Charlie Chaplin´s Burlesque on Carmen   next   previous

Burlesque on Carmen Clippings 67/101

Moving Picture World, New York, May 6, 1916.

Charlie Chaplin‘s Burlesque on Carmen Scenes

& NATHAN BURKAN – ON WITH THE SPECKS

Chaplin‘s attorney Nathan Burkan

(...) Drawing. Film Daily, April 17, 1929

& Nathan Burkan

(...) Motion Picture News, September 4, 1926

„Released without his approval“

Editorial content. „Chaplin Seeks to Enjoin Carmen

      In Action Begun in New York Supreme Court. Comedian

      Alleges Burlesque on Carmen is Padded.

      Charles Chaplin has brought suit against the Essanay

Film Manufacturing Company, his former employer,

and the V-L-S-E, Inc., for permanent injunction against

the distribution of Charlie Chaplin‘s Burlesque on Carmen. The

actor charges  that the picture as originally made by him

was in two reels of one thousand feet each and that it is being

released in four ,padded‘ reels of such quality as seriously

to injure his fame.

      An ,order to show cause‘ directed against Essanay

and the V-L-S-E has been signed by Justice Nathan

Bijur in the Supreme Court of New York. The comedian

is represented by Nathan Burkan, attorney. The

application for injunction is accompanied by a long affidavit

signed by Sidney Chaplin, brother and agent of

Charles Chaplin, setting forth the facts relating to the making

of the burlesque on Carmen, and citing the adverse

criticisms of the production which appeared in newspapers,

dramatic and motion picture publications.

      Chaplin charges that the release of the picture in four

reels is unlawful and a violation of his contract with

the Essanay company. This contract is made an exhibit

in the action.

      Chaplin avers that his rights both as an actor,

a producer and an author are violated by the four-reel

Carmen. The suit is unique in the history of motion

picture litigation in the issues raised.

      Under the terms of his contract Chaplin alleges

that the Essanay company agreed that no pictures bearing

his name should be released without his approval

and final O. K. He says that he made a two-reel Carmen

and directly charges that the Essanay company,

after he had completed the picture and left the employ

of the company, employed one Ben Turpin and

other actors to make additional pictures, with which

Carmen was padded.

      The application for injunction cites the fact that

the distributing concern, the V-L-S-E, has circulated advertising

matter all over the country with the film, calculated

to convey the impression to the public to believe that the said

film exhibited by the defendants is the film based on

a scenario created by the plaintiff and that said photoplay was

produced, directed and made under the supervision

of the plaintiff.

      Service was accepted by an officer of the V-L-S-E.“

      Supreme Court of New York.

      Essanay‘s Carmen Fake.

Redaktioneller Inhalt

 Charlie Chaplin´s Burlesque on Carmen   next   previous