I still have never figured out why City Lights was never nominated for an Oscar. I mean Chaplin is funny in the film, but he also shows some of the best acting work I've ever seen!! His directing is also great!! For crying out loud, he shot the flower girl scene so many times!!!! I'm not mad because the movie didn't win an oscar. I'm mad because it was never looked upon to be nominated for any oscars!!!!! Dose anyone think this movie should of been nominated????
sharejust because he shot the same scene 342 times hardly makes him a good director, in fact it would suggest the opposite.
Actor.....BRILLIANT
Director........um(?)
still should have got the oscar nod thou
I have to agree saying his acting was brillliant!!! The ending was well acted and directed.
shareChaplin was an artist, used to doing things his own way. He rarely worked from a script. The reason he shot the scene so many times was to get just the right nuance. Many directors are known for doing take after take after take, whether it's needed or not. And they are hailed in the industry. It's a brilliant movie and the end result is what is awarded in Hollywood. Not the work behind it. Otherwise Wizard of Oz, Jurassic Park and all the Star Wars movies would win just for the work put into them.
shareOk. He put a lot of work into the film. Without all of the reshots and work put into it, the movie still should of been nominated because it is a great movie. At the time I guess it did not matter how much work was put into a movie.
shareThat sums it up perfectly.
shareI'll never understand why such gems from Chaplin like "City Lights", "Modern Times" and "The Great Dictator" were snubbed completely by the Academy. but ohh well, they (The Academy) have been doing this kind of things since the beginning (Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Buñuel, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Fellini, etc. never received an Academy Award for best director)
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
...Why all the "342 re-takes proves he wasn't that great a director" posts??? Chaplin had the luxury of financing this film himself. He could take or re-take as many times as he felt necessary without having to answer to some studio big-wig like Louis B. Mayer or Jack Warner. And there were conundrums and intellectual difficulties in the creative process of CL that would have stumped anyone; so, quite naturally, it would take a lot of work and expense to iron out those problems. Saying that Chaplin wasn't anything special as a director because of 342 re-takes is like saying Thomas Edison was a lousy inventor because it took him thousands of re-tries to successfully invent the lightbulb!
The toughest scene of all, for him, was to make it believable to the viewer just WHY the blind Flower Girl was mistakenly convinced the Tramp was rich--WITHOUT the Tramp needing to resort to out-and-out lies about his true economic circumstances. He finally settled for the scene in which he's trying to cross the street through gridlock traffic and ends up entering and exiting the limosine that's parked right at the street corner where the Flower Girl sells her goods. When she hears him shutting the limo door behind him, she immediately assumes he's the wealthy citizen who owns the vehicle.
Now, I ask you--could YOU have make this scene workable without having to go through all the trouble Chaplin did to make and perfect it? Probably not! Like Tom Edison's lightbulb, much of "City Lights" that made it in the can was a result of trial and error. As Edison himself said, "Invention is one percent inspiration, and 99 percent PERSPERATION"...
Edison didn't invent the lightbulb. A fellow called Swan did.
shareNOT good director?????? THen what could we say about others, in our times???? Well, I think the movie is great, one of the best of Chaplin's an of its times, but I'm sure it was the historical context that counted very much back then... When I recall the power of suggestion in those scenes... well, how could anyone direct those scenes more visually striking???!!!
share342 takes...yeah, that doesnt sound like a good director. I mean, Kubrick, considered even by other directors to be one of, if not THE greatest director of all time (and my favorite) would never do such a thing.
shareI am not sure if you know this or were being sarcastic (THis is not meant to be mean spirited). I cant always tell in writing but just in case you arent then you should know that later on in his career Kubrick did an insane number of takes of the same shot, possibly a bit of self-conscious autuerism but I mean the man was a genius so Im fine with it. But the list goes on: Buster Keaton, William Wyler, David Fincher (see article in NY times about the making of Zodiac),... of directors who did copious amounts of takes. I am not saying this makes thebest films but it certainly doesn't mean those who do it are bad directors, ya maybe they dont come in exactly on budget, but to make some of the movies those guys made hell let them have the film stock (although in finchers case it was digital and Im pretty sure that REAlly was self conscious autuerism.) Not everyone has the luxury of so many takes but they did, and you must recall that none of them started out this way because at the beginning of your career you do not have the luxury to experiment. While indeed using an insane amount of takes is eccentric I think especially in chaplins case that he was experimenting and perfecting his craft and looking at the end result you can tell he did. Also I believe someone said something about the bland nature of the shots... first of all that is only half if that of a directors job. Directing the actors and blocking is the other main component yet while in the end they share a similar weight the shots must come from the acting and the blocking not the other way around. Had Chaplin done cool shots would that have served the pantomime? I dont really think it would have been appropriate.
shareI know sarcasm is often hard to pick up on in writing, but yes, that was sarcasm. Kubrick may be the director most known for his heavy-handedness, or at least his high take count.
Mensa Member
just because he shot the same scene 342 times hardly makes him a good director, in fact it would suggest the opposite.
He wasn't a good director, he was a GREAT director.
FYC: Three-time Academy Awards nominee Angela Lansbury for an Honorary Oscar
It should have been nominated, but it came out at an unfortunate time in film history where campaining was far more important, and more importantly sound film was all the rage. Studios did not want to make silent pictures anymore, and it's not good marketing if one wins an oscar. Chaplin encountered a similar problem with The Circus, and was given an "honourary oscar". Like many oscar injustices it comes down to politics and trends.
We ape, we mimic, we mock. We act. -Laurence Olivier
all the 'rage', you mean?
I just saw this movie tonight with live musical accompaniment. I guess I expected a little more, though it certainly is an inventively made film.
I did mean rage... thanks for pointing that out.
We ape, we mimic, we mock. We act. -Laurence Olivier
[deleted]
[deleted]
well "great dictator" was nominated for best picture and actor.in all fairness i think this movie deserved best picture nomination too
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It probably had to do with the fact that the Oscars, especially early on, we're the brain child of the major studios (MGM, Paramount, Warners, Fox, etc.)Bloc-voting by the studios was common. Chaplin being an independent who released his films through United Artists was an outsider and was probably the reason City Lights recieved no nominations.
I found this in Wikipedia:
During his active years as a filmmaker, Chaplin expressed disdain for the Academy Awards; his son Charles Jr. wrote that Chaplin invoked the ire of the Academy in the 1930s by jokingly using his 1929 Oscar as a doorstop. This might help explain why City Lights, considered by several polls to be one of the greatest of all motion pictures, was not nominated for a single Academy Award.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chaplin
F the Academy Awards.... way too much politics. I don't care how many re-takes were done, all that matters in the end is delivering to the audiences the best possible picture and City Lights was perfect.
shareOther films of the 1930s that should have been nominated for best picture but weren't: Duck Soup, 39 Steps, Rules of the Game.
sharePleinSoleil:
I've never thought of the '30s as being that bad a decade when thinking of deserving films that never got nominated. I agree with the 3 you listed (though Duck Soup was not a commercial success when released) but then again in 1932 they nominated 8 films for best movie and then 10 films until 1945. If they were nominating 10 movies each year for best picture, God help them if they screwed up more than a few times.
Of the 5 movies nominated in 1931, I haven't seen Skippy or East Lynne. I do know that Cimmaron, The Front Page and Trader Horn are not even in the same universe as City Lights.
I think it would be interesting to list bad Oscar snubs by decade. The ones that come to mind are usually movies nominated but losing out to inferior films, i.e. Raging Bull losing to Ordinary People. Listing deserving films that weren't nominated may take some work. Maybe when I've got a free afternoon next winter I'll start on it. Or post the question on one of the boards.
Only seen Front Page - as you say ...
share
This is actually an interesting question, although ultimately pointless. Most people realize by now that the oscars are political and useless outside of marketing.
I think an earlier post was close to the truth about the fact Chaplin had his own studio so the process is not quite the same to nominate his films. I do think there is more to the story though. He did win an oscar for The Circus after all.
I have a couple thoughts on this:
1. Judging from the critical reception of City Lights, it seems everyone was completely knocked out by the movie. I've never seen more ecstatic glowing reviews for a movie on release than this one received. As a cultural phenomenon, it would make the recent Avatar frenzy seem like a county fair.
I have a feeling people may have placed City Lights above a mere movie and therefore it was in a realm above the movies competing for oscars that year?
2. How about the possibility Chaplin didn't submit City Lights for entry in the oscars in the first place? Doesn't a film have to be officially submitted for competition?
I've not seen evidence for or against this possibility before.
.
Screw the Academy Awards. At least screw them in terms of giving their awards much prestige I mean. The whole Oscar celebration is just a sales gimmick to draw hype and get people to go see new films every year. They want your ass in the seat. The fact that they call themselves 'artistic achievment awards' is a total joke. The voting has always been, and will always be, mainly based on Hollywood politics and insider popularity. Much more so than any real artistic achievement. It's not exactly a secret. Why the hell would they let Academy members who know absolutely nothing about the technical aspects of sound, vote for such awards as Best Sound if they were real artistic achievment awards? Only the more technically minded members would be allowed to vote for such awards if they really were. I totally agree with Kinematico. Way too many great films and artists have been totally robbed by the Academy. Mostly for political or personal reasons, and nothing at all to do with art.
My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!
it wasnt the silent era anymore it rarely happens that a silent film gets oscar nominations its a fun little film not really oscar worthy
shareThe Oscars could afford to step down a few pegs occasionally and honor more fun little films. ;)
"Kyrie eleison, down the road that I must travel. Kyrie eleison, through the darkness of the night."
My.Best.Pictures would have included City.Lights Duck Soup
Way Out West Singin' in the Rain and Some Like It Hot.