Review of City Lights

City Lights (1931)
Pathos or bathos?
22 February 2005
In a Charles Addams New Yorker cartoon, the producer of a melodrama stands at the back of the theater smiling in a sick way to see the rest of the audience all in tears. That producer would be perfectly cast as Charlie Chaplin.

Reams of stuff have been written by critics about how the comic genius Chaplin was a sentimentalist who was capable of conveying sympathy and pathos at the same time that he mocked the silliness and pretensions of modern society. This is so often written that I wonder if anyone in the audience has ever gotten the idea that Chaplin was a ruthless satirist, especially when it came to an underclass made up of vagrants and criminals who were the butt of most of his jokes.

A great artist and craftsman, Chaplin was extremely industrious, was never a tramp himself, almost never unemployed (dating back all the way to childhood); he was knighted and was quite the proper gentleman. Although he might have been amused if anyone had confused him with the feckless bums he often portrayed, in reality he probably had only the intention of making the audience ridicule such characters.

In his ragged suit and derby and walking like he has a broomstick lodged up his rear, Chaplin's Little Tramp represents the familiar character of the once wealthy young rake now fallen on hard times, the poor little no longer rich boy who has to survive on the generosity of his wealthy patrons or scratch out a living among the dregs of society (pugs, convicted criminals).

Chaplin probably thought the ultimate joke is on the audience when it sheds tears over the romantic misfortunes of a type of person on whom pity is wasted.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed