Ironically, the old comedy was titled Modern Times, a 1936 movie starring Charlie Chaplin. Ask any young person today if they want to watch a black-and-white silent movie with you and I can almost guarantee they’d rather watch a new movie in color … preferably in an IMAX theater, preferably in 3D.
Am I right?
The second movie I watched was released last year – Dinner for Schmucks. It starred one of today’s more popular comedians – Steve Carell – and a pretty good actor, Paul Rudd. And of course, it was in gorgeous color. Got the picture?
See how different the two were technically? Two movies nearly 75 years apart. Modern Times was made on a budget of $1 million. Dinner for Schmucks cost $69 million to make.
 |
| Modern Times |
Chaplin was magnificent in Modern Times. That man could dance and had such control of his body during the physical sequences. Plus, his timing was immaculate.
Talk about talent. I didn’t know this, but Charlie Chaplin not only starred in the film, he also produced it, wrote it, and directed it. And … AND … he wrote the music for it, including the beautiful music that later was turned into a hit Nat King Cole song, Smile.
 |
| Dinner for Schmucks |
Dinner for Schmucks on the other hand was such an average picture. Steve Carell always seems to me to be overacting and forcing his humor. As far as I’m concerned, Dinner for Schmucks had no heart to it. While watching it, I did give a loud laugh occasionally, but didn’t smile an awful lot.
But practically all the way through Modern Times, I had a smile on my face and probably a twinkle in my eye, a twinkle replaced by a few tears at the end.
They say a comic says funny things, but a comedian says things in a funny way. Dinner for Schmucks showed me a comic at work; Modern Times showed me a comedian at work. And Chaplin didn’t even have to say anything in a funny way, he was simply … funny. Steve Carell doesn’t even come close.
Did I make any sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment