Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Monday, January 11, 2010

Chaplin Defends His Gold Claim

The trades ran a startling headline in April 1959. Charlie Chaplin, turned seventy that month, was reviving the Little Tramp for a new feature, his birthday present to the world. Chaplin described it as a ballet slapstick in color, complete with all the works. Cuckoo as the idea seems today, there was pathos in Charlie’s circumstance not unlike those he’d mined decades before when America loved his Tramp best of all clowns. Guess Switzerland was a lonely place, as even splendid exile was exile nonetheless. Chaplin enjoyed a world’s adulation and became fretful without it. Picking up Euro awards was scant compensation for losing a profitable US market. 1972 has been credited as the year he returned in triumph, but there were earlier (if tentative) bids, 1959 being early serious effort at re-garnering American hugs he had gone too long without. It was a busy time for CC and his lawyers in any event. Opening salvo followed close behind April's comeback bulletin. The Inwood Theatre in Forest Hills, Queens was just then running Modern Times to an often-full house. They frequently booked silents in accordance with long-standing art and oldies policy. A Washington based mouthful called International Art Production Management Company supplied the 16mm print. Court-sanctioned marshals raided the Inwood on April 14 during a Modern Times unspool with 450 patrons seated. There was nearly a fight in the booth as reels were yanked off projectors. Admissions got refunded while officers hauled off the alleged contraband. Hasty substitution found Chaplin shorts and a W.C. Fields group as following day attraction while court action filed by the Roy Export Company (Chaplin’s copyright watchdogs) and Lopert Films, Inc., a United Artists sub, claimed the Inwood horned in on a legit Modern Times engagement set for New York’s Plaza Theatre.

Gauntlets having been tossed, the Inwood now applied gas to flames and scheduled The Gold Rush for a May 8 opening. Chaplin was hot at their ticket window and receipts warranted taking a chance. The International Art Company was again source for their print. Modern Times had meanwhile opened at the Plaza to sock business ($20,000 the first week and nearly as much for a second). It looked like public opinion was softening toward lightning rod Charlie, his political and State Department woes retreating back in collective memory. Modern Times was Lopert-booked into the East Side’s Victoria Theatre in addition to its Plaza stand. We want to insure the longest possible run for the film, said a company spokesman. Chaplin shorts done eons previous for Mutual, Essanay, and even Keystone were competing in revival closets all over Greenwich Village. Interest in the comedian’s latest, A King In New York, was stoked for his backlog ruling art house screens, but Charlie said nix to a US release. He’d not make the two year completed feature available stateside, even as plans kept apace toward reviving his Tramp persona. International Art meanwhile sought to widen The Gold Rush to nationwide patronage, their Boxoffice trade ad renaming the Washington firm Film Masterpieces for purpose of scoring dates. They called theirs The Original Full-Length Comedy Masterpiece, and indeed it was nearly that, for this was Chaplin’s 1925 version and one quite different from his official 1942 re-cut that had been in near-exclusive circulation over the past seventeen years. International/ Film Masterpieces’ trade ad broke the first week of June, just as Lopert was planning their own engagements of The Gold Rush to follow up on successful Modern Times. Here was further occasion to clear mats for another courtroom drag-out.

June 3 saw Lopert’s announcement of an original, uncut "The Gold Rush" to be blanketed in theatres across the country over following weeks, adding that this was the only production print of "The Gold Rush" which Chaplin has authorized for exhibition in the United States. There were also negotiations with Roy Export for a package of shorts to be called Chaplin’s Parade. They’d be newly scored and include Shoulder Arms, A Dog’s Life, and The Pilgrim, the trio having been out of theatrical circulation since the silent era. Chaplin was said to be preparing music and narration to juice these for a new audience. But what about the black eye he was getting for a bootlegged Gold Rush smelling up US theatres? Prints out of International/Film Masterpieces were available in 35mm, but paled beside Chaplin’s 1942 version, despite International’s being actually more complete than his own. Lopert knew they’d have to vanquish these in order to click with a sanctioned Gold Rush (scheduled to begin July 22 at more than a score of metropolitan area theatres), and toward that end sought an injunction to halt further outlaw runs of the 1925 classic. This was in mid-June as International/ Film Masterpieces had a print running at the Grande Theatre in upper Manhattan. Lopert alleged unfair competition and trade practice against International /Film Masterpieces, its head of operations Robert B. Fischer, and the Grande. A major chink in Lopert’s armor was Chaplin having failed to renew his 1925 silent version of The Gold Rush after its initial twenty-eight year term of copyright protection, which expired in 1953. He was out of the country by that time, and US Chaplin offices were more or less dormant. The 1942 reissue, with score and narration added then by the comedian, had been properly registered, but courts wouldn’t be persuaded that The Gold Rush in all its incarnations should be exclusive to Chaplin. A final order enjoined Film Masterpieces and others from exhibiting Modern Times and fourteen other Chaplin films controlled by the Roy Export Company (with specific exclusion of The Gold Rush). Turned out International/ Film Masterpieces was infringing beyond Modern Times to encompass City Lights, The Great Dictator, The Kid, and others from Chaplin’s library. Runs and playdates in New York, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington were thus shut down or cancelled, giving Chaplin/Lopert at least the appearance of emerging from the fight victorious, despite their 1925 Gold Rush being adjudged in the public domain.

The Gold Rush of 1925 became the version a coming generation would know best. Any group or institution with a print could run it for free or profit. Paul Killiam found 35mm elements and made his scored rendition available. Collectors could acquire The Gold Rush from Blackhawk, Griggs-Moviedrome, or any dealer with a bathtub. Quality varied, but ones I saw looked OK. This was, after all, the only major Charlie Chaplin feature we could get on 8mm. My friend Brick Davis bought those nine little reels from Jack Hardy at the old Silent Cinema Service back in 1969 and we were thrilled to finally see the legendary film for which Chaplin most wanted to be remembered. Sellers used to compete by claiming their Gold Rush to be the most complete anywhere. One I recall touted the inclusion of a rare assayer’s office scene where Charlie redeems his gold. Collectors redeemed theirs for opportunity to possess a definitive Gold Rush (as I recall, Brick’s print cost about $40). Multiple vendors were panning for whatever dust lay visible as dupes were dredged from ones that had been duped before. When Chaplin reissued his backlog to theatres in 1972, we finally had opportunity to see The Gold Rush as Chaplin reassembled it in 1942. My disappointment over that was acute. It seemed he had ruined a great show with intertitles shorn and narration spoiling the gags. I came out of Greensboro's Janus Theatre convinced that The Gold Rush was truest only in its 1925 incarnation.

Chaplin out of the public domain continued doing business. Theatres right through the sixties and some into the seventies booked various Cavalcades and Carnivals made up of shorts from the teens, while even Tillie’s Punctured Romance filled lower berths (as here) when showmen opted for old-time laffers. New 35mm prints of Tillie were tendered in 1959 by Continental Distributing as means of cashing in on Lopert’s profit-making runs, as certainly no one could claim exclusive rights in Mack Sennett’s 1914 antique. When home video later came to the fore, calls went out for a proper restoration of The Gold Rush. Kevin Brownlow and David Gill took on the project on behalf of Chaplin’s estate. Gill wrote a terrific article about complications of that for Griffithiana (#54 --- October 1995), a film journal difficult to find in back issues. One notable thing Gill mentioned was a 35mm print they had found of The Gold Rush that originated with a man called Bob Fischer, a former associate of Raymond Rohauer. That last part intrigued me as I assume this was defendant Robert B. Fischer from the 1959 lawsuit. What I had not realized was Rohauer’s behind-the-scenes involvement with International/ Film Masterpieces. Turns out Rohauer acquired his source material for the 1925 Gold Rush when he, according to David Gill, bought up all the film Chaplin slated for destruction after he was prevented from returning to the states in 1952. Rohauer claimed to have assembled his Gold Rush from outtakes Chaplin discarded, adding that this was basis for prints he distributed into the sixties. As to present ownership status of The Gold Rush, there are clouds gathered as result of 1994’s passage of an expanded GATT treaty. Chaplin’s estate has used that to argue renewed exclusive rights in the film. Several proposed runs of the 1925 version have been blocked after letters from counsel representing the heirs. Would it be worth anyone’s time and considerable expense to duke this out in court? Little has changed over fifty years since Chaplin tried scuttling would-be exhibitors of The Gold Rush, other than legal issues becoming, if anything, cloudier and more unresolved.

More on the 1942 reissue of The Gold Rush in Greenbriar's Archive here.


Blogger Dennis Cozzalio said...

Hi, John!

It's my pleasure to bestow upon you a very special honor. Come on over and see what it is!

2:09 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Thank you very much for recognizing me at your fine site, Dennis. I'll be away from my screen until tomorrow, but will read your post more closely as soon as I get back. And congrats again on your own recent fifth year online!

3:40 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The Chaplin estate has definitely scuttled a few showings of THE GOLD RUSH, but there are dozens each year that still go on in the USA. I'd like to see someone take the Estate on in court, but it would be expensive for both sides. It is unlikely that either side could afford it and only the lawyers would win.

9:55 PM  
Anonymous r.j. said...


Re today's masthead, was Edward G. Robinson M-G-M?

I knew a wonderful girl a few years back named Lucy Saroyan, who was the daughter of William Saroyan, and the step-daughter of Walter Matthau. I deeply reggret to say she has since passed away, at a very young age. Her mother, whose name I believe was Carol, was Oona O'Neill's best-friend when both attended school together in Switzerland, I think (something like that).

Anyway, Lucy told me once that occasionally her mother would go back to visit the Chaplins' in Vevey, and she'd take Lucy along. I asked her what he was like. "He liked to sit and watch his old movies", she said. "And he'd laugh his head off."

John, I think it would be safe to say that if you or I had had his money, we'd be sitting there laughing our heads off too, even if no movie was running!

11:39 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

I'd heard that Chaplin was his own most appreciative audience for Chaplin movies. Also read that his kids preferred Laurel and Hardy.

Thanks for that great anecdote, RJ!

9:09 AM  
Blogger Mike Cline said...

I'm in the same league as Chaplin's kids. I'll take L&H anytime.

The best Chaplin movie I ever saw is CHAPLIN with Robert Downey Jr.

9:34 AM  
Blogger Christopher said...

other than City Lights,Modern Times,The Kid..give me Laurel and Hardy anyday for genuine gut busting..

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoy Chaplin's features (though not nearly as much as Keaton's). But for me, the best stuff Chaplin ever did were the Mutual shorts. Those are on par with Keaton's shorts--I could watch them again and again (and have!)

12:57 PM  
Anonymous r.j. said...


Iam totally with you boys as re. Laurel & Hardy as a preference. I really find I don't have the patience with Chaplin I used to. However, having said that, you did induce me, because of this, to fish out my little VHS of "The Gold Rush" and watch it again the other night. The copy I have is the '42 reisuue version, and much as I hate to say it, the narration doesn't bother me a bit. I really don't care for how Chaplin re-cut the scene where he and Swain (in the original) kept missing each in the saloon, and how that entire section is re-edited down to the bone. And, no doubt there are other missing pieces I've forgotten, but I gotta tell ya, John, I found myself much to my own surprise, really enjoying it and laughing out loud several times. I think, the Mutual shorts aside, this is by far his best and most carefully-structured film. And, something else I had forgotten, which turned out to be an equally nice surprise, is I had had the smarts to put Laurel & Hardy's "Below Zero" on the same tape as curtain-raiser!

One final note here: Since you're more angled onto the "exhibition side" of the business, you may be interested to know that my formal intro to Mr. Chaplin was a revival of "Modern Times" when I was about 9 or 10 at The Beverly Canon, a little art -- foreign film -- theatre in Beverly Hills. A man named Ed Harris, the resident manager, was a good friend of my Dad's, and my father had me literally drooling over the upcoming bill-of-fare after "Modern Times": "The Great Dictator", "City Lights", et al. None of which had been theatrically, (at least in Los Angeles), shown in many years. But, sadly the whole thing ended quietly (and unceremoniously) after "Modern Times" completed its' engagement. Really disappointed, I asked my father why. He told me that Ed Harris had told him that Chaplin simply wanted terms that were impossible for him to meet and hope to break-even with: 50% of the take were his terms, plus a hefty rental fee. Under such conditions, and even though "Modern Times" had had an extended run, it just wasn't worth The Beverly Canon's while.


10:35 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

This is great stuff as always from you, RJ. I really enjoy hearing about terms theatres got from such bookings. Thanks for providing this insight into one showman's experience dealing with the Chaplin group.

9:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024