Who The F^ck is Charlie?

Charlie Chaplin, in The Great Dictator, 1940, via Wikimedia Commons

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about fascism.

While I already had a fair degree of familiarity and understanding of the big picture, I’ve been picking up (and often blogging about) items which are new to me.

Predictably, most are disturbing, but I occasionally come across something wonderful.

Charlie Chaplin was an immensely influential figure in the history of cinema, and his “Tramp” character has been an iconic image for over a century – recognizable even by many who have never heard the name of the actor behind the image. Chaplin was, arguably, the first “superstar”, with a career that stretched over 75 years, ranging from childhood roles on stage, to comedy and vaudeville, then later into film – as actor, writer, and director.

While Chaplin was certainly best known for his roles in silent movies, one of his most successful movies was actually a “talkie”. Interestingly, Chaplin had continued making silent films well into the period of sound films, but decided make The Great Dictator with sound.

The film was made in 1940, in response to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, and was strongly influenced by another film – “Triumph of the Will”, which was a well-known Nazi propaganda film made in 1935. According to a biography of the director, Leni Riefenstahl, Chaplin and French director René Clair watched the film together, but had wildly different reactions to it.

Clair is said to have been horrified, and worried that the film should never be shown, or the West would be lost. In stark contrast, Chaplin found the film hilarious, and used it as inspiration for elements of The Great Dictator.

(Do I need a spoiler alert for a film that’s 85 years old?)

At any rate, the film is about an unnamed Jewish barber who was a soldier in World War I for the nation of Tomainia, and happens to look exactly like the dictator Adenoid Hynkel. There are two speeches in the film which I absolutely love, for wildly different reasons.

The first is a masterful caricature of Hitler, delivered in German-sounding gibberish, obviously modelled after Hitler’s own speeches, particularly those shown in Triumph of the Will. The speech by the “Phooey” (ie, Führer) includes a voice-over English “translation”, and bits where he addresses Herring (ie, Hermann Göring) and Garbitsch (ie, Joseph Goebbels). Absolutely brilliant!

The second speech is actually delivered by the Jewish barber, whom everyone in the palace believes is Hynkel. It is also brilliant, but for another reason.

The final speech is the antithesis of the first. Instead of a rage-filled screed, it is an impassioned plea for humanity and unity. I think the contrast between the two speeches may have been driven by Chaplin being “haunted” by the similarities between his background and that of Hitler. The two were born in April of 1889, and both came from poverty. Chaplin’s son wrote of his father’s reaction to Hitler:

Their destinies were poles apart. One was to make millions weep, while the other was to set the whole world laughing. Dad could never think of Hitler without a shudder, half of horror, half of fascination. "Just think", he would say uneasily, "he's the madman, I'm the comic. But it could have been the other way around."

Charles Chaplin Jr, from “My Father, Charlie Chaplin”, via Wikipedia

Everyone should watch the clip, and read the transcript. It is as relevant now as it was then, at the beginning of World War II. I include one small piece of it here:

“Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill that promise. They never will!”

Final Speech from The Great Dictator (excerpt), via www.charliechaplin.com

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk.

First, to be clear, I do NOT support murder. It shouldn’t need to be said, but that’s where we are today.

Charlie Kirk’s murder, whether politically-motivated or not, was bad.

One thing that keeps coming back to me is the way in which people who are sincere and honest try to believe true things and hold positions which are consistent with reality. Such people will not generally need to change their positions very often, but will change them as new information becomes available.

As an example, the general reaction from prominent Democrats or “left-leaning” figures to Kirk’s murder was condemnation. I’ve seen very few saying he deserved to die, but do not hesitate to condemn them. I’ve seen a number commenting on the irony of some of the things he said, but don’t think it’s helpful to make points like that – still, noting an ironic point is very different from “supporting” murder.

In contrast, the Trump administration has a long history of violent rhetoric and “otherizing” anyone who disagrees with them – but not when one of their “own” is affected. The attack on Paul Pelosi is one example of this, where Trump and several in his orbit actually joked about the attack.

In spite of the way many of his supporters are trying to establish him as a martyr, Kirk was not a “free speech champion”. He was a well-paid activist for the Christian right who pretended to support honest and open debate, but who actually spread mis- and disinformation about COVID-19, race, abortion, sex, gender, and numerous other issues.

His murder was bad, but that did not automatically make Charlie Kirk a good person.

Cheers!