disfluencies
My “amateur hour” production of commentary while watching “The Immigrant” fell victim to volume mixing.
The “learning curve” lesson is that “while I’m streaming/recording” I don’t hear the sound that is going to the stream – so the music volume on the movie was too high making the recording of my commentary unusable.
File this one under “learning experience” – not a big deal. I could have easily re-recorded the commentary, and it would PROBABLY have been better the second time around.
I continue to work on curbing my “filler words.” Occasionally I’ll hear someone point out that too many “filler words” makes you sound unintelligent (or, they probably say “stupid” – and I just realized how successfully I have weaned myself from using THAT word).
ANYWAY, having been “paid to talk to a captive audience about a subject I have extensive knowledge” (some call it “teaching”) – I always point out that MY filler word usage is directly related to how prepared I am for the lecture/talk.
Still it is something I need to work on …
The Immigrant
Random thoughts/Interesting elements from “The Immigrant”:
- the “short feature” (20ish minutes) is considered an example of Chaplin at his best
- the criticism of the short centers around the fact that it feels like two 10-minute stories, rather than one 20 minute story (on the boat, then in the restaurant)
- the female lead (Edna Purviance) was Chaplin’s “discovery” – and became his most frequent lead actress
- yes, they were romantically linked at one point – Charlie Chaplin was married 4 times, and some have pointed out that maybe if Chaplin had married Edna he wouldn’t have had all the problems associated with “4 wives” – well, at least it is pretty to think so
- Chaplin did keep Ms Purviance on the “payroll” after she retired – so it gets pointed out that Chaplin treated Edna better than he did his ex-wives
- if there was a “dominant trait” for comedy in the first half of the 20th century – it would (probably) be “physical deformity” – not “handicaps” as much as limbs out of proportion/twisted. Think “Popeye” – so “The Tramp” character taps into that
- once you get past the “Tramp’s” funny walk, facial ticks, feet a little too large – Chaplin tends to be the “little guy testing authority figures” – which we see in the restaurant scene
- the “head waiter” is played by Eric Campbell – who played to “evil heavy” in 11 Chaplin shorts
- obviously Chaplin and Campbell were friends in the “real world”
- Campbell was 6′ 5″ tall which Chaplin (all of 5′ 5″ tall) expertly plays for comedic effect.
- Campbell had something of a short and tragic life – he died in a traffic accident in 1917
- the ending is interesting in a “formula” kind of way
- formula 1 = deus ex machina, Chaplin and Edna are painted into the proverbial corner, and suddenly the “wealthy artist” character appears – and provides the solution to their problems – this kind of “then a miracle occurs” plot resolution goes way back to the ancient Greek theater, so I’m not criticizing as much as point out the formula
- formula 2 = Chaplin and Edna get married at the end. This “pairing up” formula tends to be part of “comedy endings” in general – in 2021 maybe everybody doesn’t get married, but they still ‘pair up’
- Shakespeare is always the example I use to illustrate the second formula – e.g. in his “comedies” people get married at the end, in his “tragedies” people die at the end
done
from a “making movies” point of view – Charlie Chaplin was breaking fresh ground. “Acting” on stage is a different craft than “acting” in movies, but remember “movie acting” had to be invented by the early actors and directors – which is kinda what we see in The Immigrant.
– i.e. the Immigrant probably illustrates the development from “stage acting” (done with the body) to “movie acting” (done primarily with the eyes/face).
The film industry was also quickly disrupted by “sound.” For better or worse — With “talkies” you might have characters engage in dialogue to advance the plot (but too much “exposition” is ALWAYS being bad) – however “silent movies” force “visual storytelling.”
Of course “show don’t tell” is still good “storytelling” advice – with “modern movies” the best practice is (probably) some form of “show WHILE telling”
almost completely unrelated random thought
John Ford (the legendary director) started out directing silent movies – and sometimes his movies tend toward “melodrama” BUT they are always great examples of “visual storytelling.”
(random thought: John Ford deserves some of the credit for John Wayne’s success. How much is debatable – but I like to point out that the “John Wayne school of acting” involves “don’t say too much, just look and let the audience put in the emotion” – which I can easily imagine John Ford giving the Duke that advice while making Stagecoach 😉 )
legendary
“Motion pictures” helped speed the death of vaudeville – by syphoning off both talent and audiences, but it is always tough to say that “X” is the reason “Y” became unprofitable.
With the popularity of “reality television” – which to me looks a lot like the old “talent shows” – which looked a lot like vaudeville – which stole a lot from the “stage” and “minstrel shows” – it is easy to say that there is still nothing new under the sun.
However, reshaping and renewing “old classic” into “new classic” requires considerable talent – and that was Charlie Chaplin …