j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Gurdjieff is not an art critic I'd follow...
As a note 'black on dark grey' does not lead to clear reading... especially when a small font is used...
A friend of mine said Charlie chaplin is outdated. Opinion anyone ?
- Thread starter deleuze3
- Start date
Gurdjieff is not an art critic I'd follow...
As a note 'black on dark grey' does not lead to clear reading... especially when a small font is used...
So how can you get better at something if there are no objective criterias ?
How you get a better writer ? You need to follow a certain method, learn more about the vocabulary, read more, follow certain guidelines, follow a mentor.
If art value is subjective, art teacher is rubbish, music teacher is rubbish, because everything can equal.
There are multiple methodology, maybe subjective methodologies to get better but there are subjective methodology that doesnt work, so they must be criterias to follow.
To become a filmmaker, you can learn from the masters, from books, methodology, there is something scientific about it. You don't snap on your camera and swing around and call yourself a director. There are standards, methology for all that. not only subjective taste.
I agree, ultimately, everything is subjective, bad and wrong doesnt exist, art is subjective and in the eye of the bodybuilder, but the main thing about society is that we can judge thing and we have the power to judge everything (there are really poor judging and there are really good judging)
Painting number kit being better than Salavador Dali and Bosh is one.
Derrick Rose being a better basketball player than me is another (this is art too)
Bruce lee being better than me in martial arts is one too.
But ultimately, if you want to close the debate, wrong and good doesnt exist, art objectivity doesnt exist. But socially, in the civilisation it exist.
Example - Being bad to everyone. Ultimately, who is the judge for that ? But socially speaking, there are more arguments for saying that in a coherent society, it's better if people are nice to each other.
How you get a better writer ? You need to follow a certain method, learn more about the vocabulary, read more, follow certain guidelines, follow a mentor.
If art value is subjective, art teacher is rubbish, music teacher is rubbish, because everything can equal.
There are multiple methodology, maybe subjective methodologies to get better but there are subjective methodology that doesnt work, so they must be criterias to follow.
To become a filmmaker, you can learn from the masters, from books, methodology, there is something scientific about it. You don't snap on your camera and swing around and call yourself a director. There are standards, methology for all that. not only subjective taste.
I agree, ultimately, everything is subjective, bad and wrong doesnt exist, art is subjective and in the eye of the bodybuilder, but the main thing about society is that we can judge thing and we have the power to judge everything (there are really poor judging and there are really good judging)
Painting number kit being better than Salavador Dali and Bosh is one.
Derrick Rose being a better basketball player than me is another (this is art too)
Bruce lee being better than me in martial arts is one too.
But ultimately, if you want to close the debate, wrong and good doesnt exist, art objectivity doesnt exist. But socially, in the civilisation it exist.
Example - Being bad to everyone. Ultimately, who is the judge for that ? But socially speaking, there are more arguments for saying that in a coherent society, it's better if people are nice to each other.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
I own the Dali video biography...
There is a scene in it where he refused to go any further unless his entire crew all walk on 10-15 foot high stilts and wear giant t-shirts that go to the ground. They resisted...but all ended up doing it. Then he and his wife hatched out of an egg on the beach and started dumping milk and fish everywhere.
I'm really not joking. I have this video and he is very much serious about these acts.
Those are 2 small parts of a video that will totally screw your mind for about an hour.
Here is a link...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XkO0ysBdis
I know this may be off the current topic...but I haven't thought about that old VHS in years and had to share. Lots of late night college moments
There is a scene in it where he refused to go any further unless his entire crew all walk on 10-15 foot high stilts and wear giant t-shirts that go to the ground. They resisted...but all ended up doing it. Then he and his wife hatched out of an egg on the beach and started dumping milk and fish everywhere.
I'm really not joking. I have this video and he is very much serious about these acts.
Those are 2 small parts of a video that will totally screw your mind for about an hour.
Here is a link...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XkO0ysBdis
I know this may be off the current topic...but I haven't thought about that old VHS in years and had to share. Lots of late night college moments
Last edited:
alex whitmer
Veteran
First thing you need to do is dump your friend. That kind of idiocy is bound to bring you misery and humiliation.
Music, painting, writing ... and more recently filmmaking ... these human endeavors build over the milenium, with each new discovery and interpretation adding to what came before. Music didn't just happen, it has been continually added to - not improved. The Beatles existed because Bach existed, and because a hundred uncelebrated pianists and harpsichordists existed. Garage grunge exists because the lute exists.
How are you going to compare Chaucer and Steven King? Are you going to feed all the data into a computer? Chaucer lived in very different times. He had to get vellum, ink and animal hairs to write, without electric lights. The mores of the time most certainly played on how and what he wrote, and why. A man's understanding of what it meant to be a woman were very different, and also no doubt played on what and why he wrote. You cannot compare him to Steven King, who would not exist if Chaucer did not exist. New methods are tried and tossed and adapted. New ideas influence how creative endeavors are presented and distributed and absorbed. Would Chaucer have been a better writer if he had access to a typrewriter, or paper? I don't know. Sometimes the simbiosis drives inspiration - like the clickity-clack of typewriter keys in a hermetic cabin; the drone and isolation trigger that stream of creative pulp. But maybe the same can be said about mixing inks, and the smells and stains and the shiny glass bottles were enough to kick in the juices.
How are you going to compare Van Gogh and Tomas Kinkade? One was a commercial joke, the other a commercial success. Does this make Kinkade the better painter? Many might think so, and hang their pride-and-joy Kinkade in thier living rooms, and hire an electrician to revamp the lighting to show it off. They never really got Van Gogh and all the fuss. For them, Kinkade is the better painter. On whose criteria will we base critical analysis? Have Van Gogh and Kinkade contributed equally to the arts?
Charlie Chaplin was pure genius, and he opened a thousand doors for film. He took chances, and he pushed envelopes, and discovered methods and perspectives for acting and writing. He would not have existed had Thomas Edison not existed, who was himself a product of codes, inventions, ideas, failures and accidents that came before him. He was a product of his own unique curiosty that had him asking questions not asked before.
Does this friend also believe Lillian Gish is old news?
Anyone who thinks the past is irrelevant can suck eggs. Dump your friend.
Music, painting, writing ... and more recently filmmaking ... these human endeavors build over the milenium, with each new discovery and interpretation adding to what came before. Music didn't just happen, it has been continually added to - not improved. The Beatles existed because Bach existed, and because a hundred uncelebrated pianists and harpsichordists existed. Garage grunge exists because the lute exists.
How are you going to compare Chaucer and Steven King? Are you going to feed all the data into a computer? Chaucer lived in very different times. He had to get vellum, ink and animal hairs to write, without electric lights. The mores of the time most certainly played on how and what he wrote, and why. A man's understanding of what it meant to be a woman were very different, and also no doubt played on what and why he wrote. You cannot compare him to Steven King, who would not exist if Chaucer did not exist. New methods are tried and tossed and adapted. New ideas influence how creative endeavors are presented and distributed and absorbed. Would Chaucer have been a better writer if he had access to a typrewriter, or paper? I don't know. Sometimes the simbiosis drives inspiration - like the clickity-clack of typewriter keys in a hermetic cabin; the drone and isolation trigger that stream of creative pulp. But maybe the same can be said about mixing inks, and the smells and stains and the shiny glass bottles were enough to kick in the juices.
How are you going to compare Van Gogh and Tomas Kinkade? One was a commercial joke, the other a commercial success. Does this make Kinkade the better painter? Many might think so, and hang their pride-and-joy Kinkade in thier living rooms, and hire an electrician to revamp the lighting to show it off. They never really got Van Gogh and all the fuss. For them, Kinkade is the better painter. On whose criteria will we base critical analysis? Have Van Gogh and Kinkade contributed equally to the arts?
Charlie Chaplin was pure genius, and he opened a thousand doors for film. He took chances, and he pushed envelopes, and discovered methods and perspectives for acting and writing. He would not have existed had Thomas Edison not existed, who was himself a product of codes, inventions, ideas, failures and accidents that came before him. He was a product of his own unique curiosty that had him asking questions not asked before.
Does this friend also believe Lillian Gish is old news?
Anyone who thinks the past is irrelevant can suck eggs. Dump your friend.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
For me, the best measure of an artwork is how "moved" I am by it. We can talk about different artistic languages and dialogues, we can talk about the contexts that inform the creation of artworks and that inform our subjective dispositions, we can even talk about rules and craft...but at the end of the day, WHY I like something is only important if I'm moved by it.
Some me people are moved by Bethoven, while others may not be. Instead, they are moved by Britney Spears. Both of those people are responding to cultural and emotional things that are not easily explainable, but it all has value. I can understand that from a musical standpoint Bethoven may employ a more sophisticated or more complex approach to comlosing music (not that Britney Spears is a composer), but music does not exist in a vacuum and the social and cultural contexts and responses both examples may elicit in a listener are just as much part of the experience. Yes, criterias are relevant, but value is subjective.
All of those extreme examples given on this thread as a way to discredit subjectivity may just have value that we currently do not have the capability understand...and as such, we do not value those examples. But is it impossible to imagine a new contexts or set of values under which even those funny examples might be taken seriously? Well, for some it may be impossible, but I can see that as a possibility. Still, I'm not moved by those examples.
lots of artworks are not recognized as "good" until many decades later. Why is that? Social, cultural and a complex system of contexts and parameters that surround the artwork and they ways we are capable of perceiving it.
Now if you're a teacher of any artistic discipline, that's where it gets super complicated.
Some me people are moved by Bethoven, while others may not be. Instead, they are moved by Britney Spears. Both of those people are responding to cultural and emotional things that are not easily explainable, but it all has value. I can understand that from a musical standpoint Bethoven may employ a more sophisticated or more complex approach to comlosing music (not that Britney Spears is a composer), but music does not exist in a vacuum and the social and cultural contexts and responses both examples may elicit in a listener are just as much part of the experience. Yes, criterias are relevant, but value is subjective.
All of those extreme examples given on this thread as a way to discredit subjectivity may just have value that we currently do not have the capability understand...and as such, we do not value those examples. But is it impossible to imagine a new contexts or set of values under which even those funny examples might be taken seriously? Well, for some it may be impossible, but I can see that as a possibility. Still, I'm not moved by those examples.
lots of artworks are not recognized as "good" until many decades later. Why is that? Social, cultural and a complex system of contexts and parameters that surround the artwork and they ways we are capable of perceiving it.
Now if you're a teacher of any artistic discipline, that's where it gets super complicated.
Jimmy Pierce
Well-known member
Man evolved from the ape. But you cannot ignore the importance of the ape.
But the ape is outdated and so is Charlie Chaplin.
We all recognize the talent of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Peter Sellers, Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder, ...
They are all outdated. While they all were terrific and made comedy classics, comedy is current to the present zeitgeist. Would you buy a ticket to watch Chaplin or Will Farrell today. Me, I'd go see Will Farrell.
As you grow older, the comedies of your youth will always be the best-ever for you. But comedy is best served fresh. It does get stale and outdated. Many of the opinions expressed here are talking about what is best; that somehow, calling Chaplin outdated is equated to saying he was not great. He was great. He's just outdated.
We all recognize the talent of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Peter Sellers, Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder, ...
They are all outdated. While they all were terrific and made comedy classics, comedy is current to the present zeitgeist. Would you buy a ticket to watch Chaplin or Will Farrell today. Me, I'd go see Will Farrell.
As you grow older, the comedies of your youth will always be the best-ever for you. But comedy is best served fresh. It does get stale and outdated. Many of the opinions expressed here are talking about what is best; that somehow, calling Chaplin outdated is equated to saying he was not great. He was great. He's just outdated.
alex whitmer
Veteran
Charlie Chaplin and Will Farrell? I'd take Chaplin hands down every time. Not even a fair fight.
Outdated has a few meanings, one being no longer current, which is your argument. The other is no longer useful. The greats, and even many of the not-so-greats will always be useful. If you are going to be an actor, and you are serious about it, you study Chaplin and Gish. You study Sellers. If you are an avid fan of film, and serious about it, the classics will forever be useful. As a writer for film, I still study the Gish sisters and their work, I study Gone with the Wind, I study Julie Andrews and Gregory Peck. Why? Because their contribution to the art as a whole IS current and useful.
Plato wrote The Republic in 360 BC. It remains useful if not current in its influence on modern film and storytelling (The Matrix). Chaucer (1343-1400) wrote The Canterbury Tales near the end of the 14th century. The film A Knight's Tale, 2001, with Heath Ledger, was loosley based on the Canterbury story of the same name, was set in the same period, and had a fun inclusion of Chaucer as a character.
The Tale of Genji, written in the early part of the 11th century - and recognized as the first modern novel - has been adapted to film more than once, with its most current version as an Anime TV series, in 2009.
Agora, 2009, is based on the life of Hypatia, the Greek mathemetician, astronomer and philosopher who died waaaay back in 415. She remains quite useful in women's studies and feminist ideals. Her contributions and discoveries are still relevant today.
Rustom Sohrab, 1963, is based on the 10th century Persian poem Shahnemeh, and starred Indian film pioneer Prithviraj Kapoor.
Russian author Zecharia Sitchin drew many of his ideas from Sumerian Mythology, first recorded on clay tablets in roughly 2500 b.c. Cowboys and Aliens, and Stargate were both influenced by Sitchin's work - and hence by Sumerian tablets, the very birth of written language for which I, as a screenwriter, feel eternally indebted.
If you want to do comedy, and you are serious about it, you musn't ignore Red Skelton.
Dante (1265-1321) continues to show up in film via quotes and refs (Se7ev, Ghostbusters, Hannibal, etc., and my own Of God and Kings - still in post), as well as documentarys.
Don't get me started on Avatar.
These are just a few examples.
You cannot, with a straight face, call these works (books, films, art, poems) and these people (actors, filmmakers, authors, artisits) outdated. They continue to influence modern film and story, sometimes intentionaly, sometimes subconsciously. You cannot ignore the massive footprints left by these and them.
If you are serious about film, be it as a director, actor, lighting tech or costume, writer or set design, you study the classics. You study early Mexican cinema, early Russian cinema, French, English and German cinema, and Polish cinema. Japan has made countless contributions to the whole.
Disco might be outdated (thankfully) but Chaplin most certainly is not.
a
Outdated has a few meanings, one being no longer current, which is your argument. The other is no longer useful. The greats, and even many of the not-so-greats will always be useful. If you are going to be an actor, and you are serious about it, you study Chaplin and Gish. You study Sellers. If you are an avid fan of film, and serious about it, the classics will forever be useful. As a writer for film, I still study the Gish sisters and their work, I study Gone with the Wind, I study Julie Andrews and Gregory Peck. Why? Because their contribution to the art as a whole IS current and useful.
Plato wrote The Republic in 360 BC. It remains useful if not current in its influence on modern film and storytelling (The Matrix). Chaucer (1343-1400) wrote The Canterbury Tales near the end of the 14th century. The film A Knight's Tale, 2001, with Heath Ledger, was loosley based on the Canterbury story of the same name, was set in the same period, and had a fun inclusion of Chaucer as a character.
The Tale of Genji, written in the early part of the 11th century - and recognized as the first modern novel - has been adapted to film more than once, with its most current version as an Anime TV series, in 2009.
Agora, 2009, is based on the life of Hypatia, the Greek mathemetician, astronomer and philosopher who died waaaay back in 415. She remains quite useful in women's studies and feminist ideals. Her contributions and discoveries are still relevant today.
Rustom Sohrab, 1963, is based on the 10th century Persian poem Shahnemeh, and starred Indian film pioneer Prithviraj Kapoor.
Russian author Zecharia Sitchin drew many of his ideas from Sumerian Mythology, first recorded on clay tablets in roughly 2500 b.c. Cowboys and Aliens, and Stargate were both influenced by Sitchin's work - and hence by Sumerian tablets, the very birth of written language for which I, as a screenwriter, feel eternally indebted.
If you want to do comedy, and you are serious about it, you musn't ignore Red Skelton.
Dante (1265-1321) continues to show up in film via quotes and refs (Se7ev, Ghostbusters, Hannibal, etc., and my own Of God and Kings - still in post), as well as documentarys.
Don't get me started on Avatar.
These are just a few examples.
You cannot, with a straight face, call these works (books, films, art, poems) and these people (actors, filmmakers, authors, artisits) outdated. They continue to influence modern film and story, sometimes intentionaly, sometimes subconsciously. You cannot ignore the massive footprints left by these and them.
If you are serious about film, be it as a director, actor, lighting tech or costume, writer or set design, you study the classics. You study early Mexican cinema, early Russian cinema, French, English and German cinema, and Polish cinema. Japan has made countless contributions to the whole.
Disco might be outdated (thankfully) but Chaplin most certainly is not.
a
Last edited:
Jimmy Pierce
Well-known member
If the question "Would I buy a ticket to watch Chaplin" meant a re-release, of course! I have paid see several silent films. Would I buy a ticket to see present day Chaplin? That's questionable because comedic style evolved so I'd need to take time out of the equation.
I think the ape's historic significance, comparison to humans & present day study of mammals overshadows it's time of existence, therefore the ape is timeless. We can continue to observe the ape, knowing we evolved from them and learn more and more about ourselves. This lead to connecting the dots, and continuing to connect the dots (the evolution of man) that brought human existence to it's current form.
If we break down some of the elements that make a Chaplin film:
1. A "tramp", someone who isn't homeless but isn't in a position of luxury and has a good attitude about it
2. Slapstick humor, such as falling down, getting hit, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time
3. A love interest
4. Some greater message about society as a whole
Will Farrell takes cues from Chaplin among others, and stacks his own humor on top like re-painting a canvas. Now are the technical aspects of a silent film outdated? Yes, several are. Are certain ideas of the period no longer relevant? Yes. Is the story outdated, well that's hard to say. Are blind girls in movies not relevant now? Is the idea that people are looking to strike it rich (Gold Rush) outdated?
No one is going to make a highly successful modern day silent film (The Artist doesn't count because it's nostalgic), but that doesn't mean the ideas are no longer relevant, which is the primary ingredient of timelessness.
Not every idea is timeless, but there's something in every product of every decade that has somehow stayed relatable.
I think the ape's historic significance, comparison to humans & present day study of mammals overshadows it's time of existence, therefore the ape is timeless. We can continue to observe the ape, knowing we evolved from them and learn more and more about ourselves. This lead to connecting the dots, and continuing to connect the dots (the evolution of man) that brought human existence to it's current form.
If we break down some of the elements that make a Chaplin film:
1. A "tramp", someone who isn't homeless but isn't in a position of luxury and has a good attitude about it
2. Slapstick humor, such as falling down, getting hit, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time
3. A love interest
4. Some greater message about society as a whole
Will Farrell takes cues from Chaplin among others, and stacks his own humor on top like re-painting a canvas. Now are the technical aspects of a silent film outdated? Yes, several are. Are certain ideas of the period no longer relevant? Yes. Is the story outdated, well that's hard to say. Are blind girls in movies not relevant now? Is the idea that people are looking to strike it rich (Gold Rush) outdated?
No one is going to make a highly successful modern day silent film (The Artist doesn't count because it's nostalgic), but that doesn't mean the ideas are no longer relevant, which is the primary ingredient of timelessness.
Not every idea is timeless, but there's something in every product of every decade that has somehow stayed relatable.
Last edited:
dmitrizigany
Veteran
Well, someone is trying to at least:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnpzQkxoT1Q
And they have Iggy Pop, Grace Jones, Henry Rollins and more people like that involved, so who knows?
I agree with everything you said except this - "Will Farrell takes cues from Chaplin among others, and stacks his own humor on top like re-painting a canvas." I don't want to think that Farrell or Sellers or any comedian built on a previous comedian. Their point of view on humor is original and current to their era. They are talented enough to be original. They don't need to take cues from anyone. Sure, they may repeat a gag as there are only so many gags, but they came up with it on their own. They didn't get it from Chaplin or any other comedian.
Now that the thread has subsided, I'd like to drift over to a related topic:
Why is it that dead people get more respect than people that are alive? My favorite examples are artists like Gauguin and Van Gogh. Their art was crap, unsellable in its day, but is highly respected today. Andy Kaufman was a jerk, humoring himself, but not his audience. Now he is a genius. No, I'm not saying that is the case for Chaplin, but only that since he is dead, he is more respected than a present-day comedian.
If Chaplin and Farrel swapped places, would Farrel be the genius? Chaplin had it easy. He was one of the first in a new media. So of course, the first have a cache about them. Everyone is compared to them. Just as the early comics of television carry the same cache.
For me Chaplin is ok, but no greater than any of the other top comedians that have come along. Each was great in their day.
Now that the thread has subsided, I'd like to drift over to a related topic:
Why is it that dead people get more respect than people that are alive? My favorite examples are artists like Gauguin and Van Gogh. Their art was crap, unsellable in its day, but is highly respected today. Andy Kaufman was a jerk, humoring himself, but not his audience. Now he is a genius. No, I'm not saying that is the case for Chaplin, but only that since he is dead, he is more respected than a present-day comedian.
If Chaplin and Farrel swapped places, would Farrel be the genius? Chaplin had it easy. He was one of the first in a new media. So of course, the first have a cache about them. Everyone is compared to them. Just as the early comics of television carry the same cache.
For me Chaplin is ok, but no greater than any of the other top comedians that have come along. Each was great in their day.
Jimmy Pierce
Well-known member
Cues as in being inspired, creating similar gags based on influence. Not a direct copy.
I think when people die we spend quite a bit of time reflecting what that person left for us. I could look at a family photo and say, "Uncle John had a great smile", and maybe at the time he was alive I didn't notice because I wasn't born yet or I was too young to create an opinion. The value of art as an industry and the influence of others I think has had the biggest impact on why we don't look at art at face value. It looks priceless, therefore it is.
Also, time allows us to create a collection of the best of the period. I don't think artists (or really anyone) can be judged based on the period they were alive. If I had seen Shawshank Redemption when it came out in 1994 but at my current age, I would have probably thought it was a great film. But history says it tanked at the box office and had a resurgence on VHS, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the film.
How many painter's work survived through time like Van Gogh or Gauguin's? How come their work survived and who discovered it and put a price on it? I have a collection of vintage clothing that's in almost pristine condition. You can't help but marvel at the hand-sewn craftsmanship, and compared to modern manufactured clothing, bespoke quality is unmatched. So maybe I don't necessarily value the creator but value their work, therefore value the creator, and want to challenge someone from now to achieve what they achieved.
I think when people die we spend quite a bit of time reflecting what that person left for us. I could look at a family photo and say, "Uncle John had a great smile", and maybe at the time he was alive I didn't notice because I wasn't born yet or I was too young to create an opinion. The value of art as an industry and the influence of others I think has had the biggest impact on why we don't look at art at face value. It looks priceless, therefore it is.
Also, time allows us to create a collection of the best of the period. I don't think artists (or really anyone) can be judged based on the period they were alive. If I had seen Shawshank Redemption when it came out in 1994 but at my current age, I would have probably thought it was a great film. But history says it tanked at the box office and had a resurgence on VHS, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the film.
How many painter's work survived through time like Van Gogh or Gauguin's? How come their work survived and who discovered it and put a price on it? I have a collection of vintage clothing that's in almost pristine condition. You can't help but marvel at the hand-sewn craftsmanship, and compared to modern manufactured clothing, bespoke quality is unmatched. So maybe I don't necessarily value the creator but value their work, therefore value the creator, and want to challenge someone from now to achieve what they achieved.
Joe D'Arcy
New member
Wiseguy!!! Nyuck nyucks come in threes.
Curtis Mack
Active member
The reason we value dead artists over live ones is that time is the only way to distinguish good art from bad. And that is the answer to the proposition that all our judgments are purely subjective. Great art informs its audience. Van Gogh's contemporaries were too ignorant to appreciate his greatness. Likewise, Out of the Past, strictly a B movie when it came out, has stood the test of time. City Lights is relevant - The Man with the Golden Arm is a footnote.
I'd suggest listening to NPR's TedX Radio Hour podcast, specifically an episode entitled "Framing the Story". Pay close attention to what Pixar's John Lasseter has to say regarding Chaplin and Buster Keaton, and their influences on WALL*E. For example, "They were better storytellers. Everyone got lazy when sound came around."
One may argue that Chaplin is outdated due to changes both in technology and in pop culture, or one may argue continued relevance as hr and others of that era laid foundations to the film industry that are still influential today.
One may argue that Chaplin is outdated due to changes both in technology and in pop culture, or one may argue continued relevance as hr and others of that era laid foundations to the film industry that are still influential today.