5 ms·

Charlie Chaplin: official website

54 points by brudgers 4y ago

coolandsmartrr 4y ago
What's the significance of this submission?
- zzzbra 4y ago
  that it’s cool
yamtaddle 4y ago
Anyone looking to get into silent film, I'd strongly recommend comedies (including, and perhaps especially, Chaplin and Keaton) as a good starting point. I've gotten to the point that I can truly enjoy a lot of silent dramas, but IMO the comedies are far more approachable for a modern audience. Good gateway drug. Just off the more famous films (The Great Dictator and Modern Times and maybe City Lights for Chaplin, or The General for Keaton, say) I'd recommend The Kid for Chaplin, and Sherlock, Jr. for Keaton. And of course both made numerous short films, in addition to their features. Though the very-famous ones are all great, too—I especially love City Lights, personally. Been meaning to check out Harold Lloyd (responsible for one of the most enduring and imitated images in Hollowood, the guy hanging on the clock on the side of a building, featured in Safety Last) but haven't made it to him yet. I bet he "reads" pretty well to a modern viewer, too. [EDIT] Some beginner drama recommendations, for those who feel ready: Metropolis (duh... though it's a bit on the long side, maybe skip if you can't tolerate longer movies, and it's maybe a bit belabored for modern sensibilities) The Passion of Joan of Arc (just... damn. This is a perfect movie.) L'Âge D'or (The Golden Age—but, uh, maybe just if you appreciate things a bit more art house) Le Voyage dans la Lune (A Trip to the Moon—it's short, and, if one plays with various accompanying soundtrack options, including some more modern ones, one may find it transcendently good) M (yes Fritz Lang made this very short list twice, because fuck you this movie is amazing, this is maybe the most modern-feeling of this whole bunch)
- anshumankmr 4y ago
  The Great Dictator wasn’t silent but it’s still amazing
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Oh damn, nice catch. That's true.
  - DaveExeter 4y ago
    Charlie gets a little preachy at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20
    - justinator 4y ago
      Well 60,000,000 people did then die, so it seems a reasonable level of preachiness.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        I took the comment as ironic. A-fucking-men to Chaplin's sentiment, anyway.
      - bink 4y ago
        "did then die" is understating it. The Great Dictator was filmed in 1939, long before most of the world knew the true horrors that had and would take place. Chaplin wasn't alone in calling out the dangers, but he was in the minority.
        LemmyInThePub 4y ago
        > Chaplin wasn't alone in calling out the dangers, A very honourable mention to Alexander Korda. Particularly 'Things To Come', his 1936 film warning of the rise of fascism in Europe, global war and the dangers of air bombardment (thereby bringing mechanised warfare to civilian populations for the first time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come And yes, it is based on the HG Wells story.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Anyone living in the Bay Area ought to pop over to little, hidden, Niles. A fun little day trip my family and I enjoyed when I still lived in the area. They had their brush with fame and Chaplin 100 years ago when little Niles might just have become Hollywood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  I've actually worked on a movie shoot there. Terrible film, terrible shoot, but we did get an impressive visitor one day in the form of a rattlesnake that decided to come into the set to cool off.
TaylorGood 4y ago
What a fantastic personal website for such a late talent.
AlbertCory 4y ago
In my movie Meetup, we were having DVD night, and once after the main feature, I showed The General. Everyone loved it. Speaking of The Battleship Potemkin: I really, really tried to get hold of the musical score for it, with the idea of having the Google Orchestra (yes, there was such a thing) play along with the movie when we showed it. No luck.
remux 4y ago
Is there more information on how the website was developed? I can't find out with which content management system or framework the website was implemented. I am interested in that now.
- karxxm 4y ago
  Ruby on rails
- dbosch 4y ago
  It looks like a "classic" Ruby on Rails + Bootstrap setup
cies 4y ago
Apart from his success in film I believe there was a not so nice side to his character. He impregnated, married and dumped really young women, and was know to sexually harass women on the set. This website fails to mention his failings. I dont know if that's okay, feels a bit like white washing to me.
- thomasthetrain 4y ago
  From the About Us page: > The Chaplin office in Paris represents the Chaplin rightsholding companies (see below), as well as the Chaplin family. It’s not really in their interest to mention his failings.
tempodox 4y ago
Are Chaplin movies in the public domain by now? Are they hosted anywhere?
- hilbert42 4y ago
  No, see my posts. Depending on what country one's in Chaplin's copyright could last until 2067 (Chaplin died in 1977, now add 90 years after the author's death).
SebaSeba 4y ago
Don't forget that the war mongerers in the US exiled him after a long witch hunt, though he'd been living in the US for decades https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2012/feb/17/charlie-chaplin-1952-communist https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blo...
hilbert42 4y ago
"All photographs from Chaplin films made from 1918 onwards © Roy Export S.A.S. All Rights Reserved." 105 years! An outrageous abuse of copyright law.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  Now, don't take this as legal advice, but if the company re-scans/makes alterations to the image for display on the web, I think that counts as a new work But I'm a bit hazy about how derivative works are actually defined.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    You're correct, they count as new works. But that's not what's stated here, it's referring to all works whether reworked or not. Chaplin died in 1977, so depending on a country's copyright laws his films are likely to remain in copyright until 2067. That means a 1918 Chaplin film will remain in copyright for 149 years. As I said, this is an outrageous abuse of copyright. With such unreasonable copyright laws in place it's no wonder that so many just ignore them.
  - CiceroCiceronis 4y ago
    In the US context, it seems likely that the ruling in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp would preclude any copyright in such cases.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      Perhaps so, and I think that's a good thing. Nevertheless, I can see cases where there will be arguments over where clean-up and restoration end and new original art begins. For instance, say a film's master negative has been affected by patches of mold and detail lost. As the original information has been actually lost at these points, any reconstruction 'originates' with the reconstruction 'artist'. In some instances the reconstruction involves no art as it's obvious what's missing—say an image of a quarter coin with a section missing out of it, whereas reconstructing the missing expression on a person's face may require interpretation and thus deemed new original art. Given the longstanding and heated debate over copyright, it seems to me these gray areas will be hotly contested. Obviously, where new material is added there is no contest, new copyright is invoked. For example, some years back someone posted a medium resolution (720px) copy of Kino's rework of Buster Keaton's The General to the Internet Archive and it was eventually withdrawn. I'm not conversant with any special copyright arrangements surrounding Keaton's works but presumably the takedown wasn't based on the cleaned up footage (given Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp) but rather on the new soundtrack which accompanies the original silent footage. Collaborative evidence of this is that other versions of The General weren't subject of the takedown. I vaguely recall that Keaton lost copyright over financial problems, if he'd been the copyright holder then we'd expect all copies to have been taken down (Keaton died in 1966 so if he'd still held the copyright at the time of his death then it would have been valid until 2056).

54 points by brudgers 4y ago

coolandsmartrr 4y ago

What's the significance of this submission?

zzzbra 4y ago
that it’s cool

yamtaddle 4y ago

Anyone looking to get into silent film, I'd strongly recommend comedies (including, and perhaps especially, Chaplin and Keaton) as a good starting point. I've gotten to the point that I can truly enjoy a lot of silent dramas, but IMO the comedies are far more approachable for a modern audience. Good gateway drug. Just off the more famous films (The Great Dictator and Modern Times and maybe City Lights for Chaplin, or The General for Keaton, say) I'd recommend The Kid for Chaplin, and Sherlock, Jr. for Keaton. And of course both made numerous short films, in addition to their features. Though the very-famous ones are all great, too—I especially love City Lights, personally. Been meaning to check out Harold Lloyd (responsible for one of the most enduring and imitated images in Hollowood, the guy hanging on the clock on the side of a building, featured in Safety Last) but haven't made it to him yet. I bet he "reads" pretty well to a modern viewer, too. [EDIT] Some beginner drama recommendations, for those who feel ready: Metropolis (duh... though it's a bit on the long side, maybe skip if you can't tolerate longer movies, and it's maybe a bit belabored for modern sensibilities) The Passion of Joan of Arc (just... damn. This is a perfect movie.) L'Âge D'or (The Golden Age—but, uh, maybe just if you appreciate things a bit more art house) Le Voyage dans la Lune (A Trip to the Moon—it's short, and, if one plays with various accompanying soundtrack options, including some more modern ones, one may find it transcendently good) M (yes Fritz Lang made this very short list twice, because fuck you this movie is amazing, this is maybe the most modern-feeling of this whole bunch)

anshumankmr 4y ago
The Great Dictator wasn’t silent but it’s still amazing
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Oh damn, nice catch. That's true.
- DaveExeter 4y ago
  Charlie gets a little preachy at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20
  - justinator 4y ago
    Well 60,000,000 people did then die, so it seems a reasonable level of preachiness.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      I took the comment as ironic. A-fucking-men to Chaplin's sentiment, anyway.
    - bink 4y ago
      "did then die" is understating it. The Great Dictator was filmed in 1939, long before most of the world knew the true horrors that had and would take place. Chaplin wasn't alone in calling out the dangers, but he was in the minority.
      - LemmyInThePub 4y ago
        > Chaplin wasn't alone in calling out the dangers, A very honourable mention to Alexander Korda. Particularly 'Things To Come', his 1936 film warning of the rise of fascism in Europe, global war and the dangers of air bombardment (thereby bringing mechanised warfare to civilian populations for the first time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come And yes, it is based on the HG Wells story.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Anyone living in the Bay Area ought to pop over to little, hidden, Niles. A fun little day trip my family and I enjoyed when I still lived in the area. They had their brush with fame and Chaplin 100 years ago when little Niles might just have become Hollywood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Canyon

anigbrowl 4y ago
I've actually worked on a movie shoot there. Terrible film, terrible shoot, but we did get an impressive visitor one day in the form of a rattlesnake that decided to come into the set to cool off.

TaylorGood 4y ago

What a fantastic personal website for such a late talent.

AlbertCory 4y ago

In my movie Meetup, we were having DVD night, and once after the main feature, I showed The General. Everyone loved it. Speaking of The Battleship Potemkin: I really, really tried to get hold of the musical score for it, with the idea of having the Google Orchestra (yes, there was such a thing) play along with the movie when we showed it. No luck.

remux 4y ago

Is there more information on how the website was developed? I can't find out with which content management system or framework the website was implemented. I am interested in that now.

karxxm 4y ago
Ruby on rails
dbosch 4y ago
It looks like a "classic" Ruby on Rails + Bootstrap setup

cies 4y ago

Apart from his success in film I believe there was a not so nice side to his character. He impregnated, married and dumped really young women, and was know to sexually harass women on the set. This website fails to mention his failings. I dont know if that's okay, feels a bit like white washing to me.

thomasthetrain 4y ago
From the About Us page: > The Chaplin office in Paris represents the Chaplin rightsholding companies (see below), as well as the Chaplin family. It’s not really in their interest to mention his failings.

tempodox 4y ago

Are Chaplin movies in the public domain by now? Are they hosted anywhere?

hilbert42 4y ago
No, see my posts. Depending on what country one's in Chaplin's copyright could last until 2067 (Chaplin died in 1977, now add 90 years after the author's death).

SebaSeba 4y ago

Don't forget that the war mongerers in the US exiled him after a long witch hunt, though he'd been living in the US for decades https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2012/feb/17/charlie-chaplin-1952-communist https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blo...

hilbert42 4y ago

KaiserPro 4y ago
Now, don't take this as legal advice, but if the company re-scans/makes alterations to the image for display on the web, I think that counts as a new work But I'm a bit hazy about how derivative works are actually defined.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  You're correct, they count as new works. But that's not what's stated here, it's referring to all works whether reworked or not. Chaplin died in 1977, so depending on a country's copyright laws his films are likely to remain in copyright until 2067. That means a 1918 Chaplin film will remain in copyright for 149 years. As I said, this is an outrageous abuse of copyright. With such unreasonable copyright laws in place it's no wonder that so many just ignore them.
- CiceroCiceronis 4y ago
  In the US context, it seems likely that the ruling in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp would preclude any copyright in such cases.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Perhaps so, and I think that's a good thing. Nevertheless, I can see cases where there will be arguments over where clean-up and restoration end and new original art begins. For instance, say a film's master negative has been affected by patches of mold and detail lost. As the original information has been actually lost at these points, any reconstruction 'originates' with the reconstruction 'artist'. In some instances the reconstruction involves no art as it's obvious what's missing—say an image of a quarter coin with a section missing out of it, whereas reconstructing the missing expression on a person's face may require interpretation and thus deemed new original art. Given the longstanding and heated debate over copyright, it seems to me these gray areas will be hotly contested. Obviously, where new material is added there is no contest, new copyright is invoked. For example, some years back someone posted a medium resolution (720px) copy of Kino's rework of Buster Keaton's The General to the Internet Archive and it was eventually withdrawn. I'm not conversant with any special copyright arrangements surrounding Keaton's works but presumably the takedown wasn't based on the cleaned up footage (given Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp) but rather on the new soundtrack which accompanies the original silent footage. Collaborative evidence of this is that other versions of The General weren't subject of the takedown. I vaguely recall that Keaton lost copyright over financial problems, if he'd been the copyright holder then we'd expect all copies to have been taken down (Keaton died in 1966 so if he'd still held the copyright at the time of his death then it would have been valid until 2056).