Review of City Lights (1931) by Haydnengel — 21 May 2020

Real Rating: 83.5/100.

This is my 3rd favourite film of Chaplin's. Modern Times and the Great Dictator, rank higher for me personally. Though to the man himself, this is his favourite film and Welles, Kubrick, Tarkovsky and Woody Allen agree. It is strange though that Chaplin's 3 greatest works came after he was deemed obsolete, but being the artistic Luddite, he was. He pushed forward and did not allow modern technology to steal his craftsmanship. In a way, you must applaud that, but at the same time from a critical analysis standpoint, you must also detract marks for it. For is it genius? Or a has-been doing their best to cling on to a world that has moved beyond them?

BE: With a Chaplin film you have to ask yourself can you really comment on the directing. Given that he does a large percentage of the workload himself, it would be like applauding Michelangelo's overseeing of the Sistine Chapel rather than the painting itself. The editing is decent, and the transitions move swiftly and give a sense of speed and the story with what limited cinematography we have for the time.

W: The writing is simple but effective. Some claim that the pathos as they put it is limiting the film and not allowing it to be as good as it can be. However, we have seen the Tramp 12 times prior to this, and this is the last outing. Giving this comedic character a sense of compassion and sympathy at this stage is where the story should progress. Rather than leaving it in the purely farcical realm. We have completeness and sadness that often appears in great comedy, and from the very first scene with the Tramp and the blind girl, we have a pleasant mix of longing with pratfall comedy.

C: It is 1931, and Fritz Arno Wagner is continuing to put Hollywood cinematography to shame. Meanwhile, in Hollywood, Chaplin has brought along his old standby in Roland Totheroh, and he provides the standard for a Chaplin outing. The angles on some shots are nice, and some of the shadow work is pleasant, but nothing outstanding.

A: At the beginning of the film, it says it is in pantomime, which implies over the top acting and with subtly and nuance removed from the piece. Which would be fine, save for the fact that it does have these things due to the previously mentioned pathos. Which forces me to be meaner on some of the more weak acting exhibited by the rest of the crew. Chaplin is excellent and very few people have such command of body language as he. The blind girl did not always feel blind, but we are still in the early days of cinema, so it is slightly excusable. .

S: The opening of the film is annoying in terms of sound. We have mumbled audio from several characters, and then the Tramp appears and then silence. Which seems to imply yes films have dialogue now but let us enjoy this nostalgic throwback. Which is an excellent way of presenting the film, but in terms of audio quality, it is weak, and we could have had that same effect while presenting clear audio to the viewer. The rest is standard silent film fare.

PD: The sets are sets of the era, and they took effort, but nothing stands out, especially when one knows what is coming in the 1930s in regards to set design.

BA: Costume design is again very Hollywood and of the era. Nothing makes it feel all that special save for the Tramp himself.

EVO: Thoroughly enjoying and while the comedy is not on par with the circus or modern times. It offers the viewer so much more and allows us to see how romantic films should be done. I kid you not. Look at most of the great romantic movies, and you will find that the romance in the film is left in the background and only adds to the overall work. Like a lovely sauce over a delicious meal. Rather than your standard romantic movie which is like eating a 15 kg bag of marshmallows in a single sitting.