously didn't agree,
and his imitations are sometimes surprisingly good.
But IMO you can't reduce Chaplin's cinema to his skill as a performer.
That skill is greatly enhanced by subtleties of camera placement,
framing, and editing--and the skill of other performers in Chaplin's films is
similarly enhanced. Not all of the most memorable moments in Chaplin's
film involve Chaplin himself, or Chaplin alone.
The trademark walking/running down the road endings are a combination
of performance skills, camera placement and framing, choreography,
selection of background with symbolic connotations, etc.
> Eisenstein expanded the expressive possiblities of the cinema. He
> created new cinematic forms. This is valuable in itself.
>
>> That's why Peckinpah takes cues from
>>Eisenstein in the opening sequence of
>>_The Wild Bunch_, but says Chaplin is in
>>a class by himself.
>
> He is. (Peckinpah's style was bit rough hewn and instinctive...so I am
> not surprised he is drawn to Chaplin.)
I dunno about that. _The Wild Bunch_ is one of the most nearly perfect
films I've ever seen.
Films like _Straw Dogs_, which have some obvious problems, seem to be
affected by Peckinpah's personal problems.
George Shelps
wrote:
>But IMO you can't reduce Chaplin's
>cinema to his skill as a performer. That
>skill is greatly enhanced by subtleties of
>camera placement, framing, and
>editing--and the skill of other performers
>in Chaplin's films is similarly enhanced.
>Not all of the most memorable moments
>in Chaplin's film involve Chaplin himself
>or Chaplin alone.
I am not "reducing" Chaplin's cinema, I am saying that his style
radiates out from his performing genius to encompass other aspects of
the cinema. But the core is Chaplin the performer as the esthetic
model.
>>He is. (Peckinpah's style was bit rough
>>hewn and instinctive...so I am not
>>surprised he is drawn to Chaplin.)
>I dunno about that. _The Wild Bunch_ is
>one of the most nearly perfect films I've
>ever seen.
I happen to think it's one of the greatest films ever made, but it's
choppy and sloppy at times...
Crooner
>But IMO you can't reduce Chaplin's
>cinema to his skill as a performer. That
>skill is greatly enhanced by subtleties of
>camera placement, framing, and
>editing--and the skill of other performers
>in Chaplin's films is similarly enhanced.
>Not all of the most memorable moments
>in Chaplin's film involve Chaplin himself
>or Chaplin alone.
George Shelps wrote
I am not "reducing" Chaplin's cinema, I am saying that his style
radiates out from his performing genius to encompass other aspects of
the cinema. But the core is Chaplin the performer as the esthetic
model.
______
Chaplin consistently saw his performance as replacing the need
for Hollywood chi-chi -- because he was THAT unique a performer.
Chaplin has said "I don't need interesting camera angles.
I am interesting."
When someone would cite some error in continuity, Chaplin
would shrug his shoulders and say that if people were
looking at these slight omissions and NOT keeping their eye
on him, he wasn't doing his job as performer.
Therefore, these quotations would support George's contention.
On the other hand, when Chaplin was NOT in a film, such as
in A WOMAN OF PARIS, he couldn't rely on his performance,
so Chaplin HAD to rely a bit more on production techniques
and people ended up citing the film as a great innovation.
~ Crooner
Constance Kuriyama
"Crooner" (cro...@firestorm2000.com) writes:
> Chaplin consistently saw his performance as replacing the need
> for Hollywood chi-chi -- because he was THAT unique a performer.
> Chaplin has said "I don't need interesting camera angles.
> I am interesting."
Well, I don't think we can interpret "Hollywood chi-chi" as meaning
all kinds of technical proficiency. Interesting camera angles are
camera angles that draw attention to themselves as *style*. That's
what Chaplin felt was unnecessary.
> When someone would cite some error in continuity, Chaplin
> would shrug his shoulders and say that if people were
> looking at these slight omissions and NOT keeping their eye
> on him, he wasn't doing his job as performer.
>
> Therefore, these quotations would support George's contention.
I'm not sure Chaplin was much more relaxed about continuity
than most people in Hollywood at the time--or even now. I see
lots of sloppy shot matching in films. I'd not noticed it
before, but since people keep bringing it up about Chaplin I've
started noticing--and I must say there's plenty to notice, if
that's what you're looking for.
I don't particularly recommend this as a way to watch films. :-)
On the other hand, often the continuity errors in CC's films, which
you'll notice only if you're looking at something that's
peripheral, occur in the midst of a sequence that's so meticulously
edited with respect to the center of action that the cuts are
invisible.
So is that *lack* of technique, or is it technique based on
Chaplin's priorities as an artist?
> On the other hand, when Chaplin was NOT in a film, such as
> in A WOMAN OF PARIS, he couldn't rely on his performance,
> so Chaplin HAD to rely a bit more on production techniques
> and people ended up citing the film as a great innovation.
_Woman of Paris_ is helpful in sorting these things out. I
find it very Chaplinesque in method, and it was widely
admired for its technique, not only when it was first made
but also when it was finally revived.
Crooner
>So is that *lack* of technique, or is it technique based on
>Chaplin's priorities as an artist?
It's not so much LACK of technique but the refusal to utilize
anything but simplification of methods: standard long shot,
for instance. And for Chaplin, it worked, because people
came to see Chaplin perform (as on a stage), as Chaplin
has so wisely suggested.
>> On the other hand, when Chaplin was NOT in a film, such as
>> in A WOMAN OF PARIS, he couldn't rely on his performance,
>> so Chaplin HAD to rely a bit more on production techniques
>> and people ended up citing the film as a great innovation.
>
>_Woman of Paris_ is helpful in sorting these things out. I
>find it very Chaplinesque in method, and it was widely
>admired for its technique, not only when it was first made
>but also when it was finally revived.
Well, I will agree that WOP confirms Chaplin's production
techniques, but somehow the COUNTESS should also be
used to support my position -- but there, Chaplin utilized nothing
spectacular in terms of production or directorial techniques.
~ Crooner
RFCSAC627N
>Constance Kuriyama wrote
>
>>So is that *lack* of technique, or is it technique based on
>>Chaplin's priorities as an artist?
>
>It's not so much LACK of technique but the refusal to utilize
>anything but simplification of methods: standard long shot,
>for instance. And for Chaplin, it worked, because people
>came to see Chaplin perform (as on a stage), as Chaplin
>has so wisely suggested.
>
There's a good article--an interview with David Shepard--in the new issue of
LIMELIGHT. Shepard talks about CC's shooting the automatic feeding machine
sequence in MODERN TIMES, which runs about four minutes on screen and took
about a month to shoot. Chaplin shot the scene at 16, 17, and 18 frames a
second to achieve the best comic effect when projected at 24 f.p.s.
This is hardly the technique of someone who refuses to utilize anything but
simplification of methods.
Richard Carnahan
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote
>
> >So is that *lack* of technique, or is it technique based on
> >Chaplin's priorities as an artist?
>
> It's not so much LACK of technique but the refusal to utilize
> anything but simplification of methods: standard long shot,
> for instance. And for Chaplin, it worked, because people
> came to see Chaplin perform (as on a stage), as Chaplin
> has so wisely suggested.
This is a very simplistic, and inaccurate, assessment of Chaplin's
statement. He did *not* say anything about seeing him "as on a stage,"
and the implication misses *so* much of what Chaplin put into his work.
Time manipulation, editing, camera placement, and yes, camera movement,
are all aspects that Chaplin consciously and appropriately manipulated
in order to achieve the effects he wanted to convey to an audience. None
of which are close to how it's done "on a stage."
It is true that Chaplin saw his performance as the focus of his films,
but it is most definitely *not* true that that meant he put nothing, in
terms of effort or thought, into the manipulation of his *film* work.
David
George Shelps
>Time manipulation, editing, camera
>placement, and yes, camera movement,
>are all aspects that Chaplin consciously
>and appropriately manipulated in order to
>achieve the effects he wanted to convey
>to an audience. None of which are close
>to how it's done "on a stage."
All film-makers use those techniques, but Chaplin's *purpose* was to
give the audience the equivalent of a theatrical experience of his
performing talent, using the medium to project himself way beyond what
he ever could have achieved on the stage.
It's a perfectly valid approach if you're a performing genius like
Chaplin.
But when put up against an Eisenstein,
a Gance, a Hitchcock, it's a rather narrow
use of the medium's expressive potential.
Why aren't we satisfied that CC is one of all-time greats of the cinema?
Frankly, the "Shakespeare of the cinema" has not yet appeared, and I
don't think we should try to freeze the history of the medium in terms
of so exalting the existing major figures as if they had exhausted the
entire potential of the movies.
Constance Kuriyama
George Shelps (G-H...@webtv.net) writes:
> DT wrote:
>
>>Time manipulation, editing, camera
>>placement, and yes, camera movement,
>>are all aspects that Chaplin consciously
>>and appropriately manipulated in order to
>>achieve the effects he wanted to convey
>>to an audience. None of which are close
>>to how it's done "on a stage."
>
> All film-makers use those techniques
Ah, but how *well* do they use them?--that's the issue here. Or do
you think measuring the achievement of an artist is merely a matter
of "bean-counting," to use your own dismissive phrase. A director
who uses 10 techniques is better than one who uses only 9?
, but Chaplin's *purpose* was to
> give the audience the equivalent of a theatrical experience of his
> performing talent, using the medium to project himself way beyond what
> he ever could have achieved on the stage.
Well, there's another narrow interpretation of what Chaplin was
trying to do. What was he trying to do when he photographed other
actors? And why did he insist that film acting was *different* from
stage acting, if he was merely trying to achieve "the eqivalent of a
theatrical experience"?
> But when put up against an Eisenstein,
> a Gance, a Hitchcock, it's a rather narrow
> use of the medium's expressive potential.
Actually, I don't think everything, or even almost everything, these
directors do works. Most technical tricks are pretty cheap stuff. Chaplin
had a point in calling them chi-chi.
> Why aren't we satisfied that CC is one of all-time greats of the cinema?
I'm quite satisfied with that--and I could do without the patronizing
(and often untrue) cliches about Chaplin's limitations as a director.
George Shelps
>There's a good article--an interview with
>David Shepard--in the new issue of
>LIMELIGHT. Shepard talks about CC's
>shooting the automatic feeding machine
>sequence in MODERN TIMES, which
>runs about four minutes on screen and
>took about a month to shoot. Chaplin
>shot the scene at 16, 17, and 18 frames
>a second to achieve the best comic
>effect when projected at 24 f.p.s.
>This is hardly the technique of someone
>who refuses to utilize anything but
>simplification of methods.
Richard, varying the speed for comic effect is silent movie-making 101.
A lot of good stuff seems to appear in "LIMELIGHT." Perhaps David might
unbutton himself once in a while and give us some "sneak previews' and
other
info instead of being the resident PC guru.
Crooner
the all new AMC Charades.
As you remember, here's how to play. Our favorite contestant,
Crooner, states an opinion about Chaplin, using actual quotes from
Chaplin himself, or from Rollie, or from another one of Chaplin's
top colleagues. Then our resident staff of Chaplin scholars
each take turns attempting to debunk the quote!
As you know, these Chaplin experts are sooo knowledgeable
about Chaplin, that they have to authority (or, some say the
audacity) to discount any and all comments that came out
of the mouth of Charles Spencer Chaplin or his trusted cohorts
-- because, my friends, they KNOW BETTER.
And, for those of you who have been long time in playing
the game know, that THEIR word is final! Any dispute will
be met with hails of insults & proper condemnation.
And, now let's get ready for tonight's episode.
As you recall, Crooner kicked off the discourse with:
>> It's not so much LACK of technique but the refusal to utilize
>> anything but simplification of methods: standard long shot,
>> for instance. And for Chaplin, it worked, because people
>> came to see Chaplin perform (as on a stage), as Chaplin
>> has so wisely suggested.
Chaplin scholar David Totheroh is first to play,
& he initiates the melee, thusly:
>This is a very simplistic, and inaccurate, assessment of Chaplin's
>statement. He did *not* say anything about seeing him "as on a stage,"
>and the implication misses *so* much of what Chaplin put into his work.
>Time manipulation, editing, camera placement, and yes, camera movement,
>are all aspects that Chaplin consciously and appropriately manipulated
>in order to achieve the effects he wanted to convey to an audience. None
>of which are close to how it's done "on a stage."
Okay, that's fine David, now let's see which Chaplin quote
Crooner will use to prove his point. And, please David,
no foaming at the mouth.
>>Okay Moderator, I'd like to use two quotes from Chaplin's
interview in LIFE magazine (1967). To prove my point
about Chaplin simplifying his technique:
"... every time I make a picture they say, 'Oh, Chaplin's
old. His technique is old fashioned.' Well, we don't twist
the camera upside down or twirl it around and hurt your
eyes -- all that sort of jack-in-the-box magic. I just don't
choose to. I think that personality, people, the human
equation transcend any acrobatics the camera might do.
"I have faith that the people want SIMPLICITY!!! The
world is so complicated -- so many invasions into people's
souls -- and then all these movie dynamics -- cut here, do
this. We get things so cluttered up, get so damn clever
that it hides the SIMPLE truth in a situation."<<
Good quote, Crooner; do you have any more?
>> Yes, I'd like to address the second part of my point
about Chaplin's technique being patterned after the style
of the theater: "The fact is, I've never liked the close-up
too much, except for very important moments of emphasis
and intimacy. I think that's because my early experience
in the theater has made me LOOK ON THE CAMERA
LENS AS A SMALL PROSCENIUM IN EVERYTHING
I'VE DONE. I like the choreography of movement of the
theater -- the sense of distances, the timing of effective exits
and entrances. If I have any rule, it is that I like orientation
first -- the camera way back -- to know where you are. There's
more air, it's not stifling."<<
Well, thank you Crooner; you've certainly found some apt
quotes to back up your statements once again. I wonder
what sort of heavy artillery David and company will have
to use against you now. (I'm afraid for you, Crooner,
Didn't Connie recently say, "It's back to total war!")
But, ladies and gentlemen, after this word from our sponsor,
we'll return with David's bombastic rebuttal.
Stay tuned!
~ Crooner
RFCSAC627N
>Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
>>There's a good article--an interview with
>>David Shepard--in the new issue of
>>LIMELIGHT. Shepard talks about CC's
>>shooting the automatic feeding machine
>>sequence in MODERN TIMES, which
>>runs about four minutes on screen and
>>took about a month to shoot. Chaplin
>>shot the scene at 16, 17, and 18 frames
>>a second to achieve the best comic
>>effect when projected at 24 f.p.s.
>
>>This is hardly the technique of someone
>>who refuses to utilize anything but
>>simplification of methods.
>
>Richard, varying the speed for comic effect is silent movie-making 101.
>
Shooting a scene at varying speeds and seamlessly integrating them into a
sequence where one is not immediatly conscious of varying speeds is hardly
movie-making 101.
>A lot of good stuff seems to appear in "LIMELIGHT." Perhaps David might
>unbutton himself once in a while and give us some "sneak previews' and
>other
>info instead of being the resident PC guru.
>
Perhaps old George could break down and subscribe to LIMELIGHT.
Richard Carnahan
George Shelps
wrote:
>>But when put up against an Eisenstein,
>>a Gance, a Hitchcock, it's a rather
>>narrow use of the medium's expressive potential.
>Actually, I don't think everything, or even
>almost everything, these directors do
>works. Most technical tricks are pretty
>cheap stuff. Chaplin had a point in
>calling them chi-chi.
His remark had to with photographing a scene from odd angles for their
own sake, and there I would agree. But if the "odd angles" have an
expressive purpose, then it is an added dimension to the film,
(In my opinion, Chaplin's "chi-chi" remark was probably aimed at Orson
Welles.)
You're forgetting that film is a medium which transcends the work of
individual film-makers. Some directors may contribute to the
advancement of cinematic expression, as the three mentioned above.
Chaplin's contribution was principally in the area of content.
>>Why aren't we satisfied that CC is one
>>of all-time greats of the cinema?
>I'm quite satisfied with that--and I could
>do without the patronizing (and often
>untrue) cliches about Chaplin's
>limitations as a director.
Your view that "form follows function" is just as much as a "cliche" as
my view that form can have an independent esthetic value. Chaplin
appealed to me because of his own particular virtues as an artist, but I
also like other cinematic virtues exemplified by other creators.
Your Chaplin zealotry blinds you to seeing his work whole.
Constance Kuriyama
"Crooner" (cro...@firestorm2000.com) writes:
> Welcome once again to America's most popular Usenet show,
> the all new AMC Charades.
>
> about Chaplin, that they have to authority (or, some say the
> audacity) to discount any and all comments that came out
> of the mouth of Charles Spencer Chaplin or his trusted cohorts
> -- because, my friends, they KNOW BETTER.
Ho-hum. Another anti-intellectual outburst.
I'm not taking the bait, Lou. Your arguments (and your insults)
aren't worth answering.
Have a nice day.
Constance Kuriyama
>
>>>But when put up against an Eisenstein,
>>>a Gance, a Hitchcock, it's a rather
>>>narrow use of the medium's expressive potential.
>
>>Actually, I don't think everything, or even
>>almost everything, these directors do
>>works. Most technical tricks are pretty
>>cheap stuff. Chaplin had a point in
>>calling them chi-chi.
>
> His remark had to with photographing a scene from odd angles for their
> own sake, and there I would agree. But if the "odd angles" have an
> expressive purpose, then it is an added dimension to the film,
>
> (In my opinion, Chaplin's "chi-chi" remark was probably aimed at Orson
> Welles.)
It might have included Welles. I don't know exactly when he coined
the term. But he was defending himself against charges of not
hopping on the technical bandwagon for a long time.
> You're forgetting that film is a medium which transcends the work of
> individual film-makers. Some directors may contribute to the
> advancement of cinematic expression, as the three mentioned above.
> Chaplin's contribution was principally in the area of content.
>
>
>>>Why aren't we satisfied that CC is one
>>>of all-time greats of the cinema?
>
>>I'm quite satisfied with that--and I could
>>do without the patronizing (and often
>>untrue) cliches about Chaplin's
>>limitations as a director.
>
> Your view that "form follows function" is just as much as a "cliche" as
> my view that form can have an independent esthetic value.
In the first place, I don't claim that form doesn't have "independent
esthetic value." Chaplin's films have plenty of form, which is part
of their strength as works of art.
I don't know what you mean by "form follows function"; you certainly
aren't quoting me. But formal details ideally should contribute to the
overall effect of the film rather than being mere decoration.
Camp and mannerism have some limited appeal, but they aren't as
deeply engaging as style that's more integral.
Chaplin
> appealed to me because of his own particular virtues as an artist, but I
> also like other cinematic virtues exemplified by other creators.
Did I say I didn't?
> Your Chaplin zealotry blinds you to seeing his work whole.
Gratuitous personal insult. Paraphrased: "My godlike wisdom supersedes your
blind devotion."
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
>
> >There's a good article--an interview with
> >David Shepard--in the new issue of
> >LIMELIGHT. Shepard talks about CC's
> >shooting the automatic feeding machine
> >sequence in MODERN TIMES, which
> >runs about four minutes on screen and
> >took about a month to shoot. Chaplin
> >shot the scene at 16, 17, and 18 frames
> >a second to achieve the best comic
> >effect when projected at 24 f.p.s.
>
> >This is hardly the technique of someone
> >who refuses to utilize anything but
> >simplification of methods.
>
> Richard, varying the speed for comic effect is silent movie-making 101.
Spending a month to study the difference minute changes in technique make
on the performance is most certainly not "simplification of methods" and it
sure as hell ain't possible to achieve theatrically.
> A lot of good stuff seems to appear in "LIMELIGHT." Perhaps David might
> unbutton himself once in a while and give us some "sneak previews' and
> other
> info instead of being the resident PC guru.
David has "unbuttoned himself" in sixteen issues of a magazine devoted to a
fuller understanding and appreciation of Chaplin for over 5 years. Where
have you been?
But give me one good reason why you should expect all of the subscribers to
subsidize you? If you want access to the kind of information presented in
Limelight, you are perfectly free to subscribe like everyone else does.
If you don't want it, that's fine too. Just don't expect to get it free on
the backs of all the others who pay their share if you aren't willing to do
so.
Which gives me the opportunity to offer a long overdue thank you to all of
you who *do* support the magazine and its goals.
David
Crooner
>Ho-hum. Another anti-intellectual outburst.
>
>I'm not taking the bait, Lou. Your arguments (and your insults)
>aren't worth answering.
>
>Have a nice day.
I'm sorry, Connie. You lose five points with that outburst.
You can't insult me until it's your turn.
~ Crooner
Now the play goes back to David.
George Shelps
DT wrote:
>David has "unbuttoned himself" in sixteen issues of a magazine devoted
to a fuller understanding and appreciation of Chaplin for over 5 years.
Where have you been?
Oh, it's quite customary for many publications to provide internet
glimpses of their content.
>But give me one good reason why you
>should expect all of the subscribers to
>subsidize you?
*Nothing* for *anyone* on this newsgroup unless they subscribe, eh? I
guess now we know why you spend so much time here on politics and give
out so little on Chaplin's films.
>If you don't want it, that's fine too. Just
>don't expect to get it free on the backs of
>all the others who pay their share if you
>aren't willing to do so.
Capitalistic pinhead! :)
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> Welcome once again to America's most popular Usenet show,
> the all new AMC Charades.
>
> As you remember, here's how to play. Our favorite contestant,
> Crooner, states an opinion about Chaplin, using actual quotes from
> Chaplin himself, or from Rollie, or from another one of Chaplin's
> top colleagues. Then our resident staff of Chaplin scholars
> each take turns attempting to debunk the quote!
>
> As you know, these Chaplin experts are sooo knowledgeable
> about Chaplin, that they have to authority (or, some say the
> audacity) to discount any and all comments that came out
> of the mouth of Charles Spencer Chaplin or his trusted cohorts
> -- because, my friends, they KNOW BETTER.
>
Yes, you have found some good quotes. They help us get a sense of how
Chaplin approached his craft. But...
There are problems with strict literal interpretation as a means of
analysis. What do you do when observable reality is in conflict with that
literal interpretation? You can either say Chaplin said it, it must be true,
and what millions of people see with their own eyes is merely some illusion,
some mass induced hysteria, *or* you can get a sense from Chaplin's words
beyond a straitjacketed literalness of where his focus and emphasis was,
understand how Chaplin relied on others to supply technical content with
which he personally could not be bothered and/or didn't want to focus on,
and arrive at a fuller understanding of the work and its content consistent
with all the experienced evidence, not needing to dismiss any particular
piece, but also not being blinded to all the rest by that one particular
piece.
And what do you do within "literal interpretation" when confronted with
contradictory statements from the same source?
F'rinstance, in the very next paragraph from the first one you quote,
Chaplin, the director you cite as being "theatrical" because he uses long
shots says this: "The most important thing is a close-up when somebody
smiles or looks at somebody and it is real and it is the end of the world
and the beginning of everything. And one even fights against this modern
concept that if you have one close-up, to be dramatic you must have another
to match it. So you match--people talking blah, blah, blah--and then the
close-up looses its emphasis. Hell, anybody can go up the actor's nostrils.
But that stuff is too easy. I'm very fond of acting and I don't want the
camera to give the performance." That's miles away from your contention that
Chaplin is mediocre in his understanding or application of film technique in
his work or even that his goal is theatrical "as on a stage."
"The most important thing" he says "is a close-up." Close-ups don't happen
on stage. But Chaplin goes further explaining that it is in contrast that
the close-up derives its power and is diluted if overused. To me, that
reveals a *deeper* understanding of film technique than a style in which
indiscriminate application of the tricks of the trade would indicate.
You choose to take the literalist approach. That's fine. I happen to see
that as being very simplistic, and even inaccurate in that it leads to
conclusions which are inconsistent with the understanding that comes from
the totality of evidence and experience which I and many others glean from
our exposure to Chaplin's work, his life, his friends and coworkers and
others who have studied all of the above. And that literal approach means
you are forced to discount or ignore parts of the totality which are
literally inconsistent with, or contradictory of, other parts. Pretty
limiting as an analytic tool if you ask me.
Rollie said, "I'm the audience, there. I see what the audience sees." Those
are the words of a man trained in the craft of cinema photography. To me
they convey the same meaning as Chaplin's "LOOK ON THE CAMERA LENS AS A
SMALL PROSCENIUM IN EVERYTHING I'VE DONE." They both use the language of
their particular background to convey a sense of their central focus. But as
literal truth both are absurd. Rollie's role was no more audience than mine
is cameraman. Chaplin's films are no more theater than Waiting for Godot is
cinema.
You're whole presentation above is of a game show. A literal interpretation
of your words would lead one to the position that this is all no more
serious to you than an episode of Hollywood Squares. Or maybe $64k Question.
Does that mean your position has no more meaning than a rigged script
designed only to sell ad space?
I choose to believe what I see in the films, especially when those views are
corroborated by many others whose perceptions are validated by being
consistent with reality.
*AND* I believe the truth *within* Chaplin's words, all of them, without
being hamstrung by the words themselves, exclusive of the experiences they
describe or the context within which they were presented.
I know that for me Chaplin's responses in the Life Mag. interview take on a
different meaning when you know the context than when you read only the
specific selections.
Another f'rinstance: Chaplin's comments about simplicity are an outgrowth of
a discussion of the script. The lead paragraph to that section is: "I don't
think either Brando or Loren understood the value of the script--that it
would work so well. I did. I'm an actor. I wrote it. When you've had 50
years experience, you know something about a script." Would you see a
literal truth in that comment? If not, why do you view it as being
qualitatively different than the paragraphs that follow it? Regardless of
how you view the inherent 'truth' of the paragraph, it sheds a different
light on the "simplicity" comment than is apparent without it.
And finally, in the paragraphs immediately following the "lens as a small
proscenium" comment, Chaplin completes the thought about "orientation
first--the camera way back--to know where you are." He says:
"And you must give time for the illusion to grow, otherwise it looses its
reality. It takes time--you put a seed in the ground and it grows. *Then*
you intensify it. You don't start with intensifying it.
"I think I'm a better director than an actor."
Clearly a much more complete picture is gleaned from the total than can ever
be gotten from the rigid literal meaning of selected excerpts given by Lou
or even my additional selections. But once again, to ignore context is to
court a faulty and misleading 'understanding' of reality.
Chaplin's works *are* so much more than recorded theatrical performances. I
know that because I see it in the films. I know it because I have spoken
with those who worked on making them reality and they told me what went into
them and how they went about their work. I know it because of what others
have taught me and shown me of the films. I know it because in the context
of his life and work, that perception is more consistent with the total
reality than is its converse.
David
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> DT wrote:
>
> >David has "unbuttoned himself" in sixteen issues of a magazine devoted
> to a fuller understanding and appreciation of Chaplin for over 5 years.
> Where have you been?
>
> Oh, it's quite customary for many publications to provide internet
> glimpses of their content.
It is a choice a *very* small minority of print publications have made,
but it is their choice not their obligation to you. One of the things I am
most proud of about Limelight is that it does not try to fit the mold of
any other publication but is content to set its own standards.
> >But give me one good reason why you
> >should expect all of the subscribers to
> >subsidize you?
>
> *Nothing* for *anyone* on this newsgroup unless they subscribe, eh?
Where did I say that? Anyone who *has* read my posts *and* the magazine
knows of the references.
> I
> guess now we know why you spend so much time here on politics and give
> out so little on Chaplin's films.
Why? Because I choose to spend a good bit of effort in positive ways
promoting an understanding of Chaplin? But since you have never read the
mag how could you possibly know whether I have or not?
This is just further proof that either you have no idea what you are
talking about, or that you intentionally react to my posts as a matter of
personality with absolutely no regard to content. (And you fault Chaplin
for commenting outside his area of knowledge.)
> >If you don't want it, that's fine too. Just
> >don't expect to get it free on the backs of
> >all the others who pay their share if you
> >aren't willing to do so.
>
> Capitalistic pinhead! :)
Anyone who has ever attempted to contribute something positive and real
within any field is aware of the type of person who is content to sit on
the sidelines and carp and gripe and find fault. Why you choose to place
yourself so obviously in that role *and* seem to feel it is something to
be proud of is way beyond me.
David
George Shelps
do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
>But formal details ideally should
>contribute to the overall effect of the film
>rather than being mere decoration.
>Camp and mannerism have some limited
>appeal, but they aren't as deeply
>engaging as style that's more integral.
Not "decoration," not "camp," not "mannerism" but the conscious formal
use of the medium to achieve a parallel channel of abstraction, of
ideas, of commentary---Eisenstein being the prototype, but Griffith also
pioneered it in INTOLERANCE, Gance in NAPOLEON.
>>Your Chaplin zealotry blinds you to
>>seeing his work whole.
>Gratuitous personal insult. Paraphrased:
>"My godlike wisdom supersedes your
>blind devotion."
Why no! It's merely *descriptive*, my dear, like your calling me a
"crank," or "irrational." I don't think I have godlike wisdom but I do
think "zealotry" adequately and fairly describes your Chaplin posting
philosophy.
Crooner
>Yes, you have found some good quotes. They help us get a sense of how
>Chaplin approached his craft. But...
Great, I'm glad you agree with me that this is how Chaplin
approached his craft.
And, by the way, I greatly respect David for answering this post
in the manner he did, tho I kinda was joking around at his expense.
Of course, I meant no harm at all. Now let's get on with the debate.
(snip)
>And what do you do within "literal interpretation" when confronted with
>contradictory statements from the same source?
>
>F'rinstance, in the very next paragraph from the first one you quote,
>Chaplin, the director you cite as being "theatrical" because he uses long
>shots says this: "The most important thing is a close-up when somebody
>smiles or looks at somebody and it is real and it is the end of the world
>and the beginning of everything. And one even fights against this modern
>concept that if you have one close-up, to be dramatic you must have
another
>to match it. So you match--people talking blah, blah, blah--and then the
>close-up looses its emphasis. Hell, anybody can go up the actor's
nostrils.
>But that stuff is too easy. I'm very fond of acting and I don't want the
>camera to give the performance."
Au contraire, it STILL supports Chaplin's position that
close ups are a) something he "fights against"; b) frequency of
close ups lose its effectiveness; c) its "too easy"; d) he's
STILL fond of acting and he doesn't want the camera to do
the performance." Back to the theater.
That's miles away from your contention
that
>Chaplin is mediocre in his understanding or application of film technique
in
>his work or even that his goal is theatrical "as on a stage."
>
>"The most important thing" he says "is a close-up." Close-ups don't happen
>on stage. But Chaplin goes further explaining that it is in contrast that
>the close-up derives its power and is diluted if overused. To me, that
>reveals a *deeper* understanding of film technique than a style in which
>indiscriminate application of the tricks of the trade would indicate.
No one is saying that Chaplin is mediocre. When I say Chaplin
simplified this technique, that's just to suggest that Chaplin didn't
go out of his way to build or improve upon his filmmaking. Why else
would the constant complaint be from all quarters that "Chaplin is
old fashioned." They NEVER called Keaton's films old fashioned!
Nor Lloyd's.
>Rollie said, "I'm the audience, there. I see what the audience sees."
Those
>are the words of a man trained in the craft of cinema photography. To me
>they convey the same meaning as Chaplin's "LOOK ON THE CAMERA LENS AS A
>SMALL PROSCENIUM IN EVERYTHING I'VE DONE." They both use the language of
>their particular background to convey a sense of their central focus. But
as
>literal truth both are absurd. Rollie's role was no more audience than
mine
>is cameraman. Chaplin's films are no more theater than Waiting for Godot
is
>cinema.
I don't agree with your point that Rollie's comment isn't
literal. Whenever ANYONE views the rushes, or points a
camera at anyone, they are in the role of audience and if they
like what they see, then it's a wrap.
>I know that for me Chaplin's responses in the Life Mag. interview take on
a
>different meaning when you know the context than when you read only the
>specific selections.
>
>Another f'rinstance: Chaplin's comments about simplicity are an outgrowth
of
>a discussion of the script. The lead paragraph to that section is: "I
don't
>think either Brando or Loren understood the value of the script--that it
>would work so well. I did. I'm an actor. I wrote it. When you've had 50
>years experience, you know something about a script." Would you see a
>literal truth in that comment? If not, why do you view it as being
>qualitatively different than the paragraphs that follow it? Regardless of
>how you view the inherent 'truth' of the paragraph, it sheds a different
>light on the "simplicity" comment than is apparent without it.
Well, Chaplin's comments about being simple have to do with
everything he does as a producer/director/writer.
Everything that is EXCEPT for his performance, THAT is
usually exemplary.
>And finally, in the paragraphs immediately following the "lens as a small
>proscenium" comment, Chaplin completes the thought about "orientation
>first--the camera way back--to know where you are." He says:
>
> "And you must give time for the illusion to grow, otherwise it looses
its
>reality. It takes time--you put a seed in the ground and it grows. *Then*
>you intensify it. You don't start with intensifying it.
Fine, start simply then grow. Then you can get into the
more detailed things of a scene. But his approach is
simplicity.
> "I think I'm a better director than an actor."
And just to get the larger sense here about that last comment;
Chaplin goes on to talk about his own insecurity in performing;
(believe it or not) which is why he stated that.
>Clearly a much more complete picture is gleaned from the total than can
ever
>be gotten from the rigid literal meaning of selected excerpts given by Lou
>or even my additional selections. But once again, to ignore context is to
>court a faulty and misleading 'understanding' of reality.
>
>Chaplin's works *are* so much more than recorded theatrical performances.
And I don't think of his films as STRICTLY theatrical performances
either. But his modus operandi is consistent with the theater.
The stars make up the drama and do the storytellling, and NOT
the film technique itself. The simplicity of the technique only
enhances the performers. He's stated time and time again, that
he doesn't want the camera to be doing what the actors should
be doing -- giving the performance.
~ Crooner
George Shelps
>And I don't think of his films as
>STRICTLY theatrical performances
>either. But his modus operandi is
>consistent with the theater. The stars
>make up the drama and do the
>storytellling, and NOT the film technique
>itself. The simplicity of the technique
>only enhances the performers. He's
>stated time and time again, that he
>doesn't want the camera to be doing
>what the actors should be doing -- giving
>the performance.
Yes, that's it precisely. It is part of the possibities of the cinema
that the camera
CAN give a performance. Chaplin chooses not to use it that way.....the
camera gives a performance in NAPOLEON, and the effect is
exhilirating...the intercutting of pure movement of the storm and the
revolutionary meeting
provoked applause at Radio City Music Hall....Chaplin's final speech in
THE GREAT DICTATOR has provoked applause when I have seen it with an
audience...two ways to the truth.
Constance Kuriyama
>
>>But formal details ideally should
>>contribute to the overall effect of the film
>>rather than being mere decoration.
>
>>Camp and mannerism have some limited
>>appeal, but they aren't as deeply
>>engaging as style that's more integral.
>
> Not "decoration," not "camp," not "mannerism" but the conscious formal
> use of the medium to achieve a parallel channel of abstraction, of
> ideas, of commentary---Eisenstein being the prototype, but Griffith also
> pioneered it in INTOLERANCE, Gance in NAPOLEON.
It appears to me that what you're describing is another form of integral
style. Are we disagreeing?
>>>Your Chaplin zealotry blinds you to
>>>seeing his work whole.
>
>>Gratuitous personal insult. Paraphrased:
>>"My godlike wisdom supersedes your
>>blind devotion."
>
> Why no! It's merely *descriptive*, my dear, like your calling me a
> "crank," or "irrational." I don't think I have godlike wisdom but I do
> think "zealotry" adequately and fairly describes your Chaplin posting
> philosophy.
Which just shows what a cranky, irrational being you are! :-)
But I don't have a "posting philosophy." What on earth would that be?
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> Crooner wrote:
>
> >And I don't think of his films as
> >STRICTLY theatrical performances
> >either. But his modus operandi is
> >consistent with the theater. The stars
> >make up the drama and do the
> >storytellling, and NOT the film technique
> >itself. The simplicity of the technique
> >only enhances the performers. He's
> >stated time and time again, that he
> >doesn't want the camera to be doing
> >what the actors should be doing -- giving
> >the performance.
>
> Yes, that's it precisely. It is part of the possibities of the cinema
> that the camera
> CAN give a performance. Chaplin chooses not to use it that way.....the
> camera gives a performance in NAPOLEON, and the effect is
> exhilirating...the intercutting of pure movement of the storm and the
> revolutionary meeting
> provoked applause at Radio City Music Hall....Chaplin's final speech in
> THE GREAT DICTATOR has provoked applause when I have seen it with an
> audience...two ways to the truth.
That's editing, not camerawork. Or do you think the pattern and density of
silver halide crystals on the emulsion qualitatively changes the fact of
how the footage is utilized?
For anyone who wishes to look past Chaplin's performances, you will see
the same conscious choice of editing to enhance effect in Chaplin's films
as in Napoleon. More subtle perhaps, but just as much a part of Chaplin as
Gance.
You fault Chaplin as a primitive because his technique was used 'only' to
enhance the performance of the actors. Did Gance's use of intercutting not
enhance the performance too? How is that different from Chaplin's
intercutting to enhance the effect in the tilting cabin in The Gold Rush
or in the recognition scene at the close of City Lights? Chaplin had the
choice of staying long (a la stage) in both of those scenes, or moving in
for a closer two-shot, or intercutting to have the pace and tension of the
scenes effected by the editing itself. Maybe not so self-conscious, or
noticeable, but pretty damn effective. And as you point out, his choice of
holding on the one-shot as much as he does in the close of The Great
Dictator, cinematically enhances the effect of that performance as well.
No one-trick-pony, that Chaplin. He applies the cinematic tools
appropriately and effectively to convey his messages.
David
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote
> >Yes, you have found some good quotes. They help us get a sense of how
> >Chaplin approached his craft. But...
>
> Great, I'm glad you agree with me that this is how Chaplin
> approached his craft.
What happened to "a sense of"? You might as well edit out the word 'not' in
the statement, "Crooner is not honest in his selective use of quotations" and
claim we agree about that.
> And, by the way, I greatly respect David for answering this post
> in the manner he did, tho I kinda was joking around at his expense.
> Of course, I meant no harm at all.
And you're an irresponsible lying coward for saying so, but of course I'm just
joking, too.
> Now let's get on with the debate.
>
> (snip)
>
> >And what do you do within "literal interpretation" when confronted with
> >contradictory statements from the same source?
> >
> >F'rinstance, in the very next paragraph from the first one you quote,
> >Chaplin, the director you cite as being "theatrical" because he uses long
> >shots says this: "The most important thing is a close-up when somebody
> >smiles or looks at somebody and it is real and it is the end of the world
> >and the beginning of everything. And one even fights against this modern
> >concept that if you have one close-up, to be dramatic you must have
> another
> >to match it. So you match--people talking blah, blah, blah--and then the
> >close-up looses its emphasis. Hell, anybody can go up the actor's
> nostrils.
> >But that stuff is too easy. I'm very fond of acting and I don't want the
> >camera to give the performance."
>
> Au contraire, it STILL supports Chaplin's position that
> close ups are a) something he "fights against";
This is the level of argument that makes you look pretty damn stupid and, I
guess, grows directly out of your proclivity to think that if you find two
words strung together then it's OK to ignore all the rest if you can 'prove a
point' by doing so. To fight against overuse of a thing is not at all the same
as to fight against that thing. Chaplin states clearly that what he "fights
against" is the concept that "if you have one...you *must* have another."
> b) frequency of
> close ups lose its effectiveness; c) its "too easy"; d) he's
> STILL fond of acting and he doesn't want the camera to do
> the performance." Back to the theater.
Or, onward to *effective* filmmaking. Is the next argument going to be that
his films are too literary because they use written language in their titles
and intertitles?
> That's miles away from your contention
> that
> >Chaplin is mediocre in his understanding or application of film technique
> in
> >his work or even that his goal is theatrical "as on a stage."
> >
> >"The most important thing" he says "is a close-up." Close-ups don't happen
> >on stage. But Chaplin goes further explaining that it is in contrast that
> >the close-up derives its power and is diluted if overused. To me, that
> >reveals a *deeper* understanding of film technique than a style in which
> >indiscriminate application of the tricks of the trade would indicate.
>
> No one is saying that Chaplin is mediocre. When I say Chaplin
> simplified this technique, that's just to suggest that Chaplin didn't
> go out of his way to build or improve upon his filmmaking.
I feel sorry for someone who has access to an entire body of work and is not
capable of seeing the growth and change over time. Besides, most artists worth
a damn have made statements along the lines of 'simplification *is*
improvement,' and many even call it an ultimate goal.
> Why else
> would the constant complaint be from all quarters that "Chaplin is
> old fashioned."
First of all, it isn't from *all* quarters. It may have something to do with
the fact that too many ignorant, uninformed people simply keep repeating it.
You know the technique very well (and have frequently borrowed it from
George). It's why anyone who disagrees with you is personally attacking your
MCI.
> They NEVER called Keaton's films old fashioned!
> Nor Lloyd's.
Because they didn't see them as much. It may also have something to do with
the fact that neither of them were subjected to the rantings of fans of other
comics and critics who resented their "top-dog" status. Also, because 'modern'
critics consider emotional connection "old fashioned." If you would for once
consider the context of a statement, you would see that the vast majority of
these criticisms grow out of that emotional context, not a technical one.
> >Rollie said, "I'm the audience, there. I see what the audience sees."
> Those
> >are the words of a man trained in the craft of cinema photography. To me
> >they convey the same meaning as Chaplin's "LOOK ON THE CAMERA LENS AS A
> >SMALL PROSCENIUM IN EVERYTHING I'VE DONE." They both use the language of
> >their particular background to convey a sense of their central focus. But
> as
> >literal truth both are absurd. Rollie's role was no more audience than
> mine
> >is cameraman. Chaplin's films are no more theater than Waiting for Godot
> is
> >cinema.
>
> I don't agree with your point that Rollie's comment isn't
> literal.
Of course it's a literal statement. You just miss an accurate sense of reality
*limiting* your understanding to only that level.
> Whenever ANYONE views the rushes, or points a
> camera at anyone, they are in the role of audience and if they
> like what they see, then it's a wrap.
That assumes that a cameraman is director. When was the last time you saw an
audience assemble a film?
>
>
> >I know that for me Chaplin's responses in the Life Mag. interview take on
> a
> >different meaning when you know the context than when you read only the
> >specific selections.
> >
> >Another f'rinstance: Chaplin's comments about simplicity are an outgrowth
> of
> >a discussion of the script. The lead paragraph to that section is: "I
> don't
> >think either Brando or Loren understood the value of the script--that it
> >would work so well. I did. I'm an actor. I wrote it. When you've had 50
> >years experience, you know something about a script." Would you see a
> >literal truth in that comment? If not, why do you view it as being
> >qualitatively different than the paragraphs that follow it? Regardless of
> >how you view the inherent 'truth' of the paragraph, it sheds a different
> >light on the "simplicity" comment than is apparent without it.
>
> Well, Chaplin's comments about being simple have to do with
> everything he does as a producer/director/writer.
>
> Everything that is EXCEPT for his performance, THAT is
> usually exemplary.
If you read almost *anything* Chaplin has to say about his performances, his
attempts to simplify apply more to "THAT" than to anything else. Why would you
think a simple appearing performance is anything *but* exemplary?
> >And finally, in the paragraphs immediately following the "lens as a small
> >proscenium" comment, Chaplin completes the thought about "orientation
> >first--the camera way back--to know where you are." He says:
> >
> > "And you must give time for the illusion to grow, otherwise it looses
> its
> >reality. It takes time--you put a seed in the ground and it grows. *Then*
> >you intensify it. You don't start with intensifying it.
>
> Fine, start simply then grow. Then you can get into the
> more detailed things of a scene. But his approach is
> simplicity.
You used the term 'simple' previously to convey a lack of film technique
leading to 'theatrical' films. Chaplin's quote reveals an understanding of
film technique and its appropriate application. His approach is filmmaking,
his *goal* is simplification, it is not his technique.
> > "I think I'm a better director than an actor."
>
> And just to get the larger sense here about that last comment;
> Chaplin goes on to talk about his own insecurity in performing;
> (believe it or not) which is why he stated that.
He speaks of *all* actors, of which he is one.
> >Clearly a much more complete picture is gleaned from the total than can
> ever
> >be gotten from the rigid literal meaning of selected excerpts given by Lou
> >or even my additional selections. But once again, to ignore context is to
> >court a faulty and misleading 'understanding' of reality.
> >
> >Chaplin's works *are* so much more than recorded theatrical performances.
>
> And I don't think of his films as STRICTLY theatrical performances
> either. But his modus operandi is consistent with the theater.
Then you know very little of what went into his films.
> The stars make up the drama and do the storytellling, and NOT
> the film technique itself. The simplicity of the technique only
> enhances the performers. He's stated time and time again, that
> he doesn't want the camera to be doing what the actors should
> be doing -- giving the performance.
This is stupid. Any *good* film that uses actors utilizes film techniques,
simple or otherwise, that enhance the actor's performances. Otherwise they are
bad films...or maybe typical travelogue documentaries. Utilizing techniques
that enhance performance doesn't make films "theatrical" in the negative sense
that you have used the term, it makes them better.
David
RFCSAC627N
>b) frequency of
> close ups lose its effectiveness; c) its "too easy"; d) he's
> STILL fond of acting and he doesn't want the camera to do
> the performance." Back to the theater.
>
If this is "back to the theater", than CC must have bumped into John Ford on
his way there. Ford also believed in a restrained use of close ups and--since
he didn't have the right of final cut on his films--would literally "cut in the
camera" by covering the camera's lens with his hand when shooting the part of
close ups he didn't want used.
Richard Carnahan
George Shelps
wrote:
>>Not "decoration," not "camp," not
>>"mannerism" but the conscious formal
>>use of the medium to achieve a parallel
><channel of abstraction, of ideas, of
>>commentary---Eisenstein being the
>>prototype, but Griffith also pioneered it in
>>INTOLERANCE, Gance in NAPOLEON.
>It appears to me that what you're
>describing is another form of integral
>style. Are we disagreeing?
Yes, because it's more complex, more esthetically sophisticated, than
Chaplin's bare functionality, and more capable of expressing ideas.
George Shelps
>That's editing, not camerawork. Or do
>you think the pattern and density of silver
>halide crystals on the emulsion
>qualitatively changes the fact of how the
>footage is utilized?
Of course it does, didn't you know that?
>For anyone who wishes to look past
>Chaplin's performances, you will see the
>same conscious choice of editing to
>enhance effect in Chaplin's films as in
>Napoleon. More subtle perhaps, but just
>as much a part of Chaplin as Gance.
You can't follow a simple argument.
Chaplin's technique is quite satisfactory
(when not plagued by technical glitches)
for his purposes, but limited in its exploration of the potential
expressive use of the medium--which is what Gance in NAPOLEON was all
about.
George Shelps
Richard Carnahan wrote:
>If this is "back to the theater", than CC
>must have bumped into John Ford on his
>way there. Ford also believed in a
>restrained use of close ups and--since he
>didn't have the right of final cut on his
>films--would literally "cut in the camera"
>by covering the camera's lens with his
>hand when shooting the part of close ups
>he didn't want used.
Ford is also a great director who was technically restrained...but never
to the degree of Chaplin.
David Totheroh
George Shelps wrote:
> DT wrote:
>
> >That's editing, not camerawork. Or do
> >you think the pattern and density of silver
> >halide crystals on the emulsion
> >qualitatively changes the fact of how the
> >footage is utilized?
>
> Of course it does, didn't you know that?
No, I didn't. Please explain.
> >For anyone who wishes to look past
> >Chaplin's performances, you will see the
> >same conscious choice of editing to
> >enhance effect in Chaplin's films as in
> >Napoleon. More subtle perhaps, but just
> >as much a part of Chaplin as Gance.
>
> You can't follow a simple argument.
> Chaplin's technique is quite satisfactory
> (when not plagued by technical glitches)
> for his purposes, but limited in its exploration of the potential
> expressive use of the medium--which is what Gance in NAPOLEON was all
> about.
That's like saying Rembrandt's art is limited because he didn't explore
the "potential
expressive use of the medium" with more color. This is just plain stupid.
Artists *always* make limiting choices out of the pantheon of
possibilities. That's their job. To criticize Chaplin for not making
Gance's films is stupid. Were his choices appropriate for telling *his*
stories? What could he have done that would have been more appropriate?
Crooner
>> close ups are a) something he "fights against";
David Totheroh wrote
>This is the level of argument that makes you look pretty damn stupid and,
I
>guess, grows directly out of your proclivity to think that if you find two
>words strung together then it's OK to ignore all the rest if you can
'prove a
>point' by doing so. To fight against overuse of a thing is not at all the
same
>as to fight against that thing. Chaplin states clearly that what he
"fights
>against" is the concept that "if you have one...you *must* have another."
David, must you always stoop so low to win arguments?
That is TOTALLY understood. But did you EVER THINK
why Chaplin is opposed to "one after another" close up.
That is rudimentary, that is so typical a modern film
technique that you have to wonder WHY he's opposed to
it. Of course, I don't wonder: he prefers long shots; he
doesn't subscribe to modern film techniques -- the Hollywood
chi-chi.
Even Rollie commented once that many of the shots he took,
he would have done differently. However, Chaplin always
wanted the full long shot effect in his screenplays. Rollie
had to give in and comply & include Chaplin's feet in
many of the shots.
>> No one is saying that Chaplin is mediocre. When I say Chaplin
>> simplified this technique, that's just to suggest that Chaplin didn't
>> go out of his way to build or improve upon his filmmaking.
>
>I feel sorry for someone who has access to an entire body of work and is
not
>capable of seeing the growth and change over time. Besides, most artists
worth
>a damn have made statements along the lines of 'simplification *is*
>improvement,' and many even call it an ultimate goal.
Take a good look at MONSEUIR VERDOUX or DICTATOR
or LIMELIGHT and you won't see great leaps of film technique.
Compare them to comtemporary directors and you'll see a world
of difference. However, I don't dismiss Chaplin's work -- it
worked for him!
>> Why else
>> would the constant complaint be from all quarters that "Chaplin is
>> old fashioned."
>
>First of all, it isn't from *all* quarters. It may have something to do
with
>the fact that too many ignorant, uninformed people simply keep repeating
it.
Yeah, I guess like the statement that Chaplin was "booted out
of the country."
>You know the technique very well (and have frequently borrowed it from
>George). It's why anyone who disagrees with you is personally attacking
your
>MCI.
>
>> They NEVER called Keaton's films old fashioned!
>> Nor Lloyd's.
>
>Because they didn't see them as much. It may also have something to do
with
>the fact that neither of them were subjected to the rantings of fans of
other
>comics and critics who resented their "top-dog" status. Also, because
'modern'
>critics consider emotional connection "old fashioned." If you would for
once
>consider the context of a statement, you would see that the vast majority
of
>these criticisms grow out of that emotional context, not a technical one.
I'm tired of arguing. When Chaplin stated that many call him
old-fashioned, he was referring to film technique.
~ Crooner
Constance Kuriyama
I'd like to see anyone try to demonstrate that. In fact a great deal
of Eisenstein's formalism is pure play with shapes. It expresses no
ideas at all, though it's pretty and sometimes fascinating to look at.
And the same is true of Dreyer's _Joan_, which operates on fewer ideas
than most silent films I've seen.
I like both Eisenstein and Dreyer, but neither produced films half so
provocative as Chaplin's.
George Shelps
wrote:
>I'd like to see anyone try to demonstrate
>that. In fact a great deal of Eisenstein's
>formalism is pure play with shapes. It
>expresses no ideas at all, though it's
>pretty and sometimes fascinating to look
>at. And the same is true of Dreyer's
>_Joan_, which operates on fewer ideas
>than most silent films I've seen.
Eisenstein derided the "pure play with shapes." I've made quite a study
of Eisenstein's theories and their application and would be prepared to
make that demonstration but it would be off-topic. I'd be happy to do
it in e-mail, but not with you.
>I like both Eisenstein and Dreyer, but
>neither produced films half so
>provocative as Chaplin's.
Obviously you could be expected to say that, but both directors
accomplished things that Chaplin was incapable of and I believe overall
they are his creative equals.
Constance Kuriyama
>
>>I'd like to see anyone try to demonstrate
>>that. In fact a great deal of Eisenstein's
>>formalism is pure play with shapes. It
>>expresses no ideas at all, though it's
>>pretty and sometimes fascinating to look
>>at. And the same is true of Dreyer's
>>_Joan_, which operates on fewer ideas
>>than most silent films I've seen.
>
> Eisenstein derided the "pure play with shapes."
No doubt. But he still did it. Perhaps he thought his
overriding ideological purpose justified every detail of his
technique--but I don't think this is possible to
prove in, say, _Potemkin_.
I've made quite a study
> of Eisenstein's theories and their application and would be prepared to
> make that demonstration but it would be off-topic.
Chaplin's relationship to other filmmakers is on-topic.
I'd be happy to do
> it in e-mail, but not with you.
You're the one who sends the hate e-mail, George. Afraid I'll bite you?
I answer all civil e-mail in a civil manner.
>>I like both Eisenstein and Dreyer, but
>>neither produced films half so
>>provocative as Chaplin's.
>
> Obviously you could be expected to say that, but both directors
> accomplished things that Chaplin was incapable of and I believe overall
> they are his creative equals.
Chaplin had no *inclination* to make films like theirs. I see no reason
to conclude that he was *incapable* of it.
They may be his creative equals in some individual films. Overall, I don't
think that's true.
Crooner
>
>> As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
>> "primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
>> support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
>> of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
>> Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
No it's not! According to Karl Struss, the cameraman for
DICTATOR, "I thought I'd help him, give him something
to cut, because he had no knowledge of camera direction,
his films were completely 'theater'. It was very routine
work with him; you'd just set up the camera and let it go
and he and the other actors would play in front of it."
~ Crooner
I submitted this quote to respond to Connie, but also to
support Chaplin's theater technique for film.
RFCSAC627N
Some of the best cameramen never received recognition and remain ignored to
this day. The reason is simple: they believed in functional photography,
camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO UNNOTICED. Two of these unsung heroes
were Rolland "Rollie" Thoteroh, Charlie Chaplin's cameraman, and Elgin Lessley,
Buster Keaton's cameraman.
Totheroh knew the secret of good photography in a comedy is to show the
action on the screen to the best possible advantage. Directorially, he and
Chaplin knew exactly what each setup would be right for each scene. Looking at
a film like EASY STREET, it is impossible to find a shot that doesn't do its
job in the best possible way; there are close ups, medium shots, and long
shots; the camera dollies forward and backward to show Chaplin, a policeman,
patrolling his block; it intercuts a long-shot with a medium-shot in order to
catch one of Chaplin's subtle moves when the villain is preparing to beat him
up. Totheroh made a valuable contribution to Chaplin's best comedies, and
Chaplin knew it; few of his professional associations were so durable as that
with Totheroh.
Richard Carnahan
Anonymous
>before, but since people keep bringing it up about Chaplin I've
started noticing--and I must say there's plenty to notice, if
that's what you're looking for.
I don't particularly recommend this as a way to watch films. :-)
On the other hand, often the continuity errors in CC's films, which
you'll notice only if you're looking at something that's
peripheral, occur in the midst of a sequence that's so meticulously
edited with respect to the center of action that the cuts are
>invisible.
It still happens today. Did anyone happen to catch sight of the
boom mic sweeping across the screen in the classroom scene in The
Sixth Sense? Geez, you'd think with 40 mill to spend they'd have
afforded some decent editors....
Crooner
> Some of the best cameramen never received recognition and remain
>ignored to this day. The reason is simple: they believed in functional
>photography, camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO
>UNNOTICED.
So good that it would go unnoticed?!?!?
I think this is a silly term. Let's see if such a term would apply
in everyday life. Could a woman say to her husband of many
years, "Dear, didn't you enjoy sex with me last night?" Could
the husband say, "Gosh, Sweetheart, you were just so dang good
that I just don't notice it anymore."
Since it's a dull day on AMC, let me play devil's advocate here...
>Two of these unsung heroes were Rolland "Rollie" Thoteroh,
>Charlie Chaplin's cameraman, and Elgin Lessley, Buster
>Keaton's cameraman.
>Totheroh knew the secret of good photography in a comedy is to
>show the action on the screen to the best possible advantage.
This is a "secret"?!?! It's actually quite obvious. No one should
be a cameraman without this fundamental knowledge.
>Directorially, he and Chaplin knew exactly what each setup
>would be right for each scene. Looking at a film like EASY
>STREET, it is impossible to find a shot that doesn't do
>its job in the best possible way; there are close ups, medium
>shots, and long shots; the camera dollies forward and backward
>to show Chaplin, a policeman, patrolling his block; it intercuts a
>long-shot with a medium-shot in order to catch one of Chaplin's
>subtle moves when the villain is preparing to beat him up.
>Totheroh made a valuable contribution to Chaplin's best comedies,
>and Chaplin knew it; few of his professional associations were so
>durable as that with Totheroh.
>
> Richard Carnahan
Well, Maltin seems to be praising Rollie, rather than Chaplin
himself. Anyway, when Rollie is compared to Elgin Lessley, I'm
afraid that we really will never know the full potential of Rollie, since
he really didn't excel to the degree that Buster extracted from Lessley.
~ Crooner
CC41689
>>From Leonard Maltin's THE ART OF CINEMATOGRAPHY:
>> Some of the best cameramen never received recognition and remain
>>ignored to this day. The reason is simple: they believed in functional
>>photography, camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO
>>UNNOTICED.
>
>So good that it would go unnoticed?!?!?
>
>I think this is a silly term.
I don't. I think it makes perfect sense.
When you're watching a movie you're supposed to be involved with the lives of
the characters -- not paying attention to how slick the camera moves are. If
instead of saying: "How beautiful Joan Crawford is -- I wish I could be like
her!" you're saying "How beautifully lit that close-up is!" then the cameraman
isn't doing his job.
The ambition of cameramen back in those days was to be invisible -- to see to
it that the seams didn't show. To put the attention on the actors and not
themselves.
How difficult is that to understand, Croonie?
> Let's see if such a term would apply
>in everyday life. Could a woman say to her husband of many
>years, "Dear, didn't you enjoy sex with me last night?" Could
>the husband say, "Gosh, Sweetheart, you were just so dang good
>that I just don't notice it anymore."
This analogy is *so* you, Croonie...
You can turn anything into sex, can't you?
CC41689
(who thinks we should all chip in to see that Croonie gets some...)
"Who do you think you are -- Lady Shit?" -- Hannah Chaplin
Constance Kuriyama
Boom shadows are pretty generally ignored by editors. There's one
in _Great Dictator_, and I recently noticed one in _My Fair Lady_--
obviously a *very* expensive film to make.
Constance Kuriyama
"Crooner" (cro...@firestorm2000.com) writes:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>>> As I mentioned in another post, the view that Chaplin was a
>>> "primitive" as a director is of rather recent origin. To
>>> support that, I offer a quote from Manny Farber's review
>>> of the reissue of _The Gold Rush_, published in _The New
>>> Republic_ on 4 May 1942:
>
>
> No it's not! According to Karl Struss, the cameraman for
> DICTATOR, "I thought I'd help him, give him something
> to cut, because he had no knowledge of camera direction,
> his films were completely 'theater'. It was very routine
> work with him; you'd just set up the camera and let it go
> and he and the other actors would play in front of it."
And when was this quote published?
Karl Struss never did anything for Chaplin, IMO. I
think the visual quality of Chaplin's films becomes more
mediocre and overall less satisfactory when Struss and Florey
get involved.
Struss didn't know anything about theater, and he didn't
understand Chaplin's working methods. He did fine work
when he worked by his own methods. He didn't when he
tried to meddle with Chaplin's.
Constance Kuriyama
"Crooner" (cro...@firestorm2000.com) writes:
>>From Leonard Maltin's THE ART OF CINEMATOGRAPHY:
>> Some of the best cameramen never received recognition and remain
>>ignored to this day. The reason is simple: they believed in functional
>>photography, camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO
>>UNNOTICED.
>
> So good that it would go unnoticed?!?!?
>
> I think this is a silly term.
It's an ancient theory of art, Lou. If so many people who've given
the matter long and careful thought haven't found it silly, why should you?
Let's see if such a term would apply
> in everyday life. Could a woman say to her husband of many
> years, "Dear, didn't you enjoy sex with me last night?" Could
> the husband say, "Gosh, Sweetheart, you were just so dang good
> that I just don't notice it anymore."
>
> Since it's a dull day on AMC, let me play devil's advocate here...
Actualy I was just thinking what a *nice* day it was.
As for your analogy, if her husband said, "I really loved the technique
you used," I'd wonder if he actually felt anything.
> This is a "secret"?!?! It's actually quite obvious. No one should
> be a cameraman without this fundamental knowledge.
The principle is obvious. Applying it is difficult.
> Anyway, when Rollie is compared to Elgin Lessley, I'm
> afraid that we really will never know the full potential of Rollie, since
> he really didn't excel to the degree that Buster extracted from Lessley.
If you'll actually *look* at Buster's films, Lou, you may discover that
he moves the camera a *lot* less than you think he does.
Most film critics consider Keaton's basic photographic technique
straightforward. What he chooses to photograph, his favored shot
selection, and his love of trick photography largely account for his
distinctive style.
Doug Sulpy
>When you're watching a movie you're supposed to be involved with the lives of
>the characters -- not paying attention to how slick the camera moves are.
Who says?
>If instead of saying: "How beautiful Joan Crawford is -- I wish I could be like
>her!" you're saying "How beautifully lit that close-up is!" then the cameraman
>isn't doing his job.
Actually, according to your guidelines, one shouldn't be paying any
attention to EITHER.
>The ambition of cameramen back in those days was to be invisible -- to see to
>it that the seams didn't show. To put the attention on the actors and not
>themselves.
>How difficult is that to understand, Croonie?
It may not be difficult to understand, but it IS woefully incorrect.
Go watch some more films and report back in, say, seven years.
Doug
Doug Sulpy
Kuriyama) wrote:
>Boom shadows are pretty generally ignored by editors. There's one
>in _Great Dictator_, and I recently noticed one in _My Fair Lady_--
>obviously a *very* expensive film to make.
>
>Connie K.
This could also be the result of inefficient matting on the part of
the theater projector. For instance, I once saw a print of Woody
Allen's "Sleeper" in a theater where the tops of the sets, the mikes
AND the lights were all visible.
Doug
RFCSAC627N
MY FAIR LADY was shot in 65 mm, so matting wasn't the problem there.
BTW, I have a full-frame 16 mm print of SLEEPER and you *can* see the tops of
sets and mike booms in several scenes.
Richard Carnahan
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> >From Leonard Maltin's THE ART OF CINEMATOGRAPHY:
> > Some of the best cameramen never received recognition and remain
> >ignored to this day. The reason is simple: they believed in functional
> >photography, camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO
> >UNNOTICED.
>
> So good that it would go unnoticed?!?!?
>
> I think this is a silly term.
<snip>
> >Directorially, he and Chaplin knew exactly what each setup
> >would be right for each scene. Looking at a film like EASY
> >STREET, it is impossible to find a shot that doesn't do
> >its job in the best possible way; there are close ups, medium
> >shots, and long shots; the camera dollies forward and backward
> >to show Chaplin, a policeman, patrolling his block; it intercuts a
> >long-shot with a medium-shot in order to catch one of Chaplin's
> >subtle moves when the villain is preparing to beat him up.
> >Totheroh made a valuable contribution to Chaplin's best comedies,
> >and Chaplin knew it; few of his professional associations were so
> >durable as that with Totheroh.
> >
> > Richard Carnahan
>
> Well, Maltin seems to be praising Rollie, rather than Chaplin
> himself. Anyway, when Rollie is compared to Elgin Lessley, I'm
> afraid that we really will never know the full potential of Rollie, since
> he really didn't excel to the degree that Buster extracted from Lessley.
You really *don't* get it, do you? Maltin's whole point is that the
cameraman succeeds to the extent that you are unaware that he even exists as
part of the experience you are having viewing the film. By Maltin's
criterion, Totheroh excels beyond Lessley precisely because you are aware of
Lessley's work, even while they both capture the comedy of their individual
performer/directors, and do it in ways that filmically enhance that work.
David
P.S. Lou, your petty attempts to get at me through my grandfather only make
you look that much more juvenile. Rollie was secure enough in his
achievements that he didn't need recognition for his work. I am secure
enough in my knowledge of his place in history that I can enjoy the
insightful praise of someone like Leonard Maltin, and be amused by your
ability to find it "silly."
David Totheroh
Doug Sulpy wrote:
> On 04 Sep 1999 17:25:23 GMT, cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>
> >When you're watching a movie you're supposed to be involved with the lives of
> >the characters -- not paying attention to how slick the camera moves are.
>
> Who says?
*Almost* everyone. Even industry insiders, much more prone to watch for technique
as opposed to what technique can accomplish, for the most part would agree that in
a collaborative art like filmmaking is, the technician whose work calls attention
to itself to the detriment of the whole, has failed. An editor, using a series of
jump cuts, may create a wonderful kaleidoscope of pattern and light that is
dazzling. But if the scene within the film was supposed to convey a relaxed,
languid mood, it might be great editing technique but terrible editing. Often
composers make good film scorers, but not always. Sometimes great music is not
great scoring. A set may be beautifully lit, even appropriately in terms of mood,
but if, as a result of that lighting, a wonderful and subtle bit of the acting or
story is missed, it ain't good cinematography.
> >If instead of saying: "How beautiful Joan Crawford is -- I wish I could be like
> >her!" you're saying "How beautifully lit that close-up is!" then the cameraman
> >isn't doing his job.
>
> Actually, according to your guidelines, one shouldn't be paying any
> attention to EITHER.
>
> >The ambition of cameramen back in those days was to be invisible -- to see to
> >it that the seams didn't show. To put the attention on the actors and not
> >themselves.
>
> >How difficult is that to understand, Croonie?
>
> It may not be difficult to understand, but it IS woefully incorrect.
> Go watch some more films and report back in, say, seven years.
Not at all incorrect. Which cameramen from "back in those days" have ever said, 'My
job was to make gorgeous images regardless of the content of the film, so that
everyone would know it was my beautiful lighting and exposure and composition.'?
I've read lots of interviews with many of the old-time cinematographers, even
talked with a few of them personally, and I've *never* heard one of them say
anything like that.
It is clearly possible to 'analyze' film (and you can learn a great deal doing so),
but that's not what they're made for. *Watching* films, allowing yourself to be
transported by them, is a different thing from analyzing them. Technique that pulls
you out of that sense of absorption might be clever and 'advanced,' but it's not
appropriate for the work.
I've mentioned this before, but maybe it would help Lou to understand. A man who
made a very good living judging and coaching choral performances described his
grading scale to me this way: a D performance throws in all kinds of techniques and
does it poorly; a C performance uses appropriate technique but ineptly; a B
performance uses appropriate technique and does so masterfully; in the A
performance, the observer is unaware that technique is being used at all.
David
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> >>I don't think you can say that. In my opinion, if anything
> >>is SO GOOD, you're going to notice it. Maybe Maltin should
> >>have said, Rollie had a way of using the camera in an
> >>unobtrusive manner -- then I might agree.
>
> RFCSAC627N wrote
> > That's what he did, Lou. You always seem to take everything
> so....literally.
>
> Well, I guess that's better than taking things illiterally,
> but what did Maltin say about Lessley?
It's in the quote. All you have to do is read it.
David
the_c...@my-deja.com
> > I think this is a silly term.
The reason why I think it's a silly term is because
I wonder if you could say this about any other aspect
in movie making:
Are the sets in the movie so good that they go unnoticed?
Is the background music so good that it goes unnoticed?
Is the direction so good that it goes unnoticed?
I don't think you can say that. In my opinion, if anything
is SO GOOD, you're going to notice it. Maybe Maltin should
have said, Rollie had a way of using the camera in an
unobtrusive manner -- then I might agree.
David Totheroh wrote:
> You really *don't* get it, do you? Maltin's whole point is that the
> cameraman succeeds to the extent that you are unaware that he even
> exists as part of the experience you are having viewing the film.
> By Maltin's criterion, Totheroh excels beyond Lessley precisely
> because you are aware of Lessley's work, even while they both
> capture the comedy of their individual performer/directors,
> and do it in ways that filmically enhance that work.
>
> David
>
> P.S. Lou, your petty attempts to get at me through my grandfather
> only make you look that much more juvenile. Rollie was secure
> enough in his achievements that he didn't need recognition for
> his work. I am secure enough in my knowledge of his place in
> history that I can enjoy the insightful praise of someone like
> Leonard Maltin, and be amused by your ability to find it "silly."
Hold the phone, David. No attempt is made by me to "get at you."
I know it's kinda arkward talking about someone in the arts when
a relative is part of the group. Maybe I should use more tact;
but it's either I speak truthfully and bend tactfulness or not
speak truthfully and be tactful. Sorry if I've offended.
Anyway, one definition of what makes a cameraman SO GOOD would
be whether everyone else in the industry ever went to view the
work over and over again, just to see how the technique could
be copied: THIS was done time and time again when industry
cameramen went to Keaton films to marvel at how GOOD the work
was & how they could copy it.
But again, I insist that Chaplin's technique and his cameraman's
technique worked for them. And I don't begrudge them for
anything. Both did what they had to do: film some of the
greatest movies ever made.
~ Crooner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
RFCSAC627N
> Camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO UNNOTICED.
>
>> > I think this is a silly term.
>
>The reason why I think it's a silly term is because
>I wonder if you could say this about any other aspect
>in movie making:
>
>Are the sets in the movie so good that they go unnoticed?
>Is the background music so good that it goes unnoticed?
>Is the direction so good that it goes unnoticed?
a film should draw attention to itself.
>
>I don't think you can say that. In my opinion, if anything
>is SO GOOD, you're going to notice it. Maybe Maltin should
>have said, Rollie had a way of using the camera in an
>unobtrusive manner -- then I might agree.
>
Crooner
>>is SO GOOD, you're going to notice it. Maybe Maltin should
>>have said, Rollie had a way of using the camera in an
>>unobtrusive manner -- then I might agree.
RFCSAC627N wrote
> That's what he did, Lou. You always seem to take everything
so....literally.
Well, I guess that's better than taking things illiterally,
but what did Maltin say about Lessley?
~ Crooner
CC41689
> cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>
>>When you're watching a movie you're supposed to be involved with the lives
>of
>>the characters -- not paying attention to how slick the camera moves are.
>
>Who says?
Just about everyone who made movies back in the old days of the studio system.
>>If instead of saying: "How beautiful Joan Crawford is -- I wish I could be
>like
>>her!" you're saying "How beautifully lit that close-up is!" then the
>cameraman
>>isn't doing his job.
>
>Actually, according to your guidelines, one shouldn't be paying any
>attention to EITHER.
Nope. They're paying attention to the star because the star tells the story.
>>The ambition of cameramen back in those days was to be invisible -- to see
>to
>>it that the seams didn't show. To put the attention on the actors and not
>>themselves.
>
>>How difficult is that to understand, Croonie?
>
>It may not be difficult to understand, but it IS woefully incorrect.
>Go watch some more films and report back in, say, seven years.
Don't be so snotty. :)
I've seen lots of films -- and I've also seen a very good documentary called
"Visions of Light" where a number of oldtime cameramen talk about their craft.
So I think I know what I'm talking about.
So there!
CC41689
(who doesn't like to be patronized by people she's not related to...)
CC41689
> Camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO UNNOTICED.
>
>> > I think this is a silly term.
>
>The reason why I think it's a silly term is because
>I wonder if you could say this about any other aspect
>in movie making:
>
>Are the sets in the movie so good that they go unnoticed?
>Is the background music so good that it goes unnoticed?
>Is the direction so good that it goes unnoticed?
If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
designers will tell you just that.
If you notice how good the score is, the composer didn't do his job, and most
composers would say the same.
Or they would have, back in the olden days, when the movie was about the star
and anything else was a distraction.
People paid to see Lana Turner and Jean Harlow, not fancy sets. If you noticed
the set and not the actor, some set designer was probably out of a job the next
day.
CC41689
(who invitres everyone to watch "Visions of Light", the coolest documentary
that's not about Charlie...)
Crooner
David Totheroh wrote
>It's in the quote. All you have to do is read it.
Sorry, I'm referring to "anything else" he may have said
about Lessley.
~ Crooner
RFCSAC627N
There's nothing to detract from CC and Totheroh, if that's what you're
thinking. It's similar in tone to what Maltin said about CC and RT.
Richard Carnahan (who is expecting a knock at the door any minute for
voitaling so many copyrights recently)
Constance Kuriyama
Doug Sulpy (dsu...@concentric.net) writes:
> On 4 Sep 1999 19:45:19 GMT, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
> Kuriyama) wrote:
>
>>Boom shadows are pretty generally ignored by editors. There's one
>>in _Great Dictator_, and I recently noticed one in _My Fair Lady_--
>>obviously a *very* expensive film to make.
>>
>>Connie K.
>
> This could also be the result of inefficient matting on the part of
> the theater projector. For instance, I once saw a print of Woody
> Allen's "Sleeper" in a theater where the tops of the sets, the mikes
> AND the lights were all visible.
>
> Doug
I'll have to watch _Sleeper_ just to see that. :-)
The one in _My Fair Lady_ is right in the middle of the floor of
'enry 'iggins's study. I don't think different matting would have
helped--or editing either. The only way to get rid of it was to
reshoot.
They probably left it in because that was the best take in all the
ways that counted. I assume Chaplin left some of the gaffes in his
films for the same reason.
sh...@my-deja.com
> Camerawork that was SO GOOD IT WOULD GO UNNOTICED.
>
> > > I think this is a silly term.
>
> The reason why I think it's a silly term is because
> I wonder if you could say this about any other aspect
> in movie making:
>
> Are the sets in the movie so good that they go unnoticed?
> Is the background music so good that it goes unnoticed?
> Is the direction so good that it goes unnoticed?
In the kind of filmmaking Chaplin favored, all these things work
together subtly, unobstrusively. They're there, but if they call
attention to themselves, the viewer is paying attention to the
filmmaking itself... not to the story, not to the performances.
Charles Rosher was one of the most in-demand and highest-paid
cinematographers of the era, yet his style was never flashy. It didn't
need to be. And neither did Rollie's.
Some of the greatest directors, like King Vidor, William deMille and
Henry King, were the same way. They worked to bring greatness out of
their stories and actors, not to inject greatness *into* the material.
Subtlety is very often better than flamboyant filmmaking. In terms of
special effects, for example, the silent films that get all the raves
are things like "The Lost World" or "The Playhouse," where the effects
are obvious. But effects in films like "Ben Hur" and "Sparrows" are just
as good if not better, but the effects are so subtle that they're
accepted as reality instead of as camera tricks. That's the whole point
of special effects... it's not to make the audience think, "How did they
do that?"... it's to make the audience believe what you're showing them.
It all depends on what your expectations are. If you're expecting
staccato editing, dramatic lighting, stop-motion photography, and lots
of flash-forwards and flashbacks, Chaplin's filmmaking will seem pretty
dull. But if you're wanting to be drawn into a film and empathize with
the characters, and to experience the film on an emotional level without
a lot of eye candy getting in the way, then Chaplin's filmmaking will
seem a whole lot better... masterful, in fact.
There are a lot of brilliant films that are not at all subdued in
their filmmaking, but there are a lot that *are*, and Chaplin's are
among them.
--Shush--
Doug Sulpy
>If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
>designers will tell you just that.
I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
elephant set in "Intolerance."
>If you notice how good the score is, the composer didn't do his job, and most
>composers would say the same.
Never thought of that. Charlie wasn't really doing his job when he
scored "The Kid" -- was he? Well, perhaps if Mr. Shepard gets to
remaster the First Nationals on DVD he can try to score some of those
public domain tracks that Madacy uses...
Doug
Doug Sulpy
wrote:
> <snip>
You know, David -- I'd really like to reply to your post, but I'm not
responding to anything either you or Connie post until you both
publically apologize to George for your recent offensive comments.
Doug
CC41689
> cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>>If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
>>designers will tell you just that.
>
>I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
>really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
>elephant set in "Intolerance."
I'm not talking about silent films. I was taking about the Hollywood films of
the 30s and 40s, where the intention of the people who made the films was that
their craft not be noticed.
If you like the "Look Ma, No Hands!" approach, then why in the world do you
like Charlie? He couldn't be further away from that.
>>If you notice how good the score is, the composer didn't do his job, and
>most
>>composers would say the same.
>
>Never thought of that. Charlie wasn't really doing his job when he
>scored "The Kid" -- was he? Well, perhaps if Mr. Shepard gets to
>remaster the First Nationals on DVD he can try to score some of those
>public domain tracks that Madacy uses...
Do you really think Charlie's score for "The Kid" sticks out like a sore thumb?
I don't.
CC41689
(who thinks Charlie knew what he was doing, unlike some people...)
Doug Sulpy
>dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
>
>> cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>
>>>If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
>>>designers will tell you just that.
>>
>>I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
>>really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
>>elephant set in "Intolerance."
>
>I'm not talking about silent films. I was taking about the Hollywood films of
>the 30s and 40s, where the intention of the people who made the films was that
>their craft not be noticed.
We weren't supposed to notice those wonderful art deco sets in the
Fred and Ginger movies, or the camera angles in "Citizen Kane"....???
>If you like the "Look Ma, No Hands!" approach, then why in the world do you
>like Charlie? He couldn't be further away from that.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Look Ma, No Hands!" comment, but I
can certainly appreciate various types of films.
>>>If you notice how good the score is, the composer didn't do his job, and
>>most
>>>composers would say the same.
>>
>>Never thought of that. Charlie wasn't really doing his job when he
>>scored "The Kid" -- was he? Well, perhaps if Mr. Shepard gets to
>>remaster the First Nationals on DVD he can try to score some of those
>>public domain tracks that Madacy uses...
>
>Do you really think Charlie's score for "The Kid" sticks out like a sore thumb?
>
>I don't.
Sure I do, though I wouldn't refer to it as a "sore thumb." I think
his score is a marvelous addition to the film (in fact, all his scores
to all his films), and I can't imagine the "rescue" scene without that
music playing behind it.
Crooner
designers will tell you just that.
>>I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
>>really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
>>elephant set in "Intolerance."
CC41689 wrote
>I'm not talking about silent films.
Well, duhhh, when you talk about Chaplin, you're talking mostly
about silent films.
> I was taking about the Hollywood films of
>the 30s and 40s, where the intention of the people
>who made the films was that their craft not be noticed.
Well, Sweetie, Take a look at the AMC network
series on fashion in the movies. Early Hollywood was
attempting to influence consumers by the fashions worn
by the stars. There was no attempt not to be noticed;
on the contrary they WANTED to be noticed. They
wanted to influence the buying public.
What makes you think that there was ANY concerted
effort by everyone in a picture to not be noticed??
How else would they excel in their careers? Why would
moviemakers vie for the talents of composer Franz Waxman,
who composed among other things the score for BRIDE
OF FRANKENSTEIN. Because his scores were noticable.
Actually his score is so brilliant, it can stand on its own -- outside
the movie! It actually came out on a CD recently. Do you think
Waxman ever thought, "Oh, I mustn't make this score too noticable,
lest it detract from the movie." And the fact that it was SO
brilliant didn't diminish the movie any.
The special effects in that movie was, also, so good that it was
VERY noticable. Yet it didn't detract from the movie; it, in fact,
enhanced it.
At the time of CITIZEN KANE, do you think that most
Hollywood insiders dismissed the camera & editing techniques
as not helping the story along? On the contrary, they all
realized how innovative Welles' approach was. And the movie
is one of the greatest of all time.
I think Maltin's original statement was an attempt to resuscitate
the reputation of Rollie & Chaplin's technique as being old-fashioned
-- period; by saying, in effect, that their greatness lies in their lack of
sophicated camera technique. A tough premise to prove.
~ Crooner
Leslie Evans
Doug Sulpy wrote:
I was very happy to see The Kid with an audience and live (organ) music, but was
quite peeved at the organist when he didn't hit the right crescendo on the "rescue"
scene. Another good piece of music in that particular film is when Jackie Coogan is
"helping" Charlie find work by breaking windows. Just the sort of music for a
little rascal!
Leslie
Crooner
>Movie composers were not paid to call attention to themselves. If you
think
>scores of that era call attention to themselves, you're just wrong. They
work
>WITH the film, not against it.
No one has ever suggested that movie composers didn't work
with the film; but they also attempted to create the best work
possible. The only way to create a great film was for everyone
involved in the production to do their utmost best in their field.
>>I think Maltin's original statement was an attempt to resuscitate
>>the reputation of Rollie & Chaplin's technique as being old-fashioned
>>-- period; by saying, in effect, that their greatness lies in their lack
of
>>sophisticated camera technique. A tough premise to prove.
>
>That was the way Hollywood films were made back then, Croonie. Hate to
>disillusion you. Films were meant to call attention to the stars.
Everything
>else was second to making you care about what the stars were going
through.
>
>All this selfconsciousness about technique is something the old guys would
have
>laughed at. Charlie certainly did -- it's all through his book.
Charlie may have laughed at it; Keaton didn't. CC may have laughed
at it, because he didn't have sophisticated technique & didn't want it --
HE was the technique; HE was the one he thought people came to see.
And, he may have been right, at least in the silent films; but once CC
wasn't in his element anymore (in sound) his films suffered for lack of
technique.
~ Crooner
RFCSAC627N
In the last two years no one has done more name calling or been more abrasive
than George.
Richard Carnahan
CC41689
> cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>
>>dsu...@concentric.net wrote:
>>
>>> cc4...@aol.com (CC41689) wrote:
>>
>>>>If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
>>>>designers will tell you just that.
>>>
>>>I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
>>>really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
>>>elephant set in "Intolerance."
>>
>>I'm not talking about silent films. I was taking about the Hollywood films
>of
>>the 30s and 40s, where the intention of the people who made the films was
>that
>>their craft not be noticed.
>
>We weren't supposed to notice those wonderful art deco sets in the
>Fred and Ginger movies, or the camera angles in "Citizen Kane"....???
If you're not watching Fred and Ginger, the set decorator wasn't doing his job.
And "Citizen Kane" is a perfect example of the "Look Ma, No Hands!" approach to
filmmaking, just like "Cabinet of Caligari."
>>If you like the "Look Ma, No Hands!" approach, then why in the world do you
>>like Charlie? He couldn't be further away from that.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by the "Look Ma, No Hands!" comment, but I
>can certainly appreciate various types of films.
You don't seem to appreciate them on their own terms.
Hollywood movies were star vehicles. EVERYTHING took second place to making
the star look good and making the audience care about the star.
"Citizen Kane" is a freak in that era, the exception that proves the rule.
>>>>If you notice how good the score is, the composer didn't do his job, and
>>>most
>>>>composers would say the same.
>>>
>>>Never thought of that. Charlie wasn't really doing his job when he
>>>scored "The Kid" -- was he? Well, perhaps if Mr. Shepard gets to
>>>remaster the First Nationals on DVD he can try to score some of those
>>>public domain tracks that Madacy uses...
>>
>>Do you really think Charlie's score for "The Kid" sticks out like a sore
>thumb?
>>
>>I don't.
>
>Sure I do, though I wouldn't refer to it as a "sore thumb." I think
>his score is a marvelous addition to the film (in fact, all his scores
>to all his films), and I can't imagine the "rescue" scene without that
>music playing behind it.
Do you think it calls attention to itself at the expense of the story?
I don't.
It ACCOMPANIES the film. It doesn't compete with it, the way some scores do
today.
CC41689
>If you notice the sets, the set designer didn't do his job, and most set
>designers will tell you just that.
>
>>>I guess you're right. The guy who designed the sets for "Caligari"
>>>really sucked, because I noticed them. Same goes for that silly
>>>elephant set in "Intolerance."
>
>CC41689 wrote
>
>>I'm not talking about silent films.
>
>Well, duhhh, when you talk about Chaplin, you're talking mostly
>about silent films.
You're not paying attention, Croonie.
>> I was taking about the Hollywood films of
>>the 30s and 40s, where the intention of the people
>>who made the films was that their craft not be noticed.
>
>Well, Sweetie, Take a look at the AMC network
>series on fashion in the movies. Early Hollywood was
>attempting to influence consumers by the fashions worn
>by the stars. There was no attempt not to be noticed;
>on the contrary they WANTED to be noticed. They
>wanted to influence the buying public.
>
>What makes you think that there was ANY concerted
>effort by everyone in a picture to not be noticed??
Mostly because the people who actually MADE the films said so.
Try watching "Visions of Light."
>How else would they excel in their careers? Why would
>moviemakers vie for the talents of composer Franz Waxman,
>who composed among other things the score for BRIDE
>OF FRANKENSTEIN. Because his scores were noticable.
>Actually his score is so brilliant, it can stand on its own -- outside
>the movie! It actually came out on a CD recently. Do you think
>Waxman ever thought, "Oh, I mustn't make this score too noticable,
>lest it detract from the movie." And the fact that it was SO
>brilliant didn't diminish the movie any.
Movie composers were not paid to call attention to themselves. If you think
scores of that era call attention to themselves, you're just wrong. They work
WITH the film, not against it.
>The special effects in that movie was, also, so good that it was
>VERY noticable. Yet it didn't detract from the movie; it, in fact,
>enhanced it.
>
>At the time of CITIZEN KANE, do you think that most
>Hollywood insiders dismissed the camera & editing techniques
>as not helping the story along? On the contrary, they all
>realized how innovative Welles' approach was. And the movie
>is one of the greatest of all time.
"Citizen Kane" is the exception. Like I said, it's the "Look Ma, No Hands!"
style of fillmaking, just like "Caligari."
That's the exception. It's not the rule.
And Welles was BOOED at the Academy Awards, and almost shut out completely.
That's how influential "Kane" was at the time.
>I think Maltin's original statement was an attempt to resuscitate
>the reputation of Rollie & Chaplin's technique as being old-fashioned
>-- period; by saying, in effect, that their greatness lies in their lack of
>sophicated camera technique. A tough premise to prove.
That was the way Hollywood films were made back then, Croonie. Hate to
disillusion you. Films were meant to call attention to the stars. Everything
else was second to making you care about what the stars were going through.
All this selfconsciousness about technique is something the old guys would have
laughed at. Charlie certainly did -- it's all through his book.
CC41689
(tired of taking crap from these old poops...)
CC41689
Maybe, but other people are doing their best to catch up.
CC41689
(who always tries to be fair to George...)
CC41689
>CC41689 wrote in message
>>Movie composers were not paid to call attention to themselves. If you
>think
>>scores of that era call attention to themselves, you're just wrong. They
>work
>>WITH the film, not against it.
>
>No one has ever suggested that movie composers didn't work
>with the film; but they also attempted to create the best work
>possible. The only way to create a great film was for everyone
>involved in the production to do their utmost best in their field.
>
>>>I think Maltin's original statement was an attempt to resuscitate
>>>the reputation of Rollie & Chaplin's technique as being old-fashioned
>>>-- period; by saying, in effect, that their greatness lies in their lack
>of
>>>sophisticated camera technique. A tough premise to prove.
>>
>>That was the way Hollywood films were made back then, Croonie. Hate to
>>disillusion you. Films were meant to call attention to the stars.
>Everything
>>else was second to making you care about what the stars were going
>through.
>>
>>All this selfconsciousness about technique is something the old guys would
>have
>>laughed at. Charlie certainly did -- it's all through his book.
>
>Charlie may have laughed at it; Keaton didn't. CC may have laughed
>at it, because he didn't have sophisticated technique & didn't want it --
>HE was the technique; HE was the one he thought people came to see.
>And, he may have been right, at least in the silent films; but once CC
>wasn't in his element anymore (in sound) his films suffered for lack of
>technique.
And whose talkies are better, Chaplin's or Keaton's?
Just about the only good talkie Keaton was ever in was directed by Charlie.
So there.
CC41689
(who would rather see "Limelight" than any Keaton talkie anyday...)
RFCSAC627N
>CC41689 wrote in message
>>Movie composers were not paid to call attention to themselves. If you
>think
>>scores of that era call attention to themselves, you're just wrong. They
>work
>>WITH the film, not against it.
>
>No one has ever suggested that movie composers didn't work
>with the film; but they also attempted to create the best work
>possible. The only way to create a great film was for everyone
>involved in the production to do their utmost best in their field.
No one would disagree with this, Lou. But then no one has said any
differently.
>>All this selfconsciousness about technique is something the old guys
would
>have
>>laughed at. Charlie certainly did -- it's all through his book.
>
>Charlie may have laughed at it; Keaton didn't. CC may have laughed
>at it, because he didn't have sophisticated technique & didn't want it --
>HE was the technique; HE was the one he thought people came to see.
If you watch CC's silent films the technique is quite sophisticated indeed.
You confuse "sophisticated" with "showy".
I'd love to see you challenge Maltin's comments about EASY STREET. CC and
Rollie use the full pallet of film technique available to them at the
time--it's just not done in an obvious way
Richard Carnahan (who wonders if MODERN TIMES would have been better if CC
had dug a hole in the soundstage floor for the camera and shot the film with a
10 mm lens)
David Totheroh
RFCSAC627N wrote:
> >From: "Crooner"
>
> >CC41689 wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> >>All this selfconsciousness about technique is something the old guys
> would
> >have
> >>laughed at. Charlie certainly did -- it's all through his book.
> >
> >Charlie may have laughed at it; Keaton didn't. CC may have laughed
> >at it, because he didn't have sophisticated technique & didn't want it --
> >HE was the technique; HE was the one he thought people came to see.
That may have been the reality of Chaplin's perception, but it's not the reality
of his films. It may even have been Chaplin's expressed focus (maybe more than it
was Keaton's, but I doubt it), it was not however, the focus of those who worked
with and for Chaplin, whose responsibility it was to take care of the aspects of
filmmaking that Chaplin *didn't* want to have to focus on.
Chaplin didn't want technique to take the place of his performances, but unless
your eyesight is similar to Virginia Cherrill's, his films are evidence that he
was more than willing to utilize many subtle and sophisticated techniques to
enhance those performances.
>
> If you watch CC's silent films the technique is quite sophisticated indeed.
> You confuse "sophisticated" with "showy".
> I'd love to see you challenge Maltin's comments about EASY STREET. CC and
> Rollie use the full pallet of film technique available to them at the
> time--it's just not done in an obvious way
> Richard Carnahan (who wonders if MODERN TIMES would have been better if CC
> had dug a hole in the soundstage floor for the camera and shot the film with a
> 10 mm lens)
...and
David (who wonders whether AWOP would have been better if they *hadn't* figured
out how to make the train work within budget, or if TGR would have worked as well
*without* Charlie getting out of the cabin just in time, or if Chaplin could've
spent so much time on retakes for the really important scenes in CL if he'd *had*
to build full sets instead of using matte shots for the street scenes, or if the
skating sequence in MT would've been OK with the insurers *without* the glass
shot, etc., etc., etc.)
And if Lou's honest, he'll admit that he isn't even aware, 64 to 75 and more
years later, exactly how half of those clever, sophisticated 'technique' effects
were accomplished (or that they even *were* effects). If he wants to prove me
wrong, he'll tell us which parts of the CL street scene are sets and which are
paintings. Or at the very least, he'll define what he means by the "sophisticated
techniques" that he says Chaplin *didn't* use, and we'll see if he's right.
Crooner
>And if Lou's honest, he'll admit that he isn't even aware, 64 to 75 and
more
>years later, exactly how half of those clever, sophisticated 'technique'
effects
>were accomplished (or that they even *were* effects). If he wants to prove
me
>wrong, he'll tell us which parts of the CL street scene are sets and which
are
>paintings. Or at the very least, he'll define what he means by the
"sophisticated
>techniques" that he says Chaplin *didn't* use, and we'll see if he's
right.
Okay, I'll have to see the film again. But I do remember that
the entire skyline behind the statue was a painting.
~ Crooner
Crooner
>at it, because he didn't have sophisticated technique & didn't want it --
>HE was the technique; HE was the one he thought people came to see.
>wasn't in his element anymore (in sound) his films suffered for lack of
>technique.
>
Come with me down that forlorn staircase to my underground
vault of Chaplin mementos and paraphernalia. Watch out for
those alligators, they're vicious; they'll eat you alive.
(Reminder to self: Be sure to send David Totheroh one of
these alligators; as a gesture of good will.)
Okay let me open up this cave wall and look inside...Arrrggh,
there it is. Leonard Maltin's book, THE GREAT MOVIE
COMEDIANS. Let's see what he says about Chaplin's film
technique that will confirm what I just said above.
"His films were not designed to display technical wizardry
but merely to showcase Charlie Chaplin."
Hey, this could have been written by me.
"His disregard for detail had been less important -- and more
easily camouflaged -- in silent films. But by the 1940s, his
films were beginning to look strangely anachronistic -- and
disturbingly cheap.
"Although, he shot miles of film and spent thousands of dollars to
keep a cast and crew on salary while he deliberated new sequences,
he was loath to spend much money on sets or production mounting.
His use of shoddy process screens to simulate realistic backgrounds
became more appalling with each new film, from MODERN TIMES
to KING IN NEW YORK.
"Chaplin felt that audiences wouldn't care about such trivia while
he was on the screen, but he failed to realize that having abandoned
the Little Tramp, he now had to work harder to win the public's
interest in each new character and story, and that sloppy film
making wasn't going to help."
Hey! That's what I just said above.
~ Crooner
See Richard, great minds DO think alike.
RFCSAC627N
>Okay let me open up this cave wall and look inside...Arrrggh,
>there it is. Leonard Maltin's book, THE GREAT MOVIE
>COMEDIANS. Let's see what he says about Chaplin's film
>technique...
>
>"His films were not designed to display technical wizardry
>but merely to showcase Charlie Chaplin."
>
>Hey, this could have been written by me.
>
This is the same thing Maltin says in THE ART OF THE CINEMATOGRAPHER: "They
believed in functional photography, camerawork that was so good it would go
unnoticed." No one has said CC's films were designed to display technical
wizardry (as in CITIZEN KANE). Any such "wizardry" would detract from his
films.
>"His disregard for detail had been less important -- and more
>easily camouflaged -- in silent films. But by the 1940s, his
>films were beginning to look strangely anachronistic -- and
>disturbingly cheap.
True or not, production values and filmmaking skills are not the same thing.
>
>"Although, he shot miles of film and spent thousands of dollars to
>keep a cast and crew on salary while he deliberated new sequences,
>he was loath to spend much money on sets or production mounting.
>His use of shoddy process screens to simulate realistic backgrounds
>became more appalling with each new film, from MODERN TIMES
>to KING IN NEW YORK.
>
Obvious process work was endemic in Hollywood films from the thirties to the
sixties. I just saw a new 35 mm print of Alfred Hitchcock's REBECCA (a lovely
film), and there is process work and poorly-matched second unit footage that
sticks out like a sore thumb.
>"Chaplin felt that audiences wouldn't care about such trivia while
>he was on the screen, but he failed to realize that having abandoned
>the Little Tramp, he now had to work harder to win the public's
>interest in each new character and story, and that sloppy film
>making wasn't going to help."
>
>Hey! That's what I just said above.
>
>~ Crooner
What you have continued to say is that Chaplin had primitive filmmaking
skills; what Maltin said is that he grew sloppy over the years. Tain't the
same thing.
>
>See Richard, great minds DO think alike.
>
Funny how you're trying to cozy up to a man you were trying to distance
yourself from not so long ago--kind of like the millionaire and Charlie in CITY
LIGHTS.
Richard Carnahan
George Shelps
>In the last two years no one has done
>more name calling or been more
>abrasive than George.
I've never sunk to the indefensible depths that you're attempting to
defend.
Crooner
"He (Chaplin) became more isolated both as an individual and as a
filmmaker during this period, and this loss of contact is equally apparent
in his films. Although headstrong and arrogant, he had always thrived
on a certain amount of feedback from his co-workers at the studio, but
now he became unapproachable. His final films show the results of
increasing self-indulgence, tolerable only because Chaplin's indulgences
are in themselves fascinating."
~ Crooner
Crooner
>>but merely to showcase Charlie Chaplin."
>>
>>Hey, this could have been written by me.
Richard said...
> This is the same thing Maltin says in THE ART OF THE >CINEMATOGRAPHER:
"They believed in functional photography,
>camerawork that was so good it would go unnoticed."
I'm not too certain that both statements make the same point.
>No one has said CC's films were designed to display technical
>wizardry (as in CITIZEN KANE). Any such "wizardry" would
>detract from his films.
Only because of what I've always said, Chaplin was so unique
a performer that he could get away with it.
>>"His disregard for detail had been less important -- and more
>>easily camouflaged -- in silent films. But by the 1940s, his
>>films were beginning to look strangely anachronistic -- and
>>disturbingly cheap.
>
> True or not, production values and filmmaking skills are not the
>same thing.
Well, when both aspects are done by one person, he'll get the blame.
>>"Although, he shot miles of film and spent thousands of dollars to
>>keep a cast and crew on salary while he deliberated new sequences,
>>he was loath to spend much money on sets or production mounting.
>>His use of shoddy process screens to simulate realistic backgrounds
>>became more appalling with each new film, from MODERN TIMES
>>to KING IN NEW YORK.
>>
> Obvious process work was endemic in Hollywood films from the
>thirties to the sixties. I just saw a new 35 mm print of Alfred
>Hitchcock's REBECCA (a lovely film), and there is process work
>and poorly-matched second unit footage that sticks out like a sore
>thumb.
Funny, but why would Maltin single out Chaplin here?
>>"Chaplin felt that audiences wouldn't care about such trivia while
>>he was on the screen, but he failed to realize that having abandoned
>>the Little Tramp, he now had to work harder to win the public's
>>interest in each new character and story, and that sloppy film
>>making wasn't going to help."
>>
>>Hey! That's what I just said above.
>>
>>~ Crooner
>
>What you have continued to say is that Chaplin had primitive filmmaking
>skills; what Maltin said is that he grew sloppy over the years. Tain't
>the same thing.
My point was that both his and my statements on this post were the
same thing.
~ Crooner
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
You might have given us some idea of what "during this period" refers to. If
it means after The Jazz Singer, that would be something entirely different
than if it means after the Verdoux press conference. And depending on which,
it also may be completely irrelevant to the discussion, at least as carried
on so far in this thread. If you want to talk about the post Verdoux era
that's fine, but it sure ain't what has been under discussion in this thread
so far. (i.e. Easy Street, which Maltin referenced, doesn't really fit in
that timeframe as I see it.)
David
David Totheroh
Crooner wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >>"Although, he shot miles of film and spent thousands of dollars to
> >>keep a cast and crew on salary while he deliberated new sequences,
> >>he was loath to spend much money on sets or production mounting.
> >>His use of shoddy process screens to simulate realistic backgrounds
> >>became more appalling with each new film, from MODERN TIMES
> >>to KING IN NEW YORK.
> >>
> > Obvious process work was endemic in Hollywood films from the
> >thirties to the sixties. I just saw a new 35 mm print of Alfred
> >Hitchcock's REBECCA (a lovely film), and there is process work
> >and poorly-matched second unit footage that sticks out like a sore
> >thumb.
>
> Funny, but why would Maltin single out Chaplin here?
Chaplin's not "singled out." Maltin's subject was Chaplin, not production
values in the Golden era.
> >>"Chaplin felt that audiences wouldn't care about such trivia while
> >>he was on the screen, but he failed to realize that having abandoned
> >>the Little Tramp, he now had to work harder to win the public's
> >>interest in each new character and story, and that sloppy film
> >>making wasn't going to help."
> >>
> >>Hey! That's what I just said above.
> >>
> >>~ Crooner
> >
> >What you have continued to say is that Chaplin had primitive filmmaking
> >skills; what Maltin said is that he grew sloppy over the years. Tain't
> >the same thing.
>
> My point was that both his and my statements on this post were the
> same thing.
>
> ~ Crooner
Your agreement sure takes a funny form. As in:
<<So good that it would go unnoticed?!?!?
I think this is a silly term.>>
or:
<<Well, Maltin seems to be praising Rollie, rather than Chaplin
himself.>>
or:
<<The reason why I think it's a silly term is because
I wonder if you could say this about any other aspect
in movie making:
Are the sets in the movie so good that they go unnoticed?
Is the background music so good that it goes unnoticed?
Is the direction so good that it goes unnoticed?
I don't think you can say that. In my opinion, if anything
is SO GOOD, you're going to notice it.>>
I guess from now on, if I see a statement from you, Lou, that *looks* like
disagreement, I'm supposed to assume that means you're really agreeing or
saying the same thing? Have I got it right, er, wrong, er, sort-of? What
*do* you mean anyway, Lou?
David
George Shelps
>What you have continued to say is that
>Chaplin had primitive filmmaking skills;
>what Maltin said is that he grew sloppy
>over the years. Tain't the same thing.
'Tis the same thing. Chaplin didn't evolve his film-making technique
over the years, and his "sloppiness" was symptomatic of his indifference
to the use of the camera to comment symbolically on the action--
as well as the use of editing to key-in the
different levels of meaning.
What was sophisticated at Keystone and Essanay was primitive in the 40s,
50s, and 60s.
Much like his uber-partisans here, Chaplin wasn't content with mere
genius and filmic greatness, he had to envision himself as *the*
cinematic touchstone.
Well, his approach was but *one* very significant paradigm in the
oceanic possiblities of the cinema.
Constance Kuriyama
RFCSAC627N (rfcsa...@aol.com) writes:
>>From: "Crooner"
>>"His films were not designed to display technical wizardry
>>but merely to showcase Charlie Chaplin."
>>
>>Hey, this could have been written by me.
>>
>
> This is the same thing Maltin says in THE ART OF THE CINEMATOGRAPHER: "They
> believed in functional photography, camerawork that was so good it would go
> unnoticed." No one has said CC's films were designed to display technical
> wizardry (as in CITIZEN KANE). Any such "wizardry" would detract from his
> films.
I think Lou is emphasizing the phrase "merely to showcase Charlie
Chaplin." On that point, I think Matlin is guilty of overstatement.
Showcasing himself was only *part* of what Chaplin did with his camera/
>>"Although, he shot miles of film and spent thousands of dollars to
>>keep a cast and crew on salary while he deliberated new sequences,
>>he was loath to spend much money on sets or production mounting.
>>His use of shoddy process screens to simulate realistic backgrounds
>>became more appalling with each new film, from MODERN TIMES
>>to KING IN NEW YORK.
>>
> Obvious process work was endemic in Hollywood films from the thirties to the
> sixties. I just saw a new 35 mm print of Alfred Hitchcock's REBECCA (a lovely
> film), and there is process work and poorly-matched second unit footage that
> sticks out like a sore thumb.
Absolutely true, Richard. Everyone thinks of Higchcock as a master of
cinema, but the process work in his films is often obvious and shoddy.
I'd say the process work in _Modern Times_ is overall pretty good, at least
up to prevailing standards in the 'thirties, if not a bit above average.
George Shelps
>Where, in any of the literature,
>anywhere, is there one tiny shred of
>evidence that this is an accurate
>description of Chaplin's self evaluation?
His pronouncements on film-making in MA postulate his own style as the
"correct" one.
> Or is this merely another of George's
>attempts to color the character of
>someone whose personal views he finds
>distasteful?
Oh, shut up.