City Lights
This evening, I am going to cook some Depression Cooking food: I have had a bad test today, and with my newly gained freedom, I am going to spend this beautiful evening watching movies and get rid of my backlog. Isn’t this a beautiful way to cope with my unhappiness? Heh.
And so, I shall start with a funny movie; in fact, lately we have mostly been watching comedies because about a week ago, when I still felt happy and needed motivation to study for my tests, I felt like watching comedies a whole lot. The first choice fell on this Chaplin that Théo uses in „The Dreamers“ to prove how Chaplin is superior to Keaton. I have yet to see a long feature by Keaton, but I definitely agree with people that Charlie Chaplin deserves to be the most well-known silent actor. I grew up with stories of the Tramp, and still love them today.
„City Lights“ also appears on quite a few hitlists, and this is something I cannot quite understand. Of course it’s a brilliantly funny film, and it does end on a predictable, yet very sweet note, but I don’t quite see what elevates „City Lights“ over all the myriads of other brilliant movies. Is this very simple hilarity enough to judge it better over the likes of a Wilder or a Lubitsch? Personally I actually prefer the latter two, and I find their humour on a, how should I say, higher level? Chaplin indeed is very kitsch after all.
What makes me wonder even more is that „City Lights“ stands above other Chaplin films. What about „Gold Rush“, „The Great Dictator“, „Modern Times“, „A King in New York“ and all those I didn’t mention? At least „Modern Times“ was better in my opinion, and „A King in New York“ even more so, I think.
So, the question remains: Keaton or Chaplin?