https://go.pub2srv.com/afu.php?id=1479657

Tuesday, 4 January 2022

Best Nursing Shoes for Male Nurse

 NEW BALANCE 608V5 AND YOU:

When you have new balance 608 v5,its easy and comfortable to move around all day.The new model 608 v5 includes and improved heelpad for premium cushioning and the best ABZORB outsole flakes for superior flexibility.

For Athletes: The New Balance 608v5 provides players with a high level of support in achieving their goals. That is why the New Balance 608 v5 is not designed to fit any image but to fit in every way  Which is why athletes like 608 v5 based on their performance.

The fifth version of the 608 v5 is designed to accommodate everyday men's and women's athletes. It is a verstyle shoe used for walking, gym, fitness and jogging.

Product Review: This product has a total score of 9.45 out of 10 based on 608 v5 reviews.

 Key Features of Product 608 v5:

 Ease of Binding: Its Closure Type is Strong and Seamless. The strap can be tightened or loosened at will.  Very easy to wear.

Quality of material: Strong quality soft and standard material is used.

 People's opinion: 608 v5 has full customer support based on its merits. 

Reasonable price: It is possible to get high quality shoes at reasonable price by purchasing. 

Color Variety: 608pv5 is available in almost every color. 

Overall Satisfaction: 608 v5 Overall satisfactory performance in terms of purchases.

Maintaining Physical Fitness: 608 v5 is perfect for maintaining your fitness in any area of ​​life. 

Comfortable to wear:  The sole of the shoe helps the foot absorb external pressure and increases your speed. It is very comfortable to wear. 

Outsole: The shoe rubber outsole has deep flakes that help your feet move in the shoe.

+3 K Analytics Review for New Balance 608: The 608 v5 Cross Trainer for Men is a very easy and comfortable shoe.

Upper sole: The fifth version of the New Balance 608 v5 uses standard leather for its upper unit. It gives the wearer comfort and strength of the foot. Extra soft leather straps around the heel and on the toes to strengthen the shoe structure.  In this version, the upper edges are extended upwards to provide extra support on both sides of the foot around the heel.

The inside of the shoe: The leather inside the shoe is kept fresh and airy with the help of holes so that the feet feel pleasant  freshness. 

608 v5 Shoe Outsole: The auxiliary outsole is fitted with an auxiliary standard leather strap that is stable during movement. Extends the unit to the front to cover the toes and protect them from collision.  The 608's outsole is lined with rubber at the bottom. Due to the non-marking of the rubber, it does not leave unwanted marks on the floor and the outsole design has been completely improvesid

Midsole: The midsole is placed inside a full length foam unit in the midsole to support the feet like a pillow. It helps to withstand the repetitive effects of regular exercise.  Keeps feet comfortable and light.

Pros:

Texture: Most users appreciate the texture and flexibility of the comfortable shoes offered by the 608. 

Size Fitness: New Balance 608v5's width and overall size of fitness fit consumers very much enjoyed. 

Color Scheme: The color scheme of 608 v5 is very elegant and attractive and similar to the colors of clothes. Especially the black color was very much liked by the consumers. Durability of the product: -  Appreciated the passage of time.

Physical Fitness: Most of the users were amazed that their arch felt physically fit while using this model.

 Disadvantages:

Excessive price: According to some people, the price of the shoe is little high.

Ankle Collar:Some customers desire that the ankle collar should have more support - the collar is a little higher to reach.

Monday, 29 November 2021

Jen Shah Net Worth: How Rich is RHOSLC Star Actually?

 Jen Shah Net Worth: How Rich is RHOSLC Star Actually?

 

Jen Shan, the face of popular reality tv show The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City. Jen who is the finest actor as well as an entrepreneur and a marketing expert has a net worth estimated to be $3 million. The companies on her name are JXA Fashion, The Shah Beauty and The Real Shah Lashes.

 

                                    Jen Shah Considered Her Job To Be A "Wizard of Oz" Before She Was Arrested

 

Early Life and Family

 

Jen Shah was born to Sione Kaisa Lui and Charlene Bonnie Vincent Lui on 4th oct, 1983 in Utah US. Her father, a rugby player passed away in 2008. She was brought up with five siblings Judd, Jessica, Jerrit, Jacob and Jehohn in a mixed ethnical background.

 

Jen Shah Net Worth and Career

Jen shah career started well with the reality tv show “The Real Housewives of Salt Lakes City”. Fortunately, she was selected for the first season telecasted on BRAVOTV in Nov 2020.  The story line was around six women in Sale Lake City.

 

Her dedication and hard work of 20 years was finally paid as she founded big marketing companies. After that she started off her acting career. Jen is associated with direct marketing making infomercials, direct mailing and print campaigns.

 Her expertise has made her leading businesswomen with exceptional business skills and commands. As the demand of her business, she has to travel a lot owning four different homes in NYC.

Her team consist of assistants to manage her looks, manage her work during covid. This all helped her to maintain her top position in her show.

 

Jen Shah Husband- Sharrieff Shah

Sharrieff shah, happily partner to Jen shah is ha NFL’s Utah cornerback coach for over 9 years now. Jen Shah is living happy life with her two sons Sharrieff Jr. 26 and Omar 16 years age now. She feels delightful after cooking healthy brunch for them.

 

Jen Shah Net Worth

 

Jen is acting as a full-time housewife on a reality tv show for a handsome amount. Jen shah personal wealth is estimated around $3 Million getting pai around $50,000 to $100,000 for her popular show. 

 

Source: https://exactnetworth.com/jen-shah-net-worth/

 

Monday, 30 March 2020

Coronavirus vaccine: when will it be ready?

Human trials will begin imminently – but even if they go well and a cure is found, there are many barriers before global immunisation is feasible
When will a coronavirus vaccine be ready? Illustration by James Melaugh.
 When will a coronavirus vaccine be ready? Illustration by James Melaugh. Illustration: James Melaugh/The Observer
Even at their most effective – and draconian – containment strategies have only slowed the spread of the respiratory disease Covid-19. With the World Health Organization finally declaring a pandemic, all eyes have turned to the prospect of a vaccine, because only a vaccine can prevent people from getting sick.
About 35 companies and academic institutions are racing to create such a vaccine, at least four of which already have candidates they have been testing in animals. The first of these – produced by Boston-based biotech firm Moderna – will enter human trials imminently.
This unprecedented speed is thanks in large part to early Chinese efforts to sequence the genetic material of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. China shared that sequence in early January, allowing research groups around the world to grow the live virus and study how it invades human cells and makes people sick.
But there is another reason for the head start. Though nobody could have predicted that the next infectious disease to threaten the globe would be caused by a coronavirus – flu is generally considered to pose the greatest pandemic risk – vaccinologists had hedged their bets by working on “prototype” pathogens. “The speed with which we have [produced these candidates] builds very much on the investment in understanding how to develop vaccines for other coronaviruses,” says Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Oslo-based nonprofit the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Cepi), which is leading efforts to finance and coordinate Covid-19 vaccine development.
Coronaviruses have caused two other recent epidemics – severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) in China in 2002-04, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers), which started in Saudi Arabia in 2012. In both cases, work began on vaccines that were later shelved when the outbreaks were contained. One company, Maryland-based Novavax, has now repurposed those vaccines for Sars-CoV-2, and says it has several candidates ready to enter human trials this spring. Moderna, meanwhile, built on earlier work on the Mers virus conducted at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland.
Sars-CoV-2 shares between 80% and 90% of its genetic material with the virus that caused Sars – hence its name. Both consist of a strip of ribonucleic acid (RNA) inside a spherical protein capsule that is covered in spikes. The spikes lock on to receptors on the surface of cells lining the human lung – the same type of receptor in both cases – allowing the virus to break into the cell. Once inside, it hijacks the cell’s reproductive machinery to produce more copies of itself, before breaking out of the cell again and killing it in the process.
All vaccines work according to the same basic principle. They present part or all of the pathogen to the human immune system, usually in the form of an injection and at a low dose, to prompt the system to produce antibodies to the pathogen. Antibodies are a kind of immune memory which, having been elicited once, can be quickly mobilised again if the person is exposed to the virus in its natural form.
Traditionally, immunisation has been achieved using live, weakened forms of the virus, or part or whole of the virus once it has been inactivated by heat or chemicals. These methods have drawbacks. The live form can continue to evolve in the host, for example, potentially recapturing some of its virulence and making the recipient sick, while higher or repeat doses of the inactivated virus are required to achieve the necessary degree of protection. Some of the Covid-19 vaccine projects are using these tried-and-tested approaches, but others are using newer technology. One more recent strategy – the one that Novavax is using, for example – constructs a “recombinant” vaccine. This involves extracting the genetic code for the protein spike on the surface of Sars-CoV-2, which is the part of the virus most likely to provoke an immune reaction in humans, and pasting it into the genome of a bacterium or yeast – forcing these microorganisms to churn out large quantities of the protein. Other approaches, even newer, bypass the protein and build vaccines from the genetic instruction itself. This is the case for Moderna and another company, CureVac, both of which are building Covid-19 vaccines out of messenger RNA.
Cepi’s original portfolio of four funded Covid-19 vaccine projects was heavily skewed towards these more innovative technologies, and last week it announced $4.4m (£3.4m) of partnership funding with Novavax and with a University of Oxford vectored vaccine project. “Our experience with vaccine development is that you can’t anticipate where you’re going to stumble,” says Hatchett, meaning that diversity is key. And the stage where any approach is most likely to stumble is clinical or human trials, which, for some of the candidates, are about to get under way.
Clinical trials, an essential precursor to regulatory approval, usually take place in three phases. The first, involving a few dozen healthy volunteers, tests the vaccine for safety, monitoring for adverse effects. The second, involving several hundred people, usually in a part of the world affected by the disease, looks at how effective the vaccine is, and the third does the same in several thousand people. But there’s a high level of attrition as experimental vaccines pass through these phases. “Not all horses that leave the starting gate will finish the race,” says Bruce Gellin, who runs the global immunisation programme for the Washington DC-based nonprofit, the Sabin Vaccine Institute.
There are good reasons for that. Either the candidates are unsafe, or they’re ineffective, or both. Screening out duds is essential, which is why clinical trials can’t be skipped or hurried. Approval can be accelerated if regulators have approved similar products before. The annual flu vaccine, for example, is the product of a well-honed assembly line in which only one or a few modules have to be updated each year. In contrast, Sars-CoV-2 is a novel pathogen in humans, and many of the technologies being used to build vaccines are relatively untested too. No vaccine made from genetic material – RNA or DNA – has been approved to date, for example. So the Covid-19 vaccine candidates have to be treated as brand new vaccines, and as Gellin says: “While there is a push to do things as fast as possible, it’s really important not to take shortcuts.”
An illustration of that is a vaccine that was produced in the 1960s against respiratory syncytial virus, a common virus that causes cold-like symptoms in children. In clinical trials, this vaccine was found to aggravate those symptoms in infants who went on to catch the virus. A similar effect was observed in animals given an early experimental Sars vaccine. It was later modified to eliminate that problem but, now that it has been repurposed for Sars-CoV-2, it will need to be put through especially stringent safety testing to rule out the risk of enhanced disease.
It’s for these reasons that taking a vaccine candidate all the way to regulatory approval typically takes a decade or more, and why President Trump sowed confusion when, at a meeting at the White House on 2 March, he pressed for a vaccine to be ready by the US elections in November – an impossible deadline. “Like most vaccinologists, I don’t think this vaccine will be ready before 18 months,” says Annelies Wilder-Smith, professor of emerging infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. That’s already extremely fast, and it assumes there will be no hitches.
In the meantime, there is another potential problem. As soon as a vaccine is approved, it’s going to be needed in vast quantities – and many of the organisations in the Covid-19 vaccine race simply don’t have the necessary production capacity. Vaccine development is already a risky affair, in business terms, because so few candidates get anywhere near the clinic. Production facilities tend to be tailored to specific vaccines, and scaling these up when you don’t yet know if your product will succeed is not commercially feasible. Cepi and similar organisations exist to shoulder some of the risk, keeping companies incentivised to develop much-needed vaccines. Cepi plans to invest in developing a Covid-19 vaccine and boosting manufacturing capacity in parallel, and earlier this month it put out a call for $2bn to allow it to do so.
Once a Covid-19 vaccine has been approved, a further set of challenges will present itself. “Getting a vaccine that’s proven to be safe and effective in humans takes one at best about a third of the way to what’s needed for a global immunisation programme,” says global health expert Jonathan Quick of Duke University in North Carolina, author of The End of Epidemics (2018). “Virus biology and vaccines technology could be the limiting factors, but politics and economics are far more likely to be the barrier to immunisation.”
The problem is making sure the vaccine gets to all those who need it. This is a challenge even within countries, and some have worked out guidelines. In the scenario of a flu pandemic, for example, the UK would prioritise vaccinating healthcare and social care workers, along with those considered at highest medical risk – including children and pregnant women – with the overall goal of keeping sickness and death ra tes as low as possible. But in a pandemic, countries also have to compete with each other for medicines.
Because pandemics tend to hit hardest those countries that have the most fragile and underfunded healthcare systems, there is an inherent imbalance between need and purchasing power when it comes to vaccines. During the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, for example, vaccine supplies were snapped up by nations that could afford them, leaving poorer ones short. But you could also imagine a scenario where, say, India – a major supplier of vaccines to the developing world – not unreasonably decides to use its vaccine production to protect its own 1.3 billion-strong population first, before exporting any.
Outside of pandemics, the WHO brings governments, charitable foundations and vaccine-makers together to agree an equitable global distribution strategy, and organisations like Gavi, the vaccine alliance, have come up with innovative funding mechanisms to raise money on the markets for ensuring supply to poorer countries. But each pandemic is different, and no country is bound by any arrangement the WHO proposes – leaving many unknowns. As Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, points out: “The question is, what will happen in a situation where you’ve got national emergencies going on?”
This is being debated, but it will be a while before we see how it plays out. The pandemic, says Wilder-Smith, “will probably have peaked and declined before a vaccine is available”. A vaccine could still save many lives, especially if the virus becomes endemic or perennially circulating – like flu – and there are further, possibly seasonal, outbreaks. But until then, our best hope is to contain the disease as far as possible. To repeat the sage advice: wash your hands.
 This article was amended on 19 March 2020. An earlier version incorrectly stated that the Sabin Vaccine Institute was collaborating with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Cepi) on a Covid-19 vaccine. It was further amended on 30 March to remove an incorrect reference to CureVac being a “Boston company”; its world headquarters are in Tübingen, Germany.

Since you’re here...

… we’re asking readers like you to make a contribution in support of our open, independent journalism. In these frightening and uncertain times, the expertise, scientific knowledge and careful judgment in our reporting has never been so vital. No matter how unpredictable the future feels, we will remain with you, delivering high quality news so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and security. Together we can find a way through this.
We believe every one of us deserves equal access to accurate news and calm explanation. So, unlike many others, we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This would not be possible without the generosity of readers, who now support our work from 180 countries around the world.
We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.
Your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.
We need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Monday, 24 April 2017

Fun with cop

Funny Bout

Sunday, 23 April 2017

Charlie Chaplin in Plane

Charlie Chaplin in a War funny video

Saturday, 22 April 2017

Charlie chaplin funny Barber Scene

Mr Charlie Chaplin, all time greatest comedian




Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmsCRNlNNQ&spfreload=5

Friday, 21 April 2017

The Comedian CHARLIE CHAPLIN

The endearing figure of his Little Tramp was instantly recognizable around the globe and brought laughter to millions. Still is. Still does


Every few weeks, outside the movie theater in virtually any American town in the late 1910s, stood the life-size cardboard figure of a small tramp–outfitted in tattered, baggy pants, a cutaway coat and vest, impossibly large, worn-out shoes and a battered derby hat–bearing the inscription I AM HERE TODAY. An advertisement for a Charlie Chaplin film was a promise of happiness, of that precious, almost shocking moment when art delivers what life cannot, when experience and delight become synonymous, and our investments yield the fabulous, unmerited bonanza we never get past expecting.
Eighty years later, Chaplin is still here. In a 1995 worldwide survey of film critics, Chaplin was voted the greatest actor in movie history. He was the first, and to date the last, person to control every aspect of the filmmaking process–founding his own studio, United Artists, with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith, and producing, casting, directing, writing, scoring and editing the movies he starred in. In the first decades of the 20th century, when weekly moviegoing was a national habit, Chaplin more or less invented global recognizability and helped turn an industry into an art. In 1916, his third year in films, his salary of $10,000 a week made him the highest- paid actor–possibly the highest paid person–in the world. By 1920, “Chaplinitis,” accompanied by a flood of Chaplin dances, songs, dolls, comic books and cocktails, was rampant. Filmmaker Mack Sennett thought him “just the greatest artist who ever lived.” Other early admirers included George Bernard Shaw, Marcel Proust and Sigmund Freud. In 1923 Hart Crane, who wrote a poem about Chaplin, said his pantomime “represents the futile gesture of the poet today.” Later, in the 1950s, Chaplin was one of the icons of the Beat Generation. Jack Kerouac went on the road because he too wanted to be a hobo. From 1981 to 1987, IBM used the Tramp as the logo to advertise its venture into personal computers.
Born in London in 1889, Chaplin spent his childhood in shabby furnished rooms, state poorhouses and an orphanage. He was never sure who his real father was; his mother’s husband Charles Chaplin, a singer, deserted the family early and died of alcoholism in 1901. His mother Hannah, a small-time actress, was in and out of mental hospitals. Though he pursued learning passionately in later years, young Charlie left school at 10 to work as a mime and roustabout on the British vaudeville circuit. The poverty of his early years inspired the Tramp’s trademark costume, a creative travesty of formal dinner dress suggesting the authoritative adult reimagined by a clear-eyed child, the guilty class reinvented in the image of the innocent one. His “little fellow” was the expression of a wildly sentimental, deeply felt allegiance to rags over riches by the star of the century’s most conspicuous Horatio Alger scenario.
From the start, his extraordinary athleticism, expressive grace, impeccable timing, endless inventiveness and genius for hard work set Chaplin apart. In 1910 he made his first trip to America, with Fred Karno’s Speechless Comedians. In 1913 he joined Sennett’s Keystone Studios in New York City. Although his first film, Making a Living (1914), brought him nationwide praise, he was unhappy with the slapstick speed, cop chases and bathing-beauty escapades that were Sennett’s specialty. The advent of movies in the late 1890s had brought full visibility to the human personality, to the corporeal self that print, the dominant medium before film, could only describe and abstract. In a Sennett comedy, speechlessness raised itself to a racket, but Chaplin instinctively understood that visibility needs leisure as well as silence to work its most intimate magic.
The actor, not the camera, did the acting in his films. Never a formal innovator, Chaplin found his persona and plot early and never totally abandoned them. For 13 years, he resisted talking pictures, launched with The Jazz Singer in 1927. Even then, the talkies he made, among them the masterpieces The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947) and Limelight (1952), were daringly far-flung variations on his greatest silent films, The Kid (1921), The Gold Rush (1925), The Circus (1928) and City Lights (1931).
The terrifyingly comic Adenoid Hynkel (a takeoff on Hitler), whom Chaplin played in The Great Dictator, or M. Verdoux, the sardonic mass murderer of middle-aged women, may seem drastic departures from the “little fellow,” but the Tramp is always ambivalent and many-sided. Funniest when he is most afraid, mincing and smirking as he attempts to placate those immune to pacification, constantly susceptible to reprogramming by nearby bodies or machines, skidding around a corner or sliding seamlessly from a pat to a shove while desire and doubt chase each other across his face, the Tramp is never unself-conscious, never free of calculation, never anything but a hard-pressed if often divinely lighthearted member of an endangered species, entitled to any means of defense he can devise. Faced with a frequently malign universe, he can never quite bring himself to choose between his pleasure in the improvisatory shifts of strategic retreat and his impulse to love some creature palpably weaker and more threatened than himself.
When a character in Monsieur Verdoux remarks that if the unborn knew of the approach of life, they would dread it as much as the living do death, Chaplin was simply spelling out what we’ve known all along. The Tramp, it seemed, was mute not by necessity but by choice. He’d tried to protect us from his thoughts, but if the times insisted that he tell what he saw as well as what he was, he could only reveal that the innocent chaos of comedy depends on a mania for control, that the cruelest of ironies attend the most heartfelt invocations of pathos. Speech is the language of hatred as silence is that of love.
On Chaplin’s first night in New York in September 1910, he walked around the theater district, dazzled by its lights and movement. “This is it!” he told himself. “This is where I belong!” Yet he never became a U.S. citizen. An internationalist by temperament and fame, he considered patriotism “the greatest insanity that the world has ever suffered.” As the Depression gave way to World War II and the cold war, the increasingly politicized message of his films, his expressed sympathies with pacifists, communists and Soviet supporters, became suspect. It didn’t help that Chaplin, a bafflingly complex and private man, had a weakness for young girls. His first two wives were 16 when he married them; his last, Oona O’Neill, daughter of Eugene O’Neill, was 18. In 1943 he was the defendant in a public, protracted paternity suit. Denouncing his “leering, sneering attitude” toward the U.S. and his “unsavory” morals, various public officials, citizen groups and gossip columnists led a boycott of his pictures.
J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI put together a dossier on Chaplin that reached almost 2,000 pages. Wrongly identifying him as “Israel Thonstein,” a Jew passing for a gentile, the FBI found no evidence that he had ever belonged to the Communist Party or engaged in treasonous activity. In 1952, however, two days after Chaplin sailed for England to promote Limelight, Attorney General James McGranery revoked his re-entry permit. Loathing the witch-hunts and “moral pomposity” of the cold war U.S., and believing he had “lost the affections” of the American public, Chaplin settled with Oona and their family in Switzerland (where he died in 1977).
With the advent of the ’60s and the Vietnam War, Chaplin’s American fortunes turned. He orchestrated a festival of his films in New York in 1963. Amid the loudest and longest ovation in its history, he accepted a special Oscar from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1972. There were dissenters. Governor Ronald Reagan, for one, believed the government did the right thing in 1952. During the 1972 visit, Chaplin, at 83, said he’d long ago given up radical politics, a welcome remark in a nation where popular favor has often been synonymous with depoliticization. But the ravishing charm and brilliance of his films are inseparable from his convictions.
At the end of City Lights, when the heroine at last sees the man who has delivered her from blindness, we watch her romantic dreams die. “You?” she asks, incredulous. “Yes,” the Tramp nods, his face, caught in extreme close-up, a map of pride, shame and devotion. It’s the oldest story in show business–the last shall yet be, if not first, at least recognized, and perhaps even loved.
Ann Douglas is the author of Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s
How We Came To Think “They’ve Killed Kenny!” Is Funny
As humor became the culture’s biggest currency, the jester used his free pass to become society’s truth teller — not only by questioning authority but also by sharing his most intimate neuroses.
GROUCHO MARX Media: Vaudeville, film, TV Trademark: A trickster who mixed fast, irreverent, smart-ass banter with broad physical comedy. Classic Routine: The “Why a duck?” bit with brother Chico from Cocoanuts.
BOB HOPE Media: Stage, radio, film, TV Trademark: Lovable chicken-heart in films; dapper wiseacre in stand-up. Classic Routine: Cascade of topical one-liners ribbing Presidents, celebrities and Ann-Margret’s physique.
LENNY BRUCE Medium: Stand-up Trademark: Blue material led to arrests — which provided lots of material about the First Amendment. Classic Routine: Yiddish-trained cops nailing him for using the word schmuck.
WOODY ALLEN Media: Stand-up, fiction, film Trademark: A stammering nerd obsessing over his neuroses. Classic Routine: Whining to his therapist that he’s not having enough sex while his lover says just the opposite in Annie Hall.
RICHARD PRYOR Media: Stand-up, film Trademark: Angry, highly personal, profanity-drenched tirades about race. Classic Routine: Mudbone, an old wino savant, talks about how stupid white people are.
MONTY PYTHON Media: TV, film Trademark: Absurdist, erudite, antiauthoritarian sketches. Classic Routine: The dead-parrot sketch, in which John Cleese tries to return a bird sold to him already deceased.



Credit: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988499-3,00.html


Memories of Chaplin in L.A.


Despite the fact he found Los Angeles “an ugly city, hot and oppressive,” Charlie Chaplin lived and worked here from late December, 1913, when he joined Mack Sennett’s Keystone Co., to Sept. 6, 1952, when he left for England, later to be barredfrom returning to the United States by the federal government.
In four decades here, he became perhaps the planet’s most celebrated person of his the and made films that will endure–just as he suspected that Northern California would endure long after “Hollywood has disappeared into the prehistoric tar pits of Wilshire Boulevard.”
The years since his 1952 exile have taken their toll on Chaplin’s Los Angeles, but history and developers have yet to wipe him from the scene–totally. The Charles Chaplin Studios still stand at LaBrea Avenue and DeLongpre Avenue, now home of A & M Records. The Georgian-style mansion in which he lived from 1920 remains on Summit Drive in Beverly Hills, its current owner the financially troubled Adnan Khashoggi.
Still standing too is the Circle Theater, on El Centro Avenue, in Hollywood, a converted drugstore where a group of young actors, including Chaplin’s son Sydney Chaplin, were directed anonymously by the star who sought artistic haven from troubled times. These days, the Circle Theater continues in operation.
But most indestructible among these physical remembrances are the personal memories many have of Chaplin and his days here.
NORMAN LLOYD, actor, producer and featured player in “Limelight.”
Lloyd became a friend and business partner of Chaplin’s after first meeting him on the tennis courts of Summit Drive. “He was a kind of 19th-Century genius,” says Lloyd, who was a regular on “St. Elsewhere” and appears in the upcoming “The Dead Poets Society.” “He was romantic, poetic–from another era, really.”
Acting as producer, director, writer, choreographer and composer, few details escaped Chaplin’s attention during the making of “Limelight.” ” ‘Rightly to be great . . . is to find quarrel in a straw,’ ” Lloyd says, paraphrasing Hamlet. “That was Charlie. There was nothing too minute, everything was important.”
Every experience was important, as well. With all his success, he couldn’t wipe away his childhood workhouse days. Lloyd recalls an episode at the house when 10-year-old Michael Chaplin was dragging a sweater along the ground. “Charlie said, ‘Get that up off the ground! People had to work for that!’ He always said, ‘I don’t believe I deserve dinner unless I do a day’s work.’ ”
SYDNEY CHAPLIN, retired actor, owner of “Chaplin’s” restaurant in Rancho Mirage.
Sydney was born in the house at 1085 Summit Drive, as was his older brother, Charlie Jr. His parents divorced before Sydney was a year old and the boys were relegated to weekend visits to the house. Sydney remembers tennis games, swims in the pools and stepmother Paulette Goddard pulling them out of school for trips to Catalina on the Chaplin yacht, Panacea. “She was great with us,” he says. His father was less available.
“Sometimes he was fun to be around,” Sydney says, “but mainly he was preoccupied with his work. When I grew up we had more in common.”
Sydney joined the Circle Theater at age 21, and Charles directed him in a number of productions. “It wasn’t bad working with my father,” he says, “but he was tough on me always. He wanted me to be better than the other people in the show.”
Sydney went on to play leads in “Lime light” (1952) and “A Countess From Hong Kong” (1967). Onstage, he won a Tony starring opposite Barbra Streisand in “Funny Girl.” Brother Charlie Jr. had less luck with his theatrical interest and died at 42, an alcoholic. Sydney isn’t a believer in inherited talent.
“Just because your family is in a business, that helps put you in it,” he says. “If your father was a coal miner, you’d probably be one too.”
GLORIA DeHAVEN, actress.
At age 9, Gloria DeHaven accidentally launched her acting career with a visit to the set of “Modern Times,” where her father, Carter DeHaven, was assistant director. Chaplin needed two little girls to play Paulette Goddard’s sisters. Gloria and her schoolmate were picked on the spot. “Mr. Chaplin said, ‘They’re perfect.’ All we would have to do was wear tattered clothes, eat bananas and run away from a truant officer,” DeHaven says, laughing at the memory. They were sent to Western Costume for tattering, came back to the set and “had a marvelous time.”
Afterward, they were all invited to his house. She was stunned to discover that, out of costume and on the tennis court, the funny little tramp was an “awesomely attractive man. He had a wonderful physique, tanned and very attractive. Then he came in and played the piano, told stories. There wasn’t anything that he couldn’t do. I was totally dazzled by him.”
LITA GREY. Retired performer, Chaplin’s second wife and mother to Sydney and Charles Jr.
Lita Grey gave birth to both her sons in a hospital-equipped delivery room in the mansion on Summit Drive and says that she spent many nights waiting alone there for her husband to come home.
Chaplin, then 35, had cast the 16-year-old actress as his leading lady in “The Gold Rush” but had to replace her in the role when she became pregnant by him. The marriage, she says, was forced by her family. “He backed out at first.”
Their divorce played for nine months in court and made international headlines for far longer. It caused Chaplin to have a nervous breakdown and is said to have turned his hair prematurely gray–Lita is the only one of his four wives whom he does not mention by name in his 1964 autobiography.
“He was a very difficult man to be with,” Grey, now in her 80s and living in an apartment in West Hollywood, says. “He was a genius, but hard to reach, with a big ego and terribly insecure.”
Of his notorious attraction to young women, she believes: “He’d try to create people. He enjoyed being the first person in a girl’s life.”
She doesn’t believe that he ever warmed to fatherhood. “He was never one to cuddle and kiss his children. He was always very objective around them. He looked as if he was examining them. He saw everyone in a frame.
“Charlie Jr. sought his father’s love and approval all his life,” she says. “Sydney was well aware of his father’s faults, but he didn’t let them affect him. Charlie was different, he needed his father.”
After the divorce, she launched a lengthy career in vaudeville and nightclubs as Lita Grey Chaplin. “The name was a definite advantage,” Grey says. “But when they overpublicized it, when they said the ex-wife of Charlie Chaplin, I made them take that down.”
WILLIAM SCHALLERT, actor, former president of the Screen Actors’ Guild.
Schallert, perhaps best known as Patty Duke’s television dad, was directed by Chaplin in a number of Circle Theater productions. It was a heady experience for a young actor, particularly in a theater that Schallert remembers fondly as a “rickey tick operation,” with barely 100 seats and a small, in-the-round stage.
Chaplin’s involvement with the group began shyly, as if testing for acceptance, then became total. “After a preview performance,” Schallert says, “he’d say, ‘There are just a couple of things I want to suggest.’ Then he’d start at the top of the play and work his way through the entire first act. When it was about 5 or 6 in the morning, Oona (Chaplin’s wife) would finally say, ‘Come on Charlie, let them go home, they’ve got a performance to do tonight.’ Then they’d drive off in his little old black Ford.
“We’d end up redoing the play two and three times in two to three nights. By opening night, we’d be in a state. It was helter-skelter for inexperienced actors, but exciting. It was a remarkable process. It was like if you were a painter and working with Picasso. We had some rare treats,” Schallert says.
“There was something very endearing about the man. He’d work with us with unlimited enthusiasm and affection. Not openly affectionate. There was a little wall, there, in fact. He was always ‘Mr. Chaplin,’ but actions are always louder than words.”
JERRY EPSTEIN, producer, director and author of “Remembering Charlie: A Pictorial Biography,” published this month by Doubleday.
Epstein, founder of the Circle Theater, shared a friendship and professional relationship with Chaplin that lasted until the star’s death in 1977. Epstein, who produced Chaplin’s last film, “A Countess From Hong Kong,” feels that the Circle Theater, at the outset of the McCarthy era, “was good for (Chaplin) . . . to find people who adored him. We didn’t care about his politics. He was one of those isolated Hollywood figures, like Garbo, an untouchable, and here he was just looking for friendship.”
The young troupe learned perfectionism under Chaplin’s direction. “Charlie worked and worked until he got it right. He always told us that the audience should think that they’re looking through a keyhole. ‘I don’t want to see any acting!’ He was after absolute reality.”
Epstein recalls the long walks they would share on the streets of Los Angeles where Chaplin sought his own sense of reality. “He liked to see people, see how they lived. Everything ‘talked’ to him. His antennae were always out.”
The only thing he ever asked in payment for his work at the Circle was, “35 cents and a cup of black coffee.” And Chaplin was never gloomy about his pending personal problems. “He used to say he was like an old weed–you pull it out, but it just keeps coming back.”
Chaplin came back to Hollywood just once, in 1972, to accept a special Oscar. He chose not to visit any of his Los Angeles haunts during the visit.







Join Our Newsletter