All in the title and all in relation to the entirety of Chaplin's career. This was awarded a very high first in the Film and Screen Studies course I originally orchestrated it for in 2011. It is still being used as an example presentation all these years on

1. The
National Identity
of
Charlie Chaplin
By
Peter O’Brien

2. Aims
• The presentation will examine what can be
considered Charlie Chaplin’s national identity.
• As represented through his films, star image,
perceived political beliefs and actual political beliefs.
• Using the example of Chaplin, the presentation will
assert the complexities and, ultimately, question the
validity of national identity as a concept in a world of
multiculturalism.

3. Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin
(1889-1977)
The BFI describes Chaplin as:
‘one of the pivotal figures in
film history. He was the first
film star that appealed to
both popular taste and high
culture. He remains the most
universally recognised
personality in the history of
entertainment’ (BFI).

4. • Born in the East End of London,
Chaplin experienced something of a
Dickensian, impoverished upbringing.
• He came from a family of
entertainers and was raised in the
same profession.
• Appearing in music hall comedy
sketches, throughout his youth and
adolescence, he would eventually
tour America.
• While in America he was recruited
into the film industry – from which he
never looked back.
• He became a worldwide icon through
his persona of the Tramp.
• Eventually went on to act in, write,
direct, produce, finance and compose
the music for his films.
Charlie Chaplin
(1889-1977)

5. What is Chaplin’s National Identity?
• The easiest answer - he is British.
– He was a British citizen by birth.
– Both of his parents were British.
• ‘national identity is not biological but cultural, and to that
extent something that is learned, often subconsciously’
(Higson in Briggs and Cobley 1998: 354).
• Because Chaplin spent just under forty years living in the
USA, defining his national identity according to his genetic
heritage is no good!
• We have to go much deeper and include a wider cultural
context…

6. What is Chaplin’s National Identity?
• ‘National Identity is about belonging – to a community, yes, but also to a
place, a homeland. And it is about recognising as familiar the established
indigenous cultural traditions of that homeland and community’ (Higson
in Briggs and Cobley 1998: 358).
• While in the USA Chaplin:
– Never applied for American citizenship
– Remained a subject of the UK.
• However, Chaplin did have an enthusiasm for
embracing American culture and the opportunities
it offered:
• ‘I was full of the idea of going to America, not alone
for the thrill and adventure of it, but because it
would mean renewed hope, a new beginning in a
new world…’ (Chaplin in Weissman 2009: 168).

7. The Immigrant
(Dir. Charles Chaplin, USA, 1917)

8. Chaplin: The Immigrant
• Booting the immigration officer.
– In 1917 it went relatively unnoticed
– Later, it would be cited repeatedly as showing a
non-US citizen’s contempt and lack of respect
for the USA!
• Criticizing what he saw as America’s
failings would prove an ever increasing
trend in Chaplin’s movies.
• So Chaplin was happy to be considered not fully American, as there
were many things in America, particularly later on in his stay there,
which he did not agree with…

9. Modern Times
(Dir. Charles Chaplin, USA, 1936)

10. The Tramp:
A Silent Voice for the Oppressed
• Modern Times commented on the unemployment caused by
the Great Depression. It was an attack on the dehumanisation
of the American production line, as innovated by Henry Ford.
• “Machinery should benefit mankind. It should not spell
tragedy and throw it out of work” (Chaplin in Robinson 2003).
• ‘Modern Times was about a Marxist concept: the
dehumanization and the alienation of labour. No doubt about
it, Chaplin was a leftist of a devoted and radical kind’ (Schickel
2003).

11. The Tramp:
A Silent Voice for the Oppressed
• “my radical views have been much misunderstood. I am not a Socialist, nor
am I looking for a new order of things. But I do believe that conditions can
be much improved” (Chaplin in Louvish 2009: 168).
• However, it was Chaplin’s perceived leanings towards socialism and the
ability of his films to transmit their messages to a worldwide audience that
caused him to become despised by one particular political regime…
• The waving of the flag!
• Inciting the common man to unite
against ‘the dehumanised system’
• As well as socialist, it would also be cited
as having communist connotations.
• Being a Socialist was something Chaplin
always denied:

12. The Eternal Jew
(Dir. Fritz Hippler, Germany, 1940)

13. The Tramp vs. The Dictator
• ‘Chaplin was not a Jew, but he was reluctant to say so. He
thought that would implicitly support the anti-Semites'
(Schickel 2003).
• The Nazis banned Chaplin’s films because they did: ‘not
coincide with [the] world philosophy of the present day in
Germany’ (New York Times in Louvish 2009: 266).
• It was the plight of anti-Semitism, the link he had gained to it,
the fact the Nazi party had taken a dislike to him and the
physical similarity his Tramp character shared with Adolf Hitler
that brought about Chaplin’s next overtly political film…

14. The Great Dictator
(Dir. Charles Chaplin, USA, 1940)

15. Chaplin: Un-American?
• While the film did gain support for anti-fascism, and was also
critically acclaimed, it put Chaplin into political hot water back in
America.
• The film, particularly the end speech, helped to: ‘earn him, in the
files of the FBI, the quant political epithet “premature antifascist.”
In the terminology of the day, that was a euphemism for someone
with strong left-wing leanings who was not officially a member of
the Communist Party’ (Weissman 2009: 265).
• Indeed, when asked about his allegiances Chaplin stated: “Super-
patriotism leads to Hitlerism. I assume in a democracy one can have
a private opinion” (Chaplin from Louvish 2009: 330).
• But private opinion in America was soon to become a very public
thing…

16. The Red Scare
(1947 – 1957)

17. Chaplin: A Communist?
• During the red scare, Chaplin was just one of many intellectuals and
radical thinkers who were accused of being communists by the
House of Un-American Activities Committee.
• The argument against him cited:
– The vocal support he had given the Russian Second Front during WW2.
– As well as comments he had said around 1919: “I am an artist. I am
interested in life. Bolshevism is a new phase of life. I must be
interested in it.” (Chaplin in Louvish 2009: 167).
– Kicking the immigration officer (The Immigrant).
– Waving the red flag (Modern Times).
– The ‘unite’ speech (The Great Dictator).
– And many other instances in his films and private life…
• It was this harassment that caused Chaplin’s next political
commentary to be darker and much more cynical…

18. Monsieur Verdoux
(Dir. Charles Chaplin, USA, 1947)

19. Better Dead Than Red!
• Monsieur Verdoux didn’t do Chaplin any favours, being a film
that voiced the failings of Capitalism and WW2!
• In 1953, after leaving for a trip abroad, the immigration office
refused Chaplin a re-entry permit – he was banned from the
USA!
• It would be nineteen years before he would return.
• However, while in exile he made one last overtly political film.
It can be seen as an ironic amalgamation of his political
experiences and treatment in the USA…

20. A King In New York
(Dir. Charles Chaplin, UK, 1957)

21. • The whole premise of Chaplin having a singular and fixed national
identity is a reductio ad absurdum (in this case, something that is
proved absurd through contradiction). Chaplin supports too many
attributes of too many different conflicting ideologies to have one
singular and fixed national identity.
• As Chaplin himself commented:
• “I am not a Jew; I am not a citizen of America; I am a citizen of the
world” (Chaplin from Louvish 2009: 332).
• He wanted to be a universal figure. This is why he never took up
American citizenship - Chaplin liked the freedom of belonging to
more than one culture; he liked being multicultural.
Conclusion 1/2:
Chaplin: A Citizen of the World

22. Conclusion 1/2:
Chaplin: A Citizen of the World
• Therefore, Chaplin as a multi cultural figure
explains his dislike of a fixed and rigid national
identity, such as Nazism and Americanism,
which he lampoons in his films.
• Chaplin saw National Identity as being
redundant In a world that was becoming more
and more multicultural
• “The Aeroplane and the radio have brought us
closer together. The very nature of these
inventions cries out for the goodness in man,
cries out for universal brotherhood, for the
unity of us all” (Chaplin 1940).
• Being: “a citizen of the world,” it is quite clear
Chaplin favoured an International Identity.

23. Conclusion 2/2:
• Of course it is still valid but only if it is seen in an international context.
• As Higson comments :
• ‘Nationality is not natural but contingent: it changes with historical
circumstances. National cultural traditions too are always in flux, always
subject to struggle for recognition over against other traditions’ (Higson in
Briggs and Cobley 1998: 359).
• Therefore, ‘if cultural traditions too are always in flux’ (ibid), you can’t
have an isolationist national identity in a world which due to
advancements, such as the cinema and the internet etc, is becoming more
and more linked together and multicultural.
• This is why the presentation has looked at Chaplin because his perceived
national identity was always in state of ‘flux’. His national identity can only
be understood when you extend beyond a singular national identity and
look at it from an international, hybrid point of view.
National Identity: Is it still a valid theory?

24. Recap
• Using the figure of Charlie Chaplin, with reference to his films,
star image and actual and perceived political beliefs this
presentation has assessed his national identity. Concluding
that he favoured an international identity as opposed to one
country’s fixed national or political identity.
• The presentation has also used the figure of Chaplin to
explore the theory of national identity and assessed whether
it is still valid in today’s international world. Concluding that it
is but only through an international context.

25. Sources
Filmography
• The Immigrant (film); Charles Chaplin. 20
minutes. USA: Lone Star Corporation,
1917.
• Modern Times (film); Charles Chaplin. 87
minutes. USA: Charles Chaplin
Productions, 1936.
• The Eternal Jew (film); Fritz Hippler. 62
minutes. Germany: Deutsche
Filmherstellungs- und -Verwertungs-
GmbH, Berlin (DFG), 1940.
• The Great Dictator (film); Charles Chaplin.
125 minutes. USA: Charles Chaplin
Productions, 1940.
• Monsieur Verdoux (film); Charles Chaplin.
124 minutes. USA: Charles Chaplin
Productions, 1947.
• A King In New York (film); Charles Chaplin.
110 minutes. UK: Charles Chaplin
Productions, Attica Film Company, 1957.
• Introduction to Modern Times by David
Robinson (DVD); Philippe Truffault. 6
minutes. USA: Roy Export Company
Establishment (2003).
• Charlie: The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin
(DVD); Richard Schickel. 132 minutes.
USA: Warner Home Video (2003).
Bibliography
• Higson, A (1998) ‘Nationality:
National Identity & the Media’ in
Biggs A, Copley P. The Media: An
Introduction. Longman.
• Louvish, Simon Chaplin: The
Tramp’s Odyssey. London: Faber
and Faber Ltd, 2009.
• Maland, Charles J. Chaplin and
American Culture: The Evolution of
a Star Image. Chichester: Princeton
University Press, 1989.
• Weissman, Stephen Chaplin: A Life.
London: JR Books, 2009.
• Chaplin, Charles My Autobiography.
London: William Clowes & Sons
Ltd, 1964.
• British Film Institute (BFI) [online]
Available from:
http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/ [Accessed
10.05.2011].