Revuew #910: A Woman of Paris (1923)

Title: A Woman of Paris
Year: 1923
Director: Charles Chaplin
Country: US
Language: N/A

Charles Chaplin was a known perfectionist, so obsessed was he about making the "perfect picture" that in many books and films about his life he is often portrayed as having some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder akin to Howard Hughes. What is not well known however, is how often he tinkered with his pictures long after they hit the silver screen and made an impression with audiences. For instance, with Gold Rush (1925) he went back to the Studio and make a new sound version. With A Woman in Paris he created a new score in 1977, despite being a frail old man at the age of 87.

In this, a kept woman runs into her former fiancé and finds herself torn between love and comfort.

Originally the film was not a critical or commercial success, infact it was the first major failure of Chaplin's career. The first film as a partner in United Artists, much of its failure has to do with the fact that it's not a typical Chaplin film at all, especially for the early 1920's. Though Chaplin had taken on films with serious subject matter before (see The Immigrant and The Kid) those had some comedic elements, while this was a serious melodrama throughout. It also didn't help that Chaplin's name was on the posters, as director, but he did not have any role other than a brief cameo. 

A Woman of Paris was a favourite of Mary Pickford's, she claimed "He's a pioneer. How he knows women!—oh, how he knows women! I do not cry easily when seeing a picture, but after seeing Charlie's A Woman of Paris I was all choked up" The film is a departure from Chaplin's usual work, but it is fascinating and incredibly well made. The quality of the photography and smoothness of the editing is impeccable, it is better than some of the later Chaplin pictures! The acting, particularly by Edna Purviance, is admirable. 

This is an elegant sophisticated melodrama that appears to rely more on inter-titles than expression and grand gestures. Chaplin gives a touch of D.W Griffith to this well written piece of art. Criminally underrated, mainly because of reasons I mentioned above (no comedy, no Chaplin), it's not the best-aged nor entertaining film of his, but it does absorb you in its love-triangle story.