much for joining us here tonight. -- ,,. . pulling every -- nonprofit informations at c-span shop dot or. weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america story and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span two comes from these television companies and more, including mediacom. and media come, we believe that

whether you live here or right here, or way out in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast reliable internet. that is why we are leading the way in taking you to tennessee. media come, along with these television companies, support c-span 2 as a public service. good evening everybody. welcome to tonight's presentation on charlie chaplin, who is known universally as an iconic comedian. what's not generally known, perhaps, is the political impact of his film on, a subject which we will learn more about this evening. first, let me thank our sponsor davenport company. not just for supporting sites lecture, but

for the support provided for the program over the years. the davenport firm was our very first corporate sponsor and they've not only continue that support, but have been instrumental in securing additional benefactor's as well. i have to emphasize how much their generosity is meant to the development of our program. the university and its students, as well as the larger fredericksburg community, are deeply indebted to you. dr. steven j. farnsworth received his b. a. from the university of missouri, kansas city. a va from dartmouth, followed by both an mma, ph. d., in government from georgetown university. he worked for ten years as a newspaper journalist not before becoming a professor and has lectured widely in news media, the presidency, the

elections for the u.s. and international audiences. a prolific scholar, he has written several books including presidential communication and character, the nightly news nightmare, spinner in chief, and his most recent, late night trump political humor and the american presidency. he's also the author or coauthor of dozens of scholarly articles on the presidency in mass media, u.s. -- and virginia politics. his political commentary has appeared in a wide range of media outlets including the new york times, washington post, pbs news hour, politico, c-span, and abc world. he is currently a professor of political science and international affairs and the director media studies at the university of washington. he has taught courses in science, journalism,

and political science at -- university, mcgill university. and georgetown. during his tenure at mary washington, dr. farnsworth has earned the reputation of being an outstanding teacher. as evidenced by winning the universities three most put stitches awards on excellence in teaching. a distinction for their attested by his being the 27 recipient of the virginia outstanding faculty award from the state council of higher education. he will be finally recalled by great lies patrons for his five previous presentations on presidents harry truman, lyndon johnson, richard nixon and ronald reagan, as well as on iconic entertainer johnny carson. it's a pleasure to welcome back to the great lives podium, my good friend stephen j. farnsworth.

>> thank you so much, bill. i'm delighted to be here and to talk to you about one of the really interesting people in the history of american film. you may have heard a rags to riches story or two in your time, but if you will ever compared to the bust to boom tale of charlie chaplin. who went from being a destitute child in a victorian workhouse in london to the most famous man in the world in two decades. charlie chaplin, the world's first and arguably largest global movie star, was so effective at offering enigmatic political messages that we are still debating what he was trying to say, more than a century after his first signature character appeared on the silver screen. the 81 films that chaplin was involved in as actor, author, director, composer or all of the above, represent an unequal body of work. george bernard shaw, who knew a great deal about putting on a compelling presentation, said that chaplin was the only genius in motion pictures. w c fields said that he was the most amazing ballet dancer who

ever lived. and marcell marceau said he would have never become a mine if charlie chaplain hadn't become a movie star. once you start looking for them, you see references to chaplin's work just about everywhere you look in popular culture. there is of course chaplin it's obvious comedic descendants. people like the early dick van dyke or chevy chase. even the manic comedic energy of mel brooks and jim carrey. but there are other impacts as well. chaplin was a compelling composure, and his smile arrangement, the theme that played in the backyard of the

final scenes of modern times, became a hit record single decades later for nat king cole. and there have been some first rate interpretations of the song produced originally by chaplain, now made famous by nat king cole, judy garland, barbara streisand. this was also michael jackson's favorite song and you can even look, if you look closely, at some of michael jackson's dance moves, they recall the tramp as well. chaplin was such an inspiration to michael jackson that, on one of his trips to london, michael jackson insisted on touring the neighborhood where chaplin grew up. the work house where he lived for a while. he even dressed up as the tramp for a promotional photo shoot. he had planned to produce a smile album of his own but he was taken from us too soon. as a whole, chaplin's work is particularly oriented towards political humanism, a concern for all humanity, particularly those people facing acute hardship. chaplin, in his, work routinely asks key questions about whether vulnerable people

can survive or even thrive in the face of the societal upheavals of modernization. he says, above all, that the crisis of modernity is particularly acute when you consider it in the context of the growing power of business, the greater vulnerability of workers and the factories that, in jobs where life may be stressful, dangerous and insecure. at this point, five generations of film goers, critics and scholars have now had a chance to dissect the

iconocalistic, controversial and tumultuous work of chaplain. his biography provides an important background for appreciating his legacy as one of history's most effective users of mass media to shape political and cultural messages. one key point, i think is important to make at the outset, a person's selection as meriting a great lives treatment does not necessarily mean their personal lives are one that we should endeavor to emulate. chaplin had four marriages and a substantial enough record of extramarital activity that he provided lots of material for the divorce lawyers who were arraid against him. his first wife he married to young. his second wife, a far younger costar -- sought to actually ruin chaplain in a no holds barred divorce case. another star, their marriage fell apart

because chaplin was so devoted to his work and so indifferent, in some cases, to his marriage. in the end, chaplains fourth and final wife, ona o'neil was much younger but that was a marriage that lasted till 1943 until chaplin's death in 1977. at the age of 88. >> one of the most unusual features, this is quite uncommon for hollywood stars who had significant control over their own films, was that the tramp character usually did not get the girl in the end. that may sound strange for chaplain, but it was, in many ways the sadness of love that haunted him through tuesday's. his first love was a woman named hellie caddie, and irish singer and dancer charlie met while they were both working in the circuit in london. she was 15, he was 19. he said in his autobiography, although i met her about five times and scarcely any of our meetings lasted longer than 20 minutes, those brief encounters affected me for a long time. he had hoped to reconnect with her on a triumphant return to the uk in 1920, one just after the war and after chaplin had

become the biggest name in filmmaking. this is also shortly after his first marriage developed. after he arrived in the uk, he discovered the love of his teenage years died three years earlier in the spanish flu epidemic. in many ways, she lives on in characters in many of chaplin's films. for people who study the autobiography of chaplin, you can really see the extent to which his life experiences replicate themselves in his work. in one of the ways, i think, that chaplin's life is so extraordinary, is because i gave him such material for such a range of treatments of the human condition. now, to be sure, the age difference between chaplin and some of his wives and girlfriends were scandalous, even by the indulgent standards of early hollywood. one special age difference, though, was more troubling on the others.

chaplain second wife, lena gray, she was a teenage actress, who worked with chaplin, one of his first big hits called, the kid. they were discreetly married in mexico in 1924 following the surprise announcement of pregnancy. she was 16 and he was 35, which created the possibility that he could've been tried under california law for sexual misconduct with reminder. the divorced in 1927 over what she says were his numerous affairs and he was ordered to pay the equivalent of almost $9 million in alimony, as well as one and a half million in current dollars for each of the two sons from the, this first marriage. this was the largest divorce settlement up to that point in american history. he had a children with his fourth wife, the daughter of roger neil. they waited a month until after she turned 18, he was 54 at the time and these

age differences were a particularly powerful weapon in the hands of chaplin's critics. particularly in the law enforcement committee, that viewed him as a dangerous immoral influence in one particularly threatening to the american culture given his high visibility. in one of law enforcement efforts to drive chaplin from the movies, he was charged for his misconduct with young girls under the mann act. this is a law that prohibited moving women across state lines for immoral purposes. with chaplin, not only hollywood forgives him, but so did america. a jury acquitted him and people continued to go to his movies. chaplin had not a great deal of formal education, he was largely self taught, toward with young actor starting at the age of ten. he was on the london stage as a

teenager and before he was even 20 years old he was regularly traveling in a vaudeville company, musical bags, aromatic stunts, the like. both of his parents had been entertainers, but they achieve limited success because the father was undone by alcohol, the mother suffered from mental illness. she was routinely institutionalized, which left a young charlie really in a very precarious situation. he lived on the streets briefly, and ended up in work houses, and as a result he had a great interest in touring as a performer, even at an age where someone might be in fourth or fifth grade. now, chaplin's early years on the stage and what passed for an education for boys in the warehouse did not generally create an intellectual. what he did to

compensate throughout his adult life was to read a great deal. he also loves talking with people in any political figure, any cultural figure that came his way and wanted to meet him he, was very interested in talking to them. he said that the education of the streets, the education of his childhood, was a key factor in his success in telling a story other people wanted to see and, eventually, hear. as he says in his autobiography, i did not have to read biographies to know that the theme of life is conflict in pain. instinctively, my clowning is based on this. by means of contriving a plot is simple, it is the process of

getting people in and out of trouble. chaplain and hollywood came together as a result of a lucky break. chaplin was touring in the uk with the frank carneugh company, which toward the uk theater and musical circuit. they did an extended tour of the united states and some american producers saw chaplin's comedy onstage and encourage him to come to work for american film. he was hired during his u.s. tour by the keystone company. this is a series of films famous for the keystone cops series of rough-and-tumble action films. during 1914, 1915, chaplin appeared in 35 keystone films where he created the tramp, which became a worldwide sensation almost immediately. this character, known to us all

even now, with his small size, his hat. is a very distinct look of big shoes, big pants, in a tiny coat. this inspired games, toys, dolls, and i'm a chaplains character the first multi media product. he went, in the words we use today, viral like nothing else of its day. by the time chaplin's 26 he had jumped to a series of different studios and at this point sign for an annual contract of $16 million into the money. this made him one of the highest paid people in the world the age of 29, in 1919, he cofounded united artists. where he had complete control of his films. the served his purposes both for making money but also having great control over his work. this was, of course, by this point, a chaplin's tramp was the dominant character of global

popular culture. years later, he admitted that the tramp was created almost by accident, he was about to go on stage and he needed a trip to the wardrobe room to outfit a new character. this is what chaplin said about the tramp. i had no idea about this character, but from the moment i was dressed, the clothes and the makeup made me feel the person he was. i began to know him and, by the time i walked onto the stage, he was fully born. you know this fellow is a many sided person, a gentleman, a tramp, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow. always hopeful of romance and adventure. chaplin doesn't talk all that much about the evolution of the tramp in his film. and in his quote, he suggests that the character was largely fully formed. but the tramp did undergo an adjustment as the years went by. the early trample as much more violent and combative than the later

tramp. in order to connect more with the audiences, the tramp evolved a bit to be more humanistic, more sympathetic of a character. that helped build his appeal. now, when we think about the political messages of chaplin, it's important to remember that it's not doctrinaire. chaplins work conveyed a mixture of conservative and liberal teams. and i would argue that his ideological fluidity in terms of his messages helped explain his widespread and enduring mass appeal. the fact that chaplin did always side with the vulnerable, rather than the powerful, did endear the tramp to a movie going public. after all, if you're trying to appeal to a mass audience, a character who connects more with the experiences of lower middle class and lower class people

will have more of an opportunity to sell tickets then one that connects with the elite. now, it's worth noting, of course, that chaplin's political messages, when they did occur, generally were not strident or intense. so, they didn't have the likelihood of driving his viewers away. there is one exception, that is of course the tough as nails parity of adolf hitler in the great dictator. this is a film of course famous for the scene in which there is a balloon painted globe that chaplin is tossing up into the air during the film. that would be the one exception, they all talk a little bit more about that film in a moment. now, chaplin repeatedly was warned by his half brother, sid, who was also his business manager, not to go too far in attacks on american politics and culture. in an early film, the immigrant, his brother urged charlie to delete

a scene that juxtaposes a shot of the statue of liberty seen by people on a boat coming to the united states and then followed almost immediately with immigrants who are corralled with rope like livestock to keep them from getting off the boat. sid was also concerned, years later, about his brothers contemplated hitler satire, the film that becomes the great dictator, because of the u.s. being neutral at that point vis-à-vis the war in europe. the image of a moment ago, of the rope and the cattle reference, that stayed in the film. it became the most iconic moment of that film. and of course the treatment of hitler was an extraordinary commercial success, although, of course, it was banned in germany. and also a great political success. the reality is that winston

churchill, who was a chaplin fan, was excited by this film. he thought it was extraordinary and really helped galvanize the british public against hitler. and fdr, in the united states, thought that chaplin's speech at the end of the great dictator, where chaplin himself is talking really more than the character that he plays, is a key moment in terms of thinking about a better world. and during his 1941 inauguration, this was for his third term, fdr wanted that speech as part of the inauguration day festivities. so, chaplin repeated it. the political orientation of chaplin, like the travels of the little tramp, were often more about the journey than the destination. efforts by scholars, film critics, and even by fbi director, j edgar hoover, to

place chaplin into an intellectual box, we are never all that convincing. opposition to what was seen as the communist messaging of chaplin and his immoral lifestyle were relatively widespread among conservative americans among the years after world war ii. hoover, of course, had a vendetta against chaplin, who he had never liked, and went to various friendly media outlets to try to encourage them to write a great deal about the controversial, at least, lifestyle of chaplin. as well as these issues of his potentially problematic

messaging. in mississippi congressman, speaking from the floor of the house of representatives, described chaplin in 1940, five at the end of the war, as a perverted subject of great britain who became famous for his forcible so seduction of white girls. the american legion boycotted his film, monsieur verdoux, for its anti capitalist message. this was a 1947. they also boycotted his film, limelight, which had very little in the way of political messaging content. perhaps other than the message that the world belongs to the young and one's own youth fades very quickly. which of course, had an autobiographical dimension for chaplin at this point. who himself was over 60 at the time of this film being made. but apart from the conservative activists who was never going to see his good side, the tramp character could pretty much always squirm free of trouble. and to squirm a free, as well, of efforts to define and can find him. in many ways, this character seemed still partially a child. and that small size, chaplin was about five foot four, allowed him to be over powered by authorities. and created public sympathy for the, quote, little guy who is

up against powerful authorities. chaplin, of course, made much of that by choosing costars who were quite a bit taller than average. many of them over it six feet, so they could really tower over chaplin to create the intimidating culture of power that chaplin was rebelling and resisting in his work. some critics criticized chaplin for offering a child-like character, but chaplin, particularly in his early years, carried a great deal about being funny and about being entertaining. and about producing profitable work. and so, it was a message that worked even if it might have been a controversial one. he had a range of friends that spoke to the range of political and cultural interests that he had. his friends ranged from john steinbeck, the radical author of the grapes of wrath,

max eastman, editor of the marxist publication the masses, to lord mountbaton, a member of the british royal family, last viceroy of india, and of course winston churchill. churchill wrote glowingly about chaplin's early work as an entertainer during churchill's own early days as a journalist. churchill, in fact, was a frequent flyer in the chaplin orbit, visiting him in hollywood and meeting with him during chaplin's various trips back to the uk. but conservatives beyond churchill could have found more to like about chaplin had they've been looking more carefully for things to like about his work. in many of his films, chaplin's character is a striving capitalist figure trying with all his might to find and keep a job in difficult circumstances. in many of the tramps films, chaplin's character is trying

very hard to escape poverty by his wits and find a way to settle down in a conventional marriage with a secure, one might even say suburban, dream of financial security. in modern times of 1936, which has my vote for the most interesting film to consider in this conversation about chaplin's politics, the little tramp runs off to apply for a job every time that he hears a factory is hiring. he even pushes his way to the front of the line to make sure that he gets one of the few jobs on offer. he is willing to wait tables, willing to sing at a restaurant for a paycheck. whatever and whenever work is offered, the tramp takes it. in fact, he even worked so hard in the factory, turning bolts, that he has a mental breakdown. so, chaplin's character, if you will, particularly in the film, moderntimes, not only pulls himself up by his boot straps,

as the saying goes, he does it over and over again in this film mom. chaplain and paulette godard, the half-wild orphan who becomes the tramp lover in this film, as well as wife number three after the film is released, dream together of one day having a suburban lifestyle with the latest appliances in the kitchen, steak cooking on the grill, generous front yard and even fresh milk at the ready. or at least they dream of this future, until a policeman comes by, telling them to move along from their spots on the curb outside of this lovely suburban home. modern times ends up with the two of them walking off together to what they imagine will be a brighter, more economically secure future that they made for themselves. this, by the way, it's one of the few times that the tramp ends up getting to girl at the end of

the picture. while this film certainly makes the argument that modern industrial labor is dehumanizing and potentially even soul killing, you also have in the story a vision of a working class white couple dreaming a very conservative, traditional future for themselves. as one of chaplin's son's, michael chaplin, started as a ten year old staring with his father, in the king of new york noted, his father could be quite bourgeois in his values. but conservatives could find quite a lot to dislike in the trump, who is an anti authority character above all. of course, in chaplin's personal life, as we discussed a moment ago. and his, film of course, chaplin, the tramps get out of poverty schemes involve less than honorable pursuits. in his 1921 film the kid, one of chaplin's schemes to put money in his pocket involves having a

youthful accomplice throw rocks at windows. then, as the residents of these locations are wondering what to do next, chaplin suddenly arrives on the scene with a mobile glass replacement kit on his back, ready to take care of the newly broken windows for a very modest fee. post tramp, in his 1947, film monsieur verdoux, chaplin's character romances and kills wealthy women for their riches. but he does so, chaplin makes clear, because he had been a successful banker before the depression. he had been let go by his company and could not obtain work year after year. work, by the way, that would help him support his wife, who is in a wheelchair, and a very young child. now, monsieur verdoux was actually one of the films that was used by critics of chaplin to portray him as a communist, or at least a communist sympathizer, given the argument here that capitalism can make a good but discarded man

desperate enough to turn into a killer. now, although many of the characters and his films do dream of getting wealthy, at least having enough to pay for room over their head, the people who are wealthy in chaplin's films tend not to be treated all that well. the swells, relatively small number of people who are affluent, in the 1923 film woman of paris, and the millionaire character in city lights, they seem incredibly miserable despite all the comforts that they have. the millionaire character in city lights, for example, routinely drinks too much, to oblivion. and then considers suicide even though he has more money than he could possibly use. but even on this point, that money isn't necessarily that panacea, there is still creative tension regarding this

message. consider chaplin's film, the gold rush, one of his early comedic successes, the prospectors are so cold and so hungry that chaplin cooks a boot soup and eats the boot. chaplin's starving companion even imagines chaplin as a chicken ready for supper. now, once they find gold and leave alaska on a luxury steam liner, money seems to have solved their problems. they have plenty to eat and tramp actually wins the girl who didn't think much of him back when he was poor, starving in alaska. now, as i think i have demonstrated if we look at the biography of chaplin, chaplin was a really no socialist in his private life. over the course of his career he focused

on getting steadily better paid and of course becomes one of the highest paid people in the country by the end of the 19 teens. he and his brother were very demanding in business negotiations and often insisted on three, sometimes more, counter offers before agreeing to a deal. he made up for the poverty of his childhood with every film, every promotion, with every new contract. he also, by the way, had a good financial sense to get out of the stock market in 1928. suggesting the financial savvy that many people did not possess a year before the biggest crash of 1929. for chaplin, filmmaking was never just about the money. even early in his career, he pushed for higher quality work from himself and his coworkers that had been the were, norm in those days of shoot and release

filmmaking. he created his own firm, united artists, so that he and his other top four celebrities of hollywood could produce their own films and have complete control over the film product. they enjoyed the film product. they enjoyed the profits of the production as well as the creative control that only their own film studio allowed. chaplin often shot ten times the amount of film that he needed. he would often do 20 takes about problematic, seen sometimes more with the cameras running, if that's what it took. since it was on his dime, he could do as he pleased. chaplin himself, asked about the ideological content of his films, really didn't see himself as really all that doctrine air. i'm an individual list, i believe in liberty, he said at one point. at another point, he said, if you really need a word to describe my politics, tell me a piece monger. he had great contempt,

of course, for the people who created the problems for the people. he blamed largely on political authorities who abused their power and sought to rule by intensifying the fear and hatred of one group against another. this is, of course, the anti immigrant question of the immigrant. the anti poverty question of modern times. and the jewish characters in the film, the great dictator, being victimized by the hitler-like character in that film. we can clearly see that chaplin was committed to this issue of the people, as opposed to the authorities. but there is no evidence that he was all that political in his own personal life. does bite his focus on all these social and political themes and his films, there was no record that chaplin ever voted in his native britain, nor did he ever seek to become a u.s. citizen during nearly

four decades of residents in california. chaplin, in many ways, did it all. he was the first at this, he was the first at that. one of the other things he was the first that doing was creating the first war comedy film ever produced, shoulder arms of 1917. he offered a send up of military life, as the trump struggles to march properly and fire a weapon, and he follows what seems to be absurd orders like dressing up as a tree to spy on the enemy. veterans love to the film when they came back from the war. they thought he really understood the terror and absurdity of military life. and by the way, watch shoulder arms if you haven't seen it, in the context of its true film

descendant, mash. i in his personal life, of course, chaplin was criticized by some for not serving in the war himself. but chaplin had failed to pass a british army physical. he did register for the draft in the united states but was not called to serve. in part, that's because he chaplin was so good at raising money for the war effort. chaplain routinely we raise money for war bonds by, films promotional materials and public appearances. his supporters and the u.s. and uk governments, grateful for his help and financing the war, said chaplin did fire more for the war as a fund-raiser than he could've ever done in the trenches. terms of his age, he would've been in the mid twenties on the war started and europe. clearly, within the realm of draft age. now, chaplin did want to use the word anarchist to describe himself. but he wasn't consistently hostile to all

authority either. clearly, chaplin this is clearly troubled by expanse of government power, particularly the not see movement. but also mccarthy-ism and the police. he also enthusiastically backed the new deal, one of the biggest economic interventions ever by the u.s. government to counter the great depression. and during world war ii, like many liberals in the u.s., chaplin pressured for a rapid opening of a second front in europe to help speed that defeat of hitler. he did some more than a year before the normandy invasion of 1944. and in the war years after world war ii, chaplin saw the atom as a wonderful source for peaceful energy that governments could used to do extraordinarily good things for people, particularly in countries that did not have high levels of health and safety standards. and criticize the governments of the day for focusing on nuclear weapons,

not nuclear energy. as i mentioned before, chaplin had this intense curiosity. he was always asking questions and talking to political leaders, scientists and cultural figures who would come across his path. because of his fame, many people would come across his path. once he settled for the remainder of his life, after his difficulty with the mccarthy era in the united states, he left for neutral switzerland. chaplin had conversations with communist leaders like joe and lie and aggression have. his critics not the old man might not know that he was being used by the top figures of the ussr and china, but i think they have exactly backwards. chaplin was interested in lessening the tensions of the cold war and understood, much like the cold war era in chief, richard nixon, did, that talking was much better than not talking. to me

though, we need to come back to the basic question of who chaplin was and how important his biography was to the narrative of his films. as i see it, no matter how rich chaplin became in his own personal life, he's still remembered of a poor kid who spent time in an orphanage, and foster homes, because of the unfortunate circumstances over which a child would have no control at all. the intense pain of losing a father to drink and a mother to mental illness never left him, no matter how popular or loved he became. he lived in fear in his life, even as he became extremely secure that he would be undone by alcohol, perhaps, or mental illness, perhaps. and as you look at the range of chaplin's work, you see an extraordinary sympathy for the

plight of children in the kid and in the king of new york. and for women facing tough times. perhaps as a result of his own deeply challenging youth. chaplin believed that the family must be kept together at all costs, no matter how poor the family was, if they could stay together, somehow they could get by. if you could keep the kids out of the orphanage, call it a win. that's a very conservative message. and the scholars have looked at chaplain have emphasized more of the liberal messages, but there is very powerful conservative messages in this work as well. to me, that is much more of a mark of his genius, the range of messages that he conveyed. i think that also is the reason for the extraordinarily successful way that nearly all of his films were treated by the film going public, regardless of what was going on

in the larger political environment. and times of war and peace, times of plenty and want, chaplin's films generated immense success at the box office i. i want to draw your attention to an interesting contrast between chaplin's personal life and the narrative of one of the signature things about his films. chaplin's films, particularly when compared to other films of the day, you're struck by the fact that many of the women in his films are treated with extraordinary high levels of respect. now, critics of course have noted that this was quite different than the way that chaplin treated many of the women at his personal life. but in his films the women were treated extraordinarily well. in the circus, one of the funniest of his films, the tramp gives a beautiful horse rider a breakfast egg head later and says she ignored him

and later marry the conventionally handsome high-wire acrobat who also stars and the circus. in city lights, which some people consider the best work of the trump, he buys a whole basket of flowers from a woman who is blind. even though he himself is struggling to get by. other women in his films are played as tough as nails, much more so than other characters and other films of this era. i'll draw your attention to particular to paulette goddard in modern times, she possesses and independents and ability to survive that mirrored the tramp's own capacity for overcoming adversity. i think it's important, as we put together this conversation about chaplin and his political messages, to think a few minutes about what makes political humor so popular and

so appealing across time. what jokes provide, above all, is a way to lighten the burdens of the day. they provide the means of addressing the challenges of human, collective experience. as long as we have live together, there have been public desires to poke fun at our leaders. mocking authority can ease the burden and dissatisfaction and frustrations of daily life. it's almost as if there is a human need to laugh at oneself, perhaps even more so at others. aristotle phonies made fun of the elites of ancient greece, 2000 years before chaplin made fun of the police in america and europe. as chaplin himself said, humor heightens our sense of survival and preserve our sanity. and i do think that it's a key aspect to political humor generally, and chaplin's

messaging in specific. humor is a key coping mechanism in a world that is run by others, people who claim or at least presumed to be the betters of oneself. jokes and mockery are common responses to the arrogance of elites. the tramp occupies what we might describe as a space of play that allows comics to say or, in the early films of chaplain, to do, through pantomime, taboo things that might be too critical or too controversial to be expressed by more conventional figures in film or in life. many of the things the tramp does would be treated much more harshly where they not on the silver screen. remember, the tramp in his early films is accrued and violent think figure, though he soft and as the years went by. the authorities in cap and films

were pretty consistently unpleasant, sometimes even sinister. the police were not around to help ordinary people in his films. they were authorities focused on protecting the owners of the factories and the wealthy, not the people struggling to get by. >> and such an environment, where hope is, at a minimum where it was during the empress depression, a joke. even a sharp one. that can reduce the, creeping authoritarianism as well. the potential risk in any centralized, powerful, modern government. even nations with democratic institutions and sentiments are not immune to leaders who need to be brought down a peg or two. for chaplain, no political figure was more irritating than hitler. as he described hitler in the autobiography it as his appearance, he described

hitler's face as a personally comic. a bad imitation of me with his absurd mustache, utterly stringing hair, and disgusting, thin little mouth. i could not take hitler seriously. of course, he did not but to hitler. seriously. as chaplains portrayal in the great dictator shows us, one great way to defeat a dictators to make them ridiculous. well brooks made the same point in the producers, with their famous play within a film of springtime for hitler. they play within a film format is one of the things that you can find commonly in chaplin's own work. but comedy is more than just making fun of the people who seem to have it better than you do. it is also, at its core,

an expression of optimism. the conviction that the future could be brighter than the past, that the optimism of chaplains work, the happy endings, or even the not so happy endings, at least the happy survival's of being able to fight another day and work up with another opportunity tomorrow. that is something the world needed to hear during the depression and world war ii. it is something that they needed to hear during the financial panics that marked the early 20th century. now, i have written a book about late night comedy and how television has made fun of political figures. if you look here in there you can see examples of the mockery

and imitations, the larger than life qualities of individuals that become the staple of late night comedy. chaplin, of course, did this decades earlier with his treatment of hitler in the great dictator. now, not everyone loved this film. although the afi places it in the top 100 films ever made. critics generally did like this film. the last few minutes, perhaps, where chaplin himself exhort people to work together towards building a better world seems little preachy to some, and it does seem like kind of an ill fitting part of the film. by the start of the 1950s that in the film speech that chaplin makes more or less as himself becomes a weapon against him used by the mccarthy movement.

the filmmakers critics argue the speech, now seem to represent, in the context of the 1950s, a communist call to arms. the very same speech that churchill and fdr love so much in 1940 had become a weapon against chaplin, ten years later. now, the nazi's, of course hated the great dictator. they banned chaplin's work and said that he was jewish, now, chaplin was a mixture of british, irish, french, but not jewish, when he died he requested in anglican service for his funeral. in the 1930s, chaplin didn't really want to deny the naughty claims that he was jewish because of concerns that it might exacerbate antisemitism if he said that he was not jewish. in fact, chaplin plays in the great dictator, a jewish character who becomes a hitler-like character in a mistaken identity case. paulette godard,, the female

lead in this film and modern times was half jewish. so, this dynamic of antisemitism was something that chaplin took very, very seriously. i do think that the most interesting thing is modern times, from the point of view of political messages and it comes from chaplin's own experiences in the world, in the years leading up to this production. chaplin, of course, had become a star during the days of silent film but by 1930 films were being made with the sound and chaplin really hesitated to produce films that contained sound. in the silent films, the tramp could be so much more active, so much more movement and energy then and scenes that

future dialogue. those would be more static, typically. and chaplin himself, wrote for years i have specialized in one type of comedy, pantomime. i have been able to establish exact principles to govern in its reactions to put audiences, a certain pace, certain tempo. dialogue, to my way of thinking, always slows action because action must wait for words. chaplin, the populist of course, always loved silence films because of the universal appeal. talking pictures, chaplin thought, seemed somewhat dehumanizing and elitist because the immigrants or people who didn't speak english would get so much more out of silent films then would of films that involved dialogue. now, chaplin the side in 1936 that is phil modern times would be the last film starring the tramp because it

would be the last film that he would possibly make without dialogue. so, chaplins travels, in the early 30s, during the height of the depression, he was on a promotional tour to promote city lights, also a silent film that he made and he was worried it wouldn't be commercially successful because it was old fashioned, in many ways, as talking films came to the fore. he spent more than a year in europe and asia talking with top political and cultural figures, but also going back to his old haunts in the industrial cities of britain's north and the poor neighborhoods of london and meeting with gandhi, where they had an extended conversation about technology and modernity. the key theme, of course, of modern times. david robinson, who wrote a first rate biography of chaplin, describes

at great length of chaplins travels and the film that becomes modern time in greater detail than i can go into here. above all, let me make an effort on the a point here, on the political dimensions of modern times. above all, chaplin argues that technology can be devastating. that it would, in fact, be fatal as technology advances, the tramp is chewed up in the machinery in the famous film image of modern times. it is also the tramp himself has to be given a voice and once he is given a voice, he then stops being the character that made chaplin famous and successful beyond others of his contemporary. >> the most famous scene is being pushed through the gears of the machine., probably the most

second most famous scene is back for that, where he is desperately trying to keep up with a new assembly line job by turning bolts on an assembly line. lucille ball, by the way, made an homage to that scene in her famous but short-lived job in the candy factory where she worked on a conveyor belt and shoved her mouth full of chocolates in the vain hope of keeping up with the rapidly moving assembly line. now, the first and only words the tramp

spoke on screen in this film was a gibberish song that contained nonsensical words from a variety of languages. chaplin had to make a talk-y, if he had to respond to the changes of technology, he would only do so very reluctantly and after a series of delays in the run up to what turned out to be a nonsense song. now, in the 1950s, sociologists started writing about what they call the lonely crowd. the idea that modernity was alienating. people after ill communities where they had multigenerational links and move to the city, where there may be many people around, but one was still down in that crowd. this idea, of course, had a revival in the scholarship 1990s where people talked about communities that had declined and where people were bowling alone. chaplin, however, got their head of the scholars. in modern times, in several other films before, that we get the message that urban life can be really damaging to individuals. the blue and bust cycles of capitals lead to unemployment, insecurity, and perhaps starvation for those who aren't getting by, at best when times are good. when they are on the top, workers are first become

part of the machine. there's another scene modern times where the tramp is locked into this mana automatic feeding machine that misfires and ends up trying to push bolts into his mouth and that sort of brings the machine and humanity into one piece, and that is not good for the people, as we see. we can't very well digest bolts, as the tramp learns pretty quickly, even though this experience was so bad for the tramp, to be on this assembly line and put in a hospital, he's in a great hurry to go back to the factory as soon as he can. what choice does he have? >> now, this film is artistic triumph because it

offers both a return to the playful area of the early tramp, as well as the comedic sophistication of the gold rush, another outstanding work by chaplin. not only, i would argue, is this a most interesting film to consider in the context of chapel politics, but it is also both his best and most important work in my view. let me say a few things about summing up this immense body of work, before we opened things up for questions. i think chaplin's main goal was a sympathy for the underclass. that receives a very different interpretation in the 1950s, during the days of j edgar hoover than it received in the 1930s in the 1940s. in all of his films, chaplins sympathies are with those struggling and the more that they're struggling, the more empathetic he could be. over his years as the tramp, the character evolved from an energetic in opportunistic cad, to a protector of the most vulnerable, like the young

child in the kid, the gamin in modern times and the discourage dancer in limelight, the truly desperate could always count on the tramp to share a little food he had and do whatever he could to make sure there was food for the next meal, which is often uncertain, but never heard of mind. as many scholars have noted, chaplin never forgot his own experiences during what was a lonely, hungry, and anxious childhood and the tramp and other chaplin characters did what they could to make sure that other vulnerable people never had to suffer as that young chaplin himself had done. now, chaplin could be an angry populist, making his films to kick an abusive police officer in the backside when he wasn't looking

and ridicule a clueless rich persons. chaplins comic and sometimes bitter criticism of unregulated capitalism and excessive ferment authority were not really anti-american subversive messages. hoover thought otherwise. agent started monitoring chaplin shortly after the end of world war one, just waiting for an opportunity to pounce on one of america's most visible non citizens. when chaplin left the u.s. for a european promotional tour during the depth of the mccarthy era, the u.s. government revoked his visa and blocked his return, rather than challenge that decision, which was made without any hearing or due process, chaplin moved to switzerland and left america behind. not forever. in his battles with the jay at your hoover's of this world, chaplin had the last laugh. he returned

briefly to hollywood in triumph in 1972 to receive a lifetime achievement oscar and what still stands as the longest standing ovation in the history of the academy awards. as he received his oscar tribute, chaplin was credited with believing that man's humanity was greater than man's in-humanity. now, chaplins oldest films are being seen by the great, great grandchildren of the original viewers. his extraordinary mixture of politics, social comedy, and slapstick humor people thinking about politics and laughing about those with money and power to this day. as chaplin once wrote, this is an excellent and wind code at one of the discussions of the great lives of a political film, we think too much, we feel too little. more than machinery, we need humanity. more than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. without those qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. thank you.

>> thank you very much. dr. farmer, very enjoyable. i have some questions to present to the group and, hello to our viewers at home i am, allie huber and i work with the great lives team. i tonight i am wondering, even though he was recognized in 1972 with all of those awards in the academy in the accolades, are there areas of his professional life that you think, where he was underrated? >> i think the true underrated genius of charlie chaplin comes from the fact that he could do so many think so well. when you look at people who tried to recreate chaplin on stage or screen, the imitators of chaplin including the excellent film of now 20 years ago of robert downie jr., you have a great appreciation for the entire package. the expressions, the movement, the writing of the story, the images that are being presented

in the film. the part that i think that chaplin doesn't receive as much credit as he might otherwise deserve is his work as a composer. chaplin had a very great sense of how to integrate music, into film. particularly, he's known films. he would create extraordinary connections between the music and the emotional experiences that one can see and hear through film. because, of course, his film his work was primarily in the early days silent film. there was an accompanying trip soundtrack that was used to convey not only sound effects, but also the move mood of the moment in the film so when you think about chaplin's work and particularly as i was putting together this presentation, it is really striking how much of the music is chaplin's own

creation. in a world in which many people struggle to master one instrument, he mastered three. that, i think speaks, to the capacity of charles and charlie chaplin not only as a filmmaker but it composer in connecting the music to the film. >> i think you are right, that he actually used his music is dialogue and i've watched clips of it you can tell how the story is moving with his movements. you know, he certainly showed the view of the american industrial workplace and he was certainly driven and passionate worker. when you think you would like to work for him at his studio? where he's obsessed with perfection? >> well it depends,. for some people, chaplin was extraordinarily generous. during the days when he had his own studio, he would pay people,

even between films. it wasn't as though they would be off the payroll while chaplin was traveling to europe or thinking about what the next project may be. he would make sure people were paid consistently. in some of his early film costars, you pay them salaries for life. even if they didn't appear in movies in the last 30 years of their lives, they still had a chaplain pension. so in that sense, it was a very generous place to work, but not for everybody.. the last film the chaplain directed from hong kong in 1967, it starred marlin brando who really did not get along with chaplain. chaplains styles are director often involved playing all the different characters, so he would tell many of the costars i want you to do the scene this way tampa size, dialogue to

make these motions. for someone with the talent and ability of marlin bandeau, this was simply not a way that he wanted to be directed. he described chaplain as an egotistical tyrant and a penny puncher. he harass people when they were late and scolded them on mercifully to work faster. noted about it, chaplin was a difficult task master. no matter how poorly you are treated in chaplin's workplace, had a lot to do whether you are there at the beginning, and whether you took direction we'll.. >> you know the, situation of him being called communist in the mccarthy area and having his visa revoked does make you wonder why, after living in the united states for 30 or 40 years, i'm not sure exactly how long, why he didn't

ever pursue citizenship or if he was married to the young fourth why, why he wouldn't be eligible to return because he was married to a u.s. citizen. while his wife actually joined him in switzerland, she gave up her u.s. isn't ship in exchange for the uk citizenship that she could obtain as the wife of charlie chaplin. so the couple made the decision that the minutes of 1950s was a very unpleasant place to be, particularly for someone being harassed by the fbi, so they had little interest in leaving the night states at that point. earlier though, in his career chaplain may have been more willing to become an american citizen, but even then he still thought of a uk's home. he went back to have extended physics in the uk regularly. he still saw himself as connected to the london embassy youth. his style, as a filmmaker, as a comedian had echoes of that 19th century victorian musical that gave you

the vaudeville style. that was really kind of the signature vision of the early chaplain work. >> so how did you become so connected, you know? where these films something that was presented to you earlier in your life because they would've been way before your time? what are you to explore chaplin's life? >> when i was in graduate school i was a teaching assistant to professor was very interested in political film. i found it really very interesting. now, i went on to teach a political film class in washington, and chaplain always struck me as our particularly crucial figure in the development of the american vision of film and particularly of the range of political messages that you could see. some filmmakers were much more

didactic. again, because i think he hadn't been as doctrine air or ideological lee rigid, he had an openness to arrange ideas and his films reflect that. that was part of their appeal. also, as i started writing about political humor and studying the lives of the early comics in light nato of asian, many of them made reference to chaplain. many of the things that came up involved the conversation about where, sort of, the first principles came from. as i was developing the book that became light night with trump, political humor of the american presidency, i started thinking i really need to consider more about where we came from. to get where where we are. make no mistake about it, political humor now is important part of

our political culture. it is an important part of how presidents are evaluated in an important part of how young people find politics interesting if they do. as a result of this wide-ranging impact of political humor on our contemporary politics it made a lot of sense to me to go back and see where we can think about political humor as getting its start. chaplain, in many ways, is the godfather of all that comes later, mel brooks, jimmy carson, so many others. lucille ball, so many others that is a part of it. there's also one other thing. when i think about a great lives presentations. i'm also interested in people who i can think of for length of time or interesting, they have enough complications, in their approach to the world that make them interesting in terms of not only political figures and cultural figures, but also as a

human beings. chaplin was never boring. >> so as a follow-up to tonight, if i were to go home and look up chaplain, i think on netflix, i'm not sure but i'm sure we can find chaplain movies. what would be your recommendation? >> if you are to think about the most important things to see of chaplains work, a lot of it depends on -- if you have not seen the two iconic full-length films of chaplains, political conversation, the great dictator in modern times, you should start there. the shorter, early chaplain can be very, very compelling to if you're in the mood more for the slapstick humor of the gold rush, is a compelling story. if you're interested in the sort of

vision of chaplains vision of what it's like to be a street or chin and struggling as a kid then the film the kid would be a compelling choice. there are a lot of opportunities, here. if you want to truly silly one, i would recommend the circus. >> well he is the clown, so circus might be the winner. thank you again dr. farms worth for an exciting lecture on charlie chaplain. i feel like i know the tramp now. >> thank you. >> good night everyone. and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span two comes from these television companies and more. including midco.

midco, all on with these television companies ort c-span two as a public service. start this year off shopping our new year sale, going now at c-span shop dot org, c-span's online ore. shop now for monday and save over % onur collection of hoodies sweatshirts and more. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps up for our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right to shop new year's day is now through monday on c-span shopped odd work. listening to programs on c-span from c-span radio just got easier. tell you're smart speaker place beat ban radio and listen to