The Great Dictator (1940)

Having done a bit of research on this film (actually just glancing at the wikipedia page) I learned that in his biography Charlie Chaplin stated that he would not have made The Great Dictator (1940) if he had known the true extent of the violence committed against the Jewish people in Germany. Perhaps this would have been the right decision in 1940 when Hitler was still in power and the threat he represented wasn't widely known. Trivializing dangerous people can give them power by disguising their threat, however in 2019, to quote Mel Brooks, "Of course it is impossible to take revenge for 6 million murdered Jews. But by using the medium of comedy, we can try to rob Hitler of his posthumous power and myths."


Much like Gone With the Wind, The Great Dictator opens with a title card that sets the scene and tone of the film. "This is a story of a period between two World Wars -- an interim in which Insanity cut loose. Liberty took a nose dive, and Humanity was kicked around somewhat." At risk of getting political... what the hell; this is my blog I can get political if I want... this sounds REALLY familiar. Are we not in a time where Insanity has cut loose with two mass shootings in less then 24 hours? Liberty taking a nose dive with refugees being imprisoned in camps? Humanity is certainly getting kicked around somewhat. While at the moment it doesn't seem as though there is a World War on the scale of WWII brewing, The Great Dictator remains terrifyingly relevant today. This is perhaps the reason why the slapstick comedy scenes in the Jewish ghetto aren't funny anymore. As we see slapstick hijinks occur with the context of racially motivated police brutality, and racists in uniform throw tomatoes at a cowering young woman, its very difficult to laugh. The funniest sequences of the portions of the film that take place in the ghetto are the few that are divorced from the setting and context. Such as Chaplin's Jewish barber shaving a customer literally to the tune of Brahms' "Hungarian Dance No. 5". Otherwise, these sequences hold an uncomfortable drama that, while not having their intended effect of inspiring laughs, work in a uniquely different way when juxtoposed against the scenes featuring Chaplin's Hitler analogue "Adenoid Hynkle".

Adenoid Hynkle is incredibly fun to watch as he is a beautifully executed skewering of Hitler. Hynkel is a childish, tantrum prone, unintelligent, impotant, and incompetent leader (sound familiar?), who spends an absolutely hilarious and significant portion of the film in an almost literal dick measuring contest with Benzino Napaloni the dictator of Bacteria (an obvious analogue of Benito Moussolini. Of course there is also the incredibly famous and memorable scene where, after having his head filled with dreams of conquering the world, by Goebbels analogue, Garbitsch, Hynkel plays and dances with a giant inflatable globe. The Great Dictator goes out of its way to infantilize it's Hitler analogue, the only decisions he makes are suggested by Garbitsch, and even his prejudice against the Jewish people is suggested to be Garbitsch's manipulation in one of my absolute favorite exchanges:

Adenoid Hynkel: Strange, these strike leaders, they're all brunettes. Not a blonde amongst them.

Garbitsch: Brunettes are trouble makers. They're worse than the Jews.

Adenoid Hynkel: Then wipe them out.

Garbitsch: Start small. Not so fast. We get rid of the Jews first, then concentrate on the brunettes.

Adenoid Hynkel: We shall never have peace 'til we have a pure Aryan race. How wonderful. Tomainia, a nation of blue-eyed blondes.

Garbitsch: Why not a blonde Europe, a blonde Asia, and blonde America.

Adenoid Hynkel: A blonde world.

Garbitsch: And a brunette dictator.


Adenoid Hynkel: Dictator of the world!

To a modern audience this has the effect that Mel Brooks described in the quote I referenced earlier, and at the time without the full knowledge of what Hitler was doing and was intending it would have been just as funny. However, it also may have had the effect Chaplin was concerned about when he said he would not have made the movie if he knew what was going on: that the threat Hitler represented would be trivialized so as not to be taken seriously. Regardless, I for one, am pleased that this movie was made to be enjoyed here and now in 2019.

Of course that isn't to say it doesn't have some aspects that don't quite land. The Jewish barber's famous speech at the end of the film is kind of a mixed bag. While uplifting and containing a real call to action against oppressive systems and the hate that fuels them, it comes off as maybe a bit too naive today. The speech is written from the assumptive point that hate will die with the dictators

"The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish."

But plenty of dictators have died, and here we are with refugees in camps, police murdering innocent minorities, and racially motivated mass murders. The speech even ends with the suggestion that a kinder world is an inevitability we are on the precipice of, but the subsequent years after this film's release seem to suggest otherwise. 

Now that I have once again completely assassinated my credibility as a film critic, this time by criticizing one of the most effective and passionate defenses of democracy ever put to film, I'd like to pick up some of the pieces by highlighting an overlooked exchange that comes just before that speech:
Schultz: You must speak.

A Jewish Barber: I can't.

Schultz: You must. It's our only hope.

THIS is the real call to action. It's a call that is also repeated in the speech proper. It's fascinating that Chaplin highlights the power of language throughout the film. The above exchange is probably something Chaplin had probably been telling himself before embarking on the making of The Great Dictator. He has said he felt that while sound films don't play to his strengths, and he's a much better pantomime artist, a sound film is the best choice to communicate his political message. He, as a performer, finds speech difficult but finds he must to communicate what he needs to to help destroy fascism.

On the topic of language there is another way The Great Dictator infantalizes Hynkle that I have elected to hold off on mentioning till now. Hynkle's speeches, and a good portion of his dialogue, are complete, psudo-german gibbarish. Hynkle's message and ideology are intentionally garbled beyond decipherability removing the oppressors voice from the film. The only oppressor given an intelligible voice to spread hateful rhetoric is Garbitsch. Rather fitting that dangerous, fascist ideas are literally coming from garbage in this film. Which brings me to the rest of names. Napolini dictator of Bacteria? Garbitsch? Herring (Goering)? What better way to bring down fascist leaders a peg or too by using language, an indispensable tool of fascism, against them, and despite Chaplin's lack of experience in working with spoken language in film he pulls it off with aplomb.



As you may already guess I greatly enjoyed The Great Dictator. It's interesting to see how such politically driven films such as this one are re-contextualized in a new political climate, and have a changed meaning in places. Next up is a movie I've never even heard of before Born to Kill (1947).