A Woman of Paris (1923)

Imagine yourself in 1923. You like everyone else enjoys going to the theater and watching the films of Charlie Chaplin as a way to entertain yourself with the hilarious antics of his famous Tramp character. Your local movie house puts up a marquee for A Woman of Paris along with the big name of "Charles Chaplin." You think that this sounds like a great bit of fun to watch a film with Charlie Chaplin in set in Paris, so you go only to find out that the movie is a serious drama and does not even feature Chaplin, rather he was a behind the camera for this picture. Well that is exactly what happened with most people that lined up to see this film, which led to the movie being a failure only to come full circle nearly a half a century later.

Chaplin of course was a world renowned motion picture icon, loved by millions, bringing joy and laughter to audiences, but behind the small mustache and big floppy shoes of the Tramp lies a serious filmmaker. In his first endeavor under his new company United Artists (co-founded with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and W.D. Griffith) where he would have complete control, Chaplin wrote a story that he took so seriously he would decide to not to cast himself to not distract from the  drama. So he would do everything for the film, write, direct, produce, and edit (uncredited), but not star with the exception of a small cameo made purposefully so that the audience would not even notice.

The film tells the tragic romance of to young lovers in France, Marie (Edna Puviance) and Jean, whose families both disapprove of the relationship with each other. On a night where they were to run away together to Paris and start a new life with one another, Marie would make it to the train station, but Jean upon leaving his home discovers of his father's death and stays behind to mourn with his family.

Marie would go on to live in luxury as a mistress of the wealthy Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou). As luck will have it one night Marie would be out and run into Jean. Here we see that they both realize that they are not lovers anymore, despite their feelings for each other. The fact that he did not travel with her led Marie towards moving on with her life alone, though they they are still friendly towards each other. Jean requests that he paint a portrait of Marie. The day Jean comes over to paint Marie she discovers the reason for Jean staying behind and the death of his father. From here their romance wold begin to revive. Marie grows closer to Jean and distance from Pierre. Jean finishes her portrait revealing that he painted her as she was before she moved to Paris, instead of in he luxurious clothes she wears now. Jean proposes to Marie and things look great for our two characters.

Jean returns to his humble apartment where he lives with his mother. They argue about Jean's engagement to Marie, which his mother disapproves of and while Marie is unknowingly listening in outside the apartment Jean tells his mother that his proposal was not serious. Marie is broken and returns to Pierre. Jean fails to convince Marie that he said those things to his mother simply to appease her. One night Jean would go to the exclusive restaurant Pierre and Marie are dining at sending a note to Marie to meet with him which is intercepted by Pierre. Jean and Pierre would fight for a moment concluding with Jean being thrown from the restaurant. Jean would then pull out a gun and fatally shoot himself. Upon discovering of Jean's death Marie would go over to his apartment and sob over his lifeless body which touches his mother as a sign of true love.

The film ends artistically as Marie and Jean's mother moving back to the countryside together and run a house for orphans. The poetic closing scene has Marie riding in a horse-drawn wagon as Pierre's luxury car unknowingly passes going opposite direction, as a sign of Marie separating herself from that life.

Critically the movie has been well received, as the film about the sad loss of love with beautiful imagery of emotions (especially in the final scenes), making this a great picture of its time. Sadly enough the general audience was not as pleased simply because of the lack of Charlie Chaplin in the movie. Going in the movie expecting a fun laugh and getting a serious drama was what caused this film to tank in the box office.

Chaplin, trying to further himself from simply the Tramp and attempt in producing a serious movie, would not star in his picture. He would appear as a porter at the train station for a couple of seconds, but unless you were looking for him you would not notice. He let the audience aware of the fact that he was not appearing in his own movie with the opening title cards, half unapologizing and half defending his art. The film was partially inspired by a short romance Chaplin had with actress Peggy Hopkins Joyce and their adventures in Europe in 1922, so this picture had a piece of Chaplin's heart in it. Despite the good reviews from critics the bad showing with the general audience broke Chaplin as the film would not be shown again for over 50 years. Chaplin would revisit the film in his late years as he would compose a new score for the picture(as he tended to do with his old movies during his last years of life) and reissue the movie in 1976, where audiences would rediscover it and would gain the appreciation the film would deserve.

The film was a natural progression for Chaplin. As comedic actors do (i.e. Robin Williams, Jim Carrey) going from goofy comedies to attempts of serious pictures Chaplin did the same thing. (Times never change huh?) With his short comedies to the heart-filled picture in The Kid to the full-blown serious picture A Woman in Paris, Chaplin shows the world on the screen that he is a serious filmmaker. This was always evident to those working along Chaplin, but know with the Tramp removed we, the audience, see his true skill as a visionary of the cinematic arts.

Comments

  1. I found this movie totally boring, and it made sense that Purviance disappeared from the screen after this flick stunk up the box office. Looking back, Purviance was a weak link in the early Chaplin shorts. No offense since she seems like such a sweet lady, just not a very good film actress.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quite true. Purviance was not great. The simple reason she was even in this or any other Chaplin picture was because of her romantic link to Chaplin. I assume she made things easy for him as a first time dramatic director and that is why she was cast. But as we know, Chaplin was a man that jumped from woman to woman as each one discovered how hard it was for him to be serious about a relationship when in competition with his first love, film. Boring? Perhaps. It was not great, but does provide a shimmering example to the vision into the mind of Chaplin the filmmaker in his earlier attempts. That is how I looked at it. It was just an interesting time in his vast history in the cinema an when put in that perspective I enjoy it more, but as a stand alone film, not so much.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts