Rhetorical Analysis—Charlie Chaplin and the Great Dictator’s Speech

This speech is considered one of the best of our time. It touched me, so I knew that when I had to write a rhetorical analysis that this was the one I wanted to expound on. I hope I can provide a little insight for the reason behind the greatness of Charlie Chaplin's words. By knowing how to put power in your words, you too will be able to influence the people of the world. Inspire them. Change them. Show them that they can.

Uniting the World under Democracy:

The Power of Voice Merging in the Final Speech of Chaplin’s The Great Dictator

My roommate shows me all sorts of ridiculous online videos; he always has. I rolled my eyes one night in particular as he called me from the bathroom, with the toothbrush still in my mouth, to watch a YouTube video. But this time was different. The toothbrush almost fell as I listened to one of the most moving speeches I had ever heard. Oddly enough, the man giving the speech looked like Hitler, but I knew it couldn’t be, because he spoke of freedom from dictators, goodness in humanity, and a world unity under democracy. I later discovered that this was the final speech from a movie that Charlie Chaplin had produced, directed, and written himself called The Great Dictator. The movie begins in a time and place identical to one where Hitler had risen to power and begun with the decimation of the Jews—only in Chaplin’s story, Hitler is named Adenoid Hynkel and Germany is called Tomainia. The movie is about a Jewish-Tomainian barber who escapes persecution and joins an old comrade in an attempt to end the rule of the power-hungry Hynkel. In the final moments of the movie, Hynkel’s men confuse the barber for their leader (because they are both played by Chaplin) and give him the opportunity to speak before the entire country. In Chaplin’s final speech, he adopts authoritative voices and key words from Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in order to build his credibility, portray all tyrants as enemies of the world, and convince us all that we can overcome both dictators and dictatorships by fighting together under democracy.

            Chaplin knows that to incite a world-wide audience to action, he must have the credibility of a leader that has credibility before the world. Charlie Chaplin adopts authority by “voice merging,” a strategy that “occurs when a writer quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to an authoritative voice” (McInelly, 60). Throughout Charlie Chaplin’s speech are littered references from a speech given by FDR on July 10, 1940, about four months before Chaplin’s film would come out. There is no way to know for sure, but I believe that Chaplin deliberately used themes from FDR’s speech to build his own credibility. FDR made his speech in response to Italy’s recent alliance with Germany. In light of a surge of recent innovation caused by the Machine Age, he talks about the effect of these machines in the hands of tyrants. He says that “the machine in hands of irresponsible conquerors becomes the master; mankind is not only the servant; it is the victim, too” (Roosevelt, par 11). Then, he goes on to address those that fear tyranny will prevail; up to that point in history, most of Europe had already been overrun by Germany. FDR reminds the country that “victory for the gods of war and hate would endanger the institutions of democracy” (Roosevelt, par 18), but he puts faith in democracy by proclaiming that “we will not…abandon our continuing effort to make democracy work within our borders” (Roosevelt, par 32). Chaplin not only uses very similar themes and ideas but he uses them to forward the same goal of democracy in the face of tyranny. Chaplin, like FDR, references the Machine Age when he states that “machinery that gives abundance has left us in want” (Chaplin, par 4). He recognizes the rise of tyrants when he says that “brutes have risen to power, but they lie” (Chaplin, 11), but he too puts confidence in democracy by saying that “the people have the power to make life free and beautiful” (Chaplin, par 11). 

By borrowing themes like the Machine Age, tyranny, and democracy from FDR, Chaplin connects both himself and his message with the President of the United States, which strengthens his credibility and his words before a world-wide audience. But in order to understand exactly how FDR’s speech builds Chaplin’s credibility, we must know at least a little about FDR himself. He was first of all a leader not only in the eyes of the American people but in the eyes of the world. America was recognized in this era as a superpower, so FDR, as its leader, had to be a symbol of strength and solidarity. He commanded at least world recognition, if not a great deal of respect, and all of America’s enemies knew that he would not be easily swayed or controlled. He was also known as a talented orator that could give powerful speeches that moved people to action; he gave people hope and always fought for democracy. In Chaplin’s speech, he addresses not only Americans but the “millions throughout the world” (Chaplin, par 6) — every country, every race, and every gender. For a message to so broad an audience, especially in the persona of a leader, I believe that Chaplin knew he had to have the credibility of an actual leader with respect in the eyes of the world. By repeatedly drawing from themes from a very recent speech given by FDR, a national leader and polished orator, Chaplin, in turn, adopts the same respect and reverence that an audience might have given to FDR himself. In that light, the audience sees him not as an ordinary man but as one who is aware of the problems of the world and who has the experience to fix them. Also, just as FDR’s speech gives Chaplin more credibility, it gives Chaplin’s message more credibility as well. Since democracy is a theme often championed by FDR, it is easier for the audience to see its importance as Chaplin attempts to unite the world underneath it.

 But Chaplin doesn’t just use voice merging to build his credibility; by intertwining his speech with FDR’s, Chaplin is able to use key words from FDR’s speech to both elevate and further the meaning of his own analogies and metaphors in order to effectively create an “us versus them” mentality between dictators and the world. There are certain words that are deemed either “god terms” or “devil terms” (McInelly 68) because of the powerful emotional overtones that they have. Chaplin voice merges, not by using entire quotes or sentences, but by using god and devil terms that are key to FDR’s argument. There is one devil term in particular, “machine,” that Chaplin uses because of the added meaning that it carries from FDR’s speech. FDR used this word hand in hand with words like “irresponsible conqueror,” “master,” and “servant” (Roosevelt, par 11), making a point that machines, when used in the wrong hands, can enslave us and make us all their victims. He implies that they, the machines, can use us without us even realizing it. Chaplin uses this same devil term but to define all dictators and tyrants, calling them “machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts” (Chaplin, par 9). “Machine” is a powerful descriptor because of its strong negative connotations; it is used when describing something that is cold, calculating, unfeeling, and inhuman. FDR spoke of machines enslaving the conquerors that use them, but Chaplin goes one step further by using this same logic to imply that these conquerors have now become the machines that control. Through voice merging the devil term “machine,” he automatically characterizes tyrants as cold and inhuman objects, past caring for others, who are quietly enslaving those that they are using to further their own objectives. The logic of reasoning used by FDR, coupled with Chaplin’s new usage of the word, creates a sort of cycle that further implies that just as tyrants can become like the machines they control, anyone can become like the tyrants that they perhaps are helping or hiding behind for their own purposes. Just by voice merging one simple word, Chaplin has made all dictators enemies of the world.

Chaplin then links both democracy and tyranny to specific god and devil terms to further separate the world from tyranny and emphasize democracy’s superiority. Chaplin has already tied the word “machine” to tyranny with all its negative connotations, but he uses other devil terms, some borrowed from FDR and others original, in order to continue to undermine the concept of tyranny: “slavery” (Chaplin, par 9), “hate” (Roosevelt, par18), “brutes” (Chaplin, par 11), and “unnatural” (Chaplin, par 9). By painting dictators and rulers with these words, he puts the concept of tyranny below humanity and mankind, making it the “unnatural” choice. He then connects democracy with god terms like “freedom” (Roosevelt, par 13), “liberty” (Chaplin, par 9), “human beings” (Chaplin, par 1), and “humanity” (Roosevelt, par 22) in order to make it the natural choice. Chaplin is claiming that mankind is born with the desire to free and be freed. He is connecting the entire world by saying that we all want the same things: “We all want to help one another. We all want to live by each other’s happiness, not each other’s misery” (Chaplin, par 1). These comparisons make democracy superior by portraying democracy as the “human” thing to do. It pits the world against all tyrants and portrays them as men now twisted by the very machines that they used to gain power. It helps the audience equate democracy with a sense of unity and tyranny with one of captivity.

By adopting an authoritative voice and voice merging key words into his speech, Chaplin is able to build his credibility to the point where he can not only address but connect a world audience; this allows him defeat tyranny by uniting the entire world against it under one banner: democracy. He convinces us that as human beings we all want democracy because we all want freedom. He employs these strategies so effectively that by the time his speech is over, we are already prepared to respond with action to his final words: “In the name of democracy, let us all unite” (Chaplin, par 12).

                            

Works Cited

Chaplin, Charlie. The Great Dictator's Speech. Charlie Chaplin—Official Website. Accessed Feb 1, 2012. http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/synopsis/articles/29-The-Great-Dictator-s-Speech.

McInelly, Brett C., and Brian Jackson. Writing and Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNeil Publishing. 2011. 68.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Stab in the Back” Speech. Miller Center. The University of Virginia. Accessed Februrary 15, 2012.

Research Paper on Global Warming

We Have Changed the World, But Have We Gone Too Far?

Have you ever seen The Day After Tomorrow? It came out in 2004 and it was more or less about how a storm of epic proportions almost brought an end to civilization. But if we look past the special effects and Dennis Quaid, we find that the real issue at the heart of it all was climate change. Personally, I think it was a little…ok, very exaggerated. I mean, they had to make money somehow, right? But it is exaggerated propaganda like this that has put people off thinking about the real life issues of global warming. Epic storms that destroy the world can seem so farfetched and so unlikely that it can give some the mistaken idea that climate change is just as fake as some of the special effects on the big screen. I want to make known three things that, unlike The Day After Tomorrow, are very real that we can and should care about: global warming exists around the world, we are the ones who have caused it, and if we do nothing, there will be global consequences that will affect all of us.

            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has said that “scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (Jenkins). I think the first thing we must understand is that global warming is based on scientific facts, not just on theories.

Fig. 1. Global Land-Ocean Temperatures 1880-2009. Black dots represent yearly temperature averages, and the red line represents the overall averages of yearly readings. Released and Published by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, used on article "Research News:2009: Second Warmest Year on Record” (Voiland).  

Right now we are experiencing a very warm winter. There has been almost no snow up until recently in many parts of both North America and Europe, but this alone does not prove that global warming exists; last year, the winters were unusually cold. As you can see in fig. 1 (above), there will always be fluctuations in temperatures around the world from year to year. But it is when we look at the mean global temperature that we can see a definite positive trend that shows that temperatures are steadily rising.

Interestingly enough, even though the world wide surface temperature continues to rise, NASA has reported that we are at a solar low. David Hathaway, NASA’s head solar physicist, was one of those responsible for recognizing that sun activity runs in cycles made up of highs and lows.

Fig. 2. Sunspot Cycle 1995 to 2020. Jagged lines represent actual solar output data, and the smooth lines represent predictions. Released and Published by NASA on article “Deep Solar Minimum” (Phillips).

The most important thing to note about fig. 2 (above) is that 2008 and 2009 were years that had record lows as far as solar output was concerned. This is why it is so unnatural that our planet has continued to warm beside the fact that we are receiving less solar energy from the sun. But apparently, sunspot activity has been continually decreasing for a while now. Hathaway says that “sunspot counts are at a 50-year low. We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle” (Phillips). This is evidence that we are contributing to the rising temperatures of the Earth’s surface.

            But how can we know that the Earth isn’t just “naturally” heating up? Some argue that the planet has been heating up since the last ice age and it’s true. But there is evidence that shows that our planet, in recent years, has been warming up at an unnatural rate.

Fig.3. Atmospheric CO2 count from ~650,000 BC to Present. Graph released by National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and used on NASA website “Climate Change: Evidence” (Jenkins).

             

Fig. 3 (above) is based on atmospheric samples that have been taken from ice cores, which has proven to be an accurate way of measuring CO2 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere at different periods of time. In this graph, CO2 levels rise above 300 ppm for the first time in 650,000 years around 1950 or so, which just happens to be exactly when the Industrial Revolution is fully underway. But how do these CO2 levels prove that we are contributing to recent climate change? Humor me for a moment, as we go back to 1991 to a remote glacier in the Otztal Alps. A man, now nicknamed Frozen Fritz, was found naturally mummified in the ice, dating back to around 3300 BC (Deem). For many archeologists and historians this was an amazing find, but for the climate change community it meant much more. This discovery meant that a glacier, that has since been estimated to have been 5000 years old, had finally melted. This lead scientist to investigate at which point in time this glacier, and others like it, began to melt. Fig. 4 (below) shows the maximums and minimums of glaciers measured around the world since the 1700s. Some don’t have measurements until later years, but as we can see, most glaciers actually reached a maximum after a period of decline in the 1800s. But starting around 1950, the glaciers around the Himalayas, South America, and Tibet began to slip into heavy declines. And by 2000, glaciers around the world were smaller than ever.

Fig. 4. Glacier Growth around the World, 1700-Present. Grey represents lack of recorded data. All other colors represent maximums, minimums, growth, and shrinking. Released and Published by UNEP on article “Overview on glacier changes since the end of the Little Ice Age.”

Some of these glaciers had existed for thousands of years. Is it just a coincidence that they began to melt faster than they ever had around the peak of the Industrial Revolution? I think not.

            So why does any of this matter to us? Why should we care that global warming is real? Well, first of all, as the land surface temperature rises, the sea temperature rises. These warming water currents are shown to make more intense hurricanes. Ok, I know this is starting to sound a bit The Day After Tomorrow-esk, but hear me out. I am talking about normal hurricanes that we have seen before. The American Meteorological Society has reported that studies and models have shown that “hurricanes are more intense and have higher precipitation rates” when they form under “high CO2 conditions” (Knutson). I was able to find a list of every charted hurricane between 1900 and 2005 (Hurricanes). Of those 23 hurricanes, only four occurred before 1940. There is also an obvious increase in hurricane activity as the dates come closer to present day. Of the 17 that occur after 1940, 11 of them struck after 1980. In 2005 alone, there were three hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which hit the US, the Yucatan Peninsula, and the Caribbean. They caused together about 96 billion dollars of damage, and worse than that, at least 1,300 people were killed during the storms. But that is just one year out of many. Think of all those who lost their families, those who lost their homes, and those that truly lost everything. I strongly believe that the rise in temperature due to global warming is responsible for this increased hurricane activity. It makes me ask myself if hurricanes like Katrina really had to happen. Did all those people have to lose their lives and their homes? Even if you don’t believe in global warming, is not even the possibility of saving a human life worth a few minor life style changes?

But global warming is real and sadly, we have caused it. This increased hurricane activity is only one of the many ways our choices will affect our, and our children’s, futures. In a matter of years, melted ice caps will cause seas to rise, covering cities around the world. There will be record droughts, ocean acidification, and warmer oceans, which have already began killing off species of life that have existed for millennia. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can slow global warming by doing simple things like recycling and using public transportation, which decrease the output of CO2. Even reforestation could go a long way to reverse the warming. Now, does it really take all that long to plant a tree or two? If we all do a little, we can begin to slow global warming and make a difference in and for the world.

Works Cited

"HURRICANES: MAJOR STORMS SINCE 1900 | Scholastic.com." Scholastic | Children's Books. Scholastic. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.

Deem, James M. "Ötzi the Iceman: His Discovery." Enter the Mummy Tombs for Information about Mummies from Egypt and Around the World. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.

Jenkins, Amber. "Climate Change: Evidence." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. 

Knutson, Thomas, and Shirley Laska. "New Orleans, Hurricanes and Climate Change: A Question of Resiliency." American Meteorological Society. American Meteorological Society, 2005. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Phillips, Tony. "Deep Solar Minimum." NASA Science. 2009. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. 

Voiland, Adam. "Research News:2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade." NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2012.