In 1936, when Charlie Chaplin’s ModernTimes premiered, nine years had passed since talking films were introduced to the world. Why would Chaplin choose to restrict his ability to convey his message to his audience when he had the technology available to create a talkie? Though silent films were a dying genre, Modern Times has a greater impact on the viewer by forcing them to pay close attention to the dangers of a technological world.
The silence of the movie scenes leaves a larger impression than if words were to be added. In one scene, a man tries to sell a machine that cuts out lunch hour for the employees, therefore increasing the efficiency of his factory. But, when the machine proves to be faulty and Charlie Chaplin’s character is harmed in the demonstration, the inventor seems to be more concerned with the malfunction of the machine than the employee’s well-being. The audience can infer this through the drawn out scene where the inventor attempts to fix the machine; all the while, Chaplin is abused by the invention. Had the scene contained a conversation, the message would not be as strong.
Later, just prior to his release from the prison, Chaplin is shown lounging in a chair in his fully decorated cell, making conversation with a guard. This wordless scene is necessary for the viewer to fully understand its message. The audience must see the contrast between this scene and the scenes of Chaplin unconsciously working in the factory to comprehend how terrible factory conditions were. As the cliché states, sometimes actions speak louder than words.
Talking movies have now almost completed removed the need for silent films, yet still have an enormous impact on any audience. Today, it seems as though we use only our words to communicate; with our overuse of technology, we have begun to eliminate the importance of face-to-face communication and even shortened the words that we do use. Charlie Chaplin’s movie forces the viewer to focus on body language and actions, sending a stronger message about the potentially negative effects of technology.
This is nice, Rebecca. I agree with your reasons why Chaplin chooses a silent movie. It is important to focus greatly on the body language because technology itself does not speak. It only acts and we have to act in reaction to it, not speak. We cannot speak our computer to operating correctly. But we can certainly DO something about it. This important in how we explore the effects of technology to humans. So great point.
Rebecca I see your point. Silent movies had to be more difficult for the actors and the directors of films because the characters movements determined what the viewer interpreted of theh film. The increased use of technology has certainly got to the point where some movies rely on soley voices of actors. Animated movies like Ice Age only use human voices, but its visual characters are fictional.
This is a really good observation. Had Chaplain made this a talking film instead of a silent film, it might have undermined the message. Through overemphasized actions Chaplain’s voice was loud and clear: the working class was being exploited.
Rebecca, what do you make of the moments where we do hear voices in the film? It has only happened a few times in the parts that we have watched, but there is something particular about each one, I’d say…
From the examples that you have given, I coincide with your assertion. The reason why Modern Times is such a captivating film lies on the use of limited speech. This limited speech amplifies who really had a say in this rusted society, the wealthy. Chaplin displays the absence of say for the blue-collar workers by only allowing the boss to be heard. In a sense, Chaplin is saying that the wealthy were only allowed a say in society, while the workers’ mouths were taped shut. Had Chaplin allowed every character to talk, this effect would be diminished.