Tag Archives: satire

Modern Times (1936)

Posted on by
2
2014 #55
Charles Chaplin | 83 mins | DVD | 1.33:1 | USA / English | U / G

Modern TimesCharlie Chaplin satirises technology and modernisation in arguably the last film of the silent era. It actually has a synchronised soundtrack, primarily for music and effects, but also dialogue — though “we hear spoken voices only when they come from mechanical devices, a symbol of the film’s theme of technology and dehumanization.” The irony is it was that technological progress which rendered Modern Times the last hurrah for the era Chaplin remains most identified with.

Stand-out sequences include Chaplin and co-workers battling a speedy production line, and him being the test subject for a new machine designed to feed workers quickly.

4 out of 5

Modern Times was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 2014 project, which you can read more about here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long. You’ve just read one.

Mad City (1997)

Posted on by
Reply
2014 #94
Costa-Gavras | 110 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12* / PG-13

Mad CityDisgraced national TV journo Dustin Hoffman is slumming it on a local network, covering dull stories like something-or-other going on at the local museum… until a recently-fired security guard from said museum (John Travolta) turns up with a shotgun, accidentally shoots the other security guard, and takes a party of schoolchildren hostage. Suddenly Hoffman finds himself with the inside scoop — literally — as the eyes of the national news turn on the unfolding situation.

So Mad City proceeds with, essentially, a dual-pronged narrative: the hostage situation itself, and the tactics employed by the media when covering it. Unfortunately, it seems unsure of its own point or purpose thanks to a mismatched tone, with the fairly-straight hostage drama rubbing up against some very broad media satire. I think the latter is really what it wants to be, though if the filmmakers felt they were making a serious point about the behaviour of the media then some of the film’s wilder elements have other ideas. Plus, I don’t know how original “the media are part of the problem” was as a viewpoint in 1997, but, getting on for 20 years later, it’s become a played-out truism.

Despite such faults, the film is an absorbing enough whole. This is mainly thanks to a solid leading-man turn from Hoffman and, even more so, a surprisingly nuanced performance from Travolta. Sam's the manHe plays against type as Sam, the nervous, naïve, childlike, and easily-manipulated hostage taker. It’s Travolta’s performance that makes Sam someone you care about, even if you don’t exactly root for him, so that the outcome — which, unusually for this kind of film, remains completely uncertain right until it’s happened — is something you’re fully invested in. There are many better-regarded films than this that don’t achieve that.

There are other films that satirise the media more humorously, and other films that expose their true nature more effectively, and still other films that feature more thrilling hostage situations. Mad City has a solid stab at its constituent elements, even if it winds up more average than remarkable. At least the worth-seeing performance from Travolta adds value.

3 out of 5

* In 1997, the BBFC classified Mad City as 15 for cinema release. In 1998, it was again classified a 15 for video… but one week later, and one second shorter, it was a 12. Six months on from that, the ‘longer’ version was also classified 12… and two months on again, the ‘shorter’ version got a 12, again. It’s from the ’90s so explanations for this kerfuffle are in short supply, but it seems to hinge on one use of strong language. ^

The Great Dictator (1940)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #31
Charles Chaplin | 120 mins | DVD | PG* / G

One of the great things about doing 100 Films in a Year has been the number of firsts it’s either led me to or just been there to document: my first time watching films on Blu-ray and via legal download; my first time seeing films from directors as diverse as Woody Allen, Akira Kurosawa, F.W. Murnau and Krzysztof Kieslowski; my first time viewing such notable works as Breathless, Brief Encounter, Chinatown, Taxi Driver, This is Spinal Tap, The Wizard of Oz, and many more — including my first time seeing Citizen Kane. And here’s another for the list: my first ever Charlie Chaplin film.

The Great Dictator is one of Chaplin’s most widely-known films thanks to setting its sights on the Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler in particular. The general perception of silent comedians like Chaplin immediately suggests slapstick, but the real-world targets here make his work (on this film at least) satirical as well. I’m sure this made for great propaganda when it was released just a year into the war, but Chaplin’s skill and accuracy mean it works beyond that: like all good impersonations or spoofs it doesn’t make its objects silly for no reason, but instead takes what’s inherently laughable about them and exploits it. This would age some satirical humour, reliant as it can be on topicality, but the wide awareness even a modern audience has of Hitler means there are no comprehension problems today.

The style of humour can date nonetheless, but The Great Dictator remains funny — arguably the real test of a good comedy. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but that’s a problem comedy faces whenever it’s made. Chaplin loads the film with inventive and timeless routines, like the upside-down-plane, the coin-in-the-pudding, or the classic dance with an inflatable globe. Sometimes with comedy from decades previous, there’s the feeling you’re watching something that was funny at the time but no longer actually makes you laugh, thanks to changed conventions and expectations. For me, at least, there was no such problem here.

Surprisingly, there are some serious scenes too. While it doesn’t outweigh the comedy, there’s a degree of semi-factual drama in the plot that’s been well judged to help the humour cut deeper. The closing speech could come across as overly propagandistic but, again, it’s well pitched and therefore more galvanizing than inappropriately laughable. There are some bits, like this, that are sadly just as applicable to the modern world.

Chaplin allegedly said he wouldn’t have made The Great Dictator if he knew how bad things really were under Hitler, though some dispute this, arguing he knew and made it regardless. Some bits are slightly uncomfortable when one knows the reality, but whether Chaplin knew the truth or not these moments are fleeting. And, either way, Hitler and the Nazis were a worthwhile target: laughing at those who attempt to terrorise and dominate us is one of the most powerful weapons we have against them. That, certainly, is still true today.

5 out of 5

* For reasons known only unto the BBFC, The Great Dictator was classified U until 2003, when film and video reclassifications both made it a PG. ^