I rather the original 1925 silent version, which is longer (96 minutes) than the 1942 reissue with a narration by Chaplin which is just 69 minutes. I still like and watch the reissue version, but I rather the silent. What do you rather?
share[deleted]
Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.
Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done for me?
-Groucho Marx
spoilers below:
am i missing anything crucial (besides the kiss at the end) if i watch the 1942 version only? is the longer running time of the 1925 version solely attributable to the on-screen, written narration?
I didn't notice anything missing besides the title cards, but I could be wrong. I haven't watched them back to back.
All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats.
-Groucho Marx
First, having seen both versions (though not back-to-back), I prefer the original 1925 release. The only difference I noticed myself was the deletion of the kissing scene with George Hale at the very end, and I certainly prefer the 'kiss' ending.
Allow me to quote from Glenn Mitchell's The Chaplin Encyclopedia, which I recommend highly to anyone interested in Chaplin minutiae. In reference to the 1942 reissue, Mitchell says "a number of sections were either deleted, replaced or slightly rearranged . . . The reissue print runs for 72 minutes at 24 frames per second; original prints, at the same sound projection speed, clock in at around 81 minutes . . . Aside from the deletion of sub-titles, it might be noted that the cast list changes the original's 'Larsen' to 'Larson' (though the original spelling remains visible on a wanted poster). Angles are slightly different throughout, owing to the use of negatives deriving from separate cameras . . . The scene of Charlie serving his cooked boot derives from alternate cameras in the two versions." [etc., pages 113-4]
Mitchell goes on at great length detailing differences between the two versions, which are more extensive than you might think. As I said up top, I never watched the two versions back-to-back myself, but the 1925 version just "feels" more satisfying to me in some indefinable way, although Chaplin's 1942 voice-over narration is interesting to hear.
[deleted]
Me too, but which one do you like better?
All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats.
-Groucho Marx
[deleted]
Yes, we're all insane. So seeing as how you're the only one with any mental clarity (and good taste), how about citing an example or two of how Chaplin's 1942 re-edit improved on his earlier version? To say, as you do, that "not one shot is the same" is patently incorrect, but perhaps you can cite an instance where Chaplin improved on the earlier version in the re-release.
I'd be happy to cite a sequence from the 1925 version that, in my opinion, was better: the ending, when Charlie kisses Georgia Hale on the deck on the ship while posing for the photo. It's a nice fade-out gag and ends the movie on a happy note. The 1942 version deletes that completely, and fades out Charlie and Georgia heading up the ladder: no gag, no pay-off, and kind of unsatisfying. Less "watchable," if you will, than the ending of the 1925 version.
I'd like to say that the new Warner release is horrible. The choice of having the shorter version on a separate disc and the longer version crammed on the hevily compressed extras disc was an idiotic one. Secondly the 1925 version is in so horrible condition that yo can hardly watch it. Thirdly adding insult to injury the silent version features lifeless piano score that sounds very much like a MIDI keyboard version of some undistinguished music. And fourthly is that overlong documentary that is more about some african amateur than the film itself! How I miss the money I threw away! (I'd better warn you, especially stay away from the NTSC versions as they are incorrectly ported from PAL masters and have annoying motion artefacts throughout)
The 1925 is unobjectionably better, but not in the way it's presented on DVD. What bothered me most with the 1942 version was Chaplin's all too self concious narration that tended to detract from the overall film. His music is excellent for the film and should be kept if they'd properly restore the silent version but I doubt that will happen in near future. The silent version has several noticeable ommissions from the narrative version but the only sifnificant one was that final scene of Chaplin and Georgia.
i prefer the silent version. first, i love the music and i don't want chaplin's voice draining it out (also, the film has this nice bleak feeling that his cheerful narration messes up). the ending is better. i still like the sound version alright, though--it adds another dimension to the film.
"let the heathen drown! let the heathen drown!"
I prefer the 1925 release. The physical gags / body language can be enjoyed better without (no offense to Sir Charles) a lot of narrative, quite often pointing out the obvious.
CS
I watched the 1942 version, not realizing that is was a re-release. I had two thoughts: "How did this movie make the Top 250?" and "Is there some way to turn off the narration?" The 1925 version answered both questions.
As an example of the difference, consider the introduction of Black Larson. In 1942 we see him seated in his cabin, and the narrator announces him as "an unmitigated predatory scoundrel." In 1925, the title card announces "And a lone man." We see him seated in the cabin examining a poster, then cut to an over-the-shoulder shot of poster: the same face, staring back as if in a mirror, "WANTED." (The same sequence appears in 1942, but to no effect. The narrator has stolen the drama.)
The first announces a character, the second lets the viewer discover him. As for print quality, I'll grant that the 1925 version is worse. No matter. Movies depend on drama, not by print quality.
i think there is a significant change in the editing of the sequence where georgia sends an apologetic note to jack that chaplin then mistakenly thinks is for him. it's been a while since i have seen the sound version, so i can't quite recall the change, but i seem to think that in the later version, she is apologizing to charlie? i could be wrong. i find the reissue rather hard to sit through for a couple of reasons. the score, for one, is rather treacly, as was the case with most of the scores chaplin composed for his films, and while not his worst, i don't think it's his best either. the piano score on the DVD (which i have only seen once- I have a super 8 copy of the '25 version sans any soundtrack that i have seen most of all) i recall being adequate and inoffensive, but not paticularly memorable. for me, though, the major drawback of the reissue is that chaplin's voice destroys much of what lent this movie (and chaplin's silents in general) their greatest power- by their very lack of speech, they require much greater projection of character, motivation, and empathy from the audience. the little fellow lost much of his universality when he was weighted with chaplin's british accent, with its identifying monikers of place and class (i know, he was born poor, but his recorded speech always sounded much more refined than his upbringing would suggest. perhaps that is my bias from across the pond) the greatest silent films- the passion of joan of arc, sunrise, the general- achieve their drama or their comedy in large part because of our own active involvement in piecing together the character's motivations, thoughts, words, etc. as for the notion that this version is better because the modifications were selected and approved by chaplin himself, let us remember tht by the 1940s, all of chaplin's masterworks were behind him. his subsequent fimls, while marked by occasional flashes of his former genius, were progressive exercises in pretention (the speeches from the end of verdoux and dictator jump to mind), unrestrained bathos (limelight is enough to rot your teeth, even if you are an ardent sentamentalist as i am), or misjudged satire (king in new york).
the print quality of the 25 version is degraded because it has slipped into the puiblic domain. chaplin and his estate kept tight control on his original source materials and their distribution, but since he considered the later release to be his preferred version, that is the one he actively preserved. the cheap-o DVDs you can find in any store are generally the early keystone and essanay shorts, which his estate did not own. you will rarely if ever come aross a screening of his features without his own score because, from what i understand, his estate insists that they are only shown as he rereleased them-ie with his own music. i think it is a shame- all silent movies deserve to be seen with a live score, as they were intended to be (having seen "the circus" with excellent, original live music, i find different moments of comedy and sentiment illuminated). my super 8 copy of the silent version is very poor, so i am glad to have a DVD of the original, no matter how imperfect.
makes an interesting parallel to keaton's masterpiece, "the general", made 2 years later. that also was a historical comedy and also drew laughs from life or death situations. (imagine the scene with keaton on the cow catcher of the train, coming up on a beam on the tracks, laid over with a narration in an imaginary reissue....)
I concur. The narrative cards do nothing to interfere with the drama and black comedy; Chaplin's narration makes the 1942 version seem almost a travelogue.
I have no difficulty with the piano score. It is what one would have expected had one been watching the movie in the Silent era. Someone -- perhaps a music teacher supplementing an income -- would have been performing the score as background music. So if it sounds too modern in quality -- that's what one would have heard in 1925.
[deleted]
I'm used to the 1942 version but I'm glad I have the 1925 version on the dvd, especially haven't seeing the kiss at the end! Both are fully approved by Chaplin so I like 'em both!
| ''But where's the ambiguity?... It's over there, in a box!'' |
I've only seen the 1942 version. The DVD is at a local library and supposed to have the 1925 silent version. I want to see that very much and I hear that's much better than the re-issued Chaplin narration.
"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."
It's been a while since I've seen this movie, but it is probably one of the top 5 greatest movies of all time. I was maybe 16 when I rented it on VHS from the library. It came on two casettes. I remember the music was an organ that sounded like some funerary fugue throughout its entirety. And still it was a riot! I hadn't laughed so hard ever! I don't even remember what the print was like, but the film and Chaplin shone through. Of course this was the 1925 silent version.
Does anyone remember this VHS edition?
Some friends of mine rented it about a week later than I did and we couldn't talk about anything else for months or at least fail to make a reference. And of course, we all thought the tramp was the coolest character!
I just rented it on Netflix, so it should be in the mail tomorrow, but I only rented the bonus disc because it has the silent version I fell in love with. Hopefully, I didn't make a mistake and the DVD is awesome, too. My girlfriend hasn't seen it yet, and I know she'll love it.
I like the 1925 silent version better.
It was the first one I remembered watching when I was a child, and it is the one I fell in love with.
I have never seen all of the narrated version, but of what I have seen, I couldn't watch it.
The tramp is meant to be silent I guess.
"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."--Welles
[deleted]
The Poster about 10 posts above is correct about the main difference:
1925:
In the 1925 version, Georgia falls in love with the Bully. She gives the Bully a note apologizing for slapping the Bully on New Year's eve at Chaplin's cabin and also tells him that she loves him in the note.
The Bully reads the note, then has a waiter deliver it to Chaplin. Chaplin mistakes the note as apologizing over being stood up over the dinner on New Year's eve.
Since Georgia shows her affection for the bully, it's necessary to have the long kissing scene at the end to show that Georgia really has fallen for Chaplin.
1942:
In the 1942 version, Georgia gives the same note to Chaplin. Except that it doesn't say "I love you". It just says she's sorry about New Year's and has to explain. The note is never given to the Bully. This changes the whole meaning of the note since Georgia is showing her affection to Chaplin and doesn't care about the Bully at all.
Therefore it's not necessary to have the kissing scene at the end.
Hey, I'm mainly just happy that we were offered BOTH versions on DVD, and not just the reissue (unlike what that money-grubbing bastard George Lucas would allow) or just the original (hey, I believe strongly in choice when it comes to movies, especially when you can get that choice in one DVD package).
Personally, I prefer the 1942 version, mainly because the piano music and subtitles in the original got a little monotonous for me after a while. I thought that the narration and new music added a little "flavor" (for lack of a better word). But hey, that's just my opinion.
"Checking e-mails and kicking Cheats in the Hereafter!"
Well I prefer the '42 version because of Chaplin's musical score. However, like Wmorrow59, I much prefer the kiss ending. I have watched this film for many years, and recently came up with a third alternate version: I recorded the entire soundtrack to my computer, then I muted all of Chaplin's narration, leaving the music. When this was through I prepared the 1942 version on my DVD player, and I turned on the English subtitles, and turned on the movie and the music at the exact same time. It had the feeling of the silent film, only with a better print, better music, but a sub-par ending.
Anyway, I frequently watch both the 1925 and 1942 versions in their original state.
"The romance of picture making ends here..." Douglas Fairbanks Sr. in 1929...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I like them both. I don't see why so meny people despise the 1942 reissue with narration, thought the original is without a doubt, the best one.
Last film seen -- "Gone Baby Gone" 4.5/10