Ooooh! Obviously a biting remark to all Chaplin's own enemies in his later life. I'm not surprised, I think he got a raw deal in life as he got older. The FBI had 1,900 pages on him thanks to Hoover. C'est ridiculous!
shareChaplin was an agnostic so I doubt this is auto-biographic, more likely just a great line to describe the inner-workings of Verdoux, i.e. a sociopath.
and I'd say it should be spelt 'peace' ;)
If you read Lynn's biography "Charlie Chaplin and his Times" it shows that Chaplin was either a communist or a fellow-traveler with a deep seated hostility to Christianity.
Why people think he got a "raw deal" is beyond me. He wasn't an American citizen and refused to appeal the INS decision. From what I've read he moved to Switzerland so he didn't have to pay US Income tax.
He was also was arrested for having sex with a minor. Charlie liked young girls - lots of them.
If you read Lynn's biography "Charlie Chaplin and His Times" you read the wrong biography. Lynn's book is biased, as he does whatever he can to put Chaplin in as bad a light as possible, never doubting the opinions of people with something unflattering to say about the comedian whereas he puts Chaplin's memoirs to question for the most irrelevant detail. Read David Robinson's "His Life and Art" and Charles Jr.'s book "My Father Charlie Chaplin" and you might leave with a slightly more balanced understanding of the man.
shareI have to disagree. Robinson's book has some good information but he obviously likes Chaplin too much to be critical. I haven't read "My Father" but will take a look.
An interesting part of Lynn's book was quoting from the INS interviews and FBI files. In many ways, Lynn's book is more objective than Robinson's since it doesn't follow the script laid down by Chaplin.
It can be argued that Robinson tends to be too sympathetic at times, this probably having to do with that the biography is authorized. However, at least he did not have an agenda behind writing the book, as was all too obviously the case with Lynn. Lynn's "criticisms" of Chaplin's memoirs, for instance, are so overly personal in tone that it just gets ridiculous.
shareWhile I am a tremendous fan of Chaplin, who was definitely a genius, there's no question that his Communist sympathies -- not uncommon in Hollywood circles -- got him in a fair amount of trouble, basically brought on by himself.
The American Communist Party had made great strides in infiltrating the Hollywood elite, who were not bright enough to figure out that the USSR was as bad as the Nazis .. and even after Stalin made it painflly obvious, still wouldn't admit their mistake. Arrogance costs you, and the Hollywood Left paid the price, Chaplin included.
As tiny as the income tax was back then, Chaplin tried to weasel out of every nickel, probably almost instinctive from his poverty days, so he basically did everything he could to make himself "undesirable." He refused US citizenship, since it would have made him more vulnerable to taxes, and played the usual Swiss games to avoid tax liabilities. Otherwise this never would have been an issue. You play those games, you take your chances. Overall, it was one of the few really stupid things he did.
I have no particular qualms about Charlie playing with the underage bimbos; few, if any, men would pass on that if given the chance & thought they could get away with it.
However, Charlie just wasn't very discreet about it. Considering who he was, he could have picked his teenyboppers a bit more carefully, especially knowing that people were out to nail him for his political extremism.
The problem is, Lynn's book has been widely criticized and discredited, and it usually regarded as a smear book that disregards any evidence contradicting its presuppositions. You say it "shows" he was either a communist or a fellow traveler. No. It proposes that. It posits a hypothesis. But that hypothesis is based on heresay, and isn't generally given much credence. Chaplin always denied being a communist, even in his last years in exile, when he could've gotten away with admitting it. He was a liberal, obviously, but there's little, other than rumor, to link him with communism. And as for the "deep-seated hostility to Christianity" - as if that means he was evil incarnate or something - I fail to see it. He was indeed an agnostic and a humanist, and admitted to "not being a believer", but I've never seen anything suggesting he was actually hostile to Christianity. Quite the opposite, in some respects. He more than once mentioned having a great respect for Jesus and his moral teachings, and felt that organized religion undermined those teachings with self-serving dogmatism.
It's true that he wasn't an American citizen. Although he loved America, he didn't like the idea of nationality, of a government impeding people's movement. He considered himself a "citizen of the world", which might sound foolish to some, but once you understand the sentiment behind that belief, you understand him a little better in this subject. Also, he pointed out - and accurately so - that there were Americans who had been living in England and Europe for decades who never became CITIZENS of those countries. Finally, the only reason he moved to Switzerland was because the U.S. government denied his re-entry permit, pending a hearing about his "moral worth", and Chaplin, indignant and unwilling to submit himself to such a humiliating display, decided not even to bother with it. How you could not see that as a raw deal is beyond me, considering the happiness he brought the American people for decades. And he DID pay taxes.
One more thing. He wasn't arrested for having sex with a minor. He was charged with violating the Mann Act, which prohibited transporting women across state lines for "immoral purposes"...charges which were later dropped. He was involved with many young women during his life - 16, 17, 18 - and even married them on occasion. But he was never arrested for it. Furthermore, due to the age of consent at that time, which rarely exceeded 16, means Chaplin technically wasn't breaking any laws at the time. You don't have to like it, but what he did wasn't so abnormal for his time.
Chaplin was obviously flawed human being - we ALL are - but it amazes me that 50 years after the McCarthyist fiasco, some people still have such hatred for a man whose only ambition was the make people laugh. Lay off the man.
ZildjianDFW:
What a great reply! I can't believe the posts that seem preoccupied with Communism here. So good to see you put it all in perspective--let's celebrate the man and his wonderful talents.
He was also was arrested for having sex with a minor.
he was a communist
share