Week 5: City Lights (1931)

NOTE: I started this a few months earlier because I knew I’d get slammed during the holidays. Glad I did. Some friends and I are doing this 52 films in 52 weeks, and their links are below. This might be Week 1 for them, but it’s Week 5 for me- sorta. Consider my earlier stuff a dry run! Enjoy! Also, welcome anyone from the Johnsen clan! Whoohoo!

Before Viewing

I love silent movies. There is something about them that I find romantic in a nostalgic sense. It’s kind of weird for me to use the term nostalgic because those obviously weren’t the years of my youth or anything like that, but I get a sense of history when I see old silent pictures. I do have to admint, though, that I have never seen a Charlie Chaplin picture. I’m familiar with the character, of course, but most of the silents I’ve seen are ’serious’ pictures. I haven’t really done the silent comedy thing. I do know that this film is highly regarded as a classic, and since I SHOULD see at least one complete Chaplin picture, this is the one.

My Thoughts After Viewing

Technically, this isn’t a silent picture, although it was conceived and plays as one. It does have a soundtrack, but what I found humorous was that no one is allowed to speak in the film, apparently. At the beginning, when a bunch of politicians are giving speeches, we get the ol’ Charlie Brown adults trick- have a noise represent their words, because ultimately, it’s really not that important to know what they are saying. It was a nice touch, and I liked it. Even though this came out past the ‘dawn of talkies’, it still played like a silent, but it had the added bonus of using aural cues to enhance the storyline.

It’s a fun storyline, to be sure. Drunks were very comical back in the day, apparently. We have a drunk millionaire who takes The Tramp under his wing, feeds him, clothes him, and shows him a good time- but only when he’s drunk. We have a blind girl who falls in love with The Tramp (and the feelings are mutual), but it does come with a bit of mistaken identity. The Tramp shows his sensitive side as he falls in love, and as he makes sacrifices for the blind girl, all leading up to a very touching final scene (though I did think the ending was a bit abrupt, it IS satisfying).

The film has all the usual stuff you’d expect in a silent film- sight gags based on timing, melodramatic scenes, exaggerated gestures and more- but they really work in this film. One sight gag that really caught my eye occured at the beginning of the film, when we first see The Tramp. He’s been sleeping on this brand new statue (so new it’s being unveiled when he’s found), and as he tries to get down, it’s one sight gag after another, starting with him getting a sword right up the backside of his pants. I marveled at the fact that he never turned around once, but seemed to get the ‘trick’ right the first time. The film is filled with many such delights, and it’s a fun 88 minutes or so.

I will say this, though. As I watched the film, I really looked close at Chaplin. He really looks…. strange. I know that’s part of his charm/appeal as The Tramp, but I don’t know…. I’ve never really studied him before because this was the first film of Chaplin’s I’ve seen in entirety, but as I watch, I couldn’t help but wonder what he looked like without the makeup. Having time and distance on my side probably added to this feeling.

The Final Say

A great film, especially if you have an interest in silent pictures. I’m planning to see a few more Chaplin films, so I’m glad I got this one under my belt.

Others doing the 52-in-52 thing this week:

• Jeremy reviews Eagle Eye
• Jamie reviews Intolerance
• Neil reviewed Revolutionary Road

Week 4: Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

Before Viewing 

Being a film AND history buff, in college I picked up a book called Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies. It basically examined a bunch of films based on historical events and individuals, and discussed how accurate they were. Not only was it an enjoyable read, but it also introduced me to a lot of films with which I was unfamiliar. One film that caught my eye was the story of a conquistador who went mad in the jungle during one of the many unsuccessful searches for El Dorado, the mythical city of gold. I’d never heard of Lope de Aguirre or this film, but I made a mental note of it. A few years ago, I came across this film in one of Ebert’s Great Movies books. I know he holds Werner Herzog in high regards, and I’ve made it a goal of mine to see more of his films. I wanted to see this one first because of my prior knowledge of it as well as some of the lore surrounding the film. Also, I’ve never seen Klaus Kinski in a film, and I’ve read a lot about him, so I figured this would be a good one to start with.

Thoughts After Viewing

Ebert says that Herzog likes to shoot on location to gather in some of the ‘voodoo’ that exists in these authentic locations, and I can certainly see why in this picture. My goodness, the jungle in this film is one of the lonliest places I’ve seen. I love Apocalypse Now, and I can see how this film probably influenced the way Coppola put together his ‘going down the river’ sequences. I loved how the arrows just came out of the jungle, assailants unseen. It certainly adds to the foreboding and danger of the jungle. The establishing shots of the muddy water really reveals how everything there is dirty, filthy, unclean, and uncomfortable.

Kinski was definitely the madman I was lead to believe that we was. He has these great crazy eyes, and I commend Herzog for allowing Aguirre to look directly into the camera at certain points, especially during the ‘those who follow me with have untold’ riches speech after his henchman beheads a would-be deserter (side note: having the dead man’s head finish counting was brilliant). Aguirre comes across as ruthless, scheming, and cold-hearted, yet the scenes with his daughter are surprisingly tender (note that the stupid movie poster above IS a spoiler). One character who stood out for me was Lady Inez, the mistress of the original party leader who is betrayed by Aguirre. I just loved the way she stood up to Aguirre AND stood by her love. The way she chose to ‘commit suicide’ reminds me of the way the younger sister killed herself at the end of The Last of the Mohicans. Ines looked so beautiful and strong going into the jungle, and you couldn’t help but sympathize with her. Really, just solid acting all around.

I will say this for Warner Herzog- the man has an eye for composition. I loved the shots- in fact, what I thought was remarkable was how the film played like a documentary more than anything else! I’m sure it’s because of the fact that they were using smaller cameras and a small crew. That’s why Kinski’s looking into the camera (without breaking the fourth wall, by the way) was so effective. Because Herzog’s insistance of authenticity down to the actual location, the film plays like a true historical document and not just a film.

The Final Say

See it. Enjoy it. It’s definitely one of those films you’d call hauntingly beautiful, and for all the right reasons.