The Kid *****

The Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell is widely considered to be the finest biography written in our shared tongue. I disagree.

The book is marvelous and often quite funny, but the subject himself just isn’t worthy of such lofty accolades. Granted, Johnson did write one of the most influential dictionaries chronicling the English language, but that’s not what the book is about. Instead, it basically drags you along with Johnson as he goes to one dinner party after another, tossing out funny lines and acting as his usual pompous self. I could have written a biography about Louis B. Mayer and accomplished the same thing. Except he wasn’t as funny.

My point in bringing this book and Johnson up is that old Sammy I believe is the first known “intellectual” to use his gifts to destroy rather than actually find answers. This form of intellectualism has permeated into modern society with the leading components of my generation being – all together now – the French; particularly the fine editors and writers of Cahier du Cinema.

I’m all for taking the contrarian view on a topic when it is necessary. For years, I was the sole person who argued that Chaplin’s Monsieur Verdoux was a magnificent movie when everyone else (and I mean everyone else) panned it. I didn’t take on that fight to be different. I took it on because I was right. History has proven me right, but you don’t see that movie around anymore because of the bad reputation it unjustly got back in the day.

Now, and this started with the boys from Cahier, not only are people trashing that one Chaplin film, but all of his works just to raise the profile of Buster Keaton. This comparison puts me in an awkward situation because I’m a big fan of Keaton’s work, but he doesn’t have the power of Chaplin. People don’t laugh and cry during Buster’s movies.

Overall, it’s an unfair comparison because their movies are so different. Keaton’s movies were a brilliant combination of pure athleticism, derring-do and perfectly timed gags tied into a tight storyline. Chaplin was more concerned with character development, knowing that the way to the heart of movie-goers were the people on the screen. This is why if you ask your standard people on the street to identify Chaplin or Keaton, you will find more people recognize Charlie, than Buster.

And this is exactly what I did not want to do. It’s the equivalent of asking me who is a better director – Ford or Hitchcock. I don’t know. Each is too different to compare. I probably prefer Hitchcock for the same reasons I prefer Chaplin, but that certainly doesn’t take away any of Ford’s brilliance. And it isn’t a truly intellectual answer.

But for the people like Francois Truffaut and Samuel Johnson, it is necessary to destroy one to build up the other. These are the same people that say Chaplin’s stuff is too melodramatic and hokey while they’re passing the tissues. Is the ended of “The Kid” hokey when the little boy is being taking away on the back of the truck, screaming and reaching out to Charlie while the Little Tramp desperately runs after him? Probably. Does each and every one of you tear up when you see it? Probably. So?

Now, I’m going to head off the obvious objection right now. What about James Cameron? You criticize him for doing the exact same thing. First of all, I’m offended by the comparison and I wish gangrene on everyone who said it or even thought it. Second, I don’t criticize Cameron for trying it; I criticize him for failing miserably at it. Cameron has no ability to make three-dimensional characters. For that matter neither does Keaton, but in Keaton’s movies that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t try. Buster’s more interested in entertaining you though humor and action, then emotion.

What I just gave you is an intellectual argument? At least intellectual by the old definition of the word. Intellectual meaning to look at an issue and find the truth though clinical observation and analysis devoid of emotion. With Sammy Johnson and my dear friends at that French hack-sheet, that definition has changed to one who looks at a popular issue and debunks it as being wrong because it has the support of the unwashed masses. If Joey the Teamster likes the movie, how could it be intellectual, goes the thinking.

Now, never it let it be me to come to the defense of the unwashed masses because I too am convinced that they are often wrong, but I tell you why. It is this portion of our populace that has allowed Steven Segal, James Cameron and Tom Laughlin to live in large mansions.

On the other hand, these contrarians who go opposite the popular view just to be “intellectual” and different have allowed Godard, Ozu and Ken Russell to move right next door.

My intellectual answer to the six of them is that they all suck.