Movie Review: Chaplin (1992)

In the history of film, the greatest comedian, in my opinion, was Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin's films like The Kid (1922), The Gold Rush (1925), Modern Times (1936) and The Great Dictator (1938) are extremely important films for the arts. They show his genius of mixing slapstick comedy with social commentary and he was immortalised with his character of "The Tramp", which is now one of the greatest icons of film. Chaplin was a funny man but he was also a tragic one, for his pursuits of women in his personal life led to some law suits and eventually the stress that was gained from it and the pressure applied by J. Edgar Hoover for being a communist, particularly during the 1940s, led to him leaving America and not returning until 1972, where he received an Honorary Academy Award for his work, before returning to his home in Switzerland. With a life as interesting and as exciting as this, it is a little disappointing that the biopic by Richard Attenborough doesn't quite hit the mark.

There are elements of the film which are done perfectly. One of them is Robert Downey Jr. as Chaplin. The two have an uncanny resemblance and Downey Jr. plays the role of the slightly eccentric Brit to a tee. The other actors also give magnificent, larger-than-life performances, particularly Dan Ackroyd as Mack Sennett and Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks. The sets of the period are extremely detailed and give the film a rustic vibe. All-in-all, the majority of the film is well done, except for one element, which is always the most important element in any biopic: the script.

Robert Downey Jr. is an uncanny
doppelganger of Chaplin.

This isn't to say that the dialogue is uninteresting. On the contrary, this film has some excellently written lines of dialogue, especially where it concerns a party in which Chaplin refuses to shake the hand of a Nazi ambassador. No, the problem with the script is not with dialogue but with the story. This film, to me, seemed to take a lot of liberties with the Chaplin story, going to the length where Chaplin attended a fictional celebration dinner of the end of the First World War, where he comes to blows with J. Edgar Hoover, who would later become the bane of Chaplin's existence as head of the F.B.I. I can see the technique that Attenborough is trying to employ but unfortunately it doesn't work because of the fact that the film is a biopic, which means that it has to be truthful. And unfortunately, there are some scenes which I just can't believe actually happened and do benefit the plot too much. Whilst the story does stay faithful to Chaplin's timeline, from his early childhood in the slums of South London to him receiving the Honorary Academy Award, there are fabricated events made to seem as if Charlie Chaplin was a 24/7 fountain of wisdom, which is practically impossible.

The fabricated scene in which Chaplin supposedly snubs J.
Edgar Hoover at a dinner party.

Another thing that I think the film missed out on was Chaplin actually making films. There are some short scenes where we can see Chaplin working on a movie and, when it's very early on and he's on the set with Mack Sennett, it seems as though the film is going to focus on his filmmaking. However, the majority of the film is, strangely enough, more interested in his sex life, to the point where it becomes a slightly weird fascination. I don't mind the movie touching upon these elements but it's the main focus, which is not where it should have been. The filmmaking scenes, in this regard, are far too short. The Gold Rush is barely touched upon, with only a one minute scene dedicated to it. The Kid is barely there. Modern Times is only briefly glanced at. And The Great Dictator is insultingly ignored.

Chaplin is a strange film indeed. There are glows of genius that wants to escape, there are some powerhouse acting scenes and the film is, dare I say it, entertaining. But with problems with the truth and a lack of focus on what made Chaplin so great, the film falls quite flat. And there really doesn't seem to be a reason for it to exist because the man himself said that if people wanted to understand him, then they should just go and see his films. Richard Attenborough tries his damndest to make his audience pay attention, but unfortunately on this occasion, the end result had a messy script and an even messier focus.

FINAL VERDICT: 3/5