Chaplin (1992)

User Rating:

7.2/10   

Director:

Richard Attenborough

Writers (WGA):

David Robinson (book)
Charles Chaplin (book)

Release Date:

8 January 1993 (USA)

Genre:

Biography | Drama

Tagline:

Everyone has a wild side. Even a legend.

Plot:

A film about the troubled and controversial life of the master comedy filmmaker.

Plot Keywords:

Life | Charlie Chaplin | Cult Favorite | Based On Multiple Works | Film Making

Awards:

Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 3 wins & 10 nominations

Cast

Robert Downey Jr.	...	Charles Spencer Chaplin
Geraldine Chaplin	...	Hannah Chaplin
Paul Rhys	...	Sydney Chaplin
John Thaw	...	Fred Karno
Moira Kelly	...	Hetty Kelly / Oona O'Neill Chaplin
Anthony Hopkins	...	George Hayden
Dan Aykroyd	...	Mack Sennett
Marisa Tomei	...	Mabel Normand
Penelope Ann Miller	...	Edna Purviance
Kevin Kline	...	Douglas Fairbanks
Maria Pitillo	...	Mary Pickford
Milla Jovovich	...	Mildred Harris
Kevin Dunn	...	J. Edgar Hoover
Deborah Moore	...	Lita Grey (as Deborah Maria Moore)
Diane Lane	...	Paulette Goddard

Also Known As:

Charlot (Italy)

Runtime:

143 min

Country:

UK | USA | France | Italy

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White | Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby SR

Certification:

Iceland:L | South Korea:12 | Singapore:NC-16 | Singapore:PG (cut) | Argentina:13 | Australia:M | Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Chile:14 | Finland:S | Germany:6 | New Zealand:PG | Peru:14 | Spain:T | Sweden:Btl | UK:15 | USA:PG-13 | Canada:PG (Manitoba/Ontario) | Norway:10

Filming Locations:

Alabama Hills, Lone Pine, California, USA

Company:

Carolco Pictures

Trivia:

Richard Attenborough cast Marisa Tomei in the role of Mabel Normand after seeing her performance in the '30s set comedy Oscar (1991) on a transatlantic flight.

Goofs:

Revealing mistakes: When Charlie and his brother visit Fred Karno for Charlie's "interview", the opening shot shows a river with still water and a paddle steamer moves from left to right. The boat is moving a good deal faster than the paddle wheel is moving suggesting another power source.

Quotes:

Douglas Fairbanks: Charles, you're a foreigner; you're still an outsider. You've never understood this country.
Charlie Chaplin: It's a good country underneath, Doug.
Douglas Fairbanks: No, it's a good country on *top*. Underneath, that's what starts showing when we're scared.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "The Simpsons: Homer and Apu (#5.13)" (1994)

Soundtrack:

DON'T DILLY DALLY ON THE WAY

Misguided - with so much potential...

The first thing one should know about "Chaplin" is that, paradoxically, very little of it has to do with Chaplin. Or, at least, it has more to do with the writers' illusions of him. The film claims to be based on "My Autobiography" and on "Chaplin: His Life and Art", by David Robinson. Having re-read the Autobiography before watching the film, it is clear to me that what the writers did was take basic incidents from the autobiography and embellish them with, I can only assume, parts of the Robinson book. What results is a series of scenes which were vaguely influenced by the facts, but so simplified and primitive that little of the original truth remains.

What the writers did not wish to acknowledge was that when Chaplin wrote vaguely or skimmed past certain parts of his life, he really didn't want anyone to delve into them - and the filmmakers did just that. "Chaplin" is not really about Charlie Chaplin, his work and films. It is simply ceaseless speculation on his personal life, but going on even more vaguely about it than the Autobiography.

I am well aware that almost every biopic focuses more on the personal life of a person than on their work. The problem is that most of the characters in "Chaplin" are so exaggerated and simplified that they become almost completely unbelievable - both as the real people AND as fictional characters. None of them are fully developed. This is not entirely the fault of the supporting cast (although it really is not that interesting): the fault lies with the screenplay, which is too often bland and melodramatic. This is especially obvious in the ridiculous subplot concerning the older Chaplin and his editor, which is the most pointless and badly done part of the film; even Hopkins cannot make the lines sound credible, which is all the proof anyone needs of their mediocrity. The film would have worked immeasurably better without these additions.

Many of the most interesting aspects and parts of Chaplin's life are completely ignored, oddly, with seemingly irrelevant or less important stories added in for little reason. One scene in particular is added only to insert a Chaplin-esquire physical comedy sequence which falls flat. The writers greatly accentuated everything to do with Hetty Kelly, even making the same actress play Oona O'Neill; the tried too hard to give him some kind of motive for his relationships, which only leads to more bias and speculation; and although I am by no means a Chaplin purist or even a very knowledgeable admirer, the blatant alterations on the actual history grated on my nerves.

All this being said, the film is certainly not a terrible one. Mainly, however, this is for one reason only, and that is - yes - Robert Downey Jr. himself. The praise he received for the role is by no means undeserved. As Chaplin he is perfect, managing to make the best out of his rather predictable lines, remaining interesting, believable, and in many parts moving. He has wonderful timing and intensity, and even looks the part (he could even do the roll dance). I really quite believed he was Chaplin. Even his performance, however, suffers greatly because of the lines - and the flash-forwards. I have no doubt that he could have played an even better Charlie Chaplin in a differently made film.

One of the greatest scenes in "Chaplin", I think, is the opening credits: Charlie arrives in his dressing room, alone, sits, and begins to remove his make-up. The scene is in black and white, and there is no dialogue - only music. Every emotion is expressed simply through his eyes. If the rest of the film had been made like this, I actually think it could have been perfect. Either way, the lead performance is astounding, the music is beautiful, and though not very insightful or too true to history, this film is well worth watching.