6
votes
Movie of the Week #12 - City Lights
We got our first silent movie (almost) with Charlie Chaplin's City Lights from 1931.
How familiar are you with silent films and Charlie Chaplin? Is a movie that is more than 90 years old still worth watching today? Feel free to add any thoughts, opinions, reflections, analysis or whatever comments related to this film.
Rest of the schedule for January is:
- 22nd: Marcel The Shell With Shoes On
- 29th: The Iron Giant
This was the first Charlie Chaplin film I saw, I saw it when I was 18. I hadn't really watched classic films up to that point, and decided that was something I needed to do if I wanted to take film more seriously.
This is quite often thought to be Chaplin's best film, or at the very least Top 3 along with Gold Rush and Modern Times. Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, Federico Fellini, and Andrei Tarkovsky have cited this film as one of their favorites. So it's quite a monumental film in film history. This Collider article goes more in depth into all that. And if you want something that's more seriously written here's the Criterion essay for it.
I think this was my first silent film, at least it was the first one I purposefully watched on my own. And I think it's great for a first time watch, because it's entertaining, it doesn't feel like you're doing homework the way some classics feel when you're watching them. And it's genuinely funny!
Chaplin is a visually dynamic filmmaker. His shots are kinetic. My favorite sequence here is when him and the millionaire go out. There is so much movement on screen during that.
I really love this film, and I think it's reputation is well deserved.
Another silent film you may have/have not seen is The Artist, it released relatively recently as an homage to silent filmmaking. It's a story regarding a man like Chaplin as the industry moves to adopt sound; I found it entertaining. Hope you like it!
Yeah I saw it a few years ago. It has a reputation of being a bad Best Picture winner, a bad Palme D'or winner, and forgettable, but I like it a lot. I thought it was a lot of fun. My personal Picture winner that year was Midnight in Paris but I'm not angry Artist won.
My understanding of it, and the backlash to Michel Hazanavicius winning the Palme and the Oscar is imagine if Jay Roach won the Palme directly after making Austin Powers.
Haha, great analogy. I hadn't heard of the argument against it, I found it organically while on a silent movie binge once. I'll have to rewatch it with any criticisms in mind, see how it holds up.
To be fair, if anyone could make an Austin Powers movie today that wasn't tone-deaf, I think they'd deserve a nomination at least.
If anyone is interesting in participating, the movie is actually free to watch (with ads) on Tubi.
and youtube, though not officially
One of my favorite Chaplin films and the only one that makes me cry even after multiple viewings.
Is it the best/funniest/worst whatever? There is nothing I can say here about the film and Chaplin that has not been penned by those more literate than I on the topics. I love the movie just because I do.
Well, what more reason do you need? I am totally guilty of trying to write up elaborate reasons for why I like a movie, but really just liking a movie because you do as you put it here, is really the best and only reason that matters.
For sure…and if I don’t like a movie I don’t need to write an essay, either. I guess maybe it’s the format of the general internet to argue and/or the lack of substance to “I like it because I do” feeling of making a low-quality post.
Film fans are usually passionate about film (same for any other niche) and some take it to scholarly levels of dissertation - something I could never do (nor want to).
I love film first and foremost because it makes me feel things - and it’s difficult to explain/argue feelings.
I'll categorize this as mildly amusing. I have not seen other Chaplin movies and most of the handful of silent films I have seen have been Buster Keaton movies. While I can definitely see the charm and physical acting Chaplin brings, I do prefer Keaton's deadpan style and his stunts are more creative and impressive. However the boxing scene here is impressively well choreographed. Famous for a reason. And the ending was sweet and lovely.
Yeah, mildly amusing is how I would categorize it too. There was some pretty funny physical comedy, especially the boxing scene, which I've actually seen before despite this being the first time I've watched the whole movie. However, the comedy was way too intermittent, the pace way too slow overall, and without voices the emotional scenes (even the final one) fell a bit flat for me.
I've watched a ton of Buster Keaton over the years too, and I also prefer him as well. Ditto for Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, and Mr Bean. And TBH, I think they all do slapstick/physical comedy better than Chaplin, which is the reason my downstairs hallway is adorned with a giant L&H painting, as well as another wall and closet full of memorabilia for all the aforementioned comedians plus the Marx Brothers and Abbott & Costello, but no Chaplin stuff. I understand his historical significance but he's my least favorite of the bunch.