I hate to put a damper on what is the greatest recognition scene in film history, but would the flower girl have needed the sense of touch in order to recognize the Tramp? Blind people naturally compensate for thier loss of sight by hieghtening their other senses, for example the sense of smell. The flower girl would have needed this particular skill in order to know which flowers she was selling. In fact, it may have been that because of her hieghtened sense of smell she became a flower seller. So at the end of the film she would not have needed to touch the Tramp's hand in order to find out who he is, she should have been able to identify him by smell.
I.S.
"The books have nothing to say!" -- Fahrenheit 451
The tramp probably smelled differently at different times. At times, he probably smelled like a rich guy. At other times, he probably smelled like a tramp. And at other times, he probably reeked of booze.
Throwin *beep* off airplanes because cash rules every thing around me
Why are we even nitpicking this plot point? City Lights is not the type of cogent film that prides itself on its technical and logical coherence, and Charlie Chaplin's priorities were to make a movie that had pathos and warmth and urged the power of blind love and kindness.
Absolutely, well said. I just finished watching the movie, and their definitely is a lot of warmth and charm in this movie. Thats why we all cherish it as one of the best movies ever.
I have been searching for the definitive movie like the holy grail and now, I think I've found it.
reply share
I agree with CalloohCallay that it is pointless to nitpick this film. I can think of several illogical moments in City Lights that are much more obvious than what you have mentioned; however, sometimes it is necesarry to sacrifice reason. The scene with frogs in Magnolia (which had an ending influenced by City Lights, BTW) immediately comes to mind. It's completely nonsensical, but it is still a key part to an amazing film. Anyway, back to your question about City Lights, could you imagine the flower girl raising her nose and sniffing as the tramp walks by? Not nearly as poignant, is it? Also, I believe a considerable period of time passed between their last two meetings. I find it unlikely that the tramp would carry the same odor all along.
I've just seen the complete movie (at the Eastman House's Dryden Theatre, a lovely setting) for the first time, and am overwhelmed.
"City Lights" is billed (in the opening credits) as "a comedy romance in pantomime." It calls for a certain lighthearted suspension of disbelief. The plot elements are comical and romantic—the way the Tramp keeps fortuitously encountering the Eccentric Millionaire at night, the equally fortuitous absence of the Blind Girl's grandmother every time the Tramp visits her (which precludes her being able to tell the Blind Girl what he looks like), the plot twist involving the two burglars, even the bit with the Tramp studying the nude bronze statue while the sidewalk elevator rises and falls behind him.
The Tramp is dressed at once like a street bum AND a tattered gentleman—the bowler and cane were symbols of masculine elegance and status. Working-class men and young boys, in contrast, wore flat "newsboy" caps, like the newsboys who taunt and harass the Tramp, the big, tough-looking guy in the sidewalk elevator whom he politely skeddadles away from, the boxer who strikes a deal with him, and the one who's quickly recruited to be his actual opponent. Chaplin's comic persona is decked in incongruously mismatched clothes and fine manners. He's impoverished but dignified--he buys a flower from the Blind Girl but won't take change. One has to assume that the Tramp finds ways to maintain fastidiousness. "City Lights" is not a social-realist movie, but a romance.
The Blind Girl recognizes the Tramp, newly released fro jail, by the toch of his hand, since she has no visual recollection of him. She is intrigued and a bit distraught by the appearance of the formally-dressed-to-the-nines, filthy-rich, handsome young blade who steps out of his limousine comes into the store to order some flowers, because she thinks, momentarily, that her benefactor has returned. This heightens the irony of the ensuing scene, where he, more tattered than ever, stares at her through the window, aghast, ashamed, and delighted, holding the wilted flower he has just picked up from the gutter.
I reviewed the last scene several times on YouTube (several clips from "City Lights" are posted therein), and it still "got" me when I saw it on the big screen. Chaplin wanted the ending to be open, ambiguous, unresolved. A modern director might well opt for the explicitly romantic wrap--having her throw her arms around him and lead him into the flower shop--but how much more poignant the ending is for being open! There are many possible interpretations--it's like poetry in that sense.
The OP brings up the fact that if one is blind their other senses are heightened and more sensitive which is a very valid point. But once she regained her sight(or was able to see for the first time) her other senses would then begin to decrease; so some of her recollections of the tramp previously were put on the back burner or probably lost. I think that his touch helped trigger her rememberance because touch and sight are closer related to each other just like smell and taste are related.
So, maybe she recognized his smell, but wouldnt think it was him when she saw him. Because all she knew, was that he was a millionaire. So, it couldnt be him. Maybe her subconcious was sending messages to her that it was him, thru the smelling, etc.. and finally when she touches him, she became sure.
SALUTATIONS FROM BRAZIL. "Shop Smart, Shop S-Mart" -Ash
The truth is so unbelievable and overwhelming. She would have never thought in a million years that a pennyless little tramp was the guy who generously helped her.
I just assumed that coming out of incarceration, The Tramp probably smelled like prison rape. Which I doubt was his smell when he was posing as a millionaire.
First, they were separated by the glass window. No way she could have known. Then, she hurried out the door in a bid to give him the flower. There was still a distance between them (she extended her arm to give him the flower and he extended his to reach for it. ) And this distance lasted for just a few seconds because when he hesitated about taking her coin, she took his hand, and thus, "touch" came into play.
So, there was just a short window of opportunity for her sense of smell to work. And don't forget that what she "saw" right there _ a poor man in shabby clothes _ could also override the image of a prince that she had never seen.
"Seeing" is powerful, isn't it? Which makes the ending statement "Yes, I can see" now even more powerful because only at that particular moment could she see all the sacrifices a man who loved her for nothing made for her. What a great movie and great ending.
As an eye doctor who works a lot with people with severe vision loss, I think the opening post makes some erroneous assumptions. First, the assumption that someone with vision loss would have heightened smell is incorrect. Second, blind people will often rely on touch to recognize others. Other than recognizing a particular individual who always uses the same perfume I have never met a blind person who recognizes people by smell. Having said that, this is a great film and that small plot point is irrelevant. There are many other such small issues with the film. The idea that they could advertise one operation that works for all blind people is silly, but again quibbling over details like that misses the whole point.