…I mean besides Hitler. How? How is this possible? Look at this review of City Lights from Netflix:
“I can’t believe how bad this movie is. The only reason it “may” be good is: a) it is a snapshot of what good was for movies in 1930 b) it has a great ending This movie was a crap movie, with a great ending. That is what people used to say about “Easy Rider”, but in this case, the start of both movies, “Easy Rider” was much better. City Lights is cornball, unlikely, coincidence upon coincidence, and it could have had many break points where “the butler” could have interceded and cleared things up. Ah, but that is what movies were like 80 years ago. You know, some Greek plays are 2,000 years old, and they ring fresh. This movie does not."
I wonder what Greek plays this guy reads. Apparently, Chaplin is not realistic enough- too many coincidences!
So you think these people are bad people or terrible people? Should we have a law where they can’t have kids or something?
I’m not a huge fan of Chaplin
I have heard that. I was pretty shocked.
I’m not a fan and the biopic struck me as lustre-less much ado…
Any time you have an actor infantilizing himself and critiquing society by playing the “faux naif”…well…
I don’t like him.
Hitler liked him though. Have you ever thought about where he got his moustache from?
Yes I know. It’s amazing some people don’t like something I like. I can’t make sense of it.
Well, the fact that he is using “Easy Rider” as his comparison of enjoyment is saying something. But he needs to go on mubi.com, so we can suggest other Chaplin or silent films to watch. Hehe…
I’m not much of an authority, but in order to enjoy Chaplin doesn’t one require a tolerance for:
I have trouble tolerating either of those things most of the time.
How come? Done right, they can be great. Neither of those attributes are inherently bad. The beauty of Chaplin is that he was a master of both…
Some people don’t like movies with bloody decapitations and disembowelments, even though there are surely directors who are masterful at portraying such things.
Some people don’t like any movies at all. Some people don’t even like music. I heard Osama Bin Ladin hates music alltogether. Although I’m not saying anyone who dislikes these things is somehow wrong.
Chaplin’s comedy didn’t come down to just slapstick (in the sense of hitting people with pies or with sticks on accident) as his own movements and mannerisms are enough to tickle my funny bone whenever I watch one of his movies or shorts. As far as his emotionalism goes, you can be against cheap sentimentality, and it also can take a certain mood to appreciate what sentiment has to offer. But I don’t believe it can ever be said that Chaplin’s emotional effects weren’t honestly earned. When you feel an emotion from a situation in a Chaplin movie, it’s because his performance and the scenario worked together exceptionally and earned its effect on an audience.
I don’t get the whole cornball or sentimentality complaints from people. He never takes away the reality of suffering or the poor from his films. The occasional heavy handedness doesn’t ruin it for me, and I usually hate heavy handedness.
I would argue that anyone who doesn’t at least appreciate Chaplin, can have only a very limited appreciation of cinema itself. The Kid, The Gold Rush, The Circus, City Lights, and Modern Times are all masterpieces that have transcended time, language, geographical boundaries, etc, etc. . The characters and situations remain as relevant, universal, and ultimately affecting today as they were 80-90 years ago.
Also, Chaplin was the living embodiment of the auteur theory. Decades before the concept was even created, Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, acted in and scored his own pictures. Few can claim that kind of control over or dedication to their artistic vision, especially in the medium of film.
>I would argue that anyone who doesn’t at least appreciate Chaplin, can have only a very limited appreciation of cinema itself
That’s some grandiose, self-congratulatory thinking at work…
Well, a random opinion is a random opinion . . .
City Lights was released in 1931, not 1930, and, by that time, “what good was for movies” in Hollywood was sound films like Vidor’s The Champ and del Ruth’s Blond Crazy, so Lights isn’t exactly representative of its time in that sense.
i’ve only seen a couple of his shorts, and so far i’m not into him.
i’m pretty obsessed with keaton though, and the entire silent era.
I like Chaplin a lot but I’m not surprised some people don’t like him. He’s great at what he does, but some people just don’t like simple comedies and don’t like slapstick humor.
Chaplin was a comedy genius but I find his politics a little shallow.
Not into Keaton much at all though.
Buster Keaton > Charles Chaplin.
Treating big subjects with comedy doesn’t make you an instant genius, especially when the jokes are lame and the criticism too uncertain.
I don’t really care much for Chaplin, especially his early silent shorts.
I like his talkies much more – Monsieur Verdoux and The Great Dictator being my personal favorites (both fantastic films)
Charlie was always a good director, but his comical timing was often way off in the early days and his sketches were often cruel and plain unfunny (like torturing the old man in The Property Man – for me he lacks the charm to get away with it) I also find him to sappy/sentimental for my liking and often appears self-obsessed.
“i’m pretty obsessed with keaton though, and the entire silent era.”
Keaton was both the superior comedian and director/craftsman.
Harold Lloyd also kicks his butt in my book.
Yes Harold Lloyd was/is funny. Moreso than Chaplin.
“Also, Chaplin was the living embodiment of the auteur theory. Decades before the concept was even created, Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, acted in and scored his own pictures. Few can claim that kind of control over or dedication to their artistic vision, especially in the medium of film.”
This is a statement that is completely irrelevant to the actual enjoyment of any of Chaplin’s movies.
“This is a statement that is completely irrelevant to the actual enjoyment of any of Chaplin’s movies.”
No, but it reveals an overwhelming dedication to his art form. That he could write, produce, direct, score and act in works that are still lauded 70 to 90 years later is an achievement few working in the medium will match, and any serious student of film should at least be willing to acknowledge how staggeringly amazing that is.
Each to their own. No-one is forcing anyone to fall in love with Chaplin.
However I think he is a genius and his films are timeless, addressing topics varying from intimate human emotions to capitalism and war. Not just any filmmaker can do that and still remain as well regarded over 50 years on.
the Title of this thread makes me think….
“But for just $3.25 a day, the size of a vente latte, you can help bring Charlie Chaplin to the masses. Show these wayward individuals the joys of the Little Tramp in the brilliance of his flickering image projected on a white sheet in the back of a Big Lots! warehouse store. Give today, bring laughter where there is none.”
Look, I’m not arguing about who’s better or whatever. I noticed the Keaton vs Chaplin debate got refreshed today as well. You can not be a huge huge fan of Chaplin, but how do people not find his films at least WATCHABLE? That guy called City Lights a really bad film and then said how unlikely all the proceedings were! NOT REALISTIC ENOUGH, SORRY! And also the attitude of what “passed” for good in old movies.
Even if you think Chaplin is overhyped or overpraised, I don’t see what’s to dislike about him. Even if he’s too sentimental or cornball for you (which I still don’t see- the charm of the Little Tramp character is that he’s kind of a scumbag or lazy guy, but kind of lives in his own world. He’s naive, he ignores society’s rules and part of Chaplin’s genius is how he reacts to terrible things like suicide, mindless work, being arrested, etc with this sort of hysterically ignorant physical comedy. Chaplin’s character may be sentimental, he himself may be, but the world he puts himself in is never false. The hero doesn’t always win. He’s happy to walk away with himself intact. People do wrong things sometimes, in his films, because they need to keep living), without all that, on the surface, how the hell does he not make you laugh?
Forget the incredibly ingenious situations he puts himself into or the deep stuff. Just seeing chaplin kick a guy in the stomach non-chalantly down a flight of stairs is hilarious. Seeing his expression when he finds a baby on the street, then turns and sees a cop, is hilarious. Seeing him stay behind a boxer’s back in a boxing match is visually hilarious. At least chuckle-worthy! Certainly not deserving of disdain or boredom. It baffles me.
For me – Chaplin is the single greatest auteur ever
If you’re baffled that some people simply don’t find that sort of humor funny, then you should get out more. I’ve never been all that amused by physical comedy, and the Little Tramp character has always gotten on my nerves. It’s the same reason clowns bore me. I don’t enjoy that kind of comedy most of the time. It’s not funny to me. I’m sure that there were even people back then who didn’t think that stuff was funny. As comedy and film evolve, fewer and fewer people will probably find it funny. I never liked the Three Stooges, even as a kid. I Love Lucy never did much for me. I think that kind of comedy gets tedious very quickly.
I like some early Woody Allen, but that’s about as close as I get.