Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:32 AM Dec 2014

Charlie Chaplin's 1940 portrayal of Hitler in "The Great Dictator" compared to 'The Interview'



Seth Rogen is far from the first filmmaker to take a pot shot at a notorious world leader. Charlie Chaplin’s famous portrayal of fictitious dictator Adenoid Hynkel, a thinly-veiled version of Hitler, made waves around the world when he premiered the 1940 comedy, "The Great Dictator."

“Initially, when he proposed the film, there were fears — in Britain, particularly, where appeasement was still very much in the air — and there was talk that the film would be dangerous," says film critic and historian David Thomson.

Chaplin’s film made huge cultural waves around the world — except in Germany. "The Great Dictator," along with many other films during that time, was banned in Germany. But "the story is that Hitler himself saw it," Thomson says. "Somehow a print was taken there and the story says that he saw it twice."

The media reaction at the time of the release was rather measured and calm, according to Thomson. “In 1940, the world was in great great peril, but it had a very, very stable media climate," he says. "The film was reviewed very favorably. It was a huge popular success. It was probably Chaplin’s most important feature film, and the one that did best at the box office. People loved it!”

Contrast that to the media frenzy that erupted over the Sony hack and the cancellation of "The Interview:" “Today we have less immediate physical peril [than World War II] but we have a chaotic, hysterical media scene," Thomson says. "Within a few days this can become almost a terrorist incident."

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-19/what-we-can-learn-charlie-chaplin-and-great-dictator
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Charlie Chaplin's 1940 portrayal of Hitler in "The Great Dictator" compared to 'The Interview' (Original Post) pampango Dec 2014 OP
There is a vast difference in quality though Fearless Dec 2014 #1
My issue is the depiction of the US sanctioning assassination of another LIVING world leader... hlthe2b Dec 2014 #2
There's that, plus this isn't the 1930's. PSPS Dec 2014 #3
It's a film. And Kim should get a full taste of the Streisand effect. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #4
Projecting much? Geebus... No one (and certainly not me) said anything even remotely on line hlthe2b Dec 2014 #6
You lobbed the "moral high ground" non-sequitor and Kim should get the Streisand treatment. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #7
NOT in comparison to NK or any other dictatorship.. Go take hlthe2b Dec 2014 #9
The OP is about NK. If your comments have nothing to do with NK, as you claim, why inject them Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #12
Accusing others of "terror-apolgia" should flat out get you banned, though I will not alert hlthe2b Dec 2014 #14
+1. tired of the disingenuous. NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #17
There's nothing disingenuous. The poster made a comment and seems incapable of explaining that Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #26
What was the purpose of your "moral high ground" post? You came into a thread and about NK and Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #25
Sorry, but the punishment for torture is not allowing some Ykcutnek Dec 2014 #16
I have never said we should allow NK to decide what we show. I am against pulling the film hlthe2b Dec 2014 #18
If anyone needs a head slap... Ykcutnek Dec 2014 #19
Neither I nor anyone else on DU has said anything to suggest they care about NK sensibilities hlthe2b Dec 2014 #21
"Neither I nor anyone else on DU has said anything to suggest they care about NK sensibilities" Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #29
As a First Amendment absolutist, I would say pretty much any movie is worth fighting for Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #23
I am not in favor of the movie being pulled, nor do I care what NK thinks... hlthe2b Dec 2014 #24
False analogy... kentuck Dec 2014 #5
Yet, everyone understood the analogy of Chaplin character. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #8
And they would have gotten the analogy here also.. kentuck Dec 2014 #10
If everyone would understand then what would be the difference? There is no antagonizing. There is Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #13
Oh FFS, like this movie you mean...... Logical Dec 2014 #27
The Three Stooges' lampoon of the Third Reich was released in January 1940. John1956PA Dec 2014 #11
Only an absolute idiot could even begin to compare the two films CBGLuthier Dec 2014 #15
Besides which, hitler on the eve of ww2, having already annexed a lot of europe & NewDeal_Dem Dec 2014 #20
Yes... indeed hlthe2b Dec 2014 #22
LOL, dramatic much? nt Logical Dec 2014 #28

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
2. My issue is the depiction of the US sanctioning assassination of another LIVING world leader...
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:43 AM
Dec 2014

not at all the satirical depiction/derisive depiction of this or any other dictator... The latter is worth fighting for as a "free speech" principle, the former, not so much.

Then again the US lost the moral high ground a long time ago given its recent history of sanctioned torture, so I suppose my thoughts on this may be a little "quaint"...

PSPS

(13,614 posts)
3. There's that, plus this isn't the 1930's.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:58 AM
Dec 2014

Anyone who thinks Kim/Korea/today bears any resemblance to Hitler/Germany/1940 is a very poor student of history.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
4. It's a film. And Kim should get a full taste of the Streisand effect.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 10:54 AM
Dec 2014
Then again the US lost the moral high ground a long time ago given its recent history of sanctioned torture

Well then, in for a penny, in for a pound. Let's make films knocking off the Ayatollah, the leader of ISIS and Putin.

Although, why Sony and moviegoers are expected to make recompense seems under-explained. Last I heard collective punishment is bad in a Geneva Convention sort of way.

Also unexplained -- how the cesspool-posing-as-a-nation that is North Korea suddenly has the moral high ground -- or national interest -- to speak on behalf of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Seriously, your post sounds to be little more than, "America sucks! We should suffer!" Yeah. Penance at the hands of a dough-faced boy tyrant. THAT'S JUSTICE!

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
6. Projecting much? Geebus... No one (and certainly not me) said anything even remotely on line
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 10:58 AM
Dec 2014

with your very bizarre rant.

Take that crap elsewhere.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
7. You lobbed the "moral high ground" non-sequitor and Kim should get the Streisand treatment.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:16 AM
Dec 2014

And you seem unclear on what projection means.

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
9. NOT in comparison to NK or any other dictatorship.. Go take
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:24 AM
Dec 2014

your disingenuous posting pattern that projects your desired argument on the words of others elsewhere. You might well find someone somewhere who would actually make the kind of argument you WANT to rant against with your pre-chosen response, but it isn't here.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
12. The OP is about NK. If your comments have nothing to do with NK, as you claim, why inject them
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:41 PM
Dec 2014

into a thread about NK? My responses have centered on the fact the subject of the OP is NK and the follow-on fact there are no good reasons for not releasing a movie because some dough-faced boy tyrant threatens violence.

If your posts are not related to the OP then that is you inexplicably changing the subject, not my error. Or maybe terror-apolgia proves more embarrassing than it seems at first blush.

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
14. Accusing others of "terror-apolgia" should flat out get you banned, though I will not alert
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:50 PM
Dec 2014

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)


Your post prior to any editing:
12. The OP is about NK. If your comments have nothing to do with NK, as you claim, why inject them

View profile
into a thread about NK? My responses have centered on the fact the subject of the OP is NK and the follow-on fact there are no good reasons for not releasing a movie because some dough-faced boy tyrant threatens violence.

If your posts are not related to the OP then that is you inexplicably changing the subject, not my error. Or maybe terror-apolgia proves more embarrassing than it seems at first blush.



Welcome to ignore on my (and I suspect many many other's lists)

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
26. There's nothing disingenuous. The poster made a comment and seems incapable of explaining that
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 03:06 PM
Dec 2014

comment; instead choosing to complain that someone else has challenged what was plainly written.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
25. What was the purpose of your "moral high ground" post? You came into a thread and about NK and
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 03:04 PM
Dec 2014

made a post about the US not having the moral high ground when it comes to the subject of NK threatening terror so as to suppress a movie. Such a post has no relevancy except to make excuses for the despicable threats made by the dough-faced boy dictator. Hence, the use of the term apologia.

If your post has some other intention please explain because right that's all it looks like.

 

Ykcutnek

(1,305 posts)
16. Sorry, but the punishment for torture is not allowing some
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:55 PM
Dec 2014

shithole like North Korea determine what we show in our theaters.

People have every right to be disgusted by the torture, but using it to deflect from every other issue is going to get very old, very fucking fast.

"Obama said hello to someone today."

"Oh yeah, what did he say about torture?"

"There was a major disaster in Timbuktu."

"Oh yeah, didn't we have a torture prison there?"

"We can't say anything because we tortured people!!!!111oneone"

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
18. I have never said we should allow NK to decide what we show. I am against pulling the film
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:58 PM
Dec 2014

You are conflating two issues. But, maybe your head slap will help with that.

 

Ykcutnek

(1,305 posts)
19. If anyone needs a head slap...
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:00 PM
Dec 2014

It's people who are concerned about the sensibilities of a brutal regime like North Korea.

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
21. Neither I nor anyone else on DU has said anything to suggest they care about NK sensibilities
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:02 PM
Dec 2014

NOT me nor anyone else. A big fail, but maybe you can take your own advice (or maybe learn to READ and actually acurately interpret what you have read)

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
29. "Neither I nor anyone else on DU has said anything to suggest they care about NK sensibilities"
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 03:22 PM
Dec 2014

But in Post #2 you wrote while you thought satire to be worth fighting for you didn't think depictions of assassinations of living leaders (as if Kim is a legitimate leader, no less).

We're at a binary decision point: either the film gets shown or it doesn't. If your complaint isn't being mindful of NK's "sensibilities" then whose sensibilities are being protected?

Saying "not so much" (post #2) when it comes to the subject of whether or not our rights to free speech are, "worth fighting for" leads your readers to assume it is in fact the "sensibilities" or those threatening violence that you have chosen heed at the expense of free speech.

Our rights are worth fighting for and a regime as thuggish as the Kim dynasty deserves a thumb in the eye. They have no claim to legitimacy and no right to threaten us with violence to protect their cult of personality. The more they threaten the more we should openly defy them.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
23. As a First Amendment absolutist, I would say pretty much any movie is worth fighting for
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:31 PM
Dec 2014

as a free speech principle. I don't care if the title is "Death to Barack Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel", it is still protected free speech.

hlthe2b

(102,357 posts)
24. I am not in favor of the movie being pulled, nor do I care what NK thinks...
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:37 PM
Dec 2014

That said a movie depicting US killing of actual living world leaders, absent war-- even dictators-- is not something I am going to support and certainly not my idea of COMEDY.

Ridicule, mock, embarrass--that's fair, but assassinations? Really? This country has had far too many REAL assassinations of our own leaders during its history. It is beyond me why such a thing is considered "funny".

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
10. And they would have gotten the analogy here also..
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:37 PM
Dec 2014

No need to use real names simply to antagonize our enemies.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
13. If everyone would understand then what would be the difference? There is no antagonizing. There is
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:43 PM
Dec 2014

only a bully using threats of violence. He's a bully, he deserves to be antagonized.

John1956PA

(2,656 posts)
11. The Three Stooges' lampoon of the Third Reich was released in January 1940.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:38 PM
Dec 2014







Here is an except from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Nazty_Spy! :

The title is supposedly a parody of comedian Joe Penner's catchphrase "You Nasty Man!"[1]

Moe Howard, as "Moe Hailstone", became the first American actor to portray/imitate Adolf Hitler in this film.

Both Moe Howard and Larry Fine cited You Nazty Spy! as their favorite Three Stooges short.[2]

You Nazty Spy! was followed by a sequel, I'll Never Heil Again, in 1941. Moronika would also appear in Dizzy Pilots.

There is a historical pun when Larry says, "If I take Mickey Finlen, I better be rushin'." Curly replies, "Then quit stallin'."
This is a reference to Finland, the Soviet Union, and Joseph Stalin, who was the leader of the Soviet Union.

Larry Fine injured his leg shortly before filming, and can be seen with a limp throughout the short. Fortunately, this was appropriate for his role as a parody of Joseph Goebbels, who walked with a limp due to a club foot.

The names of the munitions manufacturers are Pig Latin for "Nix" (a slang term of that era), "No", and "Scram", which in turn were known by the audience as slang in their Pig-Latin form.

The parody of the Nazi banner with two snakes in the form of a swastika says "Moronika for Morons" which is a play on the Nazi slogan "Deutschland den Deutschen" (Germany for Germans).

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
15. Only an absolute idiot could even begin to compare the two films
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:53 PM
Dec 2014

Fictionalized character. Not particularly racist. Comedy genius


vs.

Real guy, racist, comedy wannabees.

And it was in no fucking way Chaplin's most important film. That was Modern Times. The one where he blasted the evils of capitalism.

 

NewDeal_Dem

(1,049 posts)
20. Besides which, hitler on the eve of ww2, having already annexed a lot of europe &
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:01 PM
Dec 2014

torn up normal diplomatic relationships, has no relation to NK today: not in military power, not in political or economic power.

What is the point of the movie? To justify Kim's assassination?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Charlie Chaplin's 1940 po...