I despise this movie - Chaplin (1993) Discussion

[–] carbracer1987 20 years ago

What's your point? Chaplin was a perverted pedefile. Someone should make a comedy about pathetic losers who can't get chicks their own age so they have to prey on girls half their age. I bet you love Roman Polanski too.

reply

[–] Men-an-tol 20 years ago

carbracer1987, get a clue.

reply

[–] milo44 11 years ago

You gotta have a IQ out of the single digits to do that .

......

I'd like a chance t' shoot at an educated man once in my life .

reply

[–] Sensei_Rebel 20 years ago

Yeah but Milla was pretty hot.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lola_22 18 years ago

That's more than a little uncalled for, carbracer1987. Chaplin was not a pathetic loser and his relationship with his last wife was his healthiest one, despite their age difference. Do I agree that he dated so many underaged girls? No, of course not. But to attack the original poster like that was unnecessary.

reply

[–] MADDOXRJM 15 years ago

He liked the younger ladies, that is not the same as being a "perverted pedefile". And yes, I do like Roman Polanski.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

Well i dont know what a "pedefile" is, but Charlie was not a pedofile. Also Roman Polanski may not have been a great man, but he was a great director.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] sixxdog 12 years ago

LOL! Get off you fake moral high horse will ya? You must be american to have these fücked up 'values' and rules to live by. I've had lovers half my age and twice my age, what's the big deal?

reply

[–] virtourist 20 years ago

I agree. Chaplin was a brilliant filmmaker, yet this movie mentions The Gold Rush like a footnote, and completely passes over Modern Times, quite possibly his greatest acheivement. Any movie made after The Great Dictator isn't even referenced. I have great admiration for Richard Attenburough, but this movie was disappointing.

reply

[–] Tavish_McDonell 20 years ago

As a Chaplin fan, I sympathize with the original post. However, we can't just leave Chaplin alone, even if that's what he may have wanted: he became the most recognizable face on earth, a public figure, the first film superstar. His importance goes beyond his own wishes.

I'm not sure Attenborough and his team had a workable take on Chaplin's oeuvre before they started this movie. A few complaints: Robert Downey Jr. is surprisingly nimble and pulls off most of the physical comedy, but his imitations of the Tramp's facial expressions and mannerisms fall flat---but I can't say who might've done better. Having Moira Kelly play the first sweetheart and Chaplin's last wife was a gimmick that trivialized a long and complex love life. McCarthy and Hoover are predictably demonized for the umpteenth time as meddlers in the right of Hollywood denizens to self-indulge. The stylized "keystone cops" sequence (when Charlie and his gang are on the lam in Utah) was irritating and unfaithful to Chaplin's work: he wanted to make more intelligent films than that, like his anti-keystone cops parody, Easy Street. Without the innovations of Chaplin and Keaton, who knows how long we'd have been watching flying cream pies and donny brooks?

While this film is not unwatchable, it did not add anything to my appreciation of Chaplin films. There was not enough emphasis on his creative process, and too much dirty laundry. The tone was altogether too downbeat. The sweeping biopic genre makes all of its victims failures, because you have to watch them get old and die. Hey, I think I'll put on One A.M. and laugh my ass off...Chaplin made that in a couple of days all by himself and it's better than anything Attenborough ever did.

reply

[–] santaraskasinger 20 years ago

I think we are missing the intention point of view. I don't believe Attenborough was planning to show the greatness of chaplin's movies, we hardly even get to see any of it. I think the movie was about taking chaplin out of the character and giving us the real story. If chaplin didn't wanted some of his personal experiences to be shared with everyone i don't think he would have written a autobiography and his family wouldn't have allowed the movie to be made as it was.

Chaplin's work cannot be honored in one film, if there is no mention of his movies is becuase that would have been a distraction for the primary object, chaplin, not his work.

There are indeed things i don't share with the production, like putting Moira Kelly in the 2 parts, that definetely gave a direct opinion about Chaplin's love life that, in my opinion, was too much.

Again i just think taht intention is what makes the artist, intention put charlie in a different level.

reply

[–] bellissimo_10 20 years ago

i just saw this film and loved it. I know very little abut charlie chaplin but by the looks of this film, it was to portray his character alone, like the last poster said. It proved that america ruined his life, even though he did nothing to them. They called him a communist, pedifile, jew, against politics, a nazi, etc. He was a man passionate about his films and wanted to entertain people.

Before this film, most people probably thought he was a loser as a person because of how america depicted him, especially j.edgar hoover. This film shows people he was a good man.

I don't think any of you guys saw what the film was all about.

reply

[–] ram-solo 20 years ago

I totally agree with the last two posts.
Everybody knows his work was exceptional.
This film was about showing that he as a person too was exceptional'

He has inspired so many people worldwide ..
To date we can see this in so many films

In India alone .. Raj Kapoor made a career in hommage to Chaplin. a film 'Mera Naam Joker' where RK portrays a clown with a life motto of smile & make smile, his earlier roles inspired by Chaplin's tramp character (Awaara, Anari, Jis Des Mein Ganga Rehti Hai amongst others.) RK also made opportunities to fresh ideas & a similar unity of producers similar to what Chaplin did with United Artists.

Even this year Sanjay Leela Bhansalis film 'Black' about a dumb deaf girl & her teacher showed inspirations of Charlie Chaplin.

Coming back to Attenborough's film. It inspired me no end.
One of my best films of all time. Mainly because it was about him not his films.

reply

[–] Diaeresis 20 years ago

Mainly because it was about him not his films.

Indeed... a point seemingly lost on some previous commentators. To those that would berate the movie as not sufficiently covering his artistic expertise, the title should explain the reason : "Chaplin", i.e. the person & his life experiences, not a documentary of film-making skills.

As for the earlier comment about him being a "perverted paedo" or whatever the poster said... mate, you clearly need to get some life experience under your belt and try to avoid labelling people in such a way.

reply

[–] dio52 19 years ago

I, as with the previous few posters, agree that the movie was an exploration of the person behind the Charlie Chaplin of the screen.

Also, there's a difference between having a penchant for 16 year old girls and real pedophilia. a 16 year old girl may have some lingering immaturities, but is hardly as naive as a child. the fact that numerous US states and many other countries set the age of 16 as the age of consent (for both sex and alcohol) further bears that out. there's a reason that statutory rape is treated differently by the law than child abuse or child molestation.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tanjy 17 years ago

This was not a documentary about Chaplin's greatness as an artist. That goes without saying. But the man himself had many many dark places and that's the movie. It's the story of the man, not his art.

reply

[–] ansbro-2 17 years ago

Seeing the movie helps you understand why Chaplin was stuck in the silent era.
He wasn't expressive.
He was a nut case.

I like Downey, but all the acting in this movie was very wooden.
That has to be the directors fault.
I liked "A Bridge Too Far", but Richard Attenborough is exhausted.
He looked like they dug him up to do this movie.

reply

[–] kronos251 16 years ago

ansbro-2, you don't friggin know the real meaning of a nutcase.
Charlie Chaplin was FAR, FAR from being a nutcase.

Man, read his autobiography, or watch this film again and try to understand.

Going through such transitional periods -- the turn of 20th Century, living below poverty line in England, sordid family disputes and personal/romantic misunderstanding despite vast financial successes -- demands a sound mind, or better yet, a tremendous sense of humor. Chaplin had both. If he didn't, then he'd end up like his mother... in an asylum back in merry old England.

After a second viewing, I came to like this movie. Sure, at first I found it depressing, but that's cause I knew very little of Charlie Chaplin, aside from his famous works.

I believe this movie did the man, Chaplin, justice, which he truly deserved. Someone pointed out that his own real-life granddaughter Geraldine, played Hannah Chaplin -- his mother in the film. I think that little-known fact truly reconfirms that the Chaplin family approved of the accuracy of this movie.

Quoting Chaplin, "Through humor, we see in what seems rational, the irrational; in what seems important, the unimportant. It also heightens our sense of survival and preserves our sanity."

The man was a genius. And a humble one at that.

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

reply

[–] parisel 12 years ago

kronos, Geraldine Chaplin is his daughter, though he was more than old enough to be her grandfather.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

reply

[–] kronos251 12 years ago

yes, she was his daughter, thanks parisel. It's been quite a while since I wrote that post... 4 years ago, lol. I probably misquoted somebody, or did a typo.

"Rommel...you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
-- PATTON

reply

[–] Lady_Kayura 15 years ago

Wasn't expressive? Oh ansbro, please go on to youtube and look up the Great Dictator speech. It is one of the best speeches I have ever heard concerning the expression of one's feelings about something. In fact, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

Please watch it. As a future Social Studies teacher, I plan on showing this each year and get my students talking.

He was avoiding talkies. He just thought that if films were going to have talking than they better have something damn important to say.

A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.

reply

[–] geordiebianconeri 15 years ago

In contrast, I was not a Chaplin fan before seeing this movie - and as for many people of my generation (30-something), the odd out-of-context, and therefore not particularly funny, clip that was all we usually got to see on TV did not do the man justice.

But this film encouraged me to realise what a genius Chaplin was, explore his work, and I now own many of the films he made. By which criteria, the film is a success...

"Wait till they get a load of me!"

reply

[–] ender_wiggen 15 years ago

you want to see the life he wanted you to see, go watch his movies. you want to see the tragedy of chaplin, watch this film. even in success, he was a sad man.

Animation is viagra for art

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] morganseer 13 years ago

Wow. To say that McCarthy and Hoover were demonized, is almost like saying that Hitler was demonized.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prgwbtd 20 years ago

I'm somewhere in the middle on this subject. I enjoy the film because at this time, it's the only one that gives us a glimpse of Charlie as Charlie. However, I don't enjoy it because much of it never happened - at least the way it is portrayed. No, obviously the film was not about his work, but it would have been nice to see a part of that aspect. Chaplin said himself in his autobiography "My life is my work," and he did put that ahead of his personal life. I think some of his personal struggles were hard to place because most of the time they were directly related to his work. His work is what makes Chaplin, Chaplin to us.

What bothered me most was the unlikeness of the actors to their actual counterparts. Robert Downey Jr. was able to pul off Chaplin (somewhat) only when he was in complete makeup. Otherwise he didn't look enough like Chaplin. I found it more distracting than anything else. Finally, if you read Chaplin's autobiography, you know how events in his life really played out. It's like R. A. completely ignored many of these events and re-wrote them to his liking.

I like the premise of showing Chaplin's personal life, but it needed to be balanced with more of his work mentioned or shown, and a little more truth involved.

reply

[–] r287 20 years ago

Wasn't this film made or with the blessing of like his daughter or something? I think this was anaccurate depiction of the real thing whereas you were hoping it would just be the glory days through rose-tinted glasses.

reply

[–] rainybklynight 20 years ago

I loved this movie. True, Charlie hated people talking about his life, but in the end, did he not write his autobiography, so people would know the whole story, not just the tabloid scandals. He was very misunderstood; he wasn't a pedophile. There could never be a better biographical film on him. It's emotional, insightful, and you can relate. What more can you ask for. IMO, it's waaaay underrated.

reply

[–] rizdek 19 years ago

"aint_been_to_no_music_school"
In direct response to the first poster, I liked the movie Chaplin. Downey JR did a fine job, and since I wasn't a student of Chaplin, I came away with a better sense of who was the person behind his many great movies.

reply

[–] BethH24 19 years ago

thers nothing wrong with liking someone alot older than you.or younger.i usually like people who are alot older than me and they like me

reply

[–] tubularbelle2003 19 years ago

Lita grey was 6 when Charlie first met her, he groomed her for years.

The Long Walk stops every year, just once.

reply

[–] julmis 18 years ago

What's your source on that one?

There's a story about Chaplin meeting Lita when she was a child, and then again when she was 12 during the making of the The Kid, followed by the Gold Rush and the affair, pregnancy and shotgun marriage etc a few years later.

Although Chaplin's behaviour towards her was questionable when she was 15, I haven't read anything to indicate there was continuous grooming going on for years before, not even in Lita Grey's book about her life with Chaplin, if I remember correctly.

reply

[–] HarlowMGM 18 years ago

I didn't despise this movie but I didn't like it because it sugar-coats Chaplin while many people in his life are portrayed as jerks. He was far more flawed - and complex - than this movie suggests.

reply

[–] PhantomAngel6121 17 years ago

If Chaplin didn't want people knowing about his personal life then why did he write an auto-biography?

The movie is about Chaplin himself not the films that he made.

And yes it did show him in somewhat of a negative light, but that's the power of film, the ability to manipulate people's opinions through it. And really, how could you possitivly portray some of the more negative aspects of his personalty/life? With all the respect in the world, the man is very controversial. He knew it (and flaunted it as part of his seamingly melodramatic life that he wrote about in his biography) and the film makers of this movie also knew it.

I am Jack's clichéd signature

reply

[–] trouts 16 years ago

yea, well. i'm not that big a fan of chaplin and I knew nothing of him except his name and a few of his films before this movie.
I thought it was great
In any way it was better than what I thought it'd be.

reply

[–] tody711 16 years ago

I agree with you Kronos. Chaplin was a good movie about a very complex person. Considering his humble beginning it is rather a "miracle" that he became what he was, a very successful actor (not only slapstick) and film maker. It is said that his half brother Sid was more talented but "a bit lazy" and did not pursue film business like Charlie did.
If you want to see how he really made movies look for the 3 (VHS) or DVD of the 1983 Thames TV special "Unknown Chaplin". It really shows how he made films, was way ahead of his time, used split screen, backward filming (see Payday movie to see him throw bricks), and how he threw things and yelled at people when things went wrong. And how he did thousands of the same shot looking for the perfect take, and how he took months off waiting for an "idea". No scripts. Just ideas. Today scripts are written, actors and crew are hired and the film is made in 2 - 8 weeks. Not Charlies movies. They took years to make.

Also go to www.snagfilms.com and watch "Charlie The Forgotten Years" to see him after he left Hollywood and lived in Switzerland. He really found the love of his life with Oona. Had 8 kids with her, was a great father. Just age caught up with him.

reply

[–] zwee 15 years ago

Totally agree. I felt the same way.

reply

[–] allan-broadfield 15 years ago

I was a great admirer of Chaplin from a very early age, so I suppose this film was unlikely ever to reach my expectations. However it is difficult for a 'biopic' to please everyone, especially when the person involved is so familiar, and in Chaplin's case an iconic figure. What annoyed me mostly was the carelessness in casting, one character in particular being Mack Sennet, who gave Chaplin his first chance. Sennet's appearance was thin, with white hair, whereas he was portrayed by Dan Aykroyd who would have made a very convincing Hal Roach (producer of the Laurel and Hardy pictures), rather plump and with dark hair. This I found very annoying, and was just one example.

reply