Moderne Tider
I am a big
admirer of Charlie Chaplin. Just so you are warned up front. Readers of my
previous two Chaplin reviews will know that, I am sure. He is also my favorite
of the three big comedians of silent cinema (the others being Keaton and Lloyd)
and of a stature so iconic that the silhouette is a giveaway for anybody over
the age of ten. Well, when I was ten for sure. One of the dedicated and very
popular TV Channels for children (Ramasjang) in Denmark still puts on an occasional
Chaplin short. There is no two ways about that, Chaplin is big.
“Modern
Times” was his last film with his tramp character. 22 years of service finally
ended in style. But how do you take a hero of the silent cinema into the age of
the talkie, far far away from the realm he used to prowl? Well, tricky tricky.
Chaplin solved this problem in a number of ways.
First of
all he admitted that the tramp is a silent character. He exists in a silent
world where actions are broken by intertitles, the camera runs a bit too slow
(projecting becomes a bit too fast) and feelings are commuted through mimics
and facial expressions. The advent of talking pictures cannot change that. That
is who he is. However the stage on which he acts can change. Sound can be integrated
as part of the stage. Chaplin began that process in “City Lights” with
mumblings and sound effects and in “Modern Times” that instrument is refined
into audible voices coming out of radios, intercoms and very futuristic wide
screens. The actors are silent characters in a noisy world. Not quite unlike
the technique used in “The Artist”. Somebody certainly saw “Modern Times”.
The second
fix is to bring the tramp up to date. This is now the depression era, or post-depression
era, with unemployment, poverty and inequality running rampant. But also an age
with a revolution in automation making the worker another pin in the wheel or
even obsolete. In any case reducing the working population to even deeper lows.
It is in this environment the tramp maneuvers as a member of this destitute
class in what was Chaplin’s strongest social commentary.
This is
both the strength and the weakness of “Modern Times”. Humor has always been a
strong instrument to convey serious or brutal messages. A good example is “Dr.
Strangelove or how I learned to love the bomb”. In that way Chaplin is able to
tell an important story that sinks in where a more direct and serious approach
would just have been rejected by the viewer. It is clever, Chaplin did it again
in “The Dictator” and it is a scandal that that one is not on the List!
But
depression, social injustice and automation are not easy subjects, not even for
Chaplin and the tramp and in the process some of the magic that elevated “City
Lights” into a realm beyond simple comedy is lost. It is just not as endearing.
Only near the end where the tramp and the gamine girl (the beautiful Paulette
Goddard ) dream of getting a home and finally get a job as singing and dancing
waiters does it display an approximation of the sensitivity that made “City
Lights” so special. Especially because of the bittersweet end to that.
Not that
this is not funny. It is. The feeding machine scene is probably the funniest
Chaplin ever did and it is hilarious (and very symbolic) when he is being eaten
by the big machines, essentially becoming a part of the machine. I have seen “Modern
Times” many times by now and some of the jokes are starting to get a bit old on
me, so I look for that extra dimension and in the middle part we lose both the
sensitivity and to some extent the fun, so this part seems to drag out a bit. I
am loath to admit it because I love Chaplin so much, but that part was actually
a bit boring. Luckily the end is fantastic and we get it all. Fun, romance,
sensitivity, speed and tons of physical comedy. That saves the movie and we end
on a high note.
The end
sequence also features the only words the tramp ever uttered on the white
screen and true to form they do not make any sense at all. The tramp has to
sing a song in the restaurant as part of his trial employment, but the lyrics,
written down on his cuff, are lost in the hubbub so he invents his own song. It
is a very suggestive song, naughty maybe and charming, but we only catch a French
or Italian word now and then so the lyrics are a blur. If the tramp should ever
speak this is certainly what it should sound like. Perfectly.
“City
Lights” is still my favorite Chaplin film, but “Modern times” may be the more
important one. Who else could pull this off than Charles Chaplin? The tramp
made his point.
Loved your review! Your understanding and affection for the tramp shines through. I, too, prefer City Lights to Modern Times but I love that little song at the end of this film so irrationally I could watch it every single day without tiring of it. Come to think of it, I think I'll see if a clip is available somewhere now!
ReplyDeleteI can relate to that. I can watch Chaplin over and over and that song is a highlight. And of course you love it, you used the end scene for you blog page! Nice touch.
DeleteModern Times is my favorite of all the films Chaplin did. Good review.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is good, no doubt about that. Thanks.
DeleteThis is one of my 10-year-old daughter's favorite films. The first time she watched it, she made me replay the feeding machine scene over and over, and she laughed just as hard the fifth time as she did the first.
ReplyDeleteTwo things--you're right about the middle. This one is best in the first half hour and last 20 minutes (although the jail scene is fun). Second, Paulette Goddard in this film looks like she could be transplanted easily to a current film. She doesn't look like a product of the time, but looks surprisingly modern.
I actually tried make my 3 year old son watch this, but he did not care much for it. Too young I suppose. The only thing that worked for him was... the feeding scene, though I do not know if it was just because I laughed so hard.
DeleteYou are right about Paulette Goddard, she does look very modern, not thirties at all. Did she go back in a time machine?