City Lights is a different film from what I am used to seeing. I have not watched a Silent film or pantomime in a few years. I really enjoyed the story that Charles Chaplin helped to create and produce for our enjoyment. The plot seems to be commonly used now, with a boy falling in love and trying to win the girl's love in return. In City Lights, there are a few twists to the plot. The girl is blind and poor, the TrampChaplinis poor, in love, and wants to help the blind girl. The Millionaire can help the tramp out by giving him money, but he is an on-again, off-again friend depending on whether or not he is drunk.
Being that this is a silent film, there is more importance on the use of props and the acting of the character. Since in a silent film they can't tell us how they are feeling, it is important that we can understand feelings through action. This may be through facial expressions, body language, dress, eye contact, kinds of touch, or the use of written statements, like title cards in a silent film. A prop that stood out to me was the use of flowers. From the flower girl selling her flowers, to how Chaplin was always holding or smelling one of the flowers from his special girl, the use of flowers helped show the emotions and feelings of the two characters. It symbolized the affection he had for her, because like the flowers she couldn't see, she couldn't see the true him or his true affections. Another prop that was used was money. From the millionaire's point of view, money was really of no matter. He threw a party just because he had been reunited with his friend, he went out to the dance club, and when Chaplin needed money in order to help the flower girl pay for rent and surgery he was willing to give him one thousand dollars. To the millionaire this money is nothing, but to Chaplin and the flower girl this is a showing forth of love and charity. When the movie was made in the 1930s, many people were poor and hopeless, but the portrayal of Chaplin as a poor but happy and hopeful man might have given hope to others who watched this movie during the Depression.
In the film I noticed the use of a repetition, or rather a parallelism, as was read in the Film Art book dealing with The Wizard of Oz. They show shots one way in Kansas and then reverse the shot in Oz, as I saw in City Lights. In City Lights, parallelism is done with sight, not necessarily with eyes, but with the mind. We see the reverse where the poor blind girl "sees" Chaplin as a millionaire, and then at the end, she sees him as the tramp he is with her new eyesight. The true reverse is emphasized because she is now working in a shop and making money. The two characters are somehow always at perceived opposite ends of the social class spectrum, yet he still has a desire for her to be happy because of his love. Another reverse is the happy friendly drunk millionaire who sees Chaplin as his friend and hero for stopping him from committing suicide. However, when he is sober he wants nothing to do with him, throws him out and even has him arrested.
In a way, this film is different then what our generation might be used to, but by watching these "classics" we can better learn where the movies we love today came from and gain a better appreciation for the art of film.
Being that this is a silent film, there is more importance on the use of props and the acting of the character. Since in a silent film they can't tell us how they are feeling, it is important that we can understand feelings through action. This may be through facial expressions, body language, dress, eye contact, kinds of touch, or the use of written statements, like title cards in a silent film. A prop that stood out to me was the use of flowers. From the flower girl selling her flowers, to how Chaplin was always holding or smelling one of the flowers from his special girl, the use of flowers helped show the emotions and feelings of the two characters. It symbolized the affection he had for her, because like the flowers she couldn't see, she couldn't see the true him or his true affections. Another prop that was used was money. From the millionaire's point of view, money was really of no matter. He threw a party just because he had been reunited with his friend, he went out to the dance club, and when Chaplin needed money in order to help the flower girl pay for rent and surgery he was willing to give him one thousand dollars. To the millionaire this money is nothing, but to Chaplin and the flower girl this is a showing forth of love and charity. When the movie was made in the 1930s, many people were poor and hopeless, but the portrayal of Chaplin as a poor but happy and hopeful man might have given hope to others who watched this movie during the Depression.
In the film I noticed the use of a repetition, or rather a parallelism, as was read in the Film Art book dealing with The Wizard of Oz. They show shots one way in Kansas and then reverse the shot in Oz, as I saw in City Lights. In City Lights, parallelism is done with sight, not necessarily with eyes, but with the mind. We see the reverse where the poor blind girl "sees" Chaplin as a millionaire, and then at the end, she sees him as the tramp he is with her new eyesight. The true reverse is emphasized because she is now working in a shop and making money. The two characters are somehow always at perceived opposite ends of the social class spectrum, yet he still has a desire for her to be happy because of his love. Another reverse is the happy friendly drunk millionaire who sees Chaplin as his friend and hero for stopping him from committing suicide. However, when he is sober he wants nothing to do with him, throws him out and even has him arrested.
In a way, this film is different then what our generation might be used to, but by watching these "classics" we can better learn where the movies we love today came from and gain a better appreciation for the art of film.