"Modern Times (1936)" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

Cinema began to thrive soon after birth. History has rebounded from the silent movies, then the sound came, then - the color and quality. Many of the reforms have brought to the cinema drooling perfection, we are content with today, but in those far-off, non-repayable summer, the audience enjoyed the fact that it was in the era of silent films reign. Was Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin . World lifted up his hands on and awarded the title of "King of the industry." Man it simple, a veteran, a good man, as well as those which few people know. The only difference is that the memory of it to this day, and I do not deny that there will be read before the moment when the very concept of the movie will disappear from human civilization. Naturally, this is unlikely, because Chaplin implanted into the lungs cinema blessed oxygen, giving rise to immortality. Cinema immortal. And if someone does not believe - then he lost faith. As long as the viewer of the past, today, future generations nourish wholesome respect for Charlie Chaplin, creator and the magician, the man with capital letters, cinema does not fall apart, leaving the tormented inscription "Hollywood".
No, cinema is living, his pulse beating rhythmically, and in veins flows the "blood" - filmography inexhaustible world, supported by the consumer society, who do not care what goes on the screen and the nearest cinema is not nachhat boiling in the depths * Wood processes. All this, evolution of new life, the coating in the creative human performance, has given impetus to Chaplin, whose name it is time to write the vocabulary of modern terms under some correct and elegant with a root meaning "cinema". The only thing you should not indulge in - so it's fanaticism, that ardent worship invented idols whose images naleplivayut face became famous geniuses. Charlie Chaplin only had his way. He took off his charming films inspired us to do good deeds. But the director is not necessary to award vulgar divinity. He went not to do so. He walked us to the people.
is a pity that, as opposed to cinematic immortality theory manifests fragility of Rolling Stone, who, like all mortals, we have to get away from our world, but not dying, but simply lost in the endless path of the unknown. After the blasts in the whole world "city lights", which became the key to immense fame director, «New Times» descended perhaps unusually late, after five years, but not as usual - three to four years. To explain such a long "break" can look the movie itself and emphasizing its amazing features with the innovations, bordering with the technological revolution in the industry.
adolescence and youth Chaplin spent in poverty, which he later hated, taking as a reason the lack of any existential life exercises in a gray reality. However, wandering around the steep cliffs meet adversity blizzard hopelessness left a significant mark in his conception of the world, and in the subconscious, which is displayed in many a scene, select the "gold standard." Basic scenario sketches decorated the necessary circumstances orphans and the poor, lack of compassion and profitable operation. Matter of social and psychological problems in the home of the postwar years Charlie Chaplin probed many times. The fifth in a row band most clearly sets out its indirectly-autobiographical utterances.
As a result, it has turned enchanting comedy with slapstick tone, observe traditions and apart from these opportunities. Political upheavals and "booms" are poured buckets of irony mixed with a sharp satire. On the plane of political actualities Prepare a theater play on the theme of "never give up". Thin plot converted aspects of engineering progress and its nuances, which is a sin not to ridicule. The viewer is invited spicy dish of funny numbers. However, the dynamics of silent film itself is based on the permanent wave, resulting in most of the timing we admire unprecedented vigor of the protagonist, who can not wait to go somewhere to fall and slip, someone unintentionally push and make something of such things wonderful. Chaplin juggles situations, silly, exciting, mysterious, unpredictable, gently exposing favorite protagonist hazards. Along the way, with this director subtly mocks the achievements of science and peacefully chuckles over how ridiculous they look through the lens of a positive comic.
the course of the development of a vicious circle of "luck-bad luck-search", and the history of women's courage and purposefulness male shoe lyric accents. In other words, Charlie Chaplin safely raises the bar. The plot is branched to a motley adventure, and openings between them are filled "verses" under the tears and sighs of hope. All serious is decorated with garlands of smiles and sparkling looks. Notes of sadness muted ringing of optimism. Not news that relationships with women Chaplin ambiguous, and it is very partial to the Muses, who constantly replace one another. In "Modern Times" was another favorite with fascinating beautiful Paulette Goddard, performing a lonely girl with no money and housing. It is remarkable that Chaplin does not change themselves and imbues his last silent film is already close to the public fairy tale. About how respectable tramp teaming with a young keeper of the hearth, to heal in a new way in tune with the new times ... Our dear Charles reluctantly, but bravely takes the first step on the threshold of sound cinema, pleasing biased change, and this releases the Tramp free. Sure enough, after crushing nostalgic episode singing hero. Tramp singing and expressive dance. Terrific. Farewell appeared achingly soulful
A viewer still remains a consumer society, Chaplin -. A manufacturer of masterpieces. This is the element of cinema. Although, of course, we do not cease to love Charlie as a mother. He did this cruel, hideous in its passive hectic, immoral, aesthetically ugly world a little enjoyable. That was enough. Thank you, Charlie. Honestly, thank you.
10 of 10
«I believe that the power of laughter and tears can become the antidote to hatred and fear." © Charles Spencer Chaplin

How to cite this essay: