Battle of Directors is a weekly column that pits two filmmakers against one another, sheds light on their respective filmographies, and then asks readers to state which director they prefer. Thoughtful discourse and discussion is encouraged and desired. Enjoy!
In the medium of cinema we have many filmmakers, but not many auteurs.
Woody Allen and Charlie Chaplin are among the select few of true artists with distinct voices (and longevity) that place themselves at the center of nearly all their movies. Through writing, directing, and acting in many of their most successful endeavors, both personas have entered our culture – for better or for worse.
The logic behind pairing these two up is simple: aside from similar comedic stylings, Allen and Chaplin are/were extremely prolific filmmakers. Moreover both possess a rare ability to blend the silly, idiosyncratic elements of everyday life with intimate portraits of what it means to fall in and out of love. Perhaps this is why the universal works of both artists remain so beloved. There’s a sort of youthful quality to them, from Manhattan to Modern Times, that contemporary audiences are still able to connect with even today.
Since I am (more or less) Chaplin-illiterate, I’ll side with the romantic and neuroses-driven Woody Allen. Then again, Charlie never really had a chance with me. God almighty could come down and direct ten consecutive magnum opuses and my choice would still be Allen. Long live the limitless loveliness of Annie Hall.
Ten example films from Woody Allen:
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Hannah and Her Sisters
Bananas
Crimes and Misdemeanors
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Midnight In Paris
Stardust Memories
Radio Days
Match Point
vs.
Ten example films from Charlie Chaplin:
City Lights
Modern Times
The Great Dictator
A Countess from Hong Kong
Limelight
Shoulder Amrs
Monsieur Verdoux
Chase Me Charlie
The Gold Rush
The Kid
…
So which filmmaker do you prefer? The choice is yours.
29 thoughts on “Battle of Directors: Woody Allen vs. Charlie Chaplin”
Chaplin is great and all but Woody is my film god. Always and forever.
Personal favorites?
The Purple Rose of Cairo, Interiors, Midnight in Paris, Manhattan.
‘Interiors’ is one of the few Allen films I haven’t seen yet.
Chaplin. Hands down. Annie Hall is overrated. And Lolita and Mean Streets are masterpieces.
What else can I say to make Sam lose his mind?
Seriously though, I would probably lean towards Chaplin, although there are plenty of films from both of them that I’m yet to see. But I adore Gold Rush and The Great Dictator
Tom Clift is no longer the co-founder of Movie Mezzanine.
😀
You smile at my pain.
I have plenty of Chaplin shorts left to see (almost all, in fact), but it’s still no contest. Chaplin’s features are masterpieces. The least resonant of his full-length films, THE CIRCUS, may actually be his funniest, while his neglected late-period shows him drastically altering his tone and form while retaining his old skill set. Even A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, a flawed film to be sure, has moments of classical grace that is at once old-fashioned and not too removed from the giving, almost socialistic comedy of the same year’s PLAYTIME. His comedy was never as precisely technical as Keaton’s, nor as daringly mounted as Lloyd’s, but I think his filmmaking is the greatest of the old clowns, and he’s the only one who can rate with Lang, Murnau, Feuillade, Griffith et al. in terms of the impact he had on filmmaking.
Impact or influence? Or are those synonymous in your case?
I wouldn’t deny Chaplin any praise. I’m not surprised you feel as strongly as you do about his work.
No doubt even Woody would vote Chaplin in this contest, and so will I.
I suppose there are similarities in both their social lives and in their artistic trajectories, starting off with vaudeville or its later equivalent, moving into slapstick, and finally into more ambitious territory once the term “genius” got thrown around. Both began as central to their respective cultures and were gradually passed by.
Chaplin’s best films, especially the shorts, remain essentially timeless, even with some of the dated political baggage that weigh down the still exceptional A KING IN NEW YORK and THE GREAT DICTATOR. There are moments in Chaplin’s cinema, from the pathos of CITY LIGHTS’ ending to the comic apocalypse with Keaton in LIMELIGHT, that Woody just can’t really match, despite much of the formal ingenuity of ANNIE HALL, visual beauty of MANHATTAN, or romantic conception of PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO. Plus, Charlie never had the chance to spin his wheels a la Woody’s drawn-out career for the last few decades (despite the recent renaissance, which I still think is fairly complacent in comparison to his earlier stuff), so there’s still a charge and a drive to his relatively few feature-length films.
I actually think KING has aged remarkably well. Even DICTATOR, if you consider how Chaplin also includes jabs at America’s own policies of discrimination and hate in his plea for them to join the fight. KING feels even more wounded and despairing than LIMELIGHT to me; a great artist returning to America as both a totally removed figure (a “legend” is a museum piece as much as a “king”) and the target of a cynical, false meritocracy that attacks him for being out of date. The apathy that greets him in LIMELIGHT is replaced by concentrated attacks. And yet, Chaplin makes his own socialist leanings a goof, too, placing them in the irritating voice of his son (who gives a fantastic performance, mind; it’s intentionally grating) to make them annoying and pushy, THEN turning that figure into a tragic victim of America’s desperate fear to preserve its ludicrous self-image. Communism may no longer be the buzzword, but otherwise it is sadly all too relevant, along with VERDOUX.
Woody Allen would agree because he’s one of the most humble filmmakers we have. Not to mention he’s immensely insecure when it comes to his own work.
I Like Woody Allen as a director. I even respect him a lot but if we are comparing him with Chaplin, I really don’t think he holds a candle. Chaplin for me.
Why doesn’t he hold a candle?
I’ve seen a handful of shorts by both and I’d easily go with Chaplin. I find his films consistently sweet and funny. Allen’s sense of humor just goes against my own it’s a bit too cynical, biting and angry for me. I do really like a couple of his films (Crimes and Misdemeanors and Midnight in Paris), but not as much as I love Modern Times and City Lights.
I could’ve placed Michael Bay against Woody Allen and you would’ve chose Bay.
I’ve read just about every review you’ve written on Allen’s films. I vehemently disagree with all of them. But hey, if his style and sense of humor doesn’t gel with yours, then I can’t force it on you James.
It’s hard to say because while I think Allen has more classic films than Chaplin does, he also has a ton of bad ones too. I don’t know if their is a more touching or poignant moment in all of cinema than the end of “City Lights,” but I would still have to go with Allen because “uh, most of us need the eggs.”
I’m really eager to catch up with ‘City Lights.’
And yes, quoting the end of ‘Annie Hall’ just made your comment the best.
I’ve seen several Woody Allen films at this point as I will finally do a complete work on him for the summer. I’ve only seen a few films by Chaplin so far yet I love all that I’ve seen so far. I’m going to go with Chaplin.
What Woody Allen films?
Crimes and Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Bananas, Everything You Needed to Know about Sex but were Afraid to Ask, the Purple Rose of Cairo, New York Stories-Oedipus Wrecks, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Everyone Says I Love You, Deconstructing Harry, Stardust Memories, Match Point, Scoop, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris… that’s all I have so far. I plan to do a four-part Auteurs piece on Allen for the summer.
I’m looking forward to it.
I’m not a huge fan of either to be honest but Chaplin is almost definitely better. Few directors understood the humour and wonderful delight that could be evoked from such simple stories.
“almost definitely” … you don’t sound too confident.
Reasons you don’t care for either?
I like and respect Chaplin and Allen but don’t consider either among my favourite filmmakers. Choosing between them is difficult because both are talented but don’t mean too much to me. I find Chaplin less obnoxious, but Allen funnier.
I think in the number of classics they’ve made they’re probably equal but Chaplin was far more consistent. Allen’s later years are full of disposable films but no one can say that about most of Chaplin’s output.
So I assume you don’t care for Midnight In Paris, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, or Match Point?
Pingback: Quentin Tarantino. Wes Anderson. Battle of Directors. Pulp Fiction. Moonrise Kingdom. | Movie Mezzanine | Film Coverage