1. From class lecture, learning how these silent comedies were shot really made me understand how they became to have that certain style. By filming at a lower 8-10 frames and speeding it up to around 16 frames makes the slapstick more effective by making it weird and funny at the same time. Also knowing that Chaplin was a great director as he was an actor really made me come to respect that he was able to take control of his craft and be as successful as he was. Not many people can be seen today in film that have as much talent as Chaplin or even take on the same responsibilities as he did and that shows that he is one of the greats.
2. The article is a New York Times review of The Gold Rush. It goes into farther detail than what I could have explained. It starts by giving great insight into the films situations and relating them to Chaplin’s life experiences. Relating the cannibalism scene to his “hungry days in London” and the other scenes to some point in his life is something that makes the film even more interesting.
3. Since the article is a review, it fleshes out many of the scenes in full detail to reflect back on why Chaplin would want to convey those thoughts into the movie from his real life. It made me really think of the standard of living that took place back then and made me appreciate that I’m able to eat everyday and live in a nice house with my family. It makes it even more compelling to watch the film again and notice the things that I learned from the review and try to understand how it was like to be Chaplin in that era. The article is a great read and makes the film’s tone make sense as well as all the scenes that are supposed to get across a certain emotion.
4. Before watching The Gold Rush, I was not prepared to like it at all. For one thing, silent films are basically non-existent for my generation and seem too old for even my parents. This feeling changed when I first saw Chaplin’s character walking along the mountain in the beginning and it was really funny that he can be completely oblivious to the hazards that were present and that began to get me intrigued. I started to get what makes him so well known in the film world and with the absence of sound; you’re pleasantly drawn to the characters in a unique way that is much harder in modern cinema.
What I liked about the movie was that the ability to communicate an idea or emotion to the audience without using many pauses for words is strongly represented in this film. We as human beings mostly communicate through non-verbal signals and that gets thrown in the back when we start to bring voice into it. The way Chaplin presents his scenes to the audience is well done, especially during the scene where he is waiting for Georgia to come to dinner and he goes from being really excited to extremely saddened by the unknown joke Georgia is playing with him. Which leads me to my next point, I did not like Georgia at all.
To me, Georgia was the typical love interest, but was made to look like a total bitch. The way that she played with his heart was cruel and the Tramp didn’t deserve that. I was thinking why it made me so mad and it was because you can really identify with the feeling he is going through by seeing that he is heartbroken by his physical emotion that says much more than words. Other than that, I felt that Georgia was not that important and it was just a small bonus at the end for the Tramp after getting the real prize, millions of dollars.
In the end, The Gold Rush is a very watchable film. The silence of voice keeps your eyes glued to the screen as Chaplin gets himself into some crazy situations. The non-verbal communication between the characters and the audience is so well done and doesn’t make me wonder what it would be like if it had voice because it would probably ruin the film. I enjoyed the film and would recommend that other people make this one of their must see films.
