Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

252 MOVING PICTURE WORLD January 22, 192? Photo by Underwood & Underwood Charles Spencer Chaplin EVERYBODY’S having a good time with Charlie Chaplin. His private life, as disclosed by a bitter wife, is just as entertaining as his films. Of the “saddest of men” they are saying, according to their viewpoints : “He’s just like all movie people — rotten tc the core.” ‘“Kick Chaplin off the screen.” “Isn’t he the poor fool, though?” “Well, I feel really sorry for him.” And from a distance comes the whisper, “Get busy on this Chaplin case. It’s a good moral issue, just the thing we need to get us publicity and help us raise funds for our reform movement.” Charles Spencer Chaplin has arrived in New York. He is being duly interviewed. Newspapermen will be on his trail for weeks. They will note every infinitesimal detail about him. Already they report that, as he stepped off the train, he carried a copy of the Atlantic Monthly. How many people have found it significant that the erstwhile music hall buffoon should read a magazine appealing to the intellect? And yet that copy of the Atlantic Monthly is the real clue to Chaplin’s dilemma. That is because it is a real clue to Chaplin himself. With the winning of a certain measure of financial independence Chaplin became a student and, because he dreamed dreams, a The Sp otlight T urns Y ellow Reformers For Hire Are Only Eager to Seize on Chaplin, But the World Will Judge Him As An Artist and a Victim By SUMNER SMITH poet and idealist. He sought to unravel the hidden truths of life, and became restlessly discontented because he failed, as the' wisest of graybeards have failed. Principally he sought beauty. There is such a thing as a practical idealist. Chaplin lacked the logic. Like all simon-pure idealists he has come a heavy cropper. Chaplin in his library and Clemenceau at his beach home are both striving toward the same end. They delve into the profundities of life, seeking truth. Clemenceau is nearing the end of a long career replete with experience. The philosophy of the “Tiger” is clear and hard-headed. Chaplin is young and restless and tremendously discontented. He is even discontented with himself, which is a bad thing. He follows the rainbow to see where it ends, while Clemenceau studies the stars with a mathematical chart at his elbow. Chaplin loves beauty, Clemenceau fact. Chaplin’s discontentment with himself and life, and his love for beauty, have gotten him in his present fix. In this way. Let the cynics laugh, but beauty is found in woman. Love reveals beauty to dim eyes. Chaplin is an idealist who has an infinite capacity for love. He must have love so that he can see beauty. And he has not chosen mates, it seems, who are compatible. They haven’t understood him, and they couldn’t show him the way to beauty. The dreamer has to be shown. What will be the outcome of this avalanche of unfortunate publicity? People who voiced virtuous indignation over “Fatty” Arbuckle predict ignominy for Chaplin. The cases have nothing in common. Arbuckle was a comedian, Chaplin is an artist. The circumstances are much different. The theatre that advertises a defiant double bill of old Arbuckle and Chaplin pictures misses the issue. This matter is much bigger than any hostile gesture at screen censorship. We think that the public will stand by Chaplin, at least until he has had his day in court. That is not necessarily because the public will show good sportsmanship. It is because Chaplin w‘as never the swanking hero of the films but the comic target of misfortune. He was, and is, wistful and very human. So we think that the public will be fair simply because it likes Chaplin. Incipient movements to ban Chaplin films seem not to be gathering headway. Another two weeks will tell definitely. After the salaried reformers have hurled their bombs. And other politicians have had their say. On the contrary, Mrs. Clayton Sedgwick Cooper, president of the Miami Beach Women’s Club, announces that the club is petitioning theatres to show all pictures obtainable of Chaplin. She is counteracting “silly agitation which women’s clubs have taken in regard to Chaplin’s pictures.” She says that “patrons of picture theatres will be the losers if Chaplin’s films are barred.” A bit of an old Chaplin reel at the Hippodrome last Saturday aroused hearty applause. The next two weeks will decide Chaplin’s fate. We say that because we have little doubt of the outcome of the divorce suit, insofar as Chaplin’s personal reputation is concerned. He will be grilled and toasted to a turn for the edification of a vast audience. But we think his reputation will escape pretty nearly intact. What if he is held up to the world as a fool? That -will only enhance how human he is. Chaplin will carry the scats of the trial a long time. Probably a sensitive nature like his will carry them forever. It will be a good thing for him if he can remember the old saying, “The great in this world are there to amuse the public, even with their funerals.” They always have.