Chaplin claims this movie has no social significance

...tHe DanCing PeaR...

Whether or not it was Chaplin's full intention to make a social statement in his movies will always remain a mystery. But I believe that subconsciously, Chaplin was trying to express his feelings about the impact of poverty and the industrial revolution on the Americans. Throughout the first half of the movie, Chaplin conveys the message that Americans are robots operating under a higher authority. For example, Chaplin's first job at the steel factory was to screw the nuts on a plaque incessantly. This portrayal emphasizes the dull and menial lives of industrialists. Also, when Chaplin is in jail, the prisoners have to march in synchronized movesments--like robots. Maybe Chaplin was trying to show the negative impacts of the industrial revolution--Americans being stripped of their individuality and becoming part of the masses.

Chaplin's remarks were said before the creation of Modern Times, his opinion could have changed in that period of time so this film could have actually been made with an attachment of social significance. The examples stated by SingingintheNoiR and bubbleS7 already show that there are statements about industrialization over people. Another example is at the beginning of the film, there is a scene of sheeps being herded, and then humans walking together. Agriculture is being overtaken by industry, and the sheeps are a symbol of humans, the farmers own the sheep like the factory owners 'own' the workers, their only purpose is to work. In addition to SingingintheNoiR's example of the factory workers dull lives, Tramp's reptitions of turning the screws caused him to lose his individuality, his soul, and forced him to constantly try to turn any screw-like objects, such as buttons on a shirt. Another statement made in the comic scene of when Tramp is used as a guinea pig to test the experimental food device, showing that the factory owners do not care for their safety and that they are expendable. Also, the machine was faulty and could not feed humans, which emphasizes that a machine can not replace humans for everything.

Chaplin was being disingenuous when he said this because there are so many scenes depicting life at that time as negative. Had Chaplin wanted to create a movie simply for laughs, there would've been no way he would've shown the father of the 3 girls shot because he wanted employment. Not only this but Chaplin also showed a scene with one of the daughters mourning her father's death and then one with the daughters being taken away to an orphanage, both sad scenes. If Chaplin really wanted a comedic film these 2 scenes would've been edited out. But Chaplin obviously wanted to send a message about how difficult life was in the thirties, showing the social injustice of the current system. Times would get so had people had to steal food to stay alive and sometimes people would get so frustrated because of lack of employment they would riot and get shot, leaving behind a loving family.

I don't think that Chaplin was purposely being disingenous when he made that statment. However, he is being vague.

Yes, Modern Times does have social significance; it is obvious in the way it protrays the victims of the depression versus the powerful industrialists. It is blatantly obvious if you look at the some of the examples.

However, if you read his statemnet more carefully, he seems to contradict himself when he says, "It has none," and, "I leave such subjects to the lecture platform." In this way, I don't think he is being disingenuous. He is merely admitting the fact that no matter what he creates, with whatever social, political or economic message, it is ultimately up to the audience to decide. What he says and what he believes is of no importance if the audience doesn't see the message. It is the underlying principle of all art; it is what it means to you. It would be wrong of him to tell us exactly what it meant, to force it on us.

Secondly, his last sentence states that , "to entertain is my first condsideration." It doesn't mean that there isn't any attempt to send a message; it's just that it wasn't his priority. I also believe this because I believe the film has more entertainment value than its value in social crticism.

Although Chaplin claimed that "Modern Times" was not a piece of social commentary, the plot of the film suggests otherwise. Chaplin uses comedy to convey his point, effectively grasping the audience's attention before stating his views. Many scenes of the film revolve around food and hunger, big issues during the Depression. All of the crimes committed, like Chaplin's gluttony at the cafeteria, the gamin stealing the loaf of bread, and the thieves robbing the department store, are prompted by social circumstances caused by the hard times of the Depression. Chaplin is unable to find a job in the tough world of the Depression, and would rather go back to jail, where he led a more comfortable life. The thieves are driven to stealing because of their hunger; although the factory worker, one of the thieves, works incessantly, he is still not paid enough to survive. Because Chaplin addresses some of the social issues of the time, he cannot say that the film has no social significance. By including the issues in his film, he is forcing the public to recognize and think about the impact of those issues.

There is no doubt that Chaplin purposely put scenes which convey strong messages about American society at the time but he does mention that he strongly stresses entertainment before anything else. With scenes ranging from the comparison of human to sheep to the uniformity of work in the factory, Chaplin is clearly making a statement about how society is affecting many lives. By portraying himself as having fun on his road back to prison, in which he was comfortable and taken care of, Chaplin is showing his point on how harsh conditions must have been during the 30’s.
Hunger is emphasized dramatically in this film – the first time we see the gamin, she is on a boat stealing bananas for her family – two little sisters and an unemployed father. The desire to satisfy the basic needs in humans overrides the morality behind stealing food, even behind the two main characters, Chaplin and the gamin. While this is a drastic statement about the importance of morality over the desire to live, Chaplin does not fail to bring in a little humor to lighten the tone of the story.

From the audience's view, it is nearly impossibleto see how Chaplin could have created this film without the intent of having social significance. Even the very first scene criticizes the labor force during the Depression as it cuts from a shot showing a herd of sheep to Chaplin working in a factory, suggesting that the laborers are mindless followers. Chaplin, playing the tramp, can'teven stop performing his robotic duties during his break because his work is programmed into him. Also, later on, the plot includes that of the wandering gamin who steals food because she is starving. This portrays the people who are so desperate for a meal that they are forced to steal. The prevalent theme of this movie is margination during the Depression. The gap between rich and poor widens and those on the bottom are oppressed even more. Because of the obvious message of this film, I can't see how Chaplin is so insistent that his main objective was to entertain because I am more entertained by the theme rather than the humor.

The movie can arguably have no attachments with social significance. Like mentioned, the movie IS titled "modern times", which takes place during the Great Depression. Obviously there's a story line - how an "accident adventurours" worker met a homeless girl and a love story can be drawn to conclusion. It uses reality as it's background (the Great Depression). It's like modern day movies such as..."A Walk to Remember" with 2 lovers in school. Does it attach education significance to it? Perhaps it does, but as viewers you tend to forget about it all and focus on the romance. When he was working as a nightwatcher, he reunites with his factory buddy - Big Bill. That can be part of a story line too.

HOWEVER, his definition of "entertainment" may just be provoking the truth of social significance. From observing the audience from the class, there has not been a negative comment, and everyone seem to be giggling and laughing, therefore proving the point of Chaplin entertaining the crowd. It's true how he represents the lower class man, but there's the scene with him chillin in a luxery jail and Chaplin stealing food is not only hilarious, but at the same time displaying a mockery among reality.

Pure entertainment only or a movie combined with social significant ? Althought it seems as though "Modern Times" does contain the fact of how people were extremely poor and in fight to live, Chaplin's statement may have a hidden message.