Chaplin. Chaplin’s filmography suggests a much better fate than where I’ve got him at here– sitting at #80. . I’m lower on most of his films than the TSPDT consensus so that’s one thing. Even so, I would have him rated as #30 if I were just using my filmography points system (TSPDT has Chaplin as the #15 rated director of all-time—which I find to be preposterous). He’s clearly a style-minus director- one of, if not the overall lowest on this list. As I’ve said and hinted at before he’s clearly one of the 5-10 greatest screen performers/actors of all-time in any era (I’ve got him at #9). He’s just not that great a director and over time I see him falling down this list, not working his way up it. To end positively here though, his films are filled with some of cinema’s most iconic images and scenes: the dinner roll dance in The Gold Rush,, the bounce with the globe in The Great Dictator and the walkaway to conclude Modern Times. He was also remarkably consistent. He only directed 11 feature films. 10 are archiveable (the only one was made in 1967 when he was nearly 80), 5 are in the top 100 of their respective decade and from 1925-1940 he went –MP, MS, MP, MP, MS—impressive.
Best film: City Lights is a giant masterpiece. Its romanticism is set up formally– and well-earned.
total archiveable films: 10
top 100 films: 1 (City Lights)
top 500 films: 4 (City Lights, Modern Times, The Gold Rush, The Circus)
top 100 films of the decade: 5 City Lights, Modern Times, The Gold Rush, The Circus, The Kid)
most overrated: He’s got plenty. Limelight #508 of all-time on TSPDT. … Gold Rush at #71….Monsieur Verdoux at #272… I’ll pick Limelight since I’d rather not attack some of the others that I like so much. Limelight is a simple recommend and there are easily 12-15 better films from 1952 alone that I’ve seen and rated.
most underrated: The Circus– This is Chaplin’s 8th highest rated film on TSPDT. I have it at #4. The Circus was made at the height of his powers between Gold Rush (1925) and City Lights (1931) and though this film isn’t as good as those two its way better than some of his overrated later works.
gem I want to spotlight: Modern Times. This has really been the one film of his that has grown on me over the years. It’s a perfect film and his brilliant sheep to the slaughter opening and iconic tramp walk off finale. A brilliant satire.
stylistic innovations/traits: Here’s the problem for Chaplin. When, if ever, have I ever felt compelled to compare another filmmaker (again filmmaker key word) to Chaplin? It rarely happens—I guess occasionally when talking about the power of the close-up but more often it’s as an insult when talking about being stale behind the camera, simply setting the action in front of the camera or sometimes when talking about sentimentality—not good. He was detailed and exacting and must be praised for the way he framed his action and worked on choreography but he’s no great stylistic influencer and after all this is a list of great directors. As a director it’s hard to even compare him to other “style-minus” directors on this list who likewise made great films like Wilder or Lumet. Their imagery is stronger. However, his oeuvre is truly impressive—I really can’t omit Chaplin completely or drop him further when you look at and compare the end results (the films).
top 10
- City Lights
- Modern Times
- The Gold Rush
- The Circus
- The Great Dictator
- The Kid
- Monsieur Verdoux
- A Woman of Paris
- Limelight
- A King in New York
By year and grades
| 1921- The Kid | HR |
| 1923- A Woman of Paris | R |
| 1925- The Gold Rush | MP |
| 1928- The Circus | MS |
| 1931- City Lights | MP |
| 1936- Modern Times | MP |
| 1940- The Great Dictator | MS |
| 1947- Monsieur Verdoux | R |
| 1952- Limelight | R |
| 1957- A King in New York | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Hey Drake, just curious as to how your filmography points system (Mentioned one the first paragraph) works when you’re comparing the filmography of different directors?
@Joel- well I use the top 500 of all-time (and the top 100 of each individual decade as a backup) to score each director’s filmography. I use that as the main skeleton for this director’s list
Could we see your filmography rankings one day?
@James- sure– but it is pretty easy to do by taking the top 500 films and then the best of the decade lists. But I can share them- no big secret
Hey drake ! I’ve just recently discovered your website, it’s easily the best on the internet. It’s very impressive. However, how could Chaplin only be the 83th best director of all time with three masterpieces ? Even if his camera work lacks of originality as you said (and that’s clearly the case), I think he’s undoubtedly a top-20 director : screenplay, rythm, scenery, emotional power, perfect control on the creative process… He even was a brilliant self-taught composer.
@Virgile- thanks for visiting the site, the kind words, and your comment here. Much appreciated. Certainly many would agree with you on Chaplin. Top 20 seems awful high given his obvious limitations as a visual filmmaker. And we’re talking about a visual (largely) artform. Just out out of curiosity which of the top 20 on my list would you slide down to make room for Chaplin?
You list Chaplin’s The Gold Rush as an MP and Kazan’s On the Waterfront as an MS. Although I must admit that I have not seen The Gold Rush, these grades do not align with points you have made about each film:
On Chaplin’s actor page, you state, “In [The Gold Rush] he almost forges a masterpiece strictly in front of the camera.” This is written in the performance section, so I assume you mean that his performance is what solely lifts the film to masterpiece level. On Kazan’s director page, you state, “Of course [On the Waterfront is] Brando, but it’s also brilliant writing […] and great photography that hinges on the key decision of Kazan to shoot on location.” This implies that the 1954 movie possesses something positive that The Gold Rush does not that is unrelated to the lead performance. With this information, Chaplin’s performance in his 1925 film would logically have to be superior to Brando’s in order for the silent comedy to surpass On the Waterfront’s grade. However, while you have each performance ranked as the single greatest one for its respective actor, I believe it is fairly clear that Brando’s work is greater. To use your own words once more, “Raging Bull is the best screen performance of all-time. I’d listen to arguments (and probably have made a few myself over the years) on a handful of others focusing mainly on: Brando in On the Waterfront, Marie Falconetti in The Passion of Joan of Arc, Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood.” You have also said, “[Brando]’s the most talented actor of all-time.”
How can The Gold Rush be superior to On the Waterfront if the leading actor is the greatest strength of each, yet Brando is greater than Chaplin?
@Graham- very good point overall- but you’re making a few leaps there aren’t there– “in front of the camera” isn’t entirely performance– but I’m probably overrating The Gold Rush — I just don’t want to move it down without another look at it
If one were to argue that cinematic greatness lies in the emotions a film arouses in the audience, then I would absolutely see the case for Chaplin as one of the greatest directors of all time. The problem is, an emotional connection is intangible and nearly impossible to objectively gauge; the only real way to objectively criticize an artwork is on the pure technical skill that went into its creation, and I just don’t see the argument that Chaplin had very much technical skill from behind the camera. It feels strange making this argument because I actually love Chaplin’s films on a personal level: the humor and the pathos and the music/effortless rhythms place me in such a bittersweet nostalgic reverie that is difficult to describe; However, unlike Keaton’s films, they are almost completely bereft of visual ambition, and I think they need more than just great narratives, acting, and music to be mentioned in the same breath as The General or The Graduate, or any of the other great comedies. Am I missing something here?
@Max- You are not missing anything here– this is spot on
The “technical skill” separate from how it affects the audience? So the best directed film would be always the most complicated and flashy, aka “ambitious”? Any director interested in realism is SOL when it comes awards season.
To me, good directing is choosing and composing the shot most appropriate for the scene in its ability to do exactly what you say should not be taken into account: affect the audience. Sometimes that’s very simple, like standing back and watching a man steal a bicycle and be captured by a crowd, cutting to his son seeing him. Sometimes that’s using a crane to watch a man put a bomb in the trunk of a car and then follow that car through the streets of a town until it blows up. One may be more complicated or flashy than the other, but they’re equal in that both are perfect for their films.
My ranking of Chaplin`s films that I`ve seen:
1. City Lights MP
2. Modern Times MP
3. The Gold Rush MS/MP
4. The Circus MS
5. The Great Dictator HR/MS
6. The Kid HR
7. Monsieur Verdoux HR
8. Shoulder Arms R/HR
9. Limelight R
10. A Dog`s Life R
11. The Pilgrim R
12. A Woman of Paris R
13. The Immigrant R
14. Behind the Screen fringe R
15. The Tramp N (nothing special)
Also 10 best Chaplin`s performances:
1. City Lights
2. The Gold Rush
3. Modern Times
4. The Great Dictator
5. the Circus
6. The Kid
7. Monsieur Verdoux
8. A Dog`s Life
9. Limelight
10. Shoulder Arms or The Pilgrim