i have always been a buster keaton fan and never truly understood chaplins appeal until today when i saw City Lights (1931).
where keaton has remarkable acrobatics, chaplin has this sweet sweet sentimentality. and so many bits. chaplins facial expressions are also not limited to just one.
i hesitate from giving away the movie – can you spoil one thats nearly 100 years old?
but the idea that a very poor guy falls in love with a blind girl and needs the help of a millionaire to help him is a bit extreme to say the least.
something ive noticed in these older movies is how often theres someone with a butler or a maid or a paid servant of some sort to help them do the most bizarre domestic dealings.
people dressed super nice back then
and women got bouquets of flowers like all the time, it seemed.
it was also nice to see one of those gutters that led to a pipe that filled a wooden barrel: who the hell thought we should get rid of those?
but the little tiny scene that i loved – other than the end – was when charlie is working as a street sweeper and gives dirty looks at the horses before he has to pick up after them
as if the horses know what theyre doing!
one of my new years resolutions is that every week imma see a classic movie i aint never seen before, it started with imitation of life (1934) then love in the afternoon (1957) and last week was belle de jour (1967)