It doesn't matter if it's a silent film, your face still reflects the inflection you're using. I can understand Chaplin wanting it to be right. These guys are geniuses at what they do, but that often means hurting people's feelings. If they hold back, and compromise, the final results might not be as good. In the end, I think Cherrill does a lovely job, though it can't have been too much fun for her.
There is a wonderful 1982 english tv series named "Unknown Chaplin" full of behind the scenes like this! A real treasure to see the artist at work and to follow his creative process. Wonderful! It's narrated by James Mason :)
One of the reasons for so many takes, was Charlie needed the blind flower girl to mistake the tramp for a rich man and could not figure out how. It stopped production of the entire film for 6 weeks. This was driving him mad. After all those takes Chaplin figured it out. A limousine pulled up to the curb and someone got out and closed the door. The girl hears the car door just a few seconds before the tramp walks up to her. She assumed he got out of that car. Chaplin often got unknown girls to play parts in his films. He had a thing for girls much much younger than himself.
When I saw City Lights on VHS, the last shot (CU of Chaplin) was held longer. That final image of the Tramp is so very moving. More recent prints, including Criterion's, fade out on that Close Up. This was probably Chaplin's intent, but I wonder if anyone else has seen the film with that last shot established before the fade-out? The difference is not subtle.
Gracious, three hundred takes for a three minute scene? Partly because of the inflection of her voice in a SILENT film? Now that's finicky! Looking forward to owning this one =]
i love all these behind the scenes shots. i watched a video once that said he wasnt an easy director to work with. one movie, he did 13 takes of a simple scene which irritated the actors. But of course they did as he wanted..or theyd be without a job
я открыл принцип катарсиса, основываясь на драматургии Чаплина в Огнях большого города. Мне удалось сформулировать то, что никому до меня сформулировать не удавалось. Сейчас пишу книгу. Если вам интересно узнать или приобрести информацию, пишите мне.
Todays movies are like shoot in 3 minutes for a 300 minutes of movie... repeat, repeat, another angle... repeat... green screen, same scene now with special fx and lens flare...
The supposed 342 redone take is a myth, an exaggeration invented by so many or should I say too many...it was in fact redone over and over again simply because Mr. Chaplin was a perfectionnist not unlike so many artists before, after and since himself but it was redone 42 times...not a three hundred and forty-times. Fact checking goes a long way. Thank you.
Here's something to ponder: Not a single person you are looking at or seeing in this 193 seconds is still alive today. All their hard work, all their striving for perfection, all laughter, tears, frustration, exasperation, funny smiles ... all dust now. Well, save this piece of cinematic history.
Your estimation of the importance of contributing a lasting work of art to the conscious of human culture is troubling. City Lights has endured for 83 years since its release. I'm not sure that I would call that "all dust now".
Tyler Ward Yes, I do believe that is why the words, "Well, save this piece of cinematic history" appear at the end of my statement. :) But, since you raise it, what qualifies something as "dust"? That it is completely forgotten? Okay, but then how many people on any given day still watch that film? A dozen? Fifty? It's not like it's playing at my local cinema still. How many people have seen it? Hundreds of thousands? Or could tell you anything about it? The world population of film students? It's not relevant anymore. It's history, and not in the "Napoleon retreated from Moscow" kind of history, either. It was an important cinematic achievement and a classic from the time, but is it anything more? "City Lights" might not be complete dust, agreed, but it does have a very musty smell about it. ;)
This might look like boasting, but whatever. I'm 23 and City Lights is my favorite film. They are still breathing people who care, and unborn people who also will, eventually. Chaplin is in my opinion one of the most interesting directors to study, and his films age like fine wine.
Como podem criar tanta bobagem sobre um cara deste. Já vi muito diretor trabalhando. Somente uns 2 faziam assim. Diferença é que CHARLIE CHAPLIN brinca. E nem sei quem está nessa filmagem...CARLITOS ou CHAPLIN ?.....Seus defeitos, só atingiam à ele, e nem isso , eram parte dele. CHARLIE CHAPLIN... 👅👈🏻👄👄👄👄👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I watched Ben Aflleck directing some scenes from ARGO. He took six takes of himself walking into the State Department building. He took five takes of a scene of himself with Bryan Cranston that never even made it to the final film. These guys are all perfectionists; with so much money on the line, they have to be. But over 300 takes is a bit neurotic.
Huge difference between Charlie Chaplin and Ben Afflicted. Chaplin was an artist and a perfectionist in City Lights. Afflicted is merely an egocentric annoyance. And as long as there is still civilization left on this planet, people will be watching and enjoying City Lights long after all of us are gone. Ben Afflicted's movies will be relegated to the video bargain bins in short order--and then ultimately forgotten altogether.
Gumboz1953 Yeah you can't really compare Ben Affleck to Chaplin. Chaplin sits on wall of great directors such as Kubrick, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Welles, Fellini, Ozu and Sergio Leone, not Ben Affleck.
She actually said she never liked him, and he never liked her. She called him "disloyal" to England and to America because he didn't go fight in World War One. And it doesn't seem like she was coachable, which would frustrate any director.
Reading his Biography, very very sad to learn he was a monster. I always sensed there was something dark. It is not innate to genius, but in his case, it accompanied it. And I mean, a Monster, bummer.
Monster?? That's ridiculous. Flawed? Sure. Monster? No way. Either that, or your definition of "monster" is "someone who is very bad at picking spouses, and is also a perfectionist in his work so he gets cranky sometimes." My definition of "monster" is Adolf Hitler.
@@marinawalker5745 the "faults" as you call them, are not everyman "faults" I'm specifically choosing the words to describe him, based on the Biography . . . And Not his AUTObiography. If I were to say the nature of the "faults" my comment would violate platform guidelines. . . . There was a dark, dark side. And I don't mean, moody, genius, eccentric, artistic, misunderstood etc. . . . Dark, look into it if you care. It gives me no pleasure to say so. None. That saying, "Never meet your heroes," applies to the maximum here. Understand I chose to read the Biography to learn of a great artist of our time. I read a lot of comedian's books, I love humor and creativity. It was as depressing for me to learn as it would be for anyone.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
It doesn't matter if it's a silent film, your face still reflects the inflection you're using. I can understand Chaplin wanting it to be right. These guys are geniuses at what they do, but that often means hurting people's feelings. If they hold back, and compromise, the final results might not be as good. In the end, I think Cherrill does a lovely job, though it can't have been too much fun for her.
This wasn't a silent film. The tramp doesn't talk but there is sound in it.
@@jimgz No, they wouldn't.
@@jacobvarney23Not Really For Her!😢
OMG THIS FOOTAGE IS SO FREAKIN' PRECIOUS
Such a cool glimpse behind the scenes. Great insight!
Yes! Classic
@@NellieKAdabaDEFINITELY A REAL COOL 😎 CLASSIC SILENT 😶 MOVIE CALLED "CITY LIGHTS 🚥 "!
An absolute icon of cinema. One of the true artists.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😊
There is a wonderful 1982 english tv series named "Unknown Chaplin" full of behind the scenes like this! A real treasure to see the artist at work and to follow his creative process. Wonderful! It's narrated by James Mason :)
WE SAW THAT ONE ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN ON TV 📺!😊
To this day, the greatest movie ever made created by a man who showed what real genius is.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😊
342 takes? More than Kubrick
One of the reasons for so many takes, was Charlie needed the blind flower girl to mistake the tramp for a rich man and could not figure out how. It stopped production of the entire film for 6 weeks. This was driving him mad. After all those takes Chaplin figured it out. A limousine pulled up to the curb and someone got out and closed the door. The girl hears the car door just a few seconds before the tramp walks up to her. She assumed he got out of that car. Chaplin often got unknown girls to play parts in his films. He had a thing for girls much much younger than himself.
+Fred Garvin He was brilliant
serenity2000 I really loved his films. I think he moved into talkies very gracefully with several great films. I read anything I can find on him.
He had a thing for Girls much much younger than himself.
@@arushamix6036 And that's unusual in Hollywood?
@@arushamix6036THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😊
Very very cool. Love behind the scenes with Chaplin.
This is such a gem to watch!
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!💎
When I saw City Lights on VHS, the last shot (CU of Chaplin) was held longer. That final image of the Tramp is so very moving. More recent prints, including Criterion's, fade out on that Close Up. This was probably Chaplin's intent, but I wonder if anyone else has seen the film with that last shot established before the fade-out? The difference is not subtle.
I Have ON TV 📺 AND ON VHS 📼 DEFINITELY WOW!😮😊😂😅
Gracious, three hundred takes for a three minute scene? Partly because of the inflection of her voice in a SILENT film? Now that's finicky!
Looking forward to owning this one =]
Sempre vejo Chaplin em Telecine Cult!!!De Criciuma SC Brasil
Unknown Chaplin, great documentary!
Тhis mооoovie is nooоw avaаailablе to watсh hеre => twitter.com/6a5f1cb56d4a9a389/status/795841631643570176 Chаrliе Chaрlin Dirесts City Lights
Amo esta película y amo a Charlie Chaplin !
yo igual amo esa pelicula y tambien te amo a ti
2:54 To see Charlie Chaplin famous walk at normal speed is mind blowing.
😮😂😅
One of the best movie ever
te adoro Charles Chaplin ;)
Amazing footage of the pioneer of cinema, many thanks for posting.
City Lights, my favorite movie of all time.
The Same Here About "CITY LIGHTS 🚥 "😊
Fascinating footage, thanks.
i love all these behind the scenes shots. i watched a video once that said he wasnt an easy director to work with. one movie, he did 13 takes of a simple scene which irritated the actors. But of course they did as he wanted..or theyd be without a job
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😊
Great footage here. Thank for sharing it.
*_1:36_**_ He's so cute_* 😊😍
I love the way his eyebrows flick upwards when he wrinkles his nose and I absolutely adore his thoothy smile. He was definitely a charming man.
@@ShēnaLeah *_That is also the reason why he is known as the Comedy King of the World_* 😍🤩
GRACIAS por todo MAESTRO..,... APASALOBIEN TØS
я открыл принцип катарсиса, основываясь на драматургии Чаплина в Огнях большого города. Мне удалось сформулировать то, что никому до меня сформулировать не удавалось. Сейчас пишу книгу. Если вам интересно узнать или приобрести информацию, пишите мне.
This man was a true genius!
This was amazing
*is
Real Champ at work rip... 🌹🎂💖💐😔🙏
CHARLIE CHAPLIN RIP 1889-1977 😥😢💔🙏🕊🌹
Todays movies are like shoot in 3 minutes for a 300 minutes of movie... repeat, repeat, another angle... repeat... green screen, same scene now with special fx and lens flare...
A masterpiece
Seeing the little differences in how people held themselves back then is interesting
The supposed 342 redone take is a myth, an exaggeration invented by so many or should I say too many...it was in fact redone over and over again simply because Mr. Chaplin was a perfectionnist not unlike so many artists before, after and since himself but it was redone 42 times...not a three hundred and forty-times. Fact checking goes a long way. Thank you.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😂😅😊
Beatifull beatifull beatifull 1:37
Awesome document ! ...
Here's something to ponder: Not a single person you are looking at or seeing in this 193 seconds is still alive today. All their hard work, all their striving for perfection, all laughter, tears, frustration, exasperation, funny smiles ... all dust now. Well, save this piece of cinematic history.
Your estimation of the importance of contributing a lasting work of art to the conscious of human culture is troubling. City Lights has endured for 83 years since its release. I'm not sure that I would call that "all dust now".
Tyler Ward
Yes, I do believe that is why the words, "Well, save this piece of cinematic history" appear at the end of my statement. :)
But, since you raise it, what qualifies something as "dust"? That it is completely forgotten? Okay, but then how many people on any given day still watch that film? A dozen? Fifty? It's not like it's playing at my local cinema still. How many people have seen it? Hundreds of thousands? Or could tell you anything about it? The world population of film students?
It's not relevant anymore. It's history, and not in the "Napoleon retreated from Moscow" kind of history, either. It was an important cinematic achievement and a classic from the time, but is it anything more? "City Lights" might not be complete dust, agreed, but it does have a very musty smell about it. ;)
ara9ond The thing about classics is that they never get old.
ara9ond You must be fun at parties
This might look like boasting, but whatever. I'm 23 and City Lights is my favorite film. They are still breathing people who care, and unborn people who also will, eventually. Chaplin is in my opinion one of the most interesting directors to study, and his films age like fine wine.
wow!!!!!! nice shots!!!!!!
Great clip!
Charlie ❤❤❤
Salute To Technology For Bringing Him Back In Front Of Our Eyes 👁️ x 👁️ Whenever We Want
THANKS TO RUclips VIDEOS FOR SHARING THESE BEAUTIFUL COMICAL MOVIES 🎥 OF CHARLIE CHAPLIN AS THE LITTLE TRAMP!😂😅
On Cherrill's part - one great negotiation
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!😊
Como podem criar tanta bobagem sobre um cara deste. Já vi muito diretor trabalhando. Somente uns 2 faziam assim. Diferença é que CHARLIE CHAPLIN brinca. E nem sei quem está nessa filmagem...CARLITOS ou CHAPLIN ?.....Seus defeitos, só atingiam à ele, e nem isso , eram parte dele. CHARLIE CHAPLIN...
👅👈🏻👄👄👄👄👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
It doesn’t look like behind the scenes it looks like he’s in character doing something funny again
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😊
So amazing
The original David fincher lmao
I watched Ben Aflleck directing some scenes from ARGO. He took six takes of himself walking into the State Department building. He took five takes of a scene of himself with Bryan Cranston that never even made it to the final film.
These guys are all perfectionists; with so much money on the line, they have to be. But over 300 takes is a bit neurotic.
and something so small, and in a silent film
Huge difference between Charlie Chaplin and Ben Afflicted. Chaplin was an artist and a perfectionist in City Lights. Afflicted is merely an egocentric annoyance. And as long as there is still civilization left on this planet, people will be watching and enjoying City Lights long after all of us are gone. Ben Afflicted's movies will be relegated to the video bargain bins in short order--and then ultimately forgotten altogether.
Gumboz1953 Yeah you can't really compare Ben Affleck to Chaplin. Chaplin sits on wall of great directors such as Kubrick, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Welles, Fellini, Ozu and Sergio Leone, not Ben Affleck.
imagine compare ben aflleck to charlie chaplin good lord
@@kurtanglina7419YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!😂😅
Great Legend !!!!!!!🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺😎
GREAT LEGEND ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️😎
1:36
he is the one who makes flim if he dint make any flims people would not know how to make flim
CHARLIE CHAPLIN MAKES HIS VERY OWN FILM 📼 AND MOVIES 🎥 TOO!😊
king of the retakes. ha ha
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!😊
340 takes WOW
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!😮
You?
Seems. I'm Impressed! wipe embarrassed What's happening, guys.
🤗
👍👍
👍👍
Probably was frustrated with her because she refused to sleep with him.
She did marry Cary Grant.
+Janet Gysin You know the movie was released in 1931 and Cherrill married Grant in 1934 right? And you know Grant prefered men right?
@@Hakim21210 there is a thing of age of consent ,
She actually said she never liked him, and he never liked her. She called him "disloyal" to England and to America because he didn't go fight in World War One. And it doesn't seem like she was coachable, which would frustrate any director.
@@AlydiaRackham , don`t spread lies. I have seen an interview with her and there she said, she liked and admired him.
Wow
WOW!😮
প্রণাম
🤔😒
well, he wasted a lot of film rolls
What's your point?
I'm sure he was well aware. He was ever present in the editing room, so it's assured he saw just how much film ended up on the floor and in the trash!
@@jamajenksYOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT CHARLIE CHAPLIN!BECAUSE "CITY LIGHTS 🚥 " WAS DEFINITELY ONE OF HIS BEST MOVIES 🎥 TOO!😊
chaplin was worse than kubrick, i didnt think anyone was worse than kubrick
CHARLIE CHAPLIN IS REALLY A DISTANT PHYSICALY A PERFECTIONIST!😮
Reading his Biography, very very sad to learn he was a monster. I always sensed there was something dark.
It is not innate to genius, but in his case, it accompanied it. And I mean, a Monster, bummer.
Don't believe that bullshit.
Monster?? That's ridiculous. Flawed? Sure. Monster? No way. Either that, or your definition of "monster" is "someone who is very bad at picking spouses, and is also a perfectionist in his work so he gets cranky sometimes." My definition of "monster" is Adolf Hitler.
@@AlydiaRackhamAdolf Hitler Is REALLY DEFINITELY A MONSTER 👾!Not CHARLIE CHAPLIN!
Absolutely. Charles Chaplin had his faults like everyone, but he certainly was not a monster.
@@marinawalker5745 the "faults" as you call them, are not everyman "faults" I'm specifically choosing the words to describe him, based on the Biography . . . And Not his AUTObiography. If I were to say the nature of the "faults" my comment would violate platform guidelines.
. . . There was a dark, dark side. And I don't mean, moody, genius, eccentric, artistic, misunderstood etc. . . . Dark, look into it if you care. It gives me no pleasure to say so. None. That saying, "Never meet your heroes," applies to the maximum here.
Understand I chose to read the Biography to learn of a great artist of our time. I read a lot of comedian's books, I love humor and creativity. It was as depressing for me to learn as it would be for anyone.