orange county office are upset when these christian nightclubs, because they lose business, because all the people who used to go to them are finally going to these christian nightclubs. that is a great question. i'm curious -- not try to say that , if there was a gigantic evangelical christian nightlife scene, we would be living in a more political time, but you do wonder, if we limit the ability -- it is admirable -- i don't know if it is admirable -- it is interesting to think about what these nightclubs meant to these christians, trying to make inroads into these secular communities, and when they're gone, do they lose that ability to make connections with secular people and one? that is a very interesting question. i don't have a great answer for that. i will look into it. thank you all very much. thank you. tory posts.

well, good evening.ts. everybody. welcome to tonight's presentation on charlie chaplin who is known universally as an iconic comedian. what is not so generally known perhaps is the political impact of his humor. good evening, everybody. welcome to tonight's presentation of charlie chaplin, known in the university as an iconic comedian. not dan win on, perhaps, the political impact of his subject about which we will learn more this evening. first, let me thank arceri's sponsor, davenport company, not only for their support of tonight's lecture, for the support they have provided for the program over the years. the firm was the first corporate sponsor, and they have not only continued that

support, but have been instrumental in securing additional benefactors as well. i cannot emphasize enough how much their generosity has meant to the development of our program. the university and its students, as well as the larger community, are deeply indebted to them for this. speaking this evening, dr. stephen j. farnsworth received his ba from the university of missouri, kansas city, and a ba in government from dartmouth, followed by both m.a. and phd degrees in government from georgetown university. he worked for 10 years as a newspaper journalist before becoming a professor, and has lectured widely used the presidency and elections for u.s. and international audiences. a prolific scholar, he has written seven books, including "presidential communication and character," "the nightmare,"

"spinner and chief," and his most recent, "late-night with trump: political and the american presidency." also the author or co-author of dozens of scholarly articles about the presidency, the mass media, u.s. public opinion, 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 bbc world. he is currently professor of political science at the international affairs and director and center for leader and studies at the university of marion washington. he has taught courses in journalism, political science, political, negation at georgetown university, gail university and george mason university. during his tenure, dr. farnsworth has earned the reputation of being an outstanding teacher, as evidenced by winning the

university's three most prestigious awards and excellence of teaching, distinction further attested by his being the 2017 recipient of the virginia outstanding faculty award for the state council of higher education. fondly recalled by great patrons for his five previous presentations on president harry truman, lyndon johnson, richard nixon, and ronald reagan, as well as iconic entertainer johnny carson. it is a pleasure to welcome back to the podium my good friend steve 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, too, in your time, but few will ever compare 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 and 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, or director, or composer, or all of the above, represent an unequaled 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.

wc fields said he was the most amazing ballet dancer who ever lived, and marcel marceau said that he would never have become a mime if charlie chaplin hadn't been a movie star. once you start looking for them, you see references to chaplin's work just about everywhere you look in popular culture. of course, there are chaplin's obvious comedian descendents, like the early van or the young chevy chase, and even the manic comedic energy of mel brooks and jim carrey, but there are other impacts as well. chaplin was a compelling composer, and his smile arrangement -- this is the theme -- what played in the background for the final scenes of "modern times," became a hit record single decade later for nat king cole, and there have been some first- rate interpretations of this song produced originally by chaplin, now made famous by nat

king cole, judy garland, and barbra 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 -- the recall the tram 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 workouts where he lived for a while, and even dressed up for a promotional photo shoot he had planned, producing a smile 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 of humanity, particularly for 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 end jobs were lifemate be stressful, dangerous, and insecure. at this point, five generations of filmgoers, critics, and scholars, have not had a chance to dissect the iconoclastic, controversial, and tumultuous work of chaplin. his biography provides an important background for appreciating his legacy as one of history's most effective uses 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 great lives treatment does not necessarily mean that 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 against him. his first wife, he married too young, his second wife, a far younger costar, linda gray, actually assigned to ruin chaplin in a no holds barred divorce case, and another younger costar, paulette good art, the marriage fell apart because chaplin was so devoted to his work. he was so indifferent, in some cases, to his marriage. in the end, chaplin's fourth and final wife, anna o'neill, much younger, but the marriage lasted from 1943 until chaplin's death in 1977, at the

age of 88. one of the most unusual features -- and this is quite uncommon for hollywood stars who had significant control over their own films -- was that the character usually did not get the girl in the end .that may sound strange for chaplin, but it was, in many ways, the sadness of loves that haunted him throughout his days. his first love was a woman named helen kelly, irish singer and dancer who charlie met when they were both working in the musical circuit in london. she was 15, he was 19, and he said in his autobiography, although i met her but five times, and scarcely any of our meetings had 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 1921, just after the

war and chaplin had become the biggest name in filmmaking. this was also for the after his first marriage failed, but once he arrived in the uk, he discovered that the love of his teenage years died three years earlier in the spanish flu pandemic in many ways, she lives on, in characters, in many of chaplin's films, for people who study the autobiography of chaplin, and you can really see the extent to which these life experiences replicate themselves in his work. one of the ways i think that chaplin's life is a certain area is because it gave him such material for such a range of treatments of the human condition. now, to be sure, the age differences between chaplin and some of his wives and some of his girlfriend's were scandalous, even by the indulgent standards of early hollywood. one spousal age difference, though, was more troubling than the others. chaplin and his second wife, lida gray, she was a teenage actress who worked with chaplin

in one's first big hit called "the kid," they were discreetly married in mexico in 1924 following a surprise announcement of pregnancy she was 16 and he was 35, which created the possibility that he could have been tried under california law for sexual misconduct with a minor. they divorced in 1927 over what she said were his numerous affairs, and he was ordered to pay the equivalent of almost $9 million in alimony, as well as $1 1/2 million in current dollars for each of the two son s from this marriage. this was the largest divorced -- divorce settlement up to that point in american history. he had eight children with his fourth wife, the daughter of eugene o'neill. they went a month after she turned 18 -- chaplin 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 community, who viewed him as a dangerous, amoral influence, one particularly threatening to the american culture given his high visibility. in one of law enforcement's 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. but with chaplin, not only hollywood forgives him, but so, too, 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. he toured with young actors, starting at the age of 10. he was on the london stage as a teenager, and before he was

even 20 years old, he was regularly traveling in a company, music gags, aromatic opus aerobatic stunts and the like. both of his parents have been entertainers, but they achieved limited success because the father was undone by alcohol, the mother suffered from mental illness, and was routinely institutionalized, which left young charlie, really, in a very precarious situation. he lived on the streets briefly, ended up in workhouses, and as a result, he had a great interest in touring as a performer, even as 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 the boys of the workhouse did not generally create an intellectual. and so, what he did to compensate throughout his adult life was

read a great deal. he also loved talking with people in any culture or a political figure that would come his way and he wanted to meet, he was interested in talking with them, but 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 said in his autobiography, i did not have to read books to know that the theme of life is conflict and pain. instinctively, my clowning is based on this. my means of contriving a comedy plot is simple, it's the process of getting people in and out of trouble. chaplin and hollywood came together as a result of a lucky

break. chaplin was touring in the uk with the front corner company, which toured the uk theater and musical circuit. they did an extended tour of the united states, and some american producers saw chaplin's comedy on stage, and encouraged him to come to work for american film. he was hired during this u.s. tour by the keystone opening, 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 tram, which became a worldwide sensation almost immediately. this character known to us all, even now, with his small size, his hat, and his very distinct look of big shoes, big pants,

and a tiny coat, inspired games, toys, and dolls, and that may chaplin's character the first multimedia product. he went, in the words we use today, viral like nothing else of its day. by the time chaplin was 26, he had jumped to a series of different studios, and at this point, signed for an annual contract of $16 million in today's money. this made him one of the highest-paid people in the world. at the age of 29, in 1919, he cofounded united artists, where he had complete control of his films. this served his purposes, both for making money, but also having great control over his work. this was, of course, by this point, chaplin's tram, the dominant character of global popular culture. years later, chaplin admitted that the tram 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 trap. i had no idea about the character, but from the moment i was dressed in the clothes and makeup, it 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 mini- sighted person, a gentleman, , poet, dreamer, a lonely fellow, always helpful of romance and adventure. now, chaplin doesn't talk all that much about the evolution of the in his film, and in his quote, he suggests the character was largely fully formed, but the did undergo an adjustment as the years went by. the early was much more violent, combative than the later trap, and in order to

connect more with the audiences, the trap evolved a bit to be more humanistic, more sympathetic a character, and 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. chaplin no work conveyed a mixture of conservative and liberal themes. i would argue that his ideological fluidity in terms of his messages help explain his widespread and enduring mass appeal. the fact that chaplin did always signed with the vulnerable, rather than a powerful, endeared the to a movie going public. after all, if you are trying to appeal into 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 is worth noting,

of course, that chaplin's political messages, when they did occur, generally were not strident or intense, so, they didn't really have the likelihood of driving his viewers away. there's one exception though. that is, of course, the tough as nails. he in "the great dictator," of hitler. this is a film famous for the scene in which there is a balloon-painted globe that chaplin is tossing into the air during the film. that would be the one exception. i will talk a little bit more about that film in a moment. now, chaplin repeatedly was warned by his half-brother, sid, also his business manager, not to go too far in attacks upon 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 around with rope -- like livestock -- to keep them from getting off the boat. and sid was also concerned, years later, about his brother's contemplated hitler satire, the film that becomes "the great dictator," because of the u.s. being neutral because of the war in europe. the image a moment ago that rolled with the cattle, referenced, that stayed in the film, and it became the most iconic moment of that film. of course, and the treatment of hitler was the extraordinary commercial success, of course, banned in germany, but it was also a great political success. the reality is that winston

churchill, a chaplain fan, was excited by this film. he thought it was extraordinary, and really helped galvanize the british public against hitler. fdr, the united states, thought chaplin's speech at the end of "the great dictator," where chaplin himself is talking -- the character he plays -- is a key moment, in terms of thinking about a better world, and during his 1941 inauguration -- for his 3rd 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 -- were often more about the journey than the destination. effort by scholars, by film

critics, and even by fbi director j edgar hoover to place chaplin into an intellectual box were never all that convincing. opposition to what was seen as the communist messaging of chaplin and his immoral personal lifestyle were relatively widespread among conservative americans in the years after world war ii. of course, the vendetta against chaplin who he never liked, hoover 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. a mississippi congressman speaking from the floor of the house of representatives described chaplin in 1945 at the end of the war as a perverted subject of fame who became famous for his forcible seduction of white girls. the american legion boycotted his film, for the

anticapitalist message in 1947, and then, they also boycotted his film "limelight," was had very little in the way of political messaging content. perhaps, other than a message that the world belongs to the young and one's own youth fades very quickly, of course, which had an autobiographical dimension for chaplin at this four, who, himself, was over 60 at this time of the film being made. but apart from the conservative activists who are never going to see his good side, the character could be much always squirm free of trouble, and squirm free, as well, of efforts to defy and confined him. in many ways, this character seemed still partially a child, and that small size -- chaplin was about 5'4" -- allowed him to be overpowered by authorities

, and created public sympathy for the, quote, little guy who is up against powerful authorities. and chaplin, of course, made much of that by choosing costars who were quite a bit taller than average, many of them over 6'0", so they can really power over chaplin to create the intimidating culture of power that chaplin was rebelling and resisting in his work. now, some critics the size chaplin for offering a childlike character, but chaplin, particularly in his earlier years -- cared 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 marcisz publication "the masses," to or not back, member of the british royal family, last viceroy of india, and of course, winston churchill. churchill wrote glowingly about chaplin's early work as a young entertainer during churchill's on early days as a journalist. churchill, in fact, was a frequent flyer in the chaplin orbit, visiting him in hollywood, meeting with him during chaplin's various trips back to the uk. conservatives beyond churchill could have found more to like about chaplin, had they been looking more carefully for things to like about his work. in many of the psalms, chaplin is a driving, catalyst figure, trying with all his might to find and keep a job in difficult circumstances. in many of the 's films, chaplin's characters try very

hard to escape poverty by his wits and to find a way to settle down in a conventional marriage with a secure -- one might even say -- a suburban array of financial security. in modern times, 1936, which has my vote for the most interesting film to consider in this conversation about chaplin's politics -- a little runs off to apply for a job every time that he hears a factories hiring, 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 in a restaurant for a paycheck, whatever, and whenever work is offered. the takes it. in fact, he even works so hard at the factory, turning bolt, that he has a mental breakdown. so, chaplin main character, if you will -- particularly in the film, "modern times," he not only pulls himself up by the

bootstraps as the saying goes, he does it over and over again in this film. now, chaplin and paula good hard -- trump's love interest in the storm -- as well as wife number three after the film is released -- dreamed together, one day, about having a suburban lifestyle with the latest appliances in the kitchen, a steak cooking on the grill, a generous front yard, and even fresh milk at the ready -- or at least they dream of this future until a policeman comes by, telling him to move along from the spot on the curb outside this lovely suburban home. modern times" ends up with the two of them walking up together to what they imagine will be a brighter, more economically secure future that they make for themselves. by the way, this is one of the few times that the ends up getting the 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 this story, a vision of a working-class white couple dreaming a very conservative, traditional future for themselves. as one of chaplin's sons, michael chaplin -- this younger chaplin, michael chaplin -- start as a 10-year-old with his father in a film, "the king of new york," noted that his father could be visual in his dollies, but conservatives could find much to dislike in the trap. an antiauthoritarian character, an antiauthority character above all. of course, in chaplin's personal life -- as we discussed a moment ago -- in his film, of course, chaplin -- the 's get out of poverty schemes -- often involve less than honorable pursuits. in his 1920 film "the kid," one of chaplin's schemes to put

money in his pocket involves having a youthful accomplice throw rocks at windows, and then, as the residents of these locations are wondering what to do next, chaplin suddenly arrives on the scene with a glass replacement kit on his back ready to take care of the newly broken windows for a very modest fee. post-trip in his 1947 film, chaplin main 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 he could not obtain work year after year . work, by the way, that would help him support his wife, who was in a wheelchair, and a very young child. now, actually one of the films used by critics of chaplin to portray him as a communist, or communist sympathizer, given the argument here that capitalism can make it good, but

a discarded man desperate enough to turn into a killer. although many of the characters in his films do dream of getting wealthy, or at least having enough to pay for a roof 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 milliner character in -- they seem incredibly miserable despite all of the comfort that they have. the milliner character in "city of lights," principal, routinely drinks 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 the panacea, there's still a bit of

tension created 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 eat 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 the problems. they have plenty to eat, and -- wins the girl who didn't think much of him back when he was poor, starving, in alaska. as i think i have demonstrated -- as we look at the biography of chaplin -- chaplin was

clearly no socialist in his private life. from the start of his career, he concentrated 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 -- counteroffers. before agreeing to a deal. he made up for the poverty of his childhood with every film, with every promotion, with every new contract

he created his own firm so that he and his other top celebrities all of hollywood could produce their own films and have complete control. they enjoyed the profits of the production as well as the creative control that owning their own film studio allowed. often shooting 10 times the amount of film that he needed. he would often do 20 takes of a problematic scene. sometimes more the cameras running if that is what it took. since that was on his dime he can do as he pleased. the chaplain himself asked about the ideological content of his films. really didn't see himself as that doctrinaire. i believe in liberty he said at one point. and another point he said if

you really need a word to describe my politics called me a piece longer. we had great contempt for the people who created the problems for the people. and he blamed it largely on political authorities who abuse their power and sought to will 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. is is the jewish characters being victimized by vehicle or like figure in that film. we can clearly see that chaplain was committed to this issue of the people as opposed to the authorities. there is no evidence that he was all the political and his personal life despite his focus on all of the social and political themes in

his films there was no record that he ever voted in his native written nor did he ever seek to become a u.s. citizen during nearly 4 decades of residence in california. in many ways he did it all. he was the first at this. the first at that. one of the other things he was the first at doing was creating the first war comedy film ever produced. he offered a sendup of military life as the tramp struggled to marked properly and fire a weapon and he follows was seems to be absurd orders like dressing up as a tree to spy on the enemy. veterans love the film when they came back from the war. they thought he really understood the terror and the absurdity of military life. by the way, while shoulder and

arms if you have not seen it in the context of its true film descendent. in his personal life of course he was criticized by some for not serving in the war himself, but he had failed to pass a british army physical pain he did register for the draft in the united states but was not called to serve. that is because chaplain was so good at raising money for the war effort. which in the raised millions of dollars through films and promotional materials and public appearances. his supporters and the u.s. and uk governments grateful for his help in financing the war said he did far more for the war as a fundraiser that he could have ever done in the trenches. in terms of his age he would

have been in the mid 20s. clearly within the realm of draft age. he did once use the word an archivist to describe himself but was not consistently hostile to all authority either. clearly he was troubled by expensive government power particularly the movement and also the police. also backed the new deal. one of the biggest inventions ever by the government to counter the great depression. during world war ii like many liberals in the u.s. he pressured for a rapid opening of a second front in europe to help speed the defeat and did some more than a year before the invasion. in the years after world war ii he saw the adam as a wonderful source for peaceful energy that governments could use to do extraordinarily good things for so many people particularly in countries that did not have high levels of health and safety standards.

and criticized the governments of the day for focusing on nuclear weapons and not energy. he had this intense curiosity and was always asking questions and talking to political leaders and scientists 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 the difficulty with the mccarthy era in the united states he has left for neutral switzerland. chaplain had a conversation with communist leaders.'s critics thought the old man might not have been aware he was being used by the top figures of the ussr and red china, but i think they have it backwards. he was interested in listening the tensions of the cold war and understood that talking was

much better than not talking. to me though i think we need to come back to the basic question of who he was and how important his biography was to the narrative of his films. as i see it no matter how rich he became in his own personal life he still remembered the 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 that and and mother to mental illness never left and no matter how popular he became. he lived in fear in his life. even as he became extremely secure that he would be undone by alcohol or mental illness

perhaps. and as you look at the range of his work you can see extraordinary sympathy for the plight of children and for women facing tough times. perhaps because as a result of his own deeply challenging youth he 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 that a win. that is a very conservative message. many of the scholars who looked at him has really emphasized more of the liberal messages, but there are very powerful conservative messages as well. that is much more a mark of his genius. the range of messages he conveyed, and i think that is also 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. in times of war and peace his films generated immense success at the box office. i want to draw your attention to an interesting contrast between his personal life in the narrative of one of the signature things about his films. chaplains films particularly when compared to other films of the day are struck by the fact that many of the women in his films are treated with extraordinary high levels of respect. critics of course have noted this was different from how he treated many of the women in his personal life, but in the films that they were treated extraordinarily well. in the circus for example one of the funniest of his films the tramp gives a beautiful

young horse writer's own exist she ignore him and mary be conventionally handsome high wire acrobat who also stars in the circus. and city lights, which some consider his best work, he buys a whole basket of flowers from a woman who is blind and even though he is struggling to get by himself. other women in his films are played as tough as nails. much more so than other characters in other films of this era. i would draw your attention in particular to her in modern times. an ability to survive that mirrored their own capacity for overcoming adversity. i think it is important as we put together this conversation about his political messages to

think a few minutes about what makes political humor so possible and appealing across time. or jokes provide above all is a way to lighten the burdens of the day, and they provide the means of addressing the challenges of human collective existence. as long as we have lived together there have been public desires to poke fun at our leaders. mocking authority can ease the burden and frustrations of daily life. almost as if there is a human need to laugh at oneself and perhaps even more so at others. they made fun of the elites of ancient greece 2000 years before chaplain made fun of the police in america and europe. humor heightens our sense of survival and preserves our sanity.

i do think that is a key aspect to political humor generally and his messaging and specific. humor is a key coping mechanism in a world run by people who claim or presumed to be them. jokes and mockery are common responses to the arrogance. it occupies what we might describe as a space of play that allows comics to say or the earl the films to do through pantomimed taboo things that might be too critical or controversial. many of the things they do would be treated much more harshly were they not on the silvers rain. remember in his early films accrued in a violent figure. the authorities were pretty

consistently unpleasant. sometimes even sinister. the police were not around to help ordinary people in his films. rather they seem to focus on protecting the owners and not be workers and be wealthy and not the people who were struggling to get by. in such an environment where hope is at a minimum as it was during the depression a joke can reduce the creeping authoritarianism if you will. that is at potential risk in any modern government. even nations with the democratic constitutions are not immune to arrogant leaders who need to be brought down a peg or two.

>> as he described him in his autobiography he described his face as obscene in the comic. as his comic portrayal reminds us one key way to defeat a dictator is to make them ridiculous. decades later millbrook made the same point in the producers with their famous play within a film. at its core an expression of optimism the conviction that the future can be brighter than the past.

that the comedy is more than just making fun of the people that seem to have it better than you do. it is also an expression of optimism. the conviction that the future can be brighter than the past. that the optimism of chaplains work. the happy endings or even the not so happy endings. alleys that happy surviving >> being able to fight another day and make up with a new opportunity tomorrow. that is something the world really needed to hear during the per pression and world war ii pick something people needed to hear during the financial panics that marked the early of 20th century. i have written a book about late-night comedy and her television has made fun of

political figures. if you look here and there you can see the mockery and imitations. the larger-than-life quality of individuals that become the staple of late-night comedy. he did this decades earlier. not everyone loved this. although they place it in the top 100 films ever made in critics genuinely did like this film. the last few minutes perhaps where he exhorts people to work together towards building a better world seems a little preachy to some and does seem like an ill fitting part of the film. by the start of the 1950s that end of film speech he makes more or less of himself becomes a weapon against him used by the mccarthy movement.

the critics argue the speech now seemed to represent in the context of the 1950s a communist call to arms. the same speech that they love you so much had become a weapon against chaplain 10 years later. a band chaplains work and said that he was jewish. chaplain was a mixture of british, irish, and french but not jewish. when he died he requested an anglican service for his funeral. chaplain plays a jewish character who becomes the character in a case of mistaken identity.

wife number three. the female lead in this film and in modern times. what half jewish. think that tt interesting film. is modern times this dynamic of anti-semitism was something that he took very seriously. i do think the most interesting film was modern times from the view of political messages. it comes from his own experiences in the world in the years leading up to this reduction. chaplain had become a star. by 1930 films were being made with sound, and chaplain as he hesitated to produce films that contain sound.

for years i have specialized in one type of comedy. i've been able to establish exact principles. dialogue to my way of thinking always slows action because action must wait on words. the populace of course always loved silent films because of the universal appeal. talking pictures he thought seemed somewhat dehumanized and elitist because the immigrants are the people who didn't speak english would get so much more out of silent films. >> chaplain decided in 1936 his film in modern times would be

the last film because of be the last film that he could possibly make without dialogue. chaplains travels in the early 30s during the height of the depression. he was on a promotional tour to promote city lights. in many ways it was old- fashioned. spent more than a year talking with top political and cultural figures. meeting with gondi where they had an extended conversation about a key theme of modern times. david robinson describes the

links between his travels in the film that does become modern times in far greater detail than i have time to explain here. above all let me make an effort on the point of the political dimensions of modern times. above all he argues technology can be devastating. that it would be fatal. as technology advances in the famous film image it is also he has to be given a voice. when he is he then stops being the character that made him famous and successful beyond others of his contemporary. the most famous scene is being pushed. probably the most famous is the

one where he is desperately trying to keep up with an assembly line job. was a gibberish song that contained nonsensical words 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. if chaplain had to make a talking point 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. in the 1950s sociology started writing about what they call the loan the crowd. the idea modernity was alienated. people left their rural communities where they had multigenerational links in the moved to the city where there may be many people around but still alone in the crowd. this idea had a reliable scholarship of the 1990s were people talked about communities that had declined and where people were bowling alone. chaplain got there ahead of the scholars. in modern times and in several other films before that be get the message that urban life can be really damaging to individuals. the boom and bust cycles lead to insecurity. perhaps even starvation for those at best just getting by when the times are good.

when they are on the job workers are almost forced to become a part of the machine. there is another seen in modern times where the tramp is locked into this 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 cannot very well digest bolts. even though this experience was so bad to be on this assembly line in hospital he is in a great hurry to go back to the factory as soon as he can. what choice does he have? this film is an artistic triumph because it offers a return to the playful area of the early trap as well as the comedic sophistication of the gold rush.

another outstanding work by chaplin. i would argue this is not only the most interesting film to consider in his politics but 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 open things up for questions. i think his main goal was a sympathy for the underclass. that receives a very different interpretation in the 50s during the days of j edgar hoover. and all of his films his sympathies are with those struggling in the more they are struggling the more empathetic he could be. like the young child in the kid

in the discouraged dancer. the truly desperate could always count on the tramp. and the tran characters did what they could to make sure as many scholars have noted he r never forgot his own experiences during what was an anxious childhood and other characters did what they could to make sure other vulnerable people never had to suffer as that young chaplin himself had done. chaplin could be an angry populist. his bitter criticisms of

unregulated capitalism are not really into american messages. agents started monitoring chaplin shortly after the end of world war i. they revoked his visa and thereby blocked his return. rather than challenge that decision which was made without any hearing or due process. in his battles with the j edgar 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 to

receive what still stands as the longest standing ovation in the history of the academy awards. as he received his oscar tribute he was credited with believing that man's humanity was greater than man's inhumanity. chaplin's oldest films are being seen by the great grandchildren of their original viewers. extraordinary mixture of politics and social comedy and slapstick humor keep us thinking about politics and laughing about those with money and power to this day. this is an excellent discussion to one of the great lives of political film. we think too much. we feel too little. more the machinery we need humanity. without those qualities life would be violent and all would be lost. thank you.

>> thank you very much. a very enjoyable. i have some questions to represent for the group. hello to our viewers at home. tonight i am wondering even though he was recognized in 1972 with all of those in the academy and 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 he could do so many things so well. when you look at people who try to re-create chaplin on stage or screen the imitators including the excellent film of 20 years ago a robert downey jr. he have a great appreciation for the entire package.

expressions and movement and images that are being presented in the film, but the part i think that he 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 with film. particularly his own films. he would create extraordinary connections between the music and the emotional experiences that one can see and hear through film. because his work was primarily in his early days silent film there was an accompanying soundtrack that was used to convey not only sound effects, but the mood of the moment in the film. when you think about his work and particularly as i was putting together this presentation. it is really striking how much

of the music is his own creation. in a world in which many people struggle to master one instrument he mastered three. and that i think speaks to the capacity of him as a filmmaker and composer in terms of connecting the music to the films that he used. >> i think you are right that he actually used it as dialogue here when i watch clips of that you can tell how the story is moving with this. he certainly showed the view of the american industrial workplace and was certainly driven and a compassionate worker. what do you think it was like to work for him at his studio where he is obsessed with perfection? >> it depends. for some people he was extraordinarily

generous. in the days when he had his own studio he would pay people even between films, so it wasn't as if they would be off the payroll while he was traveling to europe thinking about the next project. in some of his early films does he pay them salaries for life. even if they didn't show up in movies they still had a chaplin pension. in that sense it was a very generous place to work, but not for everybody. the last film he directed in 1967 started marlon brando who really did not get along with him. his style as a director often involved playing all the

different characters. he would tell many of the costars i want to to do this as a way to emphasize this dialogue and make these motions. for someone with the ability of marlon brando this was simply not the way that he wanted to be directed. he described chaplin as an egotistical tyrant in penny pincher. scolded them unmercifully to work faster. no doubt about it he was a difficult task master. how well or how poorly you were treated had a lot to do. >> the situation of him being called a communist and mccarthy era and having his visa revoked does make you wonder why after living in the united states for 30 or 40 years.

why he didn't ever pursue citizenship or if he was married why he wouldn't be eligible to return because he was married to a u.s. citizen. >> his wife actually joined him and gave up her u.s. citizenship in exchange for the uk citizenship she could obtain as the wife of charlie chaplin. the couple made the decision the united states was a very unpleasant place to be particularly for someone being harassed by the fbi, so they had little interest living in the united states at that point. earlier though he might have been more willing to become an american citizen. he still thought of the uk as home.

his style had echoes of the music hall. that gave you the vaudeville style that was build the kind of the signature vision of the early chaplin work. >> how did you become so connected ? they would have been way before your time. what drew you to explore his life? >> when i was in graduate school i was very interested in political film and found it very interesting. i went on to teach a political film class at washington. chaplin always trust me as a particularly crucial figure in the development of the american vision of film and particularly of the range of political

messages that you could see. ty comics of late night television many of them made reference to chaplain many of the things that came up involved the conversation about where sort of the f studying the lives of the earlyc comics of late-night television. many of them may reference to chaplin. a conversation about where the first principles came from. as i was developing the book i started thinking i really need to consider more about where we

came from to get to where we are because make no mistake about it political humor now is an important part of our political culture. an important part of how presidents are evaluated. as a result of this wide range of impact of political humor on our contemporary politics made a lot of sense to me. there is also one other thing. when i think about great light presentation i am also interested in people who i can think about from at the time were interesting and have enough complications in their

approach to the world that make them interesting in terms of not only political figures but also as human beings. he was never boring. >> as a follow-up to tonight if i were to go home and look up chaplin. i think it is on netflix. what would be your recommendation? >> if you were to think about the most important things to see of his work a lot of it depends on the mood that you are in. be a

compelling choice. there are a lot of opportunities here and if you just want the, you know, truly silly work, i would recommend this circus, okay. he is the clown and so circus might be the winner. there are a lot of opportunities here. if you just want that i would recommend the circus. >> circus might be the winner. thank you again for an exciting lecture on charlie chaplin. i feel like i know the tramps now. >> thank you. >> good night, everyone.