Showing posts with label Chaplin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chaplin. Show all posts

04 October 2026

Exactly One Year Later Part Two of: A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up

Charlie Chaplin

It has taken exactly one year but part two has arrived at last. On this day in 2025, I enthralled readers all over the world with a post titled: “A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up.” At the end of said post I suggested that there might be a part two forthcoming. Well it has indeed forth come — so to speak. Here are ten more directors I greatly admire, a brief summary of their work and mention of one film that, to me, best sums up their oeuvre.

Howard Hawks. In sports they’ll often say of a player: he can do it all. Hawks could “do it all.’ Gangster film? Scarface. Noir? The Big Sleep. Screwball comedy? Bringing up Baby. Western? Red River. He was a jack of all trades and master of all of them. He made over a dozen great American films. He knew how to pick a script and how to cast a film. He lovingly shot some of the big stars of Hollywood: Bogie, Bacall, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Carole Lombard, Montgomery Clift, Barbara Stanwyck. Hawks made my favorite picture of all time, His Girl Friday. It was a masterclass of directing. Everything from perfect pacing to exact framing.


Luis Buñuel. He did some strange stuff but it mostly all worked. He was our great mainstream surrealistic director whose favorite target was the bourgeoise. The best example of how Buñuel turned cinema on its head was Exterminating Angel which is “about” a group of people who can’t seem to leave a dinner party. Forget can’t seem to, they bloody well can’t. Then there’s the The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie which concerns a group of French bourgeoisie and a fictional South American—despite continual interruptions—to dine together. That Obscure Object of Desire follows an aging, wealthy man whose obsessive pursuit of a beautiful young woman becomes a cycle of seduction, rejection and humiliation. My favorite of his work is Viridiana in which an idealistic young novice tries to live according to Christian principles after inheriting her wealthy uncle’s estate, including turning the house into a refuge for beggars. Her efforts end disastrously and for her and viewers, lessons are learned. Nothing ordinary came out of Buñuel film.


Charlie Chaplin He started when silent films were becoming culturally significant and continued well into the sound era finally, reluctantly making talkies. He made movies full of heart and compassion and love. The word pathos is often ascribed to his movies — quite aptly I made add. Of course most were played for laughs too. Gold Rush and Circus are particularly funny as are his earlier shorts. The Kid is funny and moving. Woman of Paris is strictly a drama and an excellent one. He’s perhaps best known for his first films after sound intruded: Modern Times, The Great Dictator (both hilarious AND message films) but to me the ultimate Chaplin is City Lights. It is a brilliantly constructed film, one that can illicit both laughs and tears.


Alfred Hitchcock. One of the greatest bodies of work in cinematic history — if not the greatest. From silent classics like The Lodger through his last film Family Plot from 1976. He earned the moniker, master of suspense, but also made an excellent screwball comedy, Mr. And Mrs. Smith. His visual sense is practically unmatched among directors with so many memorable shots. See the umbrellas in Foreign Correspondent, Kim Novak transforming in Vertigo and of course the iconic shower scene in Psycho. For me his work is epitomized by Shadow of a Doubt. The menace, the tension, the touches of humor, the evil entering an ordinary setting.


Akira Kurosawa. Two words: visual style. Kurosawa films can be watched without sound just to appreciate what you’re seeing. Go ahead and enjoy his movies on your computer but if ever a director was made for the big screen, this is your man. Kagemusha, Seven Samurai and Ran on huge IMAX screens. Throne of Blood, Hidden Fortress, Yokjimbo deserve Dolby Cinema. He also made more intimate films like the brilliant Rashomon and Drunken Angel. My favorite of his films is Ikiru, essentially the story of a dying bureaucrat. It shows the breadth and depth of Kurosawa’s talent.


Stanley Kubrick. Yeah he was a bit different wasn’t he? He made some extraordinary films. A classic horror film, The Shining. A classic war picture, Paths of Glory. An absolutely luscious period piece, Barry Lyndon. One of the greatest sci-fi film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like many great directors he was meticulous and demanding. For me his masterpiece is his adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. It’s a stunning movie to look at with visual power that doesn’t let go. Kubrick films didn’t often ask a lot out of actors but he got what he needed and never more so than from Malcolm McDowell here. But it’s still the verve, the viscerally striking scenes that make this a cinematic classic.


Wong Kar Wai. You see one of Wai’s film and you know one thing for sure: this is a person who loves making movies and has fun doing it. The raw energy of Chungking Express is proof enough that his talent matches his ambition. Other films of his like As Tears Go By, Fallen Angels, Happy Together and 2046, reveal a director who has mastered the human, the visual, the aural and the imagination that makes a filmmaker special. But nothing matches his masterpiece, In the Mood for Love, one of cinema’s most beautiful works. An unforgettable story of love and heartache that fully reveals a director’s desire and ability to explore the human condition.


Michelangelo Antonioni. He’s not for everyone but the people he’s for he’s really for. The man who made movies about ennui entertaining. La Notte, L’Avventura, L’Eclisse and Red Desert was a remarkable four-film run of vaguely related films in the early sixties. They were sandwiched in between two other terrific films, Il Grido and the English language Blow-Up. Antonioni would test audience’s patience but passing the test meant enjoying sumptuous stories. Monica Vitti often starred, another plus. But it was a later English language film, The Passenger, that sticks out for me. I’m going to cheat and let Vincent Canby of the New York Times sum it up: “a suspense melodrama, a story so basically conventional that it isn't until you're at least half‐way through it you realize it's a magnificent nightmare, and that you are on the inside looking out."


Hal Ashby (L) directing The Last Detail
Hal Ashby. Ashby had a brief but oh-so-spectacular run in the Seventies from The Landlord in 1970 through Being There in 1979. He told unconventional stories, such as Harold and Maude about not-so-much a May-December romance as a March very late December romance, with the woman being the older party. If I held a film festival of movies that explain the Sixties I’d most definitely include The Landlord the story of a privileged white man who takes ownership of an inner city tenement. Ashby, who started as an editor, directed ten actors to Oscar-nominated performances. For me Ashby’s best film is The Last Detail (1973) starring Jack Nicholson. It is brimming with humanity, humor and realism. 


Roberto Rossellini. One of the early — and perhaps the best — practitioner of Neo realism. More than almost all other directors he told deeply human stories. Films such as Stromboli, The Flowers of St. Francis and Viaggo di Italia were powerful explorations of character. There was a simplicity to his films but concurrent richness and power. For me the ultimate Rossellini film is Open City (1945) the Neo realist war film made in Rome just after the events described. Open City feels so real that it’s hard to believe you’re not watching actual footage from the war.


What’s next? Will their be a part three one year from today? Or will it come sooner? Stay tuned to find out.

08 September 2026

Want to Beat the Heat? How About a Nice Cold Movie Setting? Here are Ten Suggestions

Charlie Chaplin in The Gold Rush (1925)

We’re in the middle of a three-day heat wave here in the Bay Area so naturally I was thinking of how best to cool off and combining that with my love of film. Simple enough really. Just watch a good movie set in freezing climes, preferably with some snow. I’ve compiled ten candidates and am graciously sharing them with you the general public. You’re welcome. (I’ve excluded Christmas movies, as we want to save those for December.)

McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) Altman. By the end of the movie characters are wading through waist-high snow. Everyone is bundled up and more snow is falling. It’s all the better because the snow was real and the actors didn’t have to act cold. Warren Beatty and Julie Christie are the title characters in Robert Altman’s revisionist western set in the Pacific Northwest. (Does that make it a PacificNorthWestern?)


Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Gondry. It’s February in New York. Brrr. A frozen river plays a prominent role in the picture. The beach is visited and a north eastern seaboard beach in winter is mighty cold. You get chilly just watching. It is one of the most unusual love stories of all time. It stars Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet.


Winter Light (1963) Bergman. The title tells you a lot. The great Swedish director Ingmar Bergman made most of his movies in the summer (who can blame him?) but this — one of my all-time favorites — is an exception. The weather is as cold and forbidding as is the main character — and God’s silence. 


Fanny and Alexande (1982) Bergman. Another Bergman film much of which is set during lovely Summer weather. But the opening scenes take place at Christmas. It’s a particularly picturesque yule. Not quite a Christmas film despite the opening scenes that include sleighs, snow and celebrations.


The Ice Storm (1997) A. Lee. Again here the weather forecast is self-evident. There’s something particularly forbidding about an ice storm. It’s not gentle like snow. It brings cold and danger and here one character is a fatal victim of it. The coldest scenes in the movie are between the married couple played by Kevin Klein and Joan Allen. It’s a brilliant film with chilliness indoors and out.


The Shining (1980) Kubrick. Famously cold especially at the end. Set in the Rockies during the winter you’re bound to have tons of snow and below zero temperatures. Jack Nicholson stars along with Shelley Duvall in a brilliant performance. 


The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin. The Alaskan Gold Rush in winter with the Little Tramp. It’s great fun in the snow of which there is A LOT. So much, in fact, that our hero gets snowed into a cabin with a fellow prospector. Hunger sets in and cannibalism is considered. Once out of that jam there’s still plenty of snow — there’s about as much of it as there are laughs.


Fargo (1996) Coens. Despite the title much of the film is set in Minnesota. No matter. Either locale is as cold as all get out in the winter. There are scenes in the snow, one in particular features our heroine, Marge (Frances McDormand). The film that put the Coen Brothers on the cinematic map.


The Ascent (1997) Shepitko. Dear me this is maybe the coldest movie of them all and no one is sitting in front of a fire in a cozy room under a quilt with a hot chocolate. Nope. They’re outdoors and at war. Freezing temperatures and enemy bullets — delightful. It’s Russia during World War II which was famously cold.


Groundhog Day (1993) Ramis. February in Pennsylvania is bound to be cold and here we have characters stuck in a town because of a storm. Of course the premise here is that a man is re-living the same day over and over and over again and it’s a damn cold one. Bill Murray’s best film is one whose title deservedly become part of the lexicon. The weather is cold, the love story heart-warming. 

18 June 2026

What To Do When There are Multiple Versions of a Film, The Blogger Advises on Nine Such Cases

Blackmail by Hitchcock

Something that’s become easy these days is watching a movie. Used to be that you would have to wait for a film to appear in theaters again or worse, hope it showed up on TV.  In which case it would be riddled with commercial breaks — yuck! You had no control. Today you can watch virtually any picture you’ve a mind to. For me, as an example, a film I’m interested in — especially if it’s one I love — could be part of my extensive DVD collection (over 300 titles). It might be available on Netflix, The Criterion Channel, HBO, Hulu, TCM, You Tube, Peacock or Amazon. In the past few years I’ve only come across a handful of movies that I can’t find anywhere. Yes, finding a movie to watch is easy. Unless….

It has multiple versions. Which one to watch? If you’re going to invest two hours in a film it damn well better be the better version of the two or the best version of the five. Let me see if I can help.


As a general rule the “extended cut” or “director’s version” or especially the “extended director’s cut/version” is better. But not always. Often there’s a director’s cut because the suits at the studio thought the film too long and butchered it. Okay, sometimes they didn’t butcher it, but they did take out key scenes. Of course, sometimes studios make cuts that improve a film, the director was over-indulgent. Usually not.


One example is Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Welles. The story is that Welles made a masterpiece. Then he left the country and the studio got a hold of his print and eviscerated it. Welles was mortified and refused to have anything to do with the new version. Sadly, a copy of the original has never been found and may not even exist. The studio version was a very good film. But a very good film is a far cry from a masterpiece. 


Alfred Hitchcock has to be in any discussion of the greatest directors of all time. He made cinematic classics from the silent era through the Sixties. But he also made two absolute clunkers: The Paradine Case and Jamaica Inn. What was different about those two besides the fact that they stunk? The studios re-cut them. When you’re watching one of those films (and I’d advise against it) you’re not truly seeing a Hitchcock film.


I cannot advise you on every film that has multiple versions as there are so many and so many of them are the types of films I don’t watch. Also, in many cases there is no longer more than one available, unless you go to a used DVD store. Streaming services and TV channels don’t tend to offer you more than one version. Understandably.


But I thought it worthwhile for me to offer guidance on a few films that I’m well acquainted with. All are part of my extensive DVD collection (I love saying and writing “my extensive DVD collection.”) I will try avoid telling  you that one is BETTER than the other(s) though it will be, at times, unavoidable. In some cases the differences are a matter of taste and we all have different tastes — or so I’m told.


The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin. There is the original version that was released in theaters in 1925 and then a 1942 re-release from Chaplin. The latter version includes Chaplin’s narration and is slightly shorter as Chaplin deleted a few scenes, notably ones featuring Georgia Hale, the female lead. In my opinion the narration is unnecessary and the deleted scenes are sorely missed, so I’d strongly recommend the original version. If you appreciate silent films than you’ll definitely favor the original. 


The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. With my DVD of this great film you choose between the pre-release and theatrical versions. Without going into details, the major difference between the two is that the theatrical version has a greater emphasis on the romance between Bogart and Bacall. The pre-release is more plot heavy. To me, the plot is heavy enough and I dearly love the byplay between the two leads, so I always watch the theatrical version. Either is fine but I think the general consensus —if it matters to you, is that the romantic focus is essential to the film.


Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman. Here’s a case in which I’m going to say one version is far superior to the other. There is a theatrical version of Fanny and Alexander and the TV version. Watching the theatrical version is — in my humble opinion — just plain silly. Think of it this way, imagine watching three episodes of Breaking Bad edited into one episode. Fanny and Alexander was meant for TV, when you reduce its 320 minutes to 188 minutes you’re cutting down it to and into the bone. It’s silly that they even thought to make a theatrical version. Fanny and Alexander (the full version) is one of the great gems of cinema — even if it was originally for TV.


Das Boot (1981) Peterson. To me this a case of three bears where one of three is “just right” — the middle one. There is the first U.S. theatrical version which is 149 minutes. Too short. There is original German TV mini-series which is 282 minutes. Too long. Finally there is the director’s cut which is 208 minutes. Just right. Indeed the director’s cut is, for me one of the great films of all time. The other two versions are fine and if you love the story as I do watching all three isn’t a bad idea, I think if you do, you’ll settle on the director’s cut as the best of the three.


Blade Runner (1982) R. Scott. There have been four versions. The original U.S, theatrical version and the International version are probably pretty hard to find these days, which is just as well as they are not highly regarded. I don’t believe I’m over-stepping when I say that I’d not bother. Both feature voice over narration which is totally unnecessary and indeed distracting. Worse, they also feature a studio-imposed happy ending that maybe doesn’t ruin the film but doesn’t fit with its general tone. That leaves you with the two director’s versions, one from 1992 and the other from 2007. The latter was fully controlled by the director Ridley Scott and is the one that you’re most likely to come across today. Frankly I don’t know why anyone would bother with any other version but feel free to check out the others.


Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola. Here’s the big one. Cinephiles are divided between the original version and Apocalypse Now Redux. The difference between the two is the added scenes in Redux which lengthen the film by fifteen minutes. I’ve read that more people like the original because it is tighter and gets to the crux of the film faster. I like the Redux better because to me it expands the story to include a bit more history and an exploration of imperialism and colonialism. I’d never get into an argument about which version is better. The best thing to do — if you really like the film — is watch them both. I have and…well, you know what I think.


Andrei Rublev (1966) Tarkovsky. This is an easy one. There is an original 203 minute cut and the director-approved version, which is twenty-two minutes shorter. The second time I watched Andrei Rublev, unlike the first time, I found myself a bit bored at times. When it was over I realized I’d watched the longer version by mistake. The third time I watched I was sure to watch the shorter version. I wasn’t bored for a second. That’s all I’ve got to say on the matter other than that you should feel free to watch the longer version, as opinions may differ.


Blackmail (1929) Hitchcock. There is a silent version and a talking version of this great film. It was made as studios were transitioning to sound, hence the two takes. I much prefer the silent version. Early talkies were not great and this is an example. Sound was just being developed for use in films and actors weren’t yet comfortable with it. This comes across in Blackmail. Also Blackmail is powerful in large part because of the striking visuals, these are emphasized more in the silent version. If you don’t like silents then by all means watch the talkie version, otherwise I’d strongly recommend the silent version.


Touch of Evil (1958) Welles. There are three versions. The original theatrical version (93 minutes), The Preview Version (108) minutes and the 1998 reconstruction (111 minutes). I’m not going to tell you outright which one to watch but I’ll say that the first version was butchered by the studio. The second version restores much of Welles’ vision. The third restores even more of it and eliminates the upbeat score that accompanies the opening tracking shot in the other versions. I don’t believe anyone prefers the originally released version and most prefer the last version — as do I. But the second version has it’s supporters, mostly people who like original score and think the third has awkward sound edits. I believe the opening scene needs to be seen without the score and with the ambient street noises as in version three.


If there’s anything else I can help you with please drop a line. 


09 March 2026

Chat GPT Analyzes My Cinematic Tastes and Does a Very Good Job

His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks

Like many people I’m wary of ChatGPT and other forms of AI. But I do find it helpful in research and I’ve also had some interesting “conversations” with it. Yesterday I fed it my top 100 films and asked what these films taken together say about my tastes in film.*

It replied: “You’ve put together a serious cinephile list—and it’s unusually coherent. A lot of  ‘Top 100’ lists wander stylistically, but yours reveals several very clear preferences about storytelling, tone, and cinematic tradition.”


I took that as a compliment. But of course there was more: “You Strongly Prefer Director-Driven Cinema. This may be the single most obvious pattern.Many directors appear multiple times:

Ingmar Bergman – 6 films

Woody Allen – 5 films

Federico Fellini – 4 films

Alfred Hitchcock – 5 films

Scorsese – 4 films

Kubrick – 3 films

Coen Brothers – 3 films

Ford – 3 films

Tarantino – 3 films

Rossellini – 2

Chaplin – 2

De Sica – 2

Kaurismäki – 3

This tells me something important: You don’t think of movies as isolated works—you think in terms of a director’s worldview. That’s how critics and serious film lovers tend to watch films. You are basically practicing auteur cinema appreciation.”


Still spot on. What else? 

“You Value Moral and Existential Seriousness. Your list leans heavily toward films wrestling with: moral responsibility, guilt, faith, existential loneliness and historical trauma.

Examples:

Winter Light

The Seventh Seal

Persona

Through a Glass Darkly

Come and See

Au Revoir Les Enfants

Battle of Algiers

Taxi Driver

Raging Bull

A Woman Under the Influence

You clearly like films where characters face spiritual or ethical crises, not just plot problems. This aligns perfectly with your admiration for Bergman, Scorsese, and Dostoevskian themes.”


You’re nailing it. Tell me more.

“A surprising amount of your list has a bittersweet or mournful tone. Examples:

The Last Picture Show

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Drive My Car

The Ice Storm

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Barry Lyndon

Umberto D

Bicycle Thieves

Local Hero

Even your comedies are melancholy comedies. This is extremely characteristic of people who love:

Bergman

Allen

Kaurismäki

Antonioni

You like films where life feels fragile, fleeting, and slightly sad.”


Couldn’t agree more. But do go on….

“You Love Classic Hollywood Craft. Despite loving art cinema, you deeply appreciate the golden age. Major presence of:

Hawks

Ford

Wilder

Capra

Hitchcock

Sturges

Cukor

Curtiz

And films like:

His Girl Friday

Casablanca

The Lady Eve

Holiday

The Big Sleep

This tells me something key: You’re not an elitist art-house viewer. You appreciate great storytelling regardless of era or prestige.”


Okay, let’s have the rest of it:

“You Favor Character Studies Over Plot Machines Notice what is largely absent:

superhero films

spectacle franchises

puzzle-box movies

action blockbusters

Instead you love films where the entire movie is about a person. Examples:

Raging Bull

Taxi Driver

Barry Lyndon

A Woman Under the Influence

Inside Llewyn Davis

Drive My Car

Umberto D

Persona

Your taste says:

Character psychology is more important than narrative mechanics.


You Love European Cinema A massive portion of your list is European. Especially:

Sweden

Bergman

Troell

Italy

Fellini

Rossellini

De Sica

France

Malle

Denis

Kassovitz

Finland

Kaurismäki

Poland

Polanski

Russia

Tarkovsky

Germany

Murnau

You gravitate toward philosophical cinema rather than purely narrative cinema.


You Appreciate Humor With Intelligence Your comedy choices are very telling:

Duck Soup

Sullivan’s Travels

The Lady Eve

My Man Godfrey

His Girl Friday

The Big Lebowski

Rushmore

These are fast, literate comedies. You prefer:

wit

irony

social observation

over broad humor.


You Are Comfortable With Slow Cinema Your list includes films that many viewers struggle with:

Stalker

L’Eclisse

Beau Travail

Drive My Car

Barry Lyndon

This means you value:

mood

visual language

pacing

You don’t need constant plot movement.


You Like Films About Artists or Storytellers Another subtle pattern. Examples:

8½

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Sunset Boulevard

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

These are films about creative people trying to understand their lives.

Not surprising given you’re a novelist.


You Like Moral Ambiguity Many of your favorite films center on ethically compromised characters:

Goodfellas

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

Match Point

No Country for Old Men

Barry Lyndon

You seem drawn to stories where: The line between right and wrong becomes blurry.

That’s very consistent with the themes you’ve discussed in your own writing.


One Particularly Interesting Thing Your list balances three traditions beautifully:

1. Classic Hollywood craft
(Hawks, Ford, Wilder)

2. European philosophical cinema
(Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky)

3. American New Hollywood
(Scorsese, Coppola, Ashby)

That combination is the core canon of serious film culture.


If I Had to Summarize Your Taste in One Sentence

You favor director-driven films that explore moral, psychological, and existential questions through strong characters, often with a tone of melancholy and intelligence.”


The discussion went on from there but I’ll add one more observation from my artificially intelligent friend: 

“One more thing I noticed that’s fascinating about your list:

Your #1 film — His Girl Friday — is tonally the opposite of almost everything else in your top ten. Yet it actually reveals something deep about your taste.

If you want, I can explain why that choice makes perfect sense psychologically with the rest of your list. It’s actually quite revealing.

Your choice of #1 — His Girl Friday initially looks like an outlier. Most of your top films are serious, contemplative, or tragic. Hawks’s film is the opposite: fast, funny, cynical, and light on the surface.

But when you look more carefully, it actually fits your taste perfectly.

Here’s why.


1. You Like Intelligence Above Everything

The defining trait of His Girl Friday is intelligence.

The dialogue moves faster than almost any film ever made. Characters succeed through:

wit

verbal dexterity

quick thinking

That same trait appears throughout your list:

Chinatown

The Big Lebowski

Annie Hall

Rushmore

Your films often feature sharp, observant protagonists navigating complicated worlds.


2. Cynicism Mixed With Humanity

His Girl Friday is deeply cynical about institutions:

politics

journalism

the justice system

That worldview runs all through your list:

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

No Country for Old Men

The Battle of Algiers

You clearly like films that say:

The world is flawed, but human beings still struggle within it.


3. Dialogue as Music

You respond strongly to language-driven cinema.

Many of your favorites are talk-heavy films:

My Dinner with Andre style filmmaking (even though it’s not on your list)

The Last Picture Show

Manhattan

Drive My Car

His Girl Friday is essentially pure dialogue cinema.


4. Moral Ambiguity

Walter Burns (Cary Grant) is charming—but ethically slippery.

That morally complicated protagonist appears constantly in your list:

Barry Lyndon

Match Point

Goodfellas

You seem fascinated by people who are brilliant but morally questionable.


5. It’s the Pure Joy Film on Your List

Almost all great cinephile lists contain one film chosen for sheer delight.

For you, that appears to be His Girl Friday.

Even viewers who love:

Bergman

Tarkovsky

Antonioni

often keep a few films around that simply make them happy every time.”


Thank you very much for your insights ChatGPT. You’ve affirmed a lot of what I thought of myself as a film lover and also given me insights into why I revere certain films, certain types of films and particular directors. Good chat!


*(Please note my comments in italics are for this blog post and were not included in the actual chat.)