It Factor Research Paper
“We think too much and feel too little.” -Charlie Chaplin. Charles “Charlie” Chaplin was a comedian, silent film star, and revolutionary filmmaker. Starting out living on the street, he worked his way to the top of show business in the early 1900s, and with a little luck, a bit of charisma, and a whole lot of talent he has become possibly the most famous figure in all of cinema. His films were poignant, insightful, and funny, making him enormously popular with audiences.
The goal of this research paper is to discover what made Chaplin popular at the time, and what caused his continued popularity for years to come. This also known as the “It” factor. The it factor could be many things: charisma, talent, intelligence, among others qualities. Whatever about a person that inspires or influences people. Charlie Chaplin was undoubtedly influential, so the goal is to find out why.
Libby Murphy, a French literature professor, argues in her article, Charlot Francais: Charlie, The First World War, and the Construction of a National Hero, argues that Charlie Chaplin’s film were popular in France because his Tramp character, (referred to as Charlot the Little Tramp in France). She supports this claim by first illustrating how Chaplin’s Tramp character resonated with many then modern French sensibilities, making him very popular in France, especially with the military men, who admired the Tramp’s survivalistic traits. She then illustrates his popularity farther by writing about his continuing popularity post-war, and how every person within France, from the rich to the poor, related to his Tramp character, to the point where Chaplin was thought of as a national figure in France. She finally says that if Charlie Chaplin had never reached France in WW1, when France was making very few films, other American films never would have been popular there. Murphy's purpose was to demonstrate why Chaplin was popular and how his popularity affected France. She establishes an informative tone for the students reading this article.
Chaplin’s relatability and politics weren’t the only reason he was beloved. His artistry was another important reason why people loved his films. Wes D. Gehring, a Telecommunications professor, argues that Chaplin’s continued success post-silent era was a result of his refusing to begin making “talkies” immediately and that he was a better artist for keeping his artistic . He first sets the environment by discussing how talking motion pictures were becoming all the rage in the late 20’s and early 30’s, then he discusses how Harry Lloyd and Buster Keaton, two huge silent film stars, were unsuccessful as talking film stars. Finally, he illustrates how Chaplin, by staying with silent films and making sure to keep the qualities audiences liked about him and his films, managed to have a financial and critical hit in City Lights, a film that is still revered today. Gehring’s purpose it show the news readers that Chaplin stayed with silent films for as long as he did in order to show that he was a great artist, which is what continued to attract people to his films. He sets up an admiring tone for the newsreaders to convey the respect he and many, many others have for Chaplin.
Chaplin’s artistry also attracted more than general audiences. He had the respect of many intellectuals. Sabine Hake, a German film scholar, in her article, Chaplin Reception in Weimar Germany, argues that the left-liberal intellectuals liked Chaplin due to his artistry and relatability. She supports this claim by first illustrating how Chaplin’s cinematic innovation made German intellectuals more fascinated with him, then by talking about how his comedies that drew attention to the problems within mass society also made them more interested in him, and finally by talking about how his politics and the way he spoke of them made him someone the intellectuals admired. Hake’s purpose is to show the film students reading this why Chaplin has great appeal with the German cinema in order to inform them of the political and social climate in Germany at the time. She sets up an historical and formal tone for the film students reading.
Charlie Chaplin was a great artist, as shown by the way he managed to appeal both intellectuals and the public at large. This was because he had great relatability. The effects of this relativity can be seen in a review of Modern Times, where Katherine Best says, “[Charlie Chaplin]... had come to mean an unchangeable element to us, the epitome of undefeated humanity.” As you can see, due His films were able to relate to intellectuals in terms of his artistry, and to the common man in terms of his content. Without his relatability, Chaplin never would have been as successful as he was. Even his rise to fame was relatable, with him starting out on the streets of England and ending up one of the most famous people of the early 1900’s. People wanted to route Chaplin, because they felt that Chaplin was one of them.
Many people can learn from how Charlie’s relatability. For example, politicians have a better chance of being popular if they're seen as relatable. People will feel that they’re represented in government. They could look at him/her and see that he/she cares about the same issues they do. A politician with relatability will be very popular. However, a politician who seems to think he is above the general public comes off as snooty, making it harder for them to be reelected. The best way to seem relatable to the public is to show that you’re intelligent and make sure you come off as an everyman who can relate to the people’s problems, something Chaplin did for most of his career.
Works Cited
Murphy, Libby. “Charlot Francais: Charlie Chaplin, The First World War, And The Construction
Of A National Hero.” Contemporary French & Francophone Studies 14.4 (2010):
421-429. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Gehring, Wes D. “Chaplin's “Lights” Still Shines.” USA Today Magazine 134.2730 (2006): 56.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Hake, Sabine. “Chaplin Reception In Weimar Germany.” New German Critique 51 (1990): 87.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Best, Katharine. “In the Good Old Fashioned Way.” The Stage Magazine March 1936: 24-27.
Print.
The goal of this research paper is to discover what made Chaplin popular at the time, and what caused his continued popularity for years to come. This also known as the “It” factor. The it factor could be many things: charisma, talent, intelligence, among others qualities. Whatever about a person that inspires or influences people. Charlie Chaplin was undoubtedly influential, so the goal is to find out why.
Libby Murphy, a French literature professor, argues in her article, Charlot Francais: Charlie, The First World War, and the Construction of a National Hero, argues that Charlie Chaplin’s film were popular in France because his Tramp character, (referred to as Charlot the Little Tramp in France). She supports this claim by first illustrating how Chaplin’s Tramp character resonated with many then modern French sensibilities, making him very popular in France, especially with the military men, who admired the Tramp’s survivalistic traits. She then illustrates his popularity farther by writing about his continuing popularity post-war, and how every person within France, from the rich to the poor, related to his Tramp character, to the point where Chaplin was thought of as a national figure in France. She finally says that if Charlie Chaplin had never reached France in WW1, when France was making very few films, other American films never would have been popular there. Murphy's purpose was to demonstrate why Chaplin was popular and how his popularity affected France. She establishes an informative tone for the students reading this article.
Chaplin’s relatability and politics weren’t the only reason he was beloved. His artistry was another important reason why people loved his films. Wes D. Gehring, a Telecommunications professor, argues that Chaplin’s continued success post-silent era was a result of his refusing to begin making “talkies” immediately and that he was a better artist for keeping his artistic . He first sets the environment by discussing how talking motion pictures were becoming all the rage in the late 20’s and early 30’s, then he discusses how Harry Lloyd and Buster Keaton, two huge silent film stars, were unsuccessful as talking film stars. Finally, he illustrates how Chaplin, by staying with silent films and making sure to keep the qualities audiences liked about him and his films, managed to have a financial and critical hit in City Lights, a film that is still revered today. Gehring’s purpose it show the news readers that Chaplin stayed with silent films for as long as he did in order to show that he was a great artist, which is what continued to attract people to his films. He sets up an admiring tone for the newsreaders to convey the respect he and many, many others have for Chaplin.
Chaplin’s artistry also attracted more than general audiences. He had the respect of many intellectuals. Sabine Hake, a German film scholar, in her article, Chaplin Reception in Weimar Germany, argues that the left-liberal intellectuals liked Chaplin due to his artistry and relatability. She supports this claim by first illustrating how Chaplin’s cinematic innovation made German intellectuals more fascinated with him, then by talking about how his comedies that drew attention to the problems within mass society also made them more interested in him, and finally by talking about how his politics and the way he spoke of them made him someone the intellectuals admired. Hake’s purpose is to show the film students reading this why Chaplin has great appeal with the German cinema in order to inform them of the political and social climate in Germany at the time. She sets up an historical and formal tone for the film students reading.
Charlie Chaplin was a great artist, as shown by the way he managed to appeal both intellectuals and the public at large. This was because he had great relatability. The effects of this relativity can be seen in a review of Modern Times, where Katherine Best says, “[Charlie Chaplin]... had come to mean an unchangeable element to us, the epitome of undefeated humanity.” As you can see, due His films were able to relate to intellectuals in terms of his artistry, and to the common man in terms of his content. Without his relatability, Chaplin never would have been as successful as he was. Even his rise to fame was relatable, with him starting out on the streets of England and ending up one of the most famous people of the early 1900’s. People wanted to route Chaplin, because they felt that Chaplin was one of them.
Many people can learn from how Charlie’s relatability. For example, politicians have a better chance of being popular if they're seen as relatable. People will feel that they’re represented in government. They could look at him/her and see that he/she cares about the same issues they do. A politician with relatability will be very popular. However, a politician who seems to think he is above the general public comes off as snooty, making it harder for them to be reelected. The best way to seem relatable to the public is to show that you’re intelligent and make sure you come off as an everyman who can relate to the people’s problems, something Chaplin did for most of his career.
Works Cited
Murphy, Libby. “Charlot Francais: Charlie Chaplin, The First World War, And The Construction
Of A National Hero.” Contemporary French & Francophone Studies 14.4 (2010):
421-429. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Gehring, Wes D. “Chaplin's “Lights” Still Shines.” USA Today Magazine 134.2730 (2006): 56.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Hake, Sabine. “Chaplin Reception In Weimar Germany.” New German Critique 51 (1990): 87.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Best, Katharine. “In the Good Old Fashioned Way.” The Stage Magazine March 1936: 24-27.
Print.