EVIDEO Rediscovering Charlie Chaplin by Jonathan Rosenbaum lthough I suspect many would dis- pute this characterization, I think the A period we're now living through may well be the first in which scholars have final- ly figured out a good way of teaching ftim history. And significantly, this discovery isn't necessarily coming out of academic film study, even if a few academics are mak- ing major contributions to it, I'm speaking, of course, about the didac- tic tiiaterials accompanying the rerelease ot some classic films on DVD, Three examples that I believe illustrate my thesis especially well are 1} the various commentaries or audiovisual essays offered by Yuri Tsivian on DVD editions of Mad Love: The Films of Evgeni Bauer (Milestone), Dziga Vertov's Chaplin really gets involved in his work in Modern Times (1936) (photo courtesy of Phototest) Man with a Movie Camera (Kino Interna- tional/BFI), and Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the (1925), Frant;ois Ede filming Emir Kusturica which he needs to be reintroduced to con- Terrible (Criterion); 2) the commentaries on The Circus (1928), Serge Bromberg film- temporary filmgoers—and reintroduced offered by David Kalat on Fritz Lang's Dr. ing animator Peter Lord on City Lights from an international rather than American Mabuse ihe Gambler (Blackhawk Films) and (1931), Philippe Truffault filming Luc and perspective—can't be underestimated. This The Testament of Dr. Mahuse (Criterion); lean-Pierre Dardenne on Modern Times is surely why the second volume of The and 3) the various documentary materials (1936), Bernard Eisenschitz filming Claude Chaplin Collection garnered only a "B-h" offered on "The Chaplin Collection," a Chabrol on Monsieur Verdoux (1947), from Entertainment VVcfWy (along with the twelve-disc box set issued jointly by MK2 F.dgardo Cozarinsky filming Bernardo headline, "Film directors laud the Little and Warner Bros, and put together with the Bertolucci on Limelight (1952), and lerome Tramp's brand of camp")—in contrast to, full resources and cooperation of the de Mi,ssolz filming lim Jarmusch on A King say. Scenes from a Marriage ("A"), George A. Charles Chaplin estate. These DVEls include in New York {\957}. Romero's Dawn of the Dead ("A"), and 21 not just all of Chaplin's features apart from The remaining DVDs, which break with Grams ("A-") in the same issue, making \t his last, The Countess from Hong Koiig (pre- this pattern, are devoted to Richard Schick- tie with the "complete first session" of sumably missing due to rights issues), but el's recent documentary Charlie: The Life episodes from The iHintsloues and the "20*" also historical introductions written and and Art of Charles Chaplin, The Chaplin anniversary edition" of Splash, both oi read aloud by Chaplin biographer David Revue (consisting of A Dog's Life, Shoulder which also got B pluses. After all, we're Robinson, ncwsreels, home movies, out- Arms, Sunnyside, A Day's Pleasure, The Idle meant to conclude, Chaplin is spectacularly takes, production photos, relevant shorts by Class, Pay Day, and The Pilgrim), and The uneven: "City Lights is a classic of sentimen- Chaplin and others, and twenty-six-minute Great Dictator (1940). The latter, however, tal comedy because it gets the mix of senti- episodes in a brand-new series called "Chap- gives us an excellent fifty-tlve-minute docu- ment and comedy just right. The Kid and lin Today" devoted to historically placing mentary by Kevin Brownlow and Michael The Circus do not. They are bathetic, and A each of these features as well as interviewing Kloft called The Tramp and the Dictator (a Woman of Paris plays like bad Balzac." And a contemporary filmmaker for his or her virtual object lesson in how to pursue the if you're still wondering why "bad" Balzac impressions about it. subject of Chaplin and Hitler honestly and and Chaplin are deemed inferior to "good" responsibly—in striking contrast to the Bergman, Romero, and Ifiarritu, this pre- The Chaplin Collection's editor. Serge sumably has something to do with how far Toubiana, a former editor ot Cahiers du capriciousness of the comparison between Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst back in history we have to go. (Frankly I einema, has commissioned, among otbcrs, have my own demurrals about The Circus, many writers from thai magazine, past and in the 1995 Oscar-nominated The Battle Over Citizen Kane), twenty-five minutes of in spite of the brilliance found in certain present, to direct the various chapters of sequences, but any dismissal that can brack- "Chaplin Today," each of whom has drawn Sydney Chaplin's color "home movie" footage of the shooting of Dictator, a seven- et it indiscriminately with The Kid can't be materials frotn the plentiful Chaplin very attentive to either.) archives as well as other sources. Thus we minute outtake from Sunnyside (1919) get Alain Bcrgala filming (and interviewing) showing the Tramp as a barber, and even a three-minute clip from Monsieur Verdoux. In other words, one can't even begin to Abbas Kiaro,stami on The Kid[\91\). Math- grasp Chaplin's importance without pro- ias Ledoux HIming Liv Ullmann on A Although Chaplin is still the closest thing cessing sizable chunks of the twentieth cen- Woman of Paris {\92i). Serge Le Peron film- we have to a universally recognized, under- tury, and from a universal rather than a ing Idrissa Oeudraogo on The GoU Rush stood, and appreciated artist, the degree to local perspective. For this reason, I can't say 52 CINEASTE, Fall 2004 that I hiive a lot of patience for colleagues I have no idea whether or not this story is who still presume that it's possible to com- apocryphal, but in the final analysis it pare t^haplin and Buster Keaton in any nor- doesn't matter. Whether or not Chaplin said mal fashion, either as slapstick performers such a thing, there are far too many or as directors. As Gilbert Adair once point- instances in his oeuvre demonstrating the ed out years ago, Chaplin doesn't simply accuracy of such a remark to make either his belong to the history of cinema; he belongs innocence or his egotism the central point of to history. And for me the main problem the story. My favorite example, in fact, is with trying to compare him to Keaton is probably the most famous sequence in any that such an act implicitly denies that histo- Chaplin film, and presumably therefore one ry, which The Chaplin Collection is dedicat- of the most closely studied in all of cinema: ed to explicating as clearly as possible. the closing moments of City Lights, when Even less useful than the Chaplin vs. alternating close-ups of the Tramp and the Keaton debate is the kind of contemporary flower girl, who has recently had her sight dismis.sal of Chaplin that writes him oft as a restored, record her dawning realization that sentimentalist, a relic ot the nineteenth cen- he is her benefactor, the one who paid for tury, an insufferable egotist, or a technical or her operation—as well as his own dual real- intellectual primitive. Not because one can't ization that she can now see and that she go back to certain facets of his life and work knows who he is. "She recognizes who he and find some evidence to support any or all must he by his shy, confident, shining joy as of these charges, but because doing so ulti- he comes silently toward her," lames Agee mately entails a reductive reading that memorably wrote In "Comedy's Greatest excludes too many othc'r things that matttT Chaplin fall5 in love with a bMnd flower girl in Era." "And he recognizes himself, for the at least as much. I'm far more sympathetic City Lights (1931) (photo courtesy of Photoiest). first time, through the terrible changes in her face. The camera just exchanges a few quiet to the hyperbole of Jean-Marie Straub's that the lack of intelligence is self-evident, provocative defense of Chaplin as the great- close-ups of the emotions, which shift and that one starts wondering about all the ideo- intensify in each face. It is enough to shrivel est of all film editors—made most recently logical determinations that hold this cher- and most cogently in Pedro Cxista's beauti- the heart to see, and it is the greatest piece of ished premise in place. Even when faced acting and the highest moment in movies." ful 2001 documentary Oil git volrc soiirire with certain anomalies—such as Chaplin's enfouif, which documents the activity and professed admiration for Ivan the Terrible I wouldn't dream of disputing any of dialog of Straub and Daniele Huillet while (which runs parallel to Monroe's interest in this. But how many viewers have noticed editing one of the versions of their Sicilla! The Brothers Karaniazovj^ths usual that the alternating close-ups described by Straub's justification for this extravagant impulse is to patronize the star with conde- Agee are flagrantly mismatched? Viewed claim is ingenious: because Chaplin knew scending 'tolerance' for his or her preten- from hehind, the Tramp grasps one of the precisely when a gesture begins and when it sions and to try to rationalize this informa- flower girl's fiowers against his leg; viewed ends, he knew precisely when to cut. As an tion out of existence. from the front, he holds the same flower in observation this is far more indicative of a the same hand against his mouth and cheek, close and prolonged engagement with the The frequent charges waged against and this discontinuity of angle/reverse-angle work than any of the curt and cavalier dis- Chaplin's 'old-fashioned' technique often even gets repeated along with the same cam- missals.