 |
| Robert Downy, Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in the 1992 film Chaplin. |
I prefer bio pictures that focus on one particular part of a person's life as opposed to a long movie attempting to cram an entire life into two-plus hours of screen time.
Again, that's not to say doing so doesn't work. It certainly worked for the 2004 movie Ray about the life of singer and songwriter, Ray Charles.
The recent movie Judy about legendary actress and singer Judy Garland worked well overall as it focuses primarily on Garland's London tour and the events of her past that effected her up to that last year of her life during that tour. It was an overall great movie, and certainly not cluttered and crammed with facts and events.
I suppose how a person's life is portrayed on screen depends on who the movie is all about.
The 2005 movie Walk the Line covers a lot of life events surrounding singer Johnny Cash and his talent as a musician. But the central focus of the movie is his love for and pursuit of June Carter. There's something consistent for viewers to grasp on to while watching this depiction of his life.
One recent bio pic Stan and Ollie (2018) depicts famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy. The movie is a success as it portrays the team, who's real life fame peeked in the 1930s, during a European tour in the 1950s. By that time, they were still famous but were older and not quite the duo they used to be film. It's a fantastic movie, hands down!
What makes the movie work is its focus on one particular part of their lives (i.e. their last tour), and how they manage to maintain their passion for comedy as well as working together despite hardships, setbacks, anger and frustration. Still, Stan and Ollie maintain their deep rooted friendship, even amidst an argument and gradually attract new fans during their shows.
There's something in that movie for the audience to take away. We can see just from this particular depicted event from Laurel and Hardy's life what made them both beloved and an admired, talented team.
Watching Stan and Ollie made me see another bio pic I love in a new light.
As one critic put it regarding the 1992 biopic Chaplin about the life and career of comedian Charlie Chaplin, the movie covers too much ground. And it does!
The movie begins with Chaplin's poverty during his youth, to the mental breakdown of his mother, jumping to his begins as a comedian in London's Vaudeville, and then on to Hollywood, all the way up to his Oscar win in 1972. That's an entire lifetime packed into two hours and 25 minutes. For what that is, it's fine. The general premise is that Chaplin is relaying his life to a fictional biographer played by Anthony Hopkins. I get what the movie is trying to do. Still, it misses something.
Robert Downy, Jr., is the perfect casting choice to play Chaplin in the movie. He is just as memorable playing Charlie Chaplin as he is as Iron Man in the Marvel Comic movies. I can't picture anyone else in the role.
But it clicked after so many years of loving this movie that Chaplin covers way too much of the comedian's life, and doesn't touch on what made this entertainment icon so talented and memorable nearly enough.
Sure, there are depictions of how dedicated to the art of film making he was, and how much passion he had. It's there. Chaplin was a writer, producer, director, and actor. He also wrote the music to his own movies. But there's too much focus on his personal love life in the movie. I mean, it doesn't add anything to the story. What's the audience supposed to take away from such tabloid content?
Even the tagline for the movie reads, "Everyone has a wild side. Even a legend." So, is the movie about his "wildside" or about what made Charles Spencer Chaplin into "Charlie Chaplin."
Yes, Chaplin loved women! Many famous actors do. That's certainly no revelation. He was married several times, and to put it bluntly, he loved sex... a lot! But is that what made him the memorable icon he is? Is that what made his popularity withstand the test of time? Of course not.
The focus Chaplin has on his love life distracts from the real gem of Charlie's life - his remarkable talent. That's way more interesting than the tabloid stuff of who he fooled around with before settling down with his fourth wife, Oona O'Neill.
For one thing, Chaplin made two successful silent movies when talking movies had already been established as the new norm in motion pictures - City Lights and Modern Times. The latter is considered one of the greatest social commentary films ever made. This talent Chaplin had to accomplish such a feat would have been a real interesting aspect for the movie to explore deeply rather than mention it and move on.
Or, a film surrounding his expulsion from the United States during the Sen. McCarthy era, and what that meant to this actor who spent years and years working to entertain American audiences, would have been an eye-opening movie.
But what we got in 1992 was, well...as critic Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine put it, "soporific."
One specific part of the movie always bothered me because it's just blatantly wrong.
Chaplin's very first on-screen appearance was in a movie called Making A Living (1914). It wasn't until his second movie Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) that Chaplin dawned his iconic appearance with his Derby hat, bamboo cane, toothbrush mustache, and famous walk. It's the screen debut of his character, the "little tramp."
The movie shows a camera man trying to film a "baby-cart race" while a spectator (Chaplin) keeps standing in front of the camera, intrigued by the aspect of being on film. It's a showcase of his famous character which he went on to portray until his 1940 movie The Great Dictator.
However, the 1992 movie claims Chaplin's first appearance was in some made-up silent movie showing Charlie butting in on a wedding photo and attempting to woo the bride while the rest of the party end up chasing him around the set. Really? I understand liberties are often taken in biography movies for the sake of production. But this movie couldn't get this absolutely crucial part of his life correct? Come on!
Don't get me wrong. There's so much about Chaplin that's fantastic! It's an imperfect movie, but certainly not a bad one. I love the acting. I love how Chaplin's own daughter, Geraldine Chaplin, was cast as her own grandmother (Charlie's mother). I love how this film depicts the impact his mother's mental breakdown had on him. I love how many well known actors were also cast in this as though it was Hollywood's homage to one of its prime pioneers. I even love the soundtrack. There's a ton of effort in this movie, especially from Robert Downy, Jr. He certainly did his homework before going into this project.
But I realized after watching Stan and Ollie that Chaplin is rather misguided and lacking.
Chaplin wasn't just a persecuted millionaire who loved women maybe a little too much. There's so much more to him.
But the movie focuses too much on too many other things (i.e. Chaplin's sex life and scandals) that didn't contribute to his greatness nor his legacy. Yes, those are things that are a part of his life, and can't be ignored. But why director Richard Attenborough decided to focus so much on that, I really don't know.
Where Stan & Ollie dealt with the aspects of what made Laurel and Hardy memorable as people and as entertainers, Chaplin depicts an entertainer who was great but it slows down after that.
The elements of Chaplin's greatness are there, but not on the level they should be. Maybe Hollywood will take another look at this pioneer of motion pictures, and depict his life better in a future movie.
I could ask more questions about Chaplin, but critic Roger Ebert beat me to it.
"Why not more about the movies? And where in the finished film is the greatness of Chaplin that presumable inspire you to make it?"
The recent movie Judy about legendary actress and singer Judy Garland worked well overall as it focuses primarily on Garland's London tour and the events of her past that effected her up to that last year of her life during that tour. It was an overall great movie, and certainly not cluttered and crammed with facts and events.
I suppose how a person's life is portrayed on screen depends on who the movie is all about.
The 2005 movie Walk the Line covers a lot of life events surrounding singer Johnny Cash and his talent as a musician. But the central focus of the movie is his love for and pursuit of June Carter. There's something consistent for viewers to grasp on to while watching this depiction of his life.
One recent bio pic Stan and Ollie (2018) depicts famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy. The movie is a success as it portrays the team, who's real life fame peeked in the 1930s, during a European tour in the 1950s. By that time, they were still famous but were older and not quite the duo they used to be film. It's a fantastic movie, hands down!
What makes the movie work is its focus on one particular part of their lives (i.e. their last tour), and how they manage to maintain their passion for comedy as well as working together despite hardships, setbacks, anger and frustration. Still, Stan and Ollie maintain their deep rooted friendship, even amidst an argument and gradually attract new fans during their shows.
There's something in that movie for the audience to take away. We can see just from this particular depicted event from Laurel and Hardy's life what made them both beloved and an admired, talented team.
Watching Stan and Ollie made me see another bio pic I love in a new light.
The movie begins with Chaplin's poverty during his youth, to the mental breakdown of his mother, jumping to his begins as a comedian in London's Vaudeville, and then on to Hollywood, all the way up to his Oscar win in 1972. That's an entire lifetime packed into two hours and 25 minutes. For what that is, it's fine. The general premise is that Chaplin is relaying his life to a fictional biographer played by Anthony Hopkins. I get what the movie is trying to do. Still, it misses something.
Robert Downy, Jr., is the perfect casting choice to play Chaplin in the movie. He is just as memorable playing Charlie Chaplin as he is as Iron Man in the Marvel Comic movies. I can't picture anyone else in the role.
But it clicked after so many years of loving this movie that Chaplin covers way too much of the comedian's life, and doesn't touch on what made this entertainment icon so talented and memorable nearly enough.
Sure, there are depictions of how dedicated to the art of film making he was, and how much passion he had. It's there. Chaplin was a writer, producer, director, and actor. He also wrote the music to his own movies. But there's too much focus on his personal love life in the movie. I mean, it doesn't add anything to the story. What's the audience supposed to take away from such tabloid content?
Even the tagline for the movie reads, "Everyone has a wild side. Even a legend." So, is the movie about his "wildside" or about what made Charles Spencer Chaplin into "Charlie Chaplin."
 |
Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in
Stan and Ollie (2018).
|
The focus Chaplin has on his love life distracts from the real gem of Charlie's life - his remarkable talent. That's way more interesting than the tabloid stuff of who he fooled around with before settling down with his fourth wife, Oona O'Neill.
For one thing, Chaplin made two successful silent movies when talking movies had already been established as the new norm in motion pictures - City Lights and Modern Times. The latter is considered one of the greatest social commentary films ever made. This talent Chaplin had to accomplish such a feat would have been a real interesting aspect for the movie to explore deeply rather than mention it and move on.
Or, a film surrounding his expulsion from the United States during the Sen. McCarthy era, and what that meant to this actor who spent years and years working to entertain American audiences, would have been an eye-opening movie.
But what we got in 1992 was, well...as critic Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine put it, "soporific."
One specific part of the movie always bothered me because it's just blatantly wrong.
Chaplin's very first on-screen appearance was in a movie called Making A Living (1914). It wasn't until his second movie Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) that Chaplin dawned his iconic appearance with his Derby hat, bamboo cane, toothbrush mustache, and famous walk. It's the screen debut of his character, the "little tramp."
The movie shows a camera man trying to film a "baby-cart race" while a spectator (Chaplin) keeps standing in front of the camera, intrigued by the aspect of being on film. It's a showcase of his famous character which he went on to portray until his 1940 movie The Great Dictator.
However, the 1992 movie claims Chaplin's first appearance was in some made-up silent movie showing Charlie butting in on a wedding photo and attempting to woo the bride while the rest of the party end up chasing him around the set. Really? I understand liberties are often taken in biography movies for the sake of production. But this movie couldn't get this absolutely crucial part of his life correct? Come on!
 |
| Marisa Tomei and Robert Downy, Jr. |
But I realized after watching Stan and Ollie that Chaplin is rather misguided and lacking.
Chaplin wasn't just a persecuted millionaire who loved women maybe a little too much. There's so much more to him.
But the movie focuses too much on too many other things (i.e. Chaplin's sex life and scandals) that didn't contribute to his greatness nor his legacy. Yes, those are things that are a part of his life, and can't be ignored. But why director Richard Attenborough decided to focus so much on that, I really don't know.
Where Stan & Ollie dealt with the aspects of what made Laurel and Hardy memorable as people and as entertainers, Chaplin depicts an entertainer who was great but it slows down after that.
The elements of Chaplin's greatness are there, but not on the level they should be. Maybe Hollywood will take another look at this pioneer of motion pictures, and depict his life better in a future movie.
I could ask more questions about Chaplin, but critic Roger Ebert beat me to it.
"Why not more about the movies? And where in the finished film is the greatness of Chaplin that presumable inspire you to make it?"
No comments:
Post a Comment