Talk:Charlie Chaplin filmography
 | Charlie Chaplin filmography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 16, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured list | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think << The Good-For-Nothing >> is missing in the list..
Actually The Good-For-Nothing is Charlie Chaplins 25th Film Released Aug. 31 1914 As His New Profession
I think this need to be write somewhere..
I'm thinking of trying to make this filmography adopt the style of the Woody Allen one... any objections? 76.124.97.87 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Go ahead and do it! --Dblk (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- An update of this filmography is underway! Jimknut (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of the animated short "Felix in Hollywood" on a Charlie Chaplin filmography has been called into question. I would argue that any image of the Tramp on film is noteworthy despite the fact of animation in this case. The Tramp's is perhaps the most iconic silhouette in the history of Hollywood, and the release of this animated short during the height of Chaplin's international fame makes it all the more important for any Chaplin filmography. In other words, to say that because "Chaplin" didn't draw this cartoon it shouldn't be on this list (and are we sure he had no role in this short, if only granting copyright?) forgets that Chaplin was and always will be inseparable from the Tramp.
I didn't know about this animated short before seeing it on this wikipedia filmography, and I think it would be of great interest to any fan of his movies. --Gwythoff (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. A visual representation of Charlie Chaplin does not make it a Charlie Chaplin film. He did not write it, did not direct it, did not produce it, and did not appear in it. Vidor (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- "FILMOGRAPHY, n. [f. FILM n. 3c, after BIBLIOGRAPHY.] 1a. A list of the films of a particular director, producer, actor, etc., or of those dealing with any particular theme." --OED
- If "Felix in Hollywood" doesn't relate to the theme of Charlie Chaplin on film, one which was produced at the moment of his greatest fame no less, I don't know what does. At most, you're going to have to convince me that an animated image of Chaplin on film signifies "Chaplin" in some way less than a photochemical image of Chaplin on film. And at the least, we have to find some way to include this. --Gwythoff (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Charlie Chaplin is not a "theme". Charlie Chaplin was a person, who appeared in some movies and did not appear in other movies, like "Felix in Hollywood". You are conflating two different definitions of filmography. It might be appropriate to talk of "theme" if one was compiling a list of pictures in a genre, like a filmography of baseball movies, but not when assembling the filmography of an individual. (Not to mention that Random House doesn't use "theme", but instead "genre", which is more accurate.) By your extremely broad definition, we would have to include the Robert Downey biopic, since it too was about the "theme" of Charlie Chaplin. I'm not sure that I bear the burden of having to convince you of anything. I can state, definitively, that Charlie Chaplin did not produce "Felix in Hollywood", did not direct "Felix in Hollywood", did not write "Felix in Hollywood", and did not act in "Felix in Hollywood". So "convincing" really isn't necessary any more than one needs to "convince" someone else that two and two equals four. I'm not sure how to respond to the notion that a cartoon someone drew of Charlie Chaplin is equivalent to actual film of the actual Charlie Chaplin--such a bizarre assertion kind of defies response. So as far as "most" and "least" go--at "most", I am correct that Chaplin had no connection whatsoever with the cartoon, and you are wrong, and at "least", we don't have to find any way at all to include it, and in fact we should exclude it, because it doesn't belong. Vidor (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is cultural production not mathematics--it's not about "convincing" 2+2=4, and neither is it about saying The Idle Class "equals" Felix in Hollywood, in your language. There's nothing "bizarre" about claiming that this is a notable instance of Chaplin on film. I think some of the problem here is stemming from the fact that, as I said, Chaplin is inseparable from the Tramp. You can say Chaplin ≠ Tramp, but you'd be missing the point. French audiences and critics referred to both Chaplin and Tramp as Charlot. Audiences hated Chaplin's attempt to invert the character in Monsieur Verdoux. There is an iconicity here to the writing of Chaplin on film, i.e. filmography (literally film-writing), to Chaplin the man's production of a figure that reverberated throughout film history--and if you read his "My Autobiography" you'll see it was this fact he was explicitly what he was proud of. Chaplin created the figure of the Tramp, and this is a contemporaneous instance of his creation circulating through its wider context in film culture.
- Rather than getting delete happy, let's figure out a way to keep this interesting historical document visible for people who might not otherwise know of its existence. If this involves adding a section different than "miscellaneous," so be it. I think it would be more important to have "Felix in Hollywood" than the Robert Downey Jr. biopic, since the former is a product of and played into the Chaplin mania of the 1920s. But I wouldn't be against including it if you insist it would have to be there alongside other filmic representations of Chaplin. --Gwythoff (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing "bizarre" about claiming that this is a notable instance of Chaplin on film. He does not appear in the film. I think some of the problem here is stemming from the fact that, as I said, Chaplin is inseparable from the Tramp. See Monsieur Verdoux, Limelight, A King In New York, and A Countess in Hong Kong. Or for that matter, his first short, Making a Living. Or, for that matter, Robert Downey playing the Tramp in "Chaplin", as I said above. I wouldn't be against including it if you insist it would have to be there I don't insist that "Chaplin" has to be there. If anything, I insist that it and "Felix in Hollywood" both not be there.
- Here's the thing, once again, for clarity: Charlie Chaplin did not direct "Felix in Hollywood". He did not produce "Felix in Hollywood". He did not write "Felix in Hollywood". He did not appear in "Felix in Hollywood". He did not draw any of the pictures in "Felix in Hollywood". These are facts. They are not in dispute. Note, if you will, that the IMDb entry for Charlie Chaplin does not include "Felix in Hollywood", because he wasn't in the movie. The only way one can put "Felix in Hollywood" in this article is if one writes an entirely new section titled "Depictions of Chaplin in Film", or something. That list would include this cartoon, "Chaplin" starring Robert Downey, and "The Cat's Meow" starring Eddie Izzard as Chaplin. In fact, you would have to include every film and television program on this list. Vidor (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I'd say it belongs, either in the list as Gwythoff prefers or as a stand-alone "See also" item. — Athaenara ✉ 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes I don't understand Wikipedia or Wikipedians. To review: 1) Charlie Chaplin did not direct this film. 2) Charlie Chaplin did not produce this film. 3) Charlie Chaplin did not appear in this film. 4) Charlie Chaplin did not write this film. 5) Charlie Chaplin did not draw any of the artwork in this film. 6) Charlie Chaplin, in fact, was not involved in this film in any way, shape or form.
- This isn't a matter of opinion or something that should be debated. You, the both of you, are simply factually wrong. Vidor (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't understand Wikipedians because an encyclopedia has more interpretive abilities and nuance than a machine readable, relational database. I've moved it into a "see also" section. Will this appease you? Can we get back to enjoying Chaplin now? --Gwythoff (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can only say that whether or not Charlie Chaplin was involved in "Felix in Hollywood" is not a matter for interpretation and nuance. He wasn't. The end. I would not put it in the article at all if it were up to me alone, but I have no problem with the "See also" compromise. However if that section is going to remain in the article I suggest it be augmented with other portrayals of Chaplin or the Tramp on film, namely Robert Downey Jr. and Eddie Izzard as noted above. Vidor (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Academy Awards
editIn terms of Academy Awards this is how it should be.
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Best Production | Not Nominated |
| Best Director of a Comedy Picture | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as The Tramp | Not Nominated |
| Best Writing (Original Story) | Not Nominated |
Instead of being nominated the Academy removed Chaplin from the competitive awards and gave him a Special Award and the citation says. To Charles Chaplin, for versatility and genius in acting, writing, directing and producing The Circus.
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Outstanding Production | Not Nominated |
| Best Director | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as The Tramp | Not Nominated |
| Best Writing (Original Story) | Not Nominated |
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Outstanding Production | Not Nominated |
| Best Director | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as The Tramp | Not Nominated |
| Best Writing (Original Story) | Not Nominated |
| Best Music (Scoring) | Not Nominated |
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Outstanding Production | Nominated |
| Best Director with Wheeler Dryden | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as Adenoid Hynkel/The Barber | Nominated |
| Best Writing (Original Screenplay) | Nominated |
| Best Music (Original Score) | Not Nominated |
Meredith Willson was nominated for Best Music (Original Score)
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Best Motion Picture | Not Nominated |
| Best Director | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as Henri Verdoux | Not Nominated |
| Best Writing (Original Screenplay) | Nominated |
| Best Music (Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture) | Not Nominated |
To Charles Chaplin, for the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century.
| Academy Award | Result |
|---|---|
| Best Picture | Not Nominated |
| Best Director | Not Nominated |
| Best Actor as Calvero | Not Nominated |
| Best Writing (Story and Screenplay - based on material not previously published or produced) | Not Nominated |
| Best Music (Original Dramatic Score) | Won |
Won with Raymond Rasch and Larry Russell
I rest my case. Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
why is hidden section "Addendum"???85.117.49.205 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Home cinema releases
edit50ft 8mm cine films were released, consisting of plots created by cutting down already short Chaplin films.
In the UK Dixons released these under their "Kings of Comedy" series.
Example: Charlie on the Beat
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC).
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charlie Chaplin filmography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112221027/http://www.silentcomedians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14370 to http://www.silentcomedians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14370
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Edits made
editI made two edits that I think are safe: the reference to "his last nomination" for Oscar being in 1947 was incorrect and contradicted a statement made only two sentences earlier referring to the 1972 music nomination for Limelight, so I added a "notwithstanding Limelight" statement. Second, the reference to National Film Registry said "as of 2011". I checked the list and no Chaplin films have been added since then, so I updated this to say as of 2019. 136.159.160.124 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)