MovieChat Forums > City Lights (1931) Discussion > Really Disappointed (Spoilers)

Really Disappointed (Spoilers)

posted 16 years ago by michaelgrilo
18 replies | jump to latest

Over time, I've been working my way through Chaplin's filmography. The Adventurer was okay. Easy Street and The Immigrant were good. The Kid and The Gold Rush were really good. I saw The Circus last week and I really liked it; my favorite film of his so far. I figured City Lights would not only improve on The Circus, but hopefully top it. City Lights is right up there with The Adventurer as my least favorite film I've seen by him.

So yeah, I'm really disappointed. For me, story generally comes first. There was a decent story here, but it didn't reel me in. His relationship with the blind girl was underdeveloped (not subtle), and his relationship with the rich man was predictable. The whole selective memory story device didn't work for me.

About forty minutes into the film I started worrying when I wasn't drawn in. Too much time had been spent on gags and not enough on emotion. Chaplin usually finds a balance, but not this time. Sometimes the gags were amazing, but just as many times they were forced and cliche (even for the time period).

The ending really doesn't deserve all the admiration it gets either. A lot of lazy and convenient screenwriting went into designing this plot. An ad for a revolutionary surgery happens to be in the paper at the perfect moment. Come one, come all. Poor people need not pay, just get here and line up. Whatever.

Because she has just served as a device for Chaplin's antics, I don't feel won over when the (previously) blind girl loves him anyway. She sits in a shop all day waiting for him, getting worked up anytime a man comes in because it could be him. This is what he went to jail for? I can't be too disappointed in her though, she's got an amazing work ethic. She took a boat across the ocean, got her eyes fixed, came back, and her flower business took off all in the span of six or seven months. She probably didn't even take a day off to let her eyes heal.

Just getting some frustration out and really hoping that Modern Times picks up the torch that The Circus lit.

[–] donburt 16 years ago

Bit who's to say that she does love him?

[–] sasuraixrhapsody 16 years ago

I don't think its ever made clear that she automatically loves him back, that was the beauty of the ending. She was obviously stunned and confused, and you cannot really decipher her feelings in that short moment. That's pretty much what makes the whole thing so heartbreaking and bittersweet.

And what do you mean by "poor people need not pay"? Its plainly established that she doesn't have the money for the surgery (or her rent, no less) and he goes through all of that chaos in the end to get the money to her. Did you even watch the film completely?

[–] michaelgrilo 16 years ago

I specifically remember the ad in the paper saying the poor need not pay. The money was for the trip over there to get the surgery, so yeah, I watched it.

[–] SnorrSm1989 16 years ago

I see several of your points here (apart from the one about her loving him, which I don't think there was any real indication to), but I don't see why they are problems. If this was a drama, furthermore a talking picture, I'd probably also find certain parts hard to swallow, such as the "convenient ad." However, to me all these seemingly odd coincidences are just part of the fairytale. I think what Chaplin wanted with this film was not to tell a realistic story where all details are carefully constructed so that they'll play as well as though they happened in real life; it's a fairytale to tell something about life, and in fairytales, mind you, everything's permitted. It wouldn't have worked with talk, but with silence, it's graceful magic. To me, anyway.

[–] padilma 16 years ago

I actually got the feeling that she did not love him back. She was certainly grateful, but she also seemed to pity him. The way he looked at her in the end made me feel like he understood that she would not ever love him back the way that he loved her. It was kind of heartbreaking.

[–] dockbennett 16 years ago

I certainly saw the ending as ambiguous.

[–] Pythe 16 years ago

You watched the film wrong, is all I can say.

[–] michaelgrilo 16 years ago

I just watched the last scene again. Seeing it out of context definitely makes it feels ambiguous. I suppose I forced the love angle on that scene because of her reaction to the previous customer and expectations built from other story beats. Now I'm realizing the way she acted to that customer could be coming from appreciation, not romantic interest. Viewing it as open ended makes the ending a lot stronger, but not enough to pull it from a 7 to 8.

Pythe, that's kind of a ridiculous thing to say. I can only view the images, hear the sounds, and interpret them. Sure, I didn't pick up on a fairytale vibe, but event in tall tales I expect things to make sense in their own manner. Story doesn't need to take a back seat, but most of the time it does because people won't spend the time to justify their magical scenes, they just shoot them.

[–] Pythe 16 years ago

I watch films wrong a lot, too. Don't like Ingmar Bergman, for example. But the problem is with me, not the films.

[–] faust-yusov 16 years ago

I found it irritatingly episodic.

It was as if Chaplin came up with an evocative, satirical romance, and then wrote a bunch of sketches to pad out the script.

The potentially engaging narrative presented early on - in the scene where he meets the blind girl - is all too quickly ripped from the reel; caustically discarded as we're suddenly force-fed Chaplin, as if it needs restating that sometimes people fall over as well as make meaningful connections.

I am not asking for a Charlie Chaplin film without slapstick; simply one that incorporates it within itself, rather than brazenly reverting to type. But here we just get the silliness; the shallow slew of repetitive, physical comedy that's always more miss than hit.

No doubt some of it was genuinely funny - the rising/falling pavement slab; the height reveal of the man on it; the simple-but-effective 'water in the face' gag; Chaplin's subsequent reaction; the fluidity of the chair swapping in the restaurant; etc - but what to do during those mirthlessly dated segments, with no strong narrative to tide us over?

Simply put, the burden on the sketches was too great. The last five minutes comprised the one perfect scene; the single piece of timeless beauty in an otherwise haphazard 81 minutes. Sadly, without the full support of what preceded it, its pathos was undermined.

Ultimately 'City Lights' strikes me as a film worth appreciating for its contextual significance and fleeting moments of inspiration. As a piece of entertainment judged as rigorously as any other, it's more tiresome than timeless.

[–] vinidici 16 years ago

It needs to be understood that Chaplin had entered that final phase in his career where there were a few, even several, years' gap between his films. Still very popular worldwide, most of his fans in that era would want to see as much as possible of him in character as the Little Tramp. That might explain why he's in virtually every scene throughout many of his pictures; the public wanted Chaplin, so he delivered!

But when you look at it from a vantage point of more than fifty years since he starred in his last picture, and over forty since "A Countess from Hong Kong," and you haven't lived during an era in which Chaplin was arguably the world's most famous and noted celibrity, it's easy to fall prey to the notion that it was all just "an ego trip" on Chaplin's part, to insert himself in most scenes of most of his films.

On another note, and to the OP, I do not recall anywhere in the newpaper ad that stated the operation would be done pro bono for the poor. But even so, it would still have costed a lot of money to even make the boat trip to Europe.

As for the OP's problem with the druken playboy's "selective memory": It isn't that he'd forgotten EVERYTHING and all the fun he'd had, carousing the night life with the Tramp, but more like, once sobered-up and in the throes of a hang-over, his disposition toward the Tramp changed (and, judging from the knowing facial expressions of the butler toward Charlie, the Tramp was, doubtless, neither the first nor the last among the line of all the nightime "friends" of the rich man) and he simply didn't want strangers in the house now that his senses were back; he had surely worked out an understanding with his butler, that any "pal" he might make while in an inebriated state must be run off the property by the time he was sober again.

Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] SnorrSm1989 16 years ago

EXCELLENT post, "vindici." You can see that tendency to display the star in nearly all the scenes in Harold Lloyd's films, too; sure the public wanted a good story to some degree, but this degree was quite minor compared to how much they wanted to see their favorite comedian doing funny stuff.

Another major point not to be overlooked is that "City Lights" is, first and foremost, a comedy, and what's more; a comedy produced by a man whose style was established, refined and ultimately stuck (in the positive sense) in the roots of slapstick. To quote "Maverick42":

"Simply put, the burden on the sketches was too great. The last five minutes comprised the one perfect scene; the single piece of timeless beauty in an otherwise haphazard 81 minutes. Sadly, without the full support of what preceded it, its pathos was undermined."

Again, I ask people to remember that Chaplin was a comedian. We tend to forget it due to the sentimental touches of several of his films, as well as all the troubles he went through during the 40's when the public was persuaded to look for assumed, hidden "political messages" within his movies; but even so, with the exception of "A Woman of Paris" and possibly also "Limelight," virtually every one of Chaplin's films are, at heart, pure comedies which at the same time often contain more serious aspects. It is my convinction that one must differ between the lighter notes of "City Lights" and the emotional ones, meaning that the Tramp should be viewed as nothing more complicated than the little funny-walking fellow he so clearly was fifteen years earlier in the Mutual-shorts; he's quite the same character, maybe with a bit more of empathy, but no less a childlike and largely intuitive creature. The only difference is that he here, in the MIDST of all the episodic slapstick, happens to get involved in a more serious situation than he's encountered before, which however doesn't change his essential nature which will forever be bound to the world of slapstick.

--Snorre M.

[–] vinidici 16 years ago

Thanks for the support and your additional insights, snorrem!

Yeah, you're right, Harold Lloyd appeared in most of the scenes of his pictures, but for that matter, so did Buster Keaton, Harry Langdon, Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges, etc!

Chaplin was, of course, liberal in his political sensibilities but never really an active proponent of liberal causes. But his sentiments still made him a lot of the kind of enemies who would begin applying the kind of pressure against him and his image which would ultimately result in his being run out of the country and a disenchanted American public who had been swayed by the influence of those Chaplin foes. Today it's almost fashionable to be harshly critical of Chaplin the man AND Chaplin the artist, and you don't even have to know exactly *why* you might harbor those negative judgements against Chaplin; but if you are in the anti-Chaplin camp, the chances are pretty good you'd never have been on that bandwagon to begin with if it hadn't been for the animosity stirred up against Chaplin by such public figures as J. Edgar Hoover, William Randolph Hearst and Heart's lady attack-dog, gossip columnist Hedda Hopper.

Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

It´s basically one banal gag and bout of broad physical comedy after another, the only fairly funny one of which would be the boxing skit. And then there´s the sappy sentimentalism. And then there´s the in-your-face social commentary. And that appears to be that. In my opinion, Jacques Tati did this sort of films better. And Sellers´s Clouseau´s a lot funnier than the Little Tramp.

In short - sense of humor may be even more subjective than taste in film in general, but I´m still pretty pissed that the greatness of Chaplin eludes me. He´s just not funny at all.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] awayforawhile 15 years ago

Maybe you ought to be a little less cynical... this movie is clearly one of the greats and I've never been much of a Chaplin fan. Try to view it with the eyes of a child (not the mind, just the eyes). There's a certain special innocence to this movie that hasn't aged a day since 1931.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

"Maybe you ought to be a little less cynical".

I´m trying, lord, I´m trying.

"This movie is clearly one of the greats".

It´s a little hard to appreciate a combination of comedy that is not funny and a message that is simple to a fault.

And yet I feel kinda guilty for saying this, because there certainly is a "special innocence" to it. Just expected a bit more that a string of loosely connected gags.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] vinidici 15 years ago

You don't think the opening scene (the Tramp, sleeping under a veiled statue and exposed to the appalled public during ceremonial unveiling) was funny, either? That's one of the gags borrowed by arguably the greatest cartoon character of all time, Bugs Bunny!

Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] hbfilmz 14 years ago

Seriously dude you didn't think this movie was funny? I showed it to one of my friends it was his first Chaplin movie he loved it.
i put it on in the background when I had guests over and they sat and finished it even when their kid was falling asleep and everyone had work the next day. They sat until 12:30! And everyone was cracking up.

What about when he gets up to beat up the dancer thinking he's hurting the girl? Pure brilliance.

Maybe read a few studies and articles on it and see what people find so special about it. That's what I do when I don't get the hype of a critically acclaimed film.
It's been hailed as the favorite film of many credible men like Orson Welles and Walter Matthau.
And don't even get me started on Chaplin being anything less than a giant diamond. He even went as far as to influence Bugs Bunny and the rest of Looney Tunes. Are you kidding me?
It's clearly not the movie that's bad. The problem is you. And being a movie fan I suggest you do something about it and see where you went wrong.