This film is a superb combination of that approach, and develops sympathetic characters. The film actually begins with the love interest being totally mistreated by her father. The funhouse antics are a delight, and once Chaplin joins the circus, the whole film technically turns into meta-comedy.
He is an accidental hit with the audience, which is simply ingenious. Including sweet, convincing romance, this film runs just over an hour, allowing time to invest without losing steam for a moment. However, this level of realism raises the stakes of the danger and pathos.
And comedy remains a comforting presence throughout. All of these elements should translate better today than some of his softer material. But this is arguably his most moving film of all time, brimming with heartbreak and heartwarming sequences alike.
This plot-driven film explores parenthood in a tender, earnest way. The inherent poignancy in adding a child dynamic to the Tramp character delivers everything it could possibly muster. Anyone who can sympathize with a little kid will connect with this one. He consistently exploits the absurdity of war, even with his physical gags. This eventually includes the mockery of senseless dictators, who impose their harmful will with callous oppression.
He was best known for his character, the naive and lovable Little Tramp. The Little Tramp, a well meaning man in a raggedy suit with cane, always found himself wobbling into awkward situations and miraculously wobbling away.
More than any other figure, it is this kind-hearted character that we associate with the time before the talkies. Born in London in , Chaplin first visited America with a theater company in On his second tour, he met Mack Sennett and was signed to Keystone Studios to act in films. These early silent shorts allowed very little time for anything but physical comedy, and Chaplin was a master at it. While Harold Lloyd played the daredevil, hanging from clocks, and Buster Keaton maneuvered through surreal and complex situations, Chaplin concerned himself with improvisation.
For Chaplin, the best way to locate the humor or pathos of a situation was to create an environment and walk around it until something natural happened. Chaplin was known as one of the most demanding men in Hollywood. The tramp is a philosophical, not a social, statement. And it was a conclusion to which Chaplin came, not a choice he imposed from the outset. The tramp is the residue of all the bricklayers and householders and bon vivants and women and fiddlers and floorwalkers and drunks and ministers Chaplin played so well, too well.
The tramp was all that was left. Perhaps no one will ever be able to wield the sort of creative control over a series of major fiction film works, over such a long haul, as did Charlie Chaplin. From about Mutual Pictures, then UA , to the end of his career, Chaplin maintained full creative control of his films, which is an amazing record of independence.
Without giving it any sort of extensive research, I would guess that Chaplin was the first film artist to hold creative control over almost every aspect of the filmmaking stage: writing, directing, acting, producing, composing, etc. The impact this obsession with control had over his film output is alarmingly evident, with the ratio of films made to shooting schedule decreasing dramatically Chaplin made 81 films, 70 of them shorts.
But the single film which may be his most important, for its global impact, its bravery, and its lasting relevancy, is The Great Dictator. One has to remember that between the moment when Chaplin first thought of making the film, straight through to the making of the film and up until its release , the United States of America were not yet involved in World War 2. There were great debates among politicians and civilians as to whether America should become involved, with the majority being in favour of non-intervention.
Hence You Nazty Spy! All of this would come to a slow boil under the witch hunts of J. The confusion is partly tied to the final speech. As the speech heats up it becomes evident that the tone of it is beyond the established personality of either Hynkel or the little barber.
The debates around the speech were, once again, two-fold. One dealt with an aesthetic issue: does Chaplin, in this speech, step out of both characters, and speak directly as Chaplin? Those that believe he does split into two camps. Some argued that the slip into Chaplin-as-author constitutes an aesthetic breech of the integrity of the film.
0コメント