It is a rags to riches story. Charlie Chaplin was raised in the slums of South London. His mother was in and out of an asylumWhen a state agrees to shelter somebody who is fleeing dangerous circumstances. The right to asylum is protected in international law by the 1951 Refugee Convention.. At 4, he was sent to a workhouseAn institution where those unable to support themselves financially were housed and forced to work. Lambeth Workhouse, which Chaplin visited on several occasions, is now London's Cinema Museum..

Chaplin's only refuge was the stage, where. In 1914, he was spotted by a Hollywood producer while touring America with a vaudevilleA type of theatre comedy popular in France, the US and Canada between the 1880s and 1930s, featuring a variety of dance acts, comedians, musicians, clowns and other performers. troupe. Weeks later, he starred in his first short film. By the end of 1915, he had become the first megastar.

A new documentary tells this extraordinary tale. But The Real Charlie Chaplin also reveals deeply unpleasant truths about his private life. 

Chaplin's first two wives, Mildred Harris and Lita Grey, were 16 when he married them. He had known Grey since she was 12. They hurriedly married in Mexico after she became pregnant. On the way back, Chaplin asked her to jump in front of a train.

Some regard these revelations as a stain on his character. As critic Deborah Ross says: "he was plainly a monster". Others have rushed to his defence, including his granddaughter Kiera: "It was a different time with different mentalities."

We live in the age of cancel cultureA movement to withdraw support from public figures or celebrities who have done things that aren't socially accepted today. The idea of cancelling someone stems from a 1981 song by the disco band Chic, Your Love Is Cancelled.. The recently cancelled include actor Armie Hammer, Ellen DeGeneres and JK Rowling. Should Chaplin join them?

Some think yes. Chaplin may have lived in a different time. But bad deeds do not become less bad over time: historical atrocities remain atrocious.

Critics argue that every time we watch one of Chaplin's films we sanction his behaviour. Worse, we might be absorbing his values. Artworks express the thoughts of their creators. The abstract painter Agnes Martin said: "Art is the concrete representation of our most subtle feelings." The mentality that led Chaplin to commit terrible acts is embedded in his films.

Others say some of the greatest art has been created by terrible people. Ben Jonson killed a man in a duel. Paul Gauguin married a 13-year old Tahitian. Yet Jonson's plays are still performed, and Gauguin's works hang in the world's greatest museums.

The sculptor Auguste Rodin said: "There should be no argument in regard to morality in art. There is no morality in nature." Artists may commit evil deeds, their artwork is separate. Just ask conductor Daniel Barenboim, who is Jewish and championed the music of the anti-Semitic composer Richard Wagner. Wagner was prejudiced, but the notes he composed are not.

Yes: Chaplin's actions caused an untold level of misery to his young wives, but he was never punished for it in life. The only way we can extract an element of justice is to shun his work.

No: Chaplin did some terrible things in his life. But the good outweighs the bad. While he harmed a limited number of people, he also brought an incomparable amount of joy to millions across the world.

Or... We can cancel the living. But it is impossible to boycott Chaplin. The man himself is long dead. And his work is so enduring and influential that it has become an unalterable part of the DNA of film.