CitizenCaine
A Woman Of Paris was edited, written, produced, and directed by Chaplin for United Artists, the company he formed with then film giants Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and screen pioneer D.W. Griffith. The film is historically notable for several other reasons as well. It marked the last collaboration between Chaplin and Edna Purviance, the first film Chaplin directed to not feature himself as the leading actor, and his first entirely dramatic feature film. Perhaps Chaplin already suspected this film was going to be a tough sell when he wrote the disclaimer at the beginning of this film, warning the audience that it was a drama and not a comedy. If he had access to the type of media coverage available to stars today, the audiences' expectations might have been tempered. The film was a tremendous flop at the box office and was banned in several cities due to the 1924 New Year's Day shooting scandal involving Edna Purviance. She stars as Marie St. Clair, a woman led by fate to the bright lights and hedonism of 1920's Paris where she meets the most eligible bachelor: Pierre Revel played by Adolphe Menjou. Menjou epitomizes what women despise in men: Cockiness and emotional bankruptcy. It's clear from the start that Revel will never marry Marie. While she is torn between Revel and her former love Jean, Marie is also torn between continuing to live well as a kept woman or marrying Jean who has become a moderately successful artist. While some plot elements are contrived and creaky, the film is celebrated as a stunning example of contemporary realism smashing old world stereotypes in Hollywood films. Chaplin made the film as a valentine to Edna Purviance and to hopefully boost her career as a dramatic actress, but the film's box office failure and another abandoned effort with her called The Seagull put that notion to rest. Purviance is fine but nothing special as Marie St. Clair, but Adolphe Menjou steals the film from her as the caddish Pierre. The film ended up making Menjou a steady lead actor within months of its release. The last five or six minutes of the film are especially poignant. Chaplin wisely eschewed punishing Marie St. Clair in favor of a visually metaphorical ending in which the newly rejuvenated Marie travels in the opposite direction from the befuddled Pierre. More than fifty years after its release, the film was re-edited and scored by Chaplin himself and has garnered a critical following that has greatly boosted the stock of the film. The cinematography and editing are especially first rate. Chaplin regular Henry Bergman appears as a head waiter in a fancy restaurant, and his secretary Nellie Bly Baker plays a masseuse. Chaplin himself has a very brief cameo at the train station. *** of 4 stars.
Michael DeZubiria
A Woman of Paris is probably best known, ironically, by the fact that it is a Chaplin film that Chaplin does not appear in. It opens with a title card in which Chaplin himself wishes to clear up any misunderstanding by mentioning that he does not appear in the film, but my understanding is that it was a popular and critical failure at the time of its release. He does appear in the film, but walks on and off screen so fast and looks so little like himself that there is really no reason for him to be there. The film's popular failure seems to have been something that plagued him through the rest of his career, since he returned to the film and re-scored it at the age of 87. It was the last work he ever did as a filmmaker, and the result was that people finally recognized the film for the master work that it is. We meet a young woman whose father keeps her in the house under lock and key, but who nevertheless escapes at night to visit her lover, whom she plans to marry. One night, her father sees her leaving, and then locks her out. He then proceeds over-react to the point where he won't allow her in the house, so she is forced to try to go find a place to stay at her boyfriend's house. It is a curious illustration of 1920s society that his parents want to kick her out of the house as though she were a diseased rodent. They are committing an unpardonable sin by being together at night outside of marriage. It's easy to sympathize with their desperate situation.Soon, tragedy strikes, which leads to a tragic misunderstanding which, I have to say, is not presented very well in the movie. This is, however, probably the film's only weak point. I had to wonder why this even allowed for a level of misunderstanding that enabled her to move to Paris and join high society without ever talking to the man for long enough for him to explain what happened. It's also a little strange that they both appear to be in their mid-30s or so and are yet not only unmarried but still live with their parents. Nevertheless, she joins a wealthy social circle and becomes involved in their wealthy and loveless life, surrounded by rich people in constant leisure, smoking cigars, drinking champagne, and eating truffles ("a delicacy for pigs and gentlemen…"). It is inevitable that they will meet again at some point, and when they do, time has, indeed, made strangers of them, but his love is still alive. He has become an accomplished artist and she hires him to paint her portrait, which again intertwines their lives.It is interesting that he is still mourning the death of his father, even years later. But he comes from a world where relationships are extremely important, whether romantic or family, and she, on the other hand, has entered a world of money where relationships are startlingly meaningless. She drags her feet at talking about the history between them, saying that she doesn't want to dig up the past, while he interestingly looks directly at the camera and explains that he is still badly hurt by what has happened.Soon, she is forced to choose between a life of love or a life of luxury, and it is notable that the rich man that she was in a "relationship" is pointedly indifferent when she leaves him, explaining that he'll never see her again. "Okay, phone me sometime," he says as he casually walks out the door, leaving her to do as she will. Soon, things seem to be looking up for their mutual happiness, but another tragic misunderstanding (or at least badly timed conversation), throws everything into chaos again. When she leaves, Jean, her boyfriend, becomes desperate.The ending of the film is deeply symbolic, and involved a long road, like the ending of some of Chaplin's better known short comedies. The film's message, that time heals and the secret of happiness is in service to others, doesn't need to be delivered as directly as it is, but it also doesn't hurt the movie that this happens. It's a deeply moving story that illustrates an unfortunate aspect of a certain level of society, a level about which Chaplin was certainly no stranger. It is definitely, as the title says, a drama of fate, and makes a strong comment about what is important in life. It's interesting to consider Chaplin's personal life at the time that the movie was made, but I think it's more important to let the film stand on it's own. This is a brilliant piece of film-making.
