Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS:

On Jun 4, 10:03 am, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> >>If there's anything we should have
> >>learned long ago, it's that Mr. Shelps is
> >>incapable of letting things go. Nursing
> >>grudges, fighting with and defaming his
> >>"enemies" gives him an excuse for living.
> >He's like Richard Nixon without the
> >upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
> >ignore him or engage him -- I've done
> >both -- he's still there.
> Neat bit of lying there, Dickie. You
> and your pals pervert every topic
> line into a personal attack or a politicall
> jibe,
> Why do I bother with this?

Yeah - why?

You keep arguing with him with reason and logic
and references to objective reality.

The Troll has shown he has no recognition of these.
He spews lies that are easily disproven, attacks without provocation,
accuses others of precisely the actions he's guilty of.

In short, he's mentally ill. He's the group's version of an
hysterically
screaming street person. You can smell the stale urine in his posts.

Pity him. Ignore him.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 9:04 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> rfcsac6....TakeThisOut@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>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.
> >>Is this a new tradition for you, then?
> >>But it is "par for the course" in that it is
> >>typical of the Chaplinistas here.
> >I am typical of no one but myself. And I
> >don't believe you.
>
> Think what you like. I only skimmed
> the Kerr book and didn't know he
> mentioned the flaw until I read it here.
>
> You have no reason to disbelieve me
> except that you are indeed typical
> of the scuzzball ethos that prevails
> here...newest member, Bachusio..

So if you call me a liar, that's OK. But if I call you one, that's
scuzzball ethos.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Richard Carnahan wrote:

>>You have no reason to disbelieve me
>>except that you are indeed typical
>>of the scuzzball ethos that prevails
>>here...newest member, Bachusio..

>So if you call me a liar, that's OK. But if I
>call you one, that's scuzzball ethos.

You had zero evidence to back up
your slur, but you made false
statements about my motives and
posting history---lies.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 4, 7:34 am, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >WeverBoy wrote:
> >>Sorry, but George did absolutely
> >>nothing to provoke anyone in this thread.
> >Wrong. He started the day by calling
> >>me< a liar.
>
> The actual provocation was your lie about
> my motives and posting content,
> as below:
>
>
>
> >>>You have no interest in viewing
> >>>Chaplin's work in any dimension. You
> >>>are interested only in
> >>>slime-and-whine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually that was the SECOND time you called me a liar yesterday.
Here is the first time:

Richard Carnahan wrote:
>>If there's anything we should have
>>learned long ago, it's that Mr. Shelps is
>>incapable of letting things go. Nursing
>>grudges, fighting with and defaming his
>>"enemies" gives him an excuse for living.
>He's like Richard Nixon without the
>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
>both -- he's still there.


Neat bit of lying there, Dickie. You
and your pals pervert every topic
line into a personal attack or a politicall
jibe,
*******************************************************

Why do I bother with this?
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Richard Carnhah wrote:

>>He's like Richard Nixon without the
>>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
>>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
>>both -- he's still there.

>>Neat bit of lying there, Dickie. You
>>and your pals pervert every topic
>>ine into a personal attack or a politicall
>>jibe,

Yes, another false statement which
ignores the habitual slurring and
slandering that began when dissented
from the political orthodoxy here.

**********************************************

>Why do I bother with this?

Don't
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 4, 8:00 am, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnahan wrote:
> >>You have no reason to disbelieve me
> >>except that you are indeed typical
> >>of the scuzzball ethos that prevails
> >>here...newest member, Bachusio..
> >So if you call me a liar, that's OK. But if I
> >call you one, that's scuzzball ethos.
>
> You had zero evidence to back up
> your slur, but you made false
> statements about my motives and
> posting history---lies.

You've called me a liar countless times over the years and you have
never caught me in a lie.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

WaverBoy wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:04 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
> <constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 12:00 am, WaverBoy <waver....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 3, 9:45 pm, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > David Totheroh (dtothe...@aol.com) writes:
> > > > > On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >> 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.
> >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > I'm rather curious as to what someone who noticed it without being
> > prompted
> > was thinking about when s/he was watching that scene. The fact that
> > many
> > people who watch a lot of films don't see it the first time (or the
> > second or the
> > third), and that nobody mentioned it before Walter Kerr, suggests that
> > it becomes
> > more obvious when you've digested the main point of the scene and
> > start noticing
> > details that aren't essential.
> >
> > As for it being part of film 101, I got through an excellent college
> > film course in
> > which _City Lights_ was required viewing without ever hearing it
> > mentioned.
> > Emphasizing something like that in a film course is high school stuff,
> > like
> > teaching Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_ by pointing out the
> > anachronisms.
> >
> > In both cases, so what?
> >
> > Connie K.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm not trying to put anyone down for not noticing it...just pointing
> out that it is possible for someone to notice it without ever having
> read Kerr's book or heard it mentioned that it was in Kerr's book. As
> I did. Perhaps I'm obsessive-compulsive, but I found it to be
> obvious. :-)

And I'm not trying to put anyone down for noticing it either... but I
would also just point out that it is certainly understandable to me
that someone with the emotional maturity reasonably expected of "a lad
of thirteen" might not be as attuned to the powerful, emotional
"symathy it unquestionably generates" for most others, including Kerr.
The more honest ambiguity I've experienced over several years of human
relationships, the more I recognize and am captivated by the powerful
emotional reality portrayed in the depiction and find my attention
focused there.

Besides, I like a challenge, and it seems far more satisfying to try
to figure out how the scene so effectively *overcomes* what some see
as 'flaws' than to simply call attention to them. It may even be, as
others have obliquely indicated, that the 'flaw' itself is the key to
the scene's incredible strength, in that it frames the important parts
of image as successfully as it does.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

WaverBoy wrote:
> On Jun 3, 8:38 pm, Phil P. <p....TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> > >> dtothe....TakeThisOut@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.

How can someone dispassionate (and I use the word very intentionally)
enough to spot the flower "not precisely matched" amidst the
"concluding image [that] is more than commanding in its usurpation of
the entire frame, in the symathy it unquestionably generates" act as
if he did NOT recognize that this thread is a direct outgrowth of the
'Chaplin's "Imperfect" Technique' thread, and can not meaningfully be
seen in isolation from it?

>
> 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 Jun 4, 4:49 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> WaverBoy wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 8:04 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
> > <constance.kuriy....TakeThisOut@ttu.edu> wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 12:00 am, WaverBoy <waver....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 9:45 pm, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > David Totheroh (dtothe...@aol.com) writes:
> > > > > > On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@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.
>
> > > I'm rather curious as to what someone who noticed it without being
> > > prompted
> > > was thinking about when s/he was watching that scene. The fact that
> > > many
> > > people who watch a lot of films don't see it the first time (or the
> > > second or the
> > > third), and that nobody mentioned it before Walter Kerr, suggests that
> > > it becomes
> > > more obvious when you've digested the main point of the scene and
> > > start noticing
> > > details that aren't essential.
>
> > > As for it being part of film 101, I got through an excellent college
> > > film course in
> > > which _City Lights_ was required viewing without ever hearing it
> > > mentioned.
> > > Emphasizing something like that in a film course is high school stuff,
> > > like
> > > teaching Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_ by pointing out the
> > > anachronisms.
>
> > > In both cases, so what?
>
> > > Connie K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm not trying to put anyone down for not noticing it...just pointing
> > out that it is possible for someone to notice it without ever having
> > read Kerr's book or heard it mentioned that it was in Kerr's book. As
> > I did. Perhaps I'm obsessive-compulsive, but I found it to be
> > obvious. :-)
>
> And I'm not trying to put anyone down for noticing it either... but I
> would also just point out that it is certainly understandable to me
> that someone with the emotional maturity reasonably expected of "a lad
> of thirteen" might not be as attuned to the powerful, emotional
> "symathy it unquestionably generates" for most others, including Kerr.
> The more honest ambiguity I've experienced over several years of human
> relationships, the more I recognize and am captivated by the powerful
> emotional reality portrayed in the depiction and find my attention
> focused there.
>
> Besides, I like a challenge, and it seems far more satisfying to try
> to figure out how the scene so effectively *overcomes* what some see
> as 'flaws' than to simply call attention to them. It may even be, as
> others have obliquely indicated, that the 'flaw' itself is the key to
> the scene's incredible strength, in that it frames the important parts
> of image as successfully as it does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I didn't say that you were, nor did I say anything about the
effect the scene did or didn't have on me at the time, or whether or
not I thought it was a flaw. I was just pointing out that I noticed
it.

And for the record, although I can't back it up with dated diary
entries, I remember being touched by the scene the first time I saw
the film.

If the editing continuity issue is an error, it's a more than
forgivable one, considering the impact the scene still has.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 4, 9:16 am, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> Richard Carnhah wrote:
> >>He's like Richard Nixon without the
> >>upside. Ans it doesn't matter if you
> >>ignore him or engage him -- I've done
> >>both -- he's still there.
> >>Neat bit of lying there, Dickie. You
> >>and your pals pervert every topic
> >>ine into a personal attack or a politicall
> >>jibe,
>
> Yes, another false statement which
> ignores the habitual slurring and
> slandering that began when dissented
> from the political orthodoxy here.

After all these years you'd think we'd realize that >you< are
perfection.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com
wrote:

>The Troll has shown he has no
>recognition of these. He spews lies that
>are easily disproven, attacks without
>provocation, accuses others of precisely
>the actions he's guilty of.

>In short, he's mentally ill. He's the
>group's version of an hysterically
>screaming street person. You can smell
>the stale urine in his posts.

>Pity him. Ignore him.

May I congratulate you on joining
Tom Moran in the sewer?
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

"Constance Kuriyama" <do481.TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:f40324$85f$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Phil P. (phil@nospam.com) writes:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtotheroh.TakeThisOut@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>>> dtothe....TakeThisOut@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.
>
>
> I'm quite sure I didn't notice this the first time I saw _City Lights_,
> since I was only about ten years old. Nor did I notice it the second
> time I saw it, which was in a college film course. Nor did I notice it
> the third time I saw it, which was on Fox Video. After reading Kerr's
> book, I made a point of looking for it, and after seeing it at last, my
> reaction was pretty much so what? Why would Kerr even bother to mention
> it? And why would people go on mentioning it as if it were somehow
> important?
>
> I've always been fascinated by this seeming need some people have to
> find fault with art. They can't create it themselves, but they can
> at least nitpick. The urge to find a flaw in what Agee rightly considered
> on of the greatest moments in film must be impossible for these people
> to resist.
>
> Connie K.

Kerr's pointing it out was just in keeping with his theme of trying to
present Chaplin as "second best" under Keaton. I understand Kerr has his
preferences (who doesn't?) but the bias in his book is fairly obvious. I
notice he never harps on any flaws in Keaton's technique, for instance,
choosing instead to marvel in every moment of them. As much as I appreciate
Kerr's book (any book that got me interested in Raymond Griffith is well
worth it!) but reading it now, I can see how biased and at times even shoddy
the research was (especially in regard to Chaplin's reasons for making
certain of his First National comedies, but that's another topic).

Finally, speaking as an editor, the shots in CITY LIGHTS that are supposedly
"mis-matched" look to me to be more a case of cheating rather than a blatant
continuity error. Check out Alfred Hitchcock's remake of THE MAN WHO KNEW
TOO MUCH for an excellent example of this. The position of the flower in the
shots always "felt" right to me, it never jarred me out of the scene with an
expression of "whoa, what just happened?". Of course, that's just my take on
it, so please don't assume that I'm saying that just because I don't have a
problem with it that others won't.

--
Matt Barry
www.myspace.com/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

"Shush" <shushfilmseznospam RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180971590.571864.272230@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> There are wonderful things about the Kerr book, and I've had it
> around for almost 30 years, but there are such lengthy theoretical
> ponderings in it that I've never been able to slog through the thing,
> cover to cover. I mean, he spends an entire chapter defining the
> "Keaton 'No'" (whatever that is). Come on. I don't get college credits
> anymore for suffering through that sort of thing, and life's too
> short. I've skimmed the book at great length but I doubt I'll ever
> read it all the way through.
>
> I don't think I ever heard about the flower thing until it was
> discussed here. It's been many years since I last watched CITY LIGHTS
> and I don't recall whether I ever noticed it onscreen. I may have
> noticed it and not thought anything about it, or I may not have
> noticed it at all. I don't remember. It's not important. When you have
> a scene that's *this* powerful, it's hard to call it flawed.
> Regardless of where the damn flower is from one shot to the next, the
> scene works tremendously well.
>
>
>
> --Shush--
>

Kerr's carping about the flower (which, if you consider it an error at all,
would be a "technical" error, not an error in character or plotting) in a
book which is highly opinionated and based on his purely personal
impressions and opinions on silent comedy he grew up with can be seen as
part of his conscious effort to downplay Chaplin's artistry in the book, in
favor of Keaton, whom he evidently closely identified with on a personal
level. I've frequently mentioned my dislike for his writings on Harold Lloyd
in the book, and his virtual dismissal of the Keystone comedies (which I
happen to find hilarious, despite Kerr's questioning whether or not
audiences laughed even in 1914).

--
Matt Barry
www.myspace.com/mattbarry84
View my films at:
www.grouper.com
Read my essays and articles at:
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: