Modern Times (1936)

Cast: Charles Chaplin- as Charlie Chaplin (A Factory Worker), Paulette Goddard (A Gamin), Henry Bergman (Cafe Proprietor)


Director: Charles Chaplin

Genre: Comedy, Drama

The machines get us in and the machines get us out! ~Myself

They say that with the way the modern world is, they don't make saints like they used to- if they make saints at all anymore. Charlie Chaplin was no saint. Still, they don't make movie producers in Hollywood like they used to.


Modern Times was written, directed, produced, and scored by Chaplin. Not only is it one of the greatest social criticisms ever made (ranking right up there with such outstanding timely films as the Marx Brother's Duck Soup and Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove; Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb), this was also Chaplin's staunch stand against the advent of sound motion pictures, or "talkies". This film was released roughly nine years after "talkies" had come onto the scene. Chaplin considered sound in movies to be a mere fad and thought it would leave just as soon as it came. He gave credit to the intelligence of audiences and knew that people's imaginations were much more active watching silent movies than they were during sound movies.

He also thought that acting in silent movies was much more of an art because the actors were forced to convey dialogue through body language and mannerisms. Actors in talkies just had to blurt out their memorized lines.

The huge success following the release of Modern Times confirmed these ideas in his head. He brilliantly- I do not use that term loosely here- was outspoken in his opinions about talkies versus silents. This movie is more semi-silent than completely silent. There are a few lines of dialogue but each line is spoken by means of some form of mechanical device or another- i.e. a radio, a television monitor, a recording. It goes to show just how artificial, unfitting, and too mechanical Chaplin thought talking was in movies. He makes such a claim in his book My Autobiography.

Chaplin's actual voice is heard as he has a song, entirely in gibberish, towards the end of the movie.

Chaplin plays his usual "tramp" character that is stuck in the grind of daily technology. The industrial revolution has left its greasy fingerprints all over working class America. And the great depression is looming like an unmerciful villian.

Chaplin, the factory worker, is over worked and ends up having a complete breakdown. After losing his job at the factory, he does his best to find gainful employment, but he has the bad luck of always finding himself in misunderstood trouble. He even ends up in jail after being mistaken for the leader of a communist protest. Meanwhile, he happens to run into a homeless girl (Paulette Goddard- his wife at the time), who is running from social workers trying to place her in adoptive care. As the two befriend each other, they make their way through the competitive streets that are aching with depression, in search of a better life where the ever watching eye of "big brother" catches up with the both of them.

It took Chaplin three years to complete this movie. His demand for perfection and obsession to get it “just right” has made his films, especially this one, withstand time.

This was his last silent movie. Afterwards, he went on to make his first “talkie”, The Great Dictator. Chaplin’s “tramp” had met the fate that Chaplin said talking motion pictures would do to “the little fellow.” Talking killed him.

Chaplin had made movies up to the 1960’s but, except for The Great Dictator, they did not feature the famous “little fellow” with his mustache, hat, and cane. He walked down his last road in Modern Times.

~"Charlie Chaplin, King of Tragedy"...

Chaplin began his acting career in English Vaudeville. He made his first film when he joined Mack Sennett's Keystone Film Company for $150 a week. He played a swindler in his first movie short, Making a Living. In in second film, Kid Auto Races at Venice, he appeared as the " little tramp" that has since become internationally iconic.

After his contract with Keystone was up, he moved to Essanay Company where he produced 12-reel films. He worked under Essanay until 1917 when he became independant and built his own studios on La Brea Avenue in Hollywood. He made his own movies and eventually partnered up with movie giants Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford (America's sweetheart), and D.W. Griffith- the grand-daddy of the modern motion picture. Together, the four of them started United Artists, which according to *The History of Movies by B.B. Hampton,

"The corporation was organized as a distributor, each of the artists retaining entire control of his or her respective producing activities, delivering to United Artists the completed pictures for distribution on the same general plan they would have followed with a distributing organization which they did not own. The stock of United Artists was divided equally among the founders. This arrangement introduced a new method into the industry. Heretofore, producers and distributors had been the employers, paying salaries and sometimes a share of the profits to the stars. Under the United Artists system, the stars became their own employers. They had to do their own financing, but they received the producer profits that had formerly gone to their employers and each received his share of the profits of the distributing organization.”

At the start of UA, Chaplin was still under contract with First National. In order to fulfill his contract for on more picture, Chaplin filmed his iconic movie The Kid which made Jackie Coogan America's first child movie star. Coogan later became popular for his role as "Uncle Fester" in the early sitcom The Addams Family.

While under UA, Chaplin made his most famous and recognized films such as The Gold Rush, City Lights, and Modern Times.

Like many other celebrities of his time, Chaplin was accused of being a communist by Sen. Joseph McCarthey, who had produced a file on Chaplin linking him to subversive political activities as far back as 1922.

During a trip to Europe, Chaplin was informed by the U.S Government that he would not be allowed to return. He spent his last years in Switzerland, where he wrote his book My Autobiography in 1964 and made his last film, A Countess from Hong Kong, in 1967.

His 1957 film, A King in New York, was a blatent criticism of McCarthyism and American social life. After entertaining America through two world wars and into "modern times" only to be called a "communist" and then get kicked out, his bitterness was certainly understandable.

In 1972, he was allowed back into the United States to be honored with an Oscar Award for his film genious. He died in 1977.

Aside from A King in New York, other movies he made without his famous"tramp" character include Monsieur Verdoux (1947) and Limelight (1952) in which he co-starred with another silent film legend, Buster Keaton.

Chaplin receiving his Honorary Oscar (44th Oscar Awards)

*http://www.charliechaplin.com

Throw Momma from the Train (1987)

Cast: Billy Crystal (Larry), Danny DeVito (Owen), Anne Ramsey (Momma), Kate Mulgrew (Margaret), Kim Greist (Beth)

Director: Danny DeVito

Genre: Comedy/ Crime


This movie was quite the comedy in its day. It had Billy Cyrstal and Danny DeVito when they were both at the high point of their acting careers. It was also the last of the better movies for the late, great Anne Ramsey who died on my birthday (August 11) in 1988. Ramsey is most famous for both this role and her role as Mama Fratelli in The Goonies. She made a good mama, apparently.

In this picture, Larry (Billy Crystal) is a creative writing teacher who happens to be suffering from severe writer’s block. He is also peeved to the brim as his ex-wife has stolen a story idea of his and turned it into a best seller. While trying to foster another relationship, he is much too stressed with writer’s block and infuriated with his ex-wife.

Meanwhile, Larry’s student Hank (Danny DeVito) is still living with his momma. Momma is more than loving, she is downright domineering and extremely critical of her son. Hank is constantly getting ideas of how to do his mother in. He just can't get himself to do it, though.

As Hank closely observes the problems of his creative writing teacher, he decides that the two should make a pact. If he kills Larry’s ex-wife, then Larry should kill his momma. It is the perfect story line for any mystery novel. Hank is all for it and presents his idea to Larry who misunderstands. Nevertheless, Larry does the deed for Hank and now Hank is in fear of the police thinking he did it.

This was an enjoyable film. It was neat watching Crystal and DeVito play off of each other in a film where they were both still very popular. You don’t really see them much in movies anymore. Still, this movie does have an element of timeliness to it. It did have some minor sexual content, otherwise, it is very entertaining.

The Witches (1990)

Cast: Jasen Fisher (Luke Eveshim), Mai Zetterling (Helga Eveshim), Anjelica Huston (Eva Ernst- the "Grand High witch"), Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Stringer)

Director: Nicolas Roag

Genre: Family/ Fantasy

In the list of movies adopted from the books of Roald Dahl, this one has sadly fallen into the seldom remembered or completely forgotten list. It was a good movie and played out very well. Dahl's most famous book and film adaptation so far is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There have been other movies based on Dahl's books- James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, and the recently released stop-motion animation movie Fantastic Mr. Fox. But who remembers The Witches?

This was a popular movie when I was a kid. I find it hard to understand why this film has been lost, in a manner of speaking, when it had a fine cast of talented actors and actresses including the gorgeous Anjelica Huston and also British comic actor Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean). It also had the classic and always entertaining make-up and creature special effects of Jim Henson, who also was the executive producer.

The story line involving witches is very original. Instead of the generic green skin-toned wicked witch with a black pointy hat and broomstick, the witches in the film- as based on Dahl's book- are much more inconspicuous. They look and act like everyone else. Unless you know the distinct subtle features of a witch, you would never know someone was a witch if even they were standing right next to you.

The witches have one ultimate purpose in life- to destroy children. A young boy named Luke learns how to identify witches from his grandmother who claims to have had experiences with them. Of course, Luke is rather skeptical about it all, but soon finds out his grandmother knew precisely what she was talking about. According to his grandmother, witches are well organized. There is a Grand High witch who is head of all witches in the world. Nobody knows who or where the Grand High witch is, except other witches.

After his parents die in an unfortunate accident, Luke ends up living with his grandmother. After a while, she becomes sick with diabetes. To help ease their loss and for the sake of her health, they take a holiday in England and stay at a fancy resort hotel.

There, Luke accidentally stumbles upon the yearly convention of witches being held by the Grand High witch herself. She has concocted a formula design to turn children into mice and has instructed the witches of England to wipe out all children in England without exception. As Luke's presence is discovered, the witches take him and turn him into a mouse.

Despite his now short furry stature, Luke attempts to turn the tables on all the witches with the help of his grandma.

For a kid’s film, I didn't find this terribly silly or ridiculously sappy. It played out well with enough room for audiences to use their imagination- something many movies don't let audiences do these days. The effects were well done and satisfied my expectations of Jim Henson and his creature shop. I honestly think this movie falls right behind Willi Wonka in standard and enjoyment.

For more information on how to identify witches, the writer himself- Roald Dahl- informatively explains the nature and characteristics of real witches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QakMSCAhAOQ

Being There (1979)

Cast: Peter Sellers (Chance), Shirley MacLaine (Eve Rand), Jack Warden (President 'Bobby'), Melvyn Douglas (Benjamin Turnbull 'Ben' Rand)

Director: Hal Ashby

Genre: Drama/ Comedy


I am willing to bet money that the writers of the movie Forrest Gump (1994) had taken at least some of there ideas from this movie. Tom Hank's character Forrest Gump popped into my head during a few scenes in this movie.

The film is based off of the book of the same name by Jerzy Kosinski. From what I understand, Peter Sellers had read the book, called up Kosinski about turning his story into a movie as he eagerly wanted to play the role of Chance.

The story line is very original and very well thought out. Peter Sellers was very entertaining. His character seemed somewhere in between a Buster Keaton and a Fred Rogers.
Chance is a simple minded gardener for an old man in a well-to-do house in Washington D.C. Oddly, Chance has never once left the house and his only experience and knowledge of the outside world is from television. The old man has passed on and Chance is forced to the streets after the old man's lawyers ask him to leave.

With no place to go and no gardens to care for, Chance wanders the streets looking for a new garden to tend. He gets injured by a limousine and ends up under the care of a very wealthy and influential older business man, Ben, and his wife Eva.

As the couple get to know Chance the gardener, and mistakenly refer to him as "Chauncy Gardner", his constant witless deliverances of T.V. based remarks are mistaken for philosophical profoundness. When the president himself stops to visit Ben, he is introduced to Chance and mistakes his remarks about garden care for deep economic and political insight. The president ends up quoting Chance in a speech which quickly brings Chance into the public eye. His attention suddenly becomes sought after by major news and media outlets. Nobody can find any background information on Chance. While he remains influential, he also becomes quite the national enigma.

But Chance remains completely ignorant of the powerful impact he has on those around him. All he wants to do is watch television and tend to the garden.

In the meantime, Ben is very sick and on his deathbed. Also, his wife is becoming rather fond of Chance and tries to seduce him into an affair. All the while, Chance remains ignorant.

The few instances of the immoral tendencies of the upper class portrayed made it unmistakably obvious just how self-seeking powerful people in the country can be. I don't think this was necessarily part of the story, but it was there.

As I said, the story line was original. The movie moved along nicely- not too fast, not too slow. However, the only entertaining element of the movie was watching Sellers. He fit so well into the part. His childlike expressions aroused a fair amount pity for the character. It was a role unlike any other role he has played in his acting career. But other than Sellers and perhaps the social commentary behind the storyline, the movie just seemed too lacking. Much of the movie was rather bland and distasteful- particularly a scene where Chance is approached by a gay man who mistakes Chance’s ignorance as an acceptance of an "offer." I would put other Sellers movies as Doctor Strangelove or The Pink Panther before Being There. I would call it another one of the movies that I’ve seen once but probably wouldn’t watch again.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)

Cast: Sean Penn (Samuel Bicke), Naomi Watts (Marie Anderson Bicke), Don Cheadle (Bonny Simmons), Jack Thompson (Jack Jones)

Director: Niels Mueller

Genre: True crime/ drama/ history



Samuel J. Bicke is a forgotten name- not that it should be remembered in the first place- that has not even been added to the list of such people as John Wilkes Boothe, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, or even John Hinckley, Jr. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, or whether you were alive during the Nixon administration and supported Nixon or not, hopefully you're willing to appreciate that this Presidential assassination that never took place. I wonder if Sean Penn would!

I am not a fan of Sean Penn. I just want to make that clear. Still, I am willing to give credit where credit is due. With roles like this, however, I can't help but being skeptical as to why Penn would take on a role like this, knowing what his politics are!

Sam Bicke was a real person. According to the movie, he was a man unsure of himself. It seemed he was accustomed to being told what to do more so than making his own decisions. He was separated from his wife as they were trying to improve their marriage. His boss at an office furniture store would consistently harp on him to improve himself as a sales rep with too much harsh criticism at any Bicke’s flaws. Anytime he wanted someone to hear his problems, it seemed nobody really cared to listen.

He discovered that his wife was seeing someone else despite his best efforts to better their marriage. He made a sincere effort to approach the situation with his wife, but she unexpectedly filed for divorce. This hurt him straight to the core. In the meantime, he got all the more fed up with the harsh criticisms of his boss, who also constantly compared Bicke to his better co-worker. He even demanded Bicke to shave his mustache, which Bicke begrudgingly did. All his stress, depression, and bitterness towards the unfairness of life and society, he narrowed down to President Richard Nixon. To better the treatment of the everyday working man who works hard, and strives to be faithful only to end up shafted unmercilessly, was to take out the one man who had to answer for it- the president.

Bicke snapped. He came up with a plan to assassinate the president. The plan was to hijack a plane and crash into the White House. It seemed easy to Bicke at first, but it didn’t quite end up that way.

This film was certainly a depressing one. Penn generally played the role well, making the audience sympathize with Bicke's pain while seeing the harshness and violence that can result in untreated depression.

The movie was very informative, but seemed to move through the events a little too quickly. It was more like a “show & tell” rather than something historic. There was room for improvement. It didn't go into too much detail with his frustrations over Nixon, but just enough to have the title make sense. In the long run, it just seemed to be another of Penn's lame political commentaries on an era the liberals such as Penn himself cannot seem to take their heads out of.