Of all the interviews I have done over the years one of the two I treasure most (the other was with Ingmar Bergman on his island in Sweden) was a talk with Chaplin at his home in Vevey, Switzerland. My wife and I visited him in 1972 for an exclusive interview shortly before his return to the United States to be feted by the Film Society of Lincoln Center and to receive an honorary Oscar. The accolades were in a way attempting to make amends for the shabby way he was treated in the McCarthy era, when upon leaving for Europe he was told he would not be admitted back into the United States unless he proved his good moral character. Chaplin chose to remain abroad.

Chaplin was elderly at the time or our meeting, and he replied slowly to questions. But there were flashes in the conversation indicative of his approach to his work, his reactions to family, his poverty-stricken childhood and attitude toward the world in his twilight years. What I perceived jibes with much of what Schickel has managed to get on screen in a film that is133 minutes long but could deservedly have been longer.

Among those interviewed are Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey and Bill Irwin. We see movies of family members. His sons Michael and Sidney, for example, have their say, and Sydney Pollack delivers Schickel's intelligently written narration. Best of all, of course, are the clips from Chaplin's films, some revealing the off--camera preparations for a scene. Quite correctly, Chaplin's turbulent personal life, involving his love affairs and marriages are covered, as Schickel tries to be comprehensive to match the stature of the man and his art. We also get a sense of the passion for performing that drove Chaplin and the individuality reflected in the films that he wrote and directed.

One carp that I have is the insufficient treatment of Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux," which the documentary leads us to believe was universally rejected by critics. Not so. Many, yes. But James Agee, considered one of the most profound critics of his day, while not without criticism, reviewed the film in The Nation (1947) and called Chaplin's performance as Verdoux "the best piece of playing I have ever seen." He also believed that the film "is high among the great works of this century."

I also think there should have been more about Chaplin's "A Countess from Hong Kong," a film that has generally been too readily dismissed, and there especially should have been more about the relationship of his "A King in New York" to his treatment by the United States. This is a much better film than he was given credit for at the time, and it holds an important place as one of the few films that have dealt with the McCarthy era.