Modern Times

[Danwalker]

Zu diesem Film gibt es ja noch gar kein Topic! Also eröffne ich mal eins, nicht ganz ohne Hintergedanken. Ich möchte ne Hausarbeit über diesen Film schreiben und suche dafür soviel Material wie möglich. Für die Hausarbeit interessiert mich insbesondere der Aspekt der Moderne. Inwiefern der Film ein Werk der Moderne ist. Über Anregungen oder Quellenvorschläge wäre ich also hocherfreut.

Der Film ansich ist ganz wunderbar. Ich finde, dass er nicht übermäßig gealtert ist, sondern das Chaplins Gags immer noch zünden. Ich finde auch, dass der Film, obwohl er eigentlich kaum richtige Stimmen hat, erstaunlich sensibel rüberkommt. Das mag wohl an der Meisterschaft Chaplins liegen? In jedem Fall ein schöne und wahnwitzig lustiger Film.

[Matt]

siehe Charlie Chaplin Filme

[Danwalker]

Wen's interessiert. Hier mein Essay, daraus wird eventuell ne etwas umfassendere Hausarbeit.


Displacement seems to be a, if not the most, important theme of modernism. This notion is not only limited to literature, but to film as well. Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times” deals with his famous Tramp’s struggle to provide for himself in inhumane conditions. In this paper I will analyze how the Tramp struggles for survival in a inhumane world and why this is Chaplin’s critique of modernity. My analysis will focus on two scenes of the film in particular, the opening and the famous gibberish song. The topic of this paper matters, because it offers a different view on the developments of modernity.
It should be noted that film is literature as much as are novels, poetry or drama, for it is a narrative, as are all of the afore mentioned. As is drama and some poetry it is designed for performance. The first step in the production of a film usually is the production of a screenplay, thus film does also exist in paper form. Therefore it is a coherent step to discuss film, when discussing a literature topic.
1936 was still defined by the great depression. On the other hand this year saw first results of President Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. A large employer of the time was the producing industry. And this is where Chaplin starts his film. The credits are projected on a ticking clock. Followed by a sheep flock, which again is followed by people, supposedly workers, on their way out of a subway station. In the next few shots the audience is shown the factory, where the workers are headed. Chaplin tried to place a comment in the afore mentioned scenes. Man is pressured (the clock) to give up his individuality (sheep and subway customers) in order to work in inhumane conditions (factory). Why the conditions are so inhumane is shown already after 105 seconds into the film, where a worker is working shirtless, so that the audience must believe that it is hot. Also the only sound we here is the one of the switch he operates, abstracting what humans are supposed to live in. Then Chaplin cuts to the company president’s office, who is distracted by a puzzle, reads the paper and observes his workers on a screen, finally ordering an increase in working speed. Again, Chaplin underlines inhumanity, for it is not necessarily human, when employees are subject to surveillance, especially by subjects that are not part of that work. Additionally it is also disrespectful to the workers that they can be observed but that they can not see their observer. Exactly three minutes into the film the Tramp appears for the first time to illustrate the consequences of the president’s decisions. He has to work at an increased speed. In the following moments, which have become iconic in movie history, Chaplin shows how his Tramp is not fit to work under these conditions. The protagonist scratches himself, undoubtedly a human necessity at times, and therefore can not follow the speed of the assembly line, eventually leading to him disturbing other workers and being a annoyance for his co-workers. That workers are not supposed to anything other than work as they are told is shown in various instances after that. They all aim at the same comment. The working conditions in a factory are inhumane.
“Modern Times” is often considered to be the last silent film. However spoken word can be found throughout the film, although only through screens or loudspeakers (man and machine merge). The only time a character speaks without these media, is when the Tramp sings his gibberish song, approximately 80 minutes into the film. Since the words sung make no sense at all, they shall not be discussed here. Even though they are nonsense they are again Chaplin’s critique of modernity. 1936 saw not only the afore mentioned developments but was also a decade after the first “talkie”, a film with recorded dialogue, “The Jazz Singer”, was released. Sound films were so popular that silent movie production came to an end in short time. Despite classics like Hitchcock’s “Sabotage” and Capra’s “Mr. Deeds Goes To Town” and of course Chaplin’s “Modern Times”, films were produced in shorter time, designed to attract bigger audiences. Producer Irving Thalberg established what became to be known the Hollywood Studio System, eventually turning movie production into an “industry”. If one assumes that basic conditions of industrial production are consolidation and rationalization, one must conclude that Chaplin critiques this on at least two levels in his film. Already I have mentioned the work at the assembly line, which brings problems to the individual. The gibberish song offers a way to recognize the second layer of critique. Obviously Chaplin distances himself from the fashion of the time by not having done a classic “talkie”. In addition he caricatures Hollywood by talking but not saying anything. One might argue that thus he does the exact same thing Hollywood did at the time.
Horkheimer and Adorno argue in “Dialectic Of Enlightenment” that all mass culture under monopoly is identical, that technical rationality is the rationality of domination. A claim that can be adopted to Hollywood in the 1930s. Consequently it becomes clear that Chaplin critiques the films of the time, because they come out of a monopoly like production. This is especially plausible if one takes into consideration that Chaplin co-founded United Artists, a studio which was supposed which initially was intended to distribute films without big studios. Domination is also a theme found in “Modern Times”, as the Tramp is driven by the urge to provide for himself, eventually leading to him singing in the restaurant, linking the two scenes of my discussion.
Charlie Chaplin’s career was in significant danger with the advent of the sound film and the Hollywood Studio System, him being the most important personality of silent film and an independent film maker. As I have argued he perceived the new development as inhumane and portrayed that in his film “Modern Times”. But there is further meaning as the critique of modern conditions is also a critique of modern film production in the 1930s. Chaplin joined the Frankfurt School in critiquing modernity. Further questions might include if Chaplin did not contradict himself. His film was highly successful and being the biggest movie star who ever lived in 1936, his films were certainly made for the masses. In how far did he therefore distinguish himself from the film which came out of the Hollywood Studio System.

[WormyLittleFerret]

Ich frage mich in diesem Zusammenhang, ob der Schluss, das gemeinsame "Hinauswackeln" in den Sonnenuntergang ("Wir haben keine Chance. Packen wir sie an!"), nicht zutiefst mit dem Widerstand gegen das "Moderne" zusammenhängt und sogar zu einem epochemachenden Motiv wurde, dem man in späteren Filmen immer wieder begegnet, obwohl ich im Augenblick nur auf das Ende von "Amores Perros" (2000) verweisen könnte.

[Danwalker]

Hmm, ich weiß nicht so recht. Ich finde das Ende eher ein bisschen melancholisch, weil es irgendwie traurig ist. Sie gehen in den Sonnenuntergang könnte man ja auch so sehen, dass hier etwas zu Ende geht. Das trotz aller Mühen der Fortschritt siegt. Dass das Individuum verliert.

[WormyLittleFerret]

Hmm, ich weiß nicht so recht. Ich finde das Ende eher ein bisschen melancholisch, weil es irgendwie traurig ist. Sie gehen in den Sonnenuntergang könnte man ja auch so sehen, dass hier etwas zu Ende geht. Das trotz aller Mühen der Fortschritt siegt. Dass das Individuum verliert.

Ich denke, wir sind uns da gar nicht uneinig: Objektiv gesehen verliert das Individuum; es gehört jedoch zum Wesen des Tramps, sich und andere in solchen Situationen wieder aufzurichten (er fordert Paulette Goddard zu einem Lächeln auf), der Hoffnungslosigkeit wird die Hoffnung entgegengesetzt. - Dies mag durchaus traurig stimmen, beeindruckt aber durch sein "Jetzt erst recht!".

Mir fuhr einfach die Parallele in "Amores Perros" regelrecht ein (El Chico schreitet mit seinem Hund über den aufgerissenen Boden einer ungewissen Zukunft entgegen). Ein vergleichbarer "Es darf nicht aufgegeben werden!"-Schluss findet sich etwa im schier endlosen Davonfahren von Julianne Moore in "Far from Heaven" (2002) --- und ich bin überzeugt, die versammelten Filmkenner hier könnten weitere Beispiele bringen, würden sie denn fleissig sammeln.

Es scheint mir -was zwar nicht hierher gehört - überhaupt ein paar "typische" Film-Enden zu geben. Den krassen Gegensatz zu "Modern Times" bot mir vor ein paar Tagen zufällig eine Sichtung von "Sweet Smell of Success" (1957): Der sich in seiner Hybris sichere Intrigant rennt auf die nächtliche Strasse hinaus, als er den Verlust des ihm einzig Wertvollen erkannt hat.

Ich finde es übrigens toll, dass du dich intensiv mit einem Oldie wie "Modern Times" auseinandersetzt. Dürfte hier öfter vorkommen, weshalb ich die versammelte Mannschaft auch zum Mitmachen auffordern möchte.

[insiang]

Mir fuhr einfach die Parallele in "Amores Perros" regelrecht ein (El Chico schreitet mit seinem Hund über den aufgerissenen Boden einer ungewissen Zukunft entgegen). Ein vergleichbarer "Es darf nicht aufgegeben werden!"-Schluss findet sich etwa im schier endlosen Davonfahren von Julianne Moore in "Far from Heaven" (2002) --- und ich bin überzeugt, die versammelten Filmkenner hier könnten weitere Beispiele bringen, würden sie denn fleissig sammeln.

An den Schluss von AMORES PERROS kann ich mich gar nicht mehr erinnern; aber etwa in THE DEVIL'S REJECTS wird mit diesem, ja beinah ins Klassische erstarrte Motiv, ironisch umgegangen: die Fireflys setzen sich in den Cabrio, von der Tonspur erschallt "Free Bird", die Kamera hebt sich über den Wagen, die Landschaft, sie bildet die "Freiheit" ab, in die die Famlilie fahren wird... und das alles vor dem Wissen, directement in die nächste Polizeikontrolle zu rasen, in den wenn nicht sicheren, dann doch zu erwartenden Tod. Dieses Ende ist schon so standardisiert, ein "Baustein" des Filmemachens geworden, dass ein solcher Genrefilm auf einer Metaebene ironisch damit umgehen und mit der Zuschauererwartung spielen kann. Ich finde das toll.

[WormyLittleFerret]

@insiang

Hier das Schlussbild von "Amores Perros" (El Chivo hat zu seiner Tochter auf den Telefonbeantworter gesprochen und ihr gesagt, er werde ihr gegenübertreten, falls er eines Tages den Mut dafür aufbringe; jetzt schreitet er - begleitet von diesem hohen Flirren, das als musikalisches Motiv der Hoffnung wider die Hoffnungslosigkeit dient - mit seinem Hund in die Zukunft):



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Es scheint mir das Ende von "Modern Times" geradezu zu zitieren:



Ich frage mich in diesem Zusammenhang (auch bei "The Devil's Rejects"), ob Chaplin mit seiner Figur des Tramps sogar als Begründer eines solchen Endes zu betrachten ist.

[Bob]

Hmm, ich weiß nicht so recht. Ich finde das Ende eher ein bisschen melancholisch, weil es irgendwie traurig ist.

ein wenig abweichend dazu mein alter ftb-eintrag:

so haben mir am meisten die momente der hoffnung gefallen, oder der träumerei von MEHR: einem mit essen und luxus ausgestatteten kaufhaus nur für sich selbst, ein eigenes haus, eine glückliche familie, etc.
diese werden von Chaplin zum glück nicht durch eine farce bedient (mit grauen denke ich an das ende von It's a Wonderful Life), sondern mit einem augenzwinker dem scheitern verurteilt. allerdings stets mit dem nötigen nachgeschmack, dass sich der tramp nicht entmutigen lässt. tragisch: ja. traurig: nein.

[Danwalker]

hier meine hausarbeit. wens interessiert...


Modern Times. Chaplin’s Critique Of Modernity.
Charlie Chaplin is often considered to be the first major movie star. One aspect of his popularity certainly was the fact that he did not talk in his films, until “The Great Dictator” in 1940. His pantomime could be understood all around the world. People in Turkey could understand his Tramp as easy as could people in such different places like Russia, Brazil or the United States. In 1927 “The Jazz Singer” was released; a landmark year in movie history, for this film was the first talkie, a film with sound. Chaplin disliked the new technique: “I detest them. They come to ruin the world’s most ancient art, the art of pantomime. They annihilate the great beauty of silence.” Not only was it disapproval of talkies, one must likely believe that Chaplin must also have felt threatened by the new development. Rapidly the talkies took over the market and soon the non-talking Tramp, Chaplin’s trademark, remained as the only representative of the silent movie era. The impact of technology was not only to be found in movies. Machines took over; “Fordism” rationalized production and put labor under pressure for workers became nothing but assets to the machines. The overcoming of the Great Depression through modern machinery caused the necessity for man power being rapidly decreased . In “Modern Times” Chaplin critiques this process. His film is a critique on modernity, which I will illustrate in this paper. The filmmaker turned on technology and gave a comment on the conditions of his time, while not only referring to the labor situation, moreover critiquing Hollywood film production, for the Hollywood Studio System had decided that sound films were the future of the business, while letting down collaborators of the silent era. Firstly I will briefly examine the situation before the production of the film, which started in 1934. I will look at Chaplin, Hollywood and partially and the situation of 1920s and 1930s United States. Then, I will examine parts of “Modern Times” and suggest what must be interpreted as critique in Chaplin’s film. To conclude, I will summarize my arguments. They all support my claim, that “Modern Times” is a multilayered critique of modernity. It should be noted that due to formal exigencies, analysis of the film itself must also be brief.
Warner Bros. was the first company to have a decent success with talkies, the afore mentioned “The Jazz Singer” of 1927, as well as vaudeville clips and a version on “Don Juan” with sound, which came from a disc in 1926. The new developments paid off quickly and Warner gained in importance and was copied by others . The most popular genres of the thirties, musicals, horror and gangster films (the two latter because of the now possible sound effects for monsters and guns) relied heavily on sound. Soon silent films, which had been the state of the art hitherto, became out fashioned. What added to the success of sound films was the organization of film production in what was known as the Hollywood Studio System. The studios would produce, distribute and often exhibit their products in one. They relied on employees, actors, workers, directors and more, which were under long-term contracts. In order to gain control over labor, the studios founded the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a union. Douglas Gomery describes the Academy’s assignment as follows: “It became the Academy’s main task to prevent any other unions from gaining a foothold in the studio system. (…). The studios were free to exploit their labor – and they did. If there ever was proof of the power of the Hollywood studio system (…), it came with its ability to suppress unionization.” The studios were in charge of the business and they exploited labor and the new technological possibilities in order to gain more profit. Warner Bros. and Co. controlled every aspect of film production, from associated labor, to technological development. Companies outside this system only played a marginal role. Talking about the Hollywood Studio System, Chaplin stated that “Overnight it had become a cold and serious industry.” New developments not only characterized filmmaking, but first and foremost American labor. The United States were providing the world with a new model of industrialization. Frederick Winslow Taylor had introduced his theory of ergonomics in 1911. The aim of his studies was that “all would perform the same maximally efficient, radically simplified movements”, making workers “predictable, regulated, and effective as the machine itself.” Resulting to that, workers were forced into working routines which left no space for human behavior. “Society had created a condition that represented an ongoing threat to the individual. Not surprisingly, the machine society of Modern Times, (…) quite literally threaten the life of Chaplin’s alter ego”, Wes Gehring evaluated . Chaplin himself was highly critical of the new working conditions after a journalist had told him about “the big industry luring healthy young men off the farms who, after four or five years at the belt system, became nervous wrecks.” A significant result of ergonomics and Fordism was the reduction of the individual. Looking at Chaplin’s career it is clear that this development definitely was something he did not appreciate. Co-founding United Artists in 1919 allowed him more freedom in the production of his films and showed his opposition to the then developing Hollywood Studio System and determination to work individually. I have already outlined the universality of the Tramp. By 1934, the Tramp was on the verge of losing this claim. On the one hand the advent of sound film threatened the Tramp’s universality. If he started talking, he would have been identified as a member of a certain group (for example English, if audiences heard Chaplin’s British accent) and therefore lose his universal claim. On the other hand the social circumstances of the time observed Chaplin’s work with increasing suspicion. Left-wing critics of the new developments in labor “raised the issue of his outmodedness in a particularly stinging way, by talking about the social and political irrelevance of his work.” Chaplin was increasingly isolated. Technology threatened further production of his art and politics devaluated it to a level of pure entertainment. Therefore, although the film is obviously concerned with labor issues, it has been suggested that the real concern behind the film is the Tramp’s place in a world of sound films and Chaplin’s place as an artist in that world.
After discussing the starting point for the production of “Modern Times”, I will now discuss Chaplin’s reactions to the afore mentioned circumstances as found in the film. It deals with his famous Tramp’s struggle to adapt his skills to a modern world, full of machines, where humanity seems no longer to be the central aspect of life. From the very beginning Chaplin expresses his critique of recent developments. Critic Kenneth Lynn writes that the clock in the beginning portrays a “tyranny of time in modern life” and foreshadows that the film is “going to portray the reduction of human beings to the level of animals.” His suggestion seems reasonable with the regard that shortly after the clock Chaplin shows a sheep flock, among dozens of white sheep is a black one. Not only is this individual forced to do as the group does, which is running, it also suggests that there still is difference in the masses. Looking at the Tramp’s inability in fitting into fulfilling the requirements of modern society, it is appropriate to say the black sheep is the Tramp. Regarding Chaplin’s inability to adapt to the studios and technology, it is also appropriate to say the black sheep is meant to be Chaplin himself; somebody who does not consent to the mainstream. The whole first chapter of the film is set in a factory, the Tramp, who is credited as “A worker”, but shows all characteristics of Chaplin’s iconic hero, working at the assembly line. During this part of the film the comic effect lies in the Tramp’s inability to fulfill the working requirements. Repeatedly he has to scratch himself, which leads to disturbing his co-workers and becoming a nuisance, because they cannot work as they are supposed to. When the Tramp is on break, he is observed by his boss, who instructs him, through a speaker, to continue working. This instance shows that human interaction is mechanized as well. Interestingly dialogue, if not conveyed via title cards, is only expressed through radios, speakers and the like. A little later the Tramp is the subject of an experiment, when the boss wants to test a new feeding machine that is supposed to improve work efficiency, truly in the spirit of the afore mentioned ergonomics of Frederick Taylor. At this point a new institutionalism of labor is demonstrated. Working speed is controlled by the assembly line, the worker is controlled by the technology used by his superiors and in so far dehumanized that he is the subject of an experiment. Chaplin’s depiction of total control over work force foreshadows, what George Orwell would later describe in “1984”. Earlier I have referred to critics who devaluated Chaplin’s work as irrelevant for current political movements of the time. Gerard Molyneaux argues that the filmmaker joined this “cultural crusade” with “Modern Times”, especially with his opening chapter: “(…) the film has discredited forever the Calvin Coolidge dictum that the factory was the temple of the times and the workers its worshippers. President Coolidge said: "The man, who builds a factory, builds a temple. The man who works there, worships there”, in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1925. Molyneaux’ observation indicates that Chaplin gained political credibility with “Modern Times”, for the film “attacks the violence done to human freedom by the Machine Age.” Interestingly Chaplin denied that his films carried social comments. The “New York Times”-Review of his film quotes him saying: "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." Another scene, appropriate to discuss how Chaplin defined his position in the sound era, is the gibberish song. When proven to be a failure as a waiter at the end of the film, the Tramp is assigned to sing a song in order to entertain restaurant guests. Before that he has gone through various adventures; all in order to provide for him and the gamine, all of which ending in failure and him being imprisoned. Standing in front of the audience, he realizes that he does not know the lyrics of the song. Eventually he improvises. His “gibberish” is not at all understandable and seems to be a mixture of French, Italian among languages. Although nobody understands what the Tramp says, this scene has become iconic, as the first and only time when he actually says something. Thus he critiques Hollywood and its dictum of sound films, for he mocks sound films in using sound but making it impossible to understand it, forcing the audience to focus on what they know from Chaplin: pantomime. When Charlie Chaplin started producing “Modern Times”, another silent film, in 1934 “other producers shook their heads at this and predicted disaster at the box office.” Chaplin proved the skeptics wrong. “Modern Times” was a major box office hit and grossed 163,000 Dollars in the United States alone , which is 2.5 million Dollars in 2010, and therefore exceeded the success of Chaplin’s previous film “City Lights”. The box office result is especially remarkable, because “Modern Times” is a silent film, which was, as pointed out earlier, outdated by the time.
In this paper I have suggested that “Modern Times” can be perceived as Charlie Chaplin’s multilayered critique on working conditions in the Great Depression era, as well as the new developments, dictated by the studios. Therefore I looked at the situation before the production of the film in 1934. The artist found himself isolated for relying on an art form that was threatened by sound films and his presumed lack of social significance. The latter was a topic in that time, because new developments, like Fordism or ergonomics introduced a new form of labor, which attacked the individual. I demonstrated that Chaplin has managed to equate his own esthetic problem with and feeling about sound with the problem of the factory worker who is victimized by the powerful forces of technology which dehumanize him . Chaplin ridiculed sound films by using its possibilities, but still forcing audiences to rely on his art of pantomime. Depicting technology as non-human offered a way to prove a point in the discussions of the era. Further discussions could focus more on the character of the Tramp as universal individual and discuss the question, why “Modern Times” marks his last appearance. Also, it might be interesting to analyze how Chaplin’s official denial of filling his films with social importance is contradicted by the meaning which can be read into them.