Released seven years after
Chaplin’s last film The Great Dictator,
Monsieur Verdoux arrived after yet
another turbulent period in the actor/writer/director’s life. Based on an idea
by Orson Welles which Chaplin bought from his friend for $5,000 in 1941, the
film is loosely based on the life of a famous French bigamist and murderer
called Henri Landru. Here Charlie Chaplin plays Henri Verdoux, who after losing
his steady job during the Great Depression, marries several wealthy old women before
murdering them and stealing from their estates. Chaplin plays Verdoux as a
dapper and cunning gentleman. Charming and flirtatious he is an expert salesman
- his product, himself. Cleverly he woos unsuspecting women, keeping several on
the go at once and when money becomes tight he strikes. Speaking accurately
about his work to a neighbour he declares, “Yes I have a job. If I lose one, I
can always get another”. It’s this kind of pitch black humour that runs through
Chaplin’s darkest film and the same humour that drew mass criticism from
journalists and the public alike.
Stepping back in time for just a
moment to understand where Chaplin found himself in 1947 it’s not difficult to
see why he was given such a hard time in the press. Following several highly
public failed marriages, often with women several decades younger than himself,
Chaplin found himself in 1943 at the centre of the biggest celebrity scandal
since the Arbuckle trials over twenty years earlier. An inspiring actress who
Chaplin had privately tutored called Joan Barry had publicly declared the star
to be the father of her new born child and a paternity case was played out in
the full glare of the media that same year. Although two blood tests proved
Chaplin was not the father, the court still ordered him to pay child support
and the media backlash was something that Chaplin never really recovered from.
Added to this was Chaplin’s refusal to become an American citizen after over
thirty years of working in America
and suspicions of Communist sympathies in an ever more paranoid and right wing
country. So when in 1947 Chaplin released a film that not only did away with
his popular Tramp character but also appeared to glamorise murder and polygamy,
the knives were out.
The film itself was a commercial
failure in the US
and was even picketed and briefly withdrawn from cinemas by United Artists. The
once darling of his adopted country became public enemy number one in a series
of events which themselves would justify a film. The movie didn’t align with
the post war optimism of the United
States and the dark gallows humour was ill
at odds with American sensibilities. It made just $300,000 at the American box
office compared to the $5 million of 1931’s City Lights. It’s interesting to note that the film faired much more favourably
in Europe, grossing $1.5 million outside the US. As well as drawing criticism
when finished, the film also fell foul of the powerful Hays Code by now under
the command of the fearsome Joseph Breen. Breen’s office made substantial
changes to characters and plot which included the changing of one character
from prostitute to vagrant and the removal of any depiction of a married couple
sharing the same bed. Many other suggestions were ignored by Chaplin and to
this day the tone, suggested violence and subject matter still remain
surprisingly dark.
Monsieur Verdoux can be considered the first true Chaplin film for
several decades not to feature his iconic Tramp character. Although not present
in The Great Dictator, the character
of the Jewish barber can safely be considered an extension of the same creature.
Chaplin proves throughout the film to be a masterful actor, expertly altering
the character for his various wives and giving subtle looks to camera, letting
us in on the joke. The breaking of the forth wall is something that is
synonymous with Chaplin’s film career but away from the Tramp, it means a lot
here. We become complicit in his deeds and almost egg him on with our eyes. His
acting is sincere and well constructed and a delight to watch. Unusually for a
Chaplin film, there is a large cast on hand to help share the load. Not
unusually the standard of acting from the co-stars is not high. Martha Raye is
the only actor who appears capable of holding their own with Chaplin, playing a
vulgar, larger than life wife of the killer. Marilyn Nash looks out of her
depth and several others overact in search of comedy, failing to notice it’s
the under acting of Chaplin that is so powerful in this piece.
The comedy is pitched as black as
it comes. Chaplin once quipped that “Comedy is never far from tragedy and
horror” and he’s correct in this case. Early slapstick scenes featuring a
murdered wife’s family fall far short of laughter and it takes a long time to
settle into the rhythm of the humour. The script is witty and wicked in places
but this isn’t funny in the same way as an early Chaplin short like One A.M or A Dog’s Life. The comedy doesn’t come thick and fast and you have
to wait for it. When it comes though, the audience is rewarded with some
fantastic lines and amusing set pieces. My favourite moment of comedy comes
when Verdoux thinks he has accidentally poisoned himself. It’s one of several
excellent clowning scenes. Overall though the comedy isn’t always the primary
concern. For years Chaplin had been willing to remove wonderful jokes in favour
of improving the story of his films and it’s the story that comes first here. Verdoux’s
moment of slight redemption comes when he hatches a plan to kill using a new
poison which leaves no trace in an autopsy. Deciding to try it out on a vagrant
he meets a young girl (Nash). After hearing about the girl’s recent suffering
he has a change of heart and sends her on her way with a stomach full of food
and pocket full of money. This small change in the killer’s heart shows he
isn’t the monster he’s later made out to be but has a conscience, however small
and exhibited however late.
Chaplin makes an attempt at
showing Verdoux in a good light throughout his film (perhaps further incensing
the American public), first explaining how he lost his job after decades of
hard work and then by showing us his family, with special (if overbearing)
mention of his real wife’s disability. Verdoux isn’t a man born evil but rather
a murderer by necessity. Living in a world with high unemployment and no
chances for a man of his advancing years, he opts, like many people for a life
of crime. It’s just his crime is slightly more severe than stealing a loaf of
bread to feed his starving family. Even when tried and convicted Verdoux gives
a speech in which he states “As a mass murderer I’m an amateur by comparison”,
drawing direct contrast between his private killings and the public, state
funded killing of the Second World War. It’s understandable that this isn’t the
sort of talk an American audience wanted to hear in 1947 and even now, his
logic sounds slightly askew but it’s a brave statement for a comedian to make,
especially given the public pressure already on him.
On the technical side, Chaplin’s
film making remains largely unchanged from his early shorts. He’s still a fan
of shooting a room square on at mid distance with close-ups for dramatic or
comedic effect. His sets look magnificent with external Parisian sets looking
like the real thing. He also retains some clever techniques from his silent
days such as over cranking the camera to make it look as though he’s counting
money at super human speed. This joke is repeated a couple of times including
once with a phone book. The film quickens in pace as it progresses until the
final scenes feel frantic and exciting. The climax slows in pace though and
takes on a more solemn note. Chaplin worked on the script for several years and
indeed this was the first film for which he had a complete script and filming
schedule. Due to post war film rationing, Chaplin was no longer able to film
numerous takes over days or weeks as he had once done. As with all of his
features, Chaplin composed the score. This one successfully evokes the tone and
mood and while rather obvious is solid. Something of interest to Chaplin fans
is that his long time co-star and former lover Edna Purviance tested for the
role of Madame Grosnay but didn’t win the part. It's rumoured that she can be briefly spotted
however behind Chaplin as an extra in the garden party scene. I personally didn't spot her. One further
interesting fact about this film is that it was the first time that Chaplin had
actually grown a real moustache for a role. Although one of the most famous
moustache wearers in history, his iconic toothbrush moustache was merely a
stick on prop and it wasn’t until Monsieur
Verdoux that he grew genuine facial hair.
It’s come to that time when I
need to sum up Monsieur Verdoux.
Personally I think it’s an incredibly brave and clever film which showed
Chaplin’s impish misbehaviour to its fullest extent. He goads the censors and
public with his film and speaks to them directly in latter scenes, almost
accusing them of judging Verdoux while being complicit in the deaths of
millions. Whether this is correct is debatable but the film itself is at times
funny and dramatic though overall ever so slightly dull. It’s not Chaplin at
his best but he’s raw and angry and hungry to take people on. Despite all this,
he leaves Monsieur Verdoux as a tired
and broken man an idea which is exemplified in the closing shot of the central
character, adopting the slight gate and walk of the Tramp being lead to his
death.
7/10
You might also like
City Lights 1931
Modern Times 1936
The Great Dictator 1940
No comments:
Post a Comment