The Great Dictator made in 1940, written, produced, and directed, by Charlie Chaplin: was at the time a controversial film because it exposed Nazism and anti-Semitism with humor. Chaplin began his first full-dialogue film after a decade that the rest of the film industry had accepted talking pictures. Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator”, was ahead of its time because no one could interpret the horrors happening in Germany throughout WWII. In the film, the main subject being Adolf Hitler and the rise of European fascism.
I found the film meaningful, although it was a controversial topic back then I believe the film did far greater good than harm because it encourages independent thought. Chaplin’s ability in his humor not being limited yet …show more content…
Chaplin’s object was simply to persuade viewers that Germany and Italy posed a threat to world peace. Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Russia were dictated by Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Although, Nazi Germany’s obvious military ally in Europe was Italy, governed by Mussolini. The relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was composite and rough. The agreement of their countries was not as firm as many thought, the union between Germany and Italy became a convenience rather than an alliance. Hitler and Mussolini both shared ideas and also had differences; both man were dictators who created terror in the world, they were both mainly responsible for WWII, and both were at fault of the death of thousands of Lakhs. The main difference between the two was their racial views. “Hynkel”, had an obsession to destroy German Jews and “Nopaloni”, had no obsession of that sort. Hynkel favored Nazism, the ideology and set of practices associated with the German Nazi Party; resorted to mass killing prisoners through cruel methods. Nopalini favored Fascism, the radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power. Hynkel had military experience in WWI, while Nopalini had political background. Despite their personal differences, Hitler and Mussolini did manage to work together. Hitler was an admirer of Mussolini, for a long time Mussolini was the master and Hitler the
I found the film meaningful, although it was a controversial topic back then I believe the film did far greater good than harm because it encourages independent thought. Chaplin’s ability in his humor not being limited yet …show more content…
Chaplin’s object was simply to persuade viewers that Germany and Italy posed a threat to world peace. Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Russia were dictated by Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Although, Nazi Germany’s obvious military ally in Europe was Italy, governed by Mussolini. The relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was composite and rough. The agreement of their countries was not as firm as many thought, the union between Germany and Italy became a convenience rather than an alliance. Hitler and Mussolini both shared ideas and also had differences; both man were dictators who created terror in the world, they were both mainly responsible for WWII, and both were at fault of the death of thousands of Lakhs. The main difference between the two was their racial views. “Hynkel”, had an obsession to destroy German Jews and “Nopaloni”, had no obsession of that sort. Hynkel favored Nazism, the ideology and set of practices associated with the German Nazi Party; resorted to mass killing prisoners through cruel methods. Nopalini favored Fascism, the radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power. Hynkel had military experience in WWI, while Nopalini had political background. Despite their personal differences, Hitler and Mussolini did manage to work together. Hitler was an admirer of Mussolini, for a long time Mussolini was the master and Hitler the