After two thwarted efforts to watch all of the films in the Sight & Sound list of the 50 Best Films of All Time, I thought I should have another go.
My first attempt was for the RNZ website in 2020 and I got to number 36 on the 2012 list before running out of steam. Number 36 was a good one, though, as Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles would go on to be named number one in the 2022 list.
When that 2022 list was announced I decided to have another go, trusting that I could recycle some of the earlier titles. This worked really well until RNZ said they didn’t want to pay for them anymore. I’d got to equal-36 (again!) with Fritz Lang’s strikingly modern thriller M.
Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights was only equal-50th in 2012 but had risen to equal-36th with M in 2022. It’s an unusual choice for Something to watch tonight because I’m not actually all that fond of it (or Chaplin for that matter).
I know he was a genius, everyone tells me so, but I’ve seen enough clips from his most significant silent works – The Gold Rush, The Kid, The Immigrant – to know that he’s just not my cup of tea.
A challenge is a challenge, however, so my wife and I set aside an hour and a half to give the little tramp his due.
…
It’s sentimental rubbish, frankly, with extended – often repeated – episodes of slapstick routines, many of which are like a greatest hits collection from his most popular early short films. The difference here is the scale and precision of those routines. His physical prowess is uncanny, making the extremely difficult look effortless.
But, there’s something about Chaplin and the Tramp that doesn’t connect with me. This style of comedy is rooted in a tradition that was old fashioned even then. City Lights came out in 1931 and Chaplin was still resistant to making films with dialogue (he was experimenting a bit with synchronised sound and he proved to be a gifted composer of film music) and the opening title card of the film describes it as a pantomime.
Chaplin’s ingratiating sentimentality in City Lights doesn’t feel as modern to me as Keaton’s deadpan.
I’ll keep coming back to that 50 Best Films list, if that’s OK, because there are a few gaps I need to fill, as well as some that deserve a rewatch now that they are on UHD (like 2001: A Space Odyssey). Next up is Satyajit Ray’s masterly debut, Pather Panchali.
Where to watch City Lights
Aotearoa: Streaming on Kanopy (via participating libraries)
Australia: Streaming on Tubi (free with ads)
Canada: Streaming on Criterion Channel or Tubi (free with ads)
Ireland & UK: Streaming on NowTV
USA: Streaming on Max, Criterion Channel and Tubi (free with ads)
I expect that Kanopy in all territories would also have access to City Lights but it’s heard to tell. It is also out of copyright so you would expect there to be plenty of uploaded copies on YouTube but I couldn’t find them. Lots of clips and some interesting documentaries about it, though.
Further reading
The other RNZ Widescreen entries in the Sight & Sound 50 Best Films list can be found using these links: 2012 and 2022.
Hmm, this provoked some thinking, thank you!
Does a film or book have to be 'modern' or relevant to be good?
Who decides if a work of art is considered 'modern'? How much do our class/gender/ethnicity play into those labels? For instance, I've never yet met a woman who finds Buster Keaton funny, though I'm sure they're out there, but I know several silent movie fans of the female persuasion who join me in stanning for Harold Lloyd as well as for early Chaplin.
And I wonder what the kind of early cinema performer who gets respect in later generations says about that generation? For instance, WC Fields got a lot of critical appreciation until the late 1960s for his purposefully transgressive style...but there came a point where audiences just couldn't relate to someone who wasn't acting his alcoholism, misogyny, or racism.
I can absolutely see why Keaton's deadpan fatalism appeals to others, but even though I agree with much of what you say about Chaplin, I'll always relate more to the perpetual hopefulness of his characters.