Film & Shorts Discussions > Random Comedy Reviews

The Gold Rush (1925) - Charlie Chaplin

<< < (2/3) > >>

Toast5884:
God, so much to say about this, I feel like I'm tripping over my words to get my thoughts in order, lol. While the ending is a little uncomfortable for reasons stated above, this is still the work of a master at the height of his craft and ahead of the curve. There's a certain magic that Chaplin retains in this, "The Circus", and "Modern Times" that, even for those who wouldn't normally watch silent films, is just alluring. I remember hearing that, at the time, contemporary critics said that some of the bits he had were a bit old hat but that is part of why Chaplin works so well 100 years later. Yeah, some of the gags you see coming a mile away but Chaplin always presents them in a real manner (which showed the respect he had for the audience) whilst messing with absurdity in an almost surreal manner (though I doubt Chaplin would've ever considered himself a surrealist). The only outright negative thing I would ever say about Chaplin's work is that at times it feels like being in film school because your mind is trying to pay attention to how he worked everything out. But the same can be said for any unabashed genius (my mind immediately turns to Brian Wilson circa Pet Sounds and Smile.). And while not a fan of the 1942 version, I do often turn to that as a primer for those unfamiliar with Chaplin because it often serves as a nice gateway into his filmography.

metaldams:

--- Quote from: Toast5884 on February 06, 2020, 01:28:08 PM ---God, so much to say about this, I feel like I'm tripping over my words to get my thoughts in order, lol. While the ending is a little uncomfortable for reasons stated above, this is still the work of a master at the height of his craft and ahead of the curve. There's a certain magic that Chaplin retains in this, "The Circus", and "Modern Times" that, even for those who wouldn't normally watch silent films, is just alluring. I remember hearing that, at the time, contemporary critics said that some of the bits he had were a bit old hat but that is part of why Chaplin works so well 100 years later. Yeah, some of the gags you see coming a mile away but Chaplin always presents them in a real manner (which showed the respect he had for the audience) whilst messing with absurdity in an almost surreal manner (though I doubt Chaplin would've ever considered himself a surrealist). The only outright negative thing I would ever say about Chaplin's work is that at times it feels like being in film school because your mind is trying to pay attention to how he worked everything out. But the same can be said for any unabashed genius (my mind immediately turns to Brian Wilson circa Pet Sounds and Smile.). And while not a fan of the 1942 version, I do often turn to that as a primer for those unfamiliar with Chaplin because it often serves as a nice gateway into his filmography.

--- End quote ---

The 1942 version may be a good gateway for those not used to silent film and let’s face it, there’s more of them than us!

Welcome to the board.

NoahYoung:
Hands down, my favorite Chaplin feature.

I had seen this many, many times before I finally saw the 1942 version. For years, the advantage of the later version was that it was available with superior picture quality. This is no longer as big of an issue, though the restored 1925 version, while much better than before, is still slightly below the pictorial quality of the 1942 version.  I'd seen it many times in 8mm, with just acceptable quality, and even a VHS version without a music track. The first time I saw the 1942 version, it was a revelation pictorially.

I of course prefer the original 1925 version overall, but I don't dislike the 1942 version nearly as much as anyone here, nor as much as anything I've ever read anywhere. Not even close to 1/3 was cut out, BTW. Perhaps that impression is given because the 1942 version is at 24fps, while the 1925 version is usually played anywhere from 18fps to 22fps. (BTW, the debates across the internet about the proper projection speed for silents films can get pretty nasty.)

When projected at 24fps, the 1925 version runs about 81 minutes.

US viewers who bought the mK2 disc will see the 1942 version with the 4% PAL speedup of 25fps. So the film then becomes 69 mins on the mK2 disc rather than 72, which is the proper length.

So the 1942 version is therefore 9 minutes shorter than the 1925 version.

The major cuts to the 1942 version are mentioned above: the whole business with the letter, and the ending. Keep in mind that the removal of the inter-titles (replaced by Chaplin's narration) also reduces the film's length.

Angles in the 1942 version are slighty different throughout, because of the use of negatives deriving from separate cameras. Sometimes alternate takes are used.

Chaplin's discovery of Jim's grave is at a different point in the film, and is an alternate take -- he twirls his cane in the 1942 version. There are a bunch of other similar examples throughout the film -- too numerous to list here.

The practice of re-editing his films and using negatives from alternate cameras, and using alternate takes, was done with virtually all of the originally-silent films that were still owned by Chaplin. He worked closely with his cinematographer, Rollie Totheroh, on these re-issues. I've read that in many cases the alternate negatives were all that Totheroh could find in usable condition.

I believe THE GOLD RUSH is the most extreme example in the Chaplin cannon of re-editing one of his earlier films. So he predated George Lucas by some 40 years with this practice!

I also might add that Chaplin narrating this film has been compared favorably to private screenings in his home where Chaplin did just that with all of his silents.

metaldams:

--- Quote from: NoahYoung on June 13, 2024, 08:22:42 PM ---Hands down, my favorite Chaplin feature.

I had seen this many, many times before I finally saw the 1942 version. For years, the advantage of the later version was that it was available with superior picture quality. This is no longer as big of an issue, though the restored 1925 version, while much better than before, is still slightly below the pictorial quality of the 1942 version.  I'd seen it many times in 8mm, with just acceptable quality, and even a VHS version without a music track. The first time I saw the 1942 version, it was a revelation pictorially.

I of course prefer the original 1925 version overall, but I don't dislike the 1942 version nearly as much as anyone here, nor as much as anything I've ever read anywhere. Not even close to 1/3 was cut out, BTW. Perhaps that impression is given because the 1942 version is at 24fps, while the 1925 version is usually played anywhere from 18fps to 22fps. (BTW, the debates across the internet about the proper projection speed for silents films can get pretty nasty.)

When projected at 24fps, the 1925 version runs about 81 minutes.

US viewers who bought the mK2 disc will see the 1942 version with the 4% PAL speedup of 25fps. So the film then becomes 69 mins on the mK2 disc rather than 72, which is the proper length.

So the 1942 version is therefore 9 minutes shorter than the 1925 version.

The major cuts to the 1942 version are mentioned above: the whole business with the letter, and the ending. Keep in mind that the removal of the inter-titles (replaced by Chaplin's narration) also reduces the film's length.

Angles in the 1942 version are slighty different throughout, because of the use of negatives deriving from separate cameras. Sometimes alternate takes are used.

Chaplin's discovery of Jim's grave is at a different point in the film, and is an alternate take -- he twirls his cane in the 1942 version. There are a bunch of other similar examples throughout the film -- too numerous to list here.

The practice of re-editing his films and using negatives from alternate cameras, and using alternate takes, was done with virtually all of the originally-silent films that were still owned by Chaplin. He worked closely with his cinematographer, Rollie Totheroh, on these re-issues. I've read that in many cases the alternate negatives were all that Totheroh could find in usable condition.

I believe THE GOLD RUSH is the most extreme example in the Chaplin cannon of re-editing one of his earlier films. So he predated George Lucas by some 40 years with this practice!

I also might add that Chaplin narrating this film has been compared favorably to private screenings in his home where Chaplin did just that with all of his silents.

--- End quote ---

You make a good point about frames per second with silent film and how the length of the film isn’t quite as edited as the running time would make it appear as a result.  That’s something I’m more attuned to since writing that review.

You’ve actually made me want to revisit the 1942 GOLD RUSH, so nice job.

NoahYoung:
I find it odd when places like Wikipedia list the runtime of a silent film, rather than listing the footage (in 35mm) or reels. The runtime is meaningless without indicating at what fps.

When different editions of silents are issued on disc by different companies -- same thing -- people think one version is "better" and includes more scenes restored when they see a longer run time.

I'm not sure if the latest and greatest disc players allow you to speed up or slow down a movies, but if you play a disc or file via VLC media player, you can adjust the speed.

For example, if I you play the mK2 DVD of a Chaplin film, simply set the speed to .96. There is also a setting that tells VLC whether or not to adjust the pitch of the sound if you change the speed. I believe for the mK2 discs, you need to allow it to adjust the pitch as well, so the voices sound normal. They do sound just a tad high-pitched on those discs.

For silent films, if I don't like the speed they did the transfer at, I adjust the speed. I feel Shepard transferred some of those Flicker Alley Chaplins too slow.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page