國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
A Debate in Reader’s Letters
A reader letter that published in Motion Picture Magazine on April 1918, written by Mary Morton and Evelyn Bayless who send a letter from Stonewall Jackson College at Abingdon Virginia, they criticized Chaplin’s comedies were not funny stuff and though Chaplin was more like a chief mourner in the funeral:
Charlie Chaplin is poor and looks more like the chief mourner in a funeral than a comedian. People are tired of this silly comedy and want something really funny.
The five-year-olds may enjoy it, but we do not think intelligent people possibly could. Charlie is bad enough, but excuse me from Lonesome Luke and Billie West. Billie tries to imitate Charlie Chaplin, but if he wants to imitate some one, why does he not imitate a real comedian like Max Linder?53
They believed that any “intelligent” people would not enjoy Chaplin’s comedies. They also questioned Billie West, a comedian who became famous because of imitating Chaplin, why he did not imitate a “real comedian” like Max Linder. They thought Max Linder, a French actor, was a real comedian.
Morton and Bayless thought Linder better than Chaplin; they opinion maybe makes some sense. According to some books: A Short History of the Movies, On Film: A History of the
Motion Picture and Film Histories: An Introduction and Reader, many scholars believe that Max
Linder’s performance style inspired and influenced Charles Chaplin.54After this letter published, a reader name Elsie Mae Shepherd, who came from West Point at Indiana, send a letter to Motion Picture Magazine and was posted on June issue in 1918, in this letter, the author thought Chaplin was better than Linder:
53 Motion Picture Magazine, April, 1918, p126.
54 References:
1. Gerald Mast and Bruce F. Kawin, A Short History of the Movies (10th Edition) (US: Pearson & Longman, 2008), p52.
2. Frank E. Beaver, On Film: A History of the Motion Picture (US: McGraw-Hill, 1983), p114.
3. Paul Grainge, Mark Jancovich and Sharon Monteith, Film Histories: An Introduction and Reader (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University, 2007), p46.
‧
Again, I want to say that when it comes to comedy, Charles Chaplin has the rest of the bunch beat a mile, after giving them a head start. I'd liked to have seen Max Linder in such plays as “The Adventurer,” “The Vagabond” or “The Floor
Walker.” It would have been a rank failure. It isn't the slapstick entirely that puts Chaplin’s work over — it’s the subtle humor and pathos of his characters, and I’ll say that Chaplin does more real acting than a great many of these
be-pompadoured, sport-shirted “kissablelipped,” first-water heroes. I myself would just like to see Chaplin in a drama for once. I think he would make a decided success of it, tho I wouldn't want him to keep it up. We need him in comedy more than we do in anything else.55
In the beginning, Shepherd said Linder would have been a “rank failure” because Linder’s comedies were not “slapstick entirely” like Chaplin’s comedies, and thought Linder’s films were subtle humor and his characters were kind of pathos style. Shepherd also pointed out, this kind of drama stuff like be-pompadoured, sport-shirted “kissablelipped,” and first-water heroes, it did not suit with Chaplin, so the author thought Chaplin should keep doing comedy style.
One of the reasons that Shepherd preferred Chaplin more than Linder was that, Chaplin did not have some sad element in his comedies. Many people always had a debate about Chaplin’s films were a just funny slapstick comedy, or Chaplin added some tragic feature in his films.
Harry Carr’s article, ‘Chaplin vs Lloyd,’ published in November 1922 in Motion Picture
Magazine, had a different opinion. Carr believed Chaplin was a “sad” comedian:
Chaplin laughs at the world to keep from crying with the world. In his heart, Chaplin is sad. He has the sadness that all very great geniuses have known.56
Carr also believed that a great genius was to be sad because genius would understand life deeply and try to create a “golden dream” by their art:
Chaplin will never be really happy. The lot of the great genius is to be sad. He knows life too deeply. He will see life slip away at last, still striving to make his art envision his golden dreams. The creative artist is always the child reaching for the golden moon. And Chaplin is the greatest of all creative artists.57
55 Motion Picture Magazine, June, 1918, p14.
56 ‘Chaplin vs Lloyd,’ Motion Picture Magazine, November, 1922, p96.
57 ‘Chaplin vs Lloyd,’ Motion Picture Magazine, November, 1922, p97.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Whatever did Chaplin have a sad element in film or not, some people liked Chaplin because they believed Chaplin was a purely fun comedian; some people loved Chaplin because they saw different element in Chaplin’s films. Unlike people argued that Chaplin was vulgar or not in his initial career, debated that Chaplin’s films were purely fun comedies; or comedies with some sad stuff, it shows that Chaplin actually did some change in his film.
4. The Effort of Change Stage Image
Since Chaplin entered the film industry, “vulgar” was often be used when people criticized his films. Of course, still had some fans who defended Chaplin, argued about Chaplin was not
vulgar, this following case was one of the instances.
The column— “Letter to The Editor” in the April issue of Motion Picture Magazine in 1916, published a letter from a Chaplin fan, in this letter, the author disagreed with people who
criticized Chaplin as “vulgar.” The writer explained that:
You will always find some very dignified, reserved, quiet, business-like people that take pleasure in being very sensible and afraid that they or someone else will be so vulgar as relish a little nonsense now and then, and they take great pleasure in “being different,” and saying that Chaplin is so “vulgar,” “don’t you Know,”
and there is nothing funny about him. In most cases they dont know anything about him, dont know anything about the brainy work he has done. They think he is a simple, childish mass of foolishness, and are peeved because a man so full of originality, so full of carefree fun, and so far below their elevated and dignified ideals, should come to the front and get some of the salary they ought to be getting.58
In this letter, this Chaplin fan mentioned that some people thought Chaplin was vulgar and could not find any fun in his film; thought Chaplin was a pure, childish mass of foolishness. This author disagreed with this kind of criticism about Chaplin and defended Chaplin that these people who did not like Chaplin were because they were jealous of Chaplin’s success.
58 Motion Picture Magazine, April, 1916, p186.
‧
Though some audiences defended Chaplin was not vulgar, Chaplin still wanted to do some change in his stage image and acting style. ‘The New Charlie Chaplin,’ written byJ.B. Hirsch in
Motion Picture Magazine, is an article talking about Charles Chaplin future
development, includes an interview with Chaplin. In the beginning, it mentioned that the secretary of The National Board of Censorship, W.W. Barrett had an impression about Chaplin:The old Charlie Chaplin has seen that the very methods by which his personality achieved success now imperil his unprecedented reputation by alienating a great part of American public, to whom the novelty of his fun-making appeals less as familiarity with his farce bares offensive vulgarities. His has realized the menace to his popularity, which has made him not at all “up-stage,” and pursues a new fame, to be built on basis of a more delicate art that will not countenance the broad sallies his old technique demanded— methods that his new metamorphosis eliminates as not in keeping with the American conception of humor.59
Chaplin said that he would try to change his acting style, but some critics thought he still the
“same Chaplin,” did the same stuff in his film. The Fireman, released on June 12, 1916, the review of Motion Picture News said:
In this subject, there is more than the usual allowance of “rough stuff.”60 The review in Motion Picture Magazine said that:
Another Chaplin farce, with the usual “slapstick stuff” and nothing new. Bring in spots, but hardly up to his best.61
“The Count,” released on September 4, 1916, the review from Motion Picture Magazine said that:
A typical Charlie Chaplin farce, with the usual quota of slapstick, chasing and pie-throwing, plus a few original touches that bring this play up to his average, but it is by no mean his best.62
In Answer Department, a column of Motion Picture Magazine, an editor’s response to the question about The Vagabond (1916):
59 J.B. Hirsch, ‘The New Charlie Chaplin’, Motion Picture Magazine, January, 1916, p115.
60 Motion Picture News, Vol. 13, Jun. 17, 1916, p3769.
61 Motion Picture Magazine, August, 1916, p172.
62 Motion Picture Magazine, November, 1916, p15.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Do try to see Charlie Chaplin in “The Vagabond.” I just wanted to hug him, he was so dear, and as a rule, altho I may laugh at some of his funny antics, I have wished he wouldn't draw the line quite so closely between comedy and
vulgarity.63
In this response, the editor thought some antics in Chaplin’s film, The Vagabond, was funny as usual, but the editor still hopped Chaplin should keep more distance from vulgarity in his films.
The review of Chaplin’s Mutual film in Motion Picture News and Motion Picture Magazine did not come up too different from other films starring him. However, Chaplin’s third Mutual film, The Vagabond, released on July 10, is an unusual one. The review of Motion Picture News said:
There are fewer laughs in this picture than in any Chaplin subject we have seen.
On the other hand, there are more serious moments — more pathos — and a more mixed appeal than in any film Chaplin has yet made. The impression one gets is that the spectator will be asked to laugh less, and think more, when he sees Charlie. This is the best opportunity the exhibitor has yet had to gauge the effect of the serious Chaplin on his patrons.64
In this review, the critic thought that The Vagabond, compared to other Chaplin film, had more serious and pathos scenes. The critic also said that this film would let the audience laugh less but think more.
Film Audiences are the key to create film culture. Audiences did not just watch movies; they would read magazines for acquiring information about the films and actors that they were interested to know. The fan magazine would not just provide film fans with the information about films and actors; it also had a column which editor would answer the reader’s question.
Fan magazines also printed reader’s articles or letters. The interaction between film audiences and magazines created a circle where film fans could discuss the subject about films or actors.
63 Motion Picture Magazine, February, 1917, p157.
64 Motion Picture News, Vol.14, Jul. 29, 1916, p632.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 4 Chaplin and the American Public
In public discussion, people were not just concerned about a film actor’s work; they also were interested in something outside the film. When Chaplin became more and more famous, rumors or gossips about Chaplin also appeared in magazines or newspapers more frequently. When the United States entered the First World War, the American public also expected Chaplin to do more “duty” for America in the war period. Also, Chaplin also involved in politics because some people believed that Chaplin tried to use film promoting a specific political ideology.
1. Rumors and Gossips
Rumors and gossips were always the important part of film entertainment today, even in the 1910s. In this section, I picked several interesting cases about Chaplin’s rumors or gossips which audiences discussed in fan magazines. Through these cases can help us understand what kind of topics which film audiences would care.