Bloggers Wanted
We're looking for people to help with the main blog. If you are consistent, knowledgeable and you're into it, please drop me a note.
|
|
|
|
|
Vhear
Senior Boarder
Posts: 52
|
|
The discussion about poor staging in 'TPR' prompted this question: There is a prolonged scene in 'Face' in which Chaplin is painting one of his models. I believe that the joke is supposed to be that it appears that he is spending an inordinate amount of time drawing the lady's hinder, when, in fact, he is painting the shapely details of a vase positioned between him and the model. Once he has finished the shape, he paints some sprouts coming out of the top. The problem is, no print I have ever seen actually shows the vase, and it is something of a mystery to most viewers exactly what he is doing.
Any thoughts?
Richard Ward
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Lahasaert
Senior Boarder
Posts: 60
|
|
Oh man, this film gives me fits - there are so many chunks missing, and the versions I've seen are poorly sequenced.
It's as if somebody had the film, cut it into pieces, and reassembled it haphazardly. Probably some pieces were eaten by the dog too.
It would also probably make more sense if there was a sharp print available!!
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
rbravo
Senior Boarder
Posts: 57
|
|
The only print I have seen of Face is the one issued by Official Films with obtrusive music and sound effects. It is hard to assess something like that.
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
MatiCamsb
Senior Boarder
Posts: 52
|
|
Yeah, the absolute worst is the Official Films version, which left out all of the poem save the first verse. Without subtitles, the film makes no sense, and, additionally, they introduced the guy who steals Charlie's girl much too early. I bought 16mm prints of the Official version and the 'Ham Artist' variant, which has the subtitles, and put the best of the two together in reasonably correct order thanks to sequencing suggestions from Doug Sulpy. The thing with the vase is still a mystery, though, because the painting scene I described earlier is done in one long take, suggesting that there is not a shot missing. I have wondered if the film was badly cropped in reprinting, hence leaving out the vase.
Richard Ward
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|