Wow...a bit socialist if you ask me....
The era in which Chaplin made the film may explain it's progressive or socialist elements. I found the movie to be a masterpiece.
Maybe that is why he landed under J.Edgar Hoover's radar.
It's interesting that you say this. True, Chaplin was accused of being a Communist. Obviously there was something so socially observant about the nature of his work, that some people were indeed very suspicious. Chaplin, however, apparently denied adamantly that he was a Communist. And actually, I believe him. It's interesting that you posted this, because, while there were evidently aspects of this movie that made people suspicious, I actually don't find the movie very socialist at all. A class I am in right now (about films of this time period) agrees with me - we all seem to think it's a lot less socialist than the reaction would have one think.
Now of course, you/anyone is free to disagree, only here's why I don't think it's socialist.
A SOCIALIST piece of work would essentially do the following:
Call attention to social problems/the poor conditions of society,
lay out an agenda through which the social problems could be fixed,
and basically push for that agenda.
To me,
what Modern Times DOES do is call attention to the social problems. It observes the then modern-society and says, look how hard it can be for workers. Look how difficult and dehumanizing it can be, trying to make a living in a confusing, capitalistic, machine-driven society. That's only brushing the SURFACE of what it says actually, only obviously it observes social problems. How it's hard, and what the flaws are.
Only,
the conclusion of this movie is what makes it seem not-socialist to me. It ends with Chaplin and the Gamin down on their luck. However, instead of implying that they'll never make it (ie that the world is just too rough with the way it's set up / a Utopian society is needed to fix things), Chaplin implies that they will succeed simply because of human nature's pride and resilience. Yes, things can be rough, only at the end of all things, if we do our best and resolve to come out positively, then society is not hopeless - it's got a chance for true happiness.
No one, capitalist or socialist or whatever, would claim society is free of problems, ie in the workforce. To me, it's like this film is saying, 'Yes there are problems, and they're something to think about. But it's our human emotions & ambitions that will make us great, with or without any attempt at Utopia.'
Those are just my thoughts. Hope they were a good read. :)
Very well written reply to the OP, billgh4. I think your assessment of the meaning of this wonderful film is an accurate one.
"Beautiful day, isn't it? Well, maybe it isn't so beautiful... it is day, though."share
I agree completely. Even today, there are people who think Chaplin is a communist, and you're right he always denied being one. Obviously, he saw problems in society, including capitalist society, and believed in making things better for the poor and the working class, but Chaplin's answer never seems to be more regulation by the state, redistributing wealth, etc. In many ways, Chaplin was more of an anarchist, believing it was up to people, both as individuals and working together, to change society for the better, from the ground up. And throughout Chaplin's films, for all their social commentary, you see a recurring optimism, a recurring belief in the ability of people to better themselves, or, at the least, to find happiness. Never in his work does this come from more government.
shareI think the factory scene has Markist elements whether intended to be taken that way or not I'm not sure. But he was an intellegent man so I think he knew what he was doing. I think he wasnt afraid to take on government/rulers (just look at The great Dictator). The factory scene reminded me of parts of Karl Marx's communist manifesto, namely:
"Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him."
or
"...Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself." (think of the manager watching the workers on the surveilence camera, even in the bathroom, the way the workers stop chasing Chaplin and get back to work almost as though in a trance when he pulls the lever and turns the machine back on, or the feeding machine.)
Mind you I dont think this makes him a communist I think it was perfectly normal to question new developments like machinery and production lines especially when so many people were out of work. I think his main concern was that machine would take over our lifes and livelihoods.
When this was made, it was about the same time (I think) when Henry Ford had armed guards monitoring the restrooms to make sure workers didn't fall asleep in the toilet stalls. It was a time when some thought that mankind would rise to a higher level by being more productive - grow more food, make more whatevers, etc. One of the early lessons of Ford's assembly line where a worker did the same task over and over again did make more cars and made them faster, it also made the workers really bored. How would you like to spend 8-12 hours a day tightening the same bolts?
We're still looking for higher efficiency from workers - one reason is that is 5 workers can do the work of 6 or 7, the company can save those salaries by hiring fewer workers - just as long as they work harder. The assembly line was and is dehumanizing,
I think the factory scene has Markist elements whether intended to be taken that way or not I'm not sure.I would agree with you on this.
I'm not even saying he's wrong. He sort of says "This is what's wrong in a mechanised, capitalist society". Marx basically said that capitalism had the potential to turn most workers into wage slaves and given the social insecurity portrayed in this film, I can definitely see a parallel. It applies as much today with computerisation but given what was happening at the time, I think some 1935 audiences would have found it hard to watch.
It starts with a scathing look at big business - the boss doing jigsaw puzzles while prodding everyone to work harder - takes a shot at unions who go on strike as soon as the factory re-opens - putting everybody out of work again - and ends with two people going it alone.
The only character who has a voice is the boss. Everyone else is silent. If anyone wants to know why it's silent, look no further.
Two-speed economy? You betcha.
That said, despite the fact that Chaplin repeatedly returns to jail for food and lodgings, at the end, Chaplin and the gamin successfully avoid the government and head out on their own to who-knows-where. They look to nobody for help. share