Chaplin in Review – PART XI – A Countess from Hong Kong

12 07 2011

Copyright 1967 Chaplin Film Productions and Universal Pictures

★ ★ ★

And so we come to Chaplin’s final completed feature film and our final part of this series, A Countess in Hong Kong.  Released in 1967, Chaplin was nearly 80 years old while directing this picture.  It was his first and only time that he shot a widescreen presentation and his only feature film outside of 1923’s A Woman in Paris that he was not prominently featured as an actor.  In fact, he played the exact same type of small role as he had in A Woman in Paris in this film, that of a steward.

The film stars internationally known Oscar winners Marlon Brando and Sophia Loren.  Brando plays Saudi Arabian-designate Ogden Mears, who is on his way home from a world tour aboard a luxury liner.  A married man, yet one who is more or less estranged from his spouse, Mears is sailing back alone with his older valet Hudson (Patrick Cargill) and lawyer friend Harvey (Chaplin’s son with Lita Grey, Sydney Chaplin).  Loren plays a Russian Countess named Natascha, who sneaks aboard the luxury liner to escape being forced into prostitution.  Because she has no passport, she is forced to stay in the same cabin as Mears and hideout from the authorities on board.  A flurry of comedic situations between uptight Mears and exotic, outgoing Natascha ensue and an overarching plot of finding a way to get Natascha safely off the ship is followed throughout.

Essentially, the film plays out like a 1930s romantic comedy programmer, which didn’t fit very well into the 1960s.  In fact, Chaplin originally had the idea for this film in the 1930s after he sailed on his three month tour around the world.  Had the film been completed at this time, Paulette Goddard would have starred in the role of Natascha, and I’m sure Chaplin would have reserved the role of Mears for himself.

Though the potential of the film seems like it would be huge, I mean Chaplin, Brando and Loren on a matinee is enough to make anyone foam at the mouth, in the end, the film just falls flat.  Brando and Chaplin apparently despised each other on set.  Chaplin was notorious for directing actors exactly the way he wanted them to play a part, many times going to the length of acting the bit out himself and then saying, “Now, do it more like that.”  Brando, who was known for his intense dedication to performance through method acting, had a hard time being handled as an actor in this manner and didn’t see eye-to-eye with Chaplin methods at all.  The final result on screen is visibly a stilted performance; rather than coming off as funny and light hearted, Brando feels wooden and forcibly tongue-in-cheek.  Likewise, Loren’s performance leaves something to be desired, but not to the same degree as Brando’s portrayal of Mears.  Honestly, to me, the show stealer was Patrick Cargill as Mear’s aging valet Hudson.  I thought he was brilliant as a supporting character.

Like A King in New York, this film was also made in England with rented studios and didn’t afford Chaplin an ideal working environment that he had been accustomed to in California with his own studio.  Rather tragically during production actually, Chaplin broke his ankle which delayed production for a couple weeks.

Upon release, A Countess from Hong Kong received generally lackluster reviews and was not a success at the box office.  During one of the premieres, the projectionist didn’t set the anamorphic adapter on the projector properly and the film was screened in an improper aspect ratio.  The disaster of this film was very difficult for Chaplin, though there were some reviewers who gave high praise to the picture.  In my opinion, I feel it was a rather low note to go out on and can see why many people prefer to think of Limelight as Chaplin’s swan song, but once an artist, always an artist and to take away an artist’s ability to create is essentially that of killing him.

Following this film, Chaplin wrote a screenplay for a film that would have been called The Freak.  The screenplay, which was about a South American girl who sprouts wings and is passed off by captors as an angel before being arrested because of her appearance, would have starred his daughter Victoria from his marriage with Oona. In fact, test footage was made with Victoria in costume, though Chaplin never got to complete the film.

In the 1970s, Chaplin spent a good deal of time scoring his early silent films and re-releasing them with the completed scores.  In 1972, he returned to the United States to accept an Honorary Oscar for his contribution to Motion Pictures; this was his first time back on US soil in 20 years.  While in United States, he met with some old friends and even drove by his former studio and other places of interest.  Here is the video of his acceptance speech for his Honorary Oscar.  The standing ovation has been edited down as it was originally 5 minutes long, the longest any performer has ever received to this date:

Chaplin would go on to be knighted in 1975.  He passed away on Christmas Day 1977 at his home in Vevey, Switzerland at the age of 88.

Well, that brings us to the end of our journey through the eleven feature films that Charlie Chaplin made in his lifetime.  I hope you have enjoyed my reviews and some of the background information I have provided on each of the films.  I have to say that Chaplin is probably my favorite filmmaker of all-time.  Though his films were not always the most technically proficient, his ability to tell a story that could make you laugh or cry, or a little of both, was a true gift.  I am by no means the foremost scholar on the work of Chaplin, but I do feel like I am better than the average as I have read most of his biographies including the seminal work by David Robinson, Chaplin: His Life and Art (highly reccomended!) and Chaplin’s own autobiography, My Autobiography.  In addition, I did extensive research into his affair with Joan Barry for an article that was published on alternativereel.com and also available as a header link here in this blog as Joan Barry Article.  Anyway, thanks for reading this series and if you have any questions on Chaplin’s life or films, I will do my best to answer in the comments section.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART X – A King in New York

11 07 2011

Copyright 1957 Charlie Chaplin Productions and Attica Film Company

★ ★ ★ 1/2

For good reason, Chaplin’s bitterness towards the United States was very high during the late 1950s.  His persecution under the Red scare and constant tailings and pressure from the FBI resulted in Chaplin being exiled in 1952.  Along with the forced sale of his personal assets, Chaplin also lost his beloved studio, Chaplin Studios, which was located at the corner of La Brea and and Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles.  For over 30 years, Chaplin had the convenience of working at his own studio, with crew members who were familiar with his work and style and, most importantly, on his own time.  In Europe, once Chaplin decided to move forward with another film, which, at first was a slight consideration of returning to Shadow and Substance, but later settling on A King in New York, Chaplin had to rent a studio in which to shoot which greatly hindered his normal process.

A King in New York was Chaplin’s return parry at the United States government.  The story centers around Chaplin’s character of King Igor Shahdov, a recently exiled king from a small, unnamed European country.  For reasons unknown, his prime minister has drained the country treasury and disappeared, leaving the king stranded and broke in New York City.  Trying to the make the best of his situation, Shahdov tries to present an appeal towards the peaceful use of nuclear power, in addition to settling into life in America in the 1950s.  Chaplin satirically takes jabs at much of American popular culture of this era including wide screen movies, rock and roll music and cosmetic surgery, among other things.  One night at a dinner party, which is unknowingly being broadcasted live on television, Shahdov alludes to the fact that he has had some theatre experience.  Because of this, he is eventually conned by young, pretty T.V. Specialist Ann Kay (Dawn Addams) into doing a deodorant commercial, which is filmed secretly and without his consent.  The commercial becomes a success and the king is offered many other opportunities for doing commercials and plugging various products.  At first he rejects all the offers, but, eventually, because of the need for money, ultimately accepts.  Soon after his newfound commercial successes, Chaplin runs into a small boy named Rupert (played by Chaplin’s older son with Oona, then 10-year-old Michael Chaplin), whose parents are about to be jailed for communist sympathies by the House of Un-American Activities.  Shahdov gives Rupert refuge in his hotel room, causing himself to become a suspect in communist sympathy.  In the end, Shahdov is disillusioned with the United States and leaves the country.

It would be 16 years before A King in New York was released to American audiences because of the obvious attacks on the country at the time; in Europe, the film received decent, but not glowing reviews.  Because of Chaplin having to rent studios and work with a crew he was not accustomed (and, for that matter, one that was not accustomed to him), Chaplin rushed the production and filmed this movie in record breaking time for a Chaplin film (12 weeks).  Also problematic to the production value was having to shoot London locations and in-studio sets to double for New York City.

Though Chaplin said he never set out to make a political film with this motion picture, it definitely has an underlying political tone that stands out to the viewer.  Furthermore, because of this, the somewhat lackluster production value and a script many say is not as generally tight as most Chaplin scripts, this film has been lamented by some audiences as not being very good.  For me, personally, I enjoyed the movie.  It is definitely not his best work, far from it in fact; however, it has it’s own place in his body of work and I can clearly see his reasons for making a film of this manner.

My only qualms about the film were the verbose political rants given by young Rupert.  To me, these became a little tiring and heavy handed, and I felt Michael’s performance was a bit stilted.  Apparently, Oona and Charlie constantly went back and forth as to who was the better child actor Chaplin had worked with, young Jackie Coogan in The Kid or young Michael in this film.  In my opinion, Coogan is the hands down winner of this verbal bet, but maybe Michael’s performance garners more praise than I feel due.  All film criticism, after all, is subjective.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART IX – Limelight

8 07 2011

Copyright 1952 Chaplin Studios

★ ★ ★ ★ 1/2

The Cold War propaganda that was being pressed heavily in the late 1940s targeted Chaplin because of his liberal and humanist sensibilities.  In the midst of this troubling time, Chaplin made Limelight, a film about a vaudevillian clown who has, essentially, lost his audience.

Chaplin plays Calvero, a once great vaudeville clown, who has succumbed to alcoholism and an audience who no longer has interest in his performance.  On coming home one night, he smells gas and breaks into a nearby apartment to find a young woman, Thereza, or “Terry” (Claire Bloom), in the midst of a suicide attempt.  Calvero quickly calls a doctor and saves her life.  The doctor tells Calvero that she is a ballerina who suffers from hysterical paralysis, which is paralysis present though no physical ailment is present.  Calvero takes Terry to his apartment to nurse her and the two become quite good friends, offering tales of their lives and philosophies.  The two genuinely begin to help each other as Calvero dreams of returning to the stage and his former glory with Terry as his companion.  Also around this time, Terry begins to overcome her paralysis.  As time passes and Terry’s paralysis is fully recovered, she moves up in the ballet world and reunites with a former love (played by Chaplin’s younger son from his marriage to Lita Grey, Sydney).  The connection between the two for the remainder of the film is that of confidants; Terry helps Calvero try to find his former glory, and Calvero helps reinstate Terry’s confidence so her hysterical paralysis won’t attack again.  In the final part of the film, Terry arranges a final performance for Calvero where he once agains shines.  Assisting him on stage is a former vaudevillian played by Buster Keaton.  This is the only appearance of the two masters of comedy on screen together and is magical to watch.  Following his final performance and standing ovation, the clown suffers a heart attack and dies while watching Terry dance her final act of the ballet in the limelight.

This was definitely a personal film for Chaplin, as he and both of his parents were vaudevillians in England.  Calvero is a mixture of several personalities that Chaplin knew growing up whose audience had abandoned them.  Supposedly, before writing the screenplay for this film, Chaplin completed an unreleased novel entitled Footlights that helped him arrange the story and provided background on the characters of Calvero and Terry that weren’t shown in the film.

Limelight was released in 1952, the year that Chaplin left the United States in exile.  He had long been a target of the House of Un-American Activities and J. Edgar Hoover kept a close watch on Chaplin beginning in the 1920s.  While leaving on a short voyage home to London for the premiere of this film, Hoover negotiated with the Immigration and Naturalization Service for a revocation of Chaplin’s re-entry permit (as he was still a UK citizen, though he had lived in the US at this point for 40 years).  Hearing the news, Chaplin was deeply saddened and decided not to return to the United States.  He eventually settled in Vevey, Switzerland, where he remained for the rest of his life.  His wife, Oona, returned to the US to take care of negotiating sales of his mansion in Beverly Hills, the Studio and take care of other assets.

Limelight has always been generally well-received and is a deeply moving film.  In my opinion, this Chaplin’s best performance in regards to his talkie motion pictures.  His sentimentality as the dried up clown and the pain in his eyes make many scenes extremely touching.  There is nothing worse than watching the pain of a clown.  Due to the lackluster reviews of Chaplin’s final two films, many consider Limelight to be Chapin’s true swan song.  It is definitely better than his last two efforts, but I still like A King in New York a lot, which will be the next topic for this series.

As an interesting side note, due to the anit-American hype surrounding Chaplin at this time, Limelight was not shown in many theaters throughout the country.  A wide release was not in effect until 1972, at which time the score for this film won an Academy Award for Chaplin and his fellow composers because the film wasn’t in contention until the wide release.  Because of this win, the Academy later put a statute of limitations on nominations.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART VIII – Monsieur Verdoux

6 07 2011

Copyright 1947 Chaplin Studios

★ ★ ★ ★

The Joan Barry suit plagued Chaplin through most of the early 1940s, though also during this time he met the love of his life and companion who would be with him until he passed in 1977, Eugene O’ Neill’s young daughter, Oona.  Professionally, following The Great Dictator, Chaplin began work on several different ideas.  In 1941, he commissioned an idea for $5,000 from Orson Welles about French bluebeard Henri Désiré Landru, who was executed in 1922 for his murders of 10 women, one boy and two dogs.  Another project was an adaptation of the Paul Vincent Carroll stageplay Shadow and Substance.  Joan Barry, ironically enough, was set to play the lead in this film and went through a series of screen tests and other arrangements to prepare her for the part.  However, once they had a falling out and the messiness of the paternity suit came forward, Chaplin shelved Shadow and Substance indefinitely.  A full script was produced and is still in the Chaplin Archives in Switzerland, but Chaplin never got around to completing the picture.  This left him with his Landru script, which took him nearly four years to finish the screenplay.  The film, in the end, was titled Monsieur Verdoux.

Chaplin plays Verdoux, a bluebeard who murders rich widows and invests in their fortunes.  As a front, he has a furniture business that is in most regards inoperative.  Furthermore, at a county cottage, he has a son and his true wife that he loves, who is an invalid.  Both of them only see the kind, loving husband and father and never know of how he makes his living other than the furniture front.  One day he meets a beautiful young woman (Marilyn Nash), who is down on her luck and having to work as a prostitute.  He lures her in at first to test a new poison, but then finds he cannot follow through and tries to persuade her that life is worth living.  Many years later, he runs into the woman after he is down on his luck and lost everything in the stock market crash and she is a wealthy socialite.  Soon after, his past comes back to haunt him and he is arrested for his murderous deeds and sentenced to death.  In the end, Verdoux asks the judge and the audience if he is really the worst of them, a man trying to help his family through the best means he could muster, or are the weapons of mass destruction and other terrors out in the world much worse.

A biting satire with strong social criticism and certainly Chaplin’s darkest comedy, Chaplin himself considered this the cleverest film he had ever written.  Upon release in 1947, it was met with mixed reviews and many interviewers questioned Chaplin’s supposed radical views and political ideals rather than ask questions about the film.  Several critics, however, did give raving reviews of the film and it was nominated for a Best Original Screenplay Academy Award.  In recent years, the film has become somewhat of a cult classic, even amongst non-Chaplin enthusiasts.

These vicious attacks during the McCarthy era communist witch hunts and constant pursuit by the U.S. government would eventually be what drove Chaplin away from the United States in 1952, after calling it home for nearly 40 years.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Chaplin in Review – PART VII – The Great Dictator

5 07 2011

Copryight 1940 Chaplin Studios

★ ★ ★ ★

Following Modern Times, Chaplin married actress Paulette Goddard.  There marriage was generally a happy one and Charlie’s two adolescent sons, Charles Jr. and Sydney, very much looked up to Paulette and accepted her as a maternal figure.  As for professional endeavors, Chaplin became aware of the tyranny rising in the Hitler regime and decided to make a politically fused film to elaborate on his ideals and feelings towards what was happening in Europe.  This was in 1938, well before either England or America became involved in the war.

Hitler, apparently an admirer of Chaplin, wore his mustache in the same manner as Chaplin’s Little Tramp as an homage.  Chaplin, however, was very much against the dictatorial rule and awful happenings the Third Reich were performing.  When rumor circulated that Chaplin was going to do a film based around his likeness to Hitler, many of his closest friends tried to talk him out of it.  However, he pushed forward with the script and produced what would become The Great Dictator.

The film begins in World War I, where a young private (Chaplin) in the Tomanian army valiantly rescues an officer pilot, Schultz.  Though Schultz is rescued, the plane they are in crashes into a tree and the anonymous private suffers memory loss.  He is taken to a hospital where he remains for nearly 20 years.  Upon return, the young private doesn’t realize that things have changed in his beloved Tomania.  The dictator, Hynkel (also played by Chaplin), is now the ruler of the country.  When the private arrives back in the Ghetto at his barber shop, he finds many storefronts smashed and other forms of discrimination being carried out by Hynkel’s stormtroopers.  Yet, the young private tries to go about his work and life as usual and, eventually, finds  a friend in a girl of the ghetto, Hannah (Paulette Goddard).  Schultz, the young private’s friend and officer, makes his way back into the story around this time as a member of the regime.  Immediately recognizing the young private, he orders the stormtroopers to leave his friend alone.  As the tyranny of Hynkel grows, he decides to take over neighboring country Osterlich.  Schultz questions his motives and is condemned to a concentration camp, though he manages to flee the ghetto before being caught.  He tries to start a revolution, but before it gets off the ground, both Schultz and the barber are sent to a prison camp.  In the meantime, Hannah has fled to Osterlich, only to find it eventually taken over and under Hynkel’s rule as well.  While celebrating his victory, Hynkel vacations to the countryside.  Meanwhile, Schulz and the barber escape the concentration camp.  Because of his likeness to Hynkel, the real Hynkel is arrested and put in a prison camp and the barber is thought to be Hynkel and put in his place of power.  Finding himself in this unique position, the barber decides to state his opinions on tyranny and democracy and gives a speech in front of all his people renouncing the ways of tyranny and promoting democratic notions.

This film marks the first time that Chaplin did a complete sound picture.  It was regarded as a success in the end and nominated for five Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Writing, Best Score, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actor in a Supporting Role (for Jack Oakie who plays a fellow dictator modeled loosely on Mussolini), though no awards were won.  Several scenes from the film have gone into the annals of cinema history as iconic.  Namely, a scene where Chaplin, as Hynkel, does a darkly comedic dance with a blow-up version of the World.  That scene can be seen here:

The speech at the end of the film is the most heartfelt and politically direct excerpt from any of Chaplin’s films.  It runs for nearly 10 minutes and elucidates Chaplin’s concerns over the tyranny of Hitler’s regime and cries out for justice and peace with the help of greater nations.  During filming, England joined the war, but at the release of this film in 1940, America still had another year before they fully committed after Pearl Harbor.  The speech, which is likely well ahead of its time considering the relative unknown to much of the world at this time regarding the Third Reich, can be seen here:

Following this film, Chaplin and Goddard decided to go their separate ways, though they stayed good friends for the remainder of their lives.  It would be seven years before the release of another Chaplin picture, largely because of a paternity suit brought on by a young New York girl that went by the name of Joan Barry.  The suit, which garnered national attention, was a very difficult time for Chaplin and an interesting mystery that still brings questions up to this day.  In 2009, I wrote a long form article on the entire Joan Barry situation that, as far as I have seen, is one of the most extensive recounts available.  I spent months writing this piece and scoured newspapers, magazines, books, FBI records and the Internet, in addition to several personal interviews, including one from Joan Barry’s son from a later marriage and Richard Lamparski of Whatever Happened to.. fame.  That article is available in its entirety on the blog main page here.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Reviews

Next Entries »