Welcome to MovieandPop.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful?

 
   Movie Forums (Home) -> Charlie Chaplin RSS
Related Topics:
City Lights - Can anyone give us some on this film please. Have got the new 2 disc set and watched all the This film is my favourite Chaplin.

CITY LIGHTS to be screened - -- (1921) starring Charlie Chaplin will be shown at 4 p.m. Aug. 17. Joseph Rubin will be live piano Admission is by freewill donation at the door. Opera House is located at 51/2 E. Main St...

CITY LIGHTS in Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS - February 5, 2004 MOVIES Films, dreams and real life 'The Dreamers' (Fox Pictures) RELATED STORIES By Steven Rosen, Special to The Times What if a movie could dream? Bernardo believes he has

Woody Allen on CC and CITY LIGHTS - From CHARLIE: THE LIFE AND ART OF CHARLIE CHAPLIN: I saw CITY LIGHTS I realized what a deep filmmaker he was, because I felt that that film said more about love than so many serious of the subject. it lives..

MONSIEUR VERDOUX, THE PILGRIM & CITY LIGHTS at UCLA - By Kevin Thomas, Times staff writer When Charlie Chaplin made in 1947, from an idea from Orson Welles, it was Chaplin's belief that the of his dapper French modeled on the
Next:  Charlie Chaplin: A Brief Notice Concerning the AOL Users On This Newsgroup  
Author Message
Shush

External


Since: Dec 03, 2003
Posts: 48



(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:54 pm
Post subject: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful?
Archived from groups: alt>movies>chaplin (more info?)

Here are the top-grossing films of 1931 and 1936, as reported by
VARIETY:

1931:
CIMARRON (RKO)
DADDY LONG LEGS (Fox)
LITTLE CAESAR (Warners)
MIN AND BILL (M-G-M)
THE SMILING LIEUTENANT (Paramount)
TRADER HORN (M-G-M)

1936:
MODERN TIMES (United Artists)
SAN FRANCISCO (M-G-M)
SWING TIME (RKO)
THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (M-G-M)
THE LITTLEST REBEL (20th Cent. Fox)
ROSE MARIE (M-G-M)
UNDER TWO FLAGS (20th Cent. Fox)


(Source: Tino Balio, GRAND DESIGN, pg. 405.


The strange thing about this is that VARIETY also reported, in a
June 1932 article, that CITY LIGHTS had grossed $4,250,000. The same
article put grosses for CIMARRON at $1,750,000, for TRADER HORN at the
same figure, and for THE SMILING LIEUTENANT at $1,300,000.

Data in Donald Crafton's THE TALKIES shows domestic revenue for MIN
AND BILL of $1,223,000, while the figure for CIMARRON was $1,122,000
and LITTLE CAESAR's was $647,000 (Page 552). No figures for CITY
LIGHTS are given.

Why did VARIETY say in 1932 that CITY LIGHTS had huge grosses,
while later on it dropped the film from its list? Hard to say.

MODERN TIMES certainly did good business in 1936, but was it really
the top grosser of the year? I've never seen that reported anywhere
else.




--Shush--

 >> Stay informed about: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful? 
Back to top
Login to vote
George Shelps

External


Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 886



(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:09 pm
Post subject: Re: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Shush wrote:

>The strange thing about this is that
>VARIETY also reported, in a June 1932
>article, that CITY LIGHTS had grossed
>$4,250,000. The same article put
>grosses for CIMARRON at $1,750,000,
>for TRADER HORN at the same figure,
>and for THE SMILING LIEUTENANT at
>$1,300,000.

Rentals revenues for films of that era are misleading because (in the
case of
MGM and Paramount particularly)
the studios owned their own theatres.,,
even UA owned theatres.

CIMARRON, TRADER HORN, and
THE SMILING LIEUTENANT all
played in theatres owned by their
respective studios as well as in
independent chains.

The rentals reported back to the studio
are only a portion of the revenue
realized from a film. (Bob Birchard,
for example, likes to repeat the idea
the Lubitsch films always lost money,
but that might be on rentals only, not
on gross revenues at the theatres, many
of which were owned by Paramount)
















_________________________________

What it was like to spend Christmas in New York - "Oh, it was so much
fun this year, because saying 'Merry Christmas' is like saying 'F...
you!' I've said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on
the street, whatever. And they come up with the 'Happy holidays.' 'Merry
Christmas,' I mean, it really is an aggressive act in New York."

---Ann Coulter

 >> Stay informed about: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Constance Kuriyama

External


Since: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 671



(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:39 am
Post subject: Re: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Shush (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> Here are the top-grossing films of 1931 and 1936, as reported by
> VARIETY:
>
> 1931:
> CIMARRON (RKO)
> DADDY LONG LEGS (Fox)
> LITTLE CAESAR (Warners)
> MIN AND BILL (M-G-M)
> THE SMILING LIEUTENANT (Paramount)
> TRADER HORN (M-G-M)
>
> 1936:
> MODERN TIMES (United Artists)
> SAN FRANCISCO (M-G-M)
> SWING TIME (RKO)
> THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (M-G-M)
> THE LITTLEST REBEL (20th Cent. Fox)
> ROSE MARIE (M-G-M)
> UNDER TWO FLAGS (20th Cent. Fox)
>
>
> (Source: Tino Balio, GRAND DESIGN, pg. 405.
>
>
> The strange thing about this is that VARIETY also reported, in a
> June 1932 article, that CITY LIGHTS had grossed $4,250,000. The same
> article put grosses for CIMARRON at $1,750,000, for TRADER HORN at the
> same figure, and for THE SMILING LIEUTENANT at $1,300,000.
>
> Data in Donald Crafton's THE TALKIES shows domestic revenue for MIN
> AND BILL of $1,223,000, while the figure for CIMARRON was $1,122,000
> and LITTLE CAESAR's was $647,000 (Page 552). No figures for CITY
> LIGHTS are given.
>
> Why did VARIETY say in 1932 that CITY LIGHTS had huge grosses,
> while later on it dropped the film from its list? Hard to say.
>
> MODERN TIMES certainly did good business in 1936, but was it really
> the top grosser of the year? I've never seen that reported anywhere
> else.
>
>
> --Shush--

There are indications in the Chaplin material I've read that _Modern
Times_ initially didn't do as well as Chaplin's previous successes,
and that Chaplin felt this was a consequence of it's not being a
true sound film. It took hits from some reviewers because of its
clinging to older methods. It seems doubtful that it was the
highest grossing film of 1935, although it rebounded later and
certainly turned a profit.

_City Lights_, on the other hand, was by all indications I've seen
highly profitable, and that doesn't jibe with the Variety list
either.

Connie K.
--
"To hell with the pillow in the background. It's a good scene, and that's
more important." Chaplin, Interview with Richard Meryman, 1966.
 >> Stay informed about: CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES: How Successful? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Movie Forums (Home) -> Charlie Chaplin All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]