MovieChat Forums > City Lights (1931) Discussion > Am I THAT cynical? (Spoilers)

Am I THAT cynical? (Spoilers)


Just finished this movie- it was amazing, by the way- and I would have loved it even without the final scene, but that put it over the top for me.

It seems that most people accept the ending as acceptance, maybe even love, from the girl. Right when I saw it I took it as "Awww, that's so cute, now run along, little tramp" from her. Like the look a girl might give you as a teenager as she rejects your offer to take her out on a date. I don't think she ever could think of him the same way. I can even see her being friendly to his face in the future, but ultimately being embarrassed and even avoiding him. Maybe that reaction from me just comes out of personal experiences... Thoughts?

"Don't call it that..." -Michael Bluth

reply

I think Chaplin leaves it open what will happen in the future: but I didn't feel they were going to get together. I thought that she'd be nice to him, but marry somebody else.

reply

Possible Spoilers...

The look on the girl's face in the end was (to me) an "oh no, not you" type of look. Definitely not an "I'm so happy that I've finally re-connected with the man who made this all possible" expression.

I'd like to think that the girl never forgot where she came from and that she wouldn't care how the man looked, or dressed, or lived. All that mattered to her is that someone took the time to care about her so much that they sacrificed themselves to make her dreams come true.

But that's not true. That's not real life.

She was laughing while the kids were picking on him. She was almost patronizing him when she gave him some money. Then she realizes...

She realizes that she could never be with a man like this. Some bum who is bullied by kids in the street. Someone who should be pitied.

Then again, who knows. I'm not Charlie Chaplin. I'm not even a film theory student. I just get the feeling that there is a missing scene at the end where the tramp walks off into the sunset alone.

reply

i prefer to be an optimist with this one. she recognizes him by the feel of his hand, and i think that that physical connection is a strong one to make. i think perhaps when he asks if she can see, she is reminded of a time when she was hardly better than he was on the street, the one being pitied. for her to be reminded of that place in her life and still look down on the tramp as one to be pitied and who she could not be with would frankly make her into a villain almost, and i can't imagine that's what chaplin wants.

i think she sees that she was waiting for the wrong thing, rather than discovering that the tramp was the wrong thing for her.

i think the girl was going to be in love with whoever it was that showed her kindness, and she had to adjust that expectation, but i don't think the love ultimately shifts.

reply

I think he deliberately left it ambiguous. She recognizes him. She's grateful. But does she still love him? Chaplin doesn't tell us -- he leaves us to figure that out for ourselves, or to spend the rest of our lives wondering.

reply

Well.. that's what makes it one of the greatest endings of all times, but the first time I saw it, my first impression was some disappointment in her face after the "Now, you can see?" contrasting with Chaplin's happiness. Either ending still makes it a wonderful movie!

reply

The vibes I get from the ending is that the now-sighted Flower Girl will always care about the Tramp, on some level; but SHE knows, and HE knows, and HE knows that SHE knows, etc., that the illusion of future, idyllic love-and-marriage between the two of them has been shattered.

I've always supposed, now that she has a thriving floral business, that she'd scare up the money to either re-imburse the Tramp, or at least make an effort to rehabilitate him to where he can have a place to live besides on the streets, obtain secure employment, etc. But I don't see matrimony in their future, and neither do they.

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

reply

I'd say the girl felt a great deal of guilt, after seeing who the man was. He's a beggar, but he still paid for her surgery. That would mean that he always was a tramp and he went through a great deal of trouble, just to help her (a trouble he obviously haven't gone through to help himself), or he used to be rich and sacrificed his fortune for her behalf, therefore becoming a beggar.

reply

It's not that cynical, it's realistic--except I don't think she will try to avoid him in the future, she will always be grateful. Anyway, he did a great thing, and it makes him feel wonderful, I suspect.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

Certainly, Chaplin left the outcome ambiguous. Just saw the film this afternoon, and was surprised at how I was moved by the final scene, it actually brought tears to my eyes. It's a fine, under-acted scene. Chaplin's expression is momentous, and the girl says it all, when she replies "yes, I can see now". Referring, obvioulsy, not to her regained eye sight, but the fact that her unknown benefactor, whom she believed to be a millionaire, turns out to be such an unfortunate tramp. Goodness of the heart, that sort of thing.

Yes, lovely film, lovely.

reply