I caught the tail end of a factoid on a television documentary last night – something about how Charlie Chaplin’s cement footprints square disappeared in the '50s from Grauman’s Chinese Theater. I find this heart-breaking! I did a 'net search, but didn’t come up with anything more specific than “they mysteriously disappeared.” Who’s knowledgeable about Hollywood gossip and McCarthy era politics? Are there any rumors about who has the square?
A number of the original footprints are gone—Mann’s (what Grauman’s is now called) had to get rid of some of the “lesser-knowns” to make room for “big stars” like William Shatner and Sandra Bullock. Other squares had to be removed to make room for a bigger box office and a concession stand. Also, some deterioriated through the years and hadda go.
So maybe Chaplin’s vanishing footprints were no mystery at all. Are you sure that he ever indeed DID sign in cement? Someone DID swipe his body, though . . .
I think we all know this “someone” was none other than Charles Montgomery Burns.
Eve: I know that I turned up several sites which discuss that his square vanished, and so can only assume that one existed. It doesn’t seem likely that he would be classified as one of the “lesser-knowns,” and I do believe that the bit of information I caught before Mr. Pug changed the channel mentioned how the square disappeared right about the time Chaplin was catching hell for being a “Communist sympathizer.”
I’d sure like to know which square they eliminated to make room for Bill Shatner. No matter how obscure the older star was, getting bumped for that bonehead was undeserved. [Putting on catty, malicious gossip hat] I bet Bill pushed his wife in. [Removing cmgp.]
Pug—
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Chaplin’s square was removed for his Commie sympathies (whereas it SHOULD have been removed because he was a child-molesting, artistically over-rated, animal-torturing SOB).
It might have been one of the squares that was damaged by weather or bad cement composition, but the timing DOES indicate political reasons . . .
a) Hey, most of those girls were at LEAST fourteen. And they were very accomodating young ladies; “molesting” might be overstating the case.
b) Debatable…'course, it would be hard for anyone to live to the amount of hype he’s had.
c) ANIMAL-TORTURING? Explain, please.
OK, “pedophile,” then.
As far as the animals, I recently read one of the new bios of him. It seems that on the set of “M. Beaucaire,” Chaplin was petting a cat that would not calm down and let him get through the scene as he wanted. To the crew’s horror, he had the cat killed and stuffed so he could use it in the rest of the scene.
In the early 1970s, when Chaplin was knighted and brought back to the U.S. to get his “Deathbed Oscar,” Mary Pickford was asked what she felt about the resurgence of approval of Chaplin. “That’s all very well and good,” she said, “but he’s still a sonofabitch to me.”
Oh, Mary was still cheesed off because Charlie had had Doug Fairbanks killed and stuffed back in '39.
I thought Doug was stuffed and mounted. Mary stuffed him, and Charlie . . .
[running for exit, ducking]
Hey! That’s how RUMORS get started!
…did I mention that on Halloween I wore a toilet seat around my neck, and went as Lupe Velez?
…back on subject, did anyone ELSE think Norma Desmond was extra-special hot when she dressed up as Charlie Chaplin?
…so when d’ya think manny’s going to drop by and close this thread with a bang?
Hey! Is that why I got no reaction from you when I showed up at the last Dopefest dressed as Snub Pollard? Dang!
Speaking of Snub Pollard, didja ever notice, in his filmography, he made about twenty movies a year between 1915 and his death in 1962?
BUT…after 1924’s LAW AND ORDER, he only made one film…1928’s MEN ABOUT TOWN…before 1931, when he got back into the swing of things with ONE GOOD TURN.
These…the “Lost Snub Pollard Years”…should really be investigated by a serious biographer. Just what the heck was he UP to for those seven years? Was MEN ABOUT TOWN such an artistic maelstrom that he needed to devote four years to its creation, and three more to recuperate?
Yep. It should really be investigated by a serious biographer.
You mean Monsieur Verdoux, right? Otherwise, one’s inclined to think you had your glasses off if you mistook Bob Hope for le Charlot. 
Wow, I’m glad Marlon Brando didn’t hear that story when playing Don Corleone! 
Oops, thanks, ArchiveGuy—I always get Chaplin and Valentino confused . . . causes all kinds of merry mixups.
Ike—Maybe my next book will be about Snub Pollard; after I finished my Billy DeWolfe bio, entitled “Pursed Lips.”
Oh, that’s an easy one to remedy…just remember that Chaplin was the one who got laid more.