Bruce Calvert wrote:So Richard, I'm guessing that you missed the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, the 50th anniversary of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan this last weekend, and you'll be skipping out on remembrances of the 100th anniversary of the First World War later this year.
No Calvert you don't quite get it. Those are actually important Anniversaries, most likely way more important than the release of MAKING A LIVING.
I guess that I'm just a glass-half-full kind of person, but I don't care how we rope 'em into the silent comedy universe, as long as they make it eventually. There's a lot of local film festivals that screen all kinds of navel-gazing independent movies, Kung Fu schlock and Bollywood stuff that also devote a single slot to a silent film with live music. As long as they do it right (not the Phillip Glass DRACULA or Stewart Copeland BEN HUR way), and screen a Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd or other classic, I think it's great. There won't be much of a Silent Comedy Mafia in 10 years if you don't get new recruits somehow. There's plenty of time later to steer 'em to Charley Chase, Lloyd Hamilton and Colleen Moore, and away from Al Joy...
And again, you're still not getting it, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anything you describe above, as long as we're not re-writing or obscuring history. Run all the damn Chaplin you like, as long as you keep him in context and show his peers as well, and keep the speeds right and the Alloy Orchestra away from it. But there's too damn much "Chaplin was the true comedy genius over all others blah blah blah" going on where no one else gets even a mention. 1914 is an important year for Silent film Comedy, and Silent Film in general, far beyond Chaplin, so lets start talking about the others too.
And there is indeed an answer to the "is the glass half-full or half-empty" question: all depends on whether you're drinking or pouring.
RICHARD M ROBERTS