Thoughts On: “Chaplin” (1992)

With the biopic Stan and Ollie now in theaters (although not playing anywhere near me, sadly) I thought I’d take a look at one of the more well-known silent star biopics, Richard Attenborough’s Chaplin. Most old movie fans seem to love it. As for me? Well, read on!

Image result for chaplin 1992

Biopics are a dicey genre. How do you, say, capture a legendary talent from a century ago and showcase him to modern audiences, especially if many of them (likely) haven’t seen one of his films? Naturally, an overview of his entire career is a lot to ask–after all, there were tons of personal and professional events packed into those decades, and it would be tough to do justice to all of them.

Well, Richard Attenborough saw your reservations, and decided to raise you a busy tour throughout the entire life of Charlie Chaplin, ups and downs and all. And if you ask classic film fans about this biopic today, most seem to think it’s the best–why, it has great performances! Moving moments! It’s a fascinating, touching experience! It’s the bee’s knees to most folks, is what I’ve gathered.

Image result for chaplin 1992 images ending

As you’re suspecting, I don’t have quite the same enthusiasm towards the 2 1/2 hour film, nor do I exactly understand why so many fans accept it so uncritically. There’s plenty I do like about it, but too much of it is bothersome to be a definitive look at the great comedian’s story–in my humble opinion.

A sidebar: entirely by chance, Chaplin was one of my stepping stones to appreciating silent cinema. One night during my middle school years I flipped on the TV and caught the last few minutes: an elderly Chaplin about to accept a lifetime achievement award as clips from The Kid play on the huge screen behind him. Watching the famous, tearful hug between the Tramp and the Kid instantly reduced me to blubbering like a baby. (Destined to be the first of many The Kid blubberings, I might add.) It wasn’t until years later that I sat down and watched Chaplin in its entirety, and recognized that moving ending. Anyhoo.

Robert Downey Jr. in Chaplin (1992)

If you haven’t seen Chaplin, it has a slightly gimmicky framework where the editor of Chaplin’s autobiography (played by Anthony Hopkins) quizzes the elderly legend on the fuzzier areas of his life story, and we tour Chaplin’s memories in a series of flashbacks. Hopkins’s character serves as a kind of stand-in for fans who think Chaplin held back too much in his book. Much of his dialogue is expository, such as: “So, Charlie, at that time you were married to Lita Grey, your second wife, who bore you two sons, Sydney and Charlie Jr., within 13 months.” I’m surprised they didn’t have him add, “…And you lived together in Los Angeles, situated in Los Angeles county, in the southern portion of the state of California, which achieved statehood in the mid-19th century due to the Compromise of 1850.”

Image result for chaplin 1992 anthony hopkins

I’ll of course acknowledge the good things in Chaplin. The top of the list is the charismatic Robert Downey Jr., an inspired casting choice–especially considering his daunting task of portraying a legend in his youth and old age. To say that he studied his subject carefully is an understatement–reportedly he went to the Museum of the Moving Image in London and was allowed to try on an actual “Little Tramp” costume. During the too-few scenes where he recreates some of Charlie’s iconic screen moments he gets his movements and grace notes down pat. Chaplin’s daughter Geraldine herself said, “As the Tramp, he’s perfect. I mean, every gesture, every eyelash, he’s absolutely perfect.” What better review could an actor desire?

Related image

And speaking of Geraldine, I don’t know who had the idea of casting her as Hannah Chaplin, her own grandmother, but that fellow hopefully got a raise. Her vivid performance stands out in a veritable sea of Chaplin-related characters–not for nothing was she the daughter of a legend. Kevin Kline also makes a pretty convincing Douglas Fairbanks, and Paul Rhys does a fine job as Charlie’s brother Sydney (in some shots I was struck by his resemblance to Robert Harron, but that’s just me).

The care and detail that went into the early 20th century settings is often wonderful, from the grubby streets where Chaplin lived as a youth to the studios where he made his masterpieces. Of course, while I know that not everything in a biopic can be a flawless recreation, it’s mighty amusing seeing the familiar Keystone studio in the middle of a vast plain and watching Charlie hop off a train smack dab in front of it (in reality it was tucked along a hillside in Glendale, and actors got there by streetcar).

Dan Aykroyd and David Duchovny in Chaplin (1992)

Some shots are particularly inspired, such as Chaplin gazing at a billboard for The Kid, or climbing on the “Hollywoodland” sign with Doug, or Oona pushing the elderly Chaplin in a wheelchair through the backstage tumult at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. It’s those moments when I reflect on the potential Chaplin had, and wish it had focused more on those kinds of scenes rather than the umpteenth shot of Charlie gazing somberly, introspectively into space. (One sequence uses sped-up slapstick, which is fun, but it’s also a bit of an anomaly.)

And that brings us to the “iffy” things in Chaplin. It’s overwhelmingly ambitious, trying not only to cover Charlie’s whole life but examine the “cause” of his scandalous relationships and draw a clear, political/ideological line to his eventual banishment from the U.S. For such a long film it somehow seems hurried, much of it marking off a checklist of obligatory personalities and events. Lita Grey marriage? Check! Edna Purviance? Got her beans-eating scene! Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford? Sprinkle ’em in here and there! Ah, we made it to the part where he meets Oona, and–oh shoot, can’t forget the Joan Barry episode! Err, how much running time is there, again?

David Duchovny, Robert Downey Jr., Francesca Buller, and Paul Rhys in Chaplin (1992)

But that’s less bothersome than the precedence that Chaplin’s personal life is given over his filmmaking (what an ancient tune that’s become in these biopics). The latter is dealt with in precious few scenes, Attenborough apparently being more eager to convince us that Hetty Kelly Obsession + Loss of Hetty = Chaplin’s Attraction to Teens (he even has Moira Kelly, who plays Hetty, portray Oona too). There’s also some oddly unnecessary nudity, such as a scene with an uber-sexualized Mildred Harris (Mila Jovovich) and another where Chaplin’s in a dressing room full of half-naked showgirls (I know performers have always been “free spirits,” but…for Pete’s sake). The film’s first half hour, with the angelic tyke Charlie singing cute songs onstage and being comically chased by cops, give it the veneer of a family film. But then, without warning–topless showgirls! Sorry, parents–this movie about Charlie Chaplin is not for kids.

Image result for chaplin 1992 hetty

The film also deals with Chaplin’s politics with slightly less subtlety than a mallet to the head, having him snub J. Edgar Hoover at a dinner party (well no wonder he was persecuted during the McCarthy era!) and inventing a dramatic scene where he, and he alone, has the mettle to rebuke a cocky Nazi. If the film is to be believed, Chaplin was perpetually surrounded by plebeians too shortsighted to realize his genius and foresight. This results in scenes like he and Sydney quarreling over The Great Dictator, where Sydney snarls: “No one wants to see a film about Adolf f***ing Hitler!” “I DO!!!” Chaplin roars, knocking over a chair. Reader, I snort-laughed.

But all this I might forgive, or tacitly accept as dramatic invention, if it weren’t for the unfortunate way the rest of silent Hollywood is portrayed. Oh my readers, whatever did they do to poor Mabel Normand? Why is she turned into a bossy shrew? Why did they choose an actress (Marisa Tomei) who looks absolutely nothing like her? And why oh why did they dismiss her as a scandal-ridden drug addict in the end credits? It kind of hurts my soul.

Related image

Mary Pickford is treated slightly better, although the film didn’t work too hard to contradict the elder Chaplin’s dismissal of her as “something of an undersized b***h.” (No matter what he thought of her in private, it’s hard to imagine him saying that about the great Pickford out loud.) Mack Sennett, well, spits tobacco and is a loudmouth (at least Dan Aykroyd seems like he’s having fun). The rest of the Hollywood scene–the many vivid personalities we know and love–is basically non-existent. Parties are full of generic “society” types, and colorful places like the Keystone studio are stocked with generic extras. The focus was on Chaplin, of course, but still. This is a strange, fuzzy idea of old Hollywood that never quite becomes clear.

Image result for chaplin 1992 kevin kline maria pitillo

I’ve seen Chaplin a couple times, and might see it again in the future. It will never be a favorite of mine exactly, but I’ll admit there’s something about that final scene that’ll always move me, as it moved my younger self years ago. And it’s hard to ignore that the reason it’s so moving is those clips from Chaplin’s actual films.

Image result for chaplin 1992 dog

22 thoughts on “Thoughts On: “Chaplin” (1992)

  1. Hi Lea – last year at the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum, Marc Wanamaker and Dan Kamin, who both worked on “Chaplin,” explained that the project had been conceived as an episodic mini-series, which was news to me. I forget what/why things changed, but the resulting movie was a scramble to salvage the project, hence the little bit of everything thrown in approach. I forget whether lots of unused footage was shot, but they had planned to tell the whole story. I bet that full length treatment would have been wonderful.

    • It would’ve made a lot more sense! More than one review I looked up mentioned it would’ve worked better as a mini series. Although I don’t know if the treatment of Mabel would’ve been any different–the way they portrayed her is a real sticking point for me.

      • Agree with you, re: Mabel. I realize it’s beyond the scope of the film, but as I’m sure you know, Mack didn’t “reluctantly endure” Mabel’s desire to direct; he put her in charge of a unit because he needed to crank out product for Mutual. That’s also the reason Chaplin was hired in the first place.

        • Exactly! They turned her into some sort of “annoying girlfriend” caricature that has nothing to do with the real-life Mabel. The reality is a lot more interesting, but oh no, they had to make Chaplin the Brilliant Mind No One Understands. 😉

      • My blood boils when I think of how they made Mabel Normand into a talentless shrew. Just– why?? And why waste Marisa Tomei that way?

        • It’s like no one around Chaplin was allowed to be anything but cynical and shortsighted, lest we forget he was a genius. Well of course he was…and he was smart enough to work with great talents like Mabel!

  2. I completely agree with your review. A mini-series would seem to have been a better idea. The treatment of Mabel really irritated me. From what I’ve read it seems that she was both a mentor, and a champion to Chaplin. Mabel has been dragged through the mud far too long.

  3. I thought it was terrible when it came out, tried watching it again when I got into the silent era and only doubled-down on my original opinion. In fact, I don’t even think I ever finished it, either viewings! When it came out, it got not very good reviews, only for Downey’s performance (which changed his career from a teen movie guy to a “real” actor). I remember it got only two stars (out of four) from critic Joseph Gelmis. I never knew it was held in high regard, I’ve never heard or seen a good word said about it! By anybody! The word I’ve heard most used in connection with it is “boring”. I seem to remember thinking Kevin Kline was the perfect actor for Douglas Fairbanks, that’s about the only positive thought I personally remember having about the movie. I almost resented Downey delivering a good performance and getting nominated because he used to be so obnoxious and the bratty in the 80s! One moment he’s somehow a Saturday Night Live cast member (I thought “since when was Robert Downey funny?”), next he’s playing Chaplin?!!!! And getting nominated? What the….?!!!!

    Anyways, relieved to see you’re not recommending the movie, otherwise I would FORCE myself to watch it again!

    A VERY belated Happy New Year (and Merry Christmas) to you, Lea! Was in Virginia for most of the month, with no computer!

    • Happy New Year to you, my friend! Nice to have you “back.” 🙂

      Yeah, critical reviews were never great, but anytime I see a mention of CHAPLIN on social media everyone seems to chime in on how great it is. Always throws me for a loop!

  4. PS: This line from your review hits it RIGHT on the head: “For such a long film it somehow seems hurried, much of it marking off a checklist of obligatory personalities and events.” That’s EXACTLY how it feels to me. (in fact most biopics do, which is why there are so few good ones!).

  5. I’ve never met a single silent film fan that likes this movie. You’re kinder to it than many I know.
    Regarding Mabel Normand: The scene we see is directly out of Chaplin’s biography, although in his version, he could have slept with her any time he wanted, it’s just a pity he never got around to it.

    • WHATEVER, Chaplin! I’m guessing Mabel just might differ. 😉

      Whenever this film’s come up in the FB movie groups I’m part of, practically everyone who comments praises it. Thus, I feel justified in proclaiming that everyone seems to think it’s the bees knees.

  6. I cannot stand this movie. I have seen it twice and just dislike it more and more every time. RDJ is good, but he’s given such a sanitized version of the character to play that it never feels real.

    I once saw the film with non-silent film fans and they had a hard time following how much time passed between sections. They had to have me give additional context every few minutes. The movie really should have been a miniseries… you know, with better writers.

    • It would’ve worked way, way better as a miniseries, for sure.

      While I enjoy Downey Jr’s performance, I do agree that there are some scenes where you could switch Chaplin with virtually any silent film personality and it wouldn’t make a difference–those long, introspective gazes into space that I mentioned in the article. I wish we saw him in “Little Tramp” mode more.

  7. Modern Hollywood will never get the hardworking, determined, chums teaming together, learning on the go, that was old silent Hollywood. Hollywood’s imagination can’t seem to go back before a time when women weren’t actually framed by the sexist views of the 1950s. Chaplin, the film, had not ounce of fresh air about it. Thank goodness we can see some of the original work of early cinema because Hollywood can’t seem to recapture something that is so antithetical to what Hollywood has become.

    • Indeed, it’s strange how divorced Hollywood is from its roots–such a shame, since there’s so much inspiration to be found in silent era history. I don’t get it, you guys.

  8. Pingback: How Did You Get Into Silent Films? | Silent-ology

  9. Pingback: Welcome, New Readers! | Silent-ology

  10. Haven’t seen the Chaplin film. Why watch a contemporary actor mimic Chaplin when the films of the real Chaplin are available? Anyway, just finished reading Chaplin’s autobiography. The chapters on his London childhood and early days with William Gillette in Sherlock Holmes and then the Karno troupe are riveting. The portrait he presents of his mother and brother, Sydney, had me teary eyed. He’s a teensy weensy bit brief writing about his 2nd wife, saying that as she’s the mother of his 2 sons of whom he’s fond, he would say only that they tried to make a go of it and failed. That has the ring of truth, for it’s the reason most marriages fail, whether you’re a film genius or an ordinary schnook.

    I remember seeing ‘City Lights’ years ago and the ending was perfection, though it required a handful of kleenex to mop up the tears. Chaplin was a sentimental comedian extraordinaire. The book ‘The Movies’ (pub 1957) called Chaplin the greatest star of them all. He was an actor/director/writer/producer of films that made him rich as well as a beloved idol. In his autobiography he said he made only one Hollywood friend – Douglas Fairbanks – but met and dined with a LOT of celebrities and world leaders. (Recollections of the world’s great, particularly the politicians, makes for mighty dull reading.) He also retained a considerable portion of the millions of dollars he earned and moved to Vevey, Switzerland with Oona in 1952, where he lived happily ever after. And after all he gave movie goers, he deserved to spend his 80s sitting in the sun, talking about the good old days with visitors, and watching the sun set over the mountains behind Lake Geneva.

    • Yes. 😉

      I recommend seeing parts of CHAPLIN, at least, if only to see what a great job Downey Jr. does mimicking him. As a whole, though, it could’ve been so much better.

    • “Haven’t seen the Chaplin film. Why watch a contemporary actor mimic Chaplin when the films of the real Chaplin are available?”

      This is partly why biopics of big film stars never work for me. We have these people alive and moving on film, so it’s hard to sell someone else playing them, especially iconic stars like Chaplin. And even when they do have interesting lives, as Chaplin certainly did, these movies tend to oversimplify matters to the point where they end up spreading misinformation and cartoonish visions of the past.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s