City Lights
I have seen a good handful of Charlie Chaplin movies-"The Gold Rush," "The Kid," "Modern Times," and several of his talking movies-"The Great Dictator," and my personal favorite, "Limelight," which contains the first and only time he appeared on a screen opposite Buster Keaton. Playing at the Film Forum from now until January 1st is Chaplin's next to last silent film "City Lights." Released in 1931-about four years after sound film was used-Chaplin still continued to make silent films, believing that the talking pictures would be the end of film. He does take advantage of the sound-the movie contains an already set musical score by Chaplin himself, as well as several sound effects. As a goof in one of the early scenes there is some dialogue, but it's just Chaplin himself making gibberish noises, something he did a second time when he did "Modern Times" five years later.
I had never seen "City Lights," and certainly jumped at the chance to go and see it on the big screen. And I never experienced joy just as much as I do when I sit in a silent comedy with a large audience-perhaps the last time was in November when I saw "Battling Butler," or even two and a half years ago when I saw "Dr. Jack," still my favorite silent comedy. But I've always said that even though Harold Lloyd-the third and lastly mentioned silent genius of the time-made me laugh more, but Charlie Chaplin made better movies. Chaplin-working independently and by himself-made his own movies-writing, producing, directing, acting, and even sometimes doing music (like this film.) Lloyd films, and even most Keaton films with a few exceptions (maybe "The General," and "The Navigator" and certainly "Sherlock Jr." which is still one of the most amazing technical works of the time) relied mostly on the various gags and stunts that they do, and did not rely very heavy on plot. Most early Chaplin, and almost all of late Chaplin, relied on plot and social commentary, and also threw in some amazing stunts and gags to take it even further. Perhaps that's why he is regarded in the extreme high regard that he is today as opposed to the others.
"City Lights" is subtitled A Comedy Romance in Pantomime, and that is certainly what is it. We follow Chaplin's signature Tramp character as he ends up meeting and falling in love with a blind woman who sells him a flower. He decides to help her out and give her some money-some for the high rent that she needs to pay, and then some more to fix her eyes. And that's where the trouble begins. There are so many different little segments after this-the most memorable (and certainly the centerpiece of the movie) involves a boxing ring and Chaplin's hard work to stay away from getting knocked out. And several other comic moments involve a character billed only as "An eccentric millionaire," who only seems to remember the Tramp whenever he is completely drunk.
"City Lights" is another Chaplin delight-even his more minor works manage to end up being something truly special. It mixes Chaplin's gentle slapstick comedy perfectly with a love story, mediation's on loneliness, and of course The Tramp himself-even though it wasn't the only character that Chaplin played, it is certainly the most memorable. There are still several days on this run at Film Forum, and I suggest you go see it when you can before New Year's Day.
Final Grade
City Lights (1931) ***1/2 of ****
I had never seen "City Lights," and certainly jumped at the chance to go and see it on the big screen. And I never experienced joy just as much as I do when I sit in a silent comedy with a large audience-perhaps the last time was in November when I saw "Battling Butler," or even two and a half years ago when I saw "Dr. Jack," still my favorite silent comedy. But I've always said that even though Harold Lloyd-the third and lastly mentioned silent genius of the time-made me laugh more, but Charlie Chaplin made better movies. Chaplin-working independently and by himself-made his own movies-writing, producing, directing, acting, and even sometimes doing music (like this film.) Lloyd films, and even most Keaton films with a few exceptions (maybe "The General," and "The Navigator" and certainly "Sherlock Jr." which is still one of the most amazing technical works of the time) relied mostly on the various gags and stunts that they do, and did not rely very heavy on plot. Most early Chaplin, and almost all of late Chaplin, relied on plot and social commentary, and also threw in some amazing stunts and gags to take it even further. Perhaps that's why he is regarded in the extreme high regard that he is today as opposed to the others.
"City Lights" is subtitled A Comedy Romance in Pantomime, and that is certainly what is it. We follow Chaplin's signature Tramp character as he ends up meeting and falling in love with a blind woman who sells him a flower. He decides to help her out and give her some money-some for the high rent that she needs to pay, and then some more to fix her eyes. And that's where the trouble begins. There are so many different little segments after this-the most memorable (and certainly the centerpiece of the movie) involves a boxing ring and Chaplin's hard work to stay away from getting knocked out. And several other comic moments involve a character billed only as "An eccentric millionaire," who only seems to remember the Tramp whenever he is completely drunk.
"City Lights" is another Chaplin delight-even his more minor works manage to end up being something truly special. It mixes Chaplin's gentle slapstick comedy perfectly with a love story, mediation's on loneliness, and of course The Tramp himself-even though it wasn't the only character that Chaplin played, it is certainly the most memorable. There are still several days on this run at Film Forum, and I suggest you go see it when you can before New Year's Day.
Final Grade
City Lights (1931) ***1/2 of ****
posted by Eric at
12:55 AM
3 Comments:
Eric - Keaton's reputation is actually quite high in recent decades, and I'd say that it has surpassed Chaplin's. Chaplin was probably the most acclaimed filmmaker in the world for a good fifty years, and even as late as 1952, two of the top three films in the Sight and Sound critics' poll were his. But some modern critics began to lose touch with him, and the rediscovery of Keaton's films in the late 60s and early 70s was a major critical event. Keaton vs. Chaplin comparisons are a critical cliche, and Keaton seemed to come out on top more and more often over the years - his sensibility, with its hints of absurdism and its relative lack of sentimentality, seems to be easier for many modern observers to swallow.
Even the Keaton sound films get as much acclaim? Of the ones that I've seen (which is only a very small amount), neither of them seemed to really measure up to the silents. What I always though made Chaplin so much more renowed is because his talking movies were just as good, if not better, than the silents-a product of him working independently of any big studio.
It is still Harold Lloyd who always manages to make me laugh the hardest, but for some reason among many he often tends to be forgotten. When Film Forum did their Harold Lloyd retrospective I tried to see as many as I could-and even though they were loose on plot (about the loosest that you could come I suppose), he was still such an immense talent.
Eric - it's true that Keaton's sound films are not well-regarded - his reputation rests on the films up to Spite Marriage. And Chaplin's sound films are highly regarded. Still, Keaton's rep skyrocketed after 1968, when most of the silent films went back into circulation.
Lloyd is really cool, and I think he has a pretty good critical reputation these days; not as high as the other two, though.
Here's a qualification of my first comment. I just checked the 2002 Sight and Sound poll, where critics vote for their top ten films of all time. 21 votes were cast for Chaplin films, 17 for Keaton films, none for Lloyd films. This isn't a perfect gauge of critical opinion, of course. But it shows that Chaplin still has some life in him, critically speaking. I have the feeling that, if you polled only the film people I talk to, Keaton would come out on tip.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home