Sometime before Modern Times appeared, Charlie Chaplin made this remark: "There are those who always attach social significance to my work. It has none. I leave such subjects to the lecture platform. To entertain is my first consideration." Was Chaplin being disingenuous?
shareI definitely think Chaplin was being disingenuous when he made this comment. Despite the many slapstick aspects of Modern Times, I doubt there is any person who can argue that the movie had no social commentary and for Chaplin himself to say this is quite the mystery. In my opinion, Chaplin made this comment in order to let the audience decide for themselves and interpret the commentary in their own special way. Not everyone who views Modern Times will have the same opinion of the way Chaplin moves from job to job or how the Gamine has an overwhelming obsession for food. Is it just storyline or is it insightful commentary? Although Chaplin denies it, I strongly believe that his Modern Times is chock full of political observations and criticisms.
According to the New York Times article we read, Chaplin was a liberal and even took advice from the Soviet filmmaker, Shumiatsky, on how to end his movie. I doubt that Shumiatsky gave Chaplin advice on how to make a funny ending, instead, Shumiatsky advised Chaplin to make the ending show more of the class struggle. Although I do not know the specific details of the Shumiatsky-Chaplin conversation, I feel that I can safely say that they discussed politics and not comedy.
In his quote, Chaplin is quite vague. Although I disagree with him saying that his work has no social significance, I do believe that his first priority was to entertain. Modern Times, so far, is a hilarious movie. There has not been two minutes between my laughter anytime during the movie. There is no doubt that Modern Times is a great comedy, but comedy and politics do not always have to be separated. It is possible for Modern Times to be both funny and insightful, but Chaplin wanted people to focus on only the comedy. Although I do not think that he tried to make every joke into a criticism of 1930's society, to say none of his movies had any insight into the "modern times" is ridiculous.
There is no doubt that although Chaplin has stated his work has no social significance, Modern Times contains many scenes in which it is displayed. Hunger seems to be an important theme in the movie. The first scene in which thsi is shown is when the gamin is on a boat stealing bananas to feed her and her family. Her father is unemployed, along with many other people. Also, Chaplin seems to enjoy being in prison because there he has a bed to sleep in and three meals a day, implying how harsh the Depression was at the time. However, Chaplin says that entertaining is his first consideration, and his sense of humor in Modern Times is exactly that.
shareI'm reminded of the "notice" at the opening of The Great Dictator, in which viewers are advised that any similarity between the barber and "Adenoid Hynkel" is strictly coincidental, even though Chaplin clearly plays both parts.
Industrialism, if not capitalism, was turning people into machines, at the least in the factories. Chaplin knew enough to let people draw their own conclusions from their experiences or those of others.
an important scene from "modern times" is also the scene were Chaplin picks up the red flag dropped from a car, waives it for them to see. And is being beat up by the police, taking him for a communist. It is indead a political film
shareI agree with what has been said on this thread thus far mostly...
we must remember it does not really matter what Chaplin intended the movie to be or if he did not intend to have his films have a greater social significance than just entertainment...it only matter what you, me and we get out of it when we view it, which is true for all film, music and all art. The artists intention while important in reflecting the artists peception and thoughts should not matter to our own thoughts, all we need is to view what we see and hear and take from it what we wish and for each of us that is the meaning.
"Life is divided into the horrible and the miserable." -Woody Allen
His contention that the movie has no social significance reminds me of what Samuel Langhorne Clemens (a/k/a Mark Twain) said of one of his books:
"Persons seeking a moral in this story will be banished".
I believe that with a film like MODERN TIMES, Chaplin was simply being influenced in his art by social forces the same way any artist was at the time (even Laurel and Hardy did a comedy about the Depression in 1931,and I doubt they were trying to make some kind of social statement there...) Same way as the attitudes of comedy could be influenced by the Jazz age 20s. Chaplin was influenced by the immigration movement of the early 20th century when he made THE IMMIGRANT in 1917.
However, I do believe that with THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSIEUR VERDOUX (to an extent) and especially KING IN NEW YORK, Chaplin was consciously making a "social statement" of sorts through his comedy. It becomes particularly bitter and apparent in KING IN NEW YORK, especially.
Matt
[deleted]
Chaplin - a declared (utopian) communist - couldn't have conceived to make a film with no social message, especially given the moment in history (end of depression and economic crisis, the rise in importance of the (pro-communist) labor unions, the rise of fascism in Europe and the increased agresiveness of capitalism which were characteristic to the 1930s in America). If we add to this the ever depersonalized human relations - like in Brazil, avant la lettre - it is clear that the films conveys a social message of the utmost importance.
I also think that the scene when the "gamin" steals the bread, to be a homage to Victor Hugo's "The Miserables" novel ... The very word "gamin" points that, being invented somewhere in Paris during the 1830 revolts against regalism.
I loved the ending in this film ~ the Tramp (Chaplin) turning his back to the world he spent the entire film fighting against inorder to maintain his individuality and not give in to the dominance of industrial authority ~ the end is a final act of resistance ~ to walk away from it.
A brilliant film ~ I don’t know whether Charlie Chaplin was joking when he said that this was never meant to be a film with any “social significance” but there is just so much in it! The first shot is of a herd of sheep which then fades into a crowd of industrial workers entering a factory! Most of the communication projected within this film between humans comes from machinery ~ speaker phones! Etc But then Charlie saying that he wanted to entertain ~ to make people laugh ~ is a great power within itself ~ could a machine do that? A classic film
~ Life is a chance to grow a soul ~
Charlie Chaplin may have said that, but I don't believe it. I know the hard times gave him many plots for films, but his movies too often sympathize with the poor and downtrodden to be not socially significant.
share[deleted]
If your metier is satire then all your films have SOME social significance. Chaplin's career would .not have existed if he did not lampoon any topical issues happening at the time his individual films were made. His satire was a little more personal than say Keaton's or Lloyd's but they all worked from the same premise; take a current topic and find the humor in it. How a movie turns out is a testament to their individual visions.
In Chaplin's statement, he was merely flipping it back to the one-dimensional masses who must be told what significance a film has. The bottom line is it has as much significance as you care to put on it. If it iluminates something you were not aware of, great. If it reflects your own observations and sympathies, great. And Chaplin is correct; it's much better to highlight social awareness from the satire platform than the lecture platform.
This is a great film for all the right reasons; for the social satire, for the empathy, for the comedy and most of all, for the humanity. At least, that's what I get out of it.
Perhaps what Chaplin meant is that the social conditions of "modern times" (i.e., the 1930s) were the setting for a film meant to be, first and foremost, simply enjoyed as entertainment. Those social conditions were the reality of that time, for many people, but for Chaplin they were not what the film was principally "about" - it was about fun and laughter and the touching relationship between two people. The social conditions are in the film because they are necessary as the motivation for the story. Chaplin is saying that his intention is not to give his opinion about those conditions (they speak for themselves anyway), not to tell us what to think, but to employ them objectively and realistically to tell a story, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions and talk about "social significance" if they want to (in the way the posters on this thread have been doing...). So I don't feel his comment was necessarily disingenuous at all.
shareChaplin got in trouble because of allegedly being a "Red", as well as because of his turbulent private life, and playing down the social commentary in his work may have been a tactic to reduce controversy.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
Hello Steve ~
Surprised to see a response after 4 years.
Yes, the “Macarthy era” of the 1950s was a terrible time. It was a time when America was terrified of Russia. Many innocent victims had their careers wrecked by interrogating committees harassing them in attempts to get them to confess to alleged “Unamerican Activities”. The real unamerican activity was the activity of those committees! The Hollywood film community was particularly badly hit. So, of course, it was prudent of Chaplin to claim to have no interest in politics (which was quite probably the truth…).
Yes, I've been off IMDB for a while, but this is one of my favourite films.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."