Well, I appreciate all the replies, for I enjoy discussing cinema. I do acknowledge the scenes in the films you guys have stated, but surely you are not suggesting that those movies are in the same caliber as City Lights. City lights is regarded as one of the cream of the crop of Cinema Masterpieces. If you see this film (with proper eyes) from the start to the finishing scene, I guarantee you will ball. Remember this is a silent film, so all emotions are conveyed through visuals onlyâ¦. Which makes it even more remarkable. Even today, after 87 years, the top critics still choke up when they describe this scene. Remarkable after all those years to still have that kind of impact. American Film Institute, the most forward authority in cinema, has recently ranked this film as #1 of ALL time for Romantic Comedy genre, and 11th of ALL time in ALL genres. City Lights makes ALL the lists of film critics and reviews. TV Guide saidâ¦â¦ âThe story of a tramp in love with a blind flower girl, Charles Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS is one of the cinema's greatest and most durable masterpieces.â Wikipedia says this: âOf the final scene, critic James Agee wrote in Life magazine in 1949 that it was the "greatest single piece of acting ever committed to celluloid". In 1992, City Lights was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". In 2007, the American Film Institute's tenth anniversary edition of "100 Years...100 Movies" named City Lights the eleventh greatest American film of all time (in the original list the AFI ranked the film 76th), making it the highest ranking silent film. For the first Sight and Sound poll of the ten best films of all time in 1952, City Lights was voted the second best film of all time, bested only by Vittorio DeSica's Bicycle Thieves.[2] Though it has not reappeared on subsequent lists (voted on by select critics every ten years) City Lights did receive five votes in the 2002 poll, making its ranking 45th.[3] In the first ever Sight and Sound poll of directors in 2002, City Lights received 8 votes, giving it an overall ranking of 19th.[4] In June 2008, AFI revealed its "Ten top Ten"âthe best ten films in ten "classic" American film genresâafter polling over 1,500 people from the creative community. City Lights was acknowledged as the best film in the romantic comedy genre.â Understand this is an 87 yr old film going up against the very latest from Hollywood blockbusters. Alas, nowadays rarely few even heard of this film, I mean, who the heck sees silent films anymore? Rarely anyone.
You got me, I have not heard of the film. I wonder if there's a clip of that scene on the internet today that I can see?
However, in general I do not consider the oldies to be goodies. On the contrary, I think acting has gotten better over time, and today's actors are better than those of yesteryear. I notice a lot of overacting in older movies, I remember seeing one old b/w western where the actors were "throwing" the bullets out of the guns in their shoot-em-up scenes.
Pretty sure you'll like it. I'm not a rabid Colin Farrell fan, but he was excellent in it. Possibly the best acting he's done yet. Gleeson is good as always, and Fiennes takes a stab at the type of swearing criminal scum that Ben Kingsley did so memorably in Sexy Beast.
You have to watch the film to get the impact of the scene. The scene is mostly two people looking at each other. Scene is the climax of the story... so kinda have to see the film to get it..... but heres how it goes... (copied from filmsite).... It is now Autumn, in "Hope is Rewarded." The flower shop is now owned by the girl and her grandmother - they rearrange flowers inside the prosperous shop. The Blind Girl has had her sight restored with an operation - paid for by the Tramp's support. The bedraggled Tramp (without his cane now) has just been released from prison and is ambling down the street. Defeated by the prison experience, he slowly shuffles along the town's streets expecting to see the flower girl at her familiar sidewalk location. When a rich millionaire enters the store to purchase flowers, the girl is impossibly expectant and longing, hoping that her savior has returned to reveal himself. She tells her grandmother: "...I thought he had returned." Again on the sidewalk outside the flower shop, the tattered Tramp is the target of the newspaper boys' pea-shooter. Aggrieved by their bullying, he admonishes one of the boys to stop hurting him. One of them grabs a piece of his shirt-tail sticking out through a hole in the seat of his ragged pants, when he bends down to pick up a discarded rose in the gutter. The boy tears off a piece of the cloth and holds it up. The Tramp snatches back the rag, pursues after the boys, kicks into the air after them, folds the cloth into a handkerchief, and then touches it to his nose. He then tucks the handkerchief into his pocket. The flower girl has been watching and giggling at the comic/tragic figure through the flower shop window. When he notices the girl again through the shop window of her newly-opened shop, he is transfixed with wonder and joy, because she is the one that he loved and sacrificed himself for. He grins and beams at her with a melting smile. She turns and makes an ironic, laughing comment to her grandmother inside the shop: "I've made a conquest!" The film's most simple, moving, eloquent and poignant finale is filled with melancholy and pathos. Although the Tramp tries to walk away and evade her, she stops laughing and pities him. Determined to help him, she calls him back and outside the shop, in a sympathetic act of charity, offers him a fresh white rose to replace the tattered, wilting one he picked up from the gutter. She also offers him a coin that she has just taken from the flower shop register. When she takes his hand to press money into it, it suddenly dawns on her who he is. With her acute sense of touch, she recognizes the familiar feel of his hands. As she runs her hand up the ragged fellow's coat from his shoulder to his face, she realizes that he is her mysterious benefactor - a shabbily-dressed little vagabond. They recognize and see each other for the first time, reunited, face-to-face, the Tramp feeling many emotions at once - shame, fear, bravery, pain, tentativeness, love, bliss and joy. The camera captures emotionally-intense closeups of their faces. At first, she appears slightly dismayed and confused - he looks so completely different from what she expected - and then she is moved. The Tramp smiles and his eyes light up when she recognizes and accepts him for who he is. Title cards and expressions tell the story in one of the classic climaxes in all of cinema history: The Flower Girl: You? The Tramp: (He nods in assent and smiles shyly, and then points to his eyes) You can see now? The Flower Girl: (She nods and her smile widens) Yes, I can see now. She grasps his hand to her breast. The Tramp stands frozen as he holds his finger to his mouth and places the gift of the flower between his teeth - it is a simple, meaningful gesture. The truth is revealed - she can 'see now' through his pretense - nothing more can be said. A question arises: How can she possibly love him, now that she can see him? Their social roles are now reversed in this face-to-face encounter - his identity has changed from a benevolent millionaire to a vagabond, impoverished Tramp. She has turned from a poor, Blind Girl into a prosperous beautiful woman. The ethereal closeup of his radiant, smiling face fades to black. Keep in mind.... YOU CAN NOT WATCH SILENT FILMS WITH MODERN EYES... you will hate it, will be boring. Our senses are used to all the colors and sound effects and special effects etc....of today...... I had to readjust myself before I discovered how good they could be. NOTE: old movies can suck too.... just like new movies can suck. But the good ones are phenomenal. As far as the "acting" goes, understand throughout the decades, different styles of acting have come and gone.
Found a clip of it on youtube..... remember, scene don't mean much with out watching the whole film to understand how it led up to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpeiPbjDlDs
Just a general perspective I have on films these days. Actors like Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, Christian Slater, Christian Bale etc. etc etc. for me arent' believable as FBI agents, lawyers, doctors and Batman. They seem too young, though old enough to do those things I think they're pushed by the studios because the viewing public is younger and pay the bills. Now Harrison Ford, George Clooney, Denzel Washington, Sam Jackson I buy as adults but the MTV generation doesn't fill the creditbility thing for me. It may have something to do with the fact that I'm 25-30 years older than the aforementioned too and am biased ...at least I'll admit it.
just watched never back down, if you are fan of UFC or tom cruise top guns then don't miss this film. In fact this guy reminded me much of tom cruise only bigger, taller, faster and stronger. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdJAhRj54Q
Except for the girls in bikinis, I found no redeeming value in that trailer. Watching guys kick out eachother's teeth, then get up and do it again, is no more realistic than Star Trek. At least Star Trek has cool toys. Obviously, I am not a wrestling fan. I would rather spend that $10 movie ticket on a flower for some stranger who looks like she has had a bad day.