trying to make inroads into the secular communities. when they are gone, do they lose the ability to make connections with secular people? i don't have an answer to that but i will look into it. well, thank you all very much, thank you. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events from live streams and or proceedings in hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c- span's tv networks and c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play.

available for download today or on our websites. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. good evening, everybody. welcome to tonight's presentation of charlie chaplin, who is known universally as an iconic comedian. but is not so generally known, r perhaps, for the political impact of his humor. a sad fact about which we will learn more this evening at first, thanks to the sponsoring company or their support of tonight's lecture and the support they provide the program over the years. the davenport firm was our very first corporate sponsor. not only continue that support would have been instrumental in securing additional benefactors, as well. i cannot emphasize how much their generosity has meant to the development of the program.

university students as well as the larger community are deeply indebted to them for this. dr. stephen j farnsworth received his ba in history from the university of missouri, kansas city nba government from dartmouth followed by an ma and phd degree in government from georgetown university. a newspaper journalist who has lectured widely. national audiences. a prolific scholar, he has written seven books including presidential communication and character. nightly news nightmare. spinner in chief and his most recent late-night tromp, the american presence. also co-author of dozens of

scholarly articles of the presidency and past media and politics. his political commentary has. widely from outlets including the new york times, washington post, pbs news hours, politico, c-span and bbc world. he is currently professor of political science and international affairs of the center for media studies at the university of washington and. he has taught courses in political science, journalism and communication from georgetown university and george mason university. during his tenure, dr. farnsworth had earned a reputation of being an outstanding teacher. as evidenced by women the universe's three most studious awards for excellence in teaching, a distinction further tested by his being a 2017 recipient of the virginia

preston and faculty award from the state council on higher education. the five previous presentations on president truman, johnson, nixon, reagan as well as iconic entertainer johnny carson. it is a pleasure to welcome to the great love party of my good friend steve farnsworth. ting pe history of american film. now you may have heard a rags to riches story or two in your time, but >> thank you so much. il i'm delighted to be here and 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 you will ever come 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 into decades. charlie chaplin, the world's first and arguably largest global movie star was so affected that offering enigmatic political messages, we are still debating what he was trying to say it 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 or 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. wc fields said he was the most amazing ballet dancer who ever lived and marcel marceau said he would have never become a mind if charlie chop and have not been a movie star.

now once you start looking for them, you see references to chaplin's work, just about everywhere you work in popular culture. there are of course the obvious comedic descendents, people like the early van or the young chevy chase. even the manic comedic energy of mel brooks and jim carrey. there are other impacts, as well. chaplin was a compelling composer, and his smile arrangement, this is the team played in the background 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 this song produced originally by chaplin, but now made famous by nat king cole, judy garland and barbra streisand. this was also michael jackson's favorite song. you can even look closely at some of michael jackson's dance

moves. they were called the , as well. chaplin was such an inspiration to michael jackson that on one of his trips to london, michael jackson insisted on toured the neighborhood were traveling grew up, the workhouse where he lived for a while. he even dressed up as the for a promotional photo shoot. she 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, protect lily for those people facing acute hardship. chaplin and his work routinely asks key questions about whether vulnerable people can survive or even thrive in the face of societal upheavals of modernization. he says above all that the crisis of modernity is pretty overly acute when you consider

it in the context of the growing power of business, greater vulnerability of workers and the factories and jobs where life may be stressful and dangerous attendance at your. at this point, five generations of filmgoers, critics and scholars have now 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 users of mass media to shape political and cultural messages. one key point that i think is important to make at the outset is that a person's selection as meriting great lives treatment does not 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 against him. his first wife, he married too young. his second wife, a far younger costar, sought actually to ruin him in a no holds barred divorce case. another far younger costar, their marriage fell apart because he was so devoted to his work and so in different in some cases to his marriage. in the end, chaplin's fourth and final wife was much younger. that was a marriage that 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. now that may sound strange for chaplin. it was the sadness of love that haunted him throughout his days. the first love was an irish singer and dancer who he 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've met her but five times and scarcely any of our meetings have 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 after he had become the biggest name in filmmaking. this was also shortly after his first urge failed. once he arrived in the uk, he discovered that the love of his teenage years had died three years earlier in the spanish flu epidemic. in many ways, she lives on, and

characters in many of chaplin's films. from people who study the autobiography of chaplin, you can really see the extent to which these life experiences replicate themselves in his work. one of the ways that chaplin's life is so extraordinary, it gave him such material for such a range of treatments of the human condition. to be sure, the age differences between chaplin and some of his wives and girlfriends were scandalous, even by the indulgent standards of early hollywood. one spousal age difference was more troubling than the others. chaplin and his second wife, leta gray, was a teenage actress who worked with him in one of his big hits. 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 1.5 million in current dollars for each of the two sons from the marriage. this was the largest divorce settlement up to that point in american history. he had eight children with his fourth wife. they waited a month after she turned 18. he was 54 at the time. these age differences were a particularly powerful weapon in the hands of chaplains next, particularly in the law enforcement community who viewed him as a dangerous, and

moral influence, 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 a law that prohibited moving women across state lines for immoral purposes. with chaplin, not only hollywood forgives him but so, too, did america. the jury acquitted him and people continued to see his movies. he had not a great deal of formal education. he was largely self-taught and 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 vaudeville company musical gags, acrobatic stunts and the like.

his parents had been entertainers, but they achieved limited success because the father was undone by alcohol and 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. he ended up in workhouses. as a result, he had a great interest in touring as a performer, even at an age where someone might be in fourth and fifth grade. 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. what he did was a great deal. he loved to talk to any political figure or cultural figure who came his way.

he was interested in talking with them. he said that the education of the streets, his childhood, was a key factor in his success in telling the story that other people wanted to see and eventually hear. as he said in his autobiography, i did not have to read books to know that that aim of life is conflict and pain here instinctively, my clowning is based on this. my means of contriving a comedy plot is simple. it is the process of getting people in and out of trouble. chaplin and hollywood came together as the result of a lucky break. chaplin was touring in the uk with the company that toured the uk musical and theater

circuit. they did an extended tour in the united states, and some american producers saw chaplains comedy on stage and encouraged him to come to work for american found. he was hired during the u.s. tour by the keystone company. this is a series of homes famous for the keystone series of rough-and-tumble action homes. during 1914, 1915, chaplin appeared in 35 keystone films. became a worldwide sensation almost immediately. this character known to us even now with his small size, his hat and his very distinct look of pictures, big pants and a tiny code inspired games, toys and dolls. that made chaplains character the first multimedia product.

he went in the words we use today, viral like nothing else in it day. by the time chaplin was 26, he had been with a series of different studios and signed for an annual contract of $16 million in today's. making the highest paid people in the world. at the age of 29, he cofounded to have complete control of his films, both for making money but also having great control over his work. this was of course, by this point, he was the dominant figure 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. from the moment i was dressed, the clothes in the makeup, made me feel the person he was. i began to know him. by the time i walked off of the stage, he was fully born. you know this fellow is a many sided person. a gentleman, a tramp, a dreamer, a lonely fellow always dreaming of romance and adventure. he does not talk much about the evolution of the tramp in his film. 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 tramp was much more violent and combative than the later tramp. in order to connect more with audiences, the tramp evolved to be a bit more humanistic and sympathetic of a character which helped build his appeal.

when we think about the political messages of chaplin, it is important to remember that it is not doctrinaire. chaplains work conveyed a mixture of conservative and liberal themes. i would argue that his ideological fluidity in terms of his messages help lane is widespread and adoring mass appeal. the fact that chaplin did always side with the vulnerable, rather than the powerful, endeared him going public. if you are trying to appeal to a mass audience, a character who connect more with the experiences of lower middle class and lower class people will have more of an opportunity to sell tickets than one that connects with the elite. it is worth knowing, of course that chaplin's political messages when they did occur were generally not strident or intense, so they did not really have the likelihood of driving his viewers away with one

exception. that is of course the tough as nails parody of adolf hitler in the great dictator. a film famous for the scene in which there is a balloon that chaplin is tossing up into the air. that would be the one exception. i will talk a little bit more about that film in a moment. chaplin repeatedly was warned by his half brother, said, 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 about coming to the united states followed almost immediately with immigrants corralled with rope, like

livestock, to keep them from getting off the boat. and sid was also concerned years later about his brothers contemplative hitler satire that becomes the great dictator, because of the u.s. being neutral at that point vis- @-vis the war in europe. the immigrant image by the way, from a moment ago, the rope and the cattle reference, that stayed in the film and it became the most iconic moment of the film. and of course, the treatment of hitler was an extraordinary commercial six test, although banned in germany. and also a great political success. the reality is that winston churchill, who was a chaplain man, was excited by this film. he thought it was extraordinary, and really

helped galvanize the british public against hitler. fdr and the united states thought chaplains speech at the end of the great dictator where chaplin himself is talking more than the character that he plays is a key moment in terms of taking about a better world. during his 1941 inauguration, this was for his third term, fdr wanted that speech as part of the inauguration day festivities. and so chaplin repeated it here the political orientation of chaplin, like the travels of the little tramp were often more about the journey than the destination. efforts by scholars and critics, even by fbi director j edgar hoover to place chaplain into an intellectual box were never convincing. opposition to what was seen as the communist messaging chaplin and his immoral personal

lifestyle were relatively widespread among conservative americans in the years after world war ii. hoover, of course, had a vendetta against chaplain who he had never liked and went to various media outlets to try to encourage them to write a great deal about the controversial lifestyle of chaplin as well as these issues of his potentially problematic messaging. mississippi congressman speaking from the house of representatives, described him in 1945 at the end of the war as a perverted subjective britain who became famous for his forcible seduction of white girls. the american legion boycotted his film for its anticapitalist message in 1947. and also boycotted his film limelight, which 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 which had an autobiographical dimension at this point, who was over 60 at the time the film was made. apart from the conservative activist who were never going to see his good side, the tramp character could always score him free of trouble and his efforts to define or confine him. >> in many ways, this character seemed still partially a child. and that small size, he was about five foot four, allowed him to be overpowered by authorities, and created public sympathy for the, quote, little guy who is up against powerful authorities. of course, he made much of that

by choosing costars who were quite a bit taller than average. many of them over six feet, so they could really tower over him to create the intimidating culture of power that he was rebelling and resisting in his work. some critics criticize chaplin for offering a child like her her, but particularly in his early years, he cared a great deal about the made funny and entertaining and producing profitable work. it was a message that worked even if it might have been a controversial one. he had a range of trends that spoke to the range of political and cultural interest that he had. his friends wrenched from john steinbeck, author of the grapes of wrath, max eastman, editor of the publication of masses to a member of the british royal

family, the last viceroy of india and church health who wrote about chaplin's younger work as an entertainer during his early days as a journalist. he was a frequent flyer and the chaplin orbit, visiting him in hollywood, meeting with him in various trips back to the uk. conservatives beyond churchill could have found more to like at them and looking more carefully for things to like about his work. and many of his films, chaplains care there is a striving capitalist figure trying with all of his find -- might to find and keep a job in difficult circumstances. in many of the tramp's films, his character tries to escape poverty by his wits and find a way to settle down in a conventional marriage with a secure or one might even say a suburban dream 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. the little tramp runs off to apply for a job anytime he hears the factories hiring. he pushes his way to the front of the line to make sure he gets one of the few jobs on offer. he is willing to wait tables, sing in a restaurant for a paycheck, whatever and whenever work is offered, the tramp takes it in fact, he even works so hard in the factory, turning bolts, that he has a mental break down. so his character, if you will, particularly in this film, not only pulls himself up to the bootstraps as the saying goes, he does it over and over again in this film. now chaplain and bedard, the haft wild orphan who becomes

his love interest in this film as well as wife number three after the film was released, dream together of one day having a suburban lifestyle with the latest appliances in the kitchen and a stake cooking on the grill, a generous front yard, even fresh milk at the ready. or at least they dream of this future until a police man comes by telling them to move along in their spots on the curb outside this lovely suburban home. modern times, it ends up with the two of them walking up together to what they imagine will be a brighter, more economically severe -- secure future that they made for themselves. this is one of the few times, by the way that the tramp ends up getting the girl at the end of the picture. this film 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 sons, michael chaplain, the younger chaplain, stars as a 10-year- old with his father in a film, the king of new york. noted that his father could be quite usual in his values are that of course, conservatives could find much to dislike in the tramp , who is an antiauthoritarian character. and of course in his personal life, as we discussed a moment ago. in his films, of course, they get out of poverty schemes, often involving less than honorable pursuits. in his 1921 elm, one of his to put some money in his pocket loves having a youthful accomplice throwing rocks at windows. then as the residence in 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. in his 19 87 film, his character romances and kills wealthy women for the rich is. but he does so, chaplin makes clear, because he had been a successful banker before the depression. she 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. this 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 it good, but discarded man, desperate enough, will turn into a killer. many of the characters in his films to dream of getting wealthy or at least having

enough to pay for a roof over their head. the people who are wealthy and chaplin's films tend not to be treated all that well. the swells, the relatively small number of people in the 1923 film, women of harris, and the millionaire character in city lights seem incredibly miserable despite all the comfort 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 can possibly use. even on this point, money is not necessarily the panacea. there was still a bit of 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 they cook a boot

suit and eat the boot.'s companion, starving, even imagines chaplin as a chicken, ready for supper. 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 did not much of him back when he was poor and starving in alaska. now as i think i've demonstrated, as we look at the biography of chaplin, he was clearly no socialist in his private life. very demanding in business negotiations and often insisted on three sometimes more counteroffers. focused on getting steadily gr better paid, of course, becoming 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, often insisting on three, sometimes more, counter offers before agreeing to a deal. he made up for the poverty of his childhood with every film, with every promotion, with every new contract. by the way, he also had the good financial sense to get outm 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, though, filmmaking was never just about money. even early in his career, he pushed for higher-quality work from himself and coworkers that had been butting the norm in the early days of should and really spell making. he created his own firm, united artists, so that he and his other top drawer celebrities in hollywood can produce their own

films and have complete control over their film product. they enjoyed the profits of the production o, as well as the creative control that the owning of their own film studios allowed. chaplin often shot 10 times the amount of film he needed. he often would the 20 takes of a problem annexing, sometimes more, with cameras running if that is 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 doctrinaire. i am an individualist. i believe in liberty, he said at one point. and another point, he said, if you need a word to describe my politics,, a piece mode. he had great contempt for the people who created the problems for the people, and he blamed

it largely on political authorities who abused their power and sought to rule by intensifying the fear and hatred of one group against another. of course, this is the anti- immigrant question of "the immigrant," the antipyretic question of "modern times," and it is the jewish characters in the film "the great dictator," being filled victimized by the hitter-like figure in the film. so, we can clearly see that chaplin was committed to this issue of the people, as opposed to the authorities, but there's no evidence that he was all that political in his own personal life. despite his focus on all these social and political themes in his films, there was no record chaplin ever voted in his native britain, nor did he ever seek to become a u.s. citizen after nearly four years of residents >> in california, and in many ways, chaplin did it all.

he was the first at this and that. one of the other things he was the first at doing was creating the first comedy film ever produced, shoulder arms of 1917. chaplin offered a sendup of military life as the -- struggles to march properly, fire a weapon, he balls what seems to be absurd orders like dressing up as a tree to spy on the enemy. veterans love the film when they come back from the war. they think he really understood the terror and the absurdity of military life. by the way, watch "shoulder arms " if you haven't seen it in the context of its true film descendent, "m.a.s.h." chaplin

had failed to pass a british army physical, and he registered for the draft of the united states, but he was not called to serve, in part, because chaplin was so good at raising money for the war effort . chaplin routinely raised millions of dollars of public appearances for war bonds through films, promotional materials and public appearances. his supporters and the u.s. and uk government was grateful for his help and financing of the war and said chaplin did far more for the war as a fundraiser than he could have ever done in the trenches. in terms of his age, he would have been in the mid-20s when more started. clearly, within the realm of draft age. now, chaplin did once nsuse the word anarchist to describe himself, but he wasn't consistently hostile to all authority either. clearly, chaplin was troubled by expansive government power, particularlyic the -- movement,

but also mccarthy and the police. but 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 like many liberals in the u.s., chaplin pressured for a rl rapid opening of a second front in europe to help speed the defeat of hitler. he did so more than a year before the normandy invasion of 1934, and in the years after world war ii, chaplin sunday wonderful source for peaceful energy that governments can usen it to do extraordinarily good things for so many people, particularly in countries that do not have high levels of health and safety standards, but also criticized the governments of the day for focusing on nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy as i mentioned before, chaplin had that's intense curiosity, and 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 with 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. chaplin had conversations with communist leaders like lena brezhnev. chaplin's kwik stop the old man might not have been aware that he was being used by the top figures of the ussr and red china, but i think they have it exactly backwards. chaplin was interested in lessening the tensions of the e cold war, and understood, much like the cold where as g richard nixon did, that talking was much better than not talking. to me, though, i think we need to come back to the basic question of who chaplin was and how b important his biography w to the narrative of his films.

as i see it, no matter how rich chaplin became in his own personal life, he still remembered the poor kid who spent time in an orphanage, spent time in 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 loved he came to be. 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," again inp "the king of new york," and

again for women facing tough times, perhaps because his own -- 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 can keep the kids out of the orphanage, call it a win. that is a very conservative message, and many of the scholars who have looked at chaplin have really emphasized more of liberal messages, but there are very powerful conservative messages in this as well. to me, that is much more a mark of his genius, the range of messages that he conveyed, and i think that also is the reason for the extraordinarily successful i way that nearly al of they were treated by the film "going public," regardless of what was going on in the larger political environment. in times of war and peace, in times of plenty and want,

chaplin's films generated immense success at the box office. 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, are struck by the fact that many of the women in his films are treated with extraordinary high levels of respect. of course, critics have noted that this was quite different from how chaplin treated many of the women in his personal life, but in the films, they were treated extraordinarily well. in "the circus," for example, one of the funniest of chaplin's , the olympus gives a beautiful young horse rider has only breakfast egg and later insists that she ignore him and instead marry the conventionally handsome, high wire acrobat, who also stars in a circus.

in "city of lights," with some people consider -- the best work of the -- 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 in other films in this area. i will try your attention, in particular, to paul eckardt in " modern times," simply mirroring the -- 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, 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 the satisfaction and frustrations of daily life. it's almost as if there is a human need to laugh at one's self, and perhaps even more so, at others. aristophanes 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 preserves our sanity. i do think that that is a key aspect to political humor, generally, and chaplin's messaging, in specific. humor is a key coping mechanism in a

world run by others, people who claim or at least presumed to be the batter's of the world itself. jokes and mockery are common responses to the arrogance of elites. the -- occupies what we might call a space of play that allows comics to say -- or the early forms of chaplin -- to do -- to 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 that the -- does would be treated much more harshly than on the silver screen. remember, the -- in his early films -- is a crude and violent figure, although, he did, of course, suffer as the years went by, but the authorities in chaplin's phone, pretty consistently unpleasant, sometimes even sinister, the police were not around to help ordinary people in his films.

rather, they were authorities seemed to be focused on protecting the owners of the factories, not the workers, and the wealthy, 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 dropped -- even a sharp one -- can reduce the creeping authoritarianism, if you will, the potential risk in any centralized, powerful, modern government, even nations with democratic constitutions are not immune to arrogant leaders who need to be brought down a peg or two. now, chaplin -- no political vigor was more irritating than hitler -- as he described heather in his autobiography, his appearance -- he described heather's face as obscenely comic, a bad imitation of me,

with its absurd mustache, unruly, stringy hair, and disgusting, thin little mouth. i could not take hitler seriously. of course, he did not take hitler seriously. as chaplin's portrayal of him it in "the great dictator" reminds us, one key way to defeat a dictator is make them look ridiculous. decades later, mel brooks made the same point in "the producers," with their famous play within a film of "springtime for hitler." by the way, the play within a film format is one of the things that you can find commonly in chaplin's on. but comedy is more than just making fun of people who seem to have a 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

chaplin's work, the happy ending s, or even the not so happy endings, at least the happy survivings, being able to fight another day, being able to wake up with a new opportunity tomorrow, that's something the world really needed to hear during the depression, during world war ii. it is something people 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, and if you look here and there, you can is see examples of the mockery and the 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, and critics generally did like this film. the last few minutes, perhaps, where chaplin himself exhorts people to work together towards building a better world, seems a little preachy to some, and it does seem like kind of an ill- fitting part of the film, but by the start of the 1950s, that end of 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 seemed to represent a -- in the context of the 1950s -- a communist call to arms, the very same speech that churchill and fdr

loved so much in 1940 that had become a weapon against chaplin 10 years later. now, of course, the -- hated the "great dictator," band chaplin's work, saying, he was jewish. chaplin was a mature british, irish and french but he was not jewish. when he died, he requested an anglican service for his funeral. it by the 1930s, chaplin didn't want to deny the -- claims he was jewish, because he was worried it might exacerbate claims of anti-semitism if he said he wasn't jewish. in fact, chaplin, in "of the great dictator," please a jewish character who becomes a hitler-like character in a case of mistaken identity. the female lead in this film and in "modern times," paulette goddard, was half jewish. so, this dynamic of anti- semitism was something that chaplin took very, very seriously, but i do think that

the most interesting film 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. of course, chaplin had become a story during the days of silent films, but by 1930, films were being made with sound, and chaplin really hesitated to produce films that contained sound. in the silent films, the -- could be so much more active, so much more movement and energy would be possible in scenes that featured dialogue. those would be more static, visually. as chaplin himself wrote, for years, i have specialized in one type of comedy, pantomime. i have been able to establish exact principles to govern reaction from audiences, a

certain pace and tempo. dialogue, to my way of thinking, always slows action, because action must wait on words chaplin, the populist, of course, always loved silent films because of their universal appeal. talking pictures, chaplin thought, seemed somewhat dehumanizing and somewhat elitist, because the immigrants or the people who didn't speak english would get so much more out of silent films than they would've films that involved s dialogue. now, chaplin decided in 1936 that his film "modern times" would be the last film starrings the -- because it would be the last, could possibly make without dialogue. so, chaplin's 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 he made, and he was worried he wouldn't be commercially successful because, in many ways, it was old-fashioned, as talking films came, and he spent more than a year in europe and asia, talking with top political and cultural figures, but also going back to his old 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's first rate autobiography of chaplin describes the links between chaplin's travels and the film to become a "modern times" in far greater detail than i have n time to explain here, but above all, let me make an effort on the point here for the political dimensions of "modern times.

" above all, chaplin argues, technology can be devastating to an audience, that it would, in fact, be fatal to the -- as technology advances and the -- is chewed up in the machinery of the famous film -- this image of "modern times --" but it is also the -- himself has to be given a voice. once he is given a voice, he then stops being the character that may chaplin famous and successful beyond others of his contemporary career. the most famous scene is being pushed through the gears of a machine. probably the second most famous scene is the one right before that, where he is desperately -l trying to keep up with an assembly line job, rapidly turning balls as they passed by him on an assembly line. lucille ball, by the way, made l

an almost to that seen in her famous but short-lived job at the candy factory, where she worked on a conveyor belt and was stuffing her face with chocolates in the vain hope of keeping up with the rapidly moving assembly line. a now, the first and only words that the -- spoke on screen in this film was a gibberish song that contained nonsensical words from a variety of languages. if chaplin had to make a response 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 called the lonely crowd, the idea that maturity is modernity

would move to the city with maybe many people around, but one was still alone in that crowd. n this idea, of course, had a revival of the scholarship of the 1990s, where people talked about communities that had declined, and where people were bowling alone. however, chaplin got there ahead of the scholars. in "modern times," and several other films before that, we get the message that urban life can be really damaging to individuals. the boom and bust cycles of capitalism lead to s unemployment and insecurity, perhaps even starvation for ic those who are, at best, just getting by when the times are good. in fact, when they were on the job, workers were almost forced to become part of the machine. there's another scene in "modern times," where the -- 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. you can't very well i just bolts, as the -- learns pretty quickly. even though this experience was so bad for the -- to be on this assembly line and to put him in a hospital, he is in a great hurry to go back to the factory as soon as he can. what choice does he have? now, this film is an artistic triumph because it offers both a return to the political era of the early -- as well as the comedic sophistication of "the gold rush," and other outstanding work by chaplin, but not only would argue that this is the most interesting come to consider in the context of chaplin's 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 open 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 banner received in the 1930s and 1940s. in all of his films, chaplin's sympathies are with those struggling, and the more they are struggling, the more empathetic he could be. over his years as the -- the character evolved from an energetic and opportunistic cad to a protector of the most vulnerable. like the young child in "the kid," or "modern times," and he discouraged dancer in "limelight," the truly desperate could always count on the -- to share

whatever little he had and do whatever he could to make sure there was food for the next meal, which was often uncertain, but never out of mind. as many scholars have noted, chaplin never forgot his own experiences during what was a lonely, hungry and anxious childhood, and the -- did other chaplin characters, what they could to make sure other vulnerable people never had to suffer as that young chaplin himself had done. now, chaplin could be an angry populist, prone in his to kick a police officer in the backside when he wasn't looking and to ridicule a clueless rich person, but chaplin's comic and sometimes better criticisms of the excesses of unregulated capitalism and excessive government authority were not really anti-american subversive messages, but hoover thought otherwise. agents started monitoring chaplin shortly after the end

of world war i, waiting for an opportunity to pounce on one of america's most visible noncitizens, and when chaplin left the u.s. for a european promotional tour during the depths of the mccarthy era, the u.s. government revoked his u.s. visa, there by blocking his return. rather than challenge the decision, which was made without any hearing or due process, chaplin moved to switzerland and left the america behind. but not forever. in his battles with the j edgar hoovers of the 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, chaplin was credited with believing that man's humanity was greater than man's

in humanity to man. now, chaplin's oldest films are being seen by the great, great grandchildren of their original viewers. his extraordinary mixture of politics, social comedy, and slapstick humor keep us taking about politics and laughing about those with money and power to this day. as chaplin once wrote -- and this is an excellent part of the discussion for one of the great lines of political come -- 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 for the group. hello to our viewers at home. i'm allie huber, i work

with the great live steam. tonight, i am wondering, even though he was recognized in 1972 with all of those awards in the academy and the accolades, are there areas of his professional life that you think he was underrated? >> i think that 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 tried to re-create chaplin on stage or on-screen, the imitators of chaplin, including the excellent film of now, what, 20 years ago, of robert" -- robert downey jr. -- you have the great expressions, the movement, the writing of the story, the images being presented in the film, but the park, 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 with film, particularly his own films, and he would create extrodinary connections between the music and emotional experiences that one could see and hear through film because, of course, his work was primarily, in his early days, silent film, there was an accompanying soundtrack unit to not only convey sound effects, but also the mood of the moment in the film. so, when you think about chaplin's work, particularly, as i was putting together, you know, this presentation, it is really striking how much of the music is chaplin's own creation. you know, in a world in which many people struggle to master o one instrument, he mastered three, and i think that speaks to the capacity of chaplin as

not only a filmmaker, but an extraordinary composer in terms of connecting the music to the films. >> i think you are right, he actually used his music as dialogue. when i watch clips of it, you can tell how the story is moving. you know, he certainly showed the view of the american industrial workplace, and he was certainly driven and passionate worker. what do you think it was like to work for him at his studio, where he is obsessed with perfection? >> well, it depends. for some people, chaplin was extraordinarily jealous. 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. chaplin was traveling to europe

or thinking about the next 0 project would be, and he would make sure people were paid consistently. in some of his early films, he paid costars salary for life. even if they didn't appear in movies in the last 30 years of their life, they still had a chaplin pension. in that sense, it was a very generous place to work, but not for everyone. the last film that chaplin directed from hong kong in 1967 start marlon brando , who really did not get along with chaplin. chaplin's style as a director often involved playing all of the different characters. he would tell many of the costars, i want you to do this seeing this way to emphasize this sort of dialogue, to make these motions, and for someone with the talent and ability of marlon brando, this was simply not the way that he wanted to

be directed. he described chaplin as an egotistical tyrant and a penny pincher. he harassed people when they were late, and he scolded them unmercifully to work faster. no doubt about it, chaplin was a difficult task master. and so, how well or how poorly you were treated in chaplin's workplace had a lot to do with whether you were there in the beginning, and whether you took direction well. direction well. being called a communist in the mccarthy era, having his visa ou revoked, it 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 wife, why he wouldn't be eligible to return because he was married to a u.s. citizen.

>> his wife actually joined him in switzerland. she actually give up her u.s. citizenship in exchange for the uk citizenship that she could obtain as the wife of charlie chaplin. so, the couple made the decision that the united states in the pl 1950s was a very unpleasant place to be, particularly for someone being harassed by the fbi. so, they had little interest in living the united states at v that point. earlier, though, in his career, chaplin might have been more willing to become an american citizen, but even then, he still thought of the uk as home, regularly went back to have extended visits of the uk, really still saw himself as connected to the london of his youth, and his style as a filmmaker, as a comedian, it had echoes of the 19th century victorian musical that gave you the style that was really kind of the signature vision of the early chaplin work. >> so, how did you become so

connected, you know, with these films? were they something presented to you early in your life? they would have been way before your time. what drew you to explore chaplin's life? >> well, when i was in graduate school, i was a teaching assistant to a professor who was very interested in political theater. >> okay. >> i found it really very interesting. i went on to teach a political film class in washington, and chaplin always struck me as a particularly crucial figure in the development of the american vision of film, particularly of the range of political messages that you could see. now, some filmmakers were much more deductive than chaplin. again, because i think they hadn't been, like, as doctrinaire or as ideologically rigid in thinking, he had an

openness to a range of ideas, and his films reflected that. that was part of their appeal. also, as i started writing about political humor, and studying the lives of the early comics of late-night television, many of them made reference to chaplin. many of the things that came up involved in the conversation about where, sort of, the first principles came from. and so, as i was developing the book that becamew "late-night with trump: political humor and the american presidency," i really o started thinking, i 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. it is an important part of our presidents are evaluated, an important part about how young people find politics interesting, if they do. so, as

a result of this wide range of impact of political humor on c 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, and chaplin, in many ways, is the godfather of all that comes later, mel brooks, johnny carson, and so many others. you know, that is part of it. there's also one other thing. when i think about great lives presentations, i am also interested in people who i can think about for a length of time, who are interesting, and they have enough complications in their approach to the world that make them interesting, in terms of not only political figures and culture figures, but also as human beings, and chaplin was never boring. >> never boring. so, as a follow up to tonight,

if i were to go home and look up chaplin -- think that is on netflix? i'm not sure. i think we can find chaplin movies. what would be your recommendation? >> well, if you were to think about the most important things to see of chaplin's work, a lot of it depends on the error. i would say, if you have not seen the two sort of iconic full-length films on chaplin's political conversation, "the great dictator," and "modern times," you could start there. in the shorter, early chaplin can be very, very compelling too if you are more in the mood for the slapstick humor of "the gold rush," i think is a good one to start with. if you are interested in the more vision of chaplin's vision of what it is like to be a street merchant, struggling as a kid, then the film "the kid" would be a compelling choice. there are a lot of

opportunities here. if you just want the truly silly work, i would recommend "the circus." >> okay. he is the clown, so "the circus" might be the winner. thank you again, dr. farnsworth, for an exciting lecture on charlie chaplin. i feel like i know the -- now. >> thank you. >> good night everyone.