Chaplin (1992)

"Easy, when you know how." 

Director
Richard Attenborough

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. - Charlie Chaplin

Paul Rhys - Sydney Chaplin
Geraldine Chaplin - Hannah Chaplin
Moira Kelly - Hetty Kelly/ Oona O'Neill

John Thaw - Fred Karno
Anthony Hopkins - George Hayden
Kevin Kline - Douglas Fairbanks

Dan Aykroyd - Mack Sennett
Penelope Ann Miller - Edna Purviance
Marisa Tomei - Mabel Normand
Maria Pitillo - Mary Pickford
Milla Jovovich - Mildred Harris
Kevin Dunn - J. Edgar Hoover

Deborah Moore - Lita Grey
Diane Lane - Paulette Goddard
Nancy Travis - Joan Barry

In my mid to late elementary school days between 1993 to 1995 and after, I discovered something relatable in Charlie Chaplin's character often referred to as "the Little Fellow."
I wasn't the popular kid in the class, nor did I desire to be. I wasn't bullied, but I was an easy target for the occasional ribbing. Of course, I did my own share of ribbing. Turnabout is fair play. I was a short, thin kid with glasses, and my hair was always combed. 
I wasn't chased after by girls, but I sure did a little chasing of my own, always hopeful of romance. My efforts were pretty much met with setback and heartache.

Nothing has really changed much since then except my weight, my age, my hair loss, prescription changes, and my wedding band. 

Back then, while I took interest in some of what my peers took interest in, I also took interest in other pop culture media that my friends didn't care anything about. 
I watched a lot of black and white comedies, listened to old radio programs, played older music, and I appreciated the golden age of entertainment thanks in large part to my dad who had some old movies on VHS.
I loved, and still love, the Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy, and Buster Keaton, and above all, Charlie Chaplin.

Chaplin captivated me even though our life spans never crossed our respective years. 

His character "the little Tramp" is a man on the sidelines. He sometimes wins the affection of a love interest, but not often. He has hopes, dreams, and purpose. He's a "little fellow" and a hero. He's on the sidelines, and yet stands out among a crowd. Chaplin, the comedian, is the king of tragedy.
Once you notice him, you don't forget his image.
In my youth, I saw how the past only changes in appearance as it reflects human nature that never changes. 
With Chaplin, no matter how bittersweet and disappointing life is, he'll wake up the next morning and start again.
These interests I considered my own. They were unique to me and made me distinct from my peers. 

I love the 1992 biopic "Chaplin" starring Robert Downey, Jr., and directed by Richard Attenborough. I'm also disappointed by it. 

The movie covers Chaplin's entire life as told by an older Chaplin (Robert Downey, Jr.) as he reminisces about his life to a fictional autobiography editor, George Hayden (Anthony Hopkins). 

The film starts with five-year old Charlie in London's Victorian era East End as he watches his mother, Hannah Chaplin (Charlie's daughter, Geraldine Chaplin, plays her own grandmother) lose her voice

Robert Downey Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in "Chaplin."

while singing on stage in Vaudeville. It's the last time she ever sings again. Already living in poverty, Hannah can no longer pay rent. Both Charlie and his older half-brother, Sydney, are taken away to a workhouse as a result. 

Hannah develops psychosis and a teenage Charlie is forced to admit her into a mental hospital. 

Later, Charlie and Sydney work for variety producer and impresario, Fred Karno (John Thaw) and enter his pantomime group. 

Charlie becomes well known among the U.K., particularly for his role as a disruptive drunk which he portrays between acts on stage.

He meets a young show girl named Hetty Kelly (Moira Kelly) who becomes his first love. 

Charlie quickly proposes to her, but she says no as she's too young. 

As Charlie is heading to America to take up a job offer with famous comedy film producer, Mack Sennett (Dan Aykroyd) in the movies, he promises Hetty that he'll return successful. 

While working for Sennett, Charlie comes up with the famous "Tramp" figure and his fame quickly spreads worldwide.

However, Sennett's girlfriend, Mabel Normand (Marisa Tomei) has directorial methods that Charlie doesn't like. So, he asks Sennett if he'll let him direct the next movie, which Sennett reluctantly agrees to.  

This eventually leads Charlie away from Sennett so he can continue directing his own movies. 

With loads of success, Charlie opens his own studio in 1917. 

He manages to stir up some controversy with a picture called, "The Immigrant" in which Charlie kicks an immigration officer in the backside. How dare this foreigner mock the U.S. Immigration system!

Also, during this period, Charlie meets Edna Purviance (Penelope Ann Miller) who would be his leading lady for a few years. 

After a few years go by, Charlie attends a suave party thrown by his friend and fellow actor, Douglas Fairbanks (Kevin Kline) also attended by J. Edgar Hoover (Kevin Dunn). Charlie disputes Hoover's comments about the role of movies, actors and propaganda. This sparks a 40-year grudge against Charlie. 

He starts dating 16-year old actress, Mildred Harris (Milla Jovovich). He later tells Fairbanks that he has to marry Harris because she's pregnant. Fortunately, her pregnancy turns out to be false.

But the two marry only to end up getting a divorce. 

Charlie is in the middle of working on his 1921 film "The Kid" while this is going on. Harris's divorce lawyers claim "The Kid" is an asset and try to confiscate it. But Charlie, Sydney and the production crew sneak off to Salt Lake City with the movie to finish it in a hotel room. 

They sneak back to Los Angeles with the completed film after narrowly getting caught. 

Upon the premiere of "The Kid," Chaplin heads back to the U.K. for the premiere and has hopes to be reunited with Hetty. 

Sadly, no one has told him Hetty succumbed to influenza and died two years prior. 

Back in the U.K. while a lot of people are happy to see Chaplin, some of the working-class English are less than thrilled as Charlie didn't enlist in the British armed forces during World War I. 

Hoover continues digging into Charlie's life, trying to find anything that will support his claims that Charlie is a communist sympathizer.

On top of this, Sydney tries to encourage Charlie to switch over to talking pictures. But Charlie doesn't want the Tramp to talk. Doing so will diminish the Tramp. 

Instead, he makes two more silent movies in the early rise of talking pictures - "City Lights" and "Modern Times." 

Robert Downey Jr. and Anthony Hopkins in "Chaplin."

Before that, he makes "The Gold Rush" in 1925. He also marries his second wife, the young actress Lita Grey (Deborah Moore). After Charlie and Lita go splitsville, he marries actress Paulette Goddard (Diane Lane).  

Charlie is deep in his work on "Modern Times" which causes Goddard to feel ignored and like she's second place in his life. So, that marriage ends in divorce. 

He finally meets Oona O'Neill (Moira Kelly) who resembles his first love, Hetty Kelly. She's the daughter of American playwright, Eugene O'Neill. 

They fall in live and marry. They stay married up to Chaplin's death in 1977. 

After their marriage, Charlie is accused of fathering a child with former lover, Joan Berry (Nancy Travis) which plunges him into a highly publicized scandal. 

Though blood tests prove it's not Charlie's baby, a court still determines he must pay child support. 

Also, Charlie decides to finally make a talking picture as the Tramp called "The Great Dictator" which satirizes Nazism and Adolf Hitler. It's his last movie as his famous character, but not his last movie all together. 

Hoover sees "The Great Dictator" as anti-American propaganda. Chaplin doesn't make another movie for seven years until his film "Limelight" is produced. 

The McCarthy hearings are taking place when Chaplin takes Oona and his family to visit the U.K. 

They have barely left New York City when the U.S. Attorney General revokes his re-entry permit leaving Charlie barred from the U.S. 

He resides in Switzerland for the rest of his life, feeling betrayed and resentful towards the country that made him successful, and whom he made laugh in return. 

Charlie does return to the U.S. 1972 to receive an honorary Academy Award. There, he receives a long standing ovation. 

To make a movie of someone's entire life is bold. It's especially bold when that someone is immortal like Charlie. 

Nobody before or sense has ever captured human tragedy so simply, and still make audiences laugh. 

I think this movie tries to depict that, and Downey's performance tries to replicate it with every gleam of his talent. It's a monumental effort. 

Despite Charlie's rise from pauperdom to prestige, this movie is a long string of melancholy emotion and sadness throughout, which is heard especially in the soundtrack. There's some triumph, some comedy, and a lot of sorrow. 

It brings deeper insight into Chaplin's creative genius and remarkable talent as a comedian, writer, actor, composer, director and producer. The scene where Charlie wracks his creative brain to figure out a way how to make the blind flower girl in his movie "City Lights" mistake the Tramp for a rich man. 

All things considered, the movie "Chaplin" fails to focus enough on where it matters - Charlie's creativity. It goes back and forth between that, and his interest in younger women, and all the other stuff that doesn't contribute to his greatness and legacy. 

Granted, that all makes him the human he is. But everyone has weaknesses and shortcomings. The movie's tagline reads, "Everyone has a wild side, even a legend." As depicted in this movie, Chaplin

Geraldine Chaplin as her grandmother, Hannah Chaplin.

didn't do much to rise above his "wild side." This part of him didn't make him "Charlie Chaplin" as the world knows him. I don't know what the audience is supposed to take away from this "wild side" of Charlie Chaplin. 

One major pet peeve I have with "Chaplin" is how it depicts Chaplin's first appearance in a movie. 

The movie shows him first appearing before a camera in a fictional scene with Chaplin dressed as the Tramp crashing a wedding party, and then being chased around the room by wedding guests. 

In reality, Chaplin's first movie was "Making a Living" (1914). It was his second movie, "Kid Auto Races at Venice" (1914) where he first appeared as the "Little Tramp" with bowler hat, bamboo cane, toothbrush mustache, tight coat and baggy pants. This movie couldn't get that right? Why couldn't they depict either of those movies as his first picture, or first picture as his famous persona? 

Chaplin also got a bit too politically preachy around World War II as seen in "The Great Dictator" which, if what "Chaplin" depicts is accurate, wasn't really appreciated by audiences back in the 1940s. Nothing has changed since then. Too many actors still act preachy. Movie audiences didn't like to be lectured to by Hollywood elites back then, and they still don't. Hollywood didn't get the clue back then, and still hasn't.

I understand this biopic is trying to depict Chaplin as the product of his upbringing and experiences. It might have been better to focus on one particular aspect of Chaplin's life so as to give the audience clearer picture of how his talents made him so remarkable, highly respected and renowned. 

Who cares if he had a wild side? Who cares that a rich celebrity loved women? Who cares if women loved him? 

Yet, the amazing acting, talented cast of stars who are in this together to pay homage to the comedian of all comedians, the set design, and the respect this movie contains is well done. To depict Chaplin's entire life is a bold feat. The effort alone deserves appreciation. 

Don't Fast Forward This One: The Movie 'Stan and Ollie' Changed My Opinion of 'Chaplin'

Robert Downy, Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in the 1992 film Chaplin.

When it comes to biographical movies, portraying the entire life of a person can be tricky. Sometimes it works. Often, there's too much content to process in one sitting and results in the audience loosing interest.
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."

Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in

Stan and Ollie (2018).

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!

Marisa Tomei and Robert Downy, Jr.

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?"