Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
His title?
Sir is not a part of his name - why is it bolded? --webkid 19:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Why is it ironic that he died on Xmas day?
Composer?
If I remember correctly he was a composer as well, this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Can anyone verify this?
- I believe he wrote the music to all his films and the popular song "Smile" --james_anatidae 04:19, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
That's true. The song was also recorded by Nat King Cole. Many people recognize his version of it and don't know that it was actually Chaplin who's responsible for that beautiful song. 03:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Charles Chaplin only wrote the music, which is featured at the end of Modern Times. It was part of the score and wasn't titled "Smile." Lyrics were added and it was turned into a song in 1954, which was popularized by Nat King Cole.
--Sloopydrew 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As a child he taught himself to play the violin but never became very good, although he still harbored aspirations. He opened a music publishing company with a friend of his for a short time around 1916. They published works of Chaplin's. Unfortunately they weren't all that great. It was a failure and quickly closed. Chaplin talks about it in his autobiography, aptly titled 'My Autobiography'. --FruityCheerios 11:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Child Support?
It says on the FBI files that Charlie Chaplin paid child support until the child was 18, not 21. Which is correct? http://www.fadetoblack.com/foi/charliechaplin/bio2.html Someone reverted the change, so someone must disagree.
- Actually, either the analysis at the fadetoblack.com website is incorrect or they were working from inaccurate information (which is very possible, considering they were looking at the FBI file). All the other sources that I've seen say age 21. Jwadeg 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
J. Edgar Hoover
From the article: "He came out of his exile and collected his award less than a month before the death of J. Edgar Hoover." Er, so what? It was also less than a month before The Rolling Stones released Exile On Main Street. Can anyone tell me why this would matter? -- Plutor 20:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It matters because Chaplin came out of exile less than a month before the death of J. Edgar Hoover ; he was the man who had originally put him into exile. It is stated in the same article.
1932 assassination plot
Inukai Tsuyoshi's assassination by young naval officers in Tokyo on May 15, 1932 was a key event in Japanese history, known as the go ichi go jiken (May 15 incident). It marked the end of party political control over government decisions until after World War II.
Interestingly, in the original assassination plot, the plan included killing Charlie Chaplin, the film star who happened to be visiting Japan at the time. When the prime minister and his family members were killed, his son Ken Inukai was watching a Sumo wrestling match with Charlie Chaplin, which probably saved Ken and Charlie.
Anyone know any more about this? --Tony Hecht 3 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
- Here is an article detailing the incident: Assassination Plot of Charlie Chaplin --Teddy 12 Semptember, 2005
Cause of death
This is the first time I saw that Chaplin died after a stroke. From many sources, including the official biography by David Robinson, I know that Chaplin died in his sleep (due to heart failure, i.e. old age) on the early morning of Christmas 1977.
Could the person who wrote the that part of his private life or anyone else quote the source? Unless some new discovery has been made, I'd prefer sticking to the official biography. --Teddy 12 Semptember, 2005
- all accounts i have read have stated that chaplin died in his sleep on christmas morning 1977 at the age of 88 at his home in vevey with his family.
Dislike of Christmas
In a TV interview, Geraldine Chaplin joked that his father died in Christmas just to spoil it for his family. Chaplin disliked Christmas since he had very poor ones (he was given "an orange") as a child. --Error 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Anglican List
Why is he on a list of Anglicans when the article says he is an atheist? (I'm newish, so if I've got something hideously wrong then I apologise.)
- i would assume he is on that list because his mother turned to religion when times got very hard and her sanity was slipping away and possibly he was born anglican but he didnt really mention believing anything so thats probably why he called himself an atheist
$ 1 million contract?
In the Fatty Arbuckle article is mentioned that he was the first to earn $ 1 million a year ("At the height of his career"). Who was the first? Can somebody answer this question? Thanks, Alexander 84.154.4.109 09:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Impressive response. Thanks. Alexander Z. 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I noticed the same thing yesterday, and was going to say something. I don't know the answer. —LonelyPilgrim 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would guess that it was Fatty, myself, since he was the first that turned into a huge star. I'm not sure, though. 惑乱 分からん 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- O.k., thank you. I'll look for some external sources, printed biographies or anyything else. Alexander Z. 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would guess that it was Fatty, myself, since he was the first that turned into a huge star. I'm not sure, though. 惑乱 分からん 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I noticed the same thing yesterday, and was going to say something. I don't know the answer. —LonelyPilgrim 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Naturalisation and Exile
The article features the following tidbits of information: Chaplin became a naturalised American in 1917. to later state: In 1952, Chaplin left the US for a trip to England; Hoover learned of it and negotiated with the INS to revoke his re-entry permit. These seem to be contradictory. If he was granted citizenship then he wouldn't need a re-entry permit (I guess). Can somebody check up on this? Chelman 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Chaplin never became a naturalised American, that's for sure. I cannot tell right now any source for this, but it should be easy to corroborate, since it was one of the things that were used to deny him the re-entry permit (that's why it was his wife Oona who had to go back to the US to fetch things and sell their house). He was accused -among other things- of being ungrateful for not having become citizen of the country in which he had become rich.
Images
Are all the pictures necessary? For example, there are two pictures from 'The Great Dictator'. I think it clutters the article, and makes it a bit awkward to read. Anyone is agreement?
- I think the Dictator movie is so singular, unique and irreducably significant that even three pictures of it would not be too much. I mean CC recognized the significance of this obscure dictatorette at a time when most nobody cared and took great effort to make this movie instead of some empty slapstick, when he knew it could end in a financial disaster. It shows he is an actor, director, composer and also a visioner, all of that top motch. This was his most greatest contribution to humanity. Keep! 195.70.32.136 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles Chaplin has also said that, had he known of all the atrocities Hitler was committing, he would never have made a comedy about the man -- even if it was satirical and had its heart in the right place. That said, I do think it's an important movie. The pictures didn't bother me or make me feel the article looked cluttered. --Sloopydrew 04:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have no wish to denigrate a classic piece of film making but it is not strictly true to say that "CC recognized the significance of this obscure dictatorette at a time when most nobody cared". I think you will find that the United Kingdom, for one, was engaged in total war with this "obscure dictatorette" at the time. It was just that the US and the USSR were a little late to the party.
Roma Gypsy
There seems to be some evidence that Charlie Chaplin was a Gypsy - ref: http://www.imninalu.net/famousGypsies.htm
any thoughts? 81.77.78.217 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Charlie Chaplin is of Gypsy ancestry
His mother's mother was a gypsy, her father was irish. It's in his autobiography. --FruityCheerios 11:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Roma ancestry
Here is more info on Chaplin's Roma ancestry in the form of quotes from his autobiography: http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Charlie_Chaplin.html
- There is often a reticence about Roma ancestry, but not in Chaplin's case (at least not in his autobiography, perhaps publicly there was). It's puzzling that this isn't referred to in the article. Hakluyt bean 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably most people dont think Gypsies exist, especially in in the US, Roma are only part of fairy tales.
Movie timing
I wondered whether the speeded up timing in Chaplin's films is classical or not. It seems that older films not correctly restored would often play on wrong speeds, since they are projected with 24 frames/second while originally being filmed with much less, like 17-18. I saw a recently restored copy of the classic silent "La chute de la maison Usher" (1928) recently, and it contained nothing of that sort of timing, even experimenting very consciously with slow-motion etc. So, in short, were these movies shown in a more "natural" pace originally, and later kept as speeded-up because audiences expected that and thought it funny, or have they always been "speeded up"? 惑乱 分からん 05:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- the film speeds always differd because there was an actual person cranking the reels to make them go so you had to have a very steady arm and know what you are doing to keep the right speed on the film when it was exposed over cranking makes things go slower because there are less frames passing over the lense and under cranking is when people are running extrememly fast because too many frames are passing over the lense
- Yeah, I learnt that in my film studies at University. A skilled projectionist could deliberately speed up or slow down the pace of a movie, as he saw fitting. But on approximately which speed were the movies supposed to be shown? 惑乱 分からん 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Hitler [...] is known to have seen the film twice"
Just wanted to mention that there's actually no proof that Hitler indeed saw The Dictator. The documentary that comes with the DVD edition just says that "it's possible but we just don't know". So I would suggest to turn the sentence into something less categorical like "Hitler might have seen the film twice" or to just remove it as it mostly sounds like a nice urban legend as it is now.
- Personally, I think it's worth mentioning, since it is a common (if not 100% verifiable) story. "Known to" is probably too definite though-- "Thought to have seen..." or "May have seen..." may be more appropriate. Maybe it should just be at The Great Dictator page. That page does mention the story now, and links to this: "Screenwriter Budd Schulberg, who was present at the Nuremberg trials, noticed that the title was mentioned twice in a list of films that had been sent to Hitler; moreover, an eyewitness who was a member of Hitler's inner circle at the time is absolutely convinced that he did see it."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/tramp-and-the-dictator.shtml -- Rizzleboffin 18:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- there is also a statement from Chaplin after he heard that Hitler had watched his film "I would give anything ot know what he thought of it"
Chaplin's children
I don't know whether it's pertinent in this article, or whether it should go to the respective articles, but I thought I'd list Chaplin's children with their whole names and birth dates:
By Mildred Harris:
Norman Spencer: July 7th, 1919 - July 10th, 1919 (was born handicapped)
By Lita Grey:
Charles Spencer: May 5th, 1925 - March 20th, 1968 (he has his own article)
Sydney Earle: March 30th, 1926 (his article states the 31st as his birthday, but I've seen the 30th more often)
By Oona O'Neill:
Geraldine Leigh Chaplin: August 1st, 1944 (once again, her article states July 31st, although in this case I'm not so sure which one is right)
Michael John Chaplin: March 7th, 1946 (has his own article)
Josephine Hannah Chaplin: March 28th, 1949
Victoria Agnes Chaplin: May 19th, 1951
Eugene Anthony Chaplin: August 23th, 1953 (the link from Chaplin's article leads to Chaplin's article again, not to his own)
Jane Cecil Chaplin: May 23th, 1957
Annette Emily Chaplin: December 3rd, 1959
Christopher James Chaplin: July 8th, 1962 (has his own article, but without these details)
Linking vs. Overlinking
I was afraid user:Gareth E Kegg's linking of the films in the filmography would be reverted, and it has... I've been tempted to link them myself several times, but didn't for that very reason. Am I the only one annoyed by seeing a filmography without links? I look at a filmography, usually, as a convenient way to get to the article on a particular film. But when the filmography is not linked, I have to go back and wade through the main article to find it. I agree, only the first mention of the film in the main article should be linked. But is it really overlinking to also link the filmography? Matter of taste, I guess, but I say, link the filmography too. -- Rizzleboffin 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I went looking through the style manual on this question, and found that Rules of thumb for linking says: "Avoid duplicate links on a page... It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there's hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section."
- Doesn't this leave open the possibility of including a link in the Filmography at the end of of the article? I'd think sticking to the one-link-per-page to the point of harming the usefulness of a listing of films is being a bit literalistic and counter-productive. -- Rizzleboffin 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is also a guide at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (links), which says that a page may be considered overlinked if a link is duplicated, although there may be a case for doing so where it is distant from the previous occurrence. However, there is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film (started by me), which questions the inclusion of links in both an infobox and the main article. It seems the general consensus is that this should be correct, as the infobox provides ease of reference and saves scrolling the article. I'm now of two minds as to whether or not this should be applied to a filmography listing. I guess in this article it wouldn't be too much of a problem, whereas in others, such as Anthony Hopkins, the filmography comes right after a section that details significant roles and links each relevant film as well. Also, I'm sure I've seen somewhere in the MoS that red links are frowned upon: better not to link them until the article exists. I think the way forward on this is on a "case by case" basis, and in this instance, I think you make a valid point: I would say go ahead and re-instate them. Chris 42 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Chris, I'll go ahead & put back the links. I see both the infoboxes and (to a lesser degree) an in-article filmography as analogous to... one of those box/bubble information things in a textbook... the name escapes me at the moment... Anyway, information is duplicated and summarized in these for the sake of convenience, as if they were a separate miniature version of the article. As far as Filmographies, they are often stand-alone articles themselves. So when they're included in the main article, shouldn't they be linked also? (The Anthony Hopkins example looks iffy to me too, but that's because the list right above the Filmography is a mini-Filmography in itself.) Now, maybe we can get some articles up for those red-linked films. -- Rizzleboffin 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is also a guide at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (links), which says that a page may be considered overlinked if a link is duplicated, although there may be a case for doing so where it is distant from the previous occurrence. However, there is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film (started by me), which questions the inclusion of links in both an infobox and the main article. It seems the general consensus is that this should be correct, as the infobox provides ease of reference and saves scrolling the article. I'm now of two minds as to whether or not this should be applied to a filmography listing. I guess in this article it wouldn't be too much of a problem, whereas in others, such as Anthony Hopkins, the filmography comes right after a section that details significant roles and links each relevant film as well. Also, I'm sure I've seen somewhere in the MoS that red links are frowned upon: better not to link them until the article exists. I think the way forward on this is on a "case by case" basis, and in this instance, I think you make a valid point: I would say go ahead and re-instate them. Chris 42 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Filmography Order
I notice that the filmography is given by year then in alphabetical order. Would there be any merit in showing these in the generally accepted chronological order, with break down by studio?
Order is as follows:
Keystone Studios (* denotes not written and directed by Chaplin)
1914
01. Making a Living*
02. Kid Auto Races*
03. Mabel's Strange Predicament*
04. Between Showers*
05. A Film Johnnie*
06. Tango Tangles*
08. Cruel, Cruel Love*
09. The Star Boarder*
10. Mabel At The Wheel*
12. Caught in a Cabaret*
14. A Busy Day
15. The Fatal Mallet*
16. Her Friend The Bandit (this is the only Charlie Chaplin film that has not survived)
17. The Knockout*
18. Mabel's Busy Day*
20. Laughing Gas
21. The Property Man
22. The Face on the Bar-Room Floor
23. Recreation
24. The Masquerader
26. The Rounders
27. The New Janitor
28. Those Love Pangs
33. Tillie's Punctured Romance*
1915
36. His New Job
37. A Night Out
38. The Champion
39. In The Park
41. The Tramp
42. By The Sea
43. Work
44. A Woman
45. The Bank
46. Shanghaied
also in 1915, Chaplin had a cameo in His Regeneration, which is not generally considered a Chaplin title.
1916
48. Charlie Chaplin's Burlesque on Carmen
49. Police
1918
50. Triple Trouble (film put together by Essanay from unfinished Chaplin films two years after he had left the company)
1916
51. The Floorwalker
52. The Fireman
53. The Vagabond
54. One A.M.
55. The Count
56. The Pawnshop
58. The Rink
1917
59. Easy Street
60. The Cure
61. The Immigrant
62. The Adventurer
1918
63. A Dog's Life
64. The Bond
65. Shoulder Arms
1919
66. Sunnyside
67. A Day's Pleasure
??. The Professor (uncompleted Chaplin film) ?1919
1920
68. The Kid
69. The Idle Class
1922
70. Pay Day
1923
71. The Pilgrim
1923
72. A Woman of Paris
1925
73. The Gold Rush
1928
74. The Circus
1931
75. City Lights
1936
76. Modern Times
1940
1947
78. Monsieur Verdoux
1952
79. Limelight
Later Productions
1957
1967
Plus in 1959, Chaplin edited First National shorts A Dog’s Life, Shoulder Arms and The Pilgrim together to form a single feature length film entitled The Chaplin Revue.
Miscellaneous Contributions:
The Nut (1921) (cameo only)
Souls For Sale (1923) (cameo only)
A Woman of the Sea (1926) (produced only)
Show People (1928) (cameo only)
--Robsinden 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed the awkward chronological/alphabetical mix in the order too, and was planning to order them chronologically, with months & days in parentheses within the multi-entry years. I may get around to doing that later today, unless someone else beats me to it. --Rizzleboffin 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was researching on the BFI site[[1]] and also the dvd booklets with regard to the chronology and with the Keystone films especially, the release order sometimes does not concur with the production order. It seems the above production order is widely accepted. -- Robsinden 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Should I move my above list over to main page? -- Robsinden 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's OK, Robs-- I've got a new filmography in the works, based on your list above, and adding dates and a few details. I should have time to finish it up in a couple hours, and I'll post it then. --Rizzleboffin 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've posted the updated filmography. The question now becomes, does this list of nearly 100 films belong in the article, or should it have its own article with a link to it here? --Rizzleboffin 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Today i was reading the page and found this: "Chaplin's parents were both entertainers in the Music Hall tradition. His father, an alcoholic, died when Charlie was twelve, leaving him and his his older half-brother, Sydney Chaplin, in the sole care of his mother, Hannah(SEAN FUCKERED THAT HORE). Hannah Chaplin suffered from severe mental illness, and was eventually admitted to the Cane Hill Asylum at Coulsdon (near Croydon). Chaplin had to be left in the Brothel at Lambeth, London, moving after several weeks to Hanwell School for Orphans and Destitute Children. The young Chaplin brothers forged a close relationship to survive. They gravitated to the Music Hall while still very young, and both proved to have considerable natural boobs on the side of their heads. Unknown to Chaplin and Sydney until years later, they had a half-brother through their mother, Wheeler Dryden, who was raised abroad by his father. He was later reconciled with the family, and worked for Chaplin at his Hollywood studio. Chaplin's mother died in 2007 in Hollywood, seven years after being brought to the U.S. by a mexican on a taco." I removed the "Sean fuckered that hore" and the "Chaplin's mom died...." --Leonida August 14th 2006
- Thanks for doing that! One good way to make sure you've cleared out all of the vandalism is to "revert" the article to the last known good entry. (That's what Tom harrison did just after you --- you'd missed a little bit!) Click on the "history" link at the top of the article to get started; there are also good resources at Wikipedia's page on vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions! --Grahamtalk/mail/e 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, i just HATE to see an awesome article get ruined by some jerk who has no life. Graham, you can edit my page if you want to with some tips if you like. Thanks! Keep this page up with more trivia or info if possible! Leonida August 27th 2006
December 25
I just changed the reference to date of death as Christmas Day back to December 25; there's no relevant reason for pointing out that the day was a holiday in some cultures. (Chaplin's not a Christian church figure.) Additionally, the term could be confusing to some folks from other parts of the world. Add to that the fact that Christmas can be celebrated on January 7, as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Low-intensity edit war
This seems to be going back and forth. Can we discuss it here? --Guinnog 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC) [2]
Who was how much Jewish?
I am intrigued by the statement that "There is no evidence of Jewish ancestry for Chaplin himself. Chaplin's half-brother, Sydney, was three-fourths-Jewish." I am trying to work out how this is possible (yes, the statement is made that way on the web page linked to). Maybe his mother was not Jewish, nor his father, but Sydney's father was 300% Jewish? I haven't done anything to edit the (excellent!) page on Charlie, but someone should probably demote his brother to being half Jewish, like me. Felsenst 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge here is no strong evidence that Charlie is of Jewish ancestry. Rumors abound that he was half-Jewish (the only source of this rumor I have heard of was Nazi propaganda.) Sydney was known to proudly state that he was three-quarters Jewish. Sydney might have been correct, or he might have been mistaken, or he might have been making things up. Charlie did state that it would be pandering to antisemites to answer any questions about his ancestry. User:IanThal
I agree about Charlie. I was reacting to the three-quarters. Sydney Chaplin is supposed to have said that, but it is mathematically impossible unless he had three Jewish biological fathers! Felsenst 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Either his brother was not three quarters Jewish, or Charlie Chaplin was half Jewish. As it stands this part of the article is logically fallacious. Mattlewis777 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but if Sydney and Charlie Chaplin's mother was half Jewish and Sydney Chaplin's father was a full Jew, that would logically make Sydney three-quarters Jewish! (and Charlie quarter Jewish). Makes sense? Colin4C 10:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. Not if "There is no evidence of Jewish ancestry for Chaplin himself." Then Charlie's mother would not be in any way Jewish, and Sydney could not be more than half Jewish. Sydney may have said otherwise, which would just show that he was wise to go into show business rather than mathematics! Felsenst 23:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The Freak
Since I feel Chaplin is notable enough to warrant articles on all his movies, I'm interested in doing one on his never-completed film The Freak. All I know of it is basically what I wrote here which was from My Life in Pictures -- he wrote a script for Victoria, started rehearsing, she ran off to get married, and it never got done. Does anyone know anything more about this? Is his script kept in any archive somewhere? 23skidoo 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Police film title?
What is the actual title of this 1916 film? Wikipedia had a link at Police (film) which goes to a more prevalent 1985 French film, but in the process I discovered a stub at Police!. IMDB doesn't have the apostrophe, and neither did your listing here, but I figured if anyone would know the right answer, it would be these editors... -- nae'blis 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Common law marriage to Paulette Goddard?
Unless this was originated in some other state than California, the claim looks dubious. California recognized common law marriages consummated on its own soil only if they began before the year 1900. Durova 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comparison with other silent comics
I created a new sub-section because this is a topic that has been talked about quite a bit by many critics and film historians and could stand to be expanded. Harold Lloyd is now generally accepted as the "Third Genius", a title that he only lost because his films were locked in a vault for so long (in fact, his films combined made more money than Chaplin's in the 1920s and he was far more popular than Keaton), so I added him in. Harry Langdon had a meteoric rise to popularity and a quick fall subsequently and is considered "#4", so perhaps he should be added in as well. Right now this section needs expanding and more references (on the subject of box office grosses particularly), so I'll see what I can do. Esn 10:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- There also needs to be some sources cited regarding the actual comparisons as well, as I never noticed it as a trivia item but now it has its own section it does seem to be pushing the WP:NOR envelope a bit as it now stands. 23skidoo 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am of the impression that the epithet, "third genius", is something that the Harold Lloyd estate introduced after both Lloyd's death and the revival of interest in Keaton's films, in an attempt to keep his memory alivel. As an enthusiast of physical comedy, I certainly enjoy Lloyd's films, but compared to the "other two geniuses" his films are the most dated in that the moment we turn away from the thrill sequence, we are presented with an abundance of negative ethnic stereotypes, and retrograde presentations of women, that make these films difficult for modern audiences.209.6.203.155 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- That last contribution was from me. I apparently logged out without knowing it. IanThal 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are many who would disagree with you on that, including myself and quite a few reputable critics (critical opinion on Lloyd seems to be changing for the most part nowadays - see the reviews for the 2005 DVDs and the rerelease of his films). In my personal opinion, Keaton's films are the most dated. But our own opinions matter little, after all - this is an encyclopedia. What is important is that to silent audiences, Harold Lloyd was certainly immensely popular, right up there with Chaplin - it would be misleading if we did not mention that. Keaton was not as popular in his day, but deserves to be mentioned because of the critical recognition that he got in the 50s and 60s. To quote this website:
- A 1924 Photoplay survey of fan favorites listed the top eight stars. Harold Lloyd was ranked seventh. Chaplin was not ranked at all.
- The September, 1925, Photoplay ran a contest in which their readers voted for the "most popular" players. Lloyd was third behind Gloria Swanson and Ramon Novarro. Chaplin was fourteenth.
- One study was quoted in An Evening's Entertainment that used box office receipts and other factors from exhibitors' reports to rank the most popular attractions. The study revealed "Doctor Jack" to be the sixth most popular film of 1922. "Safety Last was fourth and "Why Worry?" fifth in 1923, and "Hot Water" and "Girl Shy" were tied for fourth in 1924. Admittedly, these were years in which Chaplin did not release a feature, however, in 1925, Lloyd was right up there with Chaplin as "The Gold Rush" ranked as the second most popular film with "The Freshman" in third. "Harold Lloyd and Douglas Fairbanks appear as the most consistently popular stars," Koszarski observed from the study's results.
- In the absence of a better source, I added that website to the external links section. This is a temporary measure, mind - I would gladly replace it with something else quite soon, so I'm asking for the help of all contributors to this article. Can anyone find a reliable source of silent box office grosses?
- One more thing - there seems to be a vandal going around who's altering every article he can to make everyone appear inferior to Harold Lloyd. I've reverted him several times on the "Harold Lloyd" article, and I've had to do it here as well. If he continues doing this, I'm not sure what to do - there must some way to get him to stop... Esn 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. For the record, most of that section's original research (the stuff about Chaplin's and Keaton's filmmaking styles and "relevance to modern audiences") was there before I started adding anything to it. The whole section really needs some references added. Esn 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think you did a good job starting the section as a comparison of their popularity and styles rather than their "greatness," Esn. But personally-- Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd, Arbuckle (should mention of his talent, influence and popularity before the scandal belong in this section?), Langdon, Laurel & Hardy, the Marxes, W.C. Fields? Hell, even Snub Pollard on a good day-- I enjoy them all. Each has his own qualities and strengths, each has his own style. For the life of me, I can't understand the need of some people not only to rank them, but to get into bitter arguments over their rankings. It's comedy, not a football game. And as far as sourcing, we can probably find sources who will claim each one as the greatest, depending on the individual writer and the era in which the source was written. (Also, for the record: Keaton, at Stan Laurel's funeral, reportedly stated that he thought Stan was the best. But then, he may have been swept up in the emotions of the moment... And didn't he call Chaplin the funniest man who ever lived in his autobiography?) Rizzleboffin 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously comparing them in terms of "who's the greatest" is going to be incredibly objective and should be avoided as much as possible (though things like audience polls could be mentioned). Mostly I'd like to find sources which give box office grosses for 1920s films - box office success is one of the more relevant things that could be compared because there are exact numbers for it. The section shouldn't hypothesize about "who's the greatest", but if there are any objective polls or numbers which give some indication of how popular each comedian is/was then they should be mentioned. Arbuckle and Langdon achieved a degree of superstardom in their day so perhaps they could be mentioned at the end (neither was as popular for as long as "the big three"). Laurel & Hardy were just starting out in the silent era and weren't a major force yet (the comparison as it stands now, you may have noticed, focuses on the silent era. A second section should probably be added for the sound era, where everything changed). I haven't watched the Marxes, W.C.Fields or Snub Pollard, to be honest, so I don't know much about them. One thing that might be mentioned - I heard/read this story (I don't remember where) that a guest once came to Chaplin for dinner and kept on talking about how great he thought Keaton's films were. Chaplin sat silent throughout the whole thing, and after the guest left turned painfully to the family member who was left and quietly said, "but I was an artist." This might've been from the Unknown Chaplin documentary, now that I think about it. Anyway, the most important thing to be added right now is a reliable source for box office grosses of Chaplin's, Keaton's and Lloyd's films. Does anyone know of any? Esn 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I heard that story recently also. It seems like Geraldine Chaplin told it on one of the interviews in one of the two Chaplin DVD boxes that came out a year or two ago... To me, that story points out the difference between the two men. Keaton, more concerned with his craft than his own personal glory, could admire Chaplin as a fellow craftsman. Chaplin, wanting to be seen as the "artiste," considered Keaton a rival. It's interesting also that Keaton could praise Chaplin in his autobiography, while Chaplin didn't even mention Keaton's name in his own. (Full disclosure: I love Chaplin too, but I'm basically a Keaton man at heart.) I remember reading some LA Times reviews of 1914 in which Chaplin is praised as a genius right from the start. It struck me at the time that it was to Chaplin's credit that he didn't let this sort of praise go to his head and affect his work (I think), until about The Great Dictator onwards. I agree with you as far as not needing to include the other comedians in a comparison other than Chaplin/Lloyd/Keaton-- I'd always heard they were the "big three" even during the '60s. I might quibble with Arbuckle though. Arbuckle's black-listing has basically been in place until just recently. Critics and fans both were unable to easily view his films. Now that the scandal has more-or-less, finally, run its course, it looks like he is being re-evaluated as a much more important artist than he has been given credit for. Viewing his movies recently, the influence on Keaton is even more obvious than I'd previously imagined. Arbuckle was making features before any of the big three (not counting Tillie's Punctured Romance), and continuosly developing his style. True, his career was nipped in the bud, but his popularity and influence before the scandal is still undeniable. Anyway, I'll see if I can dig up contemporary criticism on the big three. Rizzleboffin 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously comparing them in terms of "who's the greatest" is going to be incredibly objective and should be avoided as much as possible (though things like audience polls could be mentioned). Mostly I'd like to find sources which give box office grosses for 1920s films - box office success is one of the more relevant things that could be compared because there are exact numbers for it. The section shouldn't hypothesize about "who's the greatest", but if there are any objective polls or numbers which give some indication of how popular each comedian is/was then they should be mentioned. Arbuckle and Langdon achieved a degree of superstardom in their day so perhaps they could be mentioned at the end (neither was as popular for as long as "the big three"). Laurel & Hardy were just starting out in the silent era and weren't a major force yet (the comparison as it stands now, you may have noticed, focuses on the silent era. A second section should probably be added for the sound era, where everything changed). I haven't watched the Marxes, W.C.Fields or Snub Pollard, to be honest, so I don't know much about them. One thing that might be mentioned - I heard/read this story (I don't remember where) that a guest once came to Chaplin for dinner and kept on talking about how great he thought Keaton's films were. Chaplin sat silent throughout the whole thing, and after the guest left turned painfully to the family member who was left and quietly said, "but I was an artist." This might've been from the Unknown Chaplin documentary, now that I think about it. Anyway, the most important thing to be added right now is a reliable source for box office grosses of Chaplin's, Keaton's and Lloyd's films. Does anyone know of any? Esn 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandal
If you see someone with an IP similar to 71.249.95.231 edit this page, it is most likely vandalism. Don't edit over it but revert it to the previous edit (go to edit history, click on a previous edit and click "edit this page" to revert it to that edit). Esn 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- also consider adding a warning template to the (ip)users talk page (for more info see Wikipedia:Vandalism). Rami R 09:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is This True?
I'm just wondering about the veracity of this statement in the article:
- At the outbreak of World War I, Chaplin was widely criticized in the British press for not joining the Army.
At the outbreak of WW1 (1914) Charlie Chaplin had just started performing in his very first films for Keystone and was not, as far as I am aware, very well known to the British Press or anyone else (apart from maybe a few music-hall aficionados???).Colin4C 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Photography
I was just wondering, the photograph in the article titled "Chaplin and Jackie Coogan in The Kid (1921)" in the article, is the copyright for that expired to use in Ireland can anyone tell me? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Sir
For the person who keeps debolding the "Sir" please stop. It is Wikipedia convention (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes) to do so. Also you say, he wasnt born a "Sir", true but Margaret Thatcher wasnt born Baroness Thatcher, but thats bolded. Sir should be bolded, as so many other pages say. --Berks105 09:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)