New York Sun: Chaplin's Killing Joke

[Bruce Calvert]

http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/

Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies | Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008

In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf Hitler in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.

The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it was put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."

Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish barber). With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...

Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn as the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this point a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a scene of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy night. The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense of the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.

But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity suit, and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia" read a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)

"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar in its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at the box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.

"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film returns to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.

Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).

[David Totheroh]

Post by Bruce Calvert
http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/
Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies  |  Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008
In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf Hitler in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.
The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it was put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."
Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish barber). With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...
Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn as the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this point a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a scene of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy night. The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense of the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.
But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity suit, and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia" read a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)
"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar in its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at the box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.
"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film returns to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.
Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

OK, I'll go first. Where is the Tramp character in The Great Dictator
if Chaplin "ALSO played a Jewish barber" in it? (And don't tell me
it's his WWI character, when it's clear in the story that he goes BACK
to his barbershop after release from the hospital where he's been in
treatment since the end of that war.)

Is there a newer new math than what I learned? How does Chaplin born
in 1889 become a "spry 67" in a film released in 1947?

And finally, how in the world could Chaplin have produced Limelight in
his Los Angeles studio AFTER having his passport revoked and
resettling in Switzerland?

[Matt Barry]

Post by David Totheroh

Post by Bruce Calvert
http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/
Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies | Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008
In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf Hitler in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.
The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it was put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."
Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish barber). With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...
Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn as the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this point a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a scene of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy night. The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense of the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.
But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity suit, and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia" read a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)
"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar in its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at the box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.
"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film returns to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.
Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

OK, I'll go first. Where is the Tramp character in The Great Dictator
if Chaplin "ALSO played a Jewish barber" in it? (And don't tell me
it's his WWI character, when it's clear in the story that he goes BACK
to his barbershop after release from the hospital where he's been in
treatment since the end of that war.)
Is there a newer new math than what I learned? How does Chaplin born
in 1889 become a "spry 67" in a film released in 1947?
And finally, how in the world could Chaplin have produced Limelight in
his Los Angeles studio AFTER having his passport revoked and
resettling in Switzerland?

Looking for accuracy in film-related articles is a futile exercise. The
author clearly hasn't seen the films he's writing about, and doesn't know
what year Chaplin was born (so he just makes up an age, hoping no one will
notice). As far as the last error you point out, that would require a sense
of research (and logic) that the first two errors have already shown to be
beyond the author's ability.

I was more curious about this last line-that the film is being re-released
by Film Desk, which is planning to revive "classics whose rights have
lapsed". Obviously, "Verdoux" is still under copyright, but how did Film
Desk come across the distribution rights?

[sir m]

Post by Matt Barry

Post by David Totheroh

Post by Bruce Calvert
http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/
Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies | Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008
In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf Hitler in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.
The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it was put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."
Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish barber). With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...
Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn as the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this point a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a scene of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy night. The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense of the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.
But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity suit, and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia" read a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)
"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar in its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at the box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.
"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film returns to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.
Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

OK, I'll go first. Where is the Tramp character in The Great Dictator
if Chaplin "ALSO played a Jewish barber" in it? (And don't tell me
it's his WWI character, when it's clear in the story that he goes BACK
to his barbershop after release from the hospital where he's been in
treatment since the end of that war.)
Is there a newer new math than what I learned? How does Chaplin born
in 1889 become a "spry 67" in a film released in 1947?
And finally, how in the world could Chaplin have produced Limelight in
his Los Angeles studio AFTER having his passport revoked and
resettling in Switzerland?

Looking for accuracy in film-related articles is a futile exercise. The
author clearly hasn't seen the films he's writing about, and doesn't know
what year Chaplin was born (so he just makes up an age, hoping no one will
notice). As far as the last error you point out, that would require a sense
of research (and logic) that the first two errors have already shown to be
beyond the author's ability.
I was more curious about this last line-that the film is being re-released
by Film Desk, which is planning to revive "classics whose rights have
lapsed". Obviously, "Verdoux" is still under copyright, but how did Film
Desk come across the distribution rights?
--
Matt Barry
View my films at:www.youtube.com/comedyfilm
Read my blog at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com

I agree. It is only necessary to state the errors. Journalists are
usually working against the clock. and to err is human. No
moralizing ,please as the poster has proved his point that he is a
superior person

[Matt Barry]

Post by sir m

Post by Matt Barry

Post by David Totheroh

Post by Bruce Calvert
http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/
Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies | Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008
In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf
Hitler
in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.
The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it
was
put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."
Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish
barber).
With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...
Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn
as
the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this
point
a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a
scene
of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy
night.
The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense
of
the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.
But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity
suit,
and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia"
read
a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)
"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar
in
its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at
the
box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.
"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film
returns
to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.
Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still
Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

OK, I'll go first. Where is the Tramp character in The Great Dictator
if Chaplin "ALSO played a Jewish barber" in it? (And don't tell me
it's his WWI character, when it's clear in the story that he goes BACK
to his barbershop after release from the hospital where he's been in
treatment since the end of that war.)
Is there a newer new math than what I learned? How does Chaplin born
in 1889 become a "spry 67" in a film released in 1947?
And finally, how in the world could Chaplin have produced Limelight in
his Los Angeles studio AFTER having his passport revoked and
resettling in Switzerland?

Looking for accuracy in film-related articles is a futile exercise. The
author clearly hasn't seen the films he's writing about, and doesn't know
what year Chaplin was born (so he just makes up an age, hoping no one will
notice). As far as the last error you point out, that would require a sense
of research (and logic) that the first two errors have already shown to be
beyond the author's ability.
I was more curious about this last line-that the film is being re-released
by Film Desk, which is planning to revive "classics whose rights have
lapsed". Obviously, "Verdoux" is still under copyright, but how did Film
Desk come across the distribution rights?
--
Matt Barry
View my films at:www.youtube.com/comedyfilm
Read my blog at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com

I agree. It is only necessary to state the errors. Journalists are
usually working against the clock. and to err is human. No
moralizing ,please as the poster has proved his point that he is a
superior person

Actually, just to be clear, I was pointing my criticism at the author of the
original article, not David's response to it (which I agree with). I
understand that journalists are often "working against the clock", but I do
tire of seeing glaring errors in film-related articles almost any time they
appear in major publications. I can assure you I'm not interested in
"moralizing", and have no intention of trying to prove anyone "superior" or
inferior as the case may be. I simply get frustrated when these kinds of
errors slip through.

[Lloyd Fonvielle]

Post by Matt Barry
Actually, just to be clear, I was pointing my criticism at the author of
the original article, not David's response to it (which I agree with). I
understand that journalists are often "working against the clock", but I
do tire of seeing glaring errors in film-related articles almost any
time they appear in major publications. I can assure you I'm not
interested in "moralizing", and have no intention of trying to prove
anyone "superior" or inferior as the case may be. I simply get
frustrated when these kinds of errors slip through.

It's the job of journalists to work against deadlines AND get their
facts right. If they're not capable of doing both they should seek some
other line of work.



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>

[Bruce Calvert]

It's the job of journalists to work against deadlines AND get their facts
right. If they're not capable of doing both they should seek some other
line of work.

It's the job of copy editors to make sure that the writer got their facts
correct...

[sir m]

Post by Bruce Calvert

It's the job of journalists to work against deadlines AND get their facts
right. If they're not capable of doing both they should seek some other
line of work.

It's the job of copy editors to make sure that the writer got their facts
correct...
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

Years past, every newspaper had good staff copy editors. Today it is
rare and it is common for many errors to appear and they rarely
acknowledge in a Corrections Feature

[mack]

Post by Matt Barry
Actually, just to be clear, I was pointing my criticism at the author of
the original article, not David's response to it (which I agree with). I
understand that journalists are often "working against the clock", but I
do tire of seeing glaring errors in film-related articles almost any time
they appear in major publications. I can assure you I'm not interested in
"moralizing", and have no intention of trying to prove anyone "superior"
or inferior as the case may be. I simply get frustrated when these kinds
of errors slip through.

It's the job of journalists to work against deadlines AND get their facts
right. If they're not capable of doing both they should seek some other
line of work.
Mar de Cortes Baja

It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing "journalists"
...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as landscapers or fry
cooks.
Speed AND accuracy of reportage are the only two items in the journalist's
quiver, and the only reasons he's paid for what he does.
Only a couple of days ago, I read an article in the L A Times about Warren
Beatty's award from the AFI, whose headline read "Beatty Gets Just Deserts".
I wondered for a moment whether the conclusion of the meal served at the
festivities consisted, not of sorbet, but a bowlful of the Mojave or the
Sahara.

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by mack
It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing "journalists"
...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as landscapers or fry
cooks.
Speed AND accuracy of reportage are the only two items in the journalist's
quiver, and the only reasons he's paid for what he does.
Only a couple of days ago, I read an article in the L A Times about Warren
Beatty's award from the AFI, whose headline read "Beatty Gets Just Deserts".
I wondered for a moment whether the conclusion of the meal served at the
festivities consisted, not of sorbet, but a bowlful of the Mojave or the
Sahara.

Putting aside the fact that reporters almost never write the headlines
themselves, I should point out that "just deserts" is the proper spelling of
the phrase, if you mean those things that someone rightfully deserves. Yes,
the spelling is "deserts" whether the word derives from Latin "deserere",
to abandon, or "deservir", to deserve. The accent goes on the first
syllable for the barren land, and on the second syllable for the rewards or
punishments one has merited.

Now if the headline had said "Beatty Gets Just Desserts" you could laugh at
the mistaken implication of no more meat and vegetables for him. The sweet
course at the end of a meal gets its name and its "ss" spelling from the
French "desservir", to clear the table. Since this also accents the second
syllable, it's often confused with the word in "just deserts".

-Neil Midkiff

[mack]

Post by Neil Midkiff

Post by mack
It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing
"journalists" ...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as
landscapers or fry cooks.
Speed AND accuracy of reportage are the only two items in the
journalist's quiver, and the only reasons he's paid for what he does.
Only a couple of days ago, I read an article in the L A Times about
Warren Beatty's award from the AFI, whose headline read "Beatty Gets Just
Deserts".
I wondered for a moment whether the conclusion of the meal served at the
festivities consisted, not of sorbet, but a bowlful of the Mojave or the
Sahara.

Putting aside the fact that reporters almost never write the headlines
themselves, I should point out that "just deserts" is the proper spelling
of the phrase, if you mean those things that someone rightfully deserves.
Yes, the spelling is "deserts" whether the word derives from Latin
"deserere", to abandon, or "deservir", to deserve. The accent goes on the
first syllable for the barren land, and on the second syllable for the
rewards or punishments one has merited.
Now if the headline had said "Beatty Gets Just Desserts" you could laugh
at the mistaken implication of no more meat and vegetables for him. The
sweet course at the end of a meal gets its name and its "ss" spelling from
the French "desservir", to clear the table. Since this also accents the
second syllable, it's often confused with the word in "just deserts".
-Neil Midkiff

Neil - Great! I learned something today! Thanks. (and thanks to the one
literate photosetter at the LATIMES.)

[dr.giraud]

Post by mack
It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing "journalists"
...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as landscapers or fry
cooks.

Though, to be fair, The New York Sun is far from a major newspaper.

dr. giraud

[mack]

Post by dr.giraud

Post by mack
It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing
"journalists"
...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as landscapers or fry
cooks.

Though, to be fair, The New York Sun is far from a major newspaper.
dr. giraud

It may not have the circulation of Murdock's Post, but the Post is only good
for lining bird cages with.

[sir m]

Post by mack

Post by dr.giraud

Post by mack
It is a shame that even major newspapers seem to be employing "journalists"
...and copy editors, too, who would be better off as landscapers or fry
cooks.

Though, to be fair, The New York Sun is far from a major newspaper.
dr. giraud

It may not have the circulation of Murdock's Post, but the Post is only good
for lining bird cages with.

SHAME the birds deserve better than the Post

[sir m]

MATT your posts are admirable, POSITIVE and interesting. I should not
have made my comment as it was not specific

Post by Matt Barry

Post by sir m

Post by Matt Barry

Post by David Totheroh

Post by Bruce Calvert
http://www.nysun.com/arts/chaplins-killing-joke/79921/
Chaplin's Killing Joke
Movies | Review of: Monsieur Verdoux
By NICOLAS RAPOLD
June 13, 2008
In the 1940s, it was hard to imagine how Charlie Chaplin could top a
foundational career that had already extended to a parody of Adolf
Hitler
in
1940's "The Great Dictator." Then came "Monsieur Verdoux," the superstar's
clear-eyed 1947 twist on the Bluebeard tale, which climaxes with a
blistering, speechifying indictment of audiences that proved a bitter pill
for an America that had been victorious in World War II. Two talkies into
his career, and some critics acted as though they wished Chaplin had never
opened his mouth.
The general Bluebeard conceit was age-old, but the uses to which it
was
put
are another story. Reworking an original tale by Orson Welles about a
real-life murderer-polygamist, "Monsieur Verdoux," which begins a one-week
run in a new 35 mm print Friday at Film Forum, stars Chaplin as a
mild-mannered ex-banker in pre-war France who supports his loving family
after the Depression through a double life of murderous parasitism. The
black comedy, leaping far beyond the cautionary ring of Verdoux's backstory,
ultimately proffers the philosophical gentleman as the macabre epitome of
homo economicus. "It's all business," he offers in his defense. "One murder
makes a villain. Millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify ..."
Verdoux presents Chaplin outside of his signature Tramp role, which he still
used in "The Great Dictator" (in which he also played a Jewish
barber).
With
a spring in his step and a cravat around his neck, Verdoux charms and
fast-talks a society matron (a hard sell), a pinch-faced spinster (who's
spooked into raiding her bank account), and a squawking dame with lottery
winnings and a stubborn smidgen of street sense. His first conquest of the
film - which was originally titled "A Comedy of Murders" - we see only in
the form of smoke rising from a backyard crematorium ...
Laugh-out-loud gags and familiar, innocently sentimental arcs were not the
order of the day, and some even thought Martha Raye, in a vulgar turn
as
the
gabby, resilient lottery winner, upstaged Chaplin, who was by this
point
a
spry 67. Even apart from the intermittent humor, there's also always a
pregnant sense of an axe yet to fall, perhaps most unsettling in a
scene
of
mercy with a lonely-eyed street pickup (Marilyn Nash) on a rainy
night.
The
great critic James Agee, who mounted a famous point-by-point defense
of
the
film in the Nation, took a couple of lines to skewer critics for their
childlike preference for more of the same.
But the tonal mix natural to the Bluebeard DNA wasn't what doomed Chaplin's
strange film - that would be Verdoux's mordant concluding monologue, judging
his exploits as par for the course in a world of amoral nihilism and
violence. Worse, at the time, Citizen Chaplin was already weakened by the
early phases of Red-baiting, a scandalous but fallacious paternity
suit,
and
a burgeoning national defamatory apparatus. "Send Chaplin to Russia"
read
a
picket sign outside one screening, while the press conference the day after
the premiere was relentless. ("Proceed with the butchery," Chaplin began.)
"The Great Dictator" had also finished with Chaplin delivering an
impassioned lecture, but the film's antitotalitarian content (similar
in
its
"machine-men" theme to subsequent American war propaganda) was more bearable
to audiences than the harangue of "Verdoux." After meager returns at
the
box
office, Chaplin withdrew the film from circulation and, a few years later,
withdrew himself from America. With his passport revoked, he resettled in
Switzerland with his wife Oona and their growing family. His next film,
"Limelight," was about a backsliding clown who's fallen out of favor.
"Monsieur Verdoux" would be revived in New York in 1964, when the cultural
and political climate - not to mention the film's rarity and notoriety -
produced a more theater-filling response. This weekend, the film
returns
to
screens after years of infrequent appearances courtesy of a new distribution
entity, Film Desk, which plans to make a partial project of reviving
classics whose rights have lapsed. It's a fascinating opportunity to watch
the people's idol of "Modern Times" and countless other classics chase black
comedy with bleak polemic.
Through June 19 (209 W. Houston St., between Sixth Avenue and Varick Street,
212-727-8110).
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still
Archivehttp://www.silentfilmstillarchive.com

OK, I'll go first. Where is the Tramp character in The Great Dictator
if Chaplin "ALSO played a Jewish barber" in it? (And don't tell me
it's his WWI character, when it's clear in the story that he goes BACK
to his barbershop after release from the hospital where he's been in
treatment since the end of that war.)
Is there a newer new math than what I learned? How does Chaplin born
in 1889 become a "spry 67" in a film released in 1947?
And finally, how in the world could Chaplin have produced Limelight in
his Los Angeles studio AFTER having his passport revoked and
resettling in Switzerland?

Looking for accuracy in film-related articles is a futile exercise. The
author clearly hasn't seen the films he's writing about, and doesn't know
what year Chaplin was born (so he just makes up an age, hoping no one will
notice). As far as the last error you point out, that would require a sense
of research (and logic) that the first two errors have already shown to be
beyond the author's ability.
I was more curious about this last line-that the film is being re-released
by Film Desk, which is planning to revive "classics whose rights have
lapsed". Obviously, "Verdoux" is still under copyright, but how did Film
Desk come across the distribution rights?
--
Matt Barry
View my films at:www.youtube.com/comedyfilm
Read my blog at:http://filmreel.blogspot.com

I agree. It is only necessary to state the errors. Journalists are
usually working against the clock. and to err is human. No
moralizing ,please as the poster has proved his point that he is a
superior person

Actually, just to be clear, I was pointing my criticism at the author of the
original article, not David's response to it (which I agree with). I
understand that journalists are often "working against the clock", but I do
tire of seeing glaring errors in film-related articles almost any time they
appear in major publications. I can assure you I'm not interested in
"moralizing", and have no intention of trying to prove anyone "superior" or
inferior as the case may be. I simply get frustrated when these kinds of
errors slip through.
--
Matt Barry
View my films at: www.youtube.com/comedyfilm
Read my blog at: http://filmreel.blogspot.com

[dr.giraud]

Post by Matt Barry
I was more curious about this last line-that the film is being re-released
by Film Desk, which is planning to revive "classics whose rights have
lapsed". Obviously, "Verdoux" is still under copyright, but how did Film
Desk come across the distribution rights?

Theatrical rights. Warner licensed home video. Sort of like how New
Line licensed the Harold Lloyd films for video, Sony for theatrical.

There isn't a ton of money to be made with Verdoux, so a new, small
company could take a chance.

dr. giraud