We felt that the public, and especially the children, like animals that are cute and little. I think we are rather indebted to Charlie Chaplin for the idea. We wanted something appealing, and we thought of a tiny bit of a mouse that would have something of the wistfulness of Chaplin- a little fellow trying to do the best he could.
He [Charlie Chaplin] was always playing as if it were to the camera, if you've seen the live shots of him when he's going to an opening night or something like that. And the skills that he had were beyond my ability to throw together. You just couldn't really compete with him. He was too athletic at that.
Bob Dylan may be the Charlie Chaplin of rock n' roll. Both men are regarded as geniuses by their entire audience. Both were proclaimed revolutionaries for their early work and subjected to exhaustive attack when later works were thought to be inferior. Both developed their art without so much as a nodding glance toward their peers.
People try to put ownership on things: 'That's mine, that's my joke.' No such thing. Like if you tripped or stumbled and people go, 'Oh, that's Charlie Chaplin.' You know what I mean? You can't own a joke. You can be the guy that tells it the best, but you can't own a joke. Nowhere can you own a laugh.
What guided Chaplin was the proper protection of self-interest (or craziness). So Chapling, Douglas Fairbanks, and Mark Pickford, with DW Griffith and William S Hart, made an alliance, called United Artists, whereby they would own a distribution company that would market their pictures, allowing them a greater return than if they leased the movies to some outside distributor.
Edward Jay Epstein
I've always loved silent movies. I recently saw 'Tilly's Punctured Romance' at the Academy, which is the first comedy made with Charlie Chaplin in 1914, and I sat there, and I couldn't believe that the entire audience of 2,000 people were laughing that hard from a movie made in 1914 - and there were no words; it was all faces.
Ensnared in his starvation, Chaplin-man is always just below political awareness. A strike is a catastrophe for him because it threatens a man truly blinded by his hunger; this man achieves an awareness of the working-class condition only when the poor man and the proletarian coincide under the gaze (and the blows) of the police.
Who made me laugh when I was growing was Chaplin and the Marx Brothers, and then moving on, there were so many that I was a writer for for many years: I was a writer for the Smothers Brothers, Lily Tomlin, then I started on 'Saturday Night Live' as the head writer the first year we started it.
American culture has a lot of great moustaches in its history. Mark Twain had a great moustache, Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin ... but Zappa, he's got the best moustache in American history. Got the moustache, right, and he's got that little thing on his chin, I think it's called an imperial, that is, like, the coolest thing. That's like one of the great icons of the twentieth century.
In spite of their obvious differences, folk art and popular art have much in common; they are easy to understand, they are romantic, patriotic, conventionally moral, and they are held in deep affection by those who are suspicious of the great arts. Popular artists can be serious, like Frederick Remington, or trivial, like Charles Dana Gibson; they can be men of genius like Chaplin or men of talent like Harold Lloyd; they can be as uni versal as Dickens or as parochial as E.P. Roe; one thing common to all of them is the power to communicate directly with everyone.
What makes someone an artist? I don't think is has anything to do with a paintbrush. There are painters who follow the numbers, or paint billboards, or work in a small village in China, painting reproductions. These folks, while swell people, aren't artists. On the other hand, Charlie Chaplin was an artist, beyond a doubt. So is Jonathan Ive, who designed the iPod. You can be an artist who works with oil paints or marble, sure. But there are artists who work with numbers, business models, and customer conversations. Art is about intent and communication, not substances.
Gillette-The best a man can get." I stared at the screen. What happened to me? I was meant to be one of those guys, vigorous and athletic and successful and, most of all, American. I was going to walk on the moon, be a movie star or a rock got or a comedian. I was going to have an amazing life and kids with Helen and die like Chaplin a thousand years from now in my Beverly Hills mansion surrounded by my adoring family, with the grieving world media standing by. Instead, I was just another show-business mediocrity. A drunk who shat his pants and ran for help. My life had been careless and selfish. Pleasure in the moment was my only thought, my solitary motivation. I had disappointed whoever had been foolish enough to love me, and left them scarred. I was a very long way from being the best a man can get.
Art isn't only a painting. Art is anything that's creative, passionate, and personal. And great art resonates with the viewer, not only with the creator. What makes someone an artist? I don't think is has anything to do with a paintbrush. There are painters who follow the numbers, or paint billboards, or work in a small village in China, painting reproductions. These folks, while swell people, aren't artists. On the other hand, Charlie Chaplin was an artist, beyond a doubt. So is Jonathan Ive, who designed the iPod. You can be an artists who works with oil paints or marble, sure. But there are artists who work with numbers, business models, and customer conversations. Art is about intent and communication, not substances. An artists is someone who uses bravery, insight, creativity, and boldness to challenge the status quo. And an artists takes it personally. That's why Bob Dylan is an artist, but an anonymous corporate hack who dreams up Pop 40 hits on the other side of the glass is merely a marketer. That's why Tony Hsieh, founder of Zappos, is an artists, while a boiler room of telemarketers is simply a scam. Tom Peters, corporate gadfly and writer, is an artists, even though his readers are businesspeople. He's an artists because he takes a stand, he takes the work personally, and he doesn't care if someone disagrees. His art is part of him, and he feels compelled to share it with you because it's important, not because he expects you to pay him for it. Art is a personal gift that changes the recipient. The medium doesn't matter. The intent does. Art is a personal act of courage, something one human does that creates change in another.
In 125 years from now, who will be around to say whether you liked tomato soup or Gandhi? Who will share stories of your childhood, first love, dislikes, and interests? Who will tell the world of your adventures and the places you've traveled if there are no pictures or receipts to prove it? And who will be around to accurately translate the real meaning of any words or artwork you left behind? And who will be around to prove they are actually yours? And if your friends or enemies left anything behind about you, would their words be good or bad, and how much of it would really be true? What if you were a very good person but had many enemies? And what if you were an influential person with a big following, and your words and image become one of the most bankable industries in the world? If you can control the information and words of that person after they die, you can control their followers almost forever. If you can change the outcomes of wars, time frames or locations of pivotal events, or the succession of leaders of any 'dynasty', you can change a country's position of power or debts to another nation in the future. You can build mythical entities or hide vital information anytime. There will be nobody around to verify that Jesus had blue eyes or if Charlie Chaplin ever rode a donkey. And even if one person died with a book on his story, there will be five or hundreds to write their version of 'his story' to cover up his truths. If you wrote your life story before you died, how many enemies will also write books about you, which later will be multiplied to another 500 additional titles over time? One man's truths do not stand a chance to outlive him in a land of a billion people, especially if those with power and influence do not like him, and can benefit by turning his words around into lies to serve their corrupt causes. What if your history was erased and rewritten like those of many historical icons of the past? Who is around today to say what color Jesus or Mohammed's hair really looked like, or how they spent their time? Remember, Jesus never wrote the Bible, but over thirty or forty people claiming to know somebody who knew him personally did. Who are these people? How do we not know their names? If God wanted them to be writing his messages, he would have chosen them instead of Jesus. Did any of his 'close friends' stand up for Jesus when he was being crucified? No. They did not stand up for what was right because they found their lives to be more precious than the truth. So why would you listen to what they claim Jesus said? Any man who does not stand up for his conscience is not favored by God. And this is the true meaning of Jesus dying for our sins. He died because nobody stood up for him. Three hundred years after you die, and your children and grandchildren die too, how will people know that you died a Baahist and not a Christian? How much truth is preserved in the histories of our dead heroes, leaders, prophets, and kings? And who has translated, decoded, researched, and re-written their histories? Who are these interpreters and translators, and what are their beliefs, dislikes, biases, background, gains, motives, and so forth? So if all human witnesses to major events disappear every 125 years, who or what is truly around to say what happened to the world 125, 000 years ago, or what God really said to who? Those manipulating truths to their advantage know there isn't a soul around to say otherwise. Yet there are sheep to manage. Knowing this, since he created the minds and hearts of men, the Creator preserved truths in our hearts so that we would naturally know right from wrong. He knew the details of important events would be tampered with, so he stored his most important concerns in our hearts - to be good to yourself and others, to know the difference between right and wrong, to seek truth always, and to never neglect your conscience until you die.