The chapter entitled “Fighting Words” discusses Charlie Chaplin’s intentions for his film “The Great Dictator”.  The film was Chaplin’s first sound film.  Not wanting to alter his classic silent ‘tramp’ character, Charlie found the opportunity in this entry into sound to preserve his beloved character and talk to his audience for the first time.  “As Hitler I could harangue the crowds in jargon and talk all I wanted to,” wrote Charlie in his autobiography.  “A Hitler story was an opportunity for burlesque and pantomime.” Charlie exposed Hynkel (representing Hitler) in exactly this fashion.  For most of the film, Hynkel’s words amount to nothing more than gibberish.  When the dictator speaks intelligibly, the audience still senses malevolent babble. 

The chapter supports the thesis as it illustrates Chaplin’s intentions to mock Hitler his film.  It also demonstrates the striking contrast between the dictator and the barber.  The dictator appears foolish as a result of Chaplin’s work while the barber remains relatively silent and pure (until the end).  After developing these distinct characters for two hours, Charlie utilizes his first sound film to let out his own voice in the final speech, bashing hate and calling the soldiers to unite in the name of democracy and peace. 

Mast, Gerald. The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.

In the Chapter “Chaplin: Sound Films”, Gerald Mast analyses a few of the comedic moments in Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” and how this comedy effectively criticizes the Nazi regime.  Mast compares Hynkel’s globe scene (see tag on World War II and the American Film) to the scene immediately following of the barber shaving a customer.  Mast discusses the ridiculous slapstick nature of the globe scene and the fast yet precise nature of the shaving scene and illustrates the contrast between the dictators fixation on world domination to the barbers human work.  Mast also refers to Hynkel’s ludicrous speeches in which the dictator flails his arms about wildly and barks so vehemently the microphone cracks and seems to melt in his hands.  During these speeches, Hynkel pauses intermittently to pour water down his  blazing throat and down his pants. 

This chapter directly supports the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin utilizes slapstick comedy to attack the Nazi regime.  The succession of the globe scene to the shaving scene demonstrates how the barber succeeds where the dictator fails. Additionally, the contrast is made more stiking as the barber succeeds in the shave using a sharp blade, while the dictator's dellusion of grandeur comes to a crashing halt as the globe of the world explodes in his face.  Mast also conjectures the Hynkel’s “wet” speech scene reveals how Hynkel’s private parts are burning as much as his throat suggesting that the Nazi propaganda has more to do with sexual energy and gibberish than with meaningful ideas. 

Gilman, Sander. "Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films". Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26 No. 2. (Winter, 2000): 279-30.

There has been a good deal of debate regarding how filmmakers and other artists should represent the Shoah (Holocaust).  In this article, Sander Gilman discusses how the Shoah has been represented in the arts, focusing on comedy and film.  Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator” uses comedy to attack the Third Reich and to represent the beginnings of the Shoah.  Gilman asks whether the terror during of the Shoah and the Nazi regime can be understood through such comedy.  “The Great Dictator” was one of the first comic films to deal with the Nazis and their treatment of the Jews.  While the film touches on the initial stages of the Shoah, it was made before the real horror and genocide began; the satire’s main target is the Nazi Regime.  Gilman asserts that laughter is appropriate in films like “The Great Dictator” that deal with the Nazi regime as the enemy, leaving out the horrors of the Holocaust.  In effect, this targeted treatment of the regime assures the viewer that they are stronger than the Nazis. 

This article agrees with the thesis as it argues that the use of comedy in “The Great Dictator” effectively undermines the Nazi regime.  More than that, Gilman addresses one of the principal criticisms of the film, namely the incompatibility of laughter and the events of the Holocaust.  Critics often claim that the use of comedy in the film lessens the horrors that took place.  Viewing “The Great Dictator” today may give us this impression.  However, as Gilman discusses, Chaplin was ignorant of the extent of Nazi terror simply because the film was produced pre-Shoah. Indeed, post World War II, Chaplin asserted that “had I known of the actual horrors of the German concentration camps, I could not have made The Great Dictator; I could not have made fun of the homicidal insanity of the Nazis.” In the historical context of the film’s production, the film accurately and effectively utilizes laughter to challenge the Third Reich. 

      This artice deals with the chase scene so often found in silent comedy.  In it Donald McCaffrey explores the evolution of the chase, and how specific comic dealt with the trope in their films.  Essentially, McCaffrey believes the chase sequence became more elaborate over time, moving from a general fomula repeated over and over, to unique scenes with inventive gags.  Chaplin is considered pivotal in this movement, and the author describes how he acheives a sense of originality in his chase scenes by carefully crafting the gags around a larger theme, such as a game of hide and seek.  The author then argues that longer films further refined the chase, and names The General a "new high" in the history of chase scenes, for it is the central theme of the movie, and is sustained for a long period of time.

      Since The General is essentially a chase movie, it is vital to understand how it is similar, and how it differs from other chase sequences.  This article explains the way chase scenes usually function, and how Chaplin, Keaton, and others altered the chase formula.  The article also makes clear the sheer amount of chase scenes in existence.  That is, a huge number of comedies featured chase scenes, and the author suggests that Chaplin, Keaton, and the other major comedic stars tried to refrain from using what was so commonly seen.  In considering why The General failed to acheive any critical acclaim, this perspective, that is, looking at the film as a long chase sequence, offers new possiblities.  One could argue that the chase sequence was over-used, and thus unappealing, especially when it forms the entire film.  To more modern audiences unaware of the previous popularity of chase scenes, The General may be exciting and different.  The article ultimately helps in further identifying what makes Keaton's film different.

McCaffrey, Donald W.  "The Evolution of the Chase in the Silent Screen Comedy."  The Journal of the Society of Cinematologists  Vol 4 (1964-1965): 1-8

      In this article, Christopher Bishop discusses the ways in which Keaton's comedy differed from other comedians, and focuses especially on his syle of acting, and specifically, his "stone face."  The author describes how Keaton's face is what most remember from his films, and analyizes the effect vaudeville had on his comedy career.  Bishop argues that this physical training increases the effectiveness of Keaton's films, for he does not rely on editing tricks, but rather, is able to physically perform the stunt in one shot.  Furthermore, this training also leads to a keen awareness of the possibilites of facial expressions and other movements, and the author argues that Keaton is the most effective at utalizing expressions and movements for comic effect.  The author then reminds the reader of Keaton's fascination with machines, and suggests that Keaton used his own body in a mechnical fashion.  Finally, the author argues that the goals in Keaton's films are "metaphysical and implicit."  In other words, Chaplin's films are concerned with social commentary, and thus, are rooted in that historical time period.  Keaton's films, however, are more concerned with great natural obstacles, and rarely offer solutions.

      In understanding why Keaton's comedy was relativley unpopular compared to Chaplin, it is important to understand how Chaplin worked.  This article does a nice job of describing how Keaton works, or how he behaves in his films, and also compares the films of Chaplin and Keaton.  Thus, one gets gains a better understanding of how Keaton differed not only from the wildly popular Chaplin, but from other comedians of this time as well.  It also provides a great deal of Keaton's history, and providest the reader with the early activities that would shape Keaton's acting style.  In this sense, one gains a better understanding of why Keaton developed films the way he did.

Bishop, Christopher.  "The Great Stone Face."  Film Quarterly Vol 12 No 1 (1958): 10-15

Jacobs, Lewis. “World War II and the American Film.” Cinema Journal 7 (Winter, 1967-1968): 1-21. 

Krämer, Peter. “ The (Un)Timeliness of Satire: The Reception of the The Great Dictator in West Germany”.  The British Film Institute online. 2006. <http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/programme/conference/pdf/peter-kramer.pdf>

This article discusses the rerelease of Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” to German audiences in 1958.  Krämer talks about German attitudes in 1950’s postwar Germany.  The widespread rerelease of the film across Germany was unpopular, selling poorly at the box office: “The Great Dictator was left far behind by many American films and much of the German competition.” Krämer illustrates why German audiences did not welcome Chaplin’s antifascist film. While anti-Semitism and fascism saw a gradual decline after the war, they were still widespread.  In a poll asking about Hitler’s statesmanship, 41% of people responded positively in 1959.  A 1958 poll revealed that 22% of respondents did not welcome Jews living in Germany.  Krämer also suggests that the Nazi regime just a decade earlier was still too much of a horrific reality for cinema satire.  One reviewer commented that Chaplin’s satirical comedy demonstrated how “apparently the Nazi terror has already been forgotten”. 

Throughout the film, Chaplin switches between slapstick comedy and serious drama. Krämer’s article is relevant to the thesis as it sheds light on the question of whether satire was an appropriate medium for a grim topic like Nazi Germany. The lousy box office result in 1950’s Germany is an indication that “The Great Dictator” that the satire was inappropriate and ineffective in communicating its message.  From a contemporary viewpoint, I would argue that this is correct.  Knowing the extent of Hitler’s Holocaust today, Chaplin’s comedic medium appears to trivialize one of the most horrendous offenses against mankind.  However, it is important to understand Chaplin’s general ignorance of the stark situation in Germany during the production of “The Great Dictator” in the 1930’s. I would argue that the satire was effective and appropriate upon its original release as previously demonstrated; however, its ignorance of the true extent of Nazi Germany would make this a highly controversial film if it were (originally) released today. 

Gehring, Wes D. American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1996. 1-14.

Call#:  PN1995.9.C55 G42 1996

    In this wonderful book, Wes Gehring analyzes dark comedy as a genre in both literature and comedy as well as film. He defines black humor as a "genre of comic irreverance that flippantly attacks what are normally society's most sacredly serious subjects - especially death." He notes that comedy's ability to personalize in the viewer a mixture of conflicting emotions is meant to reflect the on-the-edge absurdity of modern life. Comedian Dave Barry is quoted as saying that humor is based in "the fear that the world is not very sane or reliable or organized and that it's not controlled by responsible people. Anything can happen to you, and it could be bad, and you have no say in it." The author states that dark comedy as a genre is still considered more of a post-1960s phenomenon. Black humor became an aspect of the libertarian, idol-shattering side of the sixties. He also notes that dark humor is a mostly American genre - American writers on the whole appear to be more articulate about it, and American audiences more susceptible to the form.
     The Graduate is certainly a dark comedy due to its plot about a young man having an affair with a married woman yet still providing comic relief despite the grave topics involved. Dustin Hoffman's awkward yet lovable character is hilarious in that he is much too young and inexperienced to know what is going on in the affair. Various times in the movie writers Buck Henry and Charles Webb provide comic answers on behalf of Benjamin Braddock to serious questions. For example, when Benjamin describes his plan to marry a girl whom he has neither asked yet or even likes him, he states "No, dad, I think [the idea] is completely baked." Also, in an intense scene when Mrs. Robinson asks Ben if he finds her attractive, he replies "I think you're the most attractive of all my parents' friends." Finally, director Mike Nichols uses various funny scenes to address serious issues. When Benjamin's parents make him scuba dive in their backyard pool, everyone is smiling and cheering while Benjamin is drifting in the water totally dissatisfied with his present and his future. The Graduate is a fine example of 1960s dark comedy.