Review of The Great Dictator (1940) by Ken W — 29 Feb 2012

The Not So Great Dictator.

I am sure one of Charles Chaplin's purposes in bringing The Great Dictator to the screen was to gain support for England from America in their struggle against the axis powers. Maybe it was a direct appeal to President Roosevelt. And perhaps Chaplin's purpose was to sound the alarm in general for freedom and unity throughout the world and express his feelings and convictions. It might have even been a personal message and slap in the face of Hitler and Mussolini from the Little Tramp. I don't know. It seemed to me, judging on the merits of the film alone (and not on it's good intentions) that the real purpose was for Chaplin to highlight his many talents, numerous and admirable as they are.

Chaplin was a great silent film pioneer and even had a few moments in the bright daylight of talkies. But I do not share the general consensus that the Great Dictator is great. It may be designated a classic by smarter and more experienced critics than myself, but my criteria for calling a film a classic is if it can transcend the time period it was made in and appeal to an audience at any time. And the shame of it is I felt it could have been, it had all of the elements. Great star, director, writer, producer, composer. Unfortunately, they were all Chaplin. My hats off to him to be able to juggle all of these hats, for it was no small accomplishment and should be lauded. But the film itself has problems.

The first of which is the script, which is really a series of set pieces showcasing Charlie Chaplin's performing, writing and directing ability. In my view, the story could have been much more poignant and tighter if Chaplin had stuck to the story of the barber and the people of the ghetto's plight (and a more solid plot) with only brief and intermittent sightings of the great dictator and his band of merry murderers. Instead, Chaplin attempts to milk every possibility of getting a laugh from his mugging Hitler and his cronies. Almost every gag in the film is repeated, including Chaplin's spot on imitation of Hitler's manic speechifying, and all seemed to go on just a bit too long. I thought the comedy was over done and obvious, which in itself is not always a bad thing, but the film as a whole suffers for it. And the real point, all these years later (and it's biggest weakness) is that it just isn't that funny. Sure, there a few moments of real chuckling, as when Chaplin, in a nano second, falls into a chest to hide with the lid banging shut after him. That is a testament to Chaplin's innate slapstick sensibilities. But as a whole, the comedy seemed forced and flat. I would like to say that it must have been cutting edge satire for it's time, but I couldn't help thinking of Duck Soup (released seven years before in 1933) which holds up better, is a much smarter and funnier film, and is the ultimate satire on power, war and politics (Dr. Strangelove and Wag The Dog notwithstanding). Duck Soup is the classic that Great Dictator is not because it is accessible to today's generation and because, as I said, it is just laugh out loud funnier.

The serious aspects of the film were also either not expressed enough or over done. An example of both happening at the same time is when Paulette Goddard is pelted with tomatoes from the storm troopers. Not only did Chaplin spare her from really being hit and drenched from the bad guys, his music cue of tender violins over her cowering on the ground was an obvious signal to us - okay, feel sorry for Paulette now. I'm thinking it was a directorial impulse left over from his silent days. If the attack had devolved into a throwing contest (de-humanizing her even more by making her simply a target) and then a closeup of beautiful Miss Goddard getting one tomato in the kisser, it would have been much more of a statement than his heavy handed pathos. Look what it did for Mae Clark with a grapefruit. Ken Whelan, Brooklyn, NY.