Someone wrote me a few weeks ago saying that some message board had a comment calling Charlie too 'vulgar' for their liking, instead preferring Keaton. They asked if I could write something as I write so 'eloquently'...a literal tall order indeed!
The Aero Theatre in Santa Monica is running a mini Chaplin fest this week and next week. Despite having to take 5 hours of bussing that includes almost being stranded in the most ghetto parts of LA if I'm 5 minutes late, well, I'm going (if anyone would like to donate me a car...particularly a Jaguar...I'd kiss your face). But due to such restrictions I've had to limit my selection of the 10 day festival to 5, possibly 4 due to a Hollywood Heritage event the same night as Limelight. Despite these humongous limitations I've decided I'd write articles for each of the films I've seen, some for the first time and some not. Let the proselytizing begin!
Obvious Warning: Spoilers of a 1931 film ahead. If you don't like spoilers, don't read and go buy the damn box set already.
City Lights is one of my most favorite movies ever, and it IS a masterpiece even if you are a Keaton or Lloyd heretic. I'd seen it once before, and it moved me so deeply I felt it for days. But I was certain my life would not be complete unless I could see it on the big screen. I was totally right.
Many of the pretentious people who compare 'the Big 3' (as well as fans of either just Keaton or Lloyd) usually cite Charlie Chaplin's Tramp character as more 'vulgar' than the other two. One person compared Keaton and Chaplin by saying Keaton's character fought if he had to, then went on his way...while Charlie's Tramp would probably cut you in your sleep just for fun. That the Tramp 'liked' fighting. I disagree. And City Lights backs me up.
The Tramp is indeed a touch 'vulgar'...in that fun sort of way which makes Charlie all the more relatable to today's audiences. In the opening scene he gets his pants caught on the sword of the statue during the national anthem, before getting caught in a position that has him 'thumbing his nose' (an old timey way to flip off people) via the statue. Later while fighting the little urchin newspaper kids he essentially flips them off for all of a split second (as he puts his torn glove back on) before oggling a nude statue while pretending to be looking at a more modest piece.
He does get in fights, but usually in defense of himself or a lady...or what he drunkenly perceives as a lady in need (such as the dinner scene). He can be a little brat, but he doesn't go out of his way to fight. When he fights, there's usually a reason behind it in a good majority of his films.
One of the best examples of this comes straight from City Lights. In the opening 'about town' scene the newspaper urchins pick a fight with him. The Tramp shoos them off and goes about his day, dignity intact. He may be poor but he's having a grand ol time, eye humping a statue and falling in love with the flower girl.
Later after he's released from doing a several month stint in jail (for a crime he didn't commit) he's a different man. He walks downtrodden, as if he's invisible. When the newspaper urchins pick on him this time he tries his best to ignore them, in a 'leave me alone' wounded puppy sort of way. Finally they rip his undies, causing him to fight them off. Once done he goes back to being invisible, head down, looking in the gutter where he sees the girl's flower sweepings thus setting up the famous ending.
Charlie always said the Tramp was a man who has an air about him even though he's obviously a bum. He's a man who might have once had some wealth; he has manners and actions of a more upper class sort of man. Despite being impoverished he goes about his business (through a good chunk of his films) in a dignified sort of way, such as the opening of "City Lights" or even "The Kid". He walks tall, has his cane, and his little hat. Since I haven't seen all of his shorts I may be going out on a limb with this statement but I can say through his features I think the only time we actually see him beaten down is "City Lights". He goes to jail in "Modern Times" but actually prefers it to his life (well after a coke fueled binge he thwarted an escape attempt so he was treated well). He faces starvation and almost certain death in "The Gold Rush" but even then he eats his shoes like a gent. No, City Lights seems to be the only time he lost all that dignity.
When people say Charlie's Tramp LIKES to fight, he'd cut you even if he had his mansion, this is what they're missing out on. The Tramp once had wealth or some sort of standing, and in many of his films he obtains it again and again...usually to be thwarted and have to gain it one more time (such as the drunk Millionaire ''forgetting'' him, or the cafe job in Modern Times). Charlie's Tramp fights because he HAS to, and at the moment it is all he knows. A great example of this in City Lights is when he drives the Millionaire's car, in the Millionaire's clothes, and pushes a bum out of the way for a cigar butt on the ground. Hilarious, but poignant to understanding the Chaplin characterization.
The Tramp isn't 'vulgar' or 'looking for a fight', at least in the features. If you've ever lived in fear of being one boot away from losing your home, your job, or your money well you would know how the Tramp feels (most silent film studiers seem to be doctorate holding rich kids; who either think Glasses was spot on or they have that emo link to Keaton). A lot of people are in that position now just as they were in 1931. If you've never had to fear having nothing to eat; well then you will never ''get'' The Tramp. He fights because he's lost it all, and he'll probably go on to lose it all again during the course of the film. He's optimistic ("The birds will sing tomorrow!") and keeps on going, but he's not stupid enough to think he could never fall again. The first Depression era generation had this attitude: if you've known anyone who grew up in the 30s they likely had/have odd habits of drying out plastic bags or saving every last bit of ketchup for the same reason. Mary Pickford had millions but was notoriously stingy (except with charity) as she lived in constant fear of seeing that impoverished life she had once known. People have also said this of Chaplin, while others refute it (including Louise Brooks).
While City Lights is epic in its depiction of the Tramp its also epic in the 'best' of Chaplin. To me there are two key things to any Chaplin film: when he falls in love, and when he gets smashed. I LOVE his drunk characterizations, particularly how things seem to find their way down his pants (in this case, more booze.)
And while the comedy is golden ("Am I driving?"...the one line that makes you wish this was a talkie) its the sentimental that makes this film for me. The first time I watched it I enjoyed the comedic bits, but kept waiting to see what would happen with the girl. Chaplin was a sentimentalist to rival Griffith, yet everything comes off so damn sincere. Charlie in love is perhaps one of the best things to see on screen (and considering he literally would chose leading ladies based on his infatuation of the moment well...all the more so). And it kills everything 'vulgar' about the Tramp.
True the shorts Tramp was a little more vulgar about the ladies, but even then not anything more so than Keaton or Lloyd (especially Lloyd). In the features the Tramp is pure love over lust. In City Lights I think the best way this is shown is the oogling of the statue vs how sweetly he watches the blind girl, first at the park and later through the window (yes...no matter how stalkery that sounds.) He's a freakin Tramp that just ''stole'' $10,000 (about $100,000 in today's money) in the eyes of the police and he knows he's going to jail. Yet all he asks for his a kiss on the hand. Hell you could ask for way more TODAY for that price, let alone one so literally steep. He tried everything from sweeping up horse shit to being beaten in the face to legitimately earn money, and then even though he didn't steal it he knows this $10,000 will land him in jail for several months...all to rescue the girl he is madly in love with.
The last scene is the most epic one; the one that makes this film iconic. The blind girl is no longer blind, and spots the poor trying to be invisible tramp being harassed by the urchins. He spots her and stares like a mad man. She feels bad for this 'tramp' and goes to give him a flower (to replace the one from the gutter) and a bit of money. Handing him the money she realizes who he is. "Yes I can see now..." and the film ends. We don't know what happens next. We're left to go "OMG" instead.
What's so freakin brilliant about Chaplin, and particularly City Lights, is he could play on your deepest emotions. One critic noted that Chaplin spoke to the 'high school nerd who was stood up' in all of us. Of course since critics are never women they don't count our reactions in. I think most people relate to the gender on the screen, thus why men love John Wayne and women love (inexplicably) Sarah Jessica Parker. Or in more classic terms its why you see all sorts of Westerns at Cinecon but rarely anything with a female lead that can't be purely oogled or rare. Or why Mabel Normand/Greta Garbo screenings are so sparsely populated.
Charlie is one of the few leads that can reach beyond this. When watching Rudolph Valentino I'm not relating to him; I'm more so hoping he'll save the day and be sexy and brooding while doing it. Even when watching Harold Lloyd I'm not relating, but I do wish him well along the way (though I did scream while watching "Safety Last"...but who wouldn't?) More than anything I can really get into a well acted vampy or flappery film, as its easier to relate to the woman lead as a woman.
But with Charlie I think every woman or man can step into that role in City Lights. I'm not relating to Virginia Cherrill going "Oh that poor thing...yeah she better at least pay him back but who would sleep with a bum?" I'm more relating to Charlie. I can't speak for men but it seems to me I've seen more women in unrequited love than men (of course maybe I just know a lot of dreamers). I've seen women who would do anything for a man who may or may not appreciate it, hoping he'll one day love them back. I've also seen women hoping to be perfect (in money, looks, or success) enough for their love, and when they're not they'd be mortified to be put on the spot. Sure men get rejected and put their heart on the line, but I'd bet dollars to donuts women could relate to the Tramp in this scene more than any man. A man may get rejected, but only a woman (at least in this day and age) would sink their heart so deeply into something to have it turn out like this. Men are too busy with Xboxs and Porn these days to think THAT deeply. Maybe in the 30s (okay maybe they had Tijuana Bibles and Radio Shows...same difference), but not now.
Charlie's characterizations speak to the loser in all of us. The most deep hidden away corners we have. Mary Pickford could make you cry for Little Annie Rooney's Daddy, or gasp for the baby's crossing the Swamp in "Sparrows" (a film she noted as 'Even Charlie liked')...but none of us, even in the 20s, could as a mass population relate to such a thing. Sure SOMEONE may have grown up on a baby farm, or had their Dad killed, but EVERYONE has felt like a loser outcast at some point; especially in love.
I think in all his films there are two grand moments in this vein. In "The Gold Rush" the 'New Years Eve' scene can make you feel like a rejected 13 year old all over again. And in City Lights the ending can shake you for days.
And that is why Charlie Chaplin is a genius never to be rivaled. And why City Lights is a fucking masterpiece. Literally no other words are needed.
You can buy City Lights here
. And for those wondering there is a Virginia Cherrill biography. You can buy it here.
2 comments:
I’m a Keaton heretic but I think that Chaplin’s vulgarity is one of his best qualities. It is his sentimentality that bugs me. As you note Chaplin is basically the comedic equivalent of Griffith without the directorial chops. The same sort of Victorian perspective on women and the same fondness for melodrama. I agree that “City Lights” is his masterpiece - beautifully realized with impeccable acting and a classic timeless story. That said, I like the early vulgar ones better - the Essanay, Mutual and First National shorts as well as “The Gold Rush.” I like Keaton because he is stoic and his cynicism and irony are more similar to my perspective than Chaplin’s sentimental idealism. Furthermore Keaton demonstrated a better understanding of cinematic technique than Chaplin’s more stagebound approach. You make an interesting point about identification. Lloyd speaks to the high school nerd/oppressed ordinarily fellow in me, Keaton shares my worldview, but the “City Lights” Chaplin I can’t relate to. I can enjoy him as character but he is no more real to me than Theda Bara’s vamp. To me he is a poetic construct synthesizing various noble aspects of the human character with the baser ones of an uninhibited misfit, an unlikely combo. Or maybe I’m just too into my Xbox ha-ha, I know I’m too old to be emo.
LOL Pillbert on the Xbox! As for Griffith vs Chaplin Mr. Griffith may have been the better director, but just by a hair. I think pretty highly of Chaplin's directing as well.
See Charlie had something in him that was 'take the invented and improve on it'. Mr. Griffith and others had already done it by the time he came to film. He didn't have to have invent shit. So he put it together in his 'film till I like it' method and with his editing it became a masterpiece. But with poor Mr. Griffith he was the first, and it was a great thing but it shot him in the foot. If you take the two of them, in pure meller form, Mr. Griffith's will still not melt a normal audience today. The open minded yes; but not a normal one.
I think Lloyd is the hero to the thrill seekers and the go getters; just as he was. Keaton is to the darker in us...the guy who is like 'Well fuck it...but meh'. A lot of his shorts I seen ended with him trying to kill himself somehow. A lot of his 20s features had him getting into horrific situations like the Tramp, but being much more Bugs Bunny about it...and kinda accepting his fate with a dark wit. The Tramp would cut you once before he accepted his fate :p.
I relate a lot to Charlie and City Lights. I've been that kid with the flower a few times in my lifetime and since I'm a Chaplinite I probably will be now. I've just broke up with someone, so it speaks to me even more. But its not just relationships its any moment you felt as an outsider.
Of course maybe I just know a lot of sad people who don't have Keaton's dark take on it all. I think I have a little of him and Lloyd too. Girl Shy was adorable. And I loved Our Hospitality...neither really 'spoke' to me though but they made me laugh. I have a bit of that go getter, and I do have Buster's dark acceptance sometimes. But I guess I'm a God damned sentimentalist at heart.
Post a Comment