MovieChat Forums > City Lights (1931) Discussion > Is the ending the best in film history?

Is the ending the best in film history?


If I had to pick the greatest ending in the history of the movies then it would be City Lights!!



reply

No doubt, it's the best.

Although what makes a great ending is what leads up to it, so it embraces the whole movie. The ending doesn't stand alone.

reply

[deleted]

all i know is, i've seen the film at least 20 times, and each time when it reaches the last few shots, i feel so overwhelmed, it's like my heart will burst.


Sad Hamlet to Ophelia 'I'll do a sketch of thee, What kind of pencil shall i use?2B, or not 2B'

reply

[deleted]

I've had similar experiences. Isn't it that we all feel like poor slobs deep down, and we are really crying for our own frailty and goodness that goes unnoticed.

reply

So true. It spoke to me, too. Did you see Jack Lemmon on the 10th anniversary show of AFI's 100 Greatest Movies? He teared just remembering it.

reply

It is a great ending, but for those who have watched it multiple times did you notice the big mistake Chaplin made in the ending sequence ? Coming from a perfectionist such as Chaplin, it came as a surprise when I noticed the rather glaring error. It is a testament to the strength of the film that I did not notice it the first time I saw the film.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

This ending is great but I don't see it as being life affirming or concerned with acceptence or love. I think it is wholly ambiguous. The look on the flower girl's face veers somewhere between overwhelming love and incredulity and the line "Yes I see now" can either mean "Yes, i see now, you are the man I love" or "Yes, I see now, that you are not the man I thought you were"

This is why it is such a brave and perfect ending becuase, like Chaplin we are left in a eternal uncertainty - is she seeing Charlie, her love for the first time, or she seeing that he is a tramp and not a millionaire for the first time? The beauty, I think, is in the not knowing.

reply

Here are some clues that might help you out:
1.The last frames are showing the exblindgirl,holding the Tramp's hand and aproaching it to her heart..That's obviously a sign of acceptance
2.She wasn't in love with a rich man,she only thought that THE MAN SHE LOVED
is rich..sadness came on her face as she realised the true,but that doesn't mean she loves him less than before

reply

Thanks but I don't need your help... personally I think you have missed the whole point of the ending with your rather unsubtle analysis of it, but you are welcome to your opinion.

reply

Wow you're certantly a self absorbed pompous ass!

reply

I miss the days when "Wow you're certantly a self absorbed pompous ass!" was as profane as the insults on the Internet got. It sounds positively formal now.

(And yes, I know I'm part of the problem. My wife is working to make me less vulgar. We'll see if she's successful)

reply

Pompous ass indeed...

reply

Abig,

That is a bit rude to start your post like that. When you post an opinon to a forum, what do you expect? Other people will post their opinions as well!

One's analysis is true for them. What you see for the ending may not be when another person saw. Who know's what Chaplin's intrepretation was.

From my view, as was said before, the now seeing girl recognizes the tramp by the feel of his hand. She keeps stroking it. Would that be the response of someone who doesn't have feelings for another?

Yes she most likely is in shock as the tramp is not what he appears to be (especially since she was hoping that the debonaiire rich man who just came in was the one who helped her ---- but I think that was put in there to show how, the 'sighted' go by appearances, whereas as the blind girl, she would be just as happy with the tramp as that young, handsome 'looking' young man.

You could be right with your anaylsis, but we'll never know. The only analysis that counts though is what YOU, the viewer choose. I chose to take that she doesn't care what he looks like, but loves the man who helped her when she had nothing.

If this had been made now we would be unable, most likely to really choose our own ending, as the way the actress would've said the line would've really influenced it. I think it is perfect that it was written.

reply

It looks like you're long gone from these boards. But anyway it's you that's missed the point of the ending. For someone who is a big fan of the movie like you seem to be, i'm surprised you're so wrong about it, she blatantly accepts him, bringing his hand to her heart, the same way she brought her own hands to her heart when thinking about him, as a blind woman.

reply

I knew that something like this was coming, but nothing so heartrending. The tears came as a suprise.

reply

"This ending is great but I don't see it as being life affirming or concerned with acceptence or love. I think it is wholly ambiguous. The look on the flower girl's face veers somewhere between overwhelming love and incredulity and the line "Yes I see now" can either mean "Yes, i see now, you are the man I love" or "Yes, I see now, that you are not the man I thought you were"

This is why it is such a brave and perfect ending becuase, like Chaplin we are left in a eternal uncertainty - is she seeing Charlie, her love for the first time, or she seeing that he is a tramp and not a millionaire for the first time? The beauty, I think, is in the not knowing."



What are you an idiot? You're missing the main point of the line. "Yes, i can see now, you are the man I love" and "Yes, I see now that you are not the man I thought you were" are simply two "other" ways you can interpret the sentence.

The core of it is that she is saying she can see now. She can physically see. Her eyes operate now. That's what he's asking her. He points at his own eye when he asks "You can see now?" and her response "Yes, I can see now" is simply a direct response to that, with a twist in it because she is also saying that she can now see who he really is.

reply

I think the greatest beauty in it is that, if she is saying "I see you're poor now," is that she more says it feeling sorry for the man who made her life so great than with repulsion.


~NW~

reply

I took that line to mean: 'Yes, for once I was blind, but now I can see', and not just literally ... 'but even though I could see, now I truly see that the world has this kind of a person that I would have just shoo'ed away if I only used my eyes' ...

reply

oh Profprimbud..

I totally agree, and actually, you articulated what I felt, but never knew how to put in words...

Thank you!!!

reply

abigmuff, very well said.

I think it's very ambiguous:

"Can you see now?"
"Yes, I can see now".

Its brilliance relies on the ambiguity, like another wonderful ending (wonderful film altogether), Sofia Coppola's "Lost In Translation".

"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)

reply

"It is a great ending, but for those who have watched it multiple times did you notice the big mistake Chaplin made in the ending sequence ?"

The continuity problem? I noticed it the first time I saw the film, but it didn't distract me from it. Great movie, one of my favorites.

reply


I noticed it the first time I saw the film, but it didn't distract me from it.

I did too. Before I watched the film tonight, I thought that the flower girl sees The Little Tramp is a tramp, and rejects him. A little heartless?

But after watching it, I see that she doesn't say the word "I don't love you." It would be a poor, heartbreaking ending if it did do that. Watch the Tramp walking away, and she going after another "conquest."

The Movie doesn't say. But I think, from the look on her face, she is starting to see the real man in front of her, the pain he would feel in a rejection, and perhaps the pain for herself in turning away the man that cared for her most. Chaplins look is wonderful. He has such childish embarrasment, and one can see he loves her very much. He almost seems to have no inkling that she may reject him, and if she did reject him, I think it would come as a shock. He can't see himself in that moment as the beggar, he can only see her and his amazing feeling within him.

So I hope it's a happy ending, but the movie is more poignant for not ending with a romantic kiss between Chaplin and the flower girl. It would be just another movie.

I liked it. I like it in a differant way than the Dictator.


One last thing. It seems to show the pointless, and the ultimate waste of the party going man. You feel sorry he is depressed, but you also feel irritated at the way he keeps going out of drunkeness and seriousness. One good thing when he's drunk. He loses his pride and gains the friendship of a poor man. He breaks the biasedness and makes an interesting point about poor and rich.





reply

**** SPOILER ALERT **** Don't read if you haven't seen the film! ****

I think that what Chaplin is trying to say is that if you love someone, you'll do what's best for them, even if it means it will end the relationship.

I think the tramp always knew their relationship would have to end if she regained her sight. Nevertheless, because he loved her he did what was best for her.

He didn't go to all that trouble to get her sight back just to have her wind up with a tramp. He wants something better for her.

After his release from prison, the tramp visits the corner where they first met--obviously he is looking for her. Yet when by accident he finally finds her, his first reaction when she approaches him is to back away. Clearly he never intended to MEET her again, more likely his intention was to find her, perhaps observe her from a distance to make sure she was alright, and then depart for good. That way she'd always remember him as the kindly millionaire. But circumstances upset that plan.

The flower girl may not realize it yet (though I think she does), but this is their last meeting. Now that he knows that she'll be alright, I expect the tramp will hop a freight out of town rather than force her to make an awkward choice--that's the kind of guy he is. She won't have to reject him because he simply won't put her in a situation where she would have to.

What I see in that final shot is the joy in his eyes because she can now see, mixed with the sad realization that this will have to be the last time he sees her. What I saw in her eyes is that she owes him a debt that, sadly, she can never repay.


Good point about the millionaire--the tramp is richer in spirit than he.

reply

...Your analysis is not unlike mine, babyfreen, regarding what's racing through the minds of both the Tramp and the formerly-blind Flower Girl.

Chaplin, himself, pretty much sized it up the way you do in his autobiograpy. However, in his shrewdness, he made the concluding scene so ambiguous that it would satisfy those viewers wishing for a happily-ever-after ending; while other viewers were allowed to grasp all the subtleties and nuances to correctly conclude that there would be no future between the Tramp and the Flower Girl.

I can empathize with the Tramp's motivations and I personally know what it means to make personal and financial sacrifices (for a woman I once loved) that I KNOW, going in, will probably never be rewarded; the Tramp was no fool and had to know full-well, even when he had browsed the article about the the possiblity of vision being restored via surgery, that to give the girl sight would mean losing her. He nevertheless proceeded to surrender everything he had, even his very freedom, for a time, because he felt it was the right thing to do.

SIDE NOTES:


I. Why did the Tramp not spend even more time in prison than he already had? Why is he released after what seems to be no longer than a year or two behind bars? He was convicted of armed robbery and assault, after all (though of course, the viewers know he didn't actually commit those crimes)!

I doubt that many viewers have ever given the whole thing that much thought; it is, after all, only a movie. But WHAT A MOVIE!

I think he was released because the Millionaire probably regained his memory about what had actually happened; the Butler also knew the truth of the matter. So both of them, belatedly, made mention to the civil authorities that the Tramp had already suffered enough for taking money that the Millionaire, while sober, would never have given him; but the Millionaire and the Butler conceded that, though the Tramp had been guilty of taking advantage of the Millionaire in his drunken state, he was certainly not guilty of the armed robbery and assault charges. So in all probability, upon concluding that the Tramp was only culpable for the theft, itself (though the viewer knows better--the drunken fool Millionaire was going to GIVE him that money, before the crooks came along and made their bungled robbery attempt), the authorities agreed to reduce the Tramp's charges and let him out on "time served."


II. Our poor Little Tramp must have really had a rough go of it when he was locked up. Did you notice how much shabbier his clothes looked than they had before, now that he was back on the streets? And that he lost some of that "spring in his step" as he ambled his way back to those streets? And how comparitively docile he now was, upon being taunted, again, by the same street brats who had badgered him earlier in the film?

I like to read between the lines and imagine that the Tramp's worst suffering while incarcerated was NOT the (doubtless) hard labor he was required, as an inmate, to perform; nor the demoralizing conditions of the prison environment itself; MY belief is that he had continually suffered most of all from the knowledge that, once his time was up, there would be no permanent re-union with the woman he loved and for whom he had sacrificed so much.

Thus, we have an uncharicteristically down-in-his-spirits Little Tramp who hadn't even planned on suddenly stumbling into the path of the now-sighted Flower Girl. But once the two made eye contact, he could not resist the compulsion to approach her, at her beckoning. And when she grabbed that same hand which she had felt countless times before, SHE KNEW. And SO DID HE. Trapped in that very, awkward scenario he dreaded the most, with a rush of mixed emotions all over his face--and HER face, as well!


III. Regarding great film endings, I must object to one of the posters who said that more modern filmmakers have made "much greater endings" than that of "City Lights." I am not going to make the foolish proclaimation that this is "THE greatest cinematic ending of all time;" but neither is it surpassed. The other "Great Endings," correctly cited by my predecessors in this thread, are all worthy mentions--THOSE films also had their stunning conclusions. But it is not in the best of form to suggest that Chaplin's ending pales in comparison to the rest. It is STILL, more than 75 years later, one of the best movies ever made and it will ALWAYS deserve that status, with a closing scene I would personally elect somewhere in my top ten of "Great Endings."

I will, however, nominate ONE MORE "Great Ending." 1970's "Start the Revolution Without Me!" a black and raucous comedy starring Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland; with Orson Welles as "The Narrator."

S P O I L E R S! Read no further if you want to pick up the DVD!










The Narrator presents the tale of two sets of twins who were accidentally mismatched at birth. One set of twins belonged to an aristocratic family; the other twins were borne by a peasent girl. Each set of twins, played by Wilder and Sutherland, grows up and eventually partakes in the events of the French Revolution. At movie's end, Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland (the decadent aristocrats) finally meet Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland (the put-upon peasents)! They are all dumbfounded and stunned to the point of strinking a speechless and statue-like pause. And what happens next? Why, Orson Welles, The Narrator, will be more than happy to share that bit of knowledge with you, Fair Viewer! THIS is what happens next...[BANG! BANG!] Welles clutches his chest, and his mortally wounded body falls into a body of water. He will either bleed to death or drown. The two modern-day gunmen (Wilder and Sutherland!!! LOL!), dressed in suit-and-tie, re-holster their guns and flee the scene; they have succeeded in preventing The Narrator from revealing the dangerous and earth-shattering secret; now, we'll NEVER know!




reply

I really don't think that's a charlie chaplin sort of ending. I think that he is unwilling to let her identify him because he doesn't want her to be dissapointed, but when she does, she realizes that, even though he didn't have a penny to his name, he gave her all that money. If you compare this ending with the ending of the gold rush, you will see why I interperate it this way. In both, he finds his long lost love, and it is revealed that she really does care about him, no matter who he is. Your idea is very interesting and thought provoking, but it doesn't fit with other chaplin romances

black and white movies were better

reply

Your idea is very interesting and thought provoking, but it doesn't fit with other chaplin romances

Evidently, you have NOT seen Chaplin's "The Circus"--or else you would not have made that statement, having been better informed with the knowledge that the Little Tramp didn't, in the end, win the girl in THAT film, either.

Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

Good point, I have just seen the Circus, and had forgotten about that post

black and white movies were better

reply

I doubt if they married but I think they'd have at least stayed friends - maybe she gave him a job?


reply

What is the continuity problem? Is it that his hand is at his face in one shot and in the next shot it isn't?

reply

Are you talking about the inconsistency with his hand placement on the shots of the blind girl? I noticed that right away, unfortunately. Despite that, the film overtook me and I spent the rest of the day beginning my obsession with Chaplin.

reply

You don't mention what the big mistake is that erring little Chaplin makes which you, oh great and majestic one who is a Holmes like genius happens to catch.

CinemaScopeRulz

reply

It's not only the ending,the whole picture is the GREATEST EVER

reply

Orson welles agreed with you bouboiler. I would too, but the Ruskies make me waver. The color sequence in "Ivan the Terrible" (Eisenstien) is something else, and so is the quasi-apocalyptic superacceleration in Vertov's "Man With the Movie Camera". And of course there's Pudovkin's "Mother", and the last shot of "Potemkin"... the list goes on and on.
I think the Montage in The City Lights ending is almost as good as these, However, It's just in a different style-- Like comparing Wagner to Rossini.

reply

I am planning on seeing this one, I'm curious if its ending can beat that of CINEMA PARADISO. The most moving ending I've ever seen, especially when you watch the director's cut, which gives more depth to the story...

- The Better You Look, The More You See -

reply

There is no ending in film history like that of Dreyer's "Ordet", that is if it hits you the right way.

My current YMDB top 20:
http://www.ymdb.com/ottffsse-sequence/l30901_ukuk.html

reply

OK, here we go...

No one can say that any film or its ending is FACTUALLY the best ever, like a couple people in this thread have said. I'm suprised more people don't see how silly it is to say things like that.

Besides, I just saw the film tonight and was expecting much more from the ending after I saw this thread.

reply

The ending is great at City Lights, hard to think any better right now.

Other great endings:

The graduate - ending is the beginning of future
The Good, Bad etc - allways makes me laugh
Empire Strikes Back - I'm your father...Nooooo!
Under Suspicion - wow! (dude that Monica Bellucci is hot!)
Planet of the Apes - a classic without a doubt

I cannot understand how humourless and heartless can some people be to give this movie a 1 here. Check out the graphs, they're quite interesting.
Guess some people just don't have the taste...maybe it's because of no sound and colour. People are strange.
This is one of the best films ever...still after all these years, which is awesome.
10/10

reply

Lord of the rings

reply

Finally, someone to add to my ignore user list.

My money is on Kurosawa's "Ikiru". Watanabe on the swing...

reply

The 400 Blows
Bonnie and Clyde
Midnight Cowboy

reply

Never, never, read these message boards BEFORE seeing a film.

Its better that a great scene just hit you from out of the blue.

If you're thinking to yourself "Okay, here comes that final scene, it's supposed to pack a wallop" then certainly it will fail.

reply

Yes, this is greatest ending, but ending to Random Harvest comes in close second. Check out the look on Ronald Colman's face when he realizes identity of Greer Garson.

reply

It's a very good ending. However, my favorite movie ending is The Bridge On The River Kwai.

reply

It amazes me when people say that because this movie has no voices it has no plot and it has no emotional impact!!! Those people must be defective mentally... (Seriously)

I had no idea what to expect of this movie, and I will tell you that I am very sensitive to the over-the-top saccharin crap that is commonplace in hollywood today. The last time I had a tear in my eye when I first saw Forrest Gump in High School. Tom Hanks at the end of that movie was really throwing down with the ole tearjerkers... Since then, somewhere around zero times have I had my heart really touched by a movie.

Then I saw City Lights. I saw it with a live orchestra so maybe that made it that much better, but out of nowhere, this movie grabbed my heart. The ending, some may call it saccharin, sappy, and the like, but for me it was exquisite. The perfection of it is sublime in its simplicity. There are no gimmicks, its pure story at the end, and wondrous, genuine emotion on Chaplins face. All I can say is that it brought a tear to my eye, but I didn't want to cry, I wanted to laugh. Have you ever seen a movie that made you so happy it brought tears to your eyes? I sure hadn't.

The film is not perfect, but you're right, that ending IS perfect.

reply

There are few directors in history who have gotten away with the unabashed absolute gush of emotion that a movie like City Lights has. De Sica did it numerous times starting withe the Bicycle Thief and handful of other strikingly emotional movies. The thing is that most directors tell you how to feel in a scene. That certainly became the American way in movies. IT's only saccharine if you feel like a sucker after tearing up in a scene. I was furious at myself for being moved by Rain Man when I was 15. Chaplin's ending is also wholly simplistic and utterly original. Two shots. Him. Her. To her, to us at that moment he's the greatest man alive and he's a poor tramp just out of jail and he's scared and embarassed but dazzled to see her just looking. How can that not move you to the core?

Personally I'd pick the end of Modern Times. Charlie got the girl in the end and left hand in hand with a poor girl who he'd always have. And she was Paulette Godard. The hope above such horrible odds moves me more than the end of City Lights. (though the look he gives the blind girl is the best look in film history by anyone for any reason)

You've got me? Who's got you??

reply

Hehe, the best ending ever made is owned by The Return of the King. However, City Lights also one of those endings that made me cry and that I kept in my head for several months. I even dreamt with it! But considering Metropolis (1927), Ladri di Biciclette, Gone with the Wind and Bronenosets Potyomkin, its hard to say that City Lights wins among those four.

ACTUALLY YES, BRONENOSETS POTYOMKIN HAS THE SECOND BEST ENDING EVER!!!!

"I KICK ARSE FOR THE LORD!"
Father McGruder - Braindead

reply

[deleted]

THE best ending in film history...I watched AFI's 100 cheers and it was on the list. I can't remember where exactly but I think somewhere between 50-30.

"For me, the only things of interest are those linked to the heart."~Audrey Hepburn

Who~Dey!!!

reply

this is the only movie i've ever actually shed tears to. the fact that its silent makes you embrace what the characters do even more. the best ending i've ever seen in my life- no doubt.

reply

This was a good ending.

*POSSIBLE SPOIOERS* (?)

Some others I've enjoyed:
The 400 Blows (the zoom-in and freeze frame on Antoine's face)
Ikiru (the swing sequence)
Aguirre: The Wrath of God (the monkeys...)

reply