Hi Evan,

Don't know what the problem might be. I always review all the uploads before I publish them to assure these kinds of problems don't occur. So I can confidently say that it was playing fine from beginning to end.

It's ironic, in a way, because your comments relate directly to the part of the episode you didn't get to hear. So I'll hold off making any response until you get a chance to hear it in its entirety. If you like, we can continue this question off-line.

First off, in the last Podcast, for me at least, it seemed to be cut off much too early. Charles says "with the goal of stealing from them", and then stops. Maybe it's just because I'm in Japan, but I'm inclined to think otherwise.

Anywho, on the subject of "liking" and "loving" movies, I have a few thoughts that are prematurely developed, but I will say anyways. Honestly, I don't know the difference between these two distinctions. One reason may be that "love" has been thrown around for so many years that it has lost almost all it's meaning. Personally, I am sporadic with my love. When someone asks me what my favorite films are, I almost always go blank, because my love for film is so temporal. The only one that jumps to my mind every time is "Sans Soleil" by Chris Marker. True, maybe the only film I truly love is "Sans Soliel", but maybe because that's the most recent film that has truly changed my life in one way or another.

But, as far as I heard in the last Podcast, because it was cut short, the only thing that sets films apart subjectively between "like" and "love" is personal attachment that not many others can relate to. To make something unique, to make it an individual in some sense, and fall in love with it, as someone may fall in love with themselves. To set yourself apart from others, just as style does and, in some cases, content as well.

This is an interesting standpoint, as "Sans Soleil", for myself, is extremely personal because not many people know about it, and it is "mine" in some sense. I see something in it that has truly changed my life and not those around me. This, of course, is not the only reason, but may be a part of it. Who knows.

Thanks for the words of encouragement and the comment.

Why no Chaplin in my podcasts? Well, there are several answers, so bear with me.

First, I simply have not seen that much of Chaplin's work, and therefore don't feel qualified in offering much of an opinion. What I have seen has not moved me much, even though I recognize his importance in the history of film. That is the simple answer.

Of course, it begs the question of what it is about Chaplin that fails to move me. And since emotional involvement is always a question of both the qualities of the art work and of the viewer, I'll come at this question from both directions.

As to the qualities of Chaplin's work, it simply does not interest me at the level of form. Again, I say that with the greatest respect, but with the recognition that I am looking for something other than what he provides at his best. (Or at the best of what I've seen, which is probably "The Gold Rush.") The static simplicity of his camerawork, for example, while completely apt for his purposes, doesn't appeal to my aesthetic. Not because it is static, but because it is so performance centered.

As for myself, I am too much of a sensualist in my movie tastes to have much interest in silent cinema. People are often surprised to hear this. They assume that because of my visual orientation that silent films would be my ideal. In fact, I generally dislike silent cinema because of the lack of sound, period. Too much of what I respond to in films results from the totality of effect achieved by stimulation across the senses. I am also too aware of how much of the acting, in particular, is stylized because of the performers' inability to use their voices. I crave dialogue.

I know this may sound bizarre, but the absence of sound in silent film inevitably detracts from the *image* for me. There is a weird intertwining between image and sound that goes pretty deeply into human perceptual wiring, I think. For example, I have a dubbed copy of "The Conformist" which I can barely watch, not because the visual quality is all that bad, but because the bad dubbing makes it *look* awful. I've mentioned this to filmmaker friends, and they knew exactly what I was talking about. There is just something about the absence of aural stimulation, or bad aural stimulation, that impacts the images, no matter how beautiful.

Of course, I know that Chaplin made sound films too, however reluctantly. I guess I have just assumed that having at best only a mixed reaction to his silent work, I wouldn't care all that much for his sound films.

I hope that answers your questions. Who knows, maybe I'll change my mind.