Hollywood


WALL-E

Wall-E: Pixar... Well, Pixar!

Right from the inception of fully computerized animation in Toy Story (1995), Pixar has been the best in their domain, by and large (no puns intended, hope none taken!). Time and again, I have been swept away by each one of their films. How I wish every time that some other animation company in USA made such a good film. Dreamworks came close with Madagascar (2005), but posed no threat whatsoever to the throne held by Pixar. Here they are with WALL•E, coming to the country after creating waves in the US box office. Before the film started, how I wished Pixar would falter, just a bit for just one time, to at least testify the theory that even the mightiest are not infallible. But no, not yet.

It is 29th century. Amidst the exanimate garbage wastelands, happily compacting the dump is WALL•E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class), a rusty little robot with notably large eyes. There are no traces of life in the whole area. Yes, there is earth, there is fire, there is wind and there is water, but not life. WALL•E’s only source of connection comes in the form of his friend the cockroach and the only place of warmth being his home, which he carefully assembles from the scrap materials he gathers. He examines every bit of junk with his reflective yet assimilative eyes, in search of excitement. He spends his nights watching romantic numbers from the (19)60’s and trying to imitate them. The sheer silence adds to the comic intensity, proving once again that neither comedy nor animation needs dialogue for success. One wishes that this spectacular act never ends.

One great day, WALL•E notices an elegant robot dislodging from a large spaceship that has landed. It is the Eve of this defunct Garden of Eden, the angel of death floating in air, the femme fatale from the future, EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator). She’s like nothing he has ever seen and definitely better than him – Faster, stronger and smarter – but unaware of life. Instantly smitten, WALL•E tries to get closer to his subject of interest, only to find out that she has been sent by the humans residing in the spaceship Axiom, which had been installed 700 years ago to temporarily hold humans till the ecological problem on earth was solved. EVE is immediately called back to Axiom when she discovers that there is vegetation on earth again, after so many centuries. WALL•E decides to go after her and leaves earth.

WALL•E is introduced to a whole new species called humans. Though comically executed, it is with some solemnity that the humans are handled in the film. WALL•E notices that man has been pampered and made back into infants, refusing to even walk and eat on their own, ignorant of all the small joys of life. This is when its gets a bit dramatic and things seem to become a bit conventional. WALL•E, unintentionally, induces life into everyone there and they start realizing the vitality of life. It seems like the second dawn of man. Man learns to walk, again. He gets independent of all his machines. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. As the ship’s captain decides to return back to earth, he faces stern opposition. Can humanity be brought back to earth? Can man re-learn everything? Can earth feel the Fifth Element once more?

In a film about robots, it is difficult to make the audience empathize with the rigid geometrically built characters. But WALL•E’s large eyes are so full of life that one does not feel that he is a lifeless being right from the first glimpse. One is reminded of Scrat’s eyes from Ice Age (2002), but this is only better. So are EVE’s two dimensional eyes. The creators have generated so much emotion from just changing their shapes. And so has a lot of effort gone into the fabrication of the wasteland. The damp roads, the disposed plastics and the occasional gust of wind – everything here is a lunge forward for CG animation. Pixar regular Tom Newman has done a good job by introducing some 60’s and 70’s feel into the score that is, ironically, very suitable for such a futuristic film.

In A Bug’s Life (1998), there’s this scene where Manny the mantis performs his routine trick called the Chinese Cabinet of Metamorphosis and Molt the bumbling hopper is shocked and cries out “How did he do that!!!”. That is exactly what I ask myself every time Pixar churns out one of their creations. Producing around five minutes of animation every week, Pixar has once again proved all those clichéd maxims about hard work. Here they are now, with WALL•E, clearly another winner. May not be their best, but it does get the credit of being the best film of the year so far.

P.S: Stick till the quirky end credits which roll over as WALL•E and EVE dance over paintings ranging from the early man’s pagan art to Van Gogh.

P.P.S: Check out the Pixar short Presto that comes along with this film. It is up there with the likes of Geri’s Game and For The Birds. Absolutely hilarious.

Verdict:

The DC versus Marvel battle continues as Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight arrives along the wake of the success of Iron Man (2008). With almost all of the filmdom going gaga over the performance of Heath Ledger even before the film’s release, it was but naturally clever for Warner Brothers to leverage this mass curiosity and fabricate one dark power ride for the audience. The fans had already caught a glimpse of the sober Batman in the previous offering by Nolan in Batman Begins (2005), which changed the whole gravity of the franchise in contrast to the light-hearted prequels by Burton and Schumacher. The film does not disappoint, to say the least.

It is a time when Batman (Christian Bale) has become an integral part of Gotham City’s vocabulary and people have seriously started questioning his position as a saviour of the city. Meanwhile, the crime rate shoots up during the broad daylight. The Joker (Heath Ledger) concocts a series of crimes in the city and “introduces a little chaos into the system”. The district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), his love interest Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and the Deputy Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) join hands in order to track down the Joker, but find themselves unable to save their own skins, quite literally. The Joker demands Batman to bare his identity in order to save the people of the city. Though torn by the consequences of the choices, Batman decides to “endure” and hold his sanity.

Harvey says at a dinner that heroes either die or live long enough to see themselves become villains, quoting the corrupt emperors of Rome. Bruce decides that the people of Gotham City should need a superhero no more and it is their faith in their own laws, the citizens that abide them and the spirit of humanity which binds them all that would save them from the escalating crimes. Taking off from this, the film ends on a contemplative yet grand note, a la Yojimbo, as the masked crusader moves on towards the next stage of his life.  This way, the film raises questions about the need for heroes and dependence on a stranger for safety, opposed to the affirmative answer given by Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers (2006).

Much has been talked about the performance of Heath Ledger and no review seems to be complete without the perfunctory statement about the posthumous Academy award. Is the performance that good, one is tempted to ask. The answer is a definite “Yo”. Right from the swaying of his tongue as if to widen his grotesque grin to the Jack Nicholson-esque preoccupation with contorting his facial muscles, you sense that such a performance does not come often. The performance would have lost no fraction of its intensity even if Ledger had been there today.

Christopher Nolan knows how to use his technicians and it shows. The brilliant cinematography is evident and needs no elaboration. The cross-cutting among multiple scenes, especially during key events in the film, tests one’s comfort and at the same time makes long scenes seem shorter. And there lies the success of The Dark Knight. No other superhero film could have gotten away with a excruciating runtime of over 150 minutes. This tautness in cutting is what that gives Nolan the breather to delve into the psychological part of the man behind the Batman, keeping the audience hooked all the while to the staple action scenes.

Though not a definitive statement about Hollywood, this year isn’t as productive as the last and there have been no real winners.  Let’s face it, most of the biggies (Read Indiana Jones and Iron Man) have been a letdown and the rest of them were just fillers. The Dark Knight has been the only film holding its head high amidst this slump. And just for that, “Let’s put a smile on that face!”.

Verdict:

KFPTraditionally, there have been two paths for animation filmmakers. One is to make the films as close to reality as possible. That is the path taken by Pixar and Sony Animation, which try to push animation technology to new extremes and squeeze out every bit of processing power and skill set they have. The other is the conventional path that tries to realize the creators’ most bizarre and outlandish fantasies and attempts to emulate the peaks attained by Disney and Miyazaki. The second path is what companies like Dreamworks Animation have adopted and, to an extent, succeeded. Their latest offering, Kung Fu Panda is a clever idea, but inefficiently harnessed.

Po (Jack Black) is a chubby panda working in a Chinese restaurant but dreams of making it big as a Kung Fu hero. He idolizes the biggest Kung Fu heroes of the village, namely, Tigress, Snake, Monkey, Mantis and Crane (Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen and David Cross respectively). He, then, hears about the induction of the Dragon Master who will be selected by Master Oogway himself. By seemingly sheer luck (or bad luck), Po gets selected as the Dragon Master who is to protect the village from the claws of Tai Lung (Ian McShane). In his mission he is assisted by Master Shifu (Hoffman, unidentifiable) who first seeks to drive out Po, but turns over a new leaf after a while.

Po is as cute as an animation character can get, but it is a pity that the creators have not utilized Jack Black fully for Po and vice versa. A bit more dedicated reconstruction could have not only guaranteed a great character, but also a huge brand value for the character which could then be merchandised well. With a enviable cast for the Furious five, it is but natural to expect some big role for them. Unfortunately, the film spends most of its time bringing out Po’s vulnerability and innocence and hence, the characters are merely reduced to a bunch of creatures you will fascinate staring at a zoo. However, Shifu’s small stature (a red panda) and Hoffman’s efforts suit the etching of his character and makes his presence worthwhile. The depiction of Tai Lung is anything but novel.

One of the minor commendable points of the film is the choice of its fauna for the images of the characters. The monochromatic Po is totally out of place in the colourful world of Valley of Peace, the slow and steady tortoise is the intellectual master of the palace, subordinated by the relatively rash, hare-like Shifu and a black and white polar creature, Tai Lung is pitted against another. However, the writers are to blame for the biggest blow for the film, the utterly stale and predictable plot that has become a favorite of critics to pan down. No sir, we did not expect this from the creators of Shrek (2001) and Madagascar (2005).

Now there must be something in the film to counterbalance the wound created by the plot and there is. The fabulously rendered world of Valley of Peace and Chinese architecture, never once pretending to be realistic, vibrant and daring use of colours and Kung Fu action that can substitute many Hong Kong flicks are definitely noteworthy. The tone of imagery, which is now fast becoming the trademark of Dreamworks, is thankfully retained and this paves way for the future flicks from Dreamworks to add girth to the plot. Finally, there is a huge opportunity for a sequel with a lot of spaces to be filled from the first one. Hmm… I guess the image of the Furious five can be reinstated there.

Unlike Madagascar, which provided visual treat for the toddlers and also retained the adults with its hilarious one-liners, Kung Fu Panda is clearly for the children and hence focuses more on slapstick and juvenile verbal humour. This, without doubt, will entice the young ones, but grown ups (cinematically, that is) beware. With Madagascar’s sequel to hit in a few weeks, it is a good time for Dreamworks to recapture the adult market it may have lost with Kung Fu Panda.

Verdict:

The Happening

What if the air that we breathe could kill us? What is the effect of increase in human population on nature? What happens when humans settlements clear vegetation? How will nature react to it? Can science reason the reaction, if there is one? These are the issues explored in M. Night Shyamalan‘s latest venture The Happening. Observing his progressively ordinary series of films (With the probable exception of Signs (2002)) starting from his fabulous third feature The Sixth Sense (1999), one will be quick to pan his new offering often with a tinge of prejudice. But forgetting statistics and filmographies, The Happening is not half as bad as some may claim.

The Happening records the events that spread over one day in the life of Elliot (Mark Wahlberg), a science teacher in the city of Philadelphia. His marital relation with his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) is not all that great. His friend Julian (John Leguizamo) is the math teacher at the same school. As Elliot is discussing the mass disappearance of bees in the eastern coast of the country, he comes to know of strange happenings in New York city. It is found that people inhale some kind of toxin that disorients them both physically and mentally, prompting them to kill themselves in the most bizarre fashions. It is found that these events originate in parks spread to other areas too. No one s able to say for sure the reasons for such strange events and its restrictions to the eastern coast alone. There is a large panic resulting in people’s migration to safer towns and cities. Julian discovers that his wife is in trouble, hands over his daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) to Elliot and Alma and goes after her. He does not return. As Elliot, Alma and Jess try to run for their lives from the spreading toxins, they try to find the various reasons for its occurrence.

Perhaps the best observation by the film is about the mentality and the rationality of the people before and after the 9/11 attack. After the terrorist attack, people have been attributing every petty inexplicable event to terrorism. This has not only resulted in the undermining of their rational stability, but also resulted in distrust of people in one another and hence more misery. Fear has been the central emotion in all Shyamalan films. The high point of the movie is this portrayal of the contemporary American mentality. The weird attacks keep reducing as we move from to denser to sparser areas. Hence the story strikes a relationship between the ever increasing plaguing of nature by the fast growing human population. In this way, the attacks act as cries from the nature against the human ravaging. The theme is made clear at the house of Mrs. Jones (Betty Buckley) when she chides Jess for taking a cookie without asking and says “Do not touch what is not yours”. This is the line that briefs the motive of the film. Yet another theme is the movie is about how people overcome their emotional isolation when they are forced into a physical one. Both Alma and Elliot realize their attachment to their wives when they are seperated by the large stretch of grassland between their cabins.

Unlike some of the previous Shyamalan movies (especially The Village (2004), which also dealt with people’s apprehensions but never decided what it wanted to be), the central theme of eco-conservation is evident from early on. But it mixes it with the right amount of thrill to avoid the film from becoming didactic. On the negatives, the film is way too predictable for this generation and fails to deliver what one expects from the maker of The Sixth Sense – an absolutely honest thriller with no thinking stuff. The cinematography by Tak Fujimoto and score by James Newton Howard faithfully underline what the director wants the viewers to feel. Mark Wahlberg’s performance is passable, but no one can ever believe this lad that seems like he is in the late 20’s to be a science teacher. The dialogues in the movie at many places are weak, to be euphemistic. Deliberately induced humour does not help at all.

M. Night Shyamalan, who has been evidently inspired by Alfred Hitchcock since the start of his career, treads the same path as his idol. Right from the habit of sticking to a single genre to the regular cameos in his films (and the occasional absence such as The Happening), Shyamalan seems to make his career a photocopy of the Master of Suspense’s. This time around, he has reworked the spectacular The Birds (1963) and tried to make it palatable to the post 9/11 audience. If it was the strange bird behaviour in The Birds, it is strange plant behaviour in The Happening. More verbose and explicit than its inspiration, The Happening has sequences that will force you to find similarities between the two. Right from the isolated country locales resembling Bodega Bay to the baseless worrying and reasoning of the people around, the film has “remake” written all over. The questions about the science of nature and the nature of science that was implicitly raised in The Birds is kept intact and even explained a bit. However, Shyamalan’s script comfortably adds an extra layer to that calls for environment preservation and control of pollution.

So, does The Happening mark the comeback of the director? Not Quite. Shyamalan, who gave us the genuinely original The Sixth Sense, is much more restricted this time and conforms to the time tested formula. I would say that The Happening is not his comeback, but definitely gives the director a little more breathing space in Hollywood and he can now gradually concoct a truly original script independent of industry needs. As for the recommendation, if you have seen the staggering The Birds, you can avoid this one and if you’ve not, The Happening is definitely a good option for you.

Verdict:

George Lucas: “This ain’t gonna be easy”
Steven Spielberg: “Not as easy as it used to be”

Lucas and Spielberg are at it again. After the intensely dramatic Munich, Spielberg freaks out and does what he does best – getting people on their feet. I don’t know why he chose Indiana Jones for that. Probably, he didn’t want to bring in aging sharks or senile aliens. Surprisingly (and commendably), he has banked on Harrison Ford once more to deliver. Does Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008) live up to the expectations set by its first three installments? Yes and No.

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal SkullSpielberg has chosen a very simple plot in order to not distract the audience. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) escapes from of group of commies led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) who are in search of an artifact. Removed from his college for getting involved with the communists, Dr. Jones is called for action by Mutt (ShiaLaBeouf) , the godson of Prof. Oxley (John Hurt), a long time friend. Henry informs him that his mother Mary Williams (Karen Allen) and Prof. Oxley have been kidnapped in South America while in the hunt for a so-called crystal skull. It his up to Jones to hunt for the skull and return it to its proper place. In the journey, he finds that there are others vying for the skull too and discovers his true relationship with his family and friends.

The film promises enough twists and turns required for a franchise such as Indiana Jones till the central act after which the plot takes a back seat and action takes the driver’s (literally!). The last act succumbs to predictability and acts as nothing more than fillers. The characteristic wry wit of Indy is still intact and is charming as ever. There are numerous references to earlier Spielberg films as well. The chaotic party in 1941, the terrorizing truck shots of Duel, shots similar to the massacre the Omaha beach landing in Saving Private Ryan, the famous rear-view shot in Jurassic Park, the best moments of its prequels and even a few beings that look like the grown up versions of E.T. – The Extra Terrestrial!

Expecting a 65-year old Indy to be weaker than his former self is nothing but normal. More of brain work is expected from him during perilous situations. Even Indy expects that early on. But his vulnerability stops there and it seems that no one cares that he is fit to receive pension. Indy seems to go on and on like a 30 year old. Hats off to Harrison Ford for performing those larger than life stunts with the same vigour as he did in the opening installment. Only he could have pulled this off without shattering the audience’s perception of Indiana Jones. Cate Blanchett’s character, Irina Spalko is reminiscent of Yuri of Command & Conquer: Red Alert game. With her cold witch-like eyes, Blanchett is the perfect foil as the megalomaniac Russian scientist. But the character neither has the depth to suit such a performance nor poses any threat to the juggernaut of the protagonist. It was disappointing to see George McHale (Ray Winstone), Indy’s friend, portrayed as a thorough stereotype that one expects only in bottom-of-the-barrel movies such as The Mummy and the like.

Hands down, Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull has the best action sequences filmed in recent times. The stunts and the choreography have quality written all over. The production design has deliberately (and effectively) retained the look and feel of the post-war cold era. Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski , who gave us a glimpse of hell in Saving Private Ryan sizzles in the action sequences. His cinematography has given the director the best possible output for his effort . A definite Academy Award nomination. The other regulars Michael Kahn and John Williams maintain the pace and excitement to support his work.

In this age of special effects, it seems easy to churn out a high-octane action flick and Steven Spielberg knows it by heart. He has put forth his trump card (Indy, of course) into the game. But has relied on it too much that he has neglected the finer aspects of plot and characterization. It is compensated by the other side of the balance with spectacular action and stunt sequences that characterize Indy. But the bottom line is: ” It’s Indiana Jones and what else do you want? Go to the theaters now“.

Verdict:

Question: “What kind of film do you want to see?”
American 1: “I want a Superhero movie”
American 2: “I want an Iraqi war movie”
American 3: “I want to things go BOOM, BANG and CLANK, with lotsa cool special FX”

Thus, Iron Man was born (Sounds like the perfect specimen for dubbing into all languages, from Bhojpuri to Tamil, doesn’t it?).

Summer is here and as usual, it has brought along with it a string of action flicks. This time around we get to see 3 comic book adaptations. Jon Favreau’s Iron Man is the first of the three and has made it big at the box office. With a series of duds by Marvel after Spider-Man 2 and a title as lame as this, one cannot hope for much.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has got everything one wants – the style, the brains, the bucks and a lovely assistant Virginia Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). He builds WMDs for the American soldiers fighting all over the world. On a trip to Afghanistan, he is kidnapped and forced to build a super-powerful missile from scratch in a cave. Instead, with the help of a faithful assistant (who obviously can speak English and is obviously going to die), Stark builds a metallic suit and manages to escape. On return, he ponders how his own inventions have been used against him and decides to end it all. But his business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) has other plans. Thus ensues a battle between technologies and (naturally but unavoidably) the good guy beats up the baddie and all’s well.

This could have been another run-of-the-mill superhero movie if not for the character and performance of Robert Downey Jr. The alter egos of all the superheroes hitherto have been wimps whereas Tony Stark is charismatic, brilliant, provides most of the clever lines in the film and can-​survive-​without-​superhero-​costume. Robert Downey Jr. does a great job with his looks and actions that reflect the don’t-care attitude of Stark. Gwyneth Paltrow‘s character as Ms. Pepper does not seem to be well delineated. She means business in some scenes whereas in others, she is a bumbling young girl. Jeff Bridges (The Dude) is good but just reminds me of Goldfinger during the last part of the film.

The screenplay moves from predictability, hovers over tautness for sometime and goes back again to immense predictability. Be alert for the best moment in the film which I will not spoil by mentioning. Special effects galore, one has to admit the film does not lack action at all. A lot of effort has gone into the detail of the armor and flight scenes. The sets of the Stark’s laboratory do not give the complete feel of a superhero movie but are good nevertheless. The film has underplayed the War on terrorism and the politics behind it even though blatant caricaturing of the Jehadis is done.

Lots of bangs, booms and clashes agreed, the film does not give fresh entertainment and succumbs to become yet another bead in the string of Marvel flops. Save Robert Downey Jr., the film has not much to offer and thoroughly over hyped. But if you want some 2 hours of time to kill, Iron Man may be a decent watch to keep you awake.

Verdict:

Having given the biographical background, I would like to put forth my opinions on why Chaplin is such an inspiration to all the present generation of directors.

First of all, Chaplin was a perfectionist. It is evident from the fact that he reshot one scene in City Lights involving a blind girl, the tramp and a rich gentleman over 300 times to ensure that silence in his movies was never a handicap but an advantage. He would tax his actors till he got what he wanted. He would even fire them on unsatisfactory performance.

Chaplin was a thorough optimist. Having come from a poor background optimism was the key attribute that made Chaplin survive the fickle life of Hollywood where you are only as good as your last movie. His dialogues such as “You will never see the rainbows if you look down” (From the song ‘Smile’ in “The Circus” (1928)) and “Life is a magnificent thing, even to a Jellyfish” (From “Limelight” (1952)) reflect this fact.

Charlie was a true artist in the sense that he would make whatever changes to a scene to get the best end result. He would improvise on a script and would check if that was good enough. If not, he would continue improvising with the same vigour. Even on his deathbed when the reverend said ”May God have mercy on your soul”, Chaplin resorted to comedy, replying ”Why not, After all it belongs to Him

Even though he remained a comedian in his professional life, he was a very strict father. He would never be complacent on the freedom of his children. He never wanted them to be the kids of a famous father. He would take them to slums and show tem how the real world is.

Most importantly, he was the one who resurrected slapstick humour, which was thought to be primitive. In my opinion, Slapstick is the most fundamental of all comedies that any audience can associate to. The audience inherently likes physical movements and dark humour. Charlie Chaplin shows that slapstick is limitless and eternal even in Hollywood that thrives on sarcasm and raunchy humour for quick money.

Charles Chaplin was one person that made the world laugh, cry, resent, pity and most importantly THINK. Only such a ‘perfect maverick’ can redeem Hollywood and many other industries from their present state of decay. Without a shadow of a doubt, he is the greatest showman of the 20th century and will be the greatest for generations to come.

After a pleasant contract with Mutual Films, Charlie moved on to yet another production company, the First National. By this time Chaplin had audiences beyond the reach of his contemporaries. His work at First National resulted in some of the best Chaplin short movies ever made. Notably, “The Kid”, advertised as “Six reels of joy” that would break box office records and “A Dog’s Life” which is a must for any serious film buff. These movies had gained Chaplin the supreme throne in Hollywood making him the only actor to be paid a 7-digit salary.

Still unhappy with the independence given to directors Chaplin decided to start his own production company. Thus, the United Artists studio was born. Charlie was one of the owners of the company along with other eminent Hollywood celebrities, most notably, the controversial director D. W. Griffiths. Till date United Artists is one of the few companies that gives full freedom to debut directors. Charlie now moved on to full length feature films. During this period movie masterpieces such as “The Gold Rush” (1925) and “City Lights” (1931) were created. Chaplin was now a household name, even in the orient.

Even though talkies had started to come, Chaplin started his next silent project, “Modern Times” (1936). Contrary to popular opinion, the silent gem had broken all previous box office records and became the quintessential silent comedy of the century.

Chaplin then ventured into talking movies and started off with “The Great Dictator” (1940), a satire on world war. It also starred Paulette Goddard who would go on to become one of his wives. In the movie Chaplin plays a parody on Hitler (who incidentally was just 4 days younger than him) It is alleged that Hitler himself enjoyed the movie twice. Chaplin continued his work with groundbreaking movies such as “Monsieur Verdoux” (1947) and “Limelight” (1952).

Due to his political leaning and nationality, Chaplin was under the watch of the government and was practically exiled to Switzerland where he spent the rest of his life. He made just 2 movies after the incident owing to physical problems. Chaplin’s relationship with his women was an important part in his life. With 4 wives and alleged affairs with other women, Chaplin always had problems in personal life.

On the day of Christmas in 1977, Charles Chaplin passed away due to natural causes. The world had lost its Little Tramp. But, the work of this man was never to be erased from the pages of history.

“Dying is easy, comedy is tough” were the last words of George Bernard Shaw. Indeed. And that is the reason I’ve decided to dedicate a 3 part blog to Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin, arguably the greatest comedian who ever lived.

I thought it would only be proper if some biographical information were given before I put forth my opinions. Born in a very poor family in London in 1889, Charles spent his child doing a number of petty jobs. His father, a drunkard would just make his condition worse. His mother, who apart from doing some tailoring work, would occasionally sing in the local theater. The big break came when his mother lost her voice during performance and Charlie was sent to perform without preparation. The show was a riot. People hurled money towards the stage. But Charlie’s struggles were to continue for a long time.

After his mother got admitted to a mental institution and half-brother Sidney sent off to sea, Charlie joined the Karno Pantomime where he performed in key roles. One such role, an old drunk, caught the attention of American movie mogul Mack Sennett who immediately asked him to come to his workplace, Keystone studios. On arrival at the studio, Sennett could not believe that the old drunk was impeccably played by this 25 year old. After a lot of opposition by the studio crew, Charlie completed his first movie “Making a living” in 1914 where he plays a bogus reporter.

But the “tramp” was not to be seen until his next short “Kid Auto races at Venice”. This costume actually borrowed from many artists in parts, was the brainchild of Chaplin himself. The short was a huge hit and the tramp would be ruling the world for the next two decades. The audience had now found a new hero and the demand of Chaplin shorts had shot up. To cope up to this, Keystone pressed Chaplin to complete many shorts in a single day, a result of which Chaplin moved on to Essanay studios.

At Essanay, Chaplin got frustrated with the primitive comic sense of the prevalent directors and started to do the direction of his own movies. This not only resulted in some fine short movies but also a growing friction between Chaplin and the studio directors. So once again, Charlie moved on to a new studio, Mutual Films, seeking more independence in his movies. Knowing Chaplin’s audience base, Mutual Films gave him the nod. Chaplin’s skill as a fine director is evident in the short films that were born in this period. This was the period where Chaplin met Edna Purviance who was later to become his lifelong friend.

« Previous Page