Very rarely does a film make me feel ambivalent as this one. I loved it for Chaplin, for performances, accurate scenes, but disliked it for its generally dark tone, missed details, and portrayal of Chaplin as an angry, distant ego-centric.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr. not only become Chaplin, but perform his stunts, little quirks and fun parts with Chaplin's gentleness and force sometimes, was a revelation.
I could go on and on about Robert Downey Jr. If you are like me, and have managed to not see this film all these years, then do so, if nothing, just for his performance. It is worth it.
Other actors were fantastic too, and there is quite a list of big names who performed wonderfully well: Kevin Klein (as Douglas Fairbanks), Anthony Hopkins, Marisa Tomei, Dan Aykroyd, Geraldine Chaplin (portraying her own grandmother, and what a portrayal!) etc.
Photography, sets, costumes, everything was just as one would hope it would be in a biopic about such an important artist as Chaplin. I also liked that many true events were accurately portrayed in the film. The attention to visual detail was refreshing. I wish I could say the same of the story though.
Anyone who read a bit about Chaplin knows what an emotional roller-coaster his life has been. Roller coaster means "highs" and "lows". In "Chaplin" we only get the "lows".
This is further made worse by the gimmicky addition of a biographer who is talking to Chaplin about his auto-biography just as we have immersed ourselves into the story, making sure that we are quickly kicked out of it. Whatever emotional connection is established is quickly lost. The only thing that scenes with the biographer do is retard the story and kill the film.
His rise from slums of east London to the king of Hollywood was incredible in reality, yet entirely missed in this film. He becomes a millionaire, just like that. In one scene he is a vaudeville actor working for peanuts, in another he comes to Hollywood and gets paid a little more, and then it seems that everyone knows about him, without our ever seeing how this happened. Even his homecoming, to a crowded station in London was scaled down: truth was that the euphoria was greater even than the one that Beatles experienced. Chaplin was so famous and well liked all over the world that even Hitler, who hated Chaplin, grew Chaplin's mustache to try and be more likable.
This overall dark story which intentionally skips the highs and focuses on lows, interrupted by fictitious biographer and old Chaplin (who add nothing of value anyway), is what makes this film fall flat on its face. It did not help that many important points in the film while accurate were portrayed with key pieces missing: for instance his theater performance was noticed by a Hollywood bigwig who proceeded to offer him a job via a telegram, with his name misspelled as "Charlie Chapman"... We never see any of that. He just gets a telegram with the job offer, out of the blue.
This is unfortunate, as one can easily find tons of material about Chaplin that could be added to show what a blast he had; and that it was all result of hard work, not dumb luck. Consider some of these facts:
Those are just some examples, but the biggest missing point is failure to portray his rise from obscurity to stardom, and how great that was, especially in those times. Even more importantly, his influence on Hollywood and film as an art form, and his big heart was entirely missed. I don't even know if most viewers truly got it that it was him and Mary Pickford that founded United Artists Studio (D. Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith were just investors). He is almost portrayed as an egomaniac, when in reality, he was anything but that. He kept helping and even financially supporting fellow actors in Hollywood even after he moved to Switzerland, that's who Chaplin really was.
To portray the funniest, most creative filmmaker in such dark tones while missing to connect the dots is a failure of this film. His life was all about overcoming, yet from "Chaplin" we are led to believe that he was a miserable character.
Chaplin's life has a lot more to offer the viewer, and it would be a joy to see his life story given a better treatment on the big screen.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr. not only become Chaplin, but perform his stunts, little quirks and fun parts with Chaplin's gentleness and force sometimes, was a revelation.
I could go on and on about Robert Downey Jr. If you are like me, and have managed to not see this film all these years, then do so, if nothing, just for his performance. It is worth it.
Other actors were fantastic too, and there is quite a list of big names who performed wonderfully well: Kevin Klein (as Douglas Fairbanks), Anthony Hopkins, Marisa Tomei, Dan Aykroyd, Geraldine Chaplin (portraying her own grandmother, and what a portrayal!) etc.
Photography, sets, costumes, everything was just as one would hope it would be in a biopic about such an important artist as Chaplin. I also liked that many true events were accurately portrayed in the film. The attention to visual detail was refreshing. I wish I could say the same of the story though.
Anyone who read a bit about Chaplin knows what an emotional roller-coaster his life has been. Roller coaster means "highs" and "lows". In "Chaplin" we only get the "lows".
This is further made worse by the gimmicky addition of a biographer who is talking to Chaplin about his auto-biography just as we have immersed ourselves into the story, making sure that we are quickly kicked out of it. Whatever emotional connection is established is quickly lost. The only thing that scenes with the biographer do is retard the story and kill the film.
His rise from slums of east London to the king of Hollywood was incredible in reality, yet entirely missed in this film. He becomes a millionaire, just like that. In one scene he is a vaudeville actor working for peanuts, in another he comes to Hollywood and gets paid a little more, and then it seems that everyone knows about him, without our ever seeing how this happened. Even his homecoming, to a crowded station in London was scaled down: truth was that the euphoria was greater even than the one that Beatles experienced. Chaplin was so famous and well liked all over the world that even Hitler, who hated Chaplin, grew Chaplin's mustache to try and be more likable.
This overall dark story which intentionally skips the highs and focuses on lows, interrupted by fictitious biographer and old Chaplin (who add nothing of value anyway), is what makes this film fall flat on its face. It did not help that many important points in the film while accurate were portrayed with key pieces missing: for instance his theater performance was noticed by a Hollywood bigwig who proceeded to offer him a job via a telegram, with his name misspelled as "Charlie Chapman"... We never see any of that. He just gets a telegram with the job offer, out of the blue.
This is unfortunate, as one can easily find tons of material about Chaplin that could be added to show what a blast he had; and that it was all result of hard work, not dumb luck. Consider some of these facts:
- When he started shooting "The Great Dictator" British government told him that they would ban his film due to policy of appeasement. He shot the film anyway. By the time Chaplin finished it, Hitler attacked Britain, and appeasement policy was reversed, making Chaplin's film more than welcome over night.
- Chaplin was never really denied entrance to the US. He heard through his connections that Hoover was going after him in a big way, and that he would be persecuted more and more and that his work visa would not be renewed. He decided to just leave the country before anything more serious happened to him. While in NY, mere hours prior to his departure, he decided to phone Richard Avedon and offer to sit in his studio for a portrait. Avedon thought it was a prank call.
- The Lita Grey affair cost Chaplin in more ways than one. During the trial his hair turned entirely white, even though he was only 37 at the time.
- It is said that Chaplin owned the famous Culver hotel in Culver City, which he lost to John Wayne in a poker game, who then proceeded to donate it for good cause... Chaplin was not all work and obsession, he was a "clown" as he said it himself many times.
Those are just some examples, but the biggest missing point is failure to portray his rise from obscurity to stardom, and how great that was, especially in those times. Even more importantly, his influence on Hollywood and film as an art form, and his big heart was entirely missed. I don't even know if most viewers truly got it that it was him and Mary Pickford that founded United Artists Studio (D. Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith were just investors). He is almost portrayed as an egomaniac, when in reality, he was anything but that. He kept helping and even financially supporting fellow actors in Hollywood even after he moved to Switzerland, that's who Chaplin really was.
To portray the funniest, most creative filmmaker in such dark tones while missing to connect the dots is a failure of this film. His life was all about overcoming, yet from "Chaplin" we are led to believe that he was a miserable character.
Chaplin's life has a lot more to offer the viewer, and it would be a joy to see his life story given a better treatment on the big screen.