uoi

1. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
The Great Dictator (1940) is an American political satire comedy-drama directed, written,
produced, co-scored and starring British comedian Charlie Chaplin. This would be Chaplin’s
first true sound film as all his previous films have been silent. The silent era of films is where
he rose to fame becoming a film icon worldwide considered to be an important figure in film
history (Rennie, 2019:49) through his screen persona “The Tramp”. He continued to make
silent films for eleven years well into the era of sound films. Chaplin always had complete
creative control over his films this one being no different as he is responsible for the key
themes and concepts of this film. In the filmChaplin plays both a Jewish barber living in the
ghetto who was a soldier 20 years ago in WW1 before losing his memory and Adenoid
Hynkel an anti-Semite and the dictator of Tomainia, being fictional parodies of Adolf Hitler
and Germany. In this essay, I will research and explore the film’s narrative structure and
visual themes and how it reflects the political satire in the final speech scene. Analytical
methods of study will be employed to analyse the film’s narrative and speech scene. This
analysis will also endeavour to explore the politics of race and class through proletarian and
Totalitarianism ideology, referring to Marxist’s philosophy a dictatorship of proletarian and
class consciousness (Lukás,1971). The essay will attempt to answer why comedy satires still
captivate audiences in modern-times despite being a film set in the Interwar time-period
and explain why the filmis still relevant today in comedy and film and how it expanded the
satire genre by what is learned from it.
At the time of release, Europe was relativity at peace, Chaplin made the film to address the
rising terrorism and repression of Jews by the Nazis. Soon after the release of the film
Germany would invade Poland triggering the events of WW2, British government would ban
the film as their policy at the time was one of appeasement towards Nazi Germany. By the
time of release, we had gone to war with Germany so the attitude towards the media-text
had completely switched and was obviously endorsed for propaganda. This gave the film
more notoriety than Chaplin originally intended. Produced as the war started Chaplin
expressed
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. (Kerner,2011:82).

2. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
Fortunately, he did not cancel the film as it only hammered Hitler's reputation, being the
first Hollywood production to tackle anti-Semitism advancing political arguments where
such arguments were expressly forbidden. It delivers important message and commentary
on social-hierarchy and fascist ideology in a time where nations were at war Chaplin
provided a sense of revitalization to the state of humanity. This subversive comedy dressed
Hitler as a figure to be mocked in the climate of American isolationism and European
nationalism. The film challenges social constructs of class and capitalist ideals through
narrative and visual themes. Modern-day questions of socialismand other political
ideologies like race and class are reflected in the tone of irony and sight-gags through
humorous satire. Manifestations of the social conflict of the 1930s and 1940s came through
the production of comedies. This was the first feature-length comedy about Hitler, hitting a
milestone in film history and comedy. Hollywood never questioned this subject to laugh or
not to laugh about such matters. After the commercial success of Dictator other satirised
Hitler comedies appeared such as the Three Stooges’ slapstick short You Natzy Spy! (1940)
and Disney released cartoons like Der Fuehrer’s Face (1942). Filmmaker Ernst Lubitsch
explained viewers enjoyed these not “because they underestimate the Nazis menace, but
because they are happy to see this new order and its ideological ridiculed” (Abel, 2012:2).
Therefore, Dictator is a product of its time and it does not undermine the real-life terror but
mocking it which is showing the audience how bad and ridiculous it is doing quite the
opposite of underestimation.
Notions of class and totalitarianist ideals of Germany in the 1940s is shown through satire
and irony. Satire is a form of humour to criticize a person or a group usually in the context of
politics or current issues. Satire usually has a target in a political or social way. At times it
can be light, or it can be deadly, some cases it can lead its producers in jail (King, 2002:93).
King also states that satire is “used as a way of voicing criticismof oppressive or totalitarian
regimes…” (2002:93). Regimes like the Nazis in the Dictator, Chaplin is doing exactly that
showing comedy but also widening the scope for political/social opinion in a mainstream
format as a genre which intends to both critique and entertains. Satire is a major form of
humour both in society and hypocrisy, Noel Carroll raises an interesting point about this in
terms of play theory. He suggests that one defines “play” as disengaged from life or not
serious then the necessity of play has counter-examples, humour is not play since much

3. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
humour like satire, is engaged and serious (2014:43). So, I concur Carroll’s thought that
“play” requires a better definition for it to be necessary for amusement. However, I would
argue against Carroll just like Alan Roberts “that satire is successively amusing and serious
rather than simultaneously amusing and serious” (2019:98). There is no better example than
the scenes in this film, particularly the final speech scene. The final speech itself is serious
and impassioned but sits within a comedy context which does not undermine the important
message Chaplin gives. We see this throughout the film with Chaplin dealing with Gestapo’s,
but it is all done over slapstick and light music. “slapstick has its own unique language. It is
expressed physically. Deals with people themselves, their physical characteristics, and
personalities” (Sover, 2018:7). It is probably the most beloved and widespread humorous
forms of expression. Perhaps the reason is that before we learn to talk we smile and laugh.
Humoristic communication between family and friends mainly takes place through physical
humour (Sover, 2018:8). Amusing but not taking away the message that the rise of
European fascismhas affected the lives of people below the ruling class.
Presenting us the totalitarian systemof the government of this time where people answer
the higher-ups. Jewish people so-called peasants answer to the Gestapo and the Gestapo
answering to the dictator, a hereditary class systemto manage to country. This is seen in
the first minutes of the filmwhere we see them in a single file from tallest to smallest in
height and rank with Chaplin being shortest in both. The highest rank soldier in front orders
to check the fuse to the soldier behind him and then that soldier agrees and tells the other
person behind until it gets to Chaplin. Tall and sophisticated uniform in appearance
represents the upper class; down to Chaplin, short and dirty, the working class. Each head
turn portrays their social advantages and disadvantages, an effect emphasised by the actors'
heights as they look downwards to each other. Chaplin’s dual role has titles regularly
intercut for where they live and what they so-called are, ‘People of the Ghetto’ to ‘People of
the palace’ juxtaposing their positions and the positions of the dictator and the people in his
regime. A scene in a comedy context, punctuated by slapstick and ironic dialogue.
We see nightmarish violence of war and at the time it came out people still remember or
were fighting in WW1 but because of its light heartiness and use of slapstick it becomes
humorous, showing the horror of war and senselessness of destruction. In a way when us
the viewers see slapstick humour in violence we know it’s not harmful since that actors are

4. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
not in brutal pain, exaggeration and history of watching comedy. “To produce the whole of
its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anaesthesia of the heart”
(Bergson, 2005:3). Bergson is suggesting that when we see a man fall into a hole in comedy
we briefly pause our feeling towards it, “absence of feeling which usually accompanies
laughter” (Bergson, 2005:3). Laughing requires a detachment from sensibility and emotion
as its more difficult to laugh when focused on the seriousness of the scenario. Symbolism is
shown during the film though props conveying messages which will lead to the final speech
at the end. Hannah’s frying pan and actions shows how people can fight back against
nationalism. Hynkel’s globe popping, a symbolic commentary on ineffectiveness of Hynkel’s
ambition and reflects Chaplin’s notion of dictators will never succeed.
Everything that has been analysed so far is echoed through the final speech scene, all
messages and themes were leading to the speech at the end where Chaplin comments on
the fascist ideology and social conflicts his character has witnessed throughout the film,
directly addressing us the audience watching and audience in the narrative. Chaplin’s
speech comments on notions of social-hierarchy and its durability as a political-satire. The
narrative is recognised globally which further highlights the iconicity and political relevance
of the film. The film’s political analysis exploring class power structures through narrative
structure works hand in hand with proletarian/totalitarian ideologies that challenged ideas
of the bourgeoisie, repeatedly highlighted in every scene. The humour of social-class is
identifiable to a modern audience as while inequality has lessened when compared to the
ultra-nationalism events of the 1940s, the disparity remains within a society based on
democratic ideologies which are why the scene is still relevant today. Though this scene is
not particularly funny in and of itself, it sits in a comedy context and is punctuated by a
comedy moments before and does not undercut the serious message of cruelty through
acts of violence and political movements.
The mise-en-scène of the film supports the comedy piece by simplifying complicated
political relations and giving the audience a visual tool in which to recognise class disparity
through elements of costume, props, action and behaviour. Examples such as Hynkel a small
person sits on an exaggerated high-chair while he makes his guests sits on ridiculously low-
chair practically touching the ground in his office. It supports comedy context but also
supports the serious context of the speech, the one-shot and talking on a stage reinforces

5. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
audiences of political relations from Chaplin breaking the 4th wall. Mise-en-scène is a term
used to describe a visual style suggesting various elements allowing directors to stamp their
creative personality on routine scripts, thereby legitimating popular filmas serious art. The
film has a unique style being in black and white but having the essence of Chaplin’s silent
slapstick films. The use of costumes and props highlight the comedic value that dictates
both what the audience can see and the way in which they are invited to see it through
character actions it acts as visual evidence of class difference, such as the frying pan and
clothes people of the Ghetto. Even Chaplin wearing the high-rank uniform at the end of the
speech with the Hitler-like moustache reinforces the context of the speech. Chaplin’s the
tramp and Adolf Hitler looked somewhat similar and were both born within a week of each
other, were roughly the same physique and both struggled in poverty until they reached
great success in their respective fields. “There was something curiously appropriate about
the little tramp impersonating the dictator, for by 1939 Hitler and Chaplin were perhaps the
two most famous men in the world” (Insdorf 1983:59). When learning of racial oppression
and nationalist aggression from Hitler, Chaplin used their similarities for inspiration to attack
Hitler on film.
In conclusion, through the humorous political-satire reflected throughout the narrative the
film’s key themes are Injustice to innocent people and fascismof dictatorship. Chaplin truly
speaks out against the cruelty against Jews during the last scene. He comes out of character
as the barber who is pretending to be Hynkel, and he begins to speak out against the
injustice, discrimination, and cruelty being perpetrated against the Jews. He calls for people
around the world to speak out and step up so that things can change. Throughout the film,
Chaplin shows the horror of the situation comedically. Through critical analysis, the film
reflects the politics of that time foreshadowing near-future events as “the great dictator is
less about the holocaust than it is about intolerance and the tyranny of fascism” (Kerner,
2011:82). Chaplin was brave to satirize Hitler during a time where Hitler still reigned, the
media climate was stable in the 40s than it is today where a film like this would almost
become a terrorist incident. It is still relevant to today with similarities and basic principles
of class and capitalismcan still be compared to contemporary ideals in all nations, not just
Britain and America. The narrative and visual themes enabled Chaplin to criticise social and
political inequity that troubled that time through totalitarian ideology. The Great Dictator

6. Research and analysis The Great Dictator’s narrative/visual and the final
speech scene
was the first satire of its kind on a mainstream scale making it a product of its time and the
message of the speech is still momentous in present-day society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Abel, M. (2012) Chapter 2 ‘The Counter-Cinema of the Berlin School’, Skidmore, J. Mueller,
G. ‘Cinema and Social Change in Germany and Austria’. Wilfrid Laurier University Press
Bergson, H. (2005) ‘Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic’ Dover Publications
Carroll, N. (2014) ‘Humour: A Very Short Introduction’. Oxford University Press
Insdorf, A. (1983) ‘Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust’. Random House
Kerner, A. (2011) ‘Film and the Holocaust: New Perspectives on Dramas, Documentaries, and
Experimental Films’. The Continuum International Group
Lukács, G. Translated, Livingstone, R. (1971) ‘History and class consciousness: Studies in
Marxist dialectics.’ The Merlin Press
Lynn, Kenneth S. (1997) ‘Charlie Chaplin and his times’. Simon & Schuster
Rennie, M. (2019) ‘Groucho Marx and Charlie Chaplin’. Blurb
Roberts, A. (2019) ‘A Philosophy of Humour’. Palgrave Macmillan
Sover, A. (2018) ‘The Languages of Humor: Verbal, Visual, and Physical Humor’. Bloomsbury
FILMOGRAPHY:
Der Fuehrer's Face (1942) Directed by Jack Kinney [Online] Available through YouTube.
[Accessed on 22nd October 2019]
The Great Dictator (1940) Directed by Charlie Chaplin [Online] Available through YouTube.
[Accessed on 15th October 2019]
You Natzy Spy! (1940) Directed by Jules White [Online] Available through YouTube.
[Accessed on 22nd October 2019]