Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

The Gold Rush (1925) - Charlie Chaplin

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

[/youtube]

Watch THE GOLD RUSH in the link above.

      THE GOLD RUSH would be Charlie Chaplin’s first starring film that he directed, produced and starred in with complete independence.  Along with D.W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, he formed United Artists in 1919 yet could not make a film for his own company until he completed his contract with First National, which finally happened in 1923.  Ironically, Chaplin himself delayed his first completely independent starring vehicle by two years as his first United Artist film was 1923’s A WOMAN OF PARIS.  Apparently, Chaplin chose to assert his independence by directing someone else instead of himself, something First National surely would not allow.  However, two years later, Chaplin finally gives his public a starring vehicle for himself and they would not be disappointed.  THE GOLD RUSH is a classic which manages to mix dramatic storytelling, tragedy and comedy perfectly - a combination, judging by other films I have reviewed, that’s not always so easy to pull off.

      Before I get into the meat of this film, I would like to do a shout out to my homeboy, Charles D. Hall.  He’s the art director of THE GOLD RUSH and this film looks phenomenal because of him.  Taking place in a snowy Alaskan mining town, the snowy mountain terrain, the cabin, the dance hall, and the mining town itself with all the little stores and the jail look fantastic.  A visually appealing little world that is a pleasure to look at for ninety minutes.  Hall worked on some of the classier looking Laurel and Hardy productions and those classic 30’s Universal horror films as well.  A lot of the films I find especially visually appealing Hall’s name is on, so I tip my hat to him.  He’s greater than any CGI effect could ever hope to be.

      Like I said, there’s the comedy, tragedy and drama.  For neatness sake, I like to compartmentalize these things in my review, but it’s not always so simple when it comes to Chaplin as these elements can be so intertwined.  Let’s take one subject dealt with in this film - starvation.  In the hands of a lesser comedian, I would be lamenting how such a subject does not belong in a comedy and it drags the mood of the film down.  Not with Chaplin, not with THE GOLD RUSH.  Take the eating of the shoe gag.  There’s no crying here, Chaplin’s nonchalant selling of the eating of the shoe is what makes this work and gives the scene humor.  The way he nibbles at the heel, picks his teeth with spiked thing-a-ma-jig that holds the shoe together and best of all, takes down the shoelace like it’s a piece of spaghetti.  Mack Swain’s reaction to Chaplin eating that shoe so easily mirrors the audience perfectly.  Also love the way for the remainder of the film, Chaplin wears a tied in sack on his foot to replace the eaten shoe, a great attention to detail and continuity.  Speaking of Swain, him mistaking Chaplin in hallucination form as a chicken is another hysterical starvation gag.  This is also because of the way the actors sell it.  Swain perches his lips and had this wonderful cartoon like expression on his face while Chaplin, in a chicken suit, very convincingly makes those chicken movements.  Again, a gag with lesser actors that might not work.

      Other great comic moments include the wonderful snow shoveling gag where Chaplin shovels the snow away from one building to the front of another.  He gets paid for one job and creates himself a second job.  There’s also the classic scene where Chaplin and Mack Swain are stuck in the cabin on the ledge of the mountain, the cabin threatening to tip over based on where the characters distribute their weight, so the movements of each man creates a ton of tension.  This would definitely be a thrill comedy gag that was probably influenced by some of the scenes Harold Lloyd - Chaplin’s biggest competitor - has done to this point.  1923’s SAFETY LAST! being the most famous example.  This would also be the first Chaplin scene I ever saw in my life.  My second grade teacher dressed up as Chaplin for Halloween and showed us this scene.  I’m glad she did and the fact I still remember means the scene left a definite impression.

      Now let’s get to the leading lady, Georgia, played by Georgia Hale.  Some controversy here, especially concerning the ending, which some people consider too Hollywood for Chaplin - but I will get to that in a bit.  Ms. Hale herself does a fine job here and the character herself is undoubtedly the least likable female character Chaplin worked with, but not to the point you don’t detect a hint of humanity.  She’s basically the pretty girl who likes the narcissistic jerk guys and likes to falsely lead on the outcasts, in this case Chaplin obviously being the outcast.  She asks Chaplin for a dance for the sole purpose of making her boyfriend jealous after a fight - and even that leads to some great comedy.  Great dance scene with Chaplin trying to keep his pants up and eventually finding a rope as a belt - which has a dog attached to it!  Even the fight with the jealous boyfriend beats a great gag where he pulls Chaplin’s hat over his eyes, Chaplin blindly punches a column with a clock attached, causing the clock to fall on the boyfriend’s head.  Chaplin removes the hat over his eyes, thinking he knocked his rival out.  Clever gag among some drama.

      Another funny comedy bit with drama would be Chaplin thinking Georgia and her friends were going to come over to his place for New Year’s Eve.  After they leave, he gets so excited he does these flips and pillow destruction that no words of mine can do justice.  Let’s just say there’s a lot of movement, feathers flying everywhere and when Georgia comes back for a moment and sees the aftermath of Chaplin’s excitement, I never fail to laugh.  It’s made my sides hurt in the past. But yeah, with the drama linked to it, Georgia and her friends ditch Chaplin after he worked so hard to make a nice party for them.  A cruel bit on her part, but when she comes back after midnight to continue the joke and realizes what she’s done, she does show an ounce of regret.  This part of the plot does allow for a dream sequence where Chaplin does the Oceana Roll sequence - he takes rolls on the end of silverware and makes them dance.  Inspired by Roscoe Arbuckle (who in turn was inspired by Chaplin’s walk) and later done by Curly Howard, nobody was able to make this the physical tour de force the way Chaplin did.

      (Spoiler alert) Towards the end of the film, Chaplin and Mack Swain find the plot of gold, get rich and live happily ever after, except Chaplin doesn’t have Georgia.  They appear on a boat and for a photo opportunity for the press, Chaplin wears his old tramp costume.  He happens to run into Georgia on the boat.  Georgia does show an act of kindness as she hides Chaplin, thinking he’s the stowaway that’s being looked for.  When it’s revealed he’s not the stowaway and he’s a multi millionaire, they get together and they kiss at the end.  On the surface, a lazy happy ending that does not belong in a Chaplin film.  Look deeper.  While showing some hints of kindness, it does not make up for the way she played Chaplin like a toy throughout most of the film.  Notice her body language when she’s with him, she looks confused.  Look at her during the kiss, she’s not exactly into it.  There’s slight hints there might be happiness, but more hints there may be darkness ahead and you gotta think she won’t say no to Chaplin because now he’s all the sudden a multi millionaire.  Would she fall be with The Little Tramp character the same way?  Probably not.  I’m sure this scenario, by 1925, is something the real life Chaplin could relate to when dealing with women.  So yeah, if you dig deep, the end of THE GOLD RUSH leaves as many open ended questions as CITY LIGHTS.  As an aside, towards the end, Mack Swain is getting a manicure from a cute young woman.  After Chaplin catches him flirting, he teases Swain and gives him a cane poke and side kick.  A total Keystone moment in a decidedly non Keystone film, made all the more relevant Swain was a Keystone staple.  I love it.

      Chaplin would go on to re-release THE GOLD RUSH in 1942 with his narration taking the place of title cards and about a third of the film cut.  I will say no more because I have nothing nice to say.  The original 1925 version, very public domain and with us for all times, is a must see.  Very few people besides Chaplin can make a film this good and not have it called his undisputed best because he has other films this amazing.  If you know THE GOLD RUSH, please comment and if not, the film can be watched above.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Paul Pain

  • Moronika's resident meteorologist
  • Moderator
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
  • The heartthrob of millions!
Metaldams, it's awesome to finally, after 6 years on these boards, see you have the chance to air your thoughts on Charlie Chaplin.
#1 fire kibitzer


Offline metaldams

Metaldams, it's awesome to finally, after 6 years on these boards, see you have the chance to air your thoughts on Charlie Chaplin.

Thanks Paul, you’re right.  It feels good to finally review Chaplin.  His features and better shorts actually give plenty to discuss so there is some depth to my reviews.  Compare this review to my upcoming review of Abbott and Costello’s MEXICAN HAYRIDE, which I’m posting Friday, and you’ll notice the difference.

All of Chaplin’s features and a healthy dose of shorts will be reviewed eventually.  One of the advantages of doing this random review thing is I can review Chaplin without doing nine consecutive months of Keystone shorts.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Umbrella Sam

  • Toastmaster General
  • Knothead
  • *****
    • Talk About Cinema
It’s been quite a while since I’ve seen this film. My memory was that it was a mostly good one, and looking back, it still is. It’s so interesting because, with such a limited setting, you’d think that this would be so difficult to pull off, but they manage to do so through some really atmospheric set design and a blend of both comedy and sadness.

Chaplin’s films are interesting to look at because of how different his style was to most comedians of the time. It often seemed as though he stressed the dramatic elements a lot more than most other comedians of the time, which isn’t a bad thing. Personally, I do prefer Keaton’s and Lloyd’s style of blending the comedy and drama, but Chaplin’s way certainly stands out a lot more and works in its own way.

Chaplin’s films often deal with his character’s loneliness and separation from the rest of the world, and that aspect is certainly present in this film, but what I find interesting about THE GOLD RUSH specifically is that when we first see Chaplin interacting with others, it’s not with society, but rather with two other people forced to stay together due to the weather. It’s an interesting idea for Chaplin and he does take advantage of the comic opportunities, especially when it comes to the food related gags. I always like the scene where Mack Swain is chasing after him, first thinking that he’s a chicken and then continuing even when he recognizes him. I’ve seen this kind of gag done in some other later films, but this one usually is the one I tend to remember the best, thanks to the good pacing and, like metaldams mentions, Swain’s expressions.

It’s after those early cabin scenes where he goes more into the loneliness aspect of his character. Everyone at the bar seems to treat him with disregard, even Georgia, the woman who’s supposed to be his love interest. It’s handled really well, and it seems very fitting considering the depressing subject matter of being someone mining for gold.

There are certainly still good comedy bits to be found among this sad subject matter, such as the dancing scene with the dog, Chaplin tearing up the pillow and when Chaplin is shoveling snow. I’ll also mention the dancing rolls gag. I remember previously when I reviewed THE ROUGH HOUSE, I said that I didn’t really find that particular gag funny, even here. Well, either I didn’t get it the first time or my memory of that must have been pretty bad, because this time I was laughing at it. Chaplin’s movements and expressions are what really help the gag work so well. Chaplin’s movements in general are just so fascinating to watch. He just has such a distinct style when it comes to that it’s either fascinating or has the intended effect of making me laugh.

It’s all topped off with a reunion with Swain and an excellent climax, probably the closest Chaplin got to a Keaton or Lloyd style climax. The only problem I have with this movie is the ending and how the letter ties into it. I believe we’ve discussed this before, but just in case, I’ll repeat it. In the original version, after Georgia discovers how she played with the tramp’s feelings, she writes a letter apologizing to her boyfriend and he makes the tramp think it’s for him. I always felt like that scene was a bit too cruel, especially considering that right before that, Georgia does feel bad and rightfully gives her boyfriend what he deserves. Metaldams makes a good point about how the ending is technically one where it’s indicated that life wouldn’t be happy, especially with the way Georgia Hale acts all awkward around him, but at the same time, she does offer to pay his fare and does seem genuinely happy to see him at first. It’s a bit too confusing, and I think it would have worked better had they simply just had the ending being him imagining a life with Georgia rather than this one.

So, yeah, not crazy about the ending, but otherwise, it’s still a great movie. Swain and Hale provide good performances, the atmosphere is interesting and overall it provides an entertaining yet also heavily dramatic story. The 1942 version does solve the issues with the letter and ending, but that narration is incredibly annoying, and I’d still recommend the original over it.

9.5 out of 10
“I’ll take a milkshake...with sour milk!” -Shemp (Punchy Cowpunchers, 1950)

My blog: https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com


Offline Dr. Mabuse

Despite my preference for "Modern Times," the original release of Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" remains the best structured of his feature-length films. Everything works beautifully in this epic comedy-drama, with the pathos and humor perfectly integrated. The comic setpieces are too numerous to mention, but a personal favorite is the classic "Dance of the Rolls." The restored 1925 silent version remains far superior to Chaplin's mutilated 1942 reissue.

10/10


Offline 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.


Offline metaldams

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.

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.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline 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.



Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline metaldams

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.

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.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline 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.



Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

I watched about half of the mK2 disc of the 1925 version last night, and it looks better than I remembered. Some online searching says it was restored in 1993 by Brownlow and Gill, so the mK2 release was not the first one. They used as many shots as possible from the 1942 version, as long as it was the same take, I believe.

Many people trash the mK2 NTSC Chaplin discs because of the 4% PAL speedup, and the "ghosting" effects caused by the conversion of PAL to NTSC. For talkies, I admit this is an issue with voice pitch, but for the silents in these sets, I think it's nitpicking. I don't notice any "ghosting."

The Criterion blu-ray that came out awhile ago is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, for both the 1925 and the 1942 versions. I'm not saying it's not, because I haven't seen it, but I'll repeat my mantra about blu-ray not being a panacea, and to me it is more of a placebo. I didn't buy the Chaplin mK2 discs right when they came out -- perhaps a few years later. I get annoyed that media I bought less than 20 years ago is already considered obsolete! And these were touted as the end-all and be-all when it came to Chaplin video releases!

Cineteca di Bologna supposedly did the "restoration" for Criterion, but I could not find any evidence that they did more than re-scan the film elements restored by Brownlow and Gill in 1993. If all they did was re-scan, than Cineteca di Bologna is full of Bologna! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I'm a purist who prefers restoration/preservation on actual film. I don't like digital "clean-up" or any other trickery. Scan the film elements and release a disc, for crying out loud.

Now if you need to scan multiple prints and are averse to splicing pieces together physically -- then fine. Splice digitally, but that's all, other than making the image the same size across different print sources, or image stabilization. But please stay away from any other enhancements! These blu-ray producers tend to enjoy tinkering with their fancy schmancy digital tools!


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

Here's a short video that was included on the Criterion that talks about the 2 versions and the restoration. Again, it appears that the real restoration only happened in 1993, and that the Criterion version is  probably just a rescan in HD, technology which didn't exist in 1993.

https://archive.org/details/presenting-the-gold-rush

Go to 9:22. This guy Jeffrey Vance lies and says the whole world only saw the 1942 version until 1993. Funny, since earlier in the video he talks about how Raymond Roahauer exhibited the 1925 version after 1942 and long before 1993! How do these inaccurancies and contradictions make it past anyone???

I saw the 1925 version long before 1993. I saw it on TV. I saw it on 8mm. And I saw it on budget VHS labels. It was both easier and cheaper to see the silent version for years, and harder and more expensive to see the sound version! I first heard about the 1942 version around 1976 when RBC films released it on Super 8 film! And it wasn't cheap! (I now have a copy!)

You can see the whole 1925 version of the film here:
https://archive.org/details/the_gold_rush_1925_720p/the_gold_rush_1925_1080p.mp4


A general comment about what you read or hear anywhere:
I know those statements made by Vance were innacurate because I saw the 1925 version many times before 1993. Now what about anything I read or hear on any subject, or current events, that I don't have prior knowledge about? How do I know that anything I hear or read about those kind of things are accurate? Think about it.
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

Check this out:

https://alt.movies.silent.narkive.com/sh9Qsi6J/gold-rush-on-tcm

Among other things, it says:

Quote
Paul Killiam's 1970s restoration of the 1925 GOLD RUSH, with a William Perry
piano score, has played TCM multiple times, including the Sunday Silents
slot, and always in B/W.

So that's more evidence that this Jeffrey Vance character doesn't know what he's talking about!

Apparently, he worked as an archivist for the Chaplin estate, and was probably paid to stack the deck and not let on how easily available the 1925 version was after its copyright expired in the 50s and before 1993. That newsgroup discussion also mentions that Criterion themselves issued the Paul Killiam restoration of the 1925 on laserdisc!!!
(Edit: I can't find any evidence that Criterion issued THE GOLD RUSH in any form prior to the blu-ray.)

Does Criterion and Vance think we're all fools?!?!?!

See attached -- Republic laserdisc of Paul Killiam's 1925 version -- issued in 1992, copyrighted 1970. I believe that's before 1993.  :o






Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz