FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A shell-shocked Jewish barber (Charlie Chaplin) returns 20 years after World War I to his village, which is overrun by anti-semitic soldiers. He actively protests alongside a feisty maid (Paulette Goddard) he’s fallen in love with; meanwhile, their country’s tyrannical dictator, Adenoid Hynkel (Charlie Chaplin), engages in rivalty with the equally bombastic leader of neighboring Bacteria (Jack Oakie).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charlie Chaplin Films
• Comedy<
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Nazis
• Paulette Goddard Films
• Rivalry
• Ruthless Leaders
• World Domination
• World War Two

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this controversial classic “in which Chaplin plays both a persecuted Jewish ghetto barber in Tomania and that country’s power-mad dictator” shows evidence of his conflicted feelings. He writes that a few years after the film’s release, “Chaplin expressed regret that he’d made this film a comedy because he then realized how naive he’d been about the whole political situation in Germany”, and “at the time, he didn’t know about what was actually taking place in concentration camps, or about the impossibility of any resistance to SS troops, or about the absurdity of suggesting Hitler’s ouster, or about the extreme brutality of Hitler’s vision”. Peary adds, “Despite Chaplin’s correct reservations about the film, it’s still a joy to watch Hynkel/Hitler tumble down a flight of stairs, or have Benzino Napolino (Jack Oakie), dictator of Bacteria, toss peanut shells on him, or act the buffoon as he fantasizes about world conquest — climbing up his curtains and bouncing a balloon globe off his rump while in the paroxysms of … ecstasy”. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary doesn’t nominate this as one of the Best Pictures of the Year (unlike the actual Academy), though he retains Chaplin’s nomination as one of the Best Actors of the Year.

Unlike Peary, I don’t believe Chaplin needed to make excuses for crafting this highly effective satire, which strikes me as akin to To Be Or Not to Be (1942) turned up a notch. With that said, according to TCM’s Behind the Camera article:

As the premiere approached, Chaplin had good reason to be concerned about his gamble on political commentary. Gallup polls revealed that 96 per cent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the war in Europe, and threatening letters from Nazi sympathizers poured into the studio. At one point he even asked a friend with the Longshoreman’s Union in New York if they could have some union members present at the opening to prevent a pro-Nazi demonstration.

Chaplin makes his open disgust for both Hitler and fascism clear in multiple ways throughout the film. As James Hendricks notes in his review for Q Network:

With the exception of a few notable German words and phrases, most of what Hynkel says is pure nonsense, which is a direct literalization of Chaplin’s view of fascist politics. And that, ultimately, is what The Great Dictator demonstrated to the world, undercutting hatred and totalitarianism by revealing them to be the strained devices of desperately pathetic and insecure men.

Unfortunately, this film remains highly relevant in our climate of political bromances between world leaders — indeed, the best scenes are those between Chaplin-as-Hynkel and Oakie-as-Napolini. I’m less enamored with the narrative thread about The Barber’s romance with Goddard, though it serves its purpose well and leads us towards the highly contested final six minutes of the film. As Peary notes, “this was Chaplin’s first talkie for a reason — he wanted audiences to hear the difference between Hitler’s words of madness (they’re unrecognizable, he’s shouting so strongly)… and Chaplin’s own clear words of sanity and reason, delivered in a speech by the barber (who’s passing as Hynkel), which call for brotherhood and peace.” I disagree with critics who feel the speech is overbearing and interrupts the film’s flow; it’s actually a perfectly fine ending to a movie that serves as both a satire and a serious call to awareness and action.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charlie Chaplin as Hynkel
  
• Jack Oakie as Napolini
  
• Many memorable sequences
  
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and still biting satirical wit. Named to the National Film Registry in 1997.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Q Network Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A noble tramp (Charlie Chaplin) falls in love with a blind flower-girl (Virginia Cherrill) and saves the life of a drunk, suicidal millionaire (Harry Myers) who quickly befriends him, but forgets he knows him once sober. Can Chaplin earn the money to help Cherrill pay for a sight-restoring operation — or will Myers help him out?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Blindness
• Charlie Chaplin Films
• Do-Gooders
• Homeless
• Millionaires
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Romance
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “hilarious, poignant comedy masterpiece by Charles Chaplin” is an “exquisite, infinitely rewarding film”. He names it Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, where he notes that Chaplin “intended his new picture to be a tribute to the art of pantomime and in the vanguard of a new wave of nontalking films” — including a “soundtrack with his own truly exceptional score and sound effects”. While he was wrong (he took an expensive, $2 million gamble), it “received tremendous critical acclaim and did exceptionally well at the box office”. In Alternate Oscars, Peary writes that the world presented in City Lights is “confusing” and “topsy-turvy” — a place where “the most dignified, noble character is a tramp, where the person with the most money wants to kill himself while a man without anything tells him about the joys of life”; indeed, the “identities of both people and props are in question”. He details the many comedic instances in which props are not what they seem: confetti becomes mixed with spaghetti; Chaplin “almost cuts into a man’s bald head that he thinks is a plate of food”; Chaplin “washes his face with cheese instead of the soap that finds its way into a coworker’s sandwich”; and “the blind girl unravels the tramp’s shirt when she mistakenly thinks she’s rolling string”. Adding to this confusion, Chaplin almost constantly has “characters’ arms, hands, and legs interlock, almost as if the characters are hugging, dancing, or wrestling with one another”.

Cherrill’s performance — notoriously earned through hundreds of hours of gruelling retakes — shows authentic pathos, and Chaplin is at the peak of his game: his “Little Tramp retains his pride and dignity despite the constant humiliations he endures”, though “sadly, few recognize the beauty that is in him.” The numerous slapstick sequences are exquisitely choreographed: Chaplin’s perfectionism as a writer, director, editor, and actor paid off. Among many memorable scenes are Cherrill tossing water unknowingly in Chaplin’s face (knowing how hard he worked her, this is especially satisfying to watch); Chaplin gallantly interrupting a passionate nightclub dance that he assumes is domestic violence; the humorously choreographed boxing match, which plays to viewers’ ongoing sense that the referee up there in the ring will surely get hurt one day; and, of course, the tear-jerking ending in which Cherrill recognizes the Tramp’s true identity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charlie Chaplin as The Tramp
  
• Virginia Cherrill as The Girl
  
• Many memorable moments
  
  
• Chaplin’s carefully choreographed and synchronized score and sound effects

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Articles
• Filmsite Review

Synopsis:
A mother (Goldie Hawn) recently released from prison convinces her about-to-be-released husband (William Atherton) to go on the lam and retrieve their young son from his foster parents. During their escape, they take a patrol officer (Michael Sachs) hostage, and soon develop an uneasy friendship — but will the captain (Ben Johnson) in charge of the situation give Hawn and Atherton a second chance?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ben Johnson Films
• Car Chase
• Criminal Couples on the Run
• Goldie Hawn Films
• Hostages
• Media Spectacles
• Steven Spielberg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Steven Spielberg’s debut film is exciting, offbeat entertainment” with “the kinetic energy and visual dynamism of Spielberg’s later films”, but “far more cynical”. He points out how “Spielberg sways us into favoring Lou Jean [Hawn] by showing us the too-old foster mother and a baby that cries anytime she holds it”, but notes he “wouldn’t want the baby to be given to Lou Jean — she is a sweet person, but she’s off her rocker”. He asserts that “people like Lou Jen and Clovis [Atheron] have no chance — they act impulsively and naively, never comprehending that they’re taking on a force that will crush them.” While “Tanner [Johnson] may feel sympathetic toward the couple… he will take only so much of their challenging the law”, and “the police will impersonally carry out their role in the drama — just as the government scientists will carry out their impersonal role in E.T.” He adds that “the shame is that there is no attempt to understand Lou Jean and Clovis on a personal level, so that the police could understand that Lou Jean and Clovis would never harm Slide” — but that’s not necessarily true; given Hawn’s determination to “rescue” her son and live a “normal” family life, there’s no telling what she wouldn’t do on behalf of this goal. Peary notes that while the “picture has interesting characters”, “Spielberg gives us no one who can be admired”. With that said, the “acting is solid”, the “action sequences are extremely well done”, and Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography is “impressive”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine performances by the two leads
  
• Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended as a well-directed chase flick with heart.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Jigsaw Lounge
• TCM Articles
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A washed-up sportswriter (Humphrey Bogart) eager for steady income accepts a gig as publicist for a hulky but ineffective new fighter (Mike Lane) working under a corrupt promoter (Rod Steiger) — but when an ethical journalist friend (Harold J. Stone) and his wife (Jan Sterling) learns more about what he’s doing, Bogart begins to have second thoughts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Corruption
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Jan Sterling Films
• Journalists
• Mark Robson Films
• Rod Steiger Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “skillfully directed”, “remarkable, well-acted” film by Mark Robson — with an “outstanding no-punches-pulled (literally speaking) script by Philip Yordan,” based on a novel by Budd Schulberg — remains “the harshest indictment of boxing on film”, and is a “rare boxing film where the person who ‘sells out’ for money is not a fighter.” He notes that “the boxing world that is depicted is abominable. Not only is the sport itself brutal… but also most fights are shown to be rigged, and fighters are at the mercy of racketeers and money-hungry managers who should protect their fighters but treat them like cattle (to be bought, used, sold).” Peary adds, “Curiously, Max Baer plays the champ” who sadistically beats Toro [Lane], “twenty years after really mauling Primo Carnera (the basis for Toro) in [the] title bout; one wonders why he or Jersey Joe Wolcott (who plays Toro’s trainer) would participate in a film that condemns their sport” — but this comment belittles the intelligence and awareness of the boxers themselves, who surely realize (now if not then) the exploitation inherent in their own career choice, and also likely needed the money (!). Bogart looks tired and unwell in his final role, though this suits his character: he’s a man who recognizes that corruption is both tempting and relentlessly omnipresent, a formidable force to be reckoned with in a lifelong battle to privilege human dignity and respect over greed and gratification of the masses.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Strong direction by Robson
  
• Burnett Guffey’s cinematography
  
• Many effective scenes
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful indictment of corruption in sports.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A jingoistic teacher (Arnold Lucy) encourages his entire class of high school students to enlist in the German war effort — but Paul (Lew Ayres) and his classmates quickly find war to be far more hellish than they could ever imagine.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Lewis Milestone Films
• Soldiers
• Survival
• World War One

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “the most famous pacifist film is not as grisly as Erich Maria Remarque’s novel,” it “has enough horror and brutality to drive its anti-war theme home a hundred times over”. Influenced by a “rousing pro-militaristic speech by their professor”, a group of impossibly young and naive German teens quickly “discover that war has nothing to do with gallantry, duty, or the right cause” — instead, they “suffer through bombings, gassings, massacres, [and] hand-to-hand conflicts”. Peary argues that while “the dialogue scenes are static”, the “human story is powerful”, with “director Lewis Milestone’s visuals of the battle scenes… still impressive”, “effectively convey[ing] that being a soldier is a terrifying prospect.” Peary concludes his brief GFTFF review by noting “it’s unfortunate that films like this are never made when a war is in progress.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary agrees with the Academy in naming this the Best Picture of the Year, and elaborates on what makes it so enduringly powerful. He writes that while “the boys enthusiastically enlist en masse, all hoping to be heroes”, “once in uniform, they realize that there is no glamour to war” — “instead, there are dictatorial officers, endless marchs, hunger, fatigue, nostalgia for home, rats in the trenches, mud and rain…” Indeed, there is “no heroism. Instead there is confusion, terror, hysteria, madness, amputations, [and] meaningless deaths. All that matters is survival, and those who survive are either insane, without limbs or sight, or unfit to return to civilization where old men still champion wars.” Most chilling and heart-stopping among many powerful moments is “the battle scene in which Arthur Edeson’s camera pans while charging soldiers are mowed down by machine-gun fire” — a scene “as impressive as it is terrifying”, and which “becomes even scarier when soldiers break through and jump into the trenches for hand-to-hand combat.” As Peary adds, “Significantly, not one shot is heroic or glamorizes war; instead we see how vulnerable all soldiers are and want to close our eyes until the fighting stops.” This almost unbearably impactful film will quickly convince you that war really is hell.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Powerful direction by Milestone
  
  
  
• Arthur Edesen’s cinematography
  
  
  
• Countless memorable moments
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• NY Sun Review