"City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

I don't get the question. Everyone who considers him or her self a film lover should see City Lights. It's a classic for a reason. It's a very memorable movie and a perhaps the prototypical romantic comedy.

As for it making a big jump, I guess it all has to do with how much staying power a movie has. I believe The Searchers also made a huge leap on the AFI's updated 100 greatest movies list. I suppose that time skews the perspective of some things. Some movies they had really high up fell off the list and they added many that weren't there the first time.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

First of all, who cares about these ridiculous AFI lists? That's the most important question - every one of them is specious. That said, City Lights belongs in the top ten of any film list I would take seriously. Simply put, it's a masterpiece for the ages. Certainly I cannot say the same for When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Eric darling, it's called opinion...or maybe an agenda. Either way, what's the big deal?

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

I agree... these AFI "best" lists are hardly anything to get worked up over. They're about as irrelevant as anything I can think of in the grand scheme of things.

On the other hand, if it gets people to watch a silent film who never considered it before, more power to them.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

I recall Channel 4 did a top 100 scary movie moments, and at 100 they put the Lumerie film of the train.

Well, I thought it was funny...

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

And you said I knew nothing about old films...

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

So have you still not seen it? I will be 52 this month, and I have seen it countless times. I am a film nut, and I bought the movie sight unseen on VHS video tape when Magnetic Video Corporation started releasing Chaplin's films in the late 70s/early 80's. I bought it without seeing it first because I had read about it as one of the great classics for years (and movies on video back then ran around $80).

If you are "seriously into film" as many here are, you should have at least been aware of the reputation of this classic film. At least rent it. I still find it funny and the final sequence still gives me chills.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

People in the movie industry and members of AFI vote on the films and the number of votes is where they are placed. It does not have anything to do with silent film audiences since the films that are usually voted on are the ones that are considered essential background for moviemakers, students of film, and Hollywood History.

As a member of AFI, I too have a problem with the where films are placed. I also agree that the lists are just opinions and can be used as guide to people that want a good list of films to watch. Also the lists have accomplished at this post exactly what they were intended to do, create DISSCUSSION among film lovers.

On another note, Charlie Chaplin had a very difficult time with the advent of sound. He thought that his on screen talent was silent, so City Lights, Modern Times, and the Great Dictator, had very little of Charlie actually talking. The supporting actors talked and of course Charlie himself did the narration.

An interesting thought is that on the first top 100 list, The African Queen was listed as #17 and when the 10 anniversary list was announced it was #65. The discussion is that it was not on DVD and had lost a lot of popularity since the days of Laserdisc and VHS where the film was available.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Maybe being part of this forum puts me in a certain category of movie nuts, but I'm 20 years old. I probably saw "City Lights" for the first time in the early years of this decade and it'd been on my "must see" long before than that.

I don't know. Maybe yours is just a special case. I'd argue that a good portion of the movie conscious world is familiar with Charlie Chaplin, even if it's just his image. "City Lights" is probably his most famous film.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Are you...serious?

That being said, I've always found City Lights terribly overrated and kinda boring and think there are dozens of far better silent films, and several better and funnier Chaplin films (The Gold Rush, Modern Times, and many of his short films).

Anyway I'm 24, and I first saw this film and got into Chaplin (and older movies in general) when I was 13 back in 1997. (And I was watching the Three Stooges and Laurel & Hardy when I was even younger, probably around six or so).

As for the AFI lists, I think they're crap. The first 1998 list was lambasted to hell for such things as

1) ranking The Searchers at #96
2) ranking Vertigo at #61 behind Raiders of the Lost Ark...I mean, are you kidding me?...seriously?
3) lack of silent films (especially Buster Keaton, notice the AFI tried to compensate a few years later by ranking The General quite high on their 100 best comedies list)
4) including films like Tootsie...nothing against Tootsie but...it's Tootsie, and it sits at #62 right smack dab in front of Stagecoach. Not only that, but just to pull a few random great films out of the air...The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, Bride of Frankenstein, Sunrise, Red River...those films aren't on the list, but Tootsie is...I mean...????

So the AFI tried to compensate on the 2007 list by boosting the rankings of films like The Searchers and Vertigo and including Keaton's The General, and several others things which I can't remember and don't really care about.

Brilliant. That's the problem with the AFI. Instead of trying to make more great, lesser known movies available (which, if the AFI actually gave a shit about movies, they would) let's just dismiss all films not easily available in the home video market, because obviously they're not important. People are quite comfortable going to the local video store and picking up a readily available copy of Titanic, instead of caring about wether Anthony Mann's The Tall Target will ever be on video some day.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Anyone find this admission of ignorance of the mere existence of a classic film somewhat hypocritical coming from the man who said to me the other week

"Obviously you are a Generation X or Y person through your examples and have no real knowledge of older films"

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Well if I understand correctly, it is not "Joe Six Pack" who votes on AFI lists, so your whole argument is innaccurate

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

I don't understand what you're arguing here. I think just about everyone here agrees that the average Joe six-pack doesn't give a shit about silent films. I'm sorry but your posts seem to be implying that because Joe six-pack has never heard of City Lights, it shouldn't be on the list.

Yes, you're right about Joe six-pack buying DVD's, which is why it's the responsibility and duty of the AFI to better promote awareness of great classic films, instead of telling us that Lord of the Rings is the 50th greatest American film ever made and is better than North by Northwest, which is only the 55th greatest American film ever made...and movies should only make the list if they're on video or DVD.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Eric, these Chaplin films play across the world in theaters all year long. They still get a lot of play dates on college campuses so I'd say more people UNDER 60 have seen them.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

My two cents on City Lights. This is one of the few films I eventually force friends to watch, regardless of their level of film fandom or if they have ever seen a silent movie or not. I'm yet to have a negative reaction, and have in fact only have had people get genuinely touched by the film, usually to tears.

I can't say the same for the When Harry Met Sallys of the world. City Lights certainly deserves all the praise it gets. I think it's Chaplins best film.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

A miserable antagonist...who has seen City Lights

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

What point are you making? This "joe six-pack" crap not only doesn't know or buy silent films, they don't know or buy films made before 1980, sometimes even 1990. So what? You're asking why others are antagonistic? And, just my two cents here, but at fifty-one you should be ashamed to call yourself a film fan having never seen City Lights. You obviously don't feel so, and that's fine. But your postings here are very strange and pointless.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

That is true. For a person to be old enough to have seen the films when they were actually released, they'd be way older than 60 anyway. And until the films of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, et al were released on video or shown on TV, they were largely forgotten. When I read Walter Kerr's The Silent Clowns when i was in college in the mid-70's, there was no home video and I was reading about films I thought I'd never see. I do remember driving with some fellow film buffs to a showing of The General and the Time/Life re-edited version Safety Last.

So, yes, the film fans of 60 and under are more likely to see the films than 60 and over. My parents were born in the 1930s and are in their 70's, and had never seen any silent films until I played them some on video. Besides DVD releases, channels like TCM frequently show the great silent comedies.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Since you haven't heard of the film, and apparently don't care about it, does that make you a Joe six-pack?

I first got to see this when I was 13 or 14, and had read about it a few years before that. I had that one, MODERN TIMES and THE GREAT DICTATOR on CED videodisc, and made my parents sit through them a few hundred times each. And I used to check the Mutual comedies out from my local public library on Super 8mm. I first caught the Chaplin bug when my dad sat me down in front of the TV when PBS was having a Chaplin Mutual marathon in the late '70s, when I was around 9 or 10, and never looked back.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

What a ludicrous thread. Good fun though

I never understood why Eric makes these threads on forums where he attacks a film, or makes stupid asumptions, and then has a go at folks for allegedly, but not actually, making the same errors.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

This has to be a joke. I fail to see how this guy could have seen a somewhat lesser known silent film like The Patsy, but never have even heard of City Lights.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Well we all make mistakes, but to brag about them...

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Touche

And I don't care much for what the AFI (or the BFI) or the Academy thinks. Their choices are all done with retrospect and nostalgia at best.

Re: "City Lights" (1931) - explain this...???

Because a great film is a great film regardless of age or current popularity. Just because Bringing Up Baby is old and not likely to amuse the average college kid doesn't mean it should be dropped from the list in favor of Superbad, just as the antiquity of Michelangelo's David doesn't mean it should be dropped from a list of greatest works of art in favor of Serrano's Piss Christ. City Lights is a great film by any serious film historian's standard and is worthy of being on a list of the greatest films of all time. Why it is number one over perennial list toppers such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane is beyond me, but I haven't seen one of their lists in many years and can only respond to the information given in this thread.

I hope you don't see this post as piling on. I'm trying to answer you as best as I can.