Sometimes we must, in the interest of fairness and objectivity, appreciate a movie in its context. "Sure the camerawork, effects, writing, or structure weren't up to modern standards, but Intolerance was the first one to even try those things so give some credit", one might reason, or "It Happened One Night is even more impressive when you realize that all the movies of a similar style drew upon it for inspiration."
None of that is the case here. How often does a movie do better with less technology and convention to draw on? How often is the first example of something still the obvious best? How often does a movie create practical effects that afterward have only been attempted in cartoons? I'd say exactly once, and it is the oeuvre of Mr. Charles Chaplin.
As with City Lights, the director, lead actor, writer, and even composer?!?!?? of this movie did all of those jobs so well that if one didn't know its release date, one would be forgiven for assuming that it had just copied all of the tropes instead of having actually invented them. At first I was in awe of how wonderfully he had captured the feel and style of a Looney Tunes cartoon. What a marvelous feat to have reproduced all of those complicated gags without modern technology. Imagine my surprise when I learned that I had it backward. The Gold Rush predates Bugs Bunny by a decade. Bugs Bunny copied Charlie Chaplin, but Chaplin did it so well that I just assumed the opposite.
After first watching this movie, I was affirmed in my opinion that Chaplin was a genius. But further digging has revealed that I was mistaken. He is a demigod.
No comments:
Post a Comment