In terms of Chaplin’s slapstick performance, the uncontrollability of his body reflects the problem of mental dislocation in contemporary society. According to the action of falling adopted throughout his comedies, Chaplin represents himself as a hysterical figure who is incapable to coordinate his physical body. It is demonstrated by Susan Mccabe that Chaplin’s hysterical motion reflects a mental detachment from bodily organ that permeates every “non-hysterical” subject in contemporary society.[1] To illustrate, people frequently experience involuntary loss of attention due to the traumatic onslaught of shocking experience brought by modernization.[2] As a symptom of the rapid social transformations in modern society, hysteria has become a universal experience. Therefore, Chaplin embodies the universally experienced absence of consciousness by reinforcing the action of falling, who reflects the modern disease of hysteria through his comedic body. For example, Chaplin repeatedly falls on a road at the beginning of The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin, 1916). Being corporally unable to deal with the rapidly passing motor vehicles, the tramp seems incapable to escape the road, who is coerced to regain his feet and keep being inflicted. Juxtaposing the symbol of modern technology with the action symbolizing inefficiency, Chaplin exposes the tramp’s mental incapability to grasp modernity. Metaphorically, the tramp’s physical vulnerability reflects people’s experiences of being incapable in the reality under unceasing social transformations. Thus, Chaplin represents a circular failure through bodily performance to reflect the problem of people’s inflicted psyche in the modern society.
Not only does he fail to balance physical body, Chaplin also appears unable to control his motor impulse. Unable to repress kinesthetic impulse, Chaplin deliberately acts like a child to undermine the concept of proper behavior in modern values. In terms of Guillemette Bolens, Chaplin performs “irresistible kinesthetic” as a decentered subject, who expresses motor urges whenever experiencing kinesthetic sensations.[3] Because people’s spontaneous reactivity is encouraged to be repressed in modern society, Chaplin represents the uncontrollability of motor impulse to embrace innate human nature and subverts constructed social norms. For instance, the tramp instinctually laughs when he learns to perform clown show in The Circus (Charlie Chaplin, 1928). Knowing the inappropriateness of laughing at this situation, the tramp still cannot help immediately bursting into laughter when experiencing funny events. Lifting his legs and shaking his body, Chaplin laughs in an unconstrained manner irrespective of social norms. Only when being stared by his boss does he stop, the tramp keeps failing to control his motor impulse and shortly laughs again. Additionally, not only unable to control his cheerfulness, Chaplin also impulsively expresses anger through direct bodily behavior. In the boat scene of The Immigrant (Charlie Chaplin, 1917), the tramp irritated by an officer retaliates by kicking his arse. It is explained by Dan Kamin that the arse is culturally considered the most undignified part of human being. Therefore, the action of arse-kicking is more atavistic than other behaviors normally used to express anger.[4] Without considering the socially constructed concept of dignity, Chaplin performs a spontaneous stimulus response driven by human’s primal impulse. Prioritizing spontaneous bodily reactions over the demand of society, Chaplin performs a “natural man”, per Tom Gunning, to oppose the bourgeois value of enclosed body.[5] Consequently, Chaplin utilizes bodily performance to represent the uncontrollability of desire and suggest the universal propensity of losing control among human being, who criticizes modern values through subverting social norms.
Based on the critical meanings attached with bodily performance, Chaplin utilizes multiple elements in mise-en-scne to vivify his performance and further challenge modern society. According to the specific makeups adopted by Chaplin throughout his oeuvre, they function to intensify his visual language of bodily performance. In terms of Kamin, Chaplin’s iconic mustache functions to highlight his facial expressions.[6] Using mustache to visually weaken the shape of his mouth when it is closed, Chaplin also uses it as a tool to emphasize the position of his mouth when he laughs. By emphasizing the action of laughing, Chaplin’s representation of uncontrollable body thus becomes vivified. Moreover, Chaplin utilizes top hat to visually largen his head. Because head is the controlling center of body, reinforcing its position highlights the invalidity of volitional control and makes it more graphically striking when Chaplin falls. Apart from incorporating slapstick performance with makeups, it is demonstrated by Gunning that Chaplin merges his body with animal to create a “new body” and provide a renewed sense of corporal experience.[7] In A Dog’s Life (Charlie Chaplin, 1918), Chaplin represents a mixed body through integrating his body with a dog’s tail by hiding a dog in his trousers. Thus, not only behaving like a child himself, Chaplin also subverts the concept of socialization by visually combining the civilized with the uncivilized. Creating a harmonious unity, Chaplin highlights the compatibility and affinity between human body and animal body to challenge the glorification of civilized human body in modern ideology. Moreover, other characters’ dancing postures appear extremely stiff in the pub scene, whose grotesque movements resemble the motions of machine. Because people are affected by mechanical interventions in contemporary society, the rigid postures can be seen as symptomatic of their hysterical nerves. Comparing with the supposedly civilized dancing people, the dog appears more animated and alive. Therefore, Chaplin represents an inversion of value by comparing human to living machines and representing the animal as a natural being. Referencing other characters’ performances and utilizing animal as prop, Chaplin critically reveals the people’s inflicted psyche in the society and interrogates modern civilization. Consequently, bodily performance and other elements in mise-en-secne are incorporated in Chaplin’s comedies to forward social critique.
Additionally, the juxtaposition of slapstick bodily performance with realistic décor in Chaplin’s comedies functions to emphasize the cruel reality of modern society. According to Kamin, Chaplin’s postures suggest bullet dance, which evokes a world of wealth that contrasts to the character’s real status in his films.[8] Precisely, Chaplin always hold his head regally rather than crane it forward like normal people, who also tilts his pelvis back and walks by spreading his feet apart. Therefore, although Chaplin represents himself as an under-class tramp, his postures reveal the tramp’s aspiration to gracefulness and innate desire towards beauty. However, the realistic settings in Chaplin’s comedies appears incompatible to his romanticized physical performance, which reveals the unrealizability of his aspiration. For example, in The Kid (Charlie Chaplin, 1921), Chaplin’s elegant manner resembles a bourgeois gentleman rather than a tramp when he reads newspaper on bed. However, Chaplin manifests the impossibility for the tramp to achieve his aspiration by representing the incompatibility of his behavior with the environment around him: gracefully putting on a shabby quilt and using it as a night-robe, the tramp then gently puts his feet into a pair of worn-out shoes. Juxtaposing the ideal with the reality, the contrast between Chaplin’s romanticized performance and the realistic décor creates a sense of disillusionment and melancholy, which suggests the unrealizability of the tramp’s dream. Therefore, Chaplin satires the cruel reality of the modern industrial society, where the poor can hardly escape their dilemma and are unable to change their social status.
Moreover, Chaplin represents a complex persona by combining subversive bodily performance with socially recognized behavior to subvert the ideology of binary opposition in modern values. Comparing Chaplin’s slapstick comedy with traditional slapstick shows, it is demonstrated by James E. Caron that ritual clowns only represent anti-structure and act sole against socially symbolic figures. Because ritual clowns’ disruptive performance functions to differentiate the evil from the good, they are ultimately represented to confirm the proper behavior and enculturate audiences.[9] Nevertheless, Chaplin represents both structure and anti-structure in the tramp’s persona to challenge social ideology by combining subversive performance with socially justified behavior in narrative. On the one hand, the tramp is normally involved in romances and actively pursuits job, who embodies social norms in narrative. On the other hand, Chaplin’s slapstick performance involves socially despised actions, which disrupts social order. Therefore, Chaplin achieves a balance between the structure and the anti-structure in his persona, who resists the concept of binary moral judgement. In A Dog’s Life, the tramp actively pursuits job and engages in romance, who symbolizes the norm in modern industrial society. Stealing food, violating social rule and violently hitting others, etc., Chaplin’s slapstick performance involves socially unwanted actions. Because the anti-structural actions are neither punished in narrative nor justified by his socially recognized behaviors, both elements gathered in a single character appear compatible with each other. Thus, Chaplin refuses to forward moral judgement as in traditional slapstick show, who embraces both advantages and drawbacks in human nature. Accepting multiple aspects of human nature without articulating an absolute moral judgement, Chaplin subverts the emphasis on binary oppositions in modern values to challenge constructed social ideology.
Furthermore, Chaplin subverts the ideology of progression attached with contemporary society by using slapstick performance to freeze narrative and represent individual’s incompetence. In terms of Alan O’Shea, the ideology of social progression is closely tied to the notion of modernity.[10] Subversively, Chaplin utilizes meaningless slapstick bodily performance to detach from goal-driven plot, who denies the utopian attitude and challenges the obsessive pursuit towards progression in modern society. Precisely, it is demonstrated by Mccabe that Chaplin creates a “peculiar break” in narrative through his off-centered body, who subordinates plot to disjunctive rhythms of bodily motions and articulate “radical nothing”.[11] For instance, in The Immigrant, Chaplin rhythmically hiccups with a man beside him in the beginning of the film. Keeps exaggeratedly vacillating his body without purpose, Chaplin repeats the meaningless bodily motion to freeze narrative flow. When gambling with others, Chaplin tries to win the game by behaving as a professional sports player. Exaggeratedly distorting his torso and rotating his arms, Chaplin absurdly uses much more energy than required in this game. Since the game is only a game of chance, the emphasis on Chaplin’s gratuitous action impedes narrative progression. Therefore, Chaplin deliberately undermines narrative and represents a world lack of meaning, who denies the idea of teleological progression in modern society. Additionally, the meaningless-ness of slapstick performance indicates the incapability of individual to progress in modern society. In A Dog’s Life, the tramp competes with other applicants in an employment center, who is unable to reach the window although persistently retries. The character’s action of repeated failure excessively exaggerated by slapstick performance temporarily hinders narrative development. Because the tramp appears unable to both obtain a job and proceed a narrative, Chaplin highlights the ineffectiveness of personal effort in the industrial society, where human labors have been replaced by machines. Thus, freezing narrative through representing invalid behaviors and manifesting individual’s incompetence, Chaplin challenges the optimistic attitude towards progression in modern society.
Not only expressing critical attitudes through performance, Chaplin also utilizes his performance to closely involve audiences. Using humorous bodily performances to trigger audiences’ laughter, Chaplin promotes the audiences to experience their own kinesthetic impulses. According to Bolens, the audiences lose rational control and irresistibly laughs when watching Chaplin’s funny performances, and therefore the spectators themselves become decentered subjects with the character on screen.[12] As the tramp experiences motor impulse and expresses it through various motions, the audiences express their uncontrollable impulses through laughter simultaneously. Thus, the spectators make sense of the tramp’s lack of control, who unconsciously identify with the character. Moreover, Chaplin also occasionally laughs with the audiences, whose infectious silent laughs promote the audiences’ complicity. Consequently, Chaplin’s silent laughs invite the audiences to share his point of view and encourage them to enjoy his anti-social behaviors. Additionally, it is demonstrated by Bolen that Chaplin’s vivid actions enhance the audience’s propensity to generate perceptual simulation, which nudge them to internally simulate the sensations the character possibly feels like.[13] To achieve a further rapport with the audiences, Chaplin also remains frontality towards camera, who acknowledges the camera’s position and appears aware of the audiences’ presence. To illustrate the ways Chaplin uses performance to involve the spectators, he remains facing the camera when stealing food in front of a seller in A Dog’s Life. Adopting quick and playful bodily motions, Chaplin’s vivid performance attracts the audiences’ attention and pulls them into his action. Through his rhythmic kinesis, Chaplin activates the audiences’ perceptual simulation and provides them a sense of excitement and nervousness to boost their participation. Repeatedly stealing foods and facing back to the camera, Chaplin connects with the spectators to ensure their complicity with his transgressive behavior. Watching the character’s slapstick performance, Caron points out that the audiences experience psychological regression and are brought into primal pleasures, who secretly wish to transgress the ideal with the character.[14] Therefore, Chaplin’s performance promotes the spectators to become complicit with him both perceptually and cognitively. Recognizing their common desire of evading the stricture of the world, the audiences are offered a chance to critically reflect the society.
To promote the audiences’ critical thinking, Chaplin also occasionally disrupts their pleasures by combing realist performance with slapstick performance. In order to prevent the audiences from being indulged into pleasure, Chaplin’s comedies oscillate between cheerfulness and seriousness by combining different performing styles. Precisely, Chaplin adopts realistic performing style when representing serious realities, who interrupts the comedic effect of slapstick performance to both involve and detach the audiences. For example, in The Vagabond (Charlie Chaplin, 1916), Chaplin directly represents the horrendous action of a man whipping an innocent girl without attaching the performance with any sense of humor. In The Circus, the audiences would also not laugh when the circus owner cruelly abuses his own daughter. In The Immigrant, a man is violently punched only because of ten cents, which elicits the audiences’ sympathy rather than laughter. Because of the realistic revelations of individual’s suffer through non-comedic performances, Chaplin’s clownish slapstick, per Caron, becomes a “grim faced satire.”[15] Therefore, the audiences with their pleasures disrupted are acknowledged the reality and promoted to critically reflect the problems in the modern society. Additionally, Chaplin replaces his slapstick performance by a more realistic performance style when representing pathos. In The Kid, Chaplin realistically represents the emotive moment when he regains his boy. Holding and kissing the boy in tears without adopting funny actions, Chaplin expresses authentic emotion through realistic performance. No longer being delighted, audiences are emotionally infected by the character’s pathos and are promoted to interrogate the authority that forces to separate them in the film. Therefore, Audiences are not only engaged by the slapstick performance, their pleasures are also occasionally disrupted by the negativities represented through realistic performances in Chaplin’s comedies. Consequently, Chaplin critically engages the audiences and promotes their own reflections about modern society.
Conclusively, the expressive power of Chaplin’s kinesis in his comedies helps him both convey critical meanings and effectively engage audiences. According to Bolens, because specific kinesis can be attached with various meanings and functions, gesture’s semiotic meaning is less fixed by the conventions of other signifiers.[16] Therefore, Chaplin’s kinesthetic expression with its irreducible complexity appears more volatile than linguistic representation. Resisting verbal representation and foregrounding the communicative function of bodily performance, Chaplin forwards an effective social critique in his silent comedies. Representing the uncontrollability of human body and desire through physical performance, Chaplin metaphorically reveals the modern problem of people’s inflicted psyche and subverts social norms. Incorporating bodily performance with elements in mise-en-scene, Chaplin vivifies his kinesthetic performance and enriches its critical meanings. Juxtaposing romanticized bodily performance with realistic décor, Chaplin also represents the marginalization of the lower-class in the modern society. Moreover, Chaplin subverts the dominant ideology of binary opposition in modern society, who represents a rounded character by combining subversive performance and socially recognized behaviors. Utilizing slapstick performance to freeze narrative and represent individual’s impotency, Chaplin represents a meaningless world to challenge the modern ideology of progression. Importantly, Chaplin engages audiences’ kinesthetic empathy and uses his body as an attraction to psychologically involve spectators. In order to both engage the audiences and promote their critical reflection, Chaplin combines slapstick performance with realistic performance to disrupt their pleasures. Consequently, Chaplin foregrounds kinesthetic expression and utilizes bodily performance to reflect social problems, criticize modern society and critically engage audiences in his slapstick comedies.
Bibliography
Bolens, Guillemette. “Kinesthetic Empathy in Charlie Chaplin’s Silent Films.” In Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices, edited by Dee Reynolds and Matthew Reason, 143-156. Bristol : Intellect, 2012.
Caron, James E. “Silent Slapstick Film as Ritualized Clowning: The Example of Charlie Chaplin.” Studies in American Humor, New Series 3, no. 14 (2006): 5-22.
Grace, Harry A. “Charlie Chaplin’s Films and American Culture Patterns.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 10, no. 4 (1952): 353-363.
Gunning, Tom. “Chaplin and the body of modernity.” Early Popular Visual Culture Vol. 8, no. 3 (2010): 237–245.
Kamin, Dan. “Falling for the Flickers.” In The comedy of Charlie Chaplin: artistry in motion, 12-31. Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2008.
Mccabe, Susan. “‘Delight in Dislocation’: The Cinematic Modernism of Stein, Chaplin, and Man Ray.” Modernism/Modernity, Volume 8, no. 3 (2001): 429-452.
O’Shea, Alan. “English Subjects of
Modernity.” In Modern times: reflections on a century of English modernity,
7-37, edited by Mica Nava and Alan O’Shea. New York and London: Routledge,
2013.
Film & Art 