The Great Dictator

A very important film in its day. Chaplin creates two storylines, the first features a dictator who is conspicuously reminiscent of Hitler, the second a Jewish businessman. While the scenes with the dictator, where Chaplin is breathtaking thanks to his perfect imitation of Hitler, are superb, the scenes of the Jewish community don't have the same narrative power. And the ending is a bit too patronising, but it conveyed an important message in its time. (30/07/2002)

Chaplin was a unique individual who was ahead of his time. Otherwise, I can't explain this comedic, psychological, and touching gem that he directed and starred in himself, playing two central characters. The opening speech of Hynkel, his argument with Napaloni in the dining room, the barber working to the rhythm of music, and on the other hand, the final speech. And all of it is on the edge of perfection, overacting, and timelessness. And speaking of the final monologue - can you really say that it is pathetic? Even after everything that Chaplin reminded you of with his sarcasm in the preceding two hours? (25/03/2006)

I believe in the power of human conventions. We can convince ourselves of this every day. Have you noticed, for example, the speeches at funerals? The deceased was a failure in life, a domestic tyrant, and an extreme opponent, but the speaker utters phrases about how much we will miss them and what they did for those around them. The attendees appear tragic, and the most eager even attempt to shed a tear. A little later on, a more joyous ceremony takes place as a young couple enters into marriage. However, the witnessing guest does not emphasize the bride's previous romantic successes, nor does he boast about how many men she frolicked with in the past. His joyful speech does not find a place to mention that the groom divorced and abandoned three children for his future wife. When a mother shows us a newborn, she does not expect us to mention the apparent resemblance of the baby to a bat, although it may be our subjectively perceived truth a hundred times over. And, of course, from the perspective of a viewer of a film that is considered a part of the cinematic canon, regarded as a symbol of antifascist cinema, and made by one of the world's most renowned creators, one does not expect fundamental criticism or dissatisfaction. I could naturally add a star for the (undeniable) significance the title had at the time when the USA was still under the strong influence of isolationism, and President Roosevelt vainly tried to incite the public to actively defend democratic values. The horrors of fascism were not well-known and were even less desired to be known. The film came at the right time and performed its engaged work. However, it has already been rewarded by many others, and therefore, it does not need my support. In my opinion, The Great Dictator has a peculiar screenplay structure that ultimately moves away from the two main characters, and the film ends with the director's appearance and a proclamatory declaration of allegiance to democratic ideals. I am bothered by Charlie Chaplin's frozen aesthetics, which clearly stem from the silent era, and the film looks as if it was made a decade earlier. I am also bothered by the naivety of the portrayal of Nazi regimes, although much was concealed from Chaplin during filming. Simply put, the reality was much worse. Perhaps my expectations of a legendary title adorned with excellent reviews and an equally excellent reputation influenced my evaluation. I can say for myself that I enjoyed the film The World Belongs to Us, which did not make a global impact, significantly more. Although The Great Dictator also contains great scenes, as a whole, the film simply does not work for me. Charlie Chaplin is much more convincing in the role of the dictator than as the Jewish barber. He evidently learned a lot from the Nazi weeklies, and Hitler's pathetic self-centeredness is more than suitable for satire. Overall impression: 45%. (20/03/2015)

Chaplin's relentless acting recital, one that definitely secured his immortality and, in my eyes, the title of the patron saint of acting. His creation as the dictator Hynkel (well, Hitler) amazes with his incredible sense of situational comedy, as well as the visible passion and precision with which Chaplin took on the role and made it a legend. Moreover, the master also handled the transition to sound perfectly and the script full of juicy room dialogues, irresistibly quarrelsome German and pleasant grotesque elements is one of the funniest and most sophisticated things we have ever seen and heard in the hilarious genre. And then there’s also the important message, which is perhaps a bit too pathetic in the end, but even after all these years it hasn’t lost any weight and remains as relevant as ever. Oh, and for the record, Hitler himself was supposedly fond of The Dictator and watched it a lot. He had good taste in movies. :-) 90% (14/08/2013)

After a long time, this is a film by Charlie Chaplin that I watched, and actually probably the first one that I intentionally watched and not by chance on TV. It's one of those films that you hear a lot about, but for some reason, it always escapes you. It has stopped escaping me, and I'm glad about that because Chaplin delivers truly great performances on all fronts. In today's times, his satire isn't as strong anymore, but when it's related to historical events, it truly has the right impact. There are still jokes that are understandable, and some situations are truly wonderfully absurd. Even after more than seventy years, the film hasn't lost anything in terms of humor. Not only in terms of humor, but also in terms of intellectual power, which may seem sentimental, but on the other hand, it's still a beautiful idea - I mean, of course, the one we hear at the end. (30/03/2014)