A Disappointing Continuation

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

one of films who impress. for the performances. for the modern perspective about social realities. and, in same measure, for the art of director to propose a seductive - bitter story about desire, illusion and happiness. it is a splendid demonstration of high cinema. this fact defines it and, more than a virtue, represents the basic motif for rediscover a pure gem.

The audiences of 1923 were let down by the lack of the Little Tramp in A Woman of Paris (1923). Yesterday night in 2014, I knew what to expect; however, I too was let down, because I expect more from a genius like Chaplin.There is no doubt that this film is well-directed. Chaplin knows how to get the most out of every frame. My favorite shot in the whole film is right after the heroine Marie hears her beloved Jean assure his mother that he will not wed someone as loose as Marie has been (after believing herself jilted by Jean, Marie left for Paris and became the mistress of a rich man). Jean discovers Marie in the doorway to his apartment and begs her not to leave. Jean is in the center of the frame, in between his beloved in the door and his triumphant mother, seated quietly in the shadowy background. This is a simple, but evocative way of illustrating Jean's inner conflict.There is no doubt that this film is well-acted. Edna Purviance should have been a major actress; here, she uses no histrionics to convey Marie's world-weariness and yearning for a fuller life than hedonistic Paris can give her. She handles both comedy and drama with ease, more than I can say for some starlets of the period who did manage to achieve public adoration. Adolphe Menjou is wonderful as Marie's lover, somehow keeping him a little likable in spite of his selfishness and amorality.What keeps this film from being a masterpiece is the plot, which is both old-fashioned (yes, even for 1923) and a touch uneven. Yes, this is called "A Drama of Fate," but so many of these coincidences which move the plot along felt contrived and clashed with the mostly realistic characters. The mix of comedic scenes and dramatic ones could have been more seamless. Sometimes the comedy bits even feel like filler.Another complaint concerns Marie's true love, the artist Jean. Compared to everyone else, he's not that interesting. He's as bland as a 1920s leading man could be.A Woman of Paris is not a bad film and it should have been more of a success than what it was back in 1923. But I cannot view it as a lost masterpiece, as others seem to. It's a solid melodrama with fine direction and good performances, but the writing brings it down.

1923's "A Woman of Paris is probably not what you'd expect in a Chaplin film based on the totality of his body of work, both in features and in shorts. However, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile viewing. It just means if you are new to Chaplin, you might not want to start here."A Woman of Paris" showed Chaplin's talent behind the camera without him appearing in front of it, except for a lone cameo in which he quickly appears and then disappears acting as a luggage boy. He made it for two reasons, to do some pioneering in cinematic technique and to help give his long time costar and companion Edna Purviance a career boost. The film is actually quite good with great performances by Purviance and by Adolphe Menjou as a carefree playboy. The film did make a star out of Menjou. It didn't really help Purviance that much. The film is about a pair of star-crossed lovers that circumstance drives apart and then brings back together and the eventual tragedy that occurs due to the weakness of will of Purviance's character's one time fiancé, played by Carl Miller.The film was a failure at the box office, not because it was bad, but because audiences expected to see Chaplin when they went to a Chaplin film. After the failure of this film, Chaplin went back to formulas that were tried and true for him and never really went out on a limb experimenting again, which is too bad for all of us.

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.