Stewart, Garrett.  "Modern Hard Times: Chaplin and the Cinema of Self Reflection." Critical Inquiry 3 (1976): 295-314.

This article compares the film Modern Times to the Dickens' novel Hard Times both acting a social satires on the pressures and challenges people faced in specific conditions and times.  The article mentions Chaplin's own personal life growing up in Britain may be one reason why these two authors are similar in subject nature of their works.  They both were against the factory system.  Chaplin learned of a true story of a workers going crazy after years working as part of an assembly line.  Chaplin's character during the factory sequence has becomed so accustomed to the 'bolt-tightening' behaviors, he literally cannot stop, even when he is forced away from the assembly line for disrupting the flow.  Comical? Yes.  However, it shows how dangerous this type of work can be on the psyche.

This article is important to my thesis because it specifically demonstrates how Chaplin critiques industrialization in his film scenes. "Charlie as robotized victim of the machine extends this into a frontal assault on industrialization" (Stewart 297-298).  Chaplin attacks industrialization by showing that workers become robot-like in their work.  This robotization extends from the workplace into the rest of their lives (and what little they have of it) creating a homogenized society.  The articles also discusses why Chaplin may have this critique of industrialization and the homogenized society.  The article also mentions that Chaplin's personal reasons may be an implication as to why he createad the film.  A story that he heard or workers in Detriot becoming 'nervous wrecks' after years at the mercy of large machines in factories.  These workers had been functioning individuals with unique personalities.  But after years at the mercy of the assembly line system, they became roboticized to perform, eventually forcing them to break down.

 

The article is about federal relief from 1933-1935 in the midst of the Great Depression. It focuses specifically on the distribution of welfare in the South. It is common knowledge that programs such as the New Deal were used to help factory workers and other laborers, but very few people ever mention the American tenant farmer when discussing the issue of emergency relief funds during the era. The article argues that the Communist and Socialist parties demanded relief for the tenant farmer and were in fact able to convince the government to distribute funds to Southern farmers, both white and black. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration was formed during the New Deal as an agency that would properly distribute government funds throughout the country as a way to relieve people from the crippling affects of the Great Depression. The funds were distributed according to many different figures and details such as location, population, power within the region, and need. This meant that farmers in a less populated area that had political power within the region would have been able to negotiate more aid for themselves and those that supported them. It also means that aid was much easier to acquire as a farmer then as a factory worker because of the difference in population.

            This is extremely relevant to the thesis because it shows that life in 1930's America was not necessarily impossible depending on where you were living and what you were doing. Chaplin was very much against the factory system and shows this by criticizing it in Modern Times (1936). He was also in support of the more natural agricultural system. This is shown in the film, because even though Chaplin's character tries to make it in the city, he ultimately cannot. In the end of the film Chaplin and his heroine leave the city and make their way towards the rural farming area. They do not leave in sadness though. They are shown in true triumph walking away from the city without looking back, holding their heads up high. This was done as a way to show that the rural life was better and more possible to survive in at the time. The article agrees with this claim because the aid was more obtainable for rural farmers then factory workers and other city laborers.

 

The article discusses the development of Catholic orphanages in the United States from 1851 to 1996. The Catholic orphanage system was one of the most used child-care systems in America. The orphanage system started by the Catholics was used to take in children and make sure that they were given a proper education of the Catholic religion's belief system. In later years many people believe believed that the orphanage system should be replaced by the foster home system because Catholic orphanages were believed to teach children too much about religion and not enough about life. In the 1930s the Great Depression caused the need for orphanages to multiply rapidly. "In December, 1933, 102,000 dependent and neglected children in the United States were in foster homes, and more than 140,000, a record number, were in orphanages." Such a vast number of orphans caused the government, both local and federal, to increase their ways of assistance. In factory cities such as Cleveland, orphanages were full by the late 1920's because of the increased number of lost jobs. Many children were put in orphanages by parents as a way to get them food. The Depression crippled the family system and caused many families to be broken up and siblings to be separated.

            The article is relevant to the thesis because it portrays a specific part of American life in the 1930's for the lower classes. Modern Times (1936) deals with issue by introducing the heroine co-star to Chaplin's character. She is first shown with her two younger sisters collecting scraps of wood for fuel when suddenly her father is killed in a riot. This causes her and her two much younger sisters to become orphans. The government comes and quickly takes the heroine's sisters away never to be seen again. This problem was very traumatizing and common during the Great Depression. Chaplin, coming from a poor British life, most likely wanted to address this issue in his film as a criticism for the government allowing factory owners to take so much profit while children are losing their families and homes. The lower class life was very traumatizing from all angles during the film's time period and Chaplin tied most of the problems together within the one film.

 

The article discusses how scholars approached the American response to Communism. It is about the development of Communism in America and why it started. The article shows who the main supporters of America changing to a Socialist system were and why they would want to do so. It explains how such a system ever made to the United States and what actions were taken by its supporters. The article also discusses the anti-Communist sentiment in America. It discusses the various fears people had and the things that were done in response to the system. The article traces the development of Communism in the United States starting at the 1930's and working its way forward through time. The true fears of Communism were created by government propaganda such as films and news casts. Many people feared Communists more as spies then as revolutionaries. The government made a point of telling people that Communists were giving the USSR information about the United States and that it could be very dangerous if such information was discovered by the Soviets. Though it is true that some of the fears instilled in the people were practical, most of the anti-Communist movement was a witch hunt in a time of fear because of developments of the USSR and their supporters.

            The film is relevant to the thesis because it discusses another very important part of 1930's America that affected the lower classes and is portrayed in Modern Times (1936). The anti-Communist movement was a very big issue when the film was released. Many of the laboring classes were calling for Communism in hopes of getting jobs and a balancing of monetary power in the United States. Chaplin satirizes this situation by having his character standing in the path of a Communist march while holding a red flag. This ultimately leads the police to think he is the leader of the demonstration and they arrest him promptly. This was done to show that the legal system in America was completely against Communism and wealth distribution and would not allow the people to exercise their right to freedom of speech. The film shows many scenes that can be argued to support Communism instead of the elitist American Capitalism brought on by factories and industrialization.

 

The article is about the change from the old manufacturing system to the factory system. It discusses the change from manual assembly and product movement to the conveyor belt system. This was done to speed up production and cut labor costs. Some factories found that replacing their factories was the best way to make the change, while some found it easier to renovate their existing ones. While the old system focused on each factory doing a specific task, the new factory's goal was to produce finished products from raw materials. The greatest example of industrialization of the factory system is Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford built many different factories from 1900 to 1925 in his attempts to create the most efficient and inexpensive automobile possible. The system of industrialization was subject to rapid change. Ford's three-story mill building on Piquette Avenue was built in 1904. It was seen as a modern factory with some of the best and most efficient technology. By 1909, the factory was obsolete and had to be replaced by Ford's Highland Park plant. This factory was obsolete by 1915. This struggle to always have the fastest and most efficient technology was very difficult for both the factory owner and the laborer.

            This article is relevant because it addresses the overarching problem that Modern Times (1936) is trying to portray and criticize. The industrialized factory was always trying to speed things up and make things more tedious. Such a life style was very hard for workers to cope with. The factory owner is shown speeding up production to levels that were impossible to keep up with. The amount of stress was unbearable. The factory systems quest for efficiency even tried to cut away people's breaks. The film shows a scene where a new invention is tested that makes it possible for a man to work and eat lunch at the same time. This invention ultimately fails because Chaplin believed that such a thing should never be done no matter how efficient a factory gets. The film does a great job of showing the articles points about technological development and quests for efficiency.

 

The article discusses how Modern Times (1936) was able to make a criticism of industrialization without offending the populous. The film was a great success that was loved by the audience of the time. The film dealt with the same issues as Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927). Metropolis was not successful though. It scared audiences and portrayed a future that no one wanted to accept as a possible reality. Another overlying issue critisiced in both films is rationalization. Rationalization is defined in four parts. These are the logical, the historical, the technological, and the psychological. Rationalization is ultimately the process of advancing technology and economics to a point where all things are mass produced based on a system run on fossil fuels, focusing on efficiency and profit above all else. Such a system was supported by factory owners such as Henry Ford. He believed that through rationalization of the factory system the world would become a better place full of department stores and convenience. Chaplin did not see it in this way. Modern Times portrays the evils of industrialization and rationalization from the point of view of the working classes. The film is very critical of the factory system and the repercussions it has on its employees as well as the department store because of its classist system that excludes the proletariat.

            The article is relevant to the thesis because it addresses the idea that Modern Times does in fact portray the factory system of the United States from the point of view of the lower class. The film is stated to be critical of both industrialsization and rationalization, but the article does not focus specifically on the United States. While Metropolis addresses the possible future of the world, Chaplintries only to criticize the contemporary state of things. The article agrees with the thesis that Chaplin was against the system but proceeds to go past such issues and address possible developments not discussed within Chaplin's film. One cannot be sure if Chaplin actually thought about the future of industrialization or if he believed the system would ultimately collapse and never be an issue.

 

The article is about how Modern Times (1936) is a film that celebrates the proletariat and criticizes the modern factory era and the Capitalist owners who drive it. The article states that the film addresses two important parts of the Capitalist system and portrays them both in a negative light. The first system is of course the factory and technological modernism in general. The factory is a mass of tedious gears and axles that sucks the working classes in, which is actually done in the film when Chaplin is pulled into the conveyor belt. The factory then spits out the poor laborers who serve it and leave them to find their own means of survival. The second system criticized by the film is the department store. This representation of mass consumption, waste, and classicism also takes advantage of the poor, but ultimately disposes of them in a similar way to that of the factory. The film was praised by Stalin and the Communist party as a way of criticizing all the evils of a Capitalist system, focusing of course on the United States. The film also honors the working classes by focusing on them and ultimately ending with the two starring roles leaving the Capitalist city and going out to the farming country in triumph against the system as a whole.

            The article agrees with the thesis because it argues that the film is a portrayal of the technocratic, capitalist system that criticizes it for its mistreatment of the working classes. The article agrees with the idea that the film is in support of the lower class and was Chaplin's way of critiquing a system where upper class business owners force hard labor on the proletariat and then ultimately abandons them in them time of need. The film being placed in the United States is clearly making an argument against all of Capitalist industrialization because the United States is the figure head of the system. Many points are argued in the film that support Communism and the working class, nut ultimately show that the system cannot be beaten from within and that the only way to succeed is to altogether leave it and try something else. This point is made apparent at the very end of the film when Chaplin and the heroine leave the city not in sadness but in triumph against the system.

 

The article is about Chaplin's use of metaphor and irony as a way to portray American culture and criticize it at the same time. When looking at Modern Times (1936) as well as many of Chaplin's other films, the main character is seen in the standard Chaplin black suit and hat carrying the gentlemanly cane. This is ironic because in most of Chaplin's films, he does not play such a character. In Modern Times, he is a low class factory worker who ultimately loses his job. The rest of the film is about him trying to find work and survive. At certain times he and his co-star heroine are starving and seen living in an old shack that they do not even own. Even so he is still wearing upper class clothing. Many other ironies are used throughout his films as a way to make criticisms of both the social system as a whole and the behavior of the upper classes. Chaplin, always acting gentlemanly towards women in his films, wears these clothes as a way to show the lower classes as good natured people who can be just as proper as the wealthy even if they do not have money and power. The article traces many of the mannerisms used by Chaplin in his films to criticize the views of certain life styles in comparison to others as well as to criticize certain systems that force stereotypes upon the different classes.

            The article agrees with the thesis, but focuses less on Modern Times specifically and more on Chaplin's works as a whole. It also focuses more on personal actions and criticisms than on the specific aspects of American culture. It makes a very good point by addressing the fact that Chaplin is many times shown using metaphors to portray one lifestyle and juxtapose it with its opposite to make an overlying point. An example of this in Modern Times is when Chaplin's character is drinking tea with an upper class woman in prison. This is ironic because it shows Chaplin acting like a true member of the upper classes, performing all the mannerisms and actions that a gentleman would. This seen just happens to take place in a jail with Chaplin sitting in a prison uniform as a criminal accused of leading a Communist protest. Ironies such as these are used in many of Chaplin's works as a way to criticize the social system of the United States and Capitalism in general.

 

The article is about the relevance of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) to today's society. The article does not focus on the film from an cultural standpoint, but actually views at it in economical terms. The main point of the article is to discuss that Hugo Chavez, socialist leader of Venezuela views Modern Times as a criticism of Capitalism as a whole and blieves that the point of the film is to argue for a socialist form of government that supports the working class. Chavez believes that the film is extremely relevant in modern society. "Charlie Chaplin's classic black-and-white movie Modern Times highlighted the exploitation and horrendous conditions faced by US factory workers during the Depression." The Venezuelan government has been showing the film to workers across the country as a way to expose what Chavez believes are the "evils of capitalism, and cement support for his socialist administration." Venezuelan officials said that the film has been showed about 1000 times to workers since January. Venezuelan business owners are very angry about this policy. "In a formal com- plaint to the government, the four main employer associations claimed that showing a film which depicted an employer as an exploiter of workers was designed "to generate hate and resentment in the labour sector [and] satanise the employer"."

            The article is relevant to the thesis because it agrees with the principal that Modern Times was a semi-realistic portrayal of the labor system of the times and also the fact the film is a criticism of such a system. Chavez viewes the film as a representation of life for the lower classes and how they are taken advantage of by the economic system and the employer/business owner. Chaplin's film was made for this very purpose and would most likely agree with Chavez completely. One could assume that such uses of Chaplin's films would make him happy because he truly believed that the lower classes were being mistreated by technology and business so much that he was willing to risk his own life in the United States so that he could make such critical films.

 

Penn on-line library listing of Modern Times (1936) by Charlie Chaplin.

The article discusses Charles Chaplin's film Modern Times (1936) and how it is related to Charles Dickens' novel Hard Times (1854). It says that both the film and the book are social satires of the new social system brought on by industrialization through technological advancement. It is important to realize that much of Chaplin's own life before moving to the United States resembles that of a Dickens's novel. Being a poor vaudevillian actor from Britain, the subject matter was very well understood by Chaplin and was very easy for him to make a film out of. The film is clearly against the factory system and agrees with the novel by showing a poor man having to work in such a system and ultimately being beaten by it. Both works are also are similar in the fact that their creators were British and yet decided to place their stories in the United States.

            The article is relevant to the thesis because it discusses how the film Modern Times is used to portray the factory system. The work agrees with the thesis because it states that the film criticizes the system and works to show industrialized advances due to technology as a bad thing for the common worker. The film focuses on a lower class factory laborer and shows how the system is a burden on the common man and how such a system ultimately leads to many problems for him. Chaplin being critical of many social systems, especially because he had to grow up poor in such systems always portrays characters from the point of view of the down trodden. Chaplin makes his argument against the factory system by comparing it to a natural system. Within the film Chaplin's character is shown going through more than one labor system as a way to show which ones he agreed with. His movement is very unnatural and sporadic while in the factory, but is very smooth when working as a security guard. Chaplin believed that technological advancement was evil and made sure to make this known in Modern Times as well as in other works. It is important to realize that in the 1930's the Great Depression was extremely difficult for the laboring class. This truth is portrayed in the film by showing Chaplin's character suffer through many jobs and situations and ultimately getting nowhere.

 

The article is about the study of Chaplin through his films excluding works where he does not appear such as A Woman of Paris. The article hopes to analyze the relationship between the screen personality and the contemporary culture that it appears in. The author's thesis is "the films of Charlie Chaplin are a function of the American culture at the time of their production." The article's ultimate goal is to show the development of film analysis through with Chaplin as his test character. By looking at each of Chaplin's films and then comparing them to the time period they were made in, one can see that Chaplin is clearly portraying the American culture of the time of production. The author breaks up American culture through Chaplin films into 10 different eras of history. This history starts at the pre-WWI era and ends with post-WWII imperialism. Each of these eras is presented with a film from the Chaplin collection and a description that is relevant to both the American culture of the time as well as the setting and story of the corresponding film. The author also creates a second hypothesis that states that "Chaplin's films depict the American culture as sex-centered, job centered, and/or sex-and-job-centered."

            The article is relevant to the thesis because it is basically the same thesis without focusing on a specific time period. When one focuses on the 1930's, the corresponding era of Modern Times (1936), one can see that the author of the article and the thesis of the project are almost identical. The article refers to the 1930's as "the age of technocracy." His description of the age and film are as follows: "Industrialization had pervaded man's experience. Machines were in the saddle. Men were preparing for war. The uprooted feeling of these days, the riots, the high turnover in jobs, and the monotony of minor jobs on massive assembly lines is the theme of Modern Times." The article does go a little farther in time then the project thesis does by including war thoughts within the description, but other than that it is in total agreement with the overlying idea.

 

Thesis: Charles Chaplin's "Modern Times" (1936) is social portrayal of 1930's America from a lower class point of view. The film criticizes capitalist and classicist systems such as the factory and the department store.