The Limitations of Language

After watching a Charlie Chaplin film, it becomes evident that there really is something different about it; something that in reality cannot be put into words, for words would take away from the overall message of the film. When words are spoken in a movie, we are forced to interpret what the producer has created in a very specific way. However, when a film all of a sudden has very few words, it can now be looked at from a multitude of different angles. A person’s actions in a film mean so much more. For instance, Chaplin trying to tighten people’s buttons with his wrench takes on a whole new meaning. There are some topics that are so powerful and have affected an enormous amount of people in so many ways that words do not do them justice. The industrial revolution, in combination with the great depression, are without question, examples of such topics. Hence Chaplin’s portrayal is quite appropriate.
Interestingly, Chaplin’s use of silent films, almost in a contrasting way, can be connected to both Fetterley’s analysis of Life in the Iron Mills and Weyler’s literary analysis of The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tarturus of Maids. Both Davis and Melville seem to indicate in their works that limitations of language do exist. Davis makes this point directly when she states “I dare not put this secret into words” and “I dare make my meaning no clearer” (2764). Melville makes such a point evident in the misunderstanding that Cupid and the narrator seem to be constantly having. Cupid never seems to quite understand what the narrator is asking and is unable to realize how confused the narrator is, while the narrator seems unable to put into words what he really wants to ask. This is shown when the narrator asks Cupid, “you make only blank paper, no printing of any sort I suppose?” (329) Cupid responds “Certainly, what else should a paper factory make?” (329). Language has definitely resulted in considerable misunderstanding between the two.
To make up for their general assumption that limitations of the language exist, both authors use a narrator that seems to constantly pressure us to realign our values. As Fetterley states, “the narrator’s task is to make her readers see what is currently invisible to them” (310). The narrators from each story definitely do this for they not only guide the reader, but also state their own positions. Thus, just as Chaplin uses silence and excellent acting to make for the failure of language, both authors instead use narrators to make up for the limitations that language poses.