Even More Speculation

In his autobiography, and in 'My Life in Pictures,' Chaplin says that the Mutual period was the happiest of his whole career.

He says that in both books. But what he doesn't say is what he thought about the films themselves. In 'My Life in Pictures' he has warm recollections of 'The Immigrant,' but that's it.

We've talked about how Chaplin had the chance to buy up the rights to his Mutual comedies, but never seemed interested. (Actually, the rights changed hands 7 or 8 times during his life!) On the other hand, the films he made afterwards were jealously guarded and protected, and he worked out musical scores for them later in life.

So if he didn't have much to say about them... and passed on the chance to buy them... does that imply that he didn't care much for them as a whole?

And if that's true, why?

Steven; I have thought much about Chaplin's not buying many of his earlier works. Maybe he felt that the did not contain enough of his own input or that the scripts were just too vague and that he did not want these to represent him as the artist that he felt he was. As far as artists not knowing much about their earlier work etc. In the music business where I am involved they don't have much control over the final product (i.e., mix, remix, etc.) only the actual performance which they record. In the case of a vocal they can record as many lead vocals as the producer or the artist feel is fine. Then many times these vocals are sifted through in order to make one master vocal. Many of the things that the artist lays on tape in which he or she feels is a great performance don't make it to the final product. This can of course get very frustrating to the artist. Maybe this happened to Charlie with his earlier works and he felt that they just weren't as funny or clever as was his personal standard. Anyway this is just my speculation here during the wee hours.

God Bless Geri

<Interesting question.) We all know the stories about Chaplin's alleged cheapness - maybe he didn't want to spend the money on them 2) I find a lot of folks in the entertainment business not looking back on what they've done - but only ahead to their next job. Ya know, the old - 'these are ok, but my next swill be even better...' I've talked with some commercial artists, where I knew more about their career than they did!>

I don't think it was a matter of Chaplin having a low opinion of the Mutuals. In fact I recall an interview in which he cites Easy Street as his best film. If I were to speculate on this, my guess would be that by the time CC had an opportunity to buy the Mutuals, they had already been duplicated re-released and re-re-re-released so many times that the rights to the films may have been of questionable value to him.

Let's see if this analogy works: if you were a recording artist whose early work for a label had already been up and down the charts, and had also been pirated many times, if you considered that you had already made all the money you were ever going to make on them, you might be more interested in your current and future projects than re-acquiring what came

I don't know about that. I believe the Mutuals were first sold in 1918 or 1919... they must have still been in nice shape then and for some years afterwards.

I raised the question, so I'll offer up my own best guess: I think Chaplin divided his films into two categories: HIS films (made in his own studio, at his own pace, with his own people), and OTHER PEOPLE'S films (made while an employee, hurriedly and sometimes a bit crudely, for a home office constantly pressuring him to crank out more product). I would say that he considered the films that came before First National as ancient history, the way a grad student looks back at his high school work.

Here's an intriguing what-if scenario for you all: suppose Chaplin HAD bought the Mutuals... remember he still had many of the same actors on his payroll... what if he had decided to go back and re-shoot a few things, and maybe expand the films a bit with the help of all those out-takes he kept? He could have taken some great two-reelers and made them even *better* and in some cases, longer.

I'm not saying he *should* have done that, but if he had done it... I'd sure be interested in seeing the results!

I wasn't commenting on the shape of the elements, but on what CC might have considered the marketability, public interest and profit possiblities.

After all, he had fine prints of all 12 in his posession, and most of the outtakes, so I don't think he was worried about their extinction. It may well have been uncharacteristcally near-sighted of CC not to consider the future possibilities, you know home 8mm, video and DVDs ....

In an artistic sense though, you could be right about how he felt about them: been there, done that. But I don't think it was because he felt they weren't 'all his' creatively. He had his own studio, so to speak, for the Mutuals, and his own company. Although he did take 6 months longer than expected to complete the 12 films, I don't think Mutual begrudged him any of it.

As to your what-if, I don't think CC would have done that with the Mutuals. I think he'd have just used them as inspiration, which he did, for bits in later movies. He was always on to the next project (at least in the late teens - early 20s) as soon as he finished the last.

Since the Mutuals were kept in constant release for decades after their creation, its a wonder that Chaplin didn't purchase the rights just to keep them from competing with his new releases and reissues. He might not have made any money off them, but he could have stopped the many 'Charlie Chaplin Cavalcades' that were presumably drawing feckless people in who thought they were seeing new Chaplin films.

Rob Farr

<snip>

think he'd have just used them as inspiration, which he did, for bits in later movies. He was always on to the next project (at least

I agree, Phil. One of the interesting things about Charlie is the apparent dichotomy of his nature. He could be very nostalgic, yet at the same time, never look back at certain things in his life, personal as well as professional. This is part of his appeal, I think. By the way, I echo Shush's thoughts. It's like old home week around here lately.

One thing about the Mutuals: Even when the films went out of copyright (during the 1940s), few realized that these two reelers would still have artistic and commercial apppeal in decades to come. Most certainly thought that they were just wringing the last few bucks out of these film fossils. Stan Laurel used to say that they thought that films had a commercial life of five to seven years. After that, styles and fashion would have changed enough that audiences wouldn't want to watch them. Richard Carnahan