"City Lights" (1931) - explain this...??? - Page 2

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

People are reacting with sarcastic remarks because you seem astonished that "City Lights" should be regarded as perhaps greatest romantic comedy of all time. That's like expressing amazement that "Casablanca" should be regarded as one of the greatest romantic dramas of all time. Whether you've heard of it or not, "City Lights" has been regarded as one of the Chaplin's finest films and one of the best romantic comedies ever. It is indeed a great film -- possibly Chaplin's masterpiece. Whether it ranks number one above "It Happened One Night" and the others can be argued endlessly, but there's no doubt that it's ranks near the top, especially because of its ending which could be the most touching in all film history.

These AFI lists are sometimes perceived as a joke mainly because there is too much commercialism in their emphasis of titles currently available on DVD at a store near you and because lists of this type are largely meaningless since they are based on critical opinions of far too many films to narrow down to a best 100. And the Motion Picture Academy, though it has gotten better in recent decades, has a history of being in the pocket of studio marketing departments, with its multiple nominations for the likes of Doctor Dolittle.

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

Peter Bogdanovich on some DVD documentary, I can't recall which one, made the best statement about this I think. "There's no such thing as old movies, they're timeless. They can only be ranked by what you have or haven't seen." So regardless of form or style, CITY LIGHTS deserves to be on top of that list since it's simply magical story telling.

the other thing with these lists is the commercial aspect as mentioned. It draws attn to film that might of been forgotten by film fans. to have a truly great film like City Lights at the top of a list like this is a great thing I think. If it was a sell out move, it probably would of been a "When Harry Met Sally" type movie.

that's the best explanation I can give you Eric, in a non-sarcastic way.

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

Simply because the fact that the technology is extinct has no bearing on a film's greatness. Celluloid film will soon be extinct. Does that mean that any film shot on celluloid will not be eligible for future lists? How about films with monaural optical soundtracks? Are they not eligible either?

Great films stand the test of time, regardless of whether current filmgoers have ever seen them. That's the point of these lists -- to bring worthy films forgotten by the general public back into the spotlight so that they may discovered by new generations and perpetuated.

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

Exactly. This isn't about DVD sales or who buys DVDs, for God's sake. The AFI list isn't made up by little children whose entire sense of film history started in the year 1990. I think we're being baited here.

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

We're talking art, not engineering. And in any case, films (or cars) can be recongised for their contempoarty achievements. I mean, I'm no lover of Citizen Kane but I think its a great film for its craft and accomplishments

I think you need to stop your misguided logic getting in the way. You once ripped into The Haunting because you felt it was a poor recreation of America in Britian. Maybe, but did you LIKE the film?

That and you called Yongary a Japanese film...

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

I don't the comparison is apt at all. A Model T Ford cannot perform as well as a '65 Mustang as measured by verifiable tests of engineering. Whereas, I think "City Lights" holds up as entertainment brilliantly and is, in fact, just as entertaining today as in 1931. I'd rather watch "City Lights" than virtually all of what passes for entertainment today. The fact that we've improved sound technology in the ensuing years does not detract from its artistry or its entertainment value. And, by the way, City Lights, is one of the few films that's silent by choice. It was an artistic decision, not a technological limitation.

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

Would you rank it above a '65 Mustang, a '57 Chrysler 300, or a '63 Corvette?

Eric, all your examples are so inappropriate, I have to agree that you are merely baiting people. If one had a working restored Model T, I'd have to say that it would quite possibly rank over the classic cars you mention. Because Model T's are now so rare, it is difficult, if not impossible to even acquire one. The Model T's value would be akin to that of an antique.

However, film is not like a car. Film is (or can be) art. As others have said, many of the great works of art are many hundreds of years old. They are not great because they are old, or in spite of being old. Great art is great art. It may interest you to know that the music composer most often considered "the greatest" is Beethoven. Beethoven has been dead since 1827. Yet his music lives on and is till being recorded. At one time, I had around 11 complete sets of his 9 symphonies on CD (I sold many on ebay and am now down to 3 sets). Music has changed a lot since his death, but his symphonies are still loved by millions, and recordings keep being made of them.

Great art is great art. It can be timeless. City Lights (and many other classic films mentioned here) is such a work. Here is how Answers.com defines classic:

adj.

1. Belonging to the highest rank or class.
2. Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.
3. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.

n.

1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.
2. A work recognized as definitive in its field.

City Lights easily meets the definition of "classic" as defined there. Any mature person who is a film buff should understand this. this is why I think you are being deliberately obtuse with your postings. Or else, I misread one of your posts, and instead of saying you are 51, you meant 15.

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

And Eric, I hate to break it to you, but lots of little kids know who Beethoven is, and recognize at least his 5th Symphony, despite him being dead for almost 200 years, and no longer on the pop charts. A lot of them know who Charlie Chaplin is too, despite Will Ferrell besting him at the box office these days.

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

I would say, Eric, that you should see the film before you start questioning its place in someone's list (which again, I reiterate, is simply a subjective poll, not be-all-end-all).

It's akin to saying "why is prime rib on everyone's top ten list of foods" without ever having tasted prime rib. You don't know what you're missing.

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

Eric's picking posts to try to conform to his biased view as opposed to having a proper discussion. This, like most of the threads now a days, is a waste of time.

have fun beating the dead horse!

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

And fun we shall have

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

[quote=Eric Huffstutler]


I had no idea people got stoned and went to watch silent films. I thought most stoners got high and watched some recent Snoop Dogg movie or perhaps a Cheech and Chong.


Not much. It's just a bunch of politically correct bullshit to get a few TV ratings and cause a debate, which they always do.


Because your original question was quite silly. Perhaps you should read a film on movie history, listen to some experts or even a book on Chaplin. CITY LIGHTS is a film that can't be touched and people simply love it. Read Roger Ebert's write up on it for a good place to start. See how people reacted to it when it was re-released in the 1970s. Read how the foreign pioneers of the 60s looked at it as a masterpiece.

I understand why you're getting made at some point but you have to expect that as a lot of film lovers, myself especially, take it personal when one of their favorite movies are attacked. Even if the attack wasn't anything mean some still take it personal.

But to answer your question, CITY LIGHTS is one of those films that will never die and each and every passing year someone new is turned onto it and that's why it will never die. I think you've been spending way too much time listing to folks at CHFB who seem to think that these movies are going to die when they die because "young people don't watch them".

Next summer if you're in the Louisville area then I'll take you to the classic film series. The majority of the 1000+ people are under 25.

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

This guy is living for these long responses. He is a classic troll, I'm afraid. He's had explanation after explanation, all logical and easy to understand, but he purposely ignores them and posts the same thing over and over again. Trollism at its finest.

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

Going from my past experiences with him on here and the Classic Horror Film Board, he's not a troll so much as a first class ninny who makes stupid assumptions and is very rude to people - and then acts all hurt when people rebuke or challenge him

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

This reminds me of years ago when some DVD review site posted a review of THE BIG SLEEP (1946). The reviewer said the DVD was OK, but the movie was completely terrible and could only be appreciated as fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000. He went on and on about how silly and campy the movie was, how it was Bogart's worst film and how no one could possibly take it seriously. People responded, outraged and baffled, but the reviewer just said "Who cares if a few film geeks like it? No normal person could think this movie was any kind of classic." He simply refused to acknowledge that his impression of the film was very, very peculiar. It was frustrating and odd to the point of being funny.

Whether you think CITY LIGHTS is overrated or not, it's generally considered one of the greatest masterpieces of American cinema by one of its greatest filmmakers. It's taught in film classes all over the world. The fact that it made the top of an AFI list is further testament to its widespread popularity.

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

The thing is, Eric has neither seen nor heard of the film. His basis seems to be "I've never heard of it, so it isn't important"

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

Has there been a new awareness created for City Lights due to Wall-E being
somewhat based on the first.

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

You are hardly in a position to go around acting all injured when you tell people they "are generation x ers with no knowledge of film" or tell others to fuck off

You have some serious attitude and ego problems brother. That, and you are clueless

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

I find it odd that, if Eric is a classic film buff, he has never even heard of CITY LIGHTS, one of the most famous films by the most world-famous classic film comedian.

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

CITY LIGHTS is on my top 20 films of all-time list and the only romantic comedy on the list.

I like romantic comedies but it's the rare one that hits on all cylinders. If someone just told me the story about the tramp and the blind flower girl I would think it hokey. But that's the brilliance of the film. It works and captivates me completely. And the comedy, the scene where the tramp rescues the millionaire who then rescues the tramp is just terrific as are the scenes with the butler.

If I were going to introduce someone to silent films, I'd probably select Safety Last! and if they enjoyed it, I'd suggest City Lights.

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

City Lights is Chaplin's best film and the greatest silent comedy feature, maybe only contested by Keaton's The General. Modern Times is his funniest, but City Lights is his most graceful. For those who insist a silent film "expires" like a carton of milk due to the so-called archaic technology, I dare anyone to not tear up in the final scene. If an almost 80 year old film can bring in that sort of emotion after all those years, that's one indicator that it's still just as great when it first came out.

Besides, Orson Welles said City Lights was the greatest film ever made. That's an opinion I trust.


With that being said, does anyone have the UK DVD of this? I've held off on the MK2-Warner R1 discs due to the PAL ghosting (and have kept my CBS-FOX/Image DVD). Are the UK versions better in quality?

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

I'm afraid that says more about you and most people under the age of 60 than it does about City Lights as a film.

City Lights is the greatest film by one of the top ten greatest filmmakers of all time. It isn't just one of the top ten romantic comedies, it's one of the top ten films in any genre. If you'd like to find out why it's so great, I suggest you watch the BBC series Unknown Chaplin (available on DVD).