A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate (1923) User Reviews (54)

Beautifully directed and acted

[morrisonhimself · 8/10 · 9 January 2005]

Charles Chaplin is noted for his comedy performances, and deservedly.

His direction, though, should be more highly regarded, if only for this one motion picture.

Compare the quality of the photography and the smoothness of the editing to, for example, "The Gold Rush," of about the same time.

"A Woman of Paris" is very modern; "The Gold Rush" is downright primitive (but, in spots, brilliant).

"A Woman of Paris" also shows some admirable acting talent in, really, all the players. Some of the lesser characters are still played beautifully, despite being "lesser," especially Marie's maids and her, more or less, friends, and very especially the masseuse.

And the scene where the artist's mother, played by Lydia Knott, bent on revenge, comes upon Marie -- with no words, just body movement and facial expression -- she tells the audience what the proverbial thousand words could not so well.

Credit for part of that good acting must, of course, go to the director, but even the best director can't make much of poor actors.

Chaplin had very good actors. Adolphe Menjou reached stardom, and deservedly. What a tremendous talent; he could do everything.

Edna Purviance should have achieved much more acclaim. She performed admirably, especially in this movie, and she was attractive. Fame is certainly fickle.

In some ways, "A Woman of Paris" might be written off by a few as "soap opera." But it is well worth watching for the performances and, especially, for the directing.

But That's Not Funny!

[nukisepp · 7/10 · 25 January 2021]

'A Woman of Paris' is rather a curiosity in Charles Chaplin's filmography. It stands as the only pure drama he wrote and directed. The film he made just to help foster Edna Purviance's career independent from him. This film was Edna's first and practically the last leading role ('A Woman of the Sea' from 1926 was never released and is now considered to be lost), which, of course, is a pity, because besides being gorgeous, she was a fine actress, and was able to shine on her own not only as of the sidekick of The Tramp. The complex role Marie St. Clair proved that. The film itself was a failure at cinemas not because it was bad (critics at that time liked it), but because Chaplin wasn't in it (only for a brief cameo - a man carrying the box in the trainstation). And it was, oh the horror! a drama.

I guess that's the reason, why Chaplin never tried his hand at a serious movie ever again (although he experimented with quite risky stuff later in his career). That's another pity - because Chaplin truly knew how to create complex characters amid moral turmoils and dilemmas. 'A Woman of Paris' is undoubtedly with flaws. Well, it was practically Chaplin's second feature film and the first time where he ventured that far from his comfort zone.

Altogether, 'A Woman in Paris' is a good drama (probably a bit overly melodramatic by the end), and needs more recognition from Chaplin fans and all silent cinema admirers alike. It really shows that Chaplin was much more diverse and deep as a filmmaker than just offering magnificent laughs.

a noble experiment

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 1 July 2006]

This film was not accepted by the public when it debuted, as it was only directed by Charlie Chaplin and it was not a comedy. Yes, he does appear VERY briefly in a tiny cameo, but other than that you'd hardly know it was his film.

Edna Purviance, a long-time co-star in many of Chaplin's shorts, is the star of this melodrama. Adolph Menjou is an amoral playboy who loves her--mostly for her body. Carl Miller is the old boyfriend who apparently has a very poorly defined role in the film and ultimately kills himself. In some ways, the movie is quite in advance of its time--taking on topics such as a sexually liberated woman and suicide. But, it also has its feet firmly grounded in the overly melodramatic past, with its occasion over-the-top script and its very old fashioned ending.

The film has excellent direction and cinematography. In addition, just before his death, Chaplin re-edited the film--adding a new score he wrote himself (something he did for most of his features). A beautiful to look at but just a little bit too old fashioned melodrama. It's worth a look for the curious, but it not an exceptional film--and I think that's what America and the world expected from this film genius.

Interesting Change of Pace From Chaplin

[Snow Leopard · 8 January 2003]

If nothing else, you have to give Charlie Chaplin a lot of credit for taking a shot at something so different from his usual fare. (Though he himself only appears on-screen for a few seconds this time, he did almost everything else in the production.) And while "A Woman of Paris" is certainly a cut below his comedy features, it's a pretty good melodrama, and you'd have to think that with experience Chaplin could have gone on to become almost as effective with straight melodrama as he was with his sentimental comedies. It's not really surprising that after this he returned to comedy for good, but that was just to keep audiences happy, not because he couldn't do drama, since this is a decent effort.

Chaplin's own frequent lady Edna Purviance is convincing as the young woman whose tangled love affairs pull her away from her true love and into a set of tangled relationships in the empty, decadent world of the Parisian idle classes. Except for being rather contrived - there are far too many coincidences and pat developments in the plot, and they do not work as well in serious drama as they would in a comedy - the story is interesting and fairly creative. It does get a bit heavy at times, since there is very little comic relief, but Adolphe Menjou helps keep it from getting unbearably serious with a good performance as the carefree, irresponsible Pierre. He shows that even without dialogue he can make this kind of character lively and memorable.

Since it doesn't quite measure up to the standard of either the best Chaplin features or the best silent melodramas, "A Woman of Paris" may not have a niche of its own, except for its historical interest. But it's quite an interesting change of pace from Chaplin, and an above average movie that's worth seeing.

Whatever Happened To Marie St. Clare?

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 12 July 2006]

In the 1920s Charlie Chaplin tried to break away from his double dependence on the "little tramp" and comedy. His first attempt (still a comedy) was "The Kid", where he made Jackie Coogan an equal in the film (althought Chaplin did get higher billing). Then he thought (quite seriously) of starring in a film biography of Napoleon I. There is a photo of him in costume as the Emperor, and Alistair Cooke (in his book "Six Men") mentions Chaplin demonstrating a piece of dialog that Napoleon would say regarding "perfidious Albion". Later Chaplin would concentrate on his co-star (and lover) Edna Purviance, doing this film and later having a second film called "The Sea Gull" that was shot by Joseph Von Sternberg but never released. The poor box office of this film, "A Woman Of Paris" really ended the attempts. Chaplin was a good businessman, and the bottom line was box office. So his next film returned to the tramp - "The Gold Rush".

"A Woman Of Paris" is a well made movie, and never fails to hold one's interest, particularly watching the budding elegant career of Adolphe Menjou. His Pierre Revel is a perfect boulevardier type - he dresses well, knows how to order great food (truffles), and is cynical separating a financial/socially promising marriage from continuing seeing his mistress Purviance. Edna is from the French countryside, and wants luxury and financial security. She also wanted to marry Jean Millet (Carl Miller) but the death of his father on the night they were to elope causes him to miss the planned elopement - and she leaves for Paris. We follow her there and her reunion with Miller - which leads to tragedy. Belatedly realizing what she has lost, Edna goes back to the countryside to assist Miller's mother (Lydia Knott) in charity work. The conclusion where she is happily riding home on a horse and wagon, while a fast touring car (with Menjou in it) drives by without seeing her is wonderful - Menjou was just asked by a friend whatever happened to Purviance, and he shrugs his shoulders.

Purviance is competent but not much more. Her success in Chaplin's comedies was as a reactor to Charlie, not as the creator of humor. She's not Mabel Normand, who was a clever comedienne. Miller is good, but stiff (possibly due to the character's limitations - Chaplin rarely tried to make a Pierrot character who was not the self-sufficient tramp). The best thing about Miller's character is his talent for painting.

One final note - Henry Bergmann who was one of Chaplin's regular actors (sometimes playing fat women, but he played other roles as well) is the head waiter at a posh restaurant Menjou takes Purviance. His indignation at a junior waiter "trying to muscle in" on this rich, big tipping special customer are quite funny.

Not the greatest Chaplin film work, but worth watching.

An early Charlie Chaplin flub

[psteier · 6/10 · 29 April 2001]

As his first United Artists picture, Chaplin tried a modern melodrama, perhaps thinking it to be what the public wanted. Unfortunately, it never comes together. Edna Purviance just seems to go through the motions though Adolphe Menjou is at his best.

Many nice touches of the sort seen in pictured directed by Erich von Stroheim. Wonderful women's costumes and sets in the best Hollywood style. Try to see the film with live musical accompaniment - the Chaplin score is overwrought.

Chaplin's First Dramatic Directed Film and Purviance's Last Major Role

[springfieldrental · 7/10 · 13 December 2021]

Fans of Charlie Chaplin flocked to the theaters anticipating a good laugh in his next film, September 1923's "A Woman In Paris." Despite a disclaimer in the beginning of the movie that this was a serious drama, viewers paying to see a comedy were dismayed and disappointed by it. But movie critics loved it, praising its subtleties and emotional depth. As writer David Robinson stated, "Chaplin inaugurated a whole new style of comedy of manners, and new styles of acting to suit it...by revealing the inner workings of his characters' hearts and minds through their external actions and expressions."

Chaplin felt that his regular comedic sidekick, Edna Purviance, who appeared in over 30 of his films since 1915, was becoming too mature of an actress to continue doing slapstick. He wanted to feature her in a serious, dramatic role to illustrate her expressive and sincere yet sober acting abilities. Gleaming a story idea from one of the country's most gold-digging of multi-millionaire wives, Peggy Hopkins Joyce, Chaplin formulated a story on a woman who leaves for Paris on a train after her supposed fiancee doesn't show up at the platform. Marie (Purviance) hooks up with a rich businessman, Pierre (Adolphe Menjou), and lives the life of luxury, until she meets up with her former fiancee. A suicide spices up Chaplin's plot, all derived from Joyce's own personal experiences. The comedian at the time was having a fling with this most interesting Virginian-born woman, Peggy Joyce, whose fangs dug into six very lucrative marriages. She was famous for quotes such as "True love was a heavy diamond bracelet, preferably one that arrived with its price tag intact."

Once the public realized the movie was all serious and lacked a Chaplin presence (he did have a short cameo as a train porter), the chairs in the theaters playing it became empty. Chaplin was forced to pull "A Woman In Paris" prematurely, which, being his first film for his co-ownershipped United Artists, hit the company's bottom line.

Chaplin's original desire to launch a new direction for Purviance fell flat. Not only was the film a failure at the box office, but a New Year's Day incident of 1924 involving a male friend put a crimp on her future acting ambitions. Attending an intimate gathering of three at oil magnate Courtland Dines' apartment with actress Mabel Normand, Purviance witnessed chauffeur Horace Greer (alias Joe Kelley) arrival to pick up Mabel. Conflicting accounts were given as to what happened next: either Greer saw something that hinted Dines being caught in the act with Mabel, or the host unexplicably approaching him angerly waving a wine bottle. Whatever happened, the chauffeur shot Dines three times. Purviance went to the wounded Dines assistance, and for the next 90 minutes tried to staunch the wounds in his bed. Greer drove to the police station to give himself up while the two actresses finally called an ambulance. With Dines refusing to testify during the trial, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict.

The scandal, with all the rumors filling in the blanks, basically slowed Purviance's career to a crawl. She was in one other Chaplin film, 'A Woman of the Sea,' which the unhappy director destroyed, and a 1927 French film. Her two uncredited parts in Chaplin's later movies were her swan songs of the secretary who turned into a movie actress. She received a small monthly salary from Chaplin for the remainder of her life. When she passed away in 1958 at 62, Chaplin, who appeared in over 30 movies with the actress, said "How could I forget Edna? She was with me when it all began."

An excellent drama from the first genius of Cinema

[bacardi_ben · 8/10 · 20 December 2007]

A Woman Of Paris was an acclaimed success with the critics when it was Originally released on 1st October 1923. However, the audience despised it as they wanted to see Charlie Chaplin the tramp starring in a film not a film directed by Chaplin in which he does not appear (albeit in a small cameo role). When i first saw the film on BBC2 around Christmas 1998 i thought Chaplin had a starring role so was naturally disappointed when i found out this wasn't the case. However, since then i have become a huge fan of Chaplin and all his work so now I think this film is rated among Chaplin's best features. His musical score composed in 1976 with Eric Rogers was Chaplin's last ever work in his film career which spanned 62 years. By 1976 Chaplin was very frail and struggled to communicate so the fact that he could compose the music for a near 80 minute film is amazing and the fact that the music score is as good as any of his other films is also astonishing. Charles Chaplin was a true genius of Cinema and A Woman Of Paris is an excellent example of Chaplin as director, writer and composer.

Chaplin directed melodrama

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 10 May 2022]

This romantic drama from Charlie Chaplin is certainly a departure for him, and aside from a brief cameo as a porter at the train station early on, he doesn't appear in this film. It centers on a couple who love one another (Edna Purviance and Carl Miller) and plan to elope, but fate intervenes. The pair actually separate twice over the course of the story, once because she doesn't trust him (not knowing he can't come to the train station because his father has died), and the second, because he doesn't trust himself (foolishly telling his mother than he won't marry him which she overhears). Both times, she ends up in the arms of a rich playboy (Adolphe Menjou), though she grows disillusioned there as well, because he plans to wed and keep her on as a mistress.

It's a decent enough story but gets a tad melodramatic, making it not particularly noteworthy. My enjoyment came more from the little moments in the film, like a waiter cooking a big basket of black truffles in champagne table-side (goodness how decadent!), Purviance's character spanking her friend (Betty Morrissey) for staying out all night, and a woman (Bess Flowers) wrapped up like a mummy and slowly unwound until she's naked at a party. The scenes of revelry and excess seem particularly well informed, and there are lots of visual details in the sets and clothing that make it a pleasing film to watch, the Jazz Age being in full swing and all. Adolphe Menjou makes a debonair rascal, and according to Jacqueline Stewart at TCM, said he learned more about acting from Chaplin while making this film than he did any other director. Overall, not a masterpiece, but held my interest and worth 82 minutes.

A Chaplin film without Chaplin as a performer

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 4 April 2010]

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.

"Well, such is Life."

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 1 November 2022]

This is the first feature made by Charles Chaplin for the recently formed United Artists and took everyone by surprise as he was not exactly renowned for his romantic sophistication. If, as has been suggested, the character of Pierre Revel is a self portrait of Chaplin himself, then it is just as well that the immaculate Adolphe Menjou played the role!

A year earlier Chaplin had enjoyed a brief liaison with notorious gold-digger Peggy Hopkins Joyce who regaled him with tales of her romantic adventures and boasted that a young man had killed himself for love of her. This formed the basis for his screenplay in which the Marie of Edna Purviance is torn between the insouciant womaniser played by Menjou and charmless Carl Miller as a melancholy painter.

It was hoped that this film would establish Miss Purviance as a dramatic actress but such was not to be the case whilst Menjou's growing reputation was further enhanced. There is excellent support by Betty Morrissey and Malvina Polo as a couple of glamorous feather-brains and Lydia Knott as Jean's mother whilst an uncredited Nellie Bly Baker does a marvellous turn as a poker faced masseuse.

Chaplin's direction here is faultless and one is struck by the naturalness of the acting. What was for the time a rather risqué party scene is brilliantly handled and the final scene of Pierre's luxury car passing Marie on a hay cart is worthy of a Lubitsch.

One of United Artists' founder members Mary Pickford commented on the film, "Oh, how well Chaplin knows women." Something of an understatement.

"Time makes strangers of intimate friends "

[Anonymous_Maxine · 10/10 · 1 May 2008]

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.

Chaplin melodrama

[n_r_koch · 6/10 · 1 October 2006]

This is not such a bad film, but how much did Chaplin really have to do with the direction? Much of the film looks like it was made by Monta Bell (credited as editor) who specialized in fallen women, grimy quarters, and mother-fixated men. Chaplin certainly wrote the thing, though: it keeps cueing us to identify with the Struggling Artist-- that is, with Chaplin, or Chaplin as he was a few years earlier. Menjou and Purviance and the supporting cast are so good in the early Paris scenes that the arrival of the artist is a nuisance. The conventional resolution after the triangle meet trashes the delicate ambiguity set up in these scenes; it turns out that the writer has just been stringing us along. But it's still worth seeing for these scenes.

Parisian Melodrama

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 2 August 2008]

I was looking in Charlie Chaplin's memoirs and I found that his original idea for the plot of A Woman Of Paris came from pillow talk with Peggy Hopkins Joyce involving one of her former boyfriends, a French publisher. From this came Charlie's idea to direct, but not appear in a film and hopefully make his long time leading lady from slapstick comedy, Edna Purviance a major dramatic star.

The reason given for the non-success of A Woman of Paris is usually given as the fact that people bought tickets and were disappointed that they did not see a Charlie Chaplin comedy. Probably on the silent screen, star images were even more fixed in people's minds than they were when sound came in.

But seeing it today it really does go overboard into melodrama. Edna's a simple country girl who loves Carl Miller, a struggling artist. Some blind mischances of fate and she winds up the paid woman of Parisian rake Adolphe Menjou. It's the tragedy of one romantic and the salvation of sorts for the other that are the basis of the story.

You couldn't make a film like it today, audiences would just laugh at it. In 1923 audiences were looking for laughs attached to the Chaplin name and found none. Edna does a fine job, but the public would not accept her in a drama. Adolphe Menjou as the rake comes off best in the cast.

The film ironically enough was Chaplin's first for the newly formed United Artists of which he was a quarter interest partner. After this one failed at the box office, he went back to cranking out the comedies we expected from him.

Back when I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board, I had a claimant named Wayne Purviance who was the victim of an anti-gay bias attack in 1982. It was a crime that galvanized the GLBT people of New York City, this person in particular. Wayne was the grand nephew of Edna Purviance.

He's no longer among the living, but to you Wayne Purviance who took some real blows for millions of people, this review is lovingly dedicated to you and your wonderful aunt.

Graceful, elegant photography and concise storytelling are made imperfect by missing narrative elements that would have made the film more plausible.

[Bob A-2 · 25 January 1999]

Finally saw Woman of Paris: this was a legendary film in its day, but mostly because it was virtually never re-released for sixty years after it premiered in 1923, so the legend grew in its absence. The parts of the story that were not told would have made a better movie than the movie, for example why the lovers' fathers at the beginning of the film are against the marriage, and how Marie (Edna Purviance) became a (shudder) "Woman of Paris" during the year following her departure from her fiance. So I didn't buy the story but the camera work and editing do marvelous things with the story that is there. The melodramatic climax is a bit much to be believed, but not comical as a lot of silent mellers appear today. A little D.W. Griffith (sophisticated early use of photography to tell story and set mood), a little Tolstoy ("bad woman" story contrasted with storyteller's emphasis on happy marriages and wholesome family life), a touch of Dreiser ("sinful" characters shown with realistic insight) and I'd guess a soupcon of Terrence Ratigan (sophisticated attitudes) but I doubt he was around then. The ad copy for this film says Chaplin has a cameo as a railway porter but I didn't notice one in the train scene: I suspect instead he was the ticket agent whose hand appears pointing out the ticket window toward the train. Altogether a satisfying and entertaining film, but the story would have been better if Chaplin had worked on it a little longer.

Lovely

[evening1 · 7/10 · 21 July 2014]

This charming film easily proves that Charlie Chaplin could do serious drama if only the public would have allowed him.

TCM announcer Ben Manciewicz notes that "A Woman of Paris" bombed at the box office but that couldn't have been due to the performances, which were uniformly wonderful.

Edna Purviance seems an unlikely heroine -- not dazzlingly gorgeous but convincingly expressive as a woman who'd like to give herself to a troubled artist who lacks the backbone to stand up to his mother and commit.

Carl Miller does well as the conflicted painter but Adolphe Menjou is wonderful as a shallow bon vivant who is more entertained by than enamored with the lovely Marie.

Lydia Knott is very good in the unglamorous role of Jean's doting mother.

I liked the way this film ended on an inspiring note by citing the redemptive value of giving to others -- an ageless message.

Coda: Music is used to wonderful effect in this film, as in sequences in which Pierre picks up a miniature saxophone and gives it a tootle. Impressively, it was Chaplin who composed the score.

An ambitious and interesting experiment from Chaplin, but it doesn't quite work

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 6/10 · 1 January 2023]

I remember starting 2022 off by watching a movie that was to turn 100 that year: the 1922 horror/drama/sort-of-documentary, Haxan. It seemed like a nice tradition to start: watching a 100-year-old movie at the start of every New Year, but I ran into a bit of a stumbling block when it came to what to watch at the beginning of 2023. Hopefully, this won't offend too many people, but 2023 was a bit of a shrug of a year for cinema. I'd already seen the two most well-known 2023 movies, too (a Buster Keaton movie called Our Hospitality, and Harold Lloyd's most famous movie, Safety Last).

I dug a little deeper and found a Lon Chaney-starring Hunchback of Notre Dame as an option, but ended up settling on A Woman of Paris, which is one of the few feature films directed by Charlie Chaplin I hadn't seen (I do need to catch up on all his pre-1920 short films one day). I've liked most of what I've seen from the actor/director/writer/composer, and even though A Woman of Paris is easy to get mixed up with his similarly-named movies A King in New York and A Countess From Hong Kong, hopefully, it'll stand apart in my memory (haven't seen the former, but it's better than the latter).

This explicitly differentiates itself from Chaplin's usual type of movie with a pre-movie title card that tells audiences A Woman of Paris is not a comedy, and that it won't feature Chaplin in the lead role. Instead, his duties were behind the camera, and the movie ends up being a melodrama about a woman being torn between two different lifestyles. The background of the movie, the way it stands out among Chaplin movies, and the reason I chose to watch it are all more interesting than the film itself, which is just fine by silent movie standards. Not the worst film of Chaplin's I've seen, but leagues from his best.

Also, while I respect he tried something different here, his brand of drama and emotional scenes often work so well when paired with his comedy (like how City Lights is hilarious but also a tragic love story, Modern Times is inventive and clever while also shedding light on The Great Depression, and The Great Dictator is silly and satirical with less humor as it goes on, ending with a powerful final speech/plea to the world). There are brief humorous moments here, but it's mostly serious and melodramatic throughout, meaning it doesn't have that great sense of contrasting emotions Chaplin's best films have.

Action rating pg-13 romance drama loud

[crazykiddap · 7/10 · 10 March 2019]

It's Charlie Chaplin movie I saw the kid Charlie Chaplin movie and modern times Charlie Chaplin movie the movie its great but some wanted to Mary him he say no and the other people wanna Mary him then he gun because he dot like her the woman want child the ending was wevery great too I like that movie too

" the magic city of Paris, where fortune is fickle and a woman gambles with life."

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 29 May 2007]

The second film in my somewhat unusual Charles Chaplin double feature (after the delightfully black 'Monsieur Verdoux (1947)'), 'A Woman of Paris' is perhaps the silent comedy master's least mentioned film, perhaps partly due to it not actually being a comedy, or because Chaplin himself appears only in a very brief cameo role. His first and, I'll venture, his only strictly dramatic feature, the film traces the romantic dilemma of a young French woman living in Paris. It was Chaplin's first film with United Artists – which he had founded in 1919 with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith. Originally entitled 'Public Opinion' and then 'Destiny,' Chaplin considered a dozen more titles before he finally settled on a name.

Marie St. Clair (Edna Purviance) and her romance Jean Millet (Clarence Geldart), an aspiring artist, residents of a small French village, have plans to move to Paris and get married. However, unfortunate circumstances delay their plans, and Marie impulsively boards the train without Jean. A year or so later, Marie has assimilated into the upper-class lifestyle of Paris, having become the mistress of a wealthy, cynical businessman, Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou). It is then that she and Jean suddenly meet again. Though there are undoubtedly still feelings between them, Marie must decide whether she can sacrifice all of Pierre's luxuries to pursue the man that she loves.

Written, produced and directed by Chaplin, 'A Woman of Paris' is a tightly-paced drama/romance, employing a lot of dialogue (somewhat unusual for Chaplin, who usually relied on extended slapstick comedic set pieces to drive his silent films) and a three-way relationship that has since become commonplace in films of this sort. The film allowed Chaplin to extend his skills beyond the realm of the lovable little Tramp. Unfortunately, this seemingly was not what audiences wanted. Perhaps perceived as a harmful satire of the American way of life, 'A Woman of Paris' was banned in several US states on the grounds of immorality, and it was a commercial flop. Chaplin had conceived the film as a means of launching the individual acting career of Edna Purviance, though this bid was unsuccessful. It did, however, make an international star of Adolphe Menjou.

Many critics, despite the poor box office performance, praised the film's startling realism. Notably, director Michael Powell ('Black Narcissus,' 'Peeping Tom') cited 'A Woman of Paris' as his greatest inspiration to become a filmmaker. In 1976, a frail Charles Chaplin – just one year before his death – reissued the edited film with a new musical score he had composed, aided by music arranger Eric James. A criminally underrated silent classic, 'A Woman of Paris' is yet another testament to Chaplin's undeniable cinematic genius.

I'm giving this an 8 despite its many faults

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 13 January 2005]

Marie St. Clair (Edna Purviance) is running away to Paris with boyfriend Jean Millet (Carl Miller). Unfortunately his father dies and he can't go. She goes alone. A year later she is a "kept" woman of rich Pierre revel (Adolphe Menjou). Then, by accident, she runs into Jean who has moved to Paris with his mother. She still loves him...but will he want her now? There are some huge problems with this film. For one thing--the overbearing music score that director/writer Charlie Chaplin added in 1977. It's loud, annoying and obtrusive. Often it doesn't even match what's on the screen! Cheerful music playing during dramatic sequences totally destroy any effect those scenes might have held. Also the plot is just ridiculous and very corny and VERY melodramatic at the end.

I'm giving this a high rating for a few reasons: it's beautifully directed by Chaplin--just stunning to look at. And, despite the plot, all the actors are just fantastic. Miller is handsome, strong and very affecting as the hero. Purviance is just perfect as Marie--you feel all her pain and indecision. Best of all is Menjou--this made him an instant star. He's just great as the heartless Revel.

So, I recommend it. Just turn the sound off and the acting will carry you over the rough spots.

A Look Back in the Past

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 27 January 2006]

Have to give this film a BIG TEN, it is a wonderful look back into the 20's when things were silent on the big screen and it was a different generation than 2000 plus. In those days everything was Radio and the Film Studio's. This is a great production by Charlie Chaplin and his mistress Edna, who was the love of his life, Edna Purviance. The story is about a young man who falls in love with a young gal and his dad and mom disapprove and at the same time tragedy hits the young man's family and he misses out on a very important date. Years go by and the young man still hangs on to his mother and finally meets up with the young gal he was deeply in love with years ago. Charlie Chaplin, produced, directed and composed the music for this film and did have a brief walk on appearance in the film. The public at the time were disappointed in this film, because Chaplin did not appear in the film, which he should have. In real life Charlie should have married Edna Purviance and ended all the scandal he created. This is too great a Classic film to find fault or criticize a masterpiece of the 1920's.

For Chaplin completists only

[tarmcgator · 3/10 · 26 June 2009]

"A Woman of Paris" is hardly the innovative work of genius that some Chaplin enthusiasts would have you believe, nor was it a flop just because moviegoers were disappointed that The Little Tramp was not to be seen in it. It's just a mediocre film, proof that genius can have an off day, or an off year, especially when it tries to push the envelope too much.

I'm not sure who originated the truism that every comic yearns to play Hamlet, but certainly Chaplin aspired to make films that were more than gag-laden comedies. He had already tugged at the world's heartstrings with "The Kid" (1921), and within a couple of years he was ready to make a "serious" film that would entirely omit the comedy image that had made him the most famous movie star on the planet. He also wanted to feature his longtime co-star (and part-time inamorata), the lovely Edna Purviance, who had been a pleasant presence in about three dozen earlier Chaplin shorts and features. Apparently, he had great belief in her abilities as a dramatic actress.

Unfortunately, Chaplin the writer/director didn't give his favored lady much to work with. The real weakness of "Woman" is the bland story, which has some rather large holes. Why do the fathers of Marie and Jean both object to their child's choice of fiancé(e)? How does a provincial girl like Marie -- who doesn't seem to have much going for her beyond her looks (Edna, who was 28 when "Woman" was released, looks harder and does not seem quite so fetching as she did five or six years earlier) -- develop in one year the ambition and cunning to become the mistress of "the richest bachelor in Paris?" How does she find out that Jean has moved to the city? None of these important plot points are really covered in the film. Chaplin seems to have thought that dazzling and risqué glimpses of the Parisian high life would be sufficient to hold the narrative together.

Of course, Jean finds out that Marie is a prominent courtesan, and he's torn between his lingering love for her and his widowed mother's insistence on marital respectability. (Shades of "Camille!") After the tragic climax, we get a quick inter-title telling us that Marie has learned her lesson, and the film ends with her departure from the the Big City of Lights as the richest bachelor motors on his merry way.

Kevin Brownlow and David Gill's explorations of Chaplin's creative process, "The Unknown Chaplin," makes it clear that Charlie didn't always have a firm grasp on the details of the story he was trying to tell -- and one suspects that may be why "Woman's" storyline is so pedestrian. Without the screen persona of the Tramp to guide him, and in his effort to make a "serious" dramatic film, Chaplin's inventiveness failed him in telling a compelling and believable story in which he did not appear.

This was Purviance's last featured role in a Chaplin film. A few years later she starred in a Chaplin-produced movie, "A Woman of the Sea" (aka "The Sea Gull"), directed by Josef von Sternberg. (This film is now apparently lost; Chaplin reportedly refused to release it and ordered the negative destroyed for financial reasons.) It would have been nice to observe Edna working with another director, if only to see if she indeed did have the acting chops in which Chaplin believed. She made only one more film (not counting a couple of very small roles in two later Chaplin movies) before retiring in the late '20s. (Chaplin kept her on his payroll, however, until she died in 1958.)

So, "A Woman of Paris" is essentially a Chaplin oddity, a film that every Chaplin fan ought to see at least once, if only to appreciate what the man accomplished in his comic films. But if Chaplin's name weren't on it -- contrary to some opinions -- it would remain a mediocre and unremarkable film, save for the appearance of Edna Purviance and the striking performance of Adolph Menjou.

Don't understand...

[CChaplin2005 · 13 May 2004]

I don't understand how "A Woman of Paris" has received a good deal of bad publicity. Sure, it may have been because Chaplin wasn't in it, but I found the movie to be pretty good. The plot itself isn't all that exciting, considering the basic love triangle has been overused in recent years, but in 1923, this was fairly new- for movies at least. I enjoyed highly "A Woman of Paris".

Adolphe Menjou is fantastic as a rich, snobbish, playboy who treats women like toys. Edna Purviance did good as well. Some may say that her character was "confused". Well, yes. When you're in love, you do strange things. Same thing applies to anger. Marie St. Clair simply was in love with Jean and had feelings for Pierre. She didn't know what she wanted, though. Did she want luxury or did she want true love. She obviously chose true love, even if didn't mean physically being with Jean. Great movie!

Genius' craftsmanship

[AndreiPavlov · 10/10 · 19 January 2007]

Previously my picture of Mr Charlie Chaplin in my mind's eye had been the following: a tiny clownish fellow who kicks other actors in the ass and gets thrashed and kicked in reply. In the course of time my perception changed. His music was playing as the background for the movies he participated in. Surprise. It was not Mozart but the clown himself. Now there is this film and it's definitely cinematic art. So many present-day directors cannot reach even 1/100th of the effect that is achieved by this black-and-white film that is even mute. It has no fountains of blood, no slo-mo, no bullets hitting foreheads, no explosions, no sex scenes, no *beep* words, no crude toilet humour, no trash-talk, no flat melodramatic elements, no crocodile tears, no stupid laughs. What more should a viewer want? The bitter irony and drama are scattered here and there. Its quality can be compared to the quality of the famous "Jeeves and Wooster" before it hit the appalling cast changes (hope, you know what is meant here).

Here goes mine 10.

Thank you for attention.

"It's not so bad this way"

[Steffi_P · 8/10 · 6 September 2010]

Charlie Chaplin's only completely straight drama that he directed but did not star in was a flop in its day, and due to its anomalous status has not fared especially well in later years either. Nevertheless it has had its champions, like British director Michael Powell and Swedish actress and director Liv Ullmann, and is hailed in some quarters as being as sensational and innovative as his comedies.

However a look at the formal style of A Woman of Paris shows much more simply an assured yet conventional grasp of film form, consistent with Hollywood production of the time. As in his comedies, Chaplin shows an intelligent handling of space and arrangement. In those early shots he gives a cramped feeling by having side walls visible up to the edge of the frame and foreground objects like the bed in Edna Purviance's room leaving little room for manoeuvre. An honourable mention goes here to the cinematography of Roland Totheroh which resembles Rembrandt lighting in all but one aspect – the slight level of clarity in the darkness (as oppose to full shadow) gives a very real feeling of squalor to those opening scenes. Chaplin also makes great use of background and foreground, minimising cuts by having multiple characters in the shot at once. Often there is emotional acting up front with physical acting out back. This is all superb, but it is hardly ground-breaking for the period, nor is it particularly surprising to anyone who has studied Chaplin's other works.

The plot of A Woman of Paris too is a fairly routine melodrama, with many twists that are clichéd and hard-to-swallow. Its condemnation of the excesses of wealthy socialites could almost have been borrowed from one of Mr DeMille's moral crusades. This being Chaplin however its depictions are generally a little more sensitive and humane than the average, and while we do have that hackneyed device of a man ruined by an unfaithful woman, in this case the woman is herself a more or less innocent victim of a callous playboy, and her reasons for her lack of fidelity to one man are at least given some empathetic explanation.

However, A Woman of Paris's melodrama, in spite of its formulaic structure, has a kind of truth-to-life that most other melodramas fail to achieve. Chaplin draws from his cast some steady, measured performances, free from the overt gesture and strained mugging of your typical silent picture. The emoting is clearly stated, yet it is never overstated. The wonderfully restrained Adolphe Menjou makes the best job of this, underplaying everything with a kind of suaveness which makes us believe women could be attracted to him in spite of his being a repellent bounder. Purviance is great too, always having been a competent straight woman to Charlie's funny man, now sticking to a languid pace and letting the emotions drift on and off her face. It's also nice to see Henry Bergman, probably the most professional of Chaplin's regular players, making a bit part and adding just a little note of the ridiculous without violating the drama. Amongst the other cast members, all of whom are now forgotten, no-one exactly stands out, but by the same token none of them shows themselves up with a bad job.

And while, like most Hollywood pictures of the time, A Woman of Paris is a little excessive with the intertitles, Chaplin rarely uses words to give anything away. Moments such as the young artist realising Purviance has another man in her life are revealed with sequences of visual clues, giving them an incredible smoothness and forcing us to really pay attention to those subtle reactions. Then there are those little touches of genius, those moments that separate the truly great filmmakers from the merely good, such as Purviance slowing down when she encounters a gendarme after hastily retrieving her necklace. With A Woman of Paris Chaplin, with his typical mix of unpretentiousness and devoted humanism, dives shamelessly into the lowest depths of melodrama, whilst giving to that genre a sprinkling of the dignity and honesty it so often lacks.