Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS:

David Totheroh wrote:

>it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
>using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
>flaw' in the end of City Lights.

I observed it without first having read
it in Kerr. For me, it detracts from the
scene, though the impact nevertheless
remains powerful,
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > David Totheroh wrote:
> > >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> > >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
> > >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>
> > I observed it without first having read
> > it in Kerr.
>
> I don't believe you.

Actually he could be telling the truth... in exactly the same way that
Clinton told the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has told the 'truth'
about virtually everything he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.

If George heard about it from someone ELSE who had read Kerr before he
noticed, his above statement would technically be true, completely
misleading but true.

He also didn't say under what circumstances he first observed the
socalled 'flaw.' Other than as a rhetorical question, there's
virtually no point in even asking whether it was first noticed in a
theatrical setting or after how many previous viewings, because quite
simply there is no way to establish the veracity of the answer no
matter what it might be. (And the precedent of his previous record of
misremembering facts in ways that 'support' his 'conclusions' isn't
very reassuring.)
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 9:45 pm, d... DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> David Totheroh (dtothe...@aol.com) writes:
> > On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> >> > David Totheroh wrote:
> >> > >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> >> > >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
> >> > >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>
> >> > I observed it without first having read
> >> > it in Kerr.
>
> >> I don't believe you.
>
> > Actually he could be telling the truth... in exactly the same way that
> > Clinton told the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has told the 'truth'
> > about virtually everything he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> > If George heard about it from someone ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> > noticed, his above statement would technically be true, completely
> > misleading but true.
>
> I doubt that anyone alive in the twentieth century after the publication
> of Kerr's book who is interested in film *hasn't* heard about it.
> Before Kerr no one ever mentioned it to my knowledge. After Kerr,
> it crops up frequently, and some people do claim to have seen it before
> (or without) reading Kerr, but when a notion has such amazing currency
> it's hard to prove that you haven't been preconditioned to see it.
>
> Connie K.
>

I noticed it without having ever read Kerr or heard it mentioned. I
was 13, watching the film for the first time. It's pretty obvious;
whether it's intentional or a flaw is another matter.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:



>>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
>>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
>>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
>>>>Lights.

>>>I observed it without first having read
>>>it in Kerr.

>>I don't believe you.

>Actually he could be telling the truth... in
>exactly the same way that Clinton told
>the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
>told the 'truth' about virtually everything
>he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.

Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.

>If George heard about it from someone
>ELSE who had read Kerr before he
>noticed, his above statement would
>technically be true, completely
>misleading but true.

I never knew until I read it here that
Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
he was principally a Broadway critic.

>He also didn't say under what
>circumstances he first observed the
>socalled 'flaw.'

By watching the movie, you clown.

> Other than as a rhetorical question,
>there's virtually no point in even asking
>whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
>setting or after how many previous
>viewings, because quite simply there is
no way to establish the veracity of the
>answer no matter what it might be. (And
>the precedent of his previous record of
>misremembering facts in ways that
>support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
>reassuring.)

Your usual trash.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
> >>>>Lights.
> >>>I observed it without first having read
> >>>it in Kerr.
> >>I don't believe you.
> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.

No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.

>
> >If George heard about it from someone
> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> >noticed, his above statement would
> >technically be true, completely
> >misleading but true.
>
> I never knew until I read it here that
> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
> he was principally a Broadway critic.

And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
having noticed it on your own.

>
> >He also didn't say under what
> >circumstances he first observed the
> >socalled 'flaw.'
>
> By watching the movie, you clown.

Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
very little to disprove my point.

>
> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
> >there's virtually no point in even asking
> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
> >setting or after how many previous
> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>
> no way to establish the veracity of the
>
> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
> >the precedent of his previous record of
> >misremembering facts in ways that
> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
> >reassuring.)
>
> Your usual trash.

Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 8:38 pm, Phil P. <p... RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> >> dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
> >> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
> >> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
> >> >>>>Lights.
> >> >>>I observed it without first having read
> >> >>>it in Kerr.
> >> >>I don't believe you.
> >> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
> >> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
> >> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
> >> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
> >> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> >> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>
> >No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>
> >> >If George heard about it from someone
> >> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> >> >noticed, his above statement would
> >> >technically be true, completely
> >> >misleading but true.
>
> >> I never knew until I read it here that
> >> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
> >> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
> >> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>
> >And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
> >been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
> >having noticed it on your own.
>
> >> >He also didn't say under what
> >> >circumstances he first observed the
> >> >socalled 'flaw.'
>
> >> By watching the movie, you clown.
>
> >Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
> >very little to disprove my point.
>
> >> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
> >> >there's virtually no point in even asking
> >> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
> >> >setting or after how many previous
> >> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>
> >> no way to establish the veracity of the
>
> >> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
> >> >the precedent of his previous record of
> >> >misremembering facts in ways that
> >> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
> >> >reassuring.)
>
> >> Your usual trash.
>
> >Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
> >true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>
> Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
> if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
> (regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
> That's all I have to say.

Sorry, but George did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone in this
thread. He said that he noticed it without having read Kerr, that it
detracted from the scene somewhat for him, but that he still found it
moving and powerful. It was a couple of other posters who made
inflammatory comments.

For what it's worth (probably not much), I first noticed the mismatch
the first time I ever saw the film, as a lad of thirteen.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>> dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
>> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
>> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
>> >>>>Lights.
>> >>>I observed it without first having read
>> >>>it in Kerr.
>> >>I don't believe you.
>> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
>> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
>> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
>> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
>> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>>
>> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>
>No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>
>>
>> >If George heard about it from someone
>> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
>> >noticed, his above statement would
>> >technically be true, completely
>> >misleading but true.
>>
>> I never knew until I read it here that
>> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
>> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
>> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>
>And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
>been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
>having noticed it on your own.
>
>>
>> >He also didn't say under what
>> >circumstances he first observed the
>> >socalled 'flaw.'
>>
>> By watching the movie, you clown.
>
>Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
>very little to disprove my point.
>
>>
>> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
>> >there's virtually no point in even asking
>> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
>> >setting or after how many previous
>> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>>
>> no way to establish the veracity of the
>>
>> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
>> >the precedent of his previous record of
>> >misremembering facts in ways that
>> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
>> >reassuring.)
>>
>> Your usual trash.
>
>Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
>true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>
Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
(regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
That's all I have to say.

Actually it's not - on the subject of the ultimate scene in CL, I think I first
noticed the "mismatch" during a live screening in Vancouver, probably the third
or fourth time I saw it. This was before the video era. I don't recall if I
remembered Kerr's mention of it or not, but I suspect the screening took place
after I had read the book. Anyway, it never bothered me. I never considered it
a flaw. I thought it was necessary to see Virginia's face clearly, hence flower
down, and an integral element of Chaplin's reaction to her, hence flower up. To
me City Lights is as near a perfect film as anyone has ever made.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

dtotheroh DeleteThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>No insinuation intended, merely a sharp
>eye for rhetorical loopholes.

No loophole, pal. I never read it in
Kerr. Period.


>>I never knew until I read it here that
>>Kerr mentioned it. I never even
>>regarded Kerr seriously as a film critic,
>>since he was principally a Broadway critic.

>And again, this still leaves open the very
>real possibility of having been told of the
>'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior
>to having noticed it on your own.

Wrong. I noticed it because I have worked on movies and know the
importance of matching reverse angles.


>>>He also didn't say under what
>>>circumstances he first observed the
>>>socalled 'flaw.'

>>By watching the movie, you clown.

>Snide comments, coupled with the
>typical immature namecalling does very
>little to disprove my point.

Whatever your "point" is.

>Is it that difficult for you to simply and
>unequivocally describe the true and full
>circumstances that led to your
>observation?

I saw the movie in a theatre..and then many times on video.

The continuity jump doesn't harm the
scene crucially, it just mars it, but it could have been avoided if
Chaplin were
a better film craftsman.

And if Chaplin were a better craftman,
he would actually deseve the mooning
and gushing that goes on here.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Phil P wrote:

>Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group
>be >that< much less amusing if everyone
>else stopped interacting with him? I don't
>read his posts except (regretfully) when
>they are quoted in messages by those I
>actually respect. That's all I have to say.

Another profile in courage...I recommend that all Chaplinistas follow
his lead.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
> >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>
> I observed it without first having read
> it in Kerr.

I don't believe you.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

rfcsac627n.RemoveThis@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:

>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
>>>using Kerr as a source for evidence of
>>>a flaw' in the end of City Lights.

>>I observed it without first having read
>>it in Kerr.

>I don't believe you.

Par for the course.

..
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 9:52 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:36 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> > wrote:
>
> > >>>it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> > >>>using Kerr as a source for evidence of
> > >>>a flaw' in the end of City Lights.
> > >>I observed it without first having read
> > >>it in Kerr.
> > >I don't believe you.
>
> > Par for the course.
>
> > .
>
> I have NEVER before called you a liar.

What's interesting about the passage now that you quote it is that he
doesn't describe the shots all that accurately. He's obviously
relying on
memory--recalling "several shots," and Charlie "raising his fingers to
his
mouth." In actuality Charlie is using a set gesture that has its
roots in
theatrical tradition--biting the knuckle of his index finger to
indicate doubt,
apprehension. It's used more than once in _Modern Times_ by both
Charlie and the Gamin. The close-ups of Charlie are reasonably well
matched. It's in the shots over his shoulder that the flower is
obviously repositioned--for very good reason.

But it still strikes me as absurd that anyone would assume that a
nervous man holding a flower would hold it steadfastly in exactly
the same position for the duration of a scene.

And Kerr doesn't say how many times he watched the film before he
noticed whatever it was that he noticed and decided was a flaw.

Interestingly enough, of all the things Kerr said about Chaplin, only
two
of the most ridiculous ones have been picked up by others. One is
the moving flower "error"; the other is his theory that Chaplin didn't
know
who he was.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 7:36 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>>it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> >>>using Kerr as a source for evidence of
> >>>a flaw' in the end of City Lights.
> >>I observed it without first having read
> >>it in Kerr.
> >I don't believe you.
>
> Par for the course.
>
> .

I have NEVER before called you a liar.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: