Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times serves as a harsh criticism of the dehumanizing effects of modern technology while at the same time celebrating the vitality made possible by same technological advances. I’m currently reading Miles Orvell’s The Real Thing: Imitation and Authenticity in American Culture 1880-1940 which addresses the ambivalence artists felt at the turn of the century over the negative and positive aspects of the machine. Hopefully, I can quote a bit from it later on because Orvell connects Modern Times and Taylorism, but for now I’ll just note what I see as the double-edged nature of technology presented in Modern Times.
The beginning of the film really emphasizes the dehumanizing nature of factory work. Chaplin’s character cannot keep up with the level of efficiency required by his job. He’s not allowed to rest (or to “soldier” as Taylor might have put it), and the result is that the machine literally eats him up and spits him out. Mental stability has been sacrificed in the name of efficiency — a sharp critique of Taylor’s presentation of efficiency as an unqualified moral good from Principles of Scientific Management.
And yet . . . Chaplin’s factory is a pretty awesome place. The machines look alive and the camera lingers over them celebrating their vitality. The machine’s power enthralls and terrifies at the same time. Later, when Chaplin and the Gamin spend the night in the department store, they celebrate their unfettered access to material goods. The same goods that factories mass produce and make available to everyone. Chaplin’s character is unwilling producer, but more than a willing consumer.
Of course, the most obvious form of modern technology in Modern Times is Modern Times. The cinema was a prime example of both advanced technology and a mass consumer product. Even here, though Chaplin is an ambivalent innovator as he only reluctantly introduced sound to his movies. Modern Times was his first to do so, and he coyly gives voice only to machines at first (over the loudspeaker, over a microphone). When the world finally got to hear Chaplin speak . . . he sang them a song instead. I have to say I love the way he deftly handled the irony inherent in his critique: serious issues are addressed in the film, but by the end he’s reminding us of the fun that can be had. Fitting then, his final suggestion to the Gamin and the audience: “Smile! C’mon!”.
You make a good point about the interesting relationship between the negative effects of technology (Chaplin’s craziness at trying to keep up with the hectic pace) and the positive effects of technology (Chaplin and the Gamin enjoying the luxuries provided by new technologies and industries). Still, in the end, the enjoyment of these luxuries was only a fleeting charm when faced with the capricious nature of the rules of society – even though the Gamin and Chaplin finally find work, they are still hunted by the law. Chaplin bumbles into a labor protest and is taken custody. The Gamin cleans up and becomes respectable, but can’t escape trouble.
I agree that the enjoyment in the film is fleeting, but it seems to me that the suffering is too. They can’t escape trouble, but they also seem determined to make the best of it. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that there’s a lot of back and forth in this film that you wouldn’t see in an anti-technology or anti-modern film. But that’s also what makes it more effective than a more relentless critique would be.
I saw Modern Times as a film both about people who don’t fit into modern society, and about how people find their place.
I think the running theme song is telling of the kind of film Chaplin tried to present: “Smile though your heart is breaking, smile even though it’s breaking, when there are clouds in the sky you’ll get by, if you smile through your fear and sorrow, smile, it may be tomorrow, you’ll see the sun come shining through for you…” 1936 was certainly a year when people were looking for a reason to smile and be happy and for just a moment escape the troubles all around them.
Is technology dehumanizing today?
Did it create more jobs during the Depression or did it change jobs?
I think a lot of people feel that it is. The internet, video games, and other technologies take people away from human interaction. I think a lot of people find work alienating, too, divorced as much of it is from the actual end effect. I don’t know about the actual effect of technology on jobs. I think we have much more participation in the work force than we did in the 20s and 30s along with more advanced technology. Just what creates jobs is always tough to determine.
A friend of my father’s grew up in Ann Arbor Michigan outside of Detroit. I can recall him telling me how his dad had grown up on a farm outside Ann Arbor and that when he turned 18 he had the opportunity to continue working the farm with an eye to inheriting it, but that he loathed farm work so much that instead he got up everyday at 4AM to drive to Toledo, Ohio to work in the Ford factory because he found it far less objectionable than farm work. Ended up working for Ford his entire life.
Interesting. I was born in Toledo. Are you from that area, Kevin?
I’m sure there are people who prefer factory work to farm work, but I’m also struck by the number of people who quit their safe wage-earning jobs to go into business for themselves. My dad did that while I was growing up, and even though he had to work a lot more, he was happier overall. I think that tendency kind of puts a wrench in Taylor’s whole theory as there it’s evidence that at least some people work harder when they have more autonomy.