City Lights

Gold Rush might be the film for which Chaplin most wanted to be remembered, but City Lights is the one that has consistently been most praised by critics and academics. It appears on multiple lists from multiple organizations that seek to categorize the best movies of all time, including the American Film Institute, the British Film Institute, and various polls of respected critics. Does it live up to the hype? A resounding kinda.

City Lights calls itself a pantomime and that’s basically what it is. Chaplin’s antics as the famous Tramp are purposely exaggerated both in the commitment to a bit and in the more serious and somber notes. The movie uses an absolute minimum of intertitles, maybe the lowest in a silent film I’ve seen, giving more space for visual storytelling and physical comedy to shine. Within the context of the film’s release this was an unequivocally good choice, though it is a more mixed bag for modern sensibilities. Those that find great joy in Chaplin’s physical talents and in broad slapstick humor will still find a lot to appreciate. Those that don’t may struggle to understand the film’s lasting reputation.

Where City Lights stands out from the other Chaplin I’ve seen is in its consistency. No moment in the movie reaches the peaks of some of his other films but none of them hit the valleys either. All of the comedic moments and storytelling work and while gags can get close to overstaying their welcome, none of them actually do. No moment struck me quite like the roller skating sequence from Modern Times but also nothing bored me as much as the opening exposition from Gold Rush.

The film is also consistent in its level of realism. Where other Chaplins like Modern Times or Gold Rush can get quite zany, almost to the level of cartoonishness, City Lights stays fairly grounded in reality. The premises, clowning, slapstick, and mix-ups are silly and unlikely but not to the point where they defy the laws of gravity or modern medicine. Several moments even reminded me of the work of Harpo and Chico Marx, suggesting the long influence of Chaplin and City Lights not only on film but on vaudeville theater as well.

However, the movie is not that amazing. Chaplin is probably the weakest of his comedy contemporaries when it comes to telling an interesting story and City Lights is no exception. While the blind girl romance adds some connective tissue to the piece, the film often struggles to feel like a cohesive whole for reasons that are hard to place my finger on. I couldn’t help but compare it to Safety Last which, for my money, does a much better job of establishing character want, motivated action, and a main character with romantic drive and ambition.

Chaplin films also end up feeling longer than they should be. I don’t know whether this is a matter of pacing, content, or shifting sensibilities but rarely find myself engaged the whole way through. This is a problem I freely admit to having with many silent films and Chaplin, despite his fame and reputation, is no exception. Someone I saw this movie with suggested that this, and many other Chaplins, feels about a half an hour too long and I generally agree. If you find yourself similarly afflicted, that your patience for silent films begins to run low at an hour and run out around an hour and fifteen minutes, I did not find this film good enough to get myself past that particular hurdle.

Would Recommend: If you are unsure about Chaplin and want to watch the one with the best chance of entertaining you throughout.

Would Not Recommend: If broad physical comedy holds little appeal for you.