CHAPLIN

           At the beginning of the twentieth century Filmmaking was in its infancy. There were photographic techniques that could create multiples of one person in a shot, but even the most creative photographers could not produce what we see on film today. Some look at the black and white scenes in the silent films of the 1910s and 1920s and decide they have no value. Few take the time to examine this early art. This is unfortunate, as it was the product of a time when true ability could not be faked. There were no computer graphics to stun the audiences. There was no dialogue, just the playing of an organ by an employee of the theater. The talent on the screen had to be real talent. Their body language had to be so good as to convey their message silently. A dramatic actor had to be truly dramatic and a comedian funny using only visual humor.

           Visual humor has little place in comedy today. When we see comedy it is usually bawdy or peppered with insulting language. Slapstick has become a negative word as it is seen as unsophisticated. The argument can be made that bawdy humor is hardly sophisticated, but the public generally accepts what is contemporary. Slapstick humor is equated with the antics of the Three Stooges. In the beginning of film slapstick was contemporary and was also less violent than what we have seen from the Stooges. When the early comedians needed visual humor they often used a pratfall or a pie in the face. Because this type of humor can be repetitive and tiring it takes an excellent comedian to use successfully. They needed more. These people needed to have the ability to be funny without words and with minimal slapstick. Two comedians rose to the top, Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin. Fans of silent comedy often dispute who is the best of the two. Without a doubt they were both geniuses, but this writer considers Chaplin to be superior.

           As far as we have come our view of what makes an artist a genius stays the same. He must be original, daring, willing to take chances, and have a knowledge of what the audience wants. The silent geniuses were all of those things. Chaplin was not only a great performer on screen, but he directed most of his films (only his earliest films were directed by others). He was a producer and writer. In the days of silent films he wrote the scene as the film was being made. In his later films the opening credits seem to say "...by Charles Chaplin" over and over.

           There was more. Chaplin proved to be a prolific composer. He could not read a note of music but could play it for those who could write it down. Some of his music has gained widespread recognition, such as "Smile", from Modern Times and "This is my Song" from one of his lesser known films, A Countess from Hong Kong. The most beautiful is "Eternally", the opening theme of Limelight. It became so widely known as one of the great Chaplin compositions that it was played at many of his professional appearances, including his Academy Award acceptance in 1972.



           Charlie, a native of London, was born in poverty on April 16, 1889 to music hall performers. He was a small child when he got his first break by performing in place of his mother, who was suffering from severe mental illness. He got his start in films when his half-brother Sydney got him a job with the Karno Company in England. He came to the United States and joined Mack Sennet's Keystone Studio. Sennet was famous for his slapstick comedies which invariably ended in chases. Chaplin went on to work for Essenay where some of his best known work was done. Eventually, with Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford he formed United Artists.

           Along the way Chaplin did something that made him a famous figure world wide---he invented the Tramp. He went to the costume room at the studio and began combining pieces of clothing until he was wearing a derby hat, vest that was too small, shoes that were too big, a brush-mustache, and was carrying a cane. The costume seemed to produce the character. He remembered the walk of a man from his childhood and copied it. The character became synonymous with Chaplin until 1940 when he did his first sound film. Even though he did a small amount of work without the Tramp costume he will always be remembered for that character.

           Because Chaplin began his life in terrible poverty he always connected with the common man, even when he had become a multi-millionare. There was a serious side to his work, a combination of comedy and melodrama known as "pathos". It hadn't occurred to many comedians to pepper their hilarious performances with scenes that would tug at the audience's heart strings. Charlie became the master and such films as The Gold Rush, The Kid, and City Lights are considered to be treasures for just that reason.

           Chaplin's work has been the subject of much writing as has his rise to fame. Many alive today do not know that Chaplin did not remain loved by the public. His eventual downfall is a biography unto itself! It is the story of a man who, after achieving fame and fortune against incredible odds, fell from the heights of public adoration to become one of the most hated individuals in Hollywood. And what makes the story more astounding is that Chaplin refused to accept life at that level. After some years of relative obscurity he was again recognized for the genius he was. It was not the nature of this man to accept defeat. And it cannot be dismissed that the story of Chaplin's life parallels the Little Tramp in so many ways.



           Many measured Chaplin by his personal life and political views. He was married four times--three of his wives being very young. During Chaplin's time in Hollywood leftist politics were not the norm. Political correctness in that time tended toward the right. Chaplin, while never becoming a US citizen and therefore never voting, openly held liberal beliefs. This was especially dangerous in the early fifties when a man named Joseph McCarthy turned a healthy concern for national safety into a dangerous obsession. The fanaticism of this one man and those who backed him in the Congress caused the reputations and careers of many individuals to be ruined. Such were the Hollywood Ten. Chaplin escaped being linked to that ill-fated group, but he also fell victim to the witch hunting of the McCarthyites.

           We know today that the media has a strong effect on public thinking. Chaplin definitely used his films to make social statements, but most of it was probably lost on the people of the time. We see the messages now, and maybe it struck close to home for some at the time. But these films were more a vision of the future than anything else. Charlie could see the depersonalization of industry (Modern Times) and the horror of Hitler before the US even considered going to war (The Great Dictator). He also saw the connection between mass murder and the atomic bomb (Monsieur Verdoux). With the possible exception of Modern Times these films take on a greater significance when viewed with the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight. Chaplin, in retrospect, seems to be less a social activist than a prophet. His predictions were not noticed by the general public. They were too deeply affected by the Depression and War to see the messages.

           But some did see the messages, and objected vigorously! People like FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover believed Chaplin to be a subversive at best, and a pedophile at worst! Hoover and those like him sought to remove Chaplin's messages from the public. To this end they did what the "powers that were" did at that time, which was to investigate the "dangerous" party's activities. And as is prone to happen when activities are investigated, one tends to find what one expects. Hence, if expecting to see immorality from a middle-aged man who had always sought out the younger of the fairer sex-- and one finds a young lady accusing said man to be the father of her child--the outcome is predictable!

           In the early forties, Chaplin was accused by Joan Barry of fathering her baby. Not only was this accusation harmful to Chaplin's reputation, but the fact that he had been carrying on a relationship with this young girl for a time made it worse. A fury erupted! Because Chaplin had tried to send this girl and her mother back home, giving them the money to do so, he was accused of a violation of the Mann Act. Supposedly he was trying to transport a young girl across state lines and therefore guilty of "white slavery"---which is what the Mann Act was about. He knew he could not be the father of her child and went to court. He was acquitted of the Mann Act violation but he was not so fortunate in the paternity case. At this time blood typing was a new technique being used to rule out potential fathers. Chaplin hoped it would prove his innocence. Chaplin was blood group O and when the mother's and baby's blood type did not match it proved there was another man involved. However, the jury was not so sure it trusted this new science. They found in favor of the mother and Charlie paid child support for eighteen years.

           It was during the early forties that Charlie met the daughter of playwright Eugene O'Neill. Although he objected strongly to her involvement with Chaplin, the marriage took place on June 16,1943. Charlie, already the father of two sons, went on to have eight children with Oona between 1944 and 1962. A time of domesticity was beginning, but there were more problems ahead.

           When Chaplin made Limelight in 1951, he placed five of his children in the film. Charlie, Jr was a clown in the ballet scene and Sydney was Chaplin's male costar. Geraldine, Michael, and Josephine, appeared as street urchins. Some say that Oona was also in the film (possibly as a stand-in for Claire Bloom). Before leaving with his family for the premier of the Limelight in London, Charlie's movements in regard to his money and property reflected a sense of impending homelessness--albeit an extravagant homelessness which could house his family at the Savoy while they looked for a new home.

           Before the Chaplins left for London aboard the Queen Elizabeth Chaplin made sure his papers were in order. He was still a British subject and needed a re-entry visa to get back into the US. Soon after they left port he received a telegram stating that he would only be able to return after agreeing to answer extensive questions about his personal life and political views. Chaplin was 63 and tired of it all. He had a growing family and wished happiness for them all. Chaplin decided on exile. In September of 1952, the Chaplins became a European family. In 1953, while Oona was pregnant with their fifth child, Eugene, Chaplin purchased the elegant Manoir de Ban on Lake Geneva outside Vevey, Switzerland. There he lived in luxury for the rest of his years.



           Chaplin often inserted elements of his life into his films. Noteworthy are Limelight and The Kid. But A King in New York, the story of a dethroned monarch who finds himself in exile after a revolution, seems the most autobiographical. Chaplin, as King Shadov, encounters American culture in the mid-fifties complete with television commercials, plastic surgery, rock and roll, and un-American activities committees. Particularly humorous is his use of son Michael as young Ruppert, the son of accused communists. The young Chaplin's oratory on passports is scathingly funny to those familiar with Chaplin's run-in with the US. It seems as though he used this film as a personal catharsis. Many have criticized the film as too bitter and technically poor. The latter is true, bitterness is only perceived if one does not see his use of comedy to deal with a deep hurt.

           It took a long time, but when Chaplin became an old man and a new generation entered Hollywood things changed. While those who were Chaplin's contemporaries often continued to distrust him the younger people appreciated his work and talent. His lifestyle no longer troubled anyone. He was the patriarch of a large and stable family. His politics were now in line with those of the Hollywood elite. He was finally being judged for the body of his work and not for his personal life. In 1962 Charlie received an honorary degree from Oxford University. In 1972, twenty years after he left the US, Chaplin was invited back to receive a special Academy Award for achievement. This was followed by a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II. As Sir Charles Chaplin is star was again on the rise!

           But even the great among us, those we put on a pedestal so high no one can reach them, eventually face their own mortality. On Christmas Day in 1977 Charlie Chaplin left us. Now, in the twenty-first century, more and more people are falling in love with the Little Tramp. Young and old, they are seeing the talent and genius of this incredible man. Who he was and what he did is finally being put into perspective.

           Did Chaplin really convince his audiences of his social views? It is doubtful. In a generation plagued by World War I, the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the Great Depression, and World War II the Little Tramp prevailed. Chaplin, this man of wealth and fame, had little influence on the political and social climate of his time but he was persecuted for those just the same. Rather than change the social and political thought of his fans, he encouraged them during a time when poverty was the norm. And it was in this alone that Chaplin made his biggest impact. This destitute yet proud little tramp reminded so many of themselves. As people saw the Tramp win his battles they were encouraged to win their own.

           Some may choose to remember Chaplin as a man of poor morals and questionable social views. We who love him remember him simply as the Little Tramp--a man who could be knocked down over and over, and yet get up, dust himself off, and waddle into the sunset. This is also the story of Sir Charles Chaplin. He was a genius, and yet a man of human weakness. He started life in poverty. He rose to the heights of fame and popularity and just like the Tramp was knocked down. But at the end, knighthood attained and Academy Award in hand, he waddled away. His films were funny, they were touching, and they taught us a lot about ourselves. In the end it was Chaplin's portrayal of downtrodden man, embodied in a little fellow in baggy pants and oversized shoes, that became his greatest legacy. The Little Tramp was not so unlike his creator after all.

by Gloria Bond

References

My Autobiography

Chaplin, Charles
New York: Penguin Books, 1964

The Life and Times of Charlie Chaplin

Karney, Robyn and Cross, Robin
New York: Smithmark Publishers, 1992

Chaplin and American Culture

Maland, Charles J
Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1989

My says that you are visitor number

Charles Chaplin Movies

Home | Catholic | Chaplin

Graphics | Nostalgia

gbond@ erols.com
last updated 1/15/08

Images are copyright © Roy Export Company Establishment All Rights Reserved. The images of, and characters portrayed by Charles Chaplin are trademarks and service marks of Bubbles, Inc. S.A. used with permission.