|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Jan 22, 2007 16:56:42 GMT
 I didn't realise we'd never done a thread on Chaplin yet. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've always found Chaplin to be overrated compared to Laurel & Hardy and others. I think it was because of Chaplin's successful career that he got branded the 'genius' of comedy. I reckon he just got lucky! I'm gonna put Charlie to the test once more. I've bought a box set of his films for a fiver from Music Zone, just to see if I still feel the same. After all, it's been a long time since I watched one of his films and am very biased towards Stan & Ollie. THIS IS THE ONE I'VE JUST GOTTake note of the name of the last film!  |
|
|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Jan 23, 2007 10:37:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Jan 23, 2007 14:09:23 GMT
Dave Spikey as 'The Tramp'...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Collector on Jan 23, 2007 15:05:01 GMT
Tried some of his earlier films a few month's back but couldn't really get into them.
He'll always be a long way behind L&H in my book
|
|
|
|
Post by Lieutenant Columbo on Jan 23, 2007 15:52:43 GMT
Dave Spikey as 'The Tramp'... That's bl**dy terrible! You deserve a  though just 'cause it's so bad! ;D N. |
|
|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Jan 23, 2007 16:37:21 GMT
Thanks! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by larffalot on Feb 2, 2007 2:15:13 GMT
Chaplin was simply in the right place at the right time, but he certainly had genius, so it was a bit of luck, plus a lot of talent. He followed Dan Leno, who made four films, more or less filmed versions of his stage acts, very self-conscious and amateur by 1920s standards. But it cannot be denied that Chaplin set the standard, and virtually all film comedians who came after him imitated the character he created. Even Stan Laurel's early performances were pure Chaplin, without the tramp get-up, but to get the flat-footed walk that Chaplin introduced, Stan had the heels of his shoes cut off. Harold Lloyd started as a Chaplin imitator, then realised the folly of it, and created the opposite of Chaplin's character, with tight clothes, trimmed moustache and vigorous walk. The best Chaplin imitator was Billy West, with whom Oliver Hardy worked in several films, but they were all at it, and only Chaplin could truly carry it off. The one downside of Chaplin is that he isn't funny. Sure, we watch the films, marvel at the fact they were made at all, but we don't laugh at them. We appreciate his creativity, his ideas, his athleticism, but we don't laugh. As soon as Stan Laurel had thrown off the trammels of Chaplin, he found his own character, and when that was paired with the character Hardy had developed, it was laughter all the way. Ok, it was not original stuff - a lot of the ideas for L & H films were originally Stan's father's - but they were funny, and still are. Similarly, Harold Lloyd "grew out" of his Chaplin phase and became the biggest star in the world, for a time, once he had found the "college boy" character. They all developed into their own characters, or fell by the wayside, but it was Chaplin the innovator that started them all off, and showed them the way. An exception was Keaton, the product of his family stage act. He had a ready-made training school, but saddled himself with the stone-face trademark, that did not suit sound, and that was his undoing. He paid a wonderful tribute to Stan, when he said publicly: "Chaplin wasn't the best, I wasn't the best, Stan Laurel was better than the both of us." And Stan had learnt his basic skills as Chaplin's understudy with Karno, but had the genius to improve substantially on that grounding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Feb 3, 2007 0:42:32 GMT
Chaplin was simply in the right place at the right time, but he certainly had genius, so it was a bit of luck, plus a lot of talent. He followed Dan Leno, who made four films, more or less filmed versions of his stage acts, very self-conscious and amateur by 1920s standards. But it cannot be denied that Chaplin set the standard, and virtually all film comedians who came after him imitated the character he created. Even Stan Laurel's early performances were pure Chaplin, without the tramp get-up, but to get the flat-footed walk that Chaplin introduced, Stan had the heels of his shoes cut off. Harold Lloyd started as a Chaplin imitator, then realised the folly of it, and created the opposite of Chaplin's character, with tight clothes, trimmed moustache and vigorous walk. The best Chaplin imitator was Billy West, with whom Oliver Hardy worked in several films, but they were all at it, and only Chaplin could truly carry it off. The one downside of Chaplin is that he isn't funny. Good point there larffalot. Although I 'm not too well up on the story of Chaplin, I have just watched 'the kid' which is a decent film but not the funniest I've ever seen. In fact it's more of a sad story than anything! I've just ordered the 'Chaplin' DVD starring Robert Downey Jnr. (which I know has been out for years but I've still never seen it!) Hopefully, watching it will either help me enjoy Chaplin or confirm my original thoughts that he was a bit cack! I'll get back to this subject! Before I do though, I must say I never realised how much work Chaplin put into his films, especially the editing & musical aspect of it, so for that, I hold my hat up to him. That said, is he funny?.... I'll let you know! |
|
|
|
Post by The Collector on Feb 3, 2007 11:53:14 GMT
He was a Great Film maker...But Funny...ERM...
|
|
|
|
Post by larffalot on Feb 3, 2007 20:03:28 GMT
Yes, these are not only wise comments, but widely-held views. Spielberg's observations about Chaplin's enormous efforts in his films, right down to composing the music, are absolutely right, and we must respect the guy for that. Stan said that as they approached America fopr the first time aboard ship, Chaplin shook his fist at the coast and shouted: "America, I am coming to conquer you", and you cannot deny that he did. But when all is said and done, he wasn't very funny. The only real laugh he ever gave me was the business with the automatic feeding machine in Modern Times, but for the rest, it was more of a chuckle, combined with admiration. I reckon Zygon has summed it up perfectly. Some years ago, there was about half a page in the old-style L & H Magazine of celebrity quotes comparing The Boys and Chaplin. They were unanimous that Chaplin was admirable but not very funny, whilst The Boys were hilarious. The only name I can remember is the late Paul Eddington, but many people in entertainment have made the same point as Zygon.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Collector on Feb 3, 2007 20:24:06 GMT
They probobly put it better then me!
|
|
|
|
Post by larffalot on Feb 3, 2007 20:46:49 GMT
I don't think anyone could put it better than you did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Levity on Aug 26, 2008 20:21:29 GMT
I personally find Chaplin vastly overrated, and nowhere near as funny as Laurel and Hardy. But then I'm ever so slightly biased ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Stan Butler on Aug 26, 2008 23:27:39 GMT
I personally find Chaplin vastly overrated, and nowhere near as funny as Laurel and Hardy. But then I'm ever so slightly biased ;D When it comes to being funny, I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by DaleJr Fan on Dec 24, 2008 5:54:45 GMT
I enjoy Charlie Chaplin's films. The sad thing though is, TCM Canada for some reason can't air them. Earlier this year I thought we were getting the Chaplin marathon. I had the DVDR ready and then looked at the tv guide. No Charlie Chaplin airing in Canada. I wasen't too impressed. I wonder why that is. Other channels air his films.
|
|
