{"id":6931,"date":"2011-08-18T01:13:39","date_gmt":"2011-08-18T05:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.regrettablesincerity.com\/?p=6931"},"modified":"2011-08-18T01:15:11","modified_gmt":"2011-08-18T05:15:11","slug":"charlie-chaplins-the-circus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/?p=6931","title":{"rendered":"Charlie Chaplin’s The Circus"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Here\u2019s the idea behind \u201cA Canadian, an American, a Lawyer, and an Elitist\u201d: Rhett\u2019s favorite movie is Meatballs 4<\/em>,\u00a0 Shawn has an unhealthy fixation on Resident Evil<\/em>, Richard scoffs at anything that isn\u2019t pretentious and hoity toity, and Adam is a prick who hates everything. We all watch far too many movies, and spend our time analyzing them. So we each watch the same movie, write our analysis of them, and then go to a chat room to discuss it, unaware of what the others have written. A warning: if you haven\u2019t seen the film we are discussing, it may not be best to read this article, because it is spoiler heavy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As is the case with most of the Elitist articles<\/span><\/a>, this was written in 2005, so please keep that in mind when reading it. Also, the chat portion opens with many references to Au Hasard Balthazar<\/em>, which was a movie we discussed before<\/span><\/a>, and referenced in a number of other chats. For those who prefer not to do their own research, Balthazar is a donkey who is a Christ figure in the movie, and at one point, has his tail lit on fire.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/strong>Analysis by a Canadian: Rhett Miller<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alongside Mary Pickford and Florence Lawrence, Charlie Chaplin became the world\u2019s first ever movie star.\u00a0 Although celebrity seems like nothing these days, what with reality TV and Andy Warhol\u2019s 15 minutes mantra, imagine its impact in the early 1900\u2019s.\u00a0 Before film, actors would have to tour around in shows or play in consignment to theater venues.\u00a0 The potential audience was limited, and actors were never usually the main draw.\u00a0 So imagine the culture shock Chaplin must have experienced in the early days of cinema, where suddenly people from all over the world were lining up to see films based on nothing but his star power.\u00a0 The relationship between the spectator and the performer takes on a weighted importance when featured on such a scale.\u00a0 Celebrity was a term as new to Chaplin as it was to the world.\u00a0 After dealing with his status as a movie star for so long throughout the 10\u2019s and 20\u2019s, Chaplin finally sought to address the nature of his business and his celebrity with his revelatory 1928 film, The Circus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On the surface, The Circus<\/em> is as brisk and enjoyable as Chaplin\u2019s other most famous silent comedies.\u00a0 It\u2019s filled with sight gags, grounded in a romance, and complete with grandiose stunts.\u00a0 It\u2019s your typical ode to the little guy on the street corner.\u00a0 Yet, at the center of the film is something different.\u00a0 Unbeknownst to him The Tramp becomes a festival star in The Circus<\/em>.\u00a0 More than just the guy on the street, The Tramp became a performer whose antics reached a large and participative audience.\u00a0 In making his character a performer by profession in the film, Chaplin invites a reflexivity on his own celebrity and career, asking the audience to consider their role in cinema as much as he looks to consider himself.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The rise to celebrity of The Tramp is the first note of relevance in The Circus<\/em>.\u00a0 Much like Chaplin became an overnight sensation in a medium he thought fame possible, The Tramp becomes a celebrity to the festival crowd much to his unknowing.\u00a0 \u201cHe\u2019s a sensation but he doesn\u2019t even know it!\u201d the exploitative circus owner boasts as he counts his mountains of cash.\u00a0 Not only does this draw attention to the fact that Chaplin himself had unknowingly become a star to thousands of filmgoers the world over, but it also draws on the exploitive nature of the business.\u00a0 Before they created unions and demanded respect, stars like Pickford and Florence were being exploited by their financers, forced to take other jobs on the set just to make ends meat.\u00a0 They were the stars, but they never knew it.\u00a0 The Tramp is hired on as a stage hand at the titular venue, and like Pickford, Florence and Chaplin himself, this is how he primarily made a living.\u00a0 He\u2019s never made aware that he is the major audience draw until much later in the film, proving how even though an actor may be a celebrity, they can still be exploited and undervalued in the performance industry.<\/p>\n

Another important topic Chaplin reflexively addresses in The Circus<\/em> is the relationship between actor and audience.\u00a0 Chaplin was always part of an industry that relied almost single-handedly on the charisma of the performer.\u00a0 A drama can sweep people away in narrative, a western in sets, a horror in shadows, but a comedy is one where the actor must personally engage the audience for its effect.\u00a0 Imagine standup horrordy, or a morose Saturday Night Live<\/em>, and you get the picture on how comedy is appended with the performer.\u00a0 With that in mind, Chaplin points out the unstable relationship between himself and his audience, and how one must tread a fine line in entertaining without boring the spectator.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>One minute The Tramp is a sensation, but the next the audience want nothing of him.\u00a0 He\u2019s funny when he doesn\u2019t know he is being funny, but once he understands his celebrity he tries to be funny and the effect is lost.\u00a0 In a way he is condemning the audience and their lack of but in a way he is condemning his own talents, in pointing out how hard it is to try<\/em> and be funny rather than just simply be funny.\u00a0 The final tight rope balancing act takes on added significance as a metaphor for Chaplin\u2019s relationship with his audience.\u00a0 He may be a star now, but all it takes is one misstep (ask J.Lo) and that could spell the end of his career.<\/p>\n

Chaplin also uses The Circus<\/em> spectators in his film to point out the random and unpredictable nature of humor.\u00a0 Humor is as different between cultures as it is between individual people.\u00a0 Try explaining why you find a fart joke funny to your grandmother and you\u2019ll see just how people\u2019s conceptions of funny can be.\u00a0 Comedy is something from the gut, something often inexplicable, and as such it is tough to classify.\u00a0 Considering Charlie Chaplin was a performer who relied on laughter for his success, the fact that humor is so tough to characterize must have made his profession a challenge.\u00a0 Throughout The Circus<\/em> he has some audience members guffaw while others sit in dead stare.\u00a0 Moments later a reversal occurs, and the people who were laughing are silent, while the silent bring down the house in cheer.\u00a0 As a comedic performer, Chaplin had to always recognize the odd nature of his business, and how humor would always register differently to different people, and with The Circus<\/em> he tackles the subject head on.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>The Circus<\/em>, with all its reflexivity, is more than just an entertaining Chaplin vehicle.\u00a0 It is a revealing one, and one that places his celebrity right out there in the open.\u00a0 It may have been too revealing however, as Chaplin largely shunned the film long after it was released, allowing it status as the only film not in his biography.\u00a0 It was a film that was made while his marriage was falling apart, among other things, and in that light the conclusion is particularly enlightening.\u00a0 The Tramp, after having won the heart of his female performance counterpart, decides to marry her off to someone else, exiting the film alone and by himself.\u00a0 For a film of such light and breezy subject matter, such a conclusion comes as quite the shock.\u00a0 But like he used the film to examine his celebrity and his relationship with his audience, he used the film as a cathartic tool to get himself through his marital grief.<\/p>\n

Martin Scorsese uses film as a place to lay out his catholic guilt, Woody Allen<\/span><\/a> uses it for personal catharsis on all his Jewish and sexual quirks, and Stanley Kubrick used it to release his frustrations as an outsider in an increasingly sterile universe.\u00a0 The idea of film as a means of cathartic release has been a prominent notion for cinema\u2019s auteurs for the last forty years.\u00a0 But before Scorsese, Allen or Kubrick, there was Chaplin, leading the way in his own reflexive self-deconstruction.\u00a0 Decades before such self-referentiality was ever a filmic conception, Chaplin was laying it all out with The Circus<\/em>.\u00a0 A fine film as a comedy, and an even finer film as an autobiography, The Circus<\/em> remains the great film in Chaplin\u2019s canon that nobody seems to know about.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by an American: Shawn <\/strong>McLoughlin<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charlie Chaplin was one of the masters of silent comedy. This is an undisputed fact. While film nerds like us, talk up Fatty Arbuckle and Harold Lloyd and can make arguments that Buster Keaton\u2019s films aged better (and they have, for the most part) those discussions don\u2019t break icons. Like Mickey Mouse, everyone recognizes The Tramp, even without having ever seen any of his films.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t have any personal problem with Chaplin having that lasting power, because I enjoy his films quite a bit. But Chaplin earned respect for making films that were extremely satirical, funny, and made reflections on society. Modern Times<\/em> dealt with the mechanization and industrialization of the world and is still relevant today. The Great Dictator found humor where there really wasn\u2019t any and became one of the most biting films of all time. These films are brilliant, but it is important to realize that no director or actor burns brightly for all eternity. For every great film, there are duds \u2013 or, at very least, lesser films. The Circus<\/em> is one of those lesser films.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>This isn\u2019t to say that it is bad, or unmemorable. It just isn\u2019t important or as relevant as other films in the Tramp series. But it is quite funny. There are several scenes that, while slapsticky, gave me genuine heartfelt laughs. The scene where Chaplin pretends to be a moving dummy to evade police was hilarious, and the part where he \u201cclimbed\u201d up the tightrope was a well executed visual joke, and the entire sequence of the Tramp in the lion cage was golden. The set-up itself could have easily been an inspiration for The Three Stooges antics with much pie-in-the-face material and bits taken right out of vaudeville. But the dramatic arc of the Tramp\u2019s relationship with Merna never develops any further than his other unlucky-in-love adventures. This renders that whole sub-plot into mundane melodrama. Making it worse, the only reason we would sympathize for Merna is that she is starved and beaten, which is essentially the extent her character is developed. What a waste.<\/p>\n

Essentially the only message that can be derived from the film is that circuses are for the most part unfunny. They are also uninteresting, a spectacle for spectacle sake, and have little more glamour than a traveling petting zoo. The audience (including the target audience of children) at a circus reacts more amused if they see an elephant relieve himself than when a man flies out of a barrel. Clowns and their staged antics are the worst. They are boring, and are expected to be laughed at instead of doing anything to make you laugh. This is shown particularly well with the audience reactions; they are seemingly uninterested in anything the show has to offer because there is nothing fresh or unexpected. Only after Chaplin unknowingly provides them more than their moneys worth in entertainment do they laugh. When the Tramp tries to be funny on command, he fails. This is what all of life\u2019s good jokes are made of \u2013 things not going as planned. If the film wasn\u2019t completely caught up in its own shenanigans, this might have been a more obvious message.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Sometimes it is difficult to realize that silent films were not just a short fad. Film was around in one format or another for thirty years before The Circus<\/em>. Placing it in today\u2019s context, it is the same time between Taxi Driver<\/em> and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants<\/em>. There was a lot of cinematic ground that covered during that time. Chaplin made the medium entertaining and provided a fantastic character that was relevant to his time, and that the working (and not-so-working) class could relate to. While The Circus<\/em> was one of those fluffier moments, I don\u2019t think it aimed that high. If Chaplin\u2019s goal here was to open the audiences\u2019 hearts with laughter but not open their eyes to any larger issue then he succeeded.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by a lawyer: Richard Stracke<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Circus<\/em> was a great choice for an in depth discussion because it contains just about everything that you could want from a Chaplin film. It was essentially a solo production- made during extremely trying times. It demonstrates his grace and his ability to create emotion within a throwaway plot. Along with these strengths come the flaws of most Chaplin films; the minor scenes that date poorly and are simply no longer funny. Fortunately, he was such an entertainer that the highpoints of the film are so memorable, so charming, and so fantastic that the flaws can be forgiven. With The Circus<\/em>, this is even easier than normal because the great scenes haven\u2019t been as overplayed as those of Gold Rush<\/em>, Modern Times<\/em> and The Great Dictator<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>City Lights<\/em> is my favorite of the Chaplin oeuvre for two simple reasons- the sense of melancholy and the endearing characters. Sure, seeing Charlie flopping around like a rag doll or pulling off near impossible stunts without so much as breaking a sweat are impressive, but I frequently remember his gestures and facial expressions long after the awe of the chase. Although not as successful overall, The Circus<\/em> has a lot in common with \u201cLights<\/em>\u201d. The long suffering female leads for one thing. The opening scene really stands out. You have a girl who looks like she could have hopped right out of a Degas painting crumpled on the floor. Subjected to cruelty by her very own father. Yes, this is manipulative and he\u2019s more caricature than red blooded character, but it works. I felt sorry for her. I wanted the tramp to come along and save her. Scratch that. Too melodramatic. I wanted him to provide a few moments of genuine happiness. That he does. The scene where she ends up getting his breakfast and the subsequent scenes where their friendship shine through are just what I wanted from the film. Two characters, unable to speak, but still evoking emotion.\u00a0 For me, this is the root of Chaplin\u2019s genius. If you\u2019ve read my parts of any of these other features, you\u2019ll know that it takes a lot for me to really care about the characters. Chaplin smashes my defenses- often in the first scene. That\u2019s simply priceless.<\/p>\n

So, I had my moments of emotional fulfillment, but what about the rest of the film? For the most part I enjoy it. I\u2019m not so fond of the recurring mule joke, but that\u2019s largely because I\u2019m never a fan of the Keystone Cops-esque silent film characters racing about at super high speeds. If they run, I groan. The exception is the hall of mirrors. That\u2019s exquisite, but unfortunately they get out and run around again. The same goes for the scenes when the crew tries to train Chaplin. I\u2019m sure there\u2019s a lot to be said about how Chaplin was demonstrating how his comedy transcends such mediocre routines, but I didn\u2019t enjoy them, so I\u2019ll leave it at that.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>I also quite enjoy the lion cage and tightrope scenes, but those are so famous and the latter almost always cited as one of Chaplin\u2019s best scenes, that it seems pointless to praise them. What is more important is ending. I was originally planning to write an elaborate piece on how it demonstrates the self-defeating aspects of being poor and why society shouldn\u2019t help those who won\u2019t help themselves, but I think that would miss the point. The film would lose its magic if it were so strictly scrutinized. It doesn\u2019t matter what the ending signifies. It\u2019s bittersweet and ultimately the longest lingering scene of the film. Chaplin takes us from the potential heart break of losing the girl to the realization that the Tramp may have finally found friendship to desolation in a matter of moments. Ultimately, given the horrid circumstances surrounding the film- a nasty divorce, on set disasters and financial concerns- I don\u2019t see how it could have ended any other way. Just like his alter ego, Chaplin delights nearly all who see him, but there\u2019s a sadness to his work. The Circus<\/em> approaches this tantalizing paradox as frankly as any of Chaplin\u2019s films. That alone makes it worth seeing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by an elitist: Adam Lippe<\/strong><\/p>\n

Inserted into the film more than 40 years after its premiere, the opening song in The Circus<\/em>, sung by Chaplin, who was by this point an old man, is an inspired touch. It’s a sneaky way of sharing his own feelings about the movie before we\u2019ve even had a chance to experience it. The lyrics (\u201cSwing high\u2026Don\u2019t ever look down\u2026 You\u2019ll never find rainbows if you\u2019re looking down\u2026Life may be dreary, but never the same, someday it\u2019s sunshine, someday it\u2019s rain\u201d) seem to refer to the feelings he had making it, two years spent struggling through various disasters, his studio burning down, lost footage, his wife divorcing him, amongst other things, but also his look back on his career, long after being ostracized in the US because of financial difficulties and political affiliations. There is even a hint, seeing as the first images are of his female lead, that he is detailing the plight of women in the 20\u2019s, not allowed any identity. Merna Kennedy\u2019s character is just sold from one man to another, being beaten mercilessly by her father is accepted until she is now owned by her husband, and the father relinquishes rights to Rex, the tight rope walker. But it is the overwhelming discussion of capitalism versus communism that is at the real heart of The Circus.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>It is the political subtext that is the saving grace of The Circus<\/em>, since the surface material is very standard for Chaplin. Many of Charlie Chaplin\u2019s films are comprised of frantic slapstick mixed with maudlin and melodramatic scenes showing his character, The Tramp, as surprisingly giving and sweet, despite our initial impression showing him as reckless and selfish, always causing trouble. In this case, there is the early pickpocket chase, exhaustively displayed, its only real ingenuity is the mirror scene, parroted in The Lady From Shanghai<\/em> and Enter The Dragon<\/em> (and of course The Kentucky Fried Movie<\/em>), which gets us in a rather contrived fashion to the circus. The preliminary establishing of the villain as a brute is out of the way, as the ring master smacks his daughter for no discernible reason. This is no accident, as he is to represent capitalistic values throughout, cold, calculating, unemotional, seeing people as property, and only interested in financial gain. His most important line of dialogue is one that isn\u2019t even required in the scene, it\u2019s simply a reaction to being told that Chaplin will be risking his life by replacing Rex on the tightrope. \u201cThat\u2019s ok, I\u2019ve got him insured.\u201d It also outlines the sloppiness with Chaplin\u2019s plotting, risking suspension of disbelief for the sake of his point. If his main attraction is killed, and Rex has shown himself to be unreliable by not showing up, how is he to make money? Though really, it\u2019s never really explained what exactly Chaplin does to entertain the crowd at all, if he can only make them laugh by accident, anything planned would fail miserably. After we see that he\u2019s aware of his own supposed talents, it seems strange that the circus would make money on his back at all.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Of course, to get into the details of Chaplin\u2019s act would miss the issues he was trying to put forth. His character\u2019s kindness is most evident when he is trying to share, not when he becomes egotistical about his skills and financial standing. When he sees that Merna is hungry, he makes sure to split his bread evenly, just like a Communist state would. Though he falls in love with her, he doesn\u2019t want to be selfish, and helps her leave with Rex, as it would be the best move for all of them. In a capitalist film, the individual would be most important. In The Circus<\/em>, the hero, in the final image, crumples up the star, the one he earned as a capitalist entertainment centerpiece, for the betterment of everyone else.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The Chat:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rhett<\/strong> I think discussion should start with a discussion of Balthazar<\/span><\/a>‘s cameo. He seemed angry, as if the circus life had driven him to the ground.
\nRichard<\/strong> He clearly resented being forced to do tricks.
\nShawn<\/strong> As did I, but I am trying to listen to it now and it just doesn’t hold the same feeling. Balthazar liked Chaplin’s baggy pants.
\nAdam<\/strong> Well there Balthazar was, in a contrived gag where he randomly chased a douchebag Jew in a Hitler mustache, how would you feel?
\nRhett<\/strong> Balthazar, being a European import, must have sensed Chaplin’s Hitler stache and immediately tried to usurp him I was so happy to see him alive and thriving it was a great cameo in a great film.
\nShawn<\/strong> I would feel like it is time to go out to pasture with the sheep. At least his tail wasn’t set on fire.
\nAdam<\/strong> But all that running couldn’t have been in his contract. Really, Rhett? Great? \u00a0How is The Circus<\/em> any different than a slew of other Chaplin films chased by cops, befriends girl, sweetness prevails?
\nShawn<\/strong> I was hoping that Chaplin would have to balance with him on the tightrope.
\nRichard<\/strong> In response to Adam’s comment- does anyone (then or now) actually enjoy those sorts of gags- sped up racing about- with no particular goal?
\nRhett<\/strong> \u00a0Its reflexivity. Its analysis of the performer spectator relationship.
\nShawn<\/strong> \u00a0*Here we go*
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> It seemed to really address Chaplin\u2019s celebrity and the aspects of his life.
\nAdam<\/strong> That last part I will agree with, the subtext was fascinating to me <\/strong>while the movie itself was very banal. Its correlation to Chaplin’s own demons and the political issues especially communism vs. capitalism.
\nShawn<\/strong> I admit to laughing quite a bit, Richard.But it wasn’t anything other than average Chaplin to me.
\nRhett<\/strong> Artists make the best stuff when their life is in ruin, and this seemed to be a real troublesome point in Chaplin\u2019s life, and the way he puts himself on the line here is fascinating
\nAdam<\/strong> I’d hate to think what the movie would be without the opening song <\/strong>which sounds treacly and pointless at first until the film settles in.
\nRichard<\/strong> That’s obviously why it was forgotten for some 30 years
\nAdam<\/strong> Why, Richard, because of the politics? I couldn’t see much else in it, there’s no internal logic in the jokes. It’s a bunch of running around and tiresome slapstick.
\nRichard<\/strong> It was actually meant to be a joke made in re: to your first comment, but I do think it fit the tone- certainly a better addition that all of those Lucas revisions.
\nShawn<\/strong> Three Stooges material for sure.
\nAdam<\/strong> The only thing I really laughed at, other than when he replaces the apple with the banana in the William Tell bit was when he plugged his ears in the lion’s cage as if he could block out what he knew would probably happen, if he couldn’t actually hear it. That was the one moment where he was akin to the audience.
\nRichard<\/strong> I discussed the slapstick issues in my essay. Basically, in this film and most other Chaplins, I don’t care about the fast paced dare-devilry, but only the quieter, more heartfelt moments.
\nAdam<\/strong> Especially, Richard, because both Lloyd and Keaton outdid him in those fields.
\nShawn<\/strong> The “heartfelt” moments here are overly forced. <\/strong>What personality does Merna have? \u00a0Would you even care if she wasn’t beaten or starved? <\/strong>\u00a0No.
\nAdam<\/strong> While the tightrope scene is fine, it goes on for a few minutes too long and then he throws monkeys in the mix which, as we all know, is exactly when a sitcom gets tired, let alone a “classic.”
\nShawn<\/strong> Hey, Friends<\/em> started out with the monkeys and ditched it in the 2nd season. \u00a0Which is why that show survived IMO.
\nRhett<\/strong> Hey, Herzog<\/span><\/a> had monkeys, respect\u2026 that’s probably why he leaves her at the end like he did in real life during the film’s making.
\n\"\"<\/a>Richard<\/strong> \u00a0I haven’t seen any Lloyd, but I agree as far as Keaton goes.
\nAdam<\/strong> Though I was honestly confused when Chaplin takes something from one of the monkeys that appears to be an apple. <\/strong>And then throws it into the crowd <\/strong>and it’s suddenly poo.
\nShawn<\/strong> I thought it was a tomato <\/strong>which exploded on impact. Predating Killer Tomatoes<\/em> by nearly 50 years.
\nAdam<\/strong> Something round, certainly.
\nRichard<\/strong> As far as Merna goes, Shawn is right about her lack of personality and all of that, but there’s something about the Chaplin heroine that always appeals to me. maybe it’s the sadness in their eyes or how pitiful they are, but I usually feel sorry for them.
\nRhett<\/strong> It seemed to illustrate the hostile nature between actor and audience, and how they are laughing one moment and then the next are totally turned against you. Comedy is literally one big tight rope act.
\nAdam<\/strong> Or the fact that she is totally flat-chested. Chaplin needed a big bosomed love interest. He could have played off that.
\nShawn<\/strong> I thought he was illustrating how circuses just aren’t funny <\/strong>and how the only humour is when something happens that is unplanned.
\nRichard<\/strong> I thought so too, Shawn, except that by showing scenes that weren’t funny, I wasn’t entertained.
\nShawn<\/strong> Which is why he was a hit by running from the cops, but not when he was trying to be funny.
\nRhett<\/strong> Yeah, he sort of illustrates the difference between being funny and trying to be funny.
\nShawn<\/strong> None of the clowns were funny, at all.
\nRichard<\/strong> So some of his mistakes with the clowns were amusing, but not enough to make me laugh.\u00a0 <\/strong>
\nShawn<\/strong> Because clowns aren’t funny. Honestly, go to a circus, and watch the audience.
\nRichard<\/strong> Right, but do we need that pointed out again and again?
\nShawn<\/strong> Kids play with the lightsaber things and get excited when an elephant shits\u00a0 \u00a0But pay no attention to the show. Because, circuses suck.
\nRhett<\/strong> Yeah, I always went for the elephant shit.
\nAdam<\/strong> At the time though, circuses were the pinnacle of entertainment.
\nShawn<\/strong> But they were all the same <\/strong>which explains the audience\u2019s boredom.
\nAdam<\/strong> If they are still around now, they have to have entertained some kids at some point.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> They were very much like the film industry in its early inklings though, where the performers were exploited by the financiers.
\nShawn<\/strong> Yeah, <\/strong>“special” kids.
\nRichard<\/strong> Freak shows.
\nRhett<\/strong> So it seemed fitting for Chaplin to use that as a backdrop to comment on his own life.
\nAdam<\/strong> “The same hard life.”
\nRichard<\/strong> I thought so too, Rhett. I imagine his early films were treated with less respect than what a circus performer would get- just cheap novelties
\nShawn<\/strong> Is the 1992 Chaplin<\/em> any good? You know, aside from Milla Jovovich<\/span><\/a>‘s no-doubt excellent role.
\nAdam<\/strong> Shawn, it has some good acting, but like all Attenborough, it is almost too focused\u00a0and has no edges to it. Attenborough was always suited to direct a mini-series about a war that people have learned about ad nauseum on The History Channel and simply want replicated not to make something about an interesting figure who is neither black nor white.
\nRhett <\/strong>Why Attenborough never directed Gods and Generals<\/em> is beyond me. From The director of Little Darlings<\/em>…Gettysburg<\/em>
\nAdam<\/strong> He last did* that awesomely boring and expensive direct-to-video movie starring James Bond as a Native American. <\/strong>The Grey Owl.<\/em>
\nShawn<\/strong>\u00a0 Pierce Brosnan …. Archie Grey Owl\u00a0 hahahhahahahaha
\nRhett<\/strong> \u00a0I didn’t have time to go through the special features, but apparently Chaplin was supposed to have a stunt double for the lion bits but did it all himself due to his depression stemming from the breakdown of his marriage it\u2019s like a death wish documented on film.
\nRichard<\/strong> Interesting, Rhett. The rest of it was all him too, right?
\nAdam<\/strong> Yeah, you couldn’t risk the star’s life in the lion scenes since he really appeared to be in there. With the trapeze stuff, part of the gag is his being attached and safe and the other half they probably had a net. \u00a0There’s never an overhead shot so we can see what is beneath him.
\nRhett<\/strong> Did anyone listen to the 5.1 mix?
\nAdam<\/strong> I did.
\nRichard<\/strong> Me too.
\nRhett<\/strong> Did the sub get a good workout?
\nAdam<\/strong> You couldn’t really tell the difference.\u00a0 <\/strong>It was just a <\/strong>glorified mono track. It\u2019s not like the 5.1 track on The Passion of Joan of Arc<\/em>.
\nShawn<\/strong> City Lights<\/em> blew out a window, fo shizzle.
\nRhett<\/strong> You must have powerful headphones, Shawn.
\nShawn<\/strong> I want to get the soundtrack to The Circus<\/em> for my car.
\nRichard<\/strong> It would probably fit on a single cd.
\nAdam<\/strong> “Canned music for slapstick silent films: Vol. 1.”
\nShawn<\/strong> “of 1.”
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> It did have the circus vibe to it. While I was watching it, my roommate came into the room without noticing I was watching a movie and asked why I was listening to circus music.
\nRichard<\/strong> Do you guys always listen to the intended score when watching silent films? I always give them a try, but lots of times I end up picking my own music.
\nRhett<\/strong> Fiddy cent?
\nRichard<\/strong> I think I did play him during Birth of a Nation<\/em>.
\nRhett<\/strong> Fuckin’ racist.
\nAdam<\/strong> The Passion of Joan of Arc<\/em> is hard to watch without the remastered opera track.
\nRichard<\/strong> I agree, Adam.\u00a0 It\u2019s the only way I would ever watch it.
\nAdam<\/strong> I don’t know how a lot of these films played without music.
\nRichard<\/strong> Some of the German silents have nice scores, but I find a lot of the American ones boring. Lots of tinny piano.
\nAdam<\/strong> Have we been spoiled by the way soundtracks are done now? Layered, never silent.
\nRhett<\/strong> I don’t think so.
\nAdam<\/strong> Or is it the theatrical staging that would make a silent boring without music?
\nRhett<\/strong> I actually quite enjoyed the soundtrack to The Circus<\/em> and I’d imagine I’d enjoy it just as much without.
\nShawn<\/strong> I will admit it. I am of the MTV generation, and the music keeps my attention.
\nRichard<\/strong> It doesn’t exactly answer Adam’s question, but I’ve found that friends of mine struggle with certain films when there is no score or a lack of constant sound. Bunuel and Bresson<\/span> <\/a>are good examples.
\nRhett<\/strong> Not having synth is a definite detriment. <\/strong>
\nShawn<\/strong> I never had that problem with Bunuel. But Bunuel is visually interesting.
\nRichard<\/strong> I’ve had a few complaints that “I would’ve liked it better if there was music.”
\nAdam<\/strong> Think of something like 2004\u2019s Birth<\/em> with the amazing focus on her face for 3 minutes. Would that still work without the music?<\/strong>
\nShawn<\/strong> Visually? I haven’t seen Birth<\/em> yet.
\nRichard<\/strong> The scene with the Wagner? I think the music made that scene
\nAdam<\/strong> What if the music was lower? \u00a0Because I thought while the music aided, I was focused on her expressions. <\/strong>Shawn, you should see P.S.<\/em><\/span><\/a> before Birth<\/em>. Similar idea, much better movie.
\nRichard<\/strong> I’d have to see it again, but having the high volume actually helped me focus on her- because I didn’t worry about any other detail noise.
\n\"\"<\/a>Adam<\/strong> In terms of The Circus<\/em>, what is it that we are supposed to believe he does as part of his act that is so successful after he starts getting paid? They are doing well because of his accidental spontaneity? Which makes little sense if what made it funny was that he didn’t know what was going on.
\nRichard<\/strong> I can’t think of much else that he could have been doing.
\nShawn<\/strong> Balthazar vs. The Jew. Fuck, I would buy a ticket and there isn’t a damn one of you that wouldn’t either… Your silence proves I am right.
\nAdam<\/strong> Yes, a Jew being chased by an ass, that would be gold. I’d<\/em> sneak in.
\nShawn<\/strong> That doesn’t change the fact Ass vs Chaplin would be like the fuckin’ Holyfield vs. Douglas of 1929.
\nAdam<\/strong> Which movie does Chaplin box a kangaroo? It would probably be similar to that\u2026 Rhett, did you really laugh a lot at this movie?
\nRichard<\/strong> I’m thinking that’s in one of the short films, but I can’t remember.
\nRhett<\/strong> Yes, I did actually. I found Chaplin very endearing and he seemed to milk the whole circus scenario for all it was worth.
\nShawn<\/strong> And even at 69 minutes, that milk turned sour.
\nRhett<\/strong> He did tightrope, the mirrors, the lion taming bit, the pie in the face, etc. Every sort of circus convention was played with.
\nRichard<\/strong> Another question about the humor; Do people really laugh when they see the pie in the face?
\nAdam<\/strong> I can’t tell whether or not this stuff has simply aged.
\nRichard<\/strong> Did they ever?
\nRhett<\/strong> Well, we laugh at permutations of that today.
\nAdam<\/strong> Or I just don’t react well to traditional slapstick without any edge or cleverness
\nRhett<\/strong> Like people getting shit flung at them in Not Another Teen Movie<\/em>**.
\nAdam<\/strong> Actually, Rhett, that’s the worst moment in that movie.
\nRhett<\/strong> So I imagine it would have been funny all those years ago before other such substances were thrown in faces.
\nAdam<\/strong> It’s obvious, not funny, and just kind of stale and gross.
\nRhett<\/strong> Tell that to the packed theater that laughed their asses off at it, Adam.
\nAdam<\/strong> But is Chaplin really going for lowest common denominator? \u00a0Of all the clever riffs and jokes in Not Another Teen Movie<\/em>, it would be sad if that got the biggest laugh.
\nRhett<\/strong> Pie is low brow, but shit is pubic brow low.
\nAdam<\/strong> But Teen Movie <\/em>is clearly not going for highbrow.
\n\"\"<\/a>Shawn<\/strong> I saw Not Another<\/em> theatrically Adam, and I have to say, Rhett is right. It got the biggest laugh – by far.
\nAdam<\/strong> I’m not arguing that they didn’t laugh hardest at it.
\nRichard<\/strong> Maybe including a few of those low brow jokes permitted him to work in the subtexts while entertaining the masses.
\nAdam<\/strong> But would Chaplin equate The Circus<\/em> with NATM now?
\nShawn<\/strong> While the AWESOME Breakfast Club<\/em> parody barely got a sigh of recognition.
\nAdam<\/strong> Would he say that’s what he was going for, the actual physical substance has changed from pie to poop?
\nRhett<\/strong> I mean, it\u2019s like your standard Chaplin slapstick on the surface but those who look deeper into it will see a lot of subtext, be it on his own career, his divorce, capitalist exploitation, etc.
\nShawn<\/strong> I think you have to know of Chaplin’s background to appreciate that Rhett.
\nAdam<\/strong> I get the feeling this pie fight is the reason Kubrick cut his from Dr. Strangelove<\/em>.
\nShawn<\/strong> And I would imagine his private life wasn’t quite as well-known as it is today.
\nRhett<\/strong> Don’t really know what point you are making.
\nAdam<\/strong> I’m sure the long gestation period of the film and his divorce were probably public knowledge.
\nAdam<\/strong> My point or Shawn’s?
\nRhett<\/strong> Shawn’s.
\nShawn<\/strong> “Those who look deeper into it will see a lot of subtext, be it on his own career, his divorce.” That requires outward knowledge. Not everyone is knowledgeable about such things. So all the looking into the film won’t tell you anything of divorce, unless you already have that in your mind.
\nAdam <\/strong>Mine is that in order to be funny and satirical (two very different things), one need not play to the lowest common denominator.
\nRhett <\/strong>Well, looking at On The Waterfront<\/em> won’t tell you about Kazan’s situation with the communist blacklistings, but knowing that makes the weight of the film greater.
\nAdam<\/strong> Yes, but on its own, The Circus<\/em> doesn’t provide very much on the surface. If we were in 1927, it would be straightforward slapstick and maudlin scenes.
\nShawn<\/strong> On the Waterfront<\/em> was released in a time where more people were looking at cinema as art though. The 20s were less kind.
\nRhett<\/strong> The fifties were still part of the studio era.\u00a0 <\/strong>No talk of auteurism or any of that. It was still mostly entertainment.
\nShawn<\/strong> Since when does that matter?
\nRhett<\/strong> We are viewing the films today, and our knowledge of their background only helps to make the experience richer.
\nShawn<\/strong> Auteurism doesn’t equal quality at all.
\nRhett<\/strong> I am talking about the way people looked at cinema.
\n\"\"<\/a>Shawn<\/strong> Okay, then quit “viewing the films today” and start “viewing them through a 1920s audience.”
\nRhett<\/strong> Before Godard and co. started considering film as art, I imagine, with the great depression looming, such negative talks towards capitalism would be embraced by audiences. <\/strong>How the circus boss doesn’t care whether Chaplin lives or dies because he has a life insurance policy on him.
\nAdam<\/strong> Being a Communist was illegal in the US at the time. Right after the Bolshevik Revolution people thought that the Communists would invade and take over.
\nRhett<\/strong> Yeah, but it would be natural to express anti-capitalist sentiment.
\nShawn<\/strong> That type of disdain for the Fat Cats was pretty standard though. \u00a0But I do see that point.
\nAdam<\/strong> We’re reading into what Chaplin probably intended, though it would fly over the audience’s head at the time.
\nRhett<\/strong> And why should that matter? <\/strong>The genius of most of the great films of cinema are realized long after they are released.
\nAdam<\/strong> It doesn’t matter, but it creates a different line of thinking, because it is simple entertainment.
\nRhett<\/strong> 2001<\/em>, Citizen Kane<\/em>, etc., even without the divorce stuff.
\nAdam<\/strong> We’re bringing Paparazzi<\/em><\/span><\/a> baggage to it. \u00a0And nowhere does The Ring Master say: “I am going to destroy your life and eat your soul. And I can’t wait to do that.”
\nShawn<\/strong> I doubt anyone was trying to prevent The Circus<\/em>\u2019 release.
\nRhett<\/strong> It’s pretty obvious that Chaplin is examining his own fame with the film, making the tramp a performer.
\nShawn<\/strong> Except maybe Balthazar.
\nRichard<\/strong> I agree with Rhett- I think creator’s intent is more important than the idiotic audiences, but like Adam said, it’s also valuable to try to place yourself in the mind of the audience- <\/strong>although that was difficult for me in this situation.
\nRhett<\/strong> I really think it\u2019s irrelevant to be discussing the audience in 1920.
\nShawn<\/strong> Why?
\nRhett<\/strong> It has no bearing on the film, and nor do we really know anything about what audiences were like in the 20’s.
\nShawn<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0Do you think it was intended for the DVD viewers of 2005? \u00a0Audience has no bearing on a film? <\/strong>Have you not seen a Hollywood film? Audience has EVERYTHING to do with MOST films.
\nRhett<\/strong> I view a piece of artwork with what the artist had in mind for it, not for what a member of the audience will get out of it.
\nShawn<\/strong> That’s noble of you. \u00a0But it doesn’t change the fact that movies were made to sell tickets. Especially in the 20s.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett <\/strong>So is Napoleon Dynamite<\/span><\/a><\/em> supposed to be a better film viewed in the way it affected its audience?
\nAdam<\/strong> Rhett, the movie is more annoying because of the audience because it was accepted so thoroughly. The spouting of quotes, etc. \u00a0If it was just a piece of shit that no one saw it wouldn’t be lingering within the culture.
\nRichard<\/strong> I agree with Adam on that. Constant over exposure made me HATE it. Otherwise I’d forget it- like so many others.
\nShawn<\/strong> That and it was still made with an intention to be hip. Thus, appealing to an audience. Tailor made to sell t-shirts.
\nRichard<\/strong> Vote Pedro. I saw one of those atrocities at the law school today <\/strong>and I could’ve cried.
\nShawn<\/strong> I want a Balthazaar t-shirt.
\nRhett<\/strong> Vote for Balthazar.
\nAdam<\/strong> I’d like a shirt like that, simply because no one would get it.
\nShawn<\/strong> We should only make four of them. The official shirt of the Elite.
\nRhett<\/strong> I’d wear it.
\nRichard<\/strong> Are we the only ones who appreciate Balthazar on that level? Surely some Criterion forum members obsess over his constant cameos.
\nRichard<\/strong> I’d wear it if it was small.
\nRhett<\/strong> Tube top, Richard?
\nRichard<\/strong> Perfect.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>* Since this chat occurred in 2005, Attenborough directed one film, Closing the Ring<\/em>, which received a contractual theatrical release, before being released on DVD two weeks later, some three years after it was shot.<\/p>\n

** Just like the silly jokes about Jew vs. Ass, the reference to Not Another Teen Movie<\/em> is a dig at me since that\u2019s a movie I particularly enjoy, and Rhett, obviously, does not.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s the idea behind \u201cA Canadian, an American, a Lawyer, and an Elitist\u201d: Rhett\u2019s favorite movie is Meatballs 4,\u00a0 Shawn has an unhealthy fixation on Resident Evil, Richard scoffs at anything that isn\u2019t pretentious and hoity toity, and Adam is a prick who hates everything. We all watch far too many movies, and spend our […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[5188,694,5390,8144,4212,8140,3709,8156,8160,8159,1604,3321,8146,6980,8143,8155,8148,8145,2517,815,8161,527,2212,8169,8158,8153,8163,8142,1150,8152,8141,1079,1567,1807,1359,1406,2383,8162,349,8164,675,8166,4600,172,7637,4556,2213,4906,5189,686,6693,8147,8086,557,1073,740,6694,6112,8167,822,2381,1724,8138,8149,8151,5797,8168,8154,8139,8165,8150,8157,2773,118,1167],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6931"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}