Some thoughts about deception . . .

The ultimate conclusion of Waverboy's and Doug's argument is that Chaplin himself perpetrated a fraud when he released three of his First Nationals under their original titles, with no acknowledgment that he had used different takes.

This is a fallacious argument, exactly like saying that an author who publishes a heavily revised version of a work under the same title without drawing attention to the extent of his or her revisions is perpetrating a fraud. In fact the author is merely recasting the work for whatever aesthetic, personal or practical reasons, and if Chaplin says it's _Shoulder Arms_, then it IS _Shoulder Arms_. The fact that more than one version exists does not make the second version spurious or necessarily inferior. It merely means that the text's boundaries have extended.

It appears to me that WB and Doug want to promote their opinion of which version of these films is 'original' (dubiously equated to best), and profess that they are doing this in defense of Chaplin, when actually they are devaluing his judgment in favor of their own, and showing no knowledge of current thought on texts and intertextuaity.

A text is a fluid entity. It does not have fixed boundaries limited to one specific version, although some versions may have more authority and interest than others, depending on who created them.

Any version of a film created by Chaplin IS what he chose to call it. Both '25 and '42 ARE _The Gold Rush_, and so, with less authority, are the many bastardized, patchwork versions of the film, including the better restorations, which are often mistaken for the 'original.'

If Chaplin said the version of _Shoulder Arms_ in _The Chaplin Revue_ was _Shoulder Arms_, which he did by issuing it as such, then the estate is perfectly correct in taking his word for it, and no one else, not even Doug or WB, has the authority to say it isn't.

Connie K.

I thoroughly understand all of the above. I was around in the pre-home-video era, and had to wait for crappy prints to air on fuzzy television. However, that was then, and this is now. The technology is there, and the prints are in many cases available now.

They didn't initiate it in this case; David Shepard did. You read his quote about Shoulder Arms. And, of course, whether they choose to help with an officially sanctioned release of the real films is their prerogative, however much I may not like their decision. But, what really gets me, on top of refusing to help release the real films, is them passing off the entirely different '40s reconstructions as the real films. Unfortunately, they can get away with it.

But nitrate won't wait. Who knows what elements of the original First Nationals will be lost forever, because no one's restoring them?

The reason we've been pointing at Association Chaplin is because they are the interested party with the most and best resources to undertake the job, and because they effectively blocked David Shepard from doing a reconstruction of the original 'Shoulder Arms.'

The Estate won't permit what would've been a 95%-pure Chaplin original, but they *will* release out-takes that he never meant the public to see.

If I decide I can't afford, or for whatever reason don't want to, finance a project, have I 'effectively blocked' ANYONE else from doing it? Sorry, Sush. Before this, we haven't always agreed but you had a perfect record of reasonableness, as far as I'm concerned. This time I don't think so. How can you say they have 'the most and best resources' when everyone involved agrees Shepard had to acquire the (95% of the) resources from OUTSIDE of the Estate's holdings to even propose a reconstruction?

As to the out-takes, you're right about the 'inconsistent' application of Chaplin's expressed wishes (although I think Geraldine addressed that effectively in the intro to UC), but you're dead wrong to conclude OR contend that they 'won't permit' releases simply because they choose not to do it themselves.

It sometimes seems to wait, at its pleasure. But David Shepard would know more about any possible urgency than I do. He hasn't mentioned this, as far as I know.

There's a difference. The out-takes are novel material with much interest to scholars and film buffs. Yet another version of a film they think they have in an adequate authentic version might well seem less appealing to them.

I can only speculate about their reasons for not accepting David's proposal, but there's always the chance that they'll change their minds. I'm tolerant. On the whole they've been very good to us lately, as Phil pointed out.

Connie K.

The Estate surely has more money than David Shepard has, and could afford to spend whatever it might take to solicit archives and private collectors for original FN elements, and to digitally restore them. It may or may not also have some of that footage in its *own* archive. David (and Kevin Brownlow) have other commitments, such as teaching, lecturing, running businesses, travel, etc., which wouldn't be an issue for the Estate, since it could afford to hire someone to concentrate on the restorations exclusively, if it chose to. The Chaplin name alone would likely open doors that might remain closed to someone with even David or Kevin's credentials, and the Estate has lawyers on retainer to quickly clear up (or bulldoze right through) any legal issues that might arise.

Besides, the Estate has just trumped David's own efforts with the new DVDs that have come out. Even he admits they're a marked improvement over his editions. The Estate has beaten David Shepard at his own game!

As for the original 'Shoulder Arms' material that David spoke of, that was one solitary print in a European archive, and it belonged neither to him nor to the Estate, but would likely be available for a restoration project. To restore *all* of the FNs (I'm dreaming, I know) would be a considerably more complex undertaking. But the Estate could do it... if it wanted to.

They sure wouldn't permit David Shepard to patch that archival print of 'Shoulder Arms' with footage from the Rollie edition. That's why I've said that the Estate *effectively* prevented that restoration from happening. David said as much in his post, which you can find in Google.

He added that the print was actually gorgeous, except for a few damaged bits that would've had to be replaced. We all know that the Rollie edition is similarly gorgeous, so that footage would've been the logical stuff to use... but the Estate slammed the door on *that*

By same film, I simply meant the same thing - same takes, same performances.

I agree. Chaplin himself began the fraud in the 1940's, by issuing a version of 'Shoulder Arms' which was entirely different from the original (assuming that the people watching it in the 1940's were ALSO under the illusion that they were watching the original film).

Please quote someone. I don't remember anyone making this argument.

(snip 'Can't Buy Me Love' analogy)

Well, since David Shepard said the original was far better than the '25 version, and I know for a fact that the '25 version is far better than the '40's version, I don't know where an assumption comes in, unless you believe that Mr. Shepard could be in error.

No doubt. My faculty enjoyed nothing more than not teaching.

Right you are, and I can agree entirely with Chaplin's original decision to go to the outtakes - what choice would he have had in the 1940's? People wouldn't have paid money to see poor quality prints! This doesn't excuse the actions of the Estate now. They're obviously just taking the easy way out. According to David Shepard, they're aware the original version was different and better - and don't care.

No. But by that time what choice did he have? It was release the inferior cut of the film, or not release it at all. On second thought, though... I really wonder if he ever bothered to look at a final version of 'Revue' - because that means that horrible step-printing was perfectly okay by him too (in which case, one has to begin questioning his judgement).

Okay... I'm thinking. Give me a minute... mmmm.... Ah, okay. I understand now. Okay.

The 'First Nationals' are not texts. They're films.

There we go!

The 'same footage' is the same footage... whether it's 'reframed, mangled, scratched, faded, reduced, blown up' ... or what. And all versions of 'The Gold Rush' consist overwhelmingly of the same

Um...call me crazy, but I would think that scholars and film buffs might just be interested in (as close as possible to) the first-choice-take originally released versions of the films that all along they HAVE been seeing outtake versions of...wouldn't that seem novel or interesting to scholars and film buffs, especially CHAPLIN buffs? In fact, couldn't it possibly be MORE novel or interesting than just a few outtakes they haven't seen before? You KNOW it would.

Connie, I sincerely hope you're right.

You have stated that Chaplin's decisions are authoritative even if they involve altering the work of art significantly from its original form.

I say this is not so, that the work has an independent existence, that art is not provably located in the individual artist, and that his/her post-creative judgment is not necessarily authoritative.

The fact that the law recognizes that ownership of a film is time-limited is implicitly a confirmation of the social belief that the artifact belongs ultimately to the public and to cultural history.