I've yet to see this movie (I'm trying to find it). I'm a huge Eddie Izzard and Charlie Chaplin fan. Does it work? How is the Chaplin character? I just don't see how it would work (physical characteristics, voice etc), and I'm afraid to watch it in case it ruins my perception on both. :-(
sharePersonally, as a "huge Eddie Izzard" fan myself, I think Eddie does the best Charlie Chaplin I've seen in a while. Robert Downey Jr. in "Chaplin" follows close behind. But keep in mind "Chaplin" and "The Cat's Meow" are two very very different subjects.
Missy
I AM A DOGHNUT!
If you know a bit about Chaplin, Izzard was not very much like him at all. Perhaps he was more like a boastful, drunk version of Chaplin which works for this film I guess. Downey knocked Chaplin out of the park! I am not sure how you can even think Izzard is even close to the same level as him. Liking him better is fine, but as a fan of Chaplin, and if you read the book it was based on; Downey's performance is an all time great one.
"In our wings that bark, flashing teeth of brass, standing tall in the dark" - David Bowie
Eddie Izzard said in several interviews re: this film that he worked to portray Chaplin in much the same way that Anthony Hopkins worked to portray Nixon. Neither bears any physical resemblance to their characters so they were mostly attempting to convey their personalities.
Bear in mind, also, that Cat's Meow is a depiction of only two particular days in the lives of these people and was not intended to document all of Chaplin's personal life and career performances as Downey's film was.
"What is it, Sebastian? I'm arranging matches..."
Good points. Can't argue with you at all.
"In our wings that bark, flashing teeth of brass, standing tall in the dark" - David Bowie
I agree whole heartedly that Downey did a superior Chaplin. There is simply no contest.
Just be truthful and if you can fake that you've got it made. ;)
He was an entertaining character, but not hugely like Chaplin. I'd recommend the film though, it's really good. And Eddie is awesome, just don't try to compare him to Chaplin, he's funny in his own way.
shareI thought he did a good job. He doesn't look like Charlie Chaplin but I doubt most people nowadays would know what Charlie Chaplin really looked like without his bowler hat and mustache. I doubt I could have picked out a photo of the real 1920s Chaplin without makeup. I thought this movie was good and I liked all the characters and how the actors portrayed them.
share[deleted]
I recently said in another post that, while Izzard does not necessarily convey the attributes of Chaplin with which we are all familiar, his interpretation of the great man is a very subtle and understated performance and, since none of us really know what Chaplin was like when not clowning around in front of the camera or on stage, it is a totally credible performance and I completely accepted Eddie as Charlie in this movie. I actually think it is arguable Izzard's finest film performance to date and I was very excited to see him play what is essentially the male lead (shared, I suppose, with WR Hearst)....
share[deleted]
I thought he did a really great job! I don't know much about Chaplin's personal life (viewed many of his movies), but Izzard seems to emulate the charm. humor and feel that Chaplin emits. Plus Izzard has great comedic instinct which is a big part of who Chaplin is.
shareI've just seen this and I think Izzard was a bad choice for Chaplin. He bears no resemblence whatever, in fact his jowly countenance is completely the opposite of Chaplin's rather rat-like jawline and grin.
Also, Izzard's public school accent is way too toffy. After all, Chaplin was an uneducated cockney.
Cockney?
shareI love this film, but I don't like Izzard as Chaplin. I still recommend the film, though.
shareYes Chaplin was a cockney; the one thing people noticed about Chaplin was his looks; he was very good looking and a ladies's man; always played the little guy and was nothing like his screen persona off stage.
Eddie Izzard is not good looking and doesn't have the physical talent to play Chaplin; if you look at Richard Attenborough's film, the star of it is Chaplin himself, and not Robert Downey, who didn't do a lot of the physical work.
Chaplin might look easy to play but, like Hitler, he isn't. People try to do an impersonation and it doesn't work.
[deleted]
Eddie Izzard not good looking? Um, I think thousands of women(myself included) would disagree strongly with that, LOL. He gave a strong performance in this movie. I think it was subtle and most people don't think of Charlie Chaplin as subtle..they think of the character in the movies. But, I'm sure Chaplin's private persona was far different.
i think izzard did a great job but i'm a huge so i maybe bias. i also have no clue what chaplin was like in real life.
shareMy only disappointment in the film was the actor who played Chaplin. I thought he was seriously miscast.
Just be truthful and if you can fake that you've got it made. ;)
Izzard plays the Chaplin of THIS narrative, not necessarily the Chaplin of public consciousness, or history, or interpretation in other forms. I thought his acting in TCM was quite good; inasmuch as the portrayal of Chaplin the man, my disagreement would come from the accent used. As another poster pointed out, this would be biographically incorrect for Chaplin; I shall put that as a directoral choice on the part of Bogdanovich, who could have told Izzard to adhere to "reality".
I think they wanted to portray Chaplin a bit differently, for narrative purposes. As a huge fan of Chaplin, I took note of this, but was not necessarily put off by it. Izzard's acting was, in my opinion, quite good, as i stated above.
On another note, I think Robert Downey's portrayal of Chaplin is one of the Ten Best Performances I have ever seen in cinema!
"Any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense."
He was badly miscast, made little impression and was acted off the film by the other players. He should stick to what he does best and watch Downey for a perfomance of Chaplin you could actually believe in.
shareI just saw this movie and I was very impressed by Eddie Izzard's Chaplin. I didn't expect him to come anywhere near Robert Downey Jr., because that was a once in a lifetime perfect casting, so I wasn't disappointed.
I was, however, delighted to see that Eddie Izzard seemed to channel Chaplin's essence. It was as if he realized that he didn't look like Chaplin, so he simply allowed Chaplin's energy to move through him. The performance was incredibly subtle but if you pay attention, you can see it in his eyes, or with a simple little quirk of his mouth, and other little things.
I thought he was fantastic.