best film: City Lights wins but Modern Times with the stroll off into the sunset ending is runner-up. Chaplin was no visual master behind the camera, but there are few, if any, more poignant moments in cinema than Virginia Cherrill’s character (simply listed as “a blind girl”) realizing it is Chaplin who has been her rich (supposedly) benefactor at the climax of City Lights. It is extremely affecting and well-earned drama. The glorious ending of Modern Times and the supreme brilliance of Chaplin’s roll dance in The Gold Rush could really come in any of his films – but the moment of emotional payoff in City Lights is unsurpassed because of what Chaplin built up the rest of the film leading up to that moment.
Chaplin evoking a devastating amount of sorrow in City Lights (1931)
best performance: The Gold Rush, City Lights and Modern Times all warrant consideration. Chaplin was a magnificent performer – not a great director overall (especially considering the high quality of the movies he made) – but he got better as a director as he went along (at least within his peak stretch run – for example, he is much stronger in Modern Times in 1936 in comparison with Gold Rush in 1925). The Gold Rush succeeds almost entirely because of Chaplin the actor.
“the roll dance” sequence from The Gold Rush
stylistic innovations/traits: Charlie Chaplin made many silent short films before his feature debut (and it is a stretch calling that a feature at 68 minutes) with The Kid in 1921. Including The Kid and from that point on, Chaplin appears in only ten (10) films total where he it is not a cameo or uncredited extra type role. He was a perfectionist. This challenges Daniel Day-Lewis on a per-film average quality. Chaplin also challenges Marlon Brando in terms of just being a pure artist as an actor – even Chaplin’s detractors, would have to acknowledge his aptitude and gifts. The 5’5 Chaplin was not the director Buster Keaton was – no doubt on that – but Chaplin is the stronger actor. Keaton had his trademark deadpan – Chaplin’s style was much more highly expressionistic with his facial features. He was also basically a ballerina physically (the genius beach ball globe sequence in The Great Dictator). Chaplin has this huge head/face and was short – so it was almost like he physically constructed in a lab to provide the expressions of an actor (a silent actor of course) while being so nimble and elegant in his physical comedy. He created his main persona – “The Tramp” of course which is essentially the character he plays in each of his best five (5) performances so from the very beginning in film history there is a proud lineage for the actors who effectively play versions of themselves or variations on the same character (from John Wayne to Tom Cruise) from film to film. Chaplin is by far the main reason, as an actor, that his films were as good as they were (again he never worked with a director artist on the level of D.W. Griffith, Sergei Eisenstein, Buster Keaton, or F.W. Murnau). That is such a compliment to Chaplin the actor.
Chaplin’s run from 1925 to 1936 rivals Daniel Day-Lewis’ stretch from 2002 to 2017 where every film he acts in is an event.
directors worked with: Charlie Chaplin (10) – just a cameo in his own A Woman of Paris but he is technically in it. It is hard to overstate how heavily Chaplin the director is dependent on Chaplin the actor.
Chaplin – the master of pathos – opposite young Jackie Coogan in 1921’s The Kid.
top ten performances:
- The Gold Rush
- City Lights
- Modern Times
- The Kid
- The Circus
- The Great Dictator
- Monsieur Verdoux
- Limelight
- A King in New York
- Show People/A Woman of Paris– uncredited/cameo
Chaplin’s “globe dance” sequence from The Great Dictator (1940).
archiveable films
| 1921- The Kid |
| 1923- A Woman of Paris |
| 1925- The Gold Rush |
| 1928- Show People |
| 1928- The Circus |
| 1931- City Lights |
| 1936- Modern Times |
| 1940- The Great Dictator |
| 1947- Monsieur Verdoux |
| 1952- Limelight |
| 1957- A King in New York |
The most iconic actor. My top 5 :
1 – The Gold Rush
2 – Modern Times
3 – City Lights
4 – The Great Dictator
5 – The Kid
Hi, Drake! What is, for you, to be a good actor?? what do you analyze on movies to recognize good or bad acting??
@Tozoco- Thanks for the question- good one. I’ll move out the way and let others chime in if they see the question and have an answer. I have been trying to articulate a little bit on this on each page here as we go along. If you have time to read some of the pages – I try to put some of those qualities in the stylistic innovations/traits section especially
@Tozoco – I think seemingly straight forward questions like this can be quite difficult to answer sometimes. I think its worth pointing out that when people evaluate a performance its not usually in isolation meaning that a critic watching a new film will consider a lot of context in evaluating a performance such as prior performances by that actor/actress, how the performance fits into the particular film’s mood/style/atmosphere. A performance by a particular actor/actress might not work due to their being miscast for the role. Determining how much blame lies with the limitations of a particular actors/actress vs the director or producers for the miscast is a question that I’m sure would produce a variety of answers.
On the contrary, if someone watched a film with no prior knowledge of the actors/actresses involved or the director and were asked to objectively evaluate the performances I think that would be a very different scenario. I guess some of these questions would get into the question of what exactly is “acting talent”. I brought up this particular subject on the Marlon Brando page in response to a statement about him being the most talented actor. I was not disagreeing with the claim but curious myself about the concept of “acting talent”. Sorry if this reponse just produces more questions than answers ha. Like I said, these very open ended questions often do that. Thats just my opinion anyway.
It’s hard to explain but Brando is so natural, the most talented for me yes. It’s look so easy for him when actors like DeNiro or Day-Lewis, I see the preparation. I don’t know if I’m clear.
@KidCharlemagne- Clear to me- I know exactly what you mean
@KidCharlemagne – yes, On The Waterfront (1954) may be the ultimate example of this, and I don’t mean just as far as Brando films go but rather any film
yeah, i know what you mean! but i don’t even understand how these people act. like , for example, it is so much easier to be thor in a marvel movie than to perform daniel Plainview in There will be blood. I just wanted to understand how you would rank the best actors in the cinema history, like does Robert De Niro express more emotions than Daniel Day Lewis?? so that is why De Niro is the best actor of all time, in drake’s opinion?? i don’t know how to begin ranking those guys
For me. It’s not just acting talent because these guys are giant. Between a top 1 (DeNiro) & a top 7 (Day-Lewis) what’s the difference ? They are acting gods. And I don’t think anyone can play everything. Do you imagine DeNiro in a John Wayne role ? Or Tom Cruise doing Laurence Olivier (or the other way : Olivier in The Searchers or DeNiro in Minority Report ?).
How do I ranking these guys ?
Well, I think DeNiro played in more better movies than Day-Lewis (too picky, it’s help him maybe but DeNiro doesn’t need 5 year break.
In 5 years, he’s cooking Johnny Boy, Vito Corleone, Travis Bickle, Michael Vronsky).
It’s case against case. For exemple Pacino/Nicholson are very similar. In acting style, resume and i do prefer Nicholson but when you looking for greatest movie/character/performance ever. The two Godfather movies came first and break the tie (for me).
@Tozoco – I think an actor’s resume is the most important if you are going to attempt to make lists like the ones of this site. Given your comments on the PT Anderson page I take it your a big fan of his work, as are many others on the site myself included.
Range – The late great Philip Seymour Hoffman, think of how different his characters are in the PT Anderson films. There is his megalomania character in The Master compared to his meek characters in Magnolia or Boogie Nights, compare this to his hilarious performance in Punch Drunk Love
Physical – Tom Cruise is an actor with tremendous physical abilities (known for performing his own stunts in movies like Mission Impossible) but even in a film like Magnolia that with his hilariously over the top character, the way he moves on stage to doing a backflip, he has an undeniable physical presence
Screen Presence – This one is a bit hard to define but a great actor can enter a scene and the viewer is naturally drawn to the character sometimes for reasons outside of plot. Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood has a power presence beyond the fact that he is the main character/protagonist. You could even argue his presence is so powerful that it almost becomes a sort of problem as he blows everyone else off the screen, for the record I like Dano’s performance but some would argue against it. It’s certainly on a lesser level but I think Burt Reynolds performance in Boogie Nights is an example of powerful screen presence, his character has a natural authority to him in the way he carries himself
Ability to Change Gears – Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love is a good example I think. PT Anderson deserves credit for the risky casting decision that paid off big time. PT Anderson uses the Sandler “manchild persona” he demonstrated in 90s comedies and uses it creatively. Sandler is brilliant in that film as he is frequently shifting gears going from sad and pathetic to a maniac to highly vulnerable and oddly charming and even romantic.
Ability to Create Empathy – Julianne Moore in Boogie Nights is a good example, the scene where she loses all custody of her child is gutting even if she deserved it for bringing her child an environment of drugs and pornography. Yet, I think its easy to emphasize with her character regardless of how one may feel about her lifestyle
Ability to disappear within a role – If you had not known it otherwise, would you realize that Daniel Plainview and Reynolds Woodcock are played by the same actor, Daniel Day Lewis
I don’t agree James. I think his Phantom Thread character had a nasty side to him. A better comparison would be Gangs of New York(Bill the Butcher) and Lincoln(Abraham Lincoln)
Yes, I am! I am a big fan of all pta’s movies. And pta always work with really good actors so that go me thinking about each actor’s perfomance in pta’s films, for example Joaquin Phoenix i don’t really know why everyone says his perfomance in The Master is way better than in Joker. I just wanted to know how you guys judge that, how do you guys say that is clear that Joaquin phoenix is way better on The Master, because it is not clear for me
@Malith – That’s a good example for sure. Reynolds Woodcock certainly has a nastiness to him like Plainview but he moves, looks, dresses, and speaks very differently in terms of both accent and cadence. And while its true that they are both meglomaniacs they conduct themselves very differently and live in very different worlds.
@James-They are both great performances. Although I personally don’t like his Reynolds Woodcock character and his mannerisms. It’s my least favorite DDL performance. But it’s a stretch to say they can’t be played by the same actor. Then you can say that about most actors’ different performances. Every character is a bit different. There are better examples than that I think. Even’s DDL’s Last of the Mohicans performance and his Phantom Thread performance are totally different. Apart from the above mentioned Lincoln and Gangs of New York characters.