Film Chronicle
CHAPLIN AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN
1.
If
this singular film were not hy Chaplin and with Chaplin, it
would he both more satisfying on first view and less integral and compre·
henaihle on reflection. More satisfying because we'd take the laughs with·
out expecting the perfect comic continuity, which is not here, and without
disgust at the poor timing. We'd never give a second thought to the calami·
tous music (Meredith Willson) nor the feeble dialogue. The persistent
lapses in style-in the color of the photography, unity of the sets, formal·
ity of the acting of the secondary roles-would even he in the us1,1al order
of things. And the democratic Message, direct address to the audience and
all, would belong only to the political bias of the spectator to judge: he
would call it collective security or aid to Britain depending on the date he
j
likes to project himself and the film into; he might wonder a hit at the
words "gentleness," "unnatural men," etc.; in any case it would all seem
I
out of place, "out of character'' as the critics have agreed to call it. But
j
it's Charlie Chaplin! and what have these remarks to do with him? For
instance, what possibly is the meaning of "lapses in style" when applied
to Charlie Chaplin? Therefore I have had to turn to the following
genetic
considerations to explain the puzzle; and perhaps to find that this is some–
thing different, and something better, than the "grandiose failure" of the
worried reviewers.
2. From the earliest 2-reelers, the Chapli.it hero was, of course, the
square peg in the round hole; hut this genus was specified hy several
considerations: (a) The environment to which the hero could not quite
adjust was realistic, not fantastic; (h) it was in principle
approved,
so
that the hero had to try to make an adjustment,-this was the pathetic
humor of "good intentions" and "try try again"; (c) the comic difficulty
of the hero was not common to others, all were not in the same hoat,-this
was the "isolated and lonely Charlie," the "one black sheep"; (d) yet the
courageous little hero was not excluded because he was a freak, hut some–
how because he had a power and duty
freer
than the reality. This last
point is capital; because hy it tbe comedy became absolute, distinct from
that kind of comedy which turns on some original disproportion in
the
hero or situation which is ultimately reconciled, as e.g. in Buster Keaton.
By it, too, a strong irony is cast over the attempts of the hero himself
(point h) to make an adjustment; so that not only the indifferent in
the
environment is comically criticized, hut the good as the hero sees it is
comic in the same way. Along these lines, I think, we can explain the
remarkable comic continuity of such long films as
The Kid, The GoUJ
456
