[Film Club] INFJ Film Club - Week Cuatro - Charlie Chaplin's "The Kid" (1921)

[j654dgj7]

It's time for another week of great classic movies! If you're new to the club, don't worry, there's no official fee. Yet. Just watch the movie(s) and contribute to the discussion!

This week we will be watching The Kid by Charlie Chaplin!

The first feature-length Chaplin movie. It was added to the Library of Congress in 2011 as it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

It is widely considered one of the greatest films of the silent era. That means one of the best ever, in my opinion!

Enjoy the movie, and don't forget the popcorn!

[MENTION=13909]Satori[/MENTION] [MENTION=1669]Gist[/MENTION] [MENTION=13542]SarahBS[/MENTION] [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] [MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION]

 

[j654dgj7]

Remember to watch it by Thursday!

 

[Satori]

I think I already said something about The Kid in one of our film threads, just right after I saw it...
But I guess I'll just repeat what I remember, while waiting for your comments.


Like City Lights, for me it was really the performances that made this movie special.
It's a simple reunion story, but it was very delicately and effectively presented.
The genuineness of the connection/interaction between the characters, especially
between The Tramp and The Kid, gave the film its heart. The chemistry was very natural.

Well obviously, Charlie Chaplin as The Tramp wouldn't be this popular, up until now,
if the characterization wasn't THAT good. He has such a charm and purity about him that no matter
what story you put him in, you easily get emotionally invested. Even if it isn't a continuing story,
you just always care about this poor guy with the sweet heart, about the events in his life, about
the people he interacts with, and even about his comical effort in appearing to be a gentleman.
He effortlessly invites you into his life, put simply.



(Uhm, a kinda offt question btw... I wonder, do you guys also have some difficulty remembering other
technical elements of a film? Cause I only saw this fairly recently, but I've racked my brain and pretty
much only remember now that I really liked it because it was touching and the performances were great.
And this is with every movie, even my personal favorites and those I've seen multiple times...)

 

[somerandomISTJguy]

I think I already said something about The Kid in one of our film threads, just right after I saw it...
Even if it isn't a continuing story,
you just always care about this poor guy with the sweet heart, about the events in his life, about
the people he interacts with, and even about his comical effort in appearing to be a gentleman.

Chaplin adds a real touch of humanness to the Tramp when he tries to play the gentleman. My favorite is when he doffs hat, often in multiple successions, for some slight he thinks he may have committed against another character (and sometimes an inanimate object).

For me, The Kid offers the same level of cinematography sophistication you can expect to see in almost all of Chaplin's films. He just makes it seem so light and simple, choosing to let the story tell the story, rather than any overpowering trick photography or in-your-face special effects.

The Kid contains my second favorite Chaplin dream sequence. I believe his best use of dream sequence was in Sunnyside, when he dreamt that the city slicker seduced and ran off with his girl (played by Edna Purviance).

 

[j654dgj7]

I think I already said something about The Kid in one of our film threads, just right after I saw it...
But I guess I'll just repeat what I remember, while waiting for your comments.


Like City Lights, for me it was really the performances that made this movie special.
It's a simple reunion story, but it was very delicately and effectively presented.
The genuineness of the connection/interaction between the characters, especially
between The Tramp and The Kid, gave the film its heart. The chemistry was very natural.

Well obviously, Charlie Chaplin as The Tramp wouldn't be this popular, up until now,
if the characterization wasn't THAT good. He has such a charm and purity about him that no matter
what story you put him in, you easily get emotionally invested. Even if it isn't a continuing story,
you just always care about this poor guy with the sweet heart, about the events in his life, about
the people he interacts with, and even about his comical effort in appearing to be a gentleman.
He effortlessly invites you into his life, put simply.

Well written. It's so hard for me to articulate what I think about The Kid and other great Chaplin movies. They're just so real, so beautiful and touching. He was a true comedy innovator, a perfectionist that didn't care about the rules of slapstick enough to stick to the silly stuff. He had a clear, consistent voice that echoed through all of his work.

The Kid is, like you wrote, a reunion story. A story about family. About identity and contrasts. The scenes with child services are heartbreaking and great political satire. I wish that I could articulate my feelings better, but I'm truly struggling!

(Uhm, a kinda offt question btw... I wonder, do you guys also have some difficulty remembering other
technical elements of a film? Cause I only saw this fairly recently, but I've racked my brain and pretty
much only remember now that I really liked it because it was touching and the performances were great.
And this is with every movie, even my personal favorites and those I've seen multiple times...)

For me, The Kid offers the same level of cinematography sophistication you can expect to see in almost all of Chaplin's films. He just makes it seem so light and simple, choosing to let the story tell the story, rather than any overpowering trick photography or in-your-face special effects.

Chaplin's cinematography was so sneaky! Sometimes it just seemed like he put a camera at a random spot, and started performing. I don't believe that he ever did that. A lot of the time, his scenes were shot very "flat" with still-camera photography. In the old days, that was mostly because poor technology and the lower-frame rate made it hard to move the camera around too much. He learned how to use that to his advantage very aptly! Scenes like the from City Lights, where the Tramp is looking at a statue of a naked woman, and a hatch behind him keeps going up and down, comes to mind. It shows an incredible amount of information, and so many layers, when you think about how it's still-standing.

 

[somerandomISTJguy]

Chaplin's cinematography was so sneaky! Sometimes it just seemed like he put a camera at a random spot, and started performing. I don't believe that he ever did that.

Agreed. Chaplin understood the power of camera placement early on. You can see it in how he really worked the angles in one of his earliest films, Kid Auto Races At Venice:

[video=youtube;hx__3cXIdTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx__3cXIdTM[/video]

The other thing I have always enjoyed about Chaplin's films (and earlier films in general) is that the shots are held for longer periods of time than today's movies. I don't really need the sensory overload of flitting between shots every three seconds, thank you very much!

A lot of the time, his scenes were shot very "flat" with still-camera photography. In the old days, that was mostly because poor technology and the lower-frame rate made it hard to move the camera around too much. He learned how to use that to his advantage very aptly! Scenes like the from City Lights, where the Tramp is looking at a statue of a naked woman, and a hatch behind him keeps going up and down, comes to mind. It shows an incredible amount of information, and so many layers, when you think about how it's still-standing.

It has been a while since I have seen City Lights, but if I remember correctly Chaplin only did one moving shot in the entire production. Also, don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember Chaplin would run his film at a slightly faster frame rate than it was shot- something like 18fps and played at 24fps.

I really can't blather on enough about Chaplin's films. They are like a gateway drug into the world of silent films as he was the master of mixing pathos and comedy.

 

[SarahBS]

Here comes the ashamed girl
I have to confess I totally forget about watching the Kid since I've been very busy -
Will watch it asap. tonight maybe - sorry my dear friends <3

 

[camomile]

Just looked into this thread today. I haven't seen the Charlie Chaplin movies in a while. The Great Dictator is my favourite.

 

[j654dgj7]

Just looked into this thread today. I haven't seen the Charlie Chaplin movies in a while. The Great Dictator is my favourite.

Cool cool. Have you seen The Kid or City Lights?

 

[camomile]

Cool cool. Have you seen The Kid or City Lights?

The scene of the girl winding out his jumper is something I can watch over and over again. I hadn't seen the Kid before, so thank you for that. It'll be on my shelf the next few days.

 

[SarahBS]

I'm watching 'the kid' at the moment.
I wanted to post an apology post here but then I remember we were supposed to watch a movie each 2 weeks

Anyway, guys I'm begging to love this guy. I was wondering if we could start a Chaplin Club, watching all his works? ^_^ I dunno. I wanna know more about him <3

 

[SarahBS]

Well obviously, Charlie Chaplin as The Tramp wouldn't be this popular, up until now,
if the characterization wasn't THAT good. He has such a charm and purity about him that no matter
what story you put him in, you easily get emotionally invested.

I coudln't t agree more!


Well I've come to realize that Chaplin's movies were extraordinary at his own time. I supposed he experience a huge amount suffering at the time. It's obvious from the way his stories go. I'm wondering if people understood what he was trying to say at time.

Just like City Lights , there were meticulous details. Like how caring he is.How he is inspired by the letter the child's mom left. Exactly when read , he feels he has to take care of the kid ^^ How generously he cut his own chair to make him a toilet.

How he fights for the kid. To bring him back. HOW REAL EVERYTHING IS!
The music when they were taking the child …

and Oh the dreamland ..Can he mean that he doesn’t have a good life even in his dreamland by the events we see? He feels insecure about his surroundings.

There's a question though: What does he mean by this?

He walked back to go from the other side! any ideas?

P.S: [MENTION=13909]Satori[/MENTION] I didn't actually get what your question is :">

 

[Satori]

[MENTION=13542]SarahBS[/MENTION]
True. Those nuances make a whole lot of difference.
Not just with this one in particular, but with other films,
it's sometimes these subtleties that make the story breathe.

About your question regarding what the scenes suggest,
I guess I'd have to review the film before answering, haha.

My question has something to do with that actually.
I usually don't remember a lot of stuff, even if
I liked a film, or have just seen it recently.
Like the image you posted, I don't remember it.
I probably need some memory enhancer...

 

[SarahBS]

[MENTION=13909]Satori[/MENTION]

People say you can work on your memory and I believe we can do it but to an extent.
For instance, I'm good at remembering movie scene but I'm awful at remembering numbers and names. I always have difficulties remembering my students' names and it sometimes makes me embarrassed
Guess it's a kinda ability. Not sure though

I also asked another question in my previous posts. ^^

 

[j654dgj7]

Anyway, guys I'm begging to love this guy. I was wondering if we could start a Chaplin Club, watching all his works? ^_^ I dunno. I wanna know more about him <3

How about we move on to another genius, and recommend that you watch Modern Times on the side? ;-)

 

[SarahBS]

[MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION] people gotta control my perfectionism I guess
sure... let's move on ^_^

 

[j654dgj7]

[MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION] people gotta control my perfectionism I guess
sure... let's move on ^_^

Muhaha! What's next?

 

[Satori]

Early talkies?? 30s Musicals or American gangster films?

 

[SarahBS]

Part II: BRING IN THE TALKIES - THE SOUND ERA (from late 1920s)


A: The Golden Age of Hollywood

Week 5: The American Gangster of the 30s
Director: Howard Hawks, or William Wellman?
Film: Scarface (1932), or The Public Enemy (1931)


Scarface I've been waiting to watch this for a long time ^_^

but guys can I share a thought with you?
Honestly I don't have the feeling of getting to know the history or cinema. It's just a little touch to whatever we can lay hands on...
Hmm, I think we could do better than this.

Thoughts?

 

[SarahBS]

Part II: BRING IN THE TALKIES - THE SOUND ERA (from late 1920s)


A: The Golden Age of Hollywood

Week 5: The American Gangster of the 30s
Director: Howard Hawks, or William Wellman?
Film: Scarface (1932), or The Public Enemy (1931)


Scarface I've been waiting to watch this for a long time ^_^

but guys can I share a thought with you?
Honestly I don't have the feeling of getting to know the history of cinema. It's just a little touch to whatever we can lay hands on...
Hmm, I think we could do better than this.

Thoughts?