12 Movies Challenge: 'City Lights' (1931)

by Julian Spivey

Photo: United Artists

I’m a classic film buff, but I’ve always admitted to having two huge blind spots when it comes to classic film – I’ve never watched many silent films or international films.

Well, the mission I’ve undertaken this year of watching the 12 highest placed movies on the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Films list won’t exactly help me conquer some of those international flicks, but there are two high-profile silent films on the list: Buster Keaton’s “The General,” which I watched and enjoyed in February, and Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights,” which I’ve chosen for July.

“City Lights” came in at No. 11 on the AFI list, making it the highest-ranked silent film in American film history.

Importantly, I didn’t hate the film. But I also didn’t particularly enjoy it, which, I know I can’t help the way I feel about something, but it almost makes me feel like a bit of a film idiot, which is funny, because I think many people I know would refer to me as a film snob.

“City Lights” is a love story. Still, it’s told almost so much through the hijinks that Chaplin’s famous The Tramp character gets himself into when he’s not interacting with his love that maybe it hijacks the film – or that’s just me putting too many modern film constructs into my take.

It's those hijinks, whether it’s saving a millionaire from suicide, entering a boxing match to earn money, or the film’s opening scene, which finds The Tramp sleeping on an about-to-be-unveiled monument, that are among the funniest moments and best scenes of the film.

Yes, the final scene of the movie, which some have called one of the greatest moments of acting in film history on the part of Chaplin, is lovely, but I’m not sure I spent enough time with The Tramp and the flower shop girl, played by Virginia Cherrill, enough to care all that much.

In fact, I’m more interested in the relationship between Chaplin and his drunken millionaire friend, played by Harry Myers, because that’s the relationship the film seemingly spends more time on, and it’s where much of the film’s slapstick comedy comes from.

I will admit I’ve also never been the biggest fan of slapstick, and well, what else are you going to get from the silent era?   

The movie is a bit too set-piece after set-piece for me, and not enough of a cohesive story, which again is probably me misunderstanding the genre a bit. However, Keaton’s “The General” felt more cohesive than “City Lights.”

I don’t know. Have I become a film idiot?