Seriously... saw this in my film history class and wanted to shoot myself. I think I may have chuckled once during the entire movie. That and I wanted to kill someone seeing chaplin do that retarded walk with those shoes that stick up into the air for no apparent reason...
So yeah out of curiosity what does this film have that makes you people like it?
I was raised on this movie and "The Gold Rush". You must have slept through it if you didn't laugh at the eating machine, or the nervous breakdown, or...well, just about anything.
Apart from just being the funniest movie ever made, it had social commentary oozing out of its ears. Compare it to "The Grapes of Wrath", another famous book/movie about the Depression. "Modern Times" is better, because it's funny.
...so the bear says, "You don't come here to hunt, do you?"
I'm 17 and I loved it
shareI'm fourteen, and I saw this movie in my history class today. I'm a fan of black and white movies, but this was one of the best I've seen. Just think about what it says about society in 1936. This movie was perfect for our transition out of the Industrial Revolution (even though it occurred before this movie was set). Charlie Chaplin obviously thought of technology and industrialization in a negative light. The Tramp goes crazy because of the Division of Labor (Adam Smith's idea of having each person do the same task --say making sweater sleeves instead of a full sweater, and other people making other parts of it and then putting them all together. This would increase productivity). Because he does the same job all the time, he loses his personal touch of work, and his body undergoes damage. It also shows the disapproval of communism and unions.
Now what do you think? Messages within comedy.
Yes. Chaplin managed to get so many personal and societal issues in a series of comic vignettes. Amazing!
shareBravo! You nailed it.
shareTo the person who said that this movie is better than Grapes of Wrath, because it's a comedy: sorry, not close. I'm not saying this isn't a great movie, just that it's not better than Grapes.
Further, to the OP, I will give you three reasons.
- I watched this movie in my AP US History Class, so probably had the best setup possible, but this movie says a lot about labor's fight against the machine. Not only does it show Chaplin actually becoming a part of the machine (His jerking with the wrenches), it shows the metaphorical fight, when he leads the march with a red flag. If you'll notice, the people walking behind him are carrying signs in different languages (signifying the IWW: International Workers of the World, also known as the Wobblies).
- This has some of the best humor I have ever seen in ANY movie. Not just in any silent film, ANY FILM. In case you missed it, there was a scene where someone offered the boss AN AUTOMATIC FEEDING MACHINE, to maximize profit. To say the least, it does not work, but instead goes haywire and wacks Chaplin in the face. Great Humor, period.
- There are those little references slipped in all over the place. For example, after Chaplin goes crazy, there is one scene where you see him swinging on a wire, just like a recent popular film (Tarzan of the Apes (1918)), and as I said before, a reference to the wobblies.
Overall, a great, funny movie, with a lot to say.
To the person who said that this movie is better than Grapes of Wrath, because it's a comedy: sorry, not close. I'm not saying this isn't a great movie, just that it's not better than Grapes.
Travel back in time four years and read my post again. I never said it was better because it was a comedy. I said it was better because it was funny. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as my grandmother might have said.
Chaplin is much funnier that the "comedians" out there like Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller. It's just a different kid on humour, I suppose. You have to remember this was a silent film. Chaplin mostly relied on his physical comedy.
shareCeedbead
This movie was actualy used as evidence of communism when Chaplin was brought up in front of the courts during the red scare
Well, i for one, stand behind you.
First of all, know this: I hate hollywood crap. I watch, i'd say, about 85% foreign/independent/documentary movies, with the occasional hollywood chick flick thrown in to make my girlfriend happy.
lately, i have been trying to catch up on some of the all-time classic "greats". i don't mind black and white. i don't even mind silent. i loved "M" and i loved "Metropolis". But this movie, along with "Duck Soup" were some of my most painful movie experiences since "Titanic".
i understand that times were different, and comedy was quite restricted. i understand that this is more than just a comedy and carried important political and social messages of the times.
but in the end, it comes down to one thing. i did NOT laugh. not once that i recall. and i could not could not could not wait for it to end.
i'm SURE charlie chaplin is brilliant, but it's very very hard for this guy to appreciate that kind of comedy anymore in THESE modern times.
sorry, i tried. not for me.
There certainly is room for variation in opinion. I can say that Modern Times managed to present similar subject matter as Metropolis, while being less thick to wade through (I do really like Metropolis). Regarding a love story, Modern Times more real than Metropolis. The comedy was just icing on the cake.
If Chaplin is brilliant, it is strongly due his being the writer, director, composer, and actor, etc. But also, how could you not be captivated by Paulette Goddard?
P.S. M was fantastic.
that's cool. i don't begrudge anyone for liking this movie. i just wanted to kind of back-up the guy who started this post, since everyone else wanted to villanize him for not sharing their opinion. i'm as big a movie snob as anyone i know, but comedies can always be judged simply on whether it made a person laugh or not. the OP and i didn't laugh and therefore we see it as a failure. as far as charlie... again, i'm sure he's brilliant by many measuring sticks, especially given the constraints of the times. and paulette... i suppose the word "captivating" is as good as any. but still, for me, the parts don't add up to the whole. there are dozens of "brilliant" comics, writers, directors, actors, composers, etc that makes dozens of movies that STILL just don't get a laugh out of me. oh well.
shareSorry it doesn't have the dirty sex jokes, grotesque violence and language you might have been looking for. Maybe things in the comedy business have gone so far these days to where those are the only things in movies that make people laugh. I don't know, I love silent reels and I love Charlie Chaplin. I think he is brilliant in this film. I believe he put the Tramp to rest in a blaze of glory. This movie in itself has everything from drug use, political scandal, jail breaks, satire. I honestly don't see how someone can't love this film upon seeing it. They say that only the older generation can enjoy it, but I'm still a teenager and I love films like this. By the way, Charlie's silly walk is BRILLIANT.
shareno one said that the movie needed "dirty sex jokes and grotesque violence" to be funny or entertaining. it just needs to be, well... funny... and entertaining.
i'm not bashing those who loved it. i, for one, though, had a hard time sitting through it.
some things just don't age as well as other things.
mrura, I know that responses to comedy are inescapably subjective. Even so, it's bewildering to me that you are unable to find this film funny. Chaplin's slapstick is not only extraordinarily balletic and graceful (at times, acrobatic), it's also uproarious (as in the feeding machine scene). Rather than assume that the lack is in the movie, why don't those who dislike it look inside? Isn't it possible that the lack is within them? Isn't it possible that more exposure to old films and their historical context might foster in these viewers a deeper understanding (and thus appreciation) of those films?
see, that's funny, cuz i'm shocked that you are bewildered. balletic (if there is such a word) does not equal funny. nor does graceful. there were scenes i found "balletic" and amusing, like the roller-skating scene. i enjoying those 2 minutes. but i just did not laugh out loud. and overall, i was bored. i didn't CHOOSE to be bored. i WANTED to like it. but in the end, i just... didn't. i have good taste, i am sure of this. but comedy is, as your say, inescapably subjective. and this just wasn't my cup of tea. and that's just my opinion, and not something to be debated, necessarily.
shareballetic (if there is such a word)
i didn't CHOOSE to be bored. i WANTED to like it. but in the end, i just... didn't.
i believe you. i wasn't trying to say it wasn't a word. i just felt a little awkward re-using a word that i wasn't sure of, since it isn't a part of my own vocabulary.
so how old are you, exactly? i find it curious that you don't know me, my age, or my personal viewed filmography, yet you feel confident enough to strongly suggest that my lack of appreciation for this movie has to do with something inside of me.
the best point i can make, without spending much more time belaboring the point that movie taste -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to comedies -- is highly subjective, is this:
for its time, the video game Pong was an AMAZING game, and a true accomplishment on the part of its creators.
This was the first Chaplin movie I ever saw and I thought it was brilliant. I do understand that it isn't everyones cup of tea, but the genius behind it can't be disputed. Chaplin knew what he was doing, he knew how to make you laugh with just visual cues. A true artist can make you see things without oversimulating the senses.
And you said he did certain things for no reason, but there was a reason, it was entertainment. You say his walk was 'retarded' but his silhouette is one of the most recognized in history.
It has almost been 100 years since his first movies appeared and people still know his name. He will be remembered for a long, long time still to come, can we say the same about today's comidians?
So to answer your question, what makes me like it. The fact that pure showmanship drove this movie. Nothing loud, bright, fx, violent, supernatural or any of that. Just straight fun.
Busy
I'm 16, I watched this today in my cinema as literature class, and I loved it.
shareI saw this last December, and I laughed all the way through. Brilliant visual magic by Chaplin. It's also has a very current social theme, even 70 years later.
"You're not going to go to Lincoln, are you?"
When I first saw the movie, when I was 17 (now I'm 20) and the rest three times I've seen it since, I've been wondering how can anyone not like this movie....
It's one of the best comedies of all times! It was released in 1936, it;s now 2007 and we are still watching it, laughing and thinking that it's still up to date. Besides the social comments included are excellent!! Obviously you, who didn't like this movie, prefer "eatable" stupid comedies with college guys, that have nothing to offer..
Didn't you really get to think some stuff about current time and how people are losing their jobs due to the industrial revolution, about people having nowhere to stay and be considering an old cottage to be their palace or about the police terrorism not letting the croud protest about their rights?
Well, I'm sorry, but you need to reconsider what really matters in life.
for me, your post was funnier than the movie, by far.
maybe you should watch some more of those '"eatable" stupid comidies with college guys'. and maybe in one of those college movies you'll hear an "eatable" professor mention that the industrial revolution was about 200 years ago.
I think that poster was using "eatable" ironically, which is why it was in quotes.
share .....................That and I wanted to kill someone seeing chaplin do that retarded walk with those shoes that stick up into the air for no apparent reason.............................
jeez, talk about AINGST! man, if seeing chaplin do his 'walk' makes you feel like that, i think you might be in need of some kind of therapy.
[deleted]