Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS:

On Jun 7, 3:03 am, Deborah wrote:

> Shush wrote:
> > It's been many years since I last watched CITY LIGHTS
> > and I don't recall whether I ever noticed it onscreen.
>
> WHAT?! WHAT?! "Many years?" I'm shocked and disturbed.

Well, when I watch a great movie for the *second* time, I hardly
ever get as much from it as I did that first time. The third viewing
usually diminishes it even more. After several viewings, there's
usually no impact left at all, and I'm just watching a succession of
shots that were edited together.

So I try not to watch great movies over and over. One of my
favorite silents is SEVENTH HEAVEN (1927), but I haven't seen it in 30
years!



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 7, 8:42 am, Shush <shushfilmseznos... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 3:03 am, Deborah wrote:
>
> > Shush wrote:
> > > It's been many years since I last watched CITY LIGHTS
> > > and I don't recall whether I ever noticed it onscreen.
>
> > WHAT?! WHAT?! "Many years?" I'm shocked and disturbed.
>
> Well, when I watch a great movie for the *second* time, I hardly
> ever get as much from it as I did that first time. The third viewing
> usually diminishes it even more. After several viewings, there's
> usually no impact left at all, and I'm just watching a succession of
> shots that were edited together.
>
> So I try not to watch great movies over and over. One of my
> favorite silents is SEVENTH HEAVEN (1927), but I haven't seen it in 30
> years!

So, you were what, 4 years old when you last saw it??!?
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 7, 8:42 am, Shush <shushfilmseznos... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 3:03 am, Deborah wrote:
>
> > Shush wrote:
> > > It's been many years since I last watched CITY LIGHTS
> > > and I don't recall whether I ever noticed it onscreen.
>
> > WHAT?! WHAT?! "Many years?" I'm shocked and disturbed.
>
> Well, when I watch a great movie for the *second* time, I hardly
> ever get as much from it as I did that first time. The third viewing
> usually diminishes it even more. After several viewings, there's
> usually no impact left at all, and I'm just watching a succession of
> shots that were edited together.
>
> So I try not to watch great movies over and over. One of my
> favorite silents is SEVENTH HEAVEN (1927), but I haven't seen it in 30
> years!
>
> --Shush--

I feel sorry for you. My favorite films (such as many of Charlie's) I
can watch over and over and over again, and still enjoy them
immensely. I've probably seen MODERN TIMES at least a hundred times.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

David Totheroh wrote:

> On Jun 7, 8:42 am, Shush wrote:
> > So I try not to watch great movies over and over. One of my
> > favorite silents is SEVENTH HEAVEN (1927), but I haven't seen it in 30
> > years!
>
> So, you were what, 4 years old when you last saw it??!?


Hey, you're not the *only* one who's older than he looks!


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 7, 12:22 pm, WaverBoy wrote:

> I feel sorry for you. My favorite films (such as many of Charlie's) I
> can watch over and over and over again, and still enjoy them
> immensely. I've probably seen MODERN TIMES at least a hundred times.


Don't feel sorry. I'm a film buff, but there are a lot of film
buffs out there who spend hours every single day watching movies about
fictional people's lives, rather than getting out of the dark and
living lives of their own. I've never wanted to be one of those buffs,
and I'm not.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 7, 1:09 pm, Shush <shushfilmseznos....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 12:22 pm, WaverBoy wrote:
>
> > I feel sorry for you. My favorite films (such as many of Charlie's) I
> > can watch over and over and over again, and still enjoy them
> > immensely. I've probably seen MODERN TIMES at least a hundred times.
>
> Don't feel sorry. I'm a film buff, but there are a lot of film
> buffs out there who spend hours every single day watching movies about
> fictional people's lives, rather than getting out of the dark and
> living lives of their own. I've never wanted to be one of those buffs,
> and I'm not.
>
> --Shush--

Neither am I, but I do enjoy rewatching my favorites.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 9:05 pm, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> Phil P. (p...@nospam.com) writes:
> > 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.
>
> > 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.

A new chance for the minutia-minded!! George and others can scan
'Wall*e' to see if all those technical defects join other aspects of
its inspiration. Reported by Time Magazine, Wall*e is to be released
in 2008 by Pixar. "Andrew Stanton, writer-director of Finding Nemo
[...], describes "this metalic love story as 'R2-D2 meets City
Lights,' with [robot] Wall*e meeting a cute robot named Eve. Those who
remember the 1931 Charlie Chaplin film, about a blind girl wooed by a
tramp she mistakenly believes is a rich man, can transpose the story
to a lonely planet and guess from there."

I'll be waiting for reports of misaligned articulated limbs and
mismatched rivets and lock washers.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

David Totheroh wrote:

>I'll be waiting for reports of misaligned
>articulated limbs and mismatched rivets
>and lock washers.

Only if the glitch appears in the most
famous and pivotal scene.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

We have consistently emphasized the importance of wearing the right
sized bra as part of our efforts to provide information on better body
care. However, it should be noted that it is not just buying the
right bra and wearing it religiously - you need to make sure that you
wear it properly too.

We also recommend that if you still have difficulty, you are welcome
to contact us or seek professional help locally (the easiest place is
to ask at a local lingerie shop). Many department stores will often
invite a bra fitting expert in their store, and believe it or not, the
consultation is usually free, if you shop there. There is also a lot
of information on the Internet on how to measure your correct bra size
and choose the right bra. Most of the information is typically
provided by online lingerie shopping websites. It is of course always
a good advice to confirm your research with a professional.


Assuming that you have already selected the tightness of the bra's
back strap, when putting on a strapped bra, regardless of cup size,
after first slipping the straps over your shoulders, lean forward at
at least at a 90 degree angle to your legs. Then affix the back strap
around your back and fasten it. Wiggle yourself slightly from side to
side to get yourself centered in the cups and then stand up. This will
place them firmly into the bra cup and assure they are where they are
supposed to be. This is really important because otherwise you will
not get the support they need and the whole purpose of wearing a bra
will be defeated.

Strapless bras are put on in much the same manner, but it is vital
that the back strap is placed exactly where it is supposed to be
before it is fastened.

If you are are still not perfectly fitted into the bra, you probably
did not lean forward enough, the back strap was adjusted too tight or
too loose (many women may have to try a different tightness when
putting on a bra this way) or you have the wrong size, shape or cup
size bra. Still, practice putting the bra on in this manner several
times before making any final judgments.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: