Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

MI5 file and birth

Chaplin's MI5 file has just been released by the National Archives.[1] Even MI5 could not find any record of his birth.[2] I think this needs to be included and possibly a new section on the uncertainty surrounding his birth. The Guardian article says FBI believed his real name was Israel Thornstein and Scotland Yard thought he may have been born in France.[3] ShipFan (Talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Right-o! Essentially this same comment was broadcast at about 6:45 AM EST February 17, 2012 on National Public Radio in the US relaying a BBC news reader. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Dick Kimball (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Began overhaul

Hello! Back in November (I think?) I stated here my desire to overhaul this article, and give Chaplin the page he deserves. No-one stated any objection, and although I didn't act on my statement I did mean what I said. I have now finally started on the page! I do think that the only way to bring the page up to scratch is to re-write the whole thing from top-to-bottom. I hope this isn't a problem. I am *completely* open to collaborating with other interested editors. Feel free to alter anything I write, and by all means add content yourself and help with this rewrite. I'm happy to do the work myself if that's what it comes to, but I'm also very open to collaborating. I particularly want to hear any thoughts/comments/complaints/criticisms/suggestions on how the page is going. Don't keep quiet if you think there is something that needs to be changed.

I will be doing this by re-writing a section at a time, and then replacing it here on the article when it is a decent standard. For the time being, I will be using almost exclusively the Robinson book - it is easiest to base the framework on that, because it is the most comprehensive (and most respected) bio, but I will try and expand the sources used later on. Along with his biography, I also want to develop a good section on his filmmaking style, and give him a decent legacy section. I foresee all this taking a while, due to an ongoing problem with my arm and back that limits my PC usage, and because I will only want to post things I'm pleased with. But I will try and get stuff up as quickly as I can.

My eventual goal for this article is FA status. I know that's ambitious, but I managed it with the Katharine Hepburn page so I also know it is possible. Please don't expect anything amazing for a while, I'll try to have everything I add at a high standard from the get-go, but it will inevitably take many revisions and nitpicks (not to mention reading a lot more books). It's a challenge, but I'm looking forward to it! :) --Lobo (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How to incorporate personal life

Right, I think this is something that should ideally be decided by consensus. Some WP biographies incorporate the individual's personal life information (marriages, children, etc) in with the career stuff, while others separate them. I can see benefits of each approach, and it depends on what would suit the specific article. What do people think would be best for Chaplin? To mention everything in one chronological "Biography" section, or to have a "Career" section followed by a "Marriages and children" (for instance) section? Currently I'm leaning towards the former, since there was a fair bit of overlap between CC's personal life and career. But in many ways it is clearer to separate them - at the moment his marriages and children are mentioned in their own section, and that certainly makes it easier to find out about this aspect of his life...if we were to stick with this approach, however, I'd be aiming to have it fairly short and simple.

I have a rough idea in my head of the article simply having a "Biography" section followed by a "Filmmaking" section. I rather like this, instead of having "Early life", "Career", "Filmmaking", "Marriages and children"...BUT I could quite easily be convinced the other way, especially since it would probably be easier to write! I hope editors with an interest in this article will share their thoughts. Lobo (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments about this, I am going with my instincts and writing one chronological biography. I'm not sure what to do with the current "Relationships" section in the meantime...I suppose it should just stay in the article until I've got up to Oona O'Neill, then I'll just remove it completely. --Lobo (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin Roma heritage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARomani_people#Charles_Chaplin_and_Azis should be included about his Grandmother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.65.68 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure his heritage is that important...it will just sort of crowd up the opening a bit. What do others think? --Lobo (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Although Chaplin was very proud of his heritage (although he thought it was from his maternal, not paternal grandmother), it was not public knowledge during his career and I don't think it gives a different perspective to Chaplin as a person or as a filmmaker any more than his possible Irish or French Huguenot heritage do, and hence I have to say I am with Lobo512 in this. As for the mysterious letter found in his belongings after his death, I believe no serious researcher has so far looked into it and before that is done I don't think one should take it as actual evidence of his background. However, I do think there should be a mention about him not having any Jewish ancestry, as this was very much part of his public image – his films were banned in Nazi Germany because he was seen as a 'Jewish acrobat', one early biography claimed he was an East European Jew, the FBI investigated this claim and when his body was 'kidnapped', it was thought it might have been done by the neo-Nazis. However, it might be more appropriate to include this information when talking about The Great Dictator, as I believe it was only during the WWII period when these rumours first surfaced.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Body theft better data.

Found an old New Zealand Herald dated Dec 16 1978 section 1 page 7 that said that a polish refugee Roman Wardas (25) who masterminded the operation got a 4 year jail sentence yesterday (15th Dec) and a self-exiled bulgarian, Gantscho Ganev (38), got 18 month suspended for 5 years. The Vevey district court said that Wardas instigated this and threatened for the $600,000 ransom. The two were mechanics and were arrested May 16th. May be too much detail but they were not a small group of Swiss mechanics ! Fromthehill (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; it is one of the many factual mistakes that are in the current article. It is however in the process of being completely rewritten, and hence also the section concerning his death and body theft will be corrected soon.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

A Woman of the Sea

I think the section on the production of The Circus & the second divorce is great, but I was wondering whether it would be ok to add a couple of lines about A Woman of the Sea, the Josef von Sternberg film that Chaplin produced during this time? I feel it is relevant as this was a new thing for Chaplin and because Sternberg went on to become an important director. There's even been a book published about the project recently (albeit written by a fan rather than a scholar, but it has been noted by for example Leonard Maltin and Kevin Brownlow). I was thinking something along the lines of this:

"At the same time as he was filming The Circus in 1926, Chaplin produced Josef von Sternberg's early film, A Woman of the Sea, which starred his former leading lady, Edna Purviance. However, Chaplin never allowed for it to be released for an unknown reason and the only negative was destroyed in 1933. He would never again venture to produce a film by another director."

I'm not 100% sure yet exactly how I would incorporate it to the existing section, but I feel there should be a mention of it. Anyway, I'd love to hear people's opinions on this!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yep, you're quite right that this should be mentioned! --Lobo (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to figure out a way to merge it smoothly with the existing text; of course you can do this too if you feel inspired!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Edit request on 28 June 2012

Chaplin's wife (Oona) years of birth and death are incorrect. It is actually 1925 to 1991 and not 1943 to 1977

187.34.28.193 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

1943-1977 refers to the period she was married to Chaplin, not the dates of her birth and death.--JayJasper (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Underconstruction"

Yesterday, User:binksternet removed this article's underconstruction banner with the explanation "No longer under construction". Binksternet, I don't blame you for this as my efforts to rewrite the article have been going very slowly, particularly in the last 2 months. I just wanted to assure people that I haven't stopped, and am definitely planning to complete this. The reason it's been so slow is an ongoing problem I have with my arm/neck/back that makes using the computer difficult. I think I mentioned this when I first made my message in April, and I'm afraid it hasn't got any better; it's actually got worse. I won't bore you with my problems, but that's the reason it's been so slow (as well as me working and having a social life, and being very slow when I do start to write). I'm still very enthusiastic about working on the article, and find it so frustrating that I haven't been able to much! But whenever my problem is better (which on certain days it is), I'll be slowly rewriting material. So I guess the question is whether the underconstruction banner is needed or not. I personally think it's a good idea, because there are very obvious differences between parts of the article right now, and the banner explains why that is. What do others think? --Lobo (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to keep the banner there, for the reasons that Lobo stated.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Lobo, the banner is only supposed to be there while you are actually working on the article. Procedurally, I did nothing wrong in removing it—several days had elapsed since anyone had touched the article. I think the banner unnecessarily makes the article ugly, and it should not remain in place when you are away for a few days. Every article on Wikipedia is under some amount of construction. Anyway, the best banner for keeping people off the page while you are actually sitting down working on it is the {{In use}} template. It helps warn other editors that there is an in-depth editing session going on. Remove the template when you are done for the day. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh I wasn't suggesting at all that you'd "done something wrong". I just wanted to make clear that I hadn't given up on the article, in case that is what you were thinking (and I was possibly going to leave a message like this anyway, to explain why things had slowed down so much). I don't agree that the banner makes the article look ugly - I think it makes clear that it is undergoing developments, thus explaining the variation within it. It certainly isn't there to "keep people off the page"! I rarely do in depth editing sessions anyway; I usually try and keep my edits as big as possible, in fact, either by developing things in my sandbox or using the preview button. I'm not a fan of having dozens of edits in a row, whenever it's avoidable. Anyway, I don't really feel that strongly about the issue; I thought it was useful to have the banner there, but it doesn't really make any difference to me. --Lobo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It's nice to know you have not given up on the article. Best wishes! —Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Influenced" listing in infobox

The infobox section "Influenced" is rather vague and should probably include citations (such as to verify that he influenced Johnny Carson, for example). Alternately, given the universal knowledge of Chaplin, his towering influence on film over the past century, etc, is it even feasible to have an "Influenced" section in the infobox? I think it should be removed and perhaps (if not already done so) a section added to discuss how he influenced so many comics and actors. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, don't worry, the article is currently having a big overhaul and these issues will be dealt with in due course. Thanks for the comment. --Lobo (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To Add To Birth Question

I was watching the Leon Charney Report interview show yesterday (Sunday 6/24/2012) with him questioning Red Buttons, it seems Mr.Charney is critically ill as all his shows (which I enjoy) are very old reruns from the early 90's. The original air-date of the interview is 06/25/95, I have it recorded. About 25 minutes in Charney says he became friends with Geraldine Chaplin after doing a movie together (a bad movie, I researched is directed by Hans Geisendorfer in German in 1971), and she invited him over to meet Charlie when they were back in America from shooting in Israel. Chaplin says after asking Charney to sing Cantorial music for him, Charlie said that he is in fact Jewish without any doubt, and due to extreme antisemitism in America and Britain at the time went to great lengths to hide it. As the MI5 and FBI had done since went to great lengths to keep the non-Jewish farce alive, due to his acclaim, based on a few articles one being abcnews.go.com/Blotter/charlie-chaplin-israel-thornstein/story?id=15725232. And they (MI5) went to great lengths to hide his Jewishness by even making Baptismal records. After saying there is no doubt Chaplin was born a Jew and considered himself a Jew a few times, Charney said he got a video recorder to record him and his daughter saying this (I have not found that video, I have no doubt Charney had no reason to be lying about this, and the video is likely easily attainable). That Geraldine's mother is not Jewish but her father is and conscientiously hid it from everyone except his family. Charney then claims Time Magazine did a brief paragraph about this video where Chaplin and Geraldine (Geraldine's mother was not) claim to be Jewish, in Charney's words from '95 "Time broke the story" and to that day did not like to admit it publicly. The movie was called Don Carlos http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066890/combined, or http://westernsallitaliana.blogspot.com/2010/01/carlos-tv-film.html. The transcripts of this episode of Leon Charney from 1995 are publicly available in transcript form. He (Charney) again claims assuredly to be a first person witness to Mr. Chaplin saying he is 100% Jewish, and he took a video in the early 70's following their private discussions. I feel this in all fairness should be mentioned something like ... Leon Charney in a 1995 episode claimed to have interviewed Chaplin after singing Cantorial music for him where he said he was of Jewish heritage. (Unlike the video of Chaplin himself that I a powerless bystander have no easy path to attain, the video of Charney saying he witnessed Chaplin making this connection to the Jews was just watched twice by me, twice to make sure I am not misrepresenting anything he said, and deserves a mention). 24.193.135.53 (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin was thought to be Jewish by many during his career (including Hitler) due to the fact that several prominent Hollywood figures were Jewish and because he, according to some, looked Jewish. However, after his death, his background and family tree have been extensively researched by different scholars (e.g. Robinson, Lynn, Louvish), all of whom have come to the conclusion that Chaplin had no Jewish heritage and that both of his parents belonged to the Anglican church. If he had any Jewish relatives (of which there is no evidence), they would be of extremely distant family. To my understanding, the FBI/MI5 search for his birth certificate was concluded because the FBI believed or wanted to believe that Chaplin was an Eastern European Jew and wanted to prove this to make Chaplin seem like a liar – not because Chaplin was a Jew and they wanted to cover this up. Nobody (and this includes the FBI, the MI5, Chaplin himself and various researchers) has been able to locate any birth or baptismal records for Chaplin. He did however quite openly admire many Jewish artists and was against the Holocaust from the start, and even wanted to send money to Europe to help Jews to escape to the US (Maland). If he was a Jew who desperately wanted to hide his heritage, he probably would not have been as vocal on these matters nor would have made The Great Dictator. This confusion about his heritage will be included in the article, but it is still a work-in-progress.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"Comparison with other silent comics" section

This section is entirely unreferenced, and I;m not sure there's much value in it anyway...especially in its own section. I am going to move it here, maybe aspects of it can be incorporated into the article later on. --Lobo (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Comparison with other silent comics"

Since the 1960s, Chaplin's films have been compared to those of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd (the other two great silent film comedians of the time), especially among the loyal fans of each comic.

The three had different styles: Chaplin had a strong affinity for sentimentality and pathos (which was popular in the 1920s), Lloyd was renowned for his everyman persona and 1920s optimism, and Keaton adhered to onscreen stoicism with a cynical tone more suited to modern audiences.

Commercially, Chaplin made some of the highest-grossing films in the silent era; The Gold Rush is the fifth with US$4.25 million and The Circus is the seventh with US$3.8 million. However, Chaplin's films combined made about US$10.5 million while Harold Lloyd's grossed US$15.7 million. Lloyd was far more prolific, releasing twelve feature films in the 1920s while Chaplin released just three. Buster Keaton's films were not nearly as commercially successful as Chaplin's or Lloyd's even at the height of his popularity, and only received belated critical acclaim in the late 1950s and 1960s.

There is evidence that Chaplin and Keaton, who both got their start in vaudeville, thought highly of one another: Keaton stated in his autobiography that Chaplin was the greatest comedian that ever lived, and the greatest comedy director, whereas Chaplin welcomed Keaton to United Artists in 1925, advised him against his disastrous move to MGM in 1928, and for his last American film, Limelight, wrote a part specifically for Keaton as his first on-screen comedy partner since 1915.

Just a FYI, Chaplin was the world's first international superstar and at the time probably the best-known (most recognisable) person on earth. That's what made him unique. His character The Tramp caught the worldwide public's attention, and captured its heart, whereas for some reason Keaton's and Lloyd's on-screen characters never did. Chaplin wasn't just a big star - he was massive. Seriously. No-one else was in Chaplin's league. Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, wonderful performers who made wonderful films, but they never achieved the unique popularity that Chaplin did. He was up there quite alone.
BTW, I'm not a great fan of Chaplin but the above is true. He really was the-biggest-thing-in-the-world at the time, and it's quite possible, due to the peculiar circumstances of the era, that the sort of fame that he had will never happen to anyone again. For his day, he was probably bigger than The Beatles later became, and the latter are probably the only subsequent performers who ever came even close to the same degree of worldwide popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Again I would like to remind that this article is very much a work-in-progress. Due to Chaplin's long life and career, it will take some time to write. Chaplin's important legacy and his 'superstardom' will be discussed in due time.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Awards & recognition and Legacy

I attempted to 'clean up' these two sections a little bit today, and would be grateful for feedback. I was also wondering what to do with all the information at present in the Legacy section. Perhaps there should be a subheading titled something like "Influence on other filmmakers and pop culture", under which all the information about imitators, Felix the Cat etc. should be put? At the same time I have a feeling that if such a section is started, it can easily become enormous. Also, are the little bits of trivia about a Google Doodle or a comet named after him information that should be on a WP article?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Your edits are an improvement for the meantime, but I think the Legacy section will need to be completely redone over the course of this overhaul. Half of the stuff mentioned is trivia, while the actually important aspects of his legacy (how he helped shape the language of film and make them an art form, his influence on specific filmmakers) aren't even mentioned. I actually do think the Google Doogle thing is relevant, since Google is pretty much the biggest website in the world and they chose to put him on their main page, but it should be in the "Memorials" (maybe "Memorials and tributes"?) subheading. --Lobo (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, it definitely needs to be completely rewritten, it is not really a Legacy section at the moment at all, just a collection of trivia. I was just wondering what should be done with the snippets there right now; rework them under subheadings, or delete some altogether? Most of them are not really that relevant though, so I guess once there is more substantial material they should just be deleted. I'm thinking of maybe (but that's really a maybe!) starting to work on that section while finishing the Filmmaking section. Maybe the same structure would work here as in the Katherine Hepburn article; first a more substantial part on Chaplin's position in the history of film, and then a "Memorials and tributes" subheading, and the a "Characterizations" bit? What do you think?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I edited the section about memorials dedicated to Chaplin today; feel free to continue editing though, I still think it reads too much like a list. I tried to include in it everything in that 'trivia list' that should be included in the revised version of the article and that falls under the Memorials-category (e.g. the Google doodle etc.). I've also been thinking about what to do with the rest of the 'trivia' left. My opinion is that the stuff about his imitators, Billy Ritchie, Billy West etc., belongs to the section on Essanay in the Biography-section (but it should just be mentioned briefly, as in 'Chaplin was imitated by several other comedians in films for other studios' etc, or perhaps as a note). Once we get to writing the actual section on Chaplin's legacy, it should perhaps be added there, when discussing his fame at its peak, that he inspired both pop culture –Felix the Cat, Mickey Mouse– and art –Dada, Karl Amadeus Hartmann. I was at first also thinking of writing another subsection on the filmmakers and performers that Chaplin has influenced in order to be able to include the information on the John Woo & Bollywood films somewhere, but when I started to think about all the artists who should then be included in such a section, it would be so massive that I wonder whether it is actually necessary. I am sure that the fact that Chaplin has influenced a vast number of filmmakers can be conveyed through other ways in the Legacy-section. What do you think?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

1940s controversies

Right, efforts on this page have stalled a bit lately because the rewrite process is now up to the 1940s and it's pretty difficult to cover. There are a lot of things that need to be mentioned, and it's not entirely clear how to approach it. User:TrueHeartSusie3 and I have been discussing it a bit on her (you are a "her", I assume?!) talk page, and I thought I would open it up here. If there's anyone who knows a lot about this period of Chaplin's life, please share your opinions on the best way to organise it.

I've proposed something like (this actually covers his whole biography, just to help see the whole (potential) picture):

4. Independence (1923-1937)
4.1 Current subsections
5. Personal and political controversies (1938-1952)
5.1 The Great Dictator and Second Front campaign
5.2 Joan Barry paternity case
5.3 Oona O'Neill and Monsieur Verdoux
5.4 FBI investigation, Limelight, and exile
6 Post-United States (1953-1977) >> Not a definite heading
6.1 Move to Switzerland and A King of New York
6.2 Final works
6.3 Death

But it is by no means set in stone. It may be better to mention Oona O'Neill first, and group some different things together. Or someone may have a different idea altogether?! --Lobo (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, 'her' is correct :) Section 4 is tricky. Perhaps the title could say something about his position at the time, as I think up until the 1940s he was pretty much worshipped as the biggest genius in cinema who should not be criticized (Maland writes about this, I think). As in "Independence and ..." or "Independent artist" etc. I don't really know what to propose: like you, I think it should be stressed that he worked 100% independently during the studio era, but at the same time having a single section for the years 1919-1977 is also problematic, especially given that he left the United States and its film industry in the 1950s.
I completely forgot about Monsieur Verdoux last night by the way! :D I think it is ok to include Oona O'Neill on either side of the Joan Barry case, yet I do still think that she should perhaps be mentioned earlier. It was not publicly known that Chaplin was seeing Barry until she filed her suit in June 1943, and it is because of the suit that she is remembered – without it I doubt she would even be mentioned in any of Chaplin's biographies, as the relationship does not seem to have been anything other than a fling. I recall that there were already rumours in gossip columns about Chaplin dating Oona O'Neill in the spring of '43, and their marriage, which in itself caused a scandal, came only two weeks (or so) after Barry's name first appeared in the papers. If we leave everything about Oona until 5.3, the reader might get the impression that the marriage and the scandal it caused was separate from the Barry scandal, when in fact they intertwined a lot – together they finalized Chaplin's reputation as a Svengali in Hedda Hopper's columns, and the FBI, while investigating the Barry case, was also interested in the marriage. By the time Monsieur Verdoux was released in 1947, Chaplin and O'Neill had already been married for four years and had two children, and leaving it until then to write about it might give the impression that the marriage only took place then. The Mann Act/paternity cases were only concluded in 1944 (I recall, it might have been 1945), so in 5.3 one would have to jump back two years. That said, if it is decided to mention Oona before Joan Barry, this should only focus on how they met, their elopement and the scandal it caused. Any further things that should be said about the marriage, e.g. that Chaplin was very happy with Oona and that they had eight children, can be brought up later, perhaps in 5.3. Also, perhaps 5.3 could be "The FBI investigation and Monsieur Verdoux", unless there's too much material?
I definitely agree that thinking carefully about the structure and subtitling is important, as like you said, they will give an overview of Chaplin's career and life and should be as clear and precise as possible. When writing the article I always try to think I am writing to somebody who mainly watches recent films and has checked out this page because s/he has seen Robert Downey Jr. in Chaplin and is interested in learning more ;) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I understand why Oona needs to be first now, that makes total sense! Because he met Joan first I thought it would be more logical, but you're quite right that it matters more when the public found out about them. And yes, I remember now that the defence used his marriage to Oona as a weapon, so it definitely needs to be covered before then. Thanks for clarifying that! Okay so how about...
The Great dictator and Second Front campaign
Oona O'Neill and Joan Barry paternity case (actually, if we have them together we may just be able to cover it all chronologically? It may get a bit confusing but it could work if done well...)
FBI investigation and Monsieur Verdoux
Limelight and exile
That bodes very well, I think. --Lobo (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that looks good :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Also, perhaps "Post-US" could be titled Later years in Europe/Years in Europe or something like that?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Yes that's good, something like that. Maybe "European years". --Lobo (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the years 1924-52/1924-1937 (whichever is best) could be called Independence in Hollywood or something like that? That way we could stress the fact that he was independent without implying that he was no longer independent after 1952. I think there's also a big difference to the level of his independence after the move to Europe, as he no longer had his own studio & crew and because Countess was financed by Universal.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

America!

Hello. Is it just me, or is there a determined effort in the opening paragraphs to prevent anyone reading it to discover that-gasp!-Mr. Chaplin's enormous success took place not in England, but rather in Hollywood, in the United States?? He's an "English actor" but it seems to an uninformed reader as if all his success must have occurred in the United Kingdom (judging by the complete absence of any mention of his immigration to the US that made his success a reality.)

Let's give credit to where credit's due: yes, he was an English actor, but he left his homeland early on to find success abroad (and found it in spades-in America.) When he was shipped off from the US, he didn't settle back in the UK but in Switzerland, and his last hurrah was in...Los Angeles at the Academy Awards where he received a lifetime achievement Oscar and an incredible standing ovation.

In sum: if it weren't for Hollywood (USA), there wouldn't have been a smash international superstar that was Charlie Chaplin! Thanks114.178.195.28 (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just you. Opening paragraphs generally don't go into great detail and just give an overview of a person. Charlie Chaplin was a British actor during the silent-film era and recieved a lot of critical acclaim and had some political trouble, so that's what the opening details. Wikipedia is not a forum for Americans to show off how big their dicks are. If you could be bothered to scroll down a bit you'd see his move to America and subsequent success is mentioned there.--81.109.72.78 (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the problem; it was easy. Certainly Chaplin was a superstar in the US and not the UK, and the lead section should say this.
Our IP 81.109.72.78 friend's response is uncivil and unworthy of response. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
To suggest that Chaplin was not a 'superstar' in the UK because he worked in America is false; he was very famous in the United Kingdom and was indeed knighted. And any suggestion that there is some sort of anti-American conspiracy to mislead people about where Chaplin made his break is frankly worthy only of uncivility. --81.109.72.78 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is still not finished; the introduction will also be rewritten in due time, don't worry. Chaplin was an international superstar, who made his career in the United States, and this will be clear from the introduction once we get around to rewriting it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Wikipedia has a strong policy against incivility here: Wikipedia:Civility. There is no reason to engage in rude responses. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Romani

Since this article is in three Romani categories, it seems like his Romani heritage should be at least briefly mentioned in the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Or briefly offered as an intriguing possibility. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been wondering whether those categories should be removed altogether. Chaplin only had Romani heritage through his paternal grandmother, whom he never knew, and he was not raised in that culture. Should he really be categorized as a Romani actor or film director? Personally I find that slightly misleading.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
His son Michael believes that the Jack Hill letter had been kept by Chaplin because he considered it significant. RashersTierney (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be mentioned (and it is, in the footnotes), but I still don't think it proves he was any more Romani than previously thought. It is possible that the letter will lead to new information on his origins (like his son speculates), but at the moment there is nothing to prove any of the claims in it. Hence it is still just a letter found in his extensive personal archives; that he kept the letter cannot prove anything alone.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I hope nobody minds that I deleted the three Romani categories (British Romani people, Romani actors and Romani film directors) from the categories-section, and added "British people of Romani descent" instead. I just think it makes more sense this way, as Chaplin was only 1/4 Romani and did not grow up in that culture, and hence categorizing him as for example a Romani actor is misleading. This way his heritage is acknowledged but not over-emphasized – I hope this is fine for everyone! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Sic'em

What's with the [sic] in "It is doubtful any individual ..."? Looks fine to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tracked it down to User:Autodidact1 on October 18. No explanation in the edit comment, so I've taken it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look-alike contest

I propose adding here a small note: Charlie Chaplin once lost a Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest in a San Francisco theater

It is referenced here: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-alike] It is confirmed here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Image options

As a biography, I personally think the current "Legacy" portrait photo would be more appropriate for the lead instead of the tramp photo. The portrait shows him as a real person rather than a character in costume, and the tramp image could then be moved to his Legacy section. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic of The Tramp has its own article with Chaplin's tramp image represented in the infobox. This biography should have a photo of the actor out of character. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the image. Speaking of images, it would be great to find some kind of images for the section about the 1940s, although I realize that this might be easier said than done. I'm hoping that I will be able to rewrite that section soon!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Hey Susie, I just noticed on my watchlist that you are at work on the 1940s stuff. You are a STAR! I can't wait for everything to be up. For images, I'm pretty confident I can get us a publicity still/poster for both Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight. These things never seem to have had their copyright renewed, which was necessary for anything pre-1963. --Lobo (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be great! And thanks :) Yes, I am working on the 1940s section, although very slowly... fingers crossed it will be up this month!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Suggestion

It's so nice to see the page "complete". Great work on the recent additions, Susie. I do have one suggestion though: I think it might be better to mention all the stuff related to Oona and their family in the section with her name. This way, anyone coming to the page specifically to find out about their relationship doesn't have to scan the page. That's why I mentioned the divorce from Paulette in "her section", rather than chronologically. I think it's probably easier for readers wanting to find out about CC's personal life, this way - if they can't have one "Personal life" section, at least they can get everything on each wife fairly easily. So, after mentioning the marriage to Oona, we could quickly list off all the children they had and mention how devoted they were to each other. I don't mind making the change, if it's okay with other editors here? --Lobo (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a good idea to me :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Cool I'll have a go at this later! I'm actually thinking of having all the Joan Barry stuff covered first, and then having a paragraph at the end about Oona. I think I know how to make that work. Now that the whole page has come together, and I've had a good break, I'm excited to work on this project again. :) --Lobo (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

City Lights

I recently read Charles Maland's City Lights (2007), in which he writes that the film earned Chaplin approx. 3 million dollars. I noticed that the article says that the box office receipts were 5 million, according to Louvish. I'm not sure whether the difference could be because Louvish also counts in the money that UA received from the film, whereas Maland counts only the amount received by Chaplin, but I would appreciate it if anyone has more information about this!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I just checked Louvish, and the $5 million claim actually comes from a contemporary source. It's when he's talking about Modern Times, there is a quote from a NY Times journalist that says "City Lights, his last picture, grossed over $5,000,000"...so that's where I got it from, but I'm sure Maland writing 75 years later was able to get a more accurate figure. Let's go with what he says. --Lobo (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Done :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Adenoid Hynkel…

… not Hynkle [5]. 83.253.228.202 (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! --Lobo (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

670k salary

Converting 670k to modern value is about 15M. A princely sum mind you, but it probably didn't make you one of the highest paid persons in the world circa 1915. I would suggest removing that blurb as it adds little to the article. Is the source for this "highest" claim reliable in terms of high income earners? The last sentence is germane however, showing that someone thought Chaplin was worth this enormous salary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well this is actually the problem with doing modern conversions, they don't really tell us how much that money was actually worth. There are people today who earn far more than 15 million a year, so it doesn't sound very impressive to us, but the point is that practically no-one did in 1916. And because things were far cheaper in those days, the "15 million" would have been worth far more. Measuring Worth says that 670k in 1916 gave you an "economic power" equivalent to $204,000,000 today. Anyway, the point is that his salary was one of the highest in the world at that time; I see no reason not to believe David Robinson on this point, who is an excellent researcher (did you see the quote given in the reference? He says, "No person in the world other than a king or an emperor – unless perhaps Charlie Schwab of the US Steel Corporation – had ever received even half that salary.") --Lobo (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the quote is what made me question the statement, especially the "perhaps". Suffice it to say I find the assertion is probably not based on any research but speculation and thus amounts to mild puffery -- especially in stated in Wikipedia's voice. I would either prefer removing the statement or use the actual quote from Robinson. The prose is nice enough, and attribution would fix the voice/puffery issue. What do you think?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well adding the Robinson quote will probably make the salary sound even more impressive than it does right now, since he is claiming that no-one other than Chaplin earned even half that amount! I think this is more likely to be an exaggeration than the claim that he had one of the biggest salaries in the world. I just don't find that idea hard to believe, personally. Another of my Chaplin books says the announcement caused quite a scandal, because people couldn't believe he was earning so much (I'll probably add this point to the article, actually).
I'd like to hear some other user's opinions on this? For the time being I'm going to remove the "clarification needed" tag if that's alright, since it's rather unsightly. --Lobo (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No doubt it was (and even in modern terms) still is an impressive salary. That is not the issue, but stating in Wikipedias voice that he was one of the highest paid figures in the world, which based upon the source used is a bit questionable. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Why not go with the quote and attribution? I think it would be a very nice improvement upon the current text due to the lovely prose of king and emperor. Let the reader decide if its puffery or, or just artistic license. It still conveys the message that he was stratospherically compensated. Your additional source of peoples reaction to his salary would also be an improvement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Mind you, I haven't got my books with me so I am going by what I remember. If my memory serves me correctly, the talk about Chaplin's salary in the press was extensive in 1916; newspapers and magazines compared his salary with other professions, and claimed that the only person earning more money in the US was the president of US Steel. If I am correct, maybe we could replace what's currently there with this. That way we could convey the fact that his salary was considered enormous at the time without wandering into the puffery/unreliable source territory.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Well I've added a straightforward statement for now, but it would be good if we could cite some of the comments made in the the press, like you say. I still don't really consider Robinson's statement unreliable, but your idea would be good. I wonder if there are any online newspaper archives that would have something useful... --Lobo (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure Robinson doesn't mention the 'US Steel' article? What about Maland? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I too would be interested in the US Steel mention. Btw, who is Robinson? Since he presumably doesn't have his own article, we should add a description of him to inform the reader of his credentials. I'm starting to rewatch a bunch of Chuck's films again, so I will be popping in from time to time on this and related film articles. Happy editing!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
David Robinson, the official biographer of Chaplin. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
No, neither Robinson or Maland give quotes from a newspaper. I thought Maland would, since his whole focus is on how Chaplin was perceived, but nope (unless I didn't look carefully enough). Louvish does, but it's not one that would be helpful here (it's a story about him going to the internal revenue office to ask about paying taxes, or something...I don't quite get why he's printed it actually!) Robinson guesses that the head of US Steel was the only man who earned more (see quote above)...maybe that's what you're thinking of? --Lobo (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking toward GA and FA

The article has been improved quite a bit lately by Lobo512, TrueHeartSusie3 and others. If the goal of bringing the article to Good Article status is considered, here are some suggestions I have:

  • The category of "19-century English actors" appears to be nonexistent.
  • Comb through the article with an eye peeled for American vs British spellings. For instance, in Cannes Chaplin was made Commander of the Legion of Honour, not "Honor". Also: realized vs realised, organization vs organisation.
    • Fixed some of these (apart from those quoting a source), will keep an eye out for any more. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Larcher book should be checked to see whether Oxford 'z' spelling is used in the quote, "grim contemplation on the automatization of the individual".
    • I'm sure it is, since I personally use "-isation"/"-ised" when writing, and wouldn't have written it like that unless it was directly copied. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a circular wikilink which should be fixed: Roy Export Company Establishment
    • I can't find any mention of this on the current page? --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Aha! The peer review tool reported it as a problem here but the problem was with the Template:Charlie Chaplin, a footer. I deleted the wikilink at that template. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • David Robinson is wikilinked but which guy is it?
  • The following URL ought to be used as a reference to anchor the quoted name of the Honorary Award given at the 44th Academy Awards: http://aaspeechesdb.oscars.org/link/044-23/
    • The name of the award is covered in the citation, but do you still think we should link to this? --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead section says "His career spanned more than 75 years, from Victorian music hall until close to his death at the age of 88, and encompassed both adulation and controversy." This is awkward wording, comparing dissimilar things—a type of early entertainment to an age in years. Instead, the comparison should be made between a type of early entertainment and some sort of later entertainment that Chaplin grew toward, such as color film with sound and music. Or tell the reader the early age in years and the later age.
    • Fair point, I've tried, "from a child in the Victorian era to close to his death at the age of 88" - how's that? --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "Mutual gave Chaplin" has too many em dash sentence interruptions. Two of them could be replaced by colons, I think.
  • Marriage year ranges (like all year-only ranges) should have an unspaced en dash, not a spaced en dash.
  • The quote that begins "It is paradoxical" should follow article style for unspaced em dash. The spaced en dash should be changed to unspaced em dash. Same with the quotes starting with "No person in the world" and "For myself I know".
    • Well this was a case of trying to quote the source exactly, but done. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Mark Cousins film reference has a time frame with a stated range. The range should be unspaced en dash instead of half spaced/half unspaced. Same with the Lincoln Center reference.
    • Cousins one looked right to me; Lincoln one done. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Swedish film Young Charlie Chaplin came out in 1989, not in a year range of 1989 plus some unspecified additional years. The en dash should be removed.
  • The La Jolla Playhouse reference should exchange the unspaced en dash with a spaced en dash. Same with the subsequent Barrymore reference.
  • "Soviet-American friendship groups" should have an en dash rather than a hyphen.
  • The Robinson reference from page 671 to 675 should say "671–675" instead of "671-675" (en dash, not hyphen). Same with the Robinson references "594-595", "598-599", "602-605", "605-607", "608-609", "620-621", "623-625", "627-628", "626-628" and "629-631", the Maland reference "265-266", the Lynn references "466-467", "510-512" and "534-536", the Epstein reference "192-196", and the Weissmann reference "439-445".
    • I'm gonna see if I can find someone who knows how to work the dashes script to fix this quickly...if not, I'll make sure it's done. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • AFI's 100 year reference should exchange the hyphen for an en dash, and use mostly lower case instead of all caps.
  • The Jennifer Frost book title should say "1940–1952" (with an en dash) instead a hyphen.
  • In the article, "Chaplin" always refers to Charles. I would reword this bit, "The Chaplins became estranged", as "Chaplin's parents became estranged".
  • Because of the results of the RfC about capitalising the the in the Beatles in running prose, I should project that the following group should have a lower case the regarding the Eight Lancashire Lads. Same with the Tramp character.
    • I really dislike that RfC decision personally (!), but done. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The term "clog dancing" is used adjectivally to modify "troupe" and so should be presented as "clog-dancing troupe" (with a hyphen).
  • This sentence is awkward:

    He supported himself with a range of jobs, but said he, "never lost sight of my ultimate aim to become an actor."

    It could be reworded or it could be slightly expanded from the original: "I never lost..."
  • These days, the following sentence is too easily misread: "When they finished touring in July 1907, the 18-year-old was an accomplished comedian." The former meaning of comedian was simply "actor", especially an actor in stage plays that are not tragedies (otherwise he would be a tragedian.) Today's reader usually thinks a comedian is a stand-up comic, which Chaplin was not. Perhaps it would serve the reader to explain the archaic term, or to simply write "stage actor". (See Henry Watson Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage from 1926.) Whatever is decided here will affect later instances of the word comedian.
    • Changed to "accomplished in performing comedy", that okay? I do want to emphasise that he had grasped comedy, since he was already a successful stage actor before that point. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the "Keystone" section is confusing regarding subject and object. Who is "they" and where is "there"? Which company sent the telegram? The Keystone Studios belonged to whom?
    • I've attempted to clarify this a bit...It is all a bit wordy and confusing though, do you think perhaps we should just trim the details about the telgram etc? I think it's quite a nice little tidbit, that they were so casual about this guy who would end up being the most famous name in the world, but maybe it should just be simplified... --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Chaplin adopted the character permanently..." is something of an overstatement. Chaplin grew out of the Tramp character in later life.
    • Changed to "adopted the character as his screen persona" - that okay? --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Even though I point out a bunch of flaws, they are small ones and the article is, I think, in pretty good shape to advance further. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Good to know, thanks! And thanks again for taking the time to look through it and comment. I wouldn't feel quite ready to nominate it for anything yet, since I know there's some changes I'd like to make...and to be honest, I'm not sure I can be bothered with GA since it takes forever to get a review! We'll see. But if not, we'll definitely put it through a PR (when ready) and then hope for the best at FAC. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As a reader only, I found the "Controversies" section very confusing. It's long and includes some of his key films, but the connections between the films and alleged "controversies" is pretty weak. The first subsection, The Great Dictator, is a good example. The section is almost 500 words, but the only clear mention of controversy is in a single sentence: "Making a comedy about Hitler was seen as highly controversial, . . . " That's a reasonable point, but the other 99% of that section is not clearly about any so-called controversy or whether it was only controversial in certain countries more at risk. True, it got mixed reviews, but most films do. But film reviews aren't typically called "controversies." I found similar disconnects between controversies and the film itself in the other two films in their sub-sections.

So what results is potentially an imbalanced film career from the table of contents and sections, that his films were either "silent" or "controversies." The bar for calling something controversial seems to have been set very low, including negative reviews, paternity suits, or divorce. For Limelight, the only connection to controversies was the fact that the film came out at the same time he moved to England. But including the film under a "Controversies" section implies that the film itself was "controversial."
On a side note, it would help to have the dates of the films included alongside their link. Otherwise, we are continually forced to click the link to get it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well the date of release is always given in the section, and almost all of the features (all but 3) have an accompanying picture and caption that gives the year in brakets. I'm just a bit wary of adding the year at first mention in the text, since that point of the narrative is often at a different year and it may be confusing...if you really think it would be an improvement though, I'll add the years in brackets. --Lobo (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet and Wikiwatcher, thank you for the feedback! As for the Great Dictator, perhaps it should be added that it was controversial not only because it made such an explicit political statement, but because it made this statement when the US was still neutral. If my memory serves me correctly, the film was first banned in Chicago because of the German background of many of its citizens. The film also made Chaplin subject to an investigation (by the Congress I think) for being anti-fascist. Therefore I would say the film was definitely subject to a lot of controversy in the US; it also landed Chaplin in hot water in other countries which were similarly neutral. Chaplin deliberately made himself a controversial filmmaker with it. I think in general we should maybe concentrate on making the whole 'Controversies' section clearer, but I don't think it is in any way misleading to have all three of the films made in that period in that section – Monsieur Verdoux was definitely controversial and not just because it got negative reviews, and Limelight's reception was completely overshadowed by his problems and in many ways might have been Chaplin's attempt to get out of trouble.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Thanks very much for the comments, both of you. I'm at work right now so will address all the points later. I did quickly want to comment though, that the end of the Great Dictator section talks about how controversial the closing speech was, and explicitly states that it triggered his decline in popularity. There isn't only "one sentence" calling the film controversial. The film was definitely very shocking to the public. Anyway, in theory I'm not opposed to changing the section header...Perhaps it could be "Fading popularity"? Lobo (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think "Fading popularity" sounds good! I agree with Wikiwatcher that the whole section might seem confusing. However, this is largely because many of the issues in Chaplin's career and life at that period were extremely confusing and complicated (the Barry case is a good example) – it is very difficult to write about them.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Perhaps this might read Politcal controversey and fading popularity instead? This isn't a Roman Polanski type of scandal, but the effects were similar.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The "fading popularity" aspect, while mentioned by biographers, might also be seen as ironic and contradictory as a general description of his life and the film at that point. Taking The Great Dictator as the first film mentioned, it could just as easily be called "rising popularity," and equally well-supported for most of the same reasons given in the article, as other writers have summarized:
"Using satire as his weapon in his first all-talking film, the legendary screen comedian gave the world a devastating indictment of fascism, anti-Semitism, and the threat of Germany's Nazi regime to the future of humanity. As David Robinson, Chaplin's biographer, put it, 'The greatest clown and best-loved personality of his age directly challenged the man who had instigated more evil and human misery than any other in modern history.'"
"It was immediately banned in Germany, Italy, and the countries they [Nazis] had conquered. It also was banned in Ireland (neutral in the war, but hostile to Great Britain), several South American countries with fascist governments, and in some American cities, including Chicago, with large German populations. But the film received rave reviews from most critics in the United States and Britain, with the New York Times' Bosley Crowther calling it 'a truly superb accomplishment by a truly great artist and ... perhaps the most significant film ever produced.'"
Even Roger Ebert gives it a positive impression: "As it was, the film's mockery of Hitler got it banned in Spain, Italy and neutral Ireland. But in America and elsewhere, it played with an impact that, today, may be hard to imagine. . . . becoming the highest-grossing film of his career." Needless to say, these well-sourced descriptions seem to contradict the very first general sentence in the former "Controversies" section, now called "Fading popularity," which gives a negative overall conclusion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, well, you have a point there. I'm still not 100% convinced that we shouldn't go with 'Controversies', there are many reasons why it is an accurate description of this period of Chaplin's career; perhaps if we add the bit about the investigation for dissemination of anti-fascist material, it would be more clear why The Great Dictator indeed was one of the most controversial films of Chaplin's career and changed the way his career/public image was heading. The content and reception of his three last Hollywood films cannot be understood without placing them in the context of the public controversy surrounding him.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I would move the other direction, noticing that for Monsieur Verdoux, there is already more than a "bit" too much about the now discredited HUAC-related "investigations." The final two paragraphs give implied legitimacy to the Red scare, ending with a lengthy quote by one of American's most notable and controversial bigots, John E. Rankin. Is this a neutral conclusion?
Maybe not. According to Kamin, another biographer cited in the article, when Chaplin's films were revived in 1964, "a complete reversal of critical and public opinion occurred," and Monsieur Verdoux "garnered better reviews and did better business than any of the others. Times had changed; a new war was looming, and Dr. Strangelove was ushering in a new era of absurdist cinematic social satire. Chaplin's film was celebrated as being years ahead of its time, and reviewers used the occasion as an excuse to bash the American government and the public that had so turned against him."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, yeah, but that was 20 years later! What does that have to do with anything?! We've even mentioned this in the article! I'm really baffled that you're determined to prove that he wasn't so unpopular/controversial. Are you just here to play devil's advocate or something?
And as a devout leftist, horrified by McCarthyism, I can assure you that I was not trying to "add legitimacy" to the Red Scare! I'm amazed you even read it in that way. It's simply there to highlight the extent of the negativity he was receiving. Yes it's an extreme example, and to be honest I wouldn't care much if it was removed, but I just thought it was an effective comment to include...(virtually all the Chaplin books I have quote it as well). --Lobo (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that section is not neutral at the moment. Chaplin's public image was almost completely overtaken by the allegations of Communist activity – in fact, only writing two paragraphs about this is already heavily condensing the wealth of material on this topic in books such as Robinson's or Maland's. Chaplin was not a member of the Communist party, but he definitely publicly sympathized with the Soviet Union and identified with left-wing politics. He was definitely not neutral about politics in the 1940s. The quote exemplifies the kind of right-wing hostility that was commonplace against Chaplin in the US. It's clearly stated that the reason for the flopping of Monsieur Verdoux was these changes (Barry case + Communist allegations), which had come to dominate Chaplin's public image, and in the section about the 1960s and the re-release of the films it's also stated that the different political atmosphere in the US led to completely different reviews both for Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
"in fact, only writing two paragraphs about this is already heavily condensing the wealth of material on this topic" - I completely agree with this; I've actually been wanting to add more, and make it clearer the extent of his troubles. Of course HUAC etc is discredited now, but does that mean we should brush those activities aside as unimportant? It was a very real and powerful thing while it was happening to all those people. It ruined lives, and I'm sure you know that Ww1 so I don't even known why you're making this point about it being discredited today... --Lobo (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I implied anywhere that they were "unimportant." But ending a section with a dated quote from someone like Rankin does not give a film the broader context for its reception in other places or over time. Obviously, ending a film's section with a positive review of Chaplin vs. another attacking the filmmaker will leave different impressions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the point of the article is to provide either a negative or positive impression of any film. The purpose is to deliver an accurate chronological overview of Chaplin's life and career. The positive reviews were not given in the 1940s, but are mentioned in their chronologically appropriate place, the 1960s. To stress the positive reviews in a chronologically wrong place would imply that the writers of the article want the reader to think of the film in a positive light. Mine & Lobo's intention when writing this article has been to provide an accurate chronological overview, not to try an enforce a positive or negative opinion of the film. That's up to the individual viewer to decide.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Yes TGD made a large amount of money and received positive as well as negative reviews (because it's a great film!), but that doesn't change the fact that this was the time when the public (especially Americans) really started to see him in a different way, and even started to be a bit scared of him. I'm assuming you've seen it? The speech at the end is very radical. People couldn't believe what they were hearing. Anyway, I think I agree with Susie that "Controversies" was a better heading. Every one of the things mentioned in that section generated controversy, apart from Limelight but he was such a controversial figure by that point that people boycotted the film anyway. So it still applies, I think. You seem to think it's inappropriate to brush this whole section with a negative brush, but I just can't agree. Like Susie said, readers need to understand how things got bad enough that America didn't even want him in their country anymore. That didn't just happen over a year or two; it was building up all throughout the 1940s. This is communicated clearly by giving the whole section a "negative" title. How much have you read about Chaplin? He really did received an extreme amount of negative publicity in these years; calling the section "Controversies" or "Fading popularity" (either) is not inaccurate. --Lobo (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

One "Biography" heading?

Wikiwatcher's comment here flagged a concern for me: "what results is potentially an imbalanced film career from the table of contents and sections, that his films were either "silent" or "controversies." " This is what worried me about not having one clear "Biography" heading. Those particular headings are given too much prominence, and it isn't clear enough that other things are still discussed within them. I think that aesthetically the page far looks better with several level 2 breaks, and I don't like level 4 headings, but I do like being able to make clear to the reader - "All of this is one chronological biography". The contents, at least, is far clearer.

I've made the change just so that we can see how it looks, but I can't decide what layout is best on the whole. I'd really like to know what interested editors think. Which version do you prefer - how it is right now, or how it was before? --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the present version. Although I agree about the level 4 headings, overall it does look clearer.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
As a general rule, I've consistently removed "biography" from headings of biography articles. The title is implied. In any case, the subsequent major headings, "Filmmaking," "Legacy," "Awards," etc. are all part of his biography. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay so apparently this is redundant, but having "Silent features" and "Controversy" sections was misleading. So what's the solution? --Lobo (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd try to keep headings neutral and balanced, focusing on the existing chronology. So I think having the section "Silent features (1923–1938)" implies that the subsequent section would be better as "Talking pictures (1939–1952)." And within each dated section the film title would be the subheading, but without the conclusion phrasing, ie. "and political problems," or "and exile." Those factors would be reserved for their own paragraphs or subsections within the film's section. The Monsieur Verdoux section, for example, could have both the immediate and future critical reviews, thereby keeping discussion about the film in one section without tagging the film's section with general opinions.
On the issues of his personal life, I have no problem with reading about it chronologically in a book, but feel that in an article it is more useful and readable in its own section, "Personal life." That allows for subsections for "marriages and relationships", "politics," "travels" etc. and makes it simpler for readers to locate details. So I'd move and consolidate material relating to his personal life. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
1.) Chaplin made talkies after 1952. 2.) The issue of having a biography rather than separate early life/career/personal life sections was discussed already when we began overhauling this article. Any Chaplin biography that you read will state that due to Chaplin's extraordinary independence as a filmmaker and due to the unusually strong impact his personal life had on his career (in the shape of the controversies we've discussed, marriages etc.), it is very artificial and misleading to separate the two. The article would become very confusing, as we would have to refer to things twice, within career and personal life. Robinson, generally seen as the best of the biographers, attempted at first writing about simply his career, but soon realised that in Chaplin's case it was simply impossible. Personally, I find the structure you propose not only very hard to navigate, but it would also falsely imply that his career and all of the scandals and controversies were somehow separate. I'm pretty sure no Chaplin scholar would agree with that.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
If your #1 point is the main problem, I think it's understood that the films in his "European years" would also have been talkies.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not the main problem, as you probably should understand if you also read #2. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Also, I might have misunderstood the purpose of the article, but I have understood it is to offer an overview of Chaplin's life and career, not to provide a quick reference for someone who is only interested in quickly learning about a specific film he made. For that purpose, all of his films have separate pages.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Susie beat me to a reply! I'll add my comment anyway:
I usually favour separate "career" and "personal life" sections on here too, but in the case of Chaplin I just don't think it's practical. There's just too much overlap and inter-relating issues; we'd end up with lots of repetition and it still wouldn't be clear. His marriages, political activities, and yes - his travels (if you read that section) - affected his films and the direction of his career. How can we mentioned The Kid without mentioning the death of his child? The Circus without the disruption of the Lita Grey divorce? The fact that his films became so political without mentioning his political activity at the same time? It just wouldn't work, at least not as well. Since we do have his career and personal life discussed at the same time, only having the films in the subheadings wouldn't fully prepare the reader for the content in that section. As for "Silent features" being followed by "Talking film", to be honest, we only settled on "Silent features" after we simply couldn't think of anything else appropriate. It's a very difficult section to name! But it does feel like it needs it's own break, since the start of the section is when he becomes independent (and abandons short films). I also suggested "Peak years"...but then A Woman of Paris isn't one of his major films, so I imagine you'd object to that. And it's probably PoV anyway. I'll keep trying to think of an alternative, and I'm sure Susie will too. --Lobo (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with removing the Biography title from this article. The current layout looks fine as it is: the Biography deals with the life of the individual, while the subsequent sections deal more with a critical appreciation and study of how they did what they did and the lasting impact they had, alongside a study of certain aspects and results of their work (awards in summary etc). Have a skim through the more recent WP:FAs and you'll see the majority have the Biography section separate. If it's not Biography, it's "Life" or "Life and career" or similar, although that's the slightly older style at FA. This is an article that is not too far off FA standard, and keeping the Biography section will increase its chances of success immeasurably. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick review of some of the actor FAs gives the opposite conclusion: Judy Garland, Kirsten Dunst, Vivien Leigh, Diane Keaton, Katharine Hepburn, Brad Pitt, Ethan Hawke, Jack Warner and Angelina Jolie. Most have a separate "Personal life" section also. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I said recent. Garland was promoted to FA in 2008; Leigh - 2006; Keaton - 2006; Jolie - 2006. Only Hepburn (2012) is recent, while Pitt and Dunst—both promoted in 2010—are borderline. A "personal life" section can be justified if there is some degree of separation between personal and private lives: not when they are intertwinned. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If you have some recent movie star FAs, please add them.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sellers and Le Mesurier are two very recent figures in the entertainment industry, or film stars, if you prefer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ww1, how much have you read about Chaplin? It's just that you keep on insisting that "Career" and "Personal life" should be separate, and to me it seems this is only because you have seen this done in other articles and don't believe that Chaplin's career and personal life were intertwined to the degree that they were. If you keep on insisting that these areas should be separate after all of these reasons we have given for not separating the two, can you at least come up with a clear plan on how you would go about doing this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I'm not actually "insisting" on anything, but just thought I should give my two cents worth above: "As a general rule, I've consistently removed 'biography' from headings of biography articles." Since I haven't edited the article, and agree that overall it's in good shape as for the commentary, I was simply giving an opinion and explained my rationale above. But in direct response to your question, noting that Chaplin's life and career were so intertwined, thereby making a separation very difficult and impracticable, I still see it as fairly simple and beneficial to the article, and especially to most casual visitors.
For example, Elizabeth Taylor, Stanley Kubrick, and Roman Polanski's lives were very intertwined with their career. It's really just a matter of moving things around and revising some text. Personally, I don't like seeing a subsection titled, " Joan Barry paternity suit and Oona O'Neill" right after The Great Dictator section, and feel it would go better in a "personal life" section. That doesn't mean we can't mention things like marriage or divorce when it directly affected a film, but that the 650-word divorce minutia would be reserved for the personal life area. My basic premise, unproven, is that fewer readers will read the article as they do a book, where chronology is traditional. I'd only add that for actors especially, there is a basic split personality between their screen image (career) and their personal life, so many readers would expect to see that kind of separation in an article.
I'm glad SchroCat gave Sellers as an example, as it's good to have some humor put into a discussion. (I'm still wiping coffee off my monitor.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"As a general rule, I've consistently removed "biography" from headings of biography articles." Why must you insist on forcing your POV onto other articles? As you've shown on a number of previous ocassions, you have no idea what a collegiate or consensus-driven approach to article development really is. Despite a number of the excellent and independent reviewers supporting Sellers at FA, you still have so much bile and bad faith about one of the top 4,000 articles on Wiki. Funnily enough, the consensus of the community was that the structure of Sellers was appropriate, including having one "Biography" heading and not having a separate private life section. The reason? Because both were appropriate in the context of the article, and, despite your extensive rants and tantrums which made the editing process painful, the consensus of the community was that the article was of FA standard. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"I'd only add that for actors especially, there is a basic split personality between their screen image (career) and their personal life, so many readers would expect to see that kind of separation in an article." Yes, except that this doesn't apply to all actors, this is a generalization – which, again, does not apply to Chaplin, which you would know if you had read about him. Chaplin was not just an actor but had 100% independence as a filmmaker, which is extremely unusual and hence leads to also an unusual amount of overlap between his 'personal' and 'professional' lives. You're saying that in the interests of clarity we should split the article so that people who just want to quickly learn about Chaplin's private life will get that info from the article. This is why the subheadings are not simply the names of his films, but also name marriages etc. – to make it easier for those people who want to specifically learn about aspects of his private life. If these people are so lazy that they cannot read the bits which we have specifically indicated include information about his 'personal' life, then that's nothing we can help with. If we split the personal/career for the interests of these lazy people, then the article will leave it up to the reader to really connect the dots and understand just how important Chaplin's personal life was to his career. And with very little to no background information about Chaplin, outside of what we can provide in the article, I feel this might be too much of a challenge to most readers (understandably). Therefore we would have an article which does not give a correct impression of Chaplin to most readers. Most of the articles you mentioned are not comparable to Chaplin (for reasons stated above). Frankly, I don't think this debate is going anywhere.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Yeah, I really think THS has said it all here. Ww1, I already said that I tend to agree with a separation between career and personal information, so it's not like the point is just being argued for the sake of it, but Chaplin is a special case. There really is no point in separating them when there was so much interaction between the two (and like Susie said, we've done our best to give clear indicators to aid readers). The editors here who've done the most research on Chaplin agree with this - why do you continue to argue about it? It's really quite odd... --Lobo (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
"This is an article that is not too far off FA standard" - What a lovely thing to read, thanks Schrocat! Lobo (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You're more than welcome! It's in a good state and I'll be happy to take part with the ocassional copy edit and join in fully at Peer Review when needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That's great, thanks very much. --Lobo (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial review of refs

Hello, it's been a while since I last looked in, but I am awestruck with how well the article has come on. I took the liberty to go through the references, fixing formatting and making a few suggestions. We have a few references to IMDb which would cause problems at GAR and FAC (which I'm sure this will head to). We need to find alternatives for these as per this. I moved a source out of the refs and into the sources and left a Harvard in its place. There is one left to move over but it requires a page number before the move could take place. "Simmons" also needs a page number. I also split the sources into two columns which is aesthetically easier on the eye. I corrected all the dashes, added a few full stops and glued in a few commas. Feel free to disagree with any of it and hopefully, I have caught all of the formatting issues. As per my esteemed colleague SchroCat, I would be honoured to take part in the PR. Great work! -- CassiantoTalk 12:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the compliments Cassianto, they really mean a lot! The article has taken a lot of work so it's great to know it is paying off. Big thanks for making those fixes as well, I was just being lazy in putting them off. ;) TrueHeartSusie is going to be adding those page numbers when she has time to get to the sources - don't worry, we haven't forgotten about them. As for IMDb, well I feel like it is used in a very uncontroversial manner (similar to how I used it for Kate Hepburn, and they allowed it at FAC), but if we can find better sources then we will change them. I'll definitely let you know when it's at PR, it would be fantastic to have a review from you. Thanks again, --Lobo (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. You maybe right, it maybe ok to use in an uncontroversial manner, I didn't think of it like that. When I took Stanley Holloway through his GAR, the IMDb references were a problem for the reviewer, so I opted for BFI instead. I haven't used IMDb since. I would be happy to help out on anything in the mean time, so ping me if you think I could help out on :-) -- CassiantoTalk 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pinyin instead of Wade-Giles for Zhou Enlai

The article states that Chaplin "lunched with Chou En-Lai".

Could this be changed to "Zhou Enlai", to use the standard Pinyin for his name?

"Chou En-Lai" is the Wade-Giles form, which has fallen out of use since the 1980s. Pinyin is now standard.

Wade-Giles is now mostly a historical curiosity, relegated to books published prior to 1980, so its seems a bit of an anachronism in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.230 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Gypsy Heritage

As quoted from the this article in the Guardian: " After Charlie's widow, Oona, died in 1991, their daughter Victoria Chaplin inherited a bureau that had belonged to her father. One drawer remained stubbornly locked. When the locksmith jiggered it open, he found a letter in large, scrawly handwriting. A friendly note from an octogenarian called Jack Hill, who wrote from Tamworth in the 1970s to inform Chaplin that he was not one of south London's most celebrated sons, but that he had entered the world "in a caravan [that] belonged to the Gypsy Queen, who was my auntie. You were born on the Black Patch in Smethwick near Birmingham."

Chaplin's birth certificate has never been located. His mother, Hannah – maiden name Hill – was descended from a travelling family. In the 1880s, the Black Patch was a thriving Romany community on the industrial edge of Birmingham. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Charlie Chaplin was a Gypsy from the West Midlands.

The idea of rewriting Chaplin family history does not faze Michael, his eldest surviving son, and the man who brought Hill's letter to my attention. "It must have been significant to him," he says, "or why would he have kept it?" Perhaps a man who has been spotted in 800 places simultaneously is entirely capable of being born in two places at once."

[1]

All of that is pure speculation at this stage. This issue has been discussed multiple times on this talk page, please consult the archives for those discussions. Yes, Chaplin's paternal grandmother, Ellen Elizabeth Smith, was from a traveller family, but that is the only connection to that community backed up by his biographers. I hope that within the next month, I will be able to add a footnote to the article about Chaplin's verified and very slight connection to the traveller community –his grandmother, who died before he was even born–, and Chaplin's own thoughts about this, and will also explain that this letter has been made public but that none of the claims in it have been verified so far. Hopefully this will resolve this constantly re-emerging debate! I understand that it is important to mention his connection to the travellers, but at the same time it is extremely important not to exaggerate it based on completely unverified claims.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Chaplin and Keaton

Limelight is, strictly speaking, not the only time Buster Keaton and Chaplin appeared together on screen: they also appear together in Seeing Stars, a minor publicity film (although I don't have appropriate sources, apart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Keaton#1940s_and_feature_films and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zif7ENvTCgY). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.145.89 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sweet, Matthew. "Was Charlie Chaplin a Gypsy?". The Guardian UK. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Chaplin/Archive_4&oldid=1144182545"