Charlie Chaplin – Modern Times Blog post (Linda)

I see language is used here in Charlie Chaplin’s film to represent an order and absolute power. Voice is used when the president gives an order to factory workers. The president’s voice represents rigid rules and strict orders in the film. On the other hand, Charlie’s silent pantomime is contradicting the presence of language. I think that the reason why there is no voice and word for workers including Charlie is it represents the opposite side of rational order. It, also, doesn’t have any power.

The president of the factory is sitting on the chair and seems like chilling while working. The only thing he does is trying to make more profit out of his workers by increasing work efficiency which is ridiculously harsh. On the other hand, factory workers including Charlie are working like a machine while standing. Workers are kept watch on the president and receiving an order from the president through radio.

Man and Machine are treated in the same way in the film because both exist to make profits for the factory owner. The salesman tries to sell a new machine that is invented to help workers to eat while working. This would result in increasing work efficiency because workers do not have to stop working for that lunch time. Therefore, I believe the only thing in the factory valued was profits.

One thought on “Charlie Chaplin – Modern Times Blog post (Linda)

  1. Your linking language to power is really important here and is definitely something that Chaplin saw as being problematic. While language communicates it can also exclude — if you don’t understand the order of the language being employed you’re a bit lost in terms of understanding. Communication (communing) doesn’t take place, whereas in pantomime this problem is mostly avoided, and even when the Tramp is forced to speak (or sing, in this case) it is gibberish, a sort of universalist melange of languages which still only accompanies the pantomime. Very well done! 5/5

Leave a Reply