Well, it’s rather sentimental. It’s in my top three movies so far. I find the story inventive and very charming for its type.
It’s a great film because even though it was a silent, you couldn’t ever recreate a talkie out of it. The story just wouldn’t be believable and the plot would falter because of that. Now, I’m not trying to say that City Lights is by any means the most realistic movie or anything because it clearly isn’t.
But it’s the characters and how they react that really makes the film work. The plot devices only complement the film because the Tramp is not the most appealing bachelor, nor is he the most honorable man but he has a heart of gold (even if he has to steal to feed himself). The fact that girl is blind makes her a vulnerable character and she isn’t always noticed or given a lot of attention. As a result of that, she is a very kind and endearing person, very welcoming. So it makes her relationship with the Tramp, possible and also very likable because you see these two underdogs finding comfort and solace in one another. It also makes it possible for the Tramp to help the girl without letting her know his true self.
Spoiler Alert So when she discovers that the man of her dreams turns out to be a petty, poor man, she is at first shocked but her true love and appreciation for him doesn’t change. And I think the ending of the film is excellent because you understand that she doesn’t care for all those things and that she loves him for who he is. Everything changes, but nothing really does.
The ending shot of the Tramp overjoyed by this, is one of Chaplin’s penultimate moments and one of the great moments in the silent era.
i actually still haven’t seen “city lights”. i know chaplin made a million films, but i’ve been waiting for the right time to catch this one. last one i saw of his was “a king in new york”. it didn’t impress me much at all.
Bobby: You seen Gold Rush? That tends to be one of his more entertaining and popular films
Rollie, I think you answered your own question when you admitted you “can’t seem to find the words for it.” David does as well as anyone, but maybe this film can’t be dissected into why it works so well. Try to explain the plot to someone and it might even come across as everything it’s not: sappy, outdated and shamelessly manipulative. In truth, it’s quite a simple bottom line. You can’t fake honest emotion, whether it’s a giggle at the boxing match or genuine tears at that amazing ending. Go on, I dare you not to cry.
@david
yeah, i’ve seen “the gold rush”. that’s a great one. maybe one of the best ways to introduce someone to chaplin.
Charlie Chaplin has the ability to make awkwardness and falling down fucking hysterical.
I agree with Tom completely. If anyone asks me about the film or why I like it so much I would just tell them to watch it. Describing it wouldn’t do it justice.
The ending really blew me away too. Such a tender moment and the look in the Little Tramp’s face is just pure emotion (superb acting on Chaplin’s part). Some portions of the middle dragged a bit but the ending really tied it up in a nice little bundle.
I also enjoyed Chaplin’s Modern Times and would recommend that highly. Oh, and that Paulette Goddard…well, that could start off another topic! :-)
Who wouldn’t want to fall in love like that?
City Lights is like a flower opening before your eyes.
Honest and pure.
A dream.
the humanity
the emotion, the sentimentality, the reaction of characters, the honesty… indeed, words are not only the means to describe this film…
I’ve never liked this film, finding it forced and unfunny and dreadfully mawkish, EXCEPT for the last few minutes, which are just astonishing.
Whenever anybody says the don’t understand why a famous and much-lauded film is so highly regarded, and require some simple formula to “convince” them. I lose all patience.
“City Lights” is one of the towering masterpieces of the cinema and if you can’t recognize that fact maybe you should take up basketweaving or NASCAR.
i enjoyed city lights, I didn’t think it was a towering masterpiece. You’re pretty much calling me a parasite. “If you don’t get it, you suck!” is all I got from your response. Also, way to undermine anybody who actually enjoys these past times with your point.
I’m a film critic, not a wet nurse.
Whenever anybody says the don’t understand why a famous and much-lauded film is so highly regarded, and require some simple formula to “convince” them. I lose all patience.
“City Lights” is one of the towering masterpieces of the cinema and if you can’t recognize that fact maybe you should take up basketweaving or NASCAR.
Did it ever occur to you that unfounded hyperbolic trumpeting about the grandness of canonical films like yours are why questions like this are asked?
No it never did, cause that’s not why such “questions” are “asked.”
Quotation marks are needed because these “questions” are declarations of agressive ignoance and active hostility towards anything resembling serious thought.
“What is it about this movie that is so wonderful? I can’t seem to find the words for it.”
Not the basis for a serious discussion of any kind. Just an invitation to heap as much scorn on the “questioner” as I can possibly muster.
Quotation marks are needed because these “questions” are declarations of agressive ignoance and active hostility towards anything resembling serious thought.
Heaven forbid someone feels they aren’t obligated to take it on faith that a mawkish, broad, slapstick comedy, that may have been formative in its day is the height of cinematic achievement. I haven’t seen anything resembling serious thought in this thread, just mostly declarations of consensus and the occasional post that waxes poetic.
THrowing around catch-phrases like “mawkish, broad, slapstick comedy” made worse by the knee-jerk “may have been formative in its day is the height of cinematic achievement” (the present and future invariablybeing seen as superior to the past) doesn’t cut it.
Try harder.
Perhaps it’d be wise to help younger generations understand this film . I’d think if you were so convinced of its greatness, you’d be more worried about reassuring one of Chaplin’s talents and keeping his relevance alive on a site containing mostly aspiring filmmakers/critics.
Losing your patience on a young guy for not understanding a film made before World War II is the same as me chastising my grandfather for shitting his pants.
I’d rather deal with your grandfather than the noxious Fanboys that infest this site constantly yammering about what they don’t “get” and demanding a simple formula that will “prove” someone is great.
THrowing around catch-phrases like “mawkish, broad, slapstick comedy” made worse by the knee-jerk “may have been formative in its day is the height of cinematic achievement” (the present and future invariablybeing seen as superior to the past) doesn’t cut it.
How about “maudlin, obvious, physical humor” with a knee-jerk “that some might have seen as technically impressive eighty years ago is one of the towering masterpieces of the cinema”?
Doesn’t cut it either.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein
Mr. Ehrenstein, I think the yammering of fanboys is more about curiosity than infesting. there is a natural propensity to question films that have such a huge following, and why not, Fanboys do it and so do critics, why allow yourself to get frustrated when questioning is in our nature as hungry young cinephiles. City Lights, for example is considered the best film of all time by many. Not everyone is sold on that fact however, and most people need something more than just praise to be sold. I appreciate this thread for it’s attempt to shine light on such an important film, though lately the posts have been personal attacks with very little relevance to City Lights.
As I said before,I enjoyed the film, but I am not sold on it’s position as a towering masterpiece.
Bruce is right, a lot of jokes are predictable and stale (a direct result of the generational gap) and didn’t resonate with me the way it seemed to have with others. The story drags when the humor doesn’t work, and unfortunately, that happened a few times. But it redeems itself with it’s sweetness and strong characterization.
There is no cookie cutter answer for why it’s great. There is a cookie answer for why it’s great. The answer is something for yourself.
Why does pizza taste so good? You should decide for yourself. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t wanna try something because you told me someone wrote how good it tastes.
I think we all can find our own reasons for love and hate and that is what makes this art and any art beautiful. You might not get it on the first viewing, I hope you do not get it on the first viewing, with any film!
I mean this all in the most polite way, but just think about it. These are my opinions, not much more.
Rollie Schott
What is it about this movie that is so wonderful? I can’t seem to find the words for it.