Regarding Mr. Charlie Chaplin, which is written in this novel, everyone has argued in the comment section. This is a good phenomenon.

In fact, when I started writing, I expected this result.

A long time ago, Chaplin and I had an impression that the kind elders had deep sympathy for the working people and exposed the capitalists and bourgeois society in films. Overall, he was a great artist.

In fact, until now, I still think he is definitely a talented director and performing artist in art.

But when writing this book, what I need to consider is how to try to fulfill the true image of such a character.

Whether we surf the Internet, watch his movies, or have received many impressions of him since childhood, how much objective can we have?

We think he is noble, kind-hearted, and caring about the people at the bottom. In fact, this is the protagonist in the movie "Charrow" and other movies.

It is the characters in the movie, and we seem to be accustomed to equating the things in these characters with Chaplin in real life.

And I also know that if someone picks on such a person who seems to have been established, he will definitely be subject to a lot of opposition.

But I think that great achievements in art are not inconsistent with Chaplin in real life. To give an inappropriate example, the traitor Hu Lancheng is also good at writing, but we cannot deny that he is a traitor just because his article is good.

Also, I think it is also a good thing to provide a possibility that is close to the real Chaplin.

In fact, I have experienced it in my constant contact with the director’s material and in my chat with many people who know a little about movies and Hollywood.

A process from fierce opposition to doubt to finally calm.

There are a lot of related materials, you can find them.

I just want to say something casually here, but it is not a denial of Chaplin. I just want to present some historical facts that may be unfamiliar to everyone.

First of all, about nationality. Some readers listed Chaplin's reason for not joining American nationality is: I am a citizen of the world. This information is true, and he did say so. But in fact, there is no citizen of the world, and Chaplin has always been a British citizen.

Of course there are many explanations for why he did this, but in the re-release of "Mr. Verdu", the great artist received a call from the executive of the US Federal Court, who wanted to send Chaplin to Washington for interrogation. There were a total of nineteen people arraigned. Chaplin did not participate in the interrogation on the grounds that he was not an American citizen and the company would suffer losses due to his departure. Many times, he escaped related disputes and punishments on the excuse that he was not an American citizen.

There is another saying that Chaplin himself has always been eager for British aristocrats. Although Charlotte, whom he portrayed in the movie, is a person who is willing to live with the lower class and hates the "exploiting class", in reality, Mr. Chaplin has always cared about the title of jazz. As we all know, if he becomes a US citizen, it is unlikely to obtain this title.

There are also many fun things about titles. In the 1930s, Chaplin had been nominated several times despite his efforts to pass various relationships, but he was not awarded the title. The reason was that after the outbreak of World War I, the British media criticized Chaplin for not joining the army. Chaplin said that he had signed up, but was not elected during a physical examination. Although he raised a lot of money afterwards and filmed a comedic promotional chapter to please Britain, he still did not get dreams come true. In many years since then, his films have always been suspected of pleasing to the British authorities. In this regard, some American film critics have been criticizing it. On March 9, 1975, Queen Elizabeth II awarded Chaplin the Order of the British Empire, thus elevating him to a jazz. It is said that Chaplin raised huge sums of money for Britain, etc.

Second, in 1924, Thomas Ins, a generation of film masters and one of the founders of Hollywood, suddenly died on William Landolph Hurst's yacht, Chaplin was also implicated. This incident is one of the unsolved mysteries of Hollywood and may never be solved. In 2001, this incident was made into a movie by Hollywood. Although this incident was left unresolved under the operation of Hurst and Chaplin, the unreasonable death of Ins, who was very talented at the age of 46, made many people unacceptable. People can't help but ask what happened on the yacht that day. Chaplin has always been reluctant to talk about this matter, and even loses his temper with the reporters who asked the question. With Ins' death, it is a fact that his "joint production company" quickly declined and was swallowed. In fact, this company and Ins himself are strong competitors of Chaplin's United American.

In fact, within United States, Griffith, one of the founders, went from being the major shareholder first to being squeezed away to being deprived of the right to film for no reason, and Van Punk's final frustration, so Bikerfu had no choice but to sell the company, but it was afraid it was not accidental.

Third, Chaplin always had debates and assertions about whether he had Jewish descent throughout his life. Chaplin himself never discussed this issue before his lifetime, and refused to deny that he was Jewish. He said that doing so only provided evidence for "anti-Semitists". He often said that if he had Jewish predecessors, he would be proud of himself because "all geniuses have Jewish descent". Although Chaplin's half-brother Sidney was a semi-Jewish, even if he was really Jewish, it was not a shame to say it upright, and he did so simply to consider box office, other people's revenge, his reputation, etc.

Fourthly, in Hollywood, Chaplin's "lifelong addiction to young and beautiful women" was one of the reasons why he was criticized. Chaplin likes to discover and guide young female movie stars. This is how his marriages and important relationships except Mildred Harris began.

On October 23, 1918, 29-year-old Chaplin married Mildred Harris, the 16-year-old heroine of "The Wizard of Oz". The two had a child, but he died as an infancy. They divorced in 1920. During the divorce, Chaplin said that Harris had a lesbian relationship with Ella Nejimva, who is known for seducing young actresses, while Harris said that Chaplin was sexually addicted. Marriage was a good thing, but there was no need to use the reason for "homosexuality". At that time, a woman took the blame for such a culprit and her life was completely ruined, not to mention that she still had a wife who was sleeping with her.

After divorce from Harris, Chaplin had a very public relationship with actress Paula Nagre. Nagre had just arrived in Hollywood from Poland. This relationship, which was sometimes good and sometimes bad, ended nine months later. It was a bit like a precedent for the relationship between modern Hollywood stars. Compared with his other relationships, Chaplin and Nagre were very

In particular, Chaplin, 35, was in a relationship with 16-year-old Litae Gray when he was preparing to film "Gold Rush". After Gray became pregnant, the two got married on November 26, 1924. They had two sons: Charlie Chaplin Jr. (1925-1968) and Sidney Earl Chaplin (1926-). The divorce in 1928 was very painful. Chaplin had to pay Gray a record $825,000 at the time. This public-focused divorce, coupled with a tax dispute, made Chaplin's hair turn white. Court records were released, which contained many privacy details, which led to a campaign against Chaplin. As for the details of what privacy was, "a mystery forever."

From 1932 to 1940, Chaplin had a romantic and professional relationship with actress Paulette Goddard. Goddard lived most of this time at Paulette Goddard's home in Beverly Hills. Chaplin "discovered" Goddard and allowed her to play the leading role in Modern Times and The Great Dictator.

It is said that Goddard refused to clarify her relationship with Chaplin as the main reason why she did not get the role of Scarlett Haw in Gone with the Wind. After the relationship ended in 1940, the two publicly said that they had married secretly in 1936, but later Chaplin privately said that they had never officially married. This backfire made Goddard extremely sad. After the divorce, a young woman who had been with Chaplin claimed that she already had Chaplin's children. This caused Chaplin to be involved in the romantic incident and made a lot of trouble in Hollywood.

Chaplin and Joan Barry also had a short relationship. Chaplin originally wanted Barry to play the protagonist, but soon Barry began to get entangled with Chaplin and showed mental illness. Because of this, Chaplin left Barry, and this poor woman later suffered a miserable life.

Later, Chaplin, 54, married O'Neill, the daughter of the famous drama master who once won the Nobel Prize in Literature, and O'Neill, who was only 18 years old, although the marriage was opposed by the bride's father.

Chaplin said that the saddest thing in his life was three divorces, but it can be seen that in these three divorces, in addition to his losses in assets, those women suffered much more damage than him.

Fifth, Chaplin has always been opposed to his attitude towards audio movies, and said that audio movies are the thing he opposes the most in his life. After all, this is an artistic point of view, and there is nothing to say. In fact, silent movies are the most suitable art form for Chaplin. Audio movies are definitely a very lethal challenge for him. However, due to the loss of audiences and the decline of box office, he maliciously attacked audio movies on the directors engaged in audio movies from a emotional perspective, which is indeed a bit too much.

After listing these points, I don’t mean to say that Chaplin is a kind of person. I just think that because his movies reflect the lives of the lower classes and reflect the "badness of the bourgeoisie", our country’s evaluation of him is a bit high. Chaplin is a great film artist, and movies such as "Modern Times" and "The Great Dictator" are definitely great works in the history of films. However, we should not unilaterally equate him with the characters in the movie.

Can we try to look at a person objectively? Even if there is such a possibility?

I am very pleased with the debate in the comment section.

I think the trivial words I wrote have played such a role.

To be honest, I like Chaplin very much myself.

If you can have such an objective idea when you are watching it, which is a bit inspiring, I will be very happy.

Finally, I have always advocated happy reading, and it is great to read and laugh.

When reading the comments, I found that some readers were prone to personal attacks on others. Even if the object was not me, I felt it was unnecessary. If there was reason, just say it. Don’t let everyone shake their heads when they looked at your words. This is not good. For this behavior, Xiao Zhang will firmly delete posts, or ban comments, and argue, be more civilized, haha.

Finally, thank you for your support to Xiao Zhang, whether it is against or supported. With you, this book can be written forever.
Chapter completed!