Home
Artist
Educator
Scholar

HYNKEL Vs. ARTURO UI - SOME REFELCTIONS ON FILM, THEATRE, AND SOCIETY

Published in:
KINOPIS, journal of film history, theory and culture of film and other arts. Skopje. Macedonia. 1996.

"How can we love a clown who murders in a cold blood; who calculates, as he somersaults, the deaths of a millions?" - This challenging and at the same time accusing question, asked recently appears as a result of critics’ and theatre artists’ renewed interest in Bertolt Brecht's less known but shivering play Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. But, this important question can also be asked in reference to another work of art, the well-known master piece The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin. The question above, in fact, clearly suggests that there is a remarkable similarity and parallel between Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, The Great Dictator, on one hand and Adolph Hitler and his gang of murderers on the other. That is, at the center of these two celebrated works of art stands the same dangerous “hero”, Adolph Hitler, as a model for creating the main characters in these well known works of art, Arturo Ui and Adenoid Hynkel. In doing so, Bertolt Brecht and Charlie Chaplin explore the same historical and socio/political events in Nazi Germany and use them as a foundation and background of their dramatic and cinematic narratives. They both address same ideas and same poignant issues. And although their artistic and aesthetic approaches to the same subject matter is different, Bertolt Brecht uses drama and theatre while Chaplin uses film, their close satiric and comic encounter and imaginative meeting points open wide door to many stunning similarities. In an unusual way their works, in fact, bring about a huge horizon of identical or similar theoretical, aesthetical, political, historical, or creative issues sought and addressed from a recognizable individual and creative pint of view. This work will focus on some of those relevant meeting points in these two works, will point out their identical aesthetic, structural, and creative means of expression, and will discuss some of the important ideas and issues addressed in these similar but jet different narratives.

Both Arturo Ui and The Great Dictator appeared at approximately the same time, within a period of some six months difference. To Brecht and Chaplin that was a practical and artistic reactions to the perilous raising and escalating of German Nazism and Italian Fascism in Europe. The Great Dictator had its opening night on October 15, 1940, while Arturo Ui was finished as a play in April 1941 in Finland and later, after the WWII, performed by Brecht’s Breliner Ensemble with outstanding Eckehard Schall as Arturo Ui. In the period of their public appearances (in the U.S. and in Finland), Hitler, - that is, the “role-model” for the main character of both The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui, - and his National Socialistische Partai were marching all over Europe. The W.W.II, was going on already for a whole year and there was no more pleasant and peaceful place anywhere in the world at that time. The horror and death were signs of unbearable life in Europe under Nazi's booth. And as a clear political statement, as a clear artistic rebellion against the dark times and evil forces The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui appeared on that devastated stage with their satire, sharp criticism, biting humor, and bitter laughter. And as we well know according to Freud, the laughter comes out of a despair, and it should be healing.

Both, The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui are considered by many critics to be comedies, satires, parables, parodies, allegories. However, it seems that both The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui are closest to what is in the theory of modern theatre known as a tragic farce. Since it is very difficult after George Steiner’s seminal work Death of Tragedy, to argue about the possibility of creating tragedy today, then theory tries to address many contrasting concepts and to articulate them under the huge and wide open umbrella of tragicomedy. In doing so, and on the basis of the creative and aesthetic experiences brought about by Alfred Jarry's unsurpassed play Ubu Roi, we have accepted the idea of tragic farce as a special sub genre that appeared at the turn of the twentieth century. Tragic farce is that specific artistic genre which explores the tragic sense of life in our human existence using a form and shape of a comedy. This aesthetic idea of tragic farce is already included in the opening question of this discourse. The “clown,” the real life model Hitler, or Arturo Ui and Adenoid Hynkel, the characters based on him are not funny any more. They are horrible. They are scary. At the same time the idea of a tragic farce in this case implies presence of eerily satire, and therefore strong political and social engagement as well. As a matter of fact, both Arturo Ui and The Great Dictator are deeply politically and socially charged, and their content clearly reveals political and social engagement.

What kind of political content these two challenging works of art have? How do they deal with their political reality?

Brecht's political engagement and his criticism of the German totalitarian regime at war, his anti-Nazism, is evident and clear from his theoretical, dramatic, and poetic writings. His political views are well-known. His entire life and work in general, and his work in exile in particular, is marked by his struggle against Nazism. He was ridiculing and unmasking the evil in most of his plays written in that time. Reflecting on Brecht’s engagement Walter Benjamin notes that only political drama can be the proper concern of theatre for the artist in exile. As if to confirm his compatriot’s view Brecht was doing exactly that in Arturo Ui. He was writing political play. Concerned with the well being of his native land he was pointing out the evil of Nazism and its destructive aims. Brecht was continuously showing Nazi’s real, ugly face in his plays and poems. Brecht knew what Nazism was: for him it was fundamentally irrational ideology and its leaders made no secret of their contempt for reason. "Credere, ubbidire, conbatore" was a Fascist's belief in Italy, while in Nazi's turn it meant and demanded blind obedience to the will of the Fuhrer. That is to the will of Arturo Ui, or Hynkel. To him, that was not a reasoned commitment but rather blind and obsessive conduct of loyalty.

That is why, Nazism as a political and cultural environment and ideology was not Brecht’s option. As Keith Dickson points out, “it conflicted with his deepest ideological beliefs, with his convictions about the nature of man, and whit his idea of human society.” 2 [Dickson, p.164] For Brecht, the Nazi leaders and their party were criminals, gangsters, bare thugs, and that is his basic argument why in his critical take on Hitler, called Arturo Ui, the “housepainter” as he called him, is just an ordinary gangster. Brecht himself writes: "The great political criminals must be exposed more than anything else to ridicule, because they are not so much great political criminals as perpetrators of great political crimes, which is not the same thing." 3 [Brecht, p.369]

Brecht was aware that appearance of a cheap buffoonery in his play may reduce Arturo Ui very easily to a childish and meaningless figure. Therefore he chose a form of a "historical gangster show" for his play. On April 1, 41 he wrote in his journal: “In Ui the problem was on the one hand to let the historical events show through, and on the other to give the ‘masking’ (which is an unmasking) some life of its own, i.e. it must — theoretically speaking — also work independently of its topical references, among other things, too close a coupling of the two plots (gangster plot and nazi plot) — that is, a form in which the gangster plot is a symbolic version of the other plot — would be unbearable, not least because people would constantly be looking for the ‘meaning’ of this or that move, and would always be looking for the real-life model for every figure. this was particularly difficult.4 [Brecht, p.137]

This approach enabled Brecht to express his strong political belief and his ideology in a way metaphors work. He was not only unmasking tyrants and criminals by ridiculing them, but he was seeking to expose the historical forces that brought them to power. He was critically attacking Hitler's dark ideology from a Marxist point of view. And in order to be heard, Brecht tried to present the main historical characters and events in a way that does not ruin the gangster-metaphor but rather makes it believable and credible.

On the other hand, Chaplin's political engagement is of a different kind. Chaplin is not committed to a philosophical system or ideology. His political belief and engagement is basically personal, social, and one of a humanist. His engaged criticism is a voice of an individual against injustice, totalitarianism, political madness, cruelty, against dark and evil forces that we face in the real life. Although very close to both European and American left at that time Chaplin was not a Marxist or communist as he was very often accused by the press. His usual answer to those occasions was, as Kenneth S. Lynn points out that he was a human being and an artist not a communist.5 [Lynn, p.391]

This individual resistance to the madness and evil of Nazism, is as a matter of fact, Chaplin’s chief reason to do his The Great Dictator. This film was for him an artistic, creative response to the actual political reality in the world in that time, artistic attempt to ridicule Hitler’s pathological grip on power and his dream to conquer the world. As Charles Maland points out in his Chaplin and American Culture, “Antifascism became the most passionate and public commitment of Chaplin’s life”. 6 [Maland, p.159]

The Great Dictator takes place in an unknown, invented country Tomania during the WWI, but we all know, as we know that same fact in the case of Arturo Ui’s where the action take place in Cicero but represents Germany, that is, Tomania stands for Nazi Germany where the real events take place. However, in contrast to Brecht, who was a German living in exile, Chaplin was not a German and knew very little about the actual political situation in Germany. His great talent and intuitive knowledge of the demoniac prototype, Adolph Hitler, gave him a chance to create his powerful political metaphor. However, John Mc Cabe argues that: "Had He [Chaplin] known of the actual horrors of the concentration camps, he would never have made The Great Dictator. As it was, he made the film for the Jews of the world, for the return of the decency and kindness." 7 [McCabe, p.197]

It seems it was so natural for “socially rebellious Chaplin” who created The Tramp, who took the side of the poor, who fought for human dignity, to do a film about dictators, about their madness and their totalitarian societies which bring only danger, horror and destruction for the little man as Tramp was.

Chaplin had what to say about politics, about the dark, horrible forces of his time and he did so. Hitler made him speak and he had what to speak about. And he had a lot to say. His speech, his creative expression was direct political response to the acid events in Nazi Germany and destroyed possibilities for life with human face in the dark times. Shortly after the film was realized Chaplin reflecting on the choiceshe made in his film, reveals that it could have been easier for him to have the Barber and Hannah to escape and to disappear over the horizon, somewhere off to the promised land against the glorious suns. But that was valid choice for him then, because there was no promised land for the oppressed people of the world. There was no place over the horizon to which they can go for sanctuary. Chaplin Deeply believed that they must stand against the evil. At the same time he was also suggesting that we must stand as well. And he says clearly in the film that the only answer is "fight back, fight together." This clear political statement and the parody of Hitler treats, shows that Chaplin has critically addressed a serious political reality that has surrounded him. Chaplin feels compelled to speak out in his own voice and at the end of The Great Dictator, once again proves his humanist engagement and his political philosophy. In his message he says:

“To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish… Soldiers! Don’t give yourselves to these brutes – men who despise you – enslave you – who regiment your lives – tell you what to do – what to think and what to feel! Who drill you – diet you – treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate – the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” – not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power – the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then – in the name of democracy – let us use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world – a decent world that will give men a chance to work – that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world – to do away with national barriers – to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!” 8 [Chaplin, The Great Dictator]

The political engagement in The Great Dictator is in fact a utopian hope of a humanist, a hope of one who doesn't turn his head away from the reality. Instead, he confronts it with his artistic work, with his political satire in a form of a tragic farce.

Similarity in the narrative dramatic structures is another segment that brings The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui together. They both cover identical historical and political landscape of Germany in the period from 1933 to 1939. However, the stories and the actions of their narratives take place in two distinctly different environments on two opposite sides of the world while their basic semantic levels remain the same one. As noted, that is the Nazi Germany, a totalitarian society, ruled by fear and terror. For example, exploring his theoretical and aesthetical ideas about fragmentary epic theatre Brecht presents the gangster world in his play in a cinematic structure of 15 scenes with prologue and epilogue. In the prologue Brecht introduces the action of the play, and then continues with the description of the actual situation in the trust and the attempts of the famous villain Ui to obtain control over Cauliflower Trust and the gangster's community in Chicago. It is obvious that Brecht’s parodies and ridicules Hitler's attempt to come to power in Germany. With a remarkable precision, mocking the real events in Germany, Brecht retells the whole story of Hitler's brutal rise to power. He follows the most important political events and ends with Fuhrer's Anschluss of Austria, and ends Arturo Ui’s furious, passionate, mad speech on the very end of the play establishing at the same time his power in Chicago and Cicero with his frenetic "And, now the world". In doing so Brecht as a mater of fact suggests or even more anticipates the events that were yet to come in the reality. Just few months later Hitler was already on his road to conquer the rest of the world.

The Great Dictator has a similar fragmentary structure with prologue and epilogue as Arturo Ui has. It is created as a linear narrative with two parallel stories simultaneously going on and intersecting at the end. Chaplin’s tragic farce is told through fast cinematic changes of the scenes. In contrast to Arturo Ui, the story in Chaplin’s film is not so faithful and true to the historical events and political reality in Nazi Germany as it is the case with Brecht’s play. The Great Dictator treats the reality with creative, artistic freedom, and imagination, although that the historical and political landscape covered in the film and used as a matrix remains basically unchanged. As pointed out, it is Germany in the period from the beginning of the thirties, from the well known “das krystal nacht” and Hitler's coming to power, to the occupation of Austria.

But let's see the relation, differences and similarities between the actual political events and the fictional events and the characters in The Great Dictator and Arturo Ui:

" It seems that the most important segment and major meeting point on a semantic level are, on one hand, the real life characters who are role models for the characters of the film and the play and, on the other, the similarity of the main fictional characters Arturo Ui and Hynkel. In both works, in The Great Dictator and in Arturo Ui, the narrative is created around and build upon the specific characteristics of the main characters, Hynkel and Ui, and they are at the center stage dominating their worlds."

Their personality, madness, passion, their acting, attitudes and behavior, their appearance and image are elements to be ridiculed in The Great Dictator and in Arturo Ui. Consequently they, Arturo Ui and Hynkel, are target of Brecht's and Chaplin's critical and satirical arrows. At the same time they are both subjects of a parody and unmasking as Brecht points out in his journals, and subjects that present and represent the dark land, the society which is parodied and held up to ridicule. In that same manner the other historical and political figures are renamed and given unusual and laughably similar names to their own are held up to ridicule and made caricatures and therefore they as well become in the general context of the tragic farce a subject of a parody and ridicule as well.

Since Arturo Ui is a play, a work of dramatic literature, we can see and understand many of his important characteristics and the way how they work, how Brecht ridicules, parodies, and makes caricature of Adolph Hitler only on an initial level as a written text and verbal language. They are suggested, posted, described and given in the play itself in its lines, in their language, in what the characters say, and in the stage directions as well. We can speak of Arturo Ui as a live character only seen on a stage. The Berliner Ensemble Production of 1957 and Eckehard Schall's performance of Arturo Ui is probably the best example for that. Schall creates real powerful character which unmasks, mocks, parodies and in a perfect comic way brings in front of us demoniac creature of Hitler. And it is surely not by accident that if at the beginning it was Hitler who was hidden and stayed unseen behind the trivial gangster Arturo Ui, it is at the end of the performance in Eckehard Schall's interpretation that it was Ui who was in the background and lurked from behind the hideous Dictator. There are many scenes that prove this statement, but the acting scene, in which Ui studies the art of acting and good diction from a bad actor is the most valuable example. In that grotesque situation the actor teaches him how to recite Shakespeare insisting: ”Shakespeare. Nothing but Shakespeare. Caesar. Ancient hero. What do you think of Antony’s oration? At Caesar’s funeral. Against Brutus. Leader of the assassins. A model of popular appeal, very famous indeed. I played Antony in Zenith, in 1908. Just what you need, Herr Ui”.9 [Brecht, Ui, p.161]

This scene, very well written by Brecht, becomes great in Schall's performance. As a matter of fact the scene, in Brecht’s hands, who knew how the Nazis theatricalized politics and life, reflects boldly and directly German reality. Hitler himself was taking acting classes, in order to please his mad necessity to present himself publicly and to impress his theatricalized world around himself. Brecht knew these weakness of Hitler's insane personality and he exposed these maniac signs to ridicule and parody. Seeing Arturo Ui how he imitates bad actor and how he studies, memorizes and recites Mark Antonio's famous speech from Julius Caesar, we see a caricature of a sick, dangerous maniac figure of the Fuhrer. We see him in his speech in Nuremberg.

Eckehard Schall's Arturo Ui is beyond Brecht's initial concept of the character. In a precise, passionate, temperament and expressive way he exercises his speech in front of a big mirror, but being impressed by his own image and being deeply overtaken by the 'role" he finally loses his control and falls bask over the armchair. Brecht’s brilliant approach in writing his character and Schall's artistic perfection in creating Ui makes the scene unforgettable and remarkable caricature of Hitler and his image of himself as a "sublime" character. It is the same case with the last scene of the play. Arturo Ui stands up on a high platform, and in his characteristic passionate-acting way proclaims his aim and his conquering appetite. Ui screams:

“With Pride I accept your thanks. Some fifteen years
Ago, when I was only a humble, unemployed
Son of the Bronx; when following the call
Of destiny I sallied forth with only
Seven staunch men to brave the Windy City
I was inspired by an iron will
To create peace in the vegetable trade.
We were a handful then, who humbly but
Fanatically strove for this ideal
Of peace! Today we are a multitude.
Peace in Chicago’s vegetable trade
Has ceased to be a dream. Today it is
Unvarnished reality. And to secure
This peace I have put in an order
For more machine-guns, rubber truncheons
Etcetera. For Chicago and Cicero
Are not alone in clamouring for protection.
There are other cities: Washington and Milwaukee!
Detroit! Toledo! Pittsburgh! Cincinnati!
And other towns where vegetables are traded!
Philadelphia! Columbus! Charleston! And New York!
They all demand protection! And no ‘Phooey!’
No ‘That’s not nice!’ will stop Arturo Ui!” 10 [Brecht, Ui, p. 212]

Yes. Nothing will stop Arturo Ui. The next is the world. And, at the same time in Ui’s speech, almost delirium, one can face and discover the frightening horror of the Nazism and totalitarian dictatorship. We, as audience, laugh at Schall's performance of Ui, we laugh at him and the way he speaks, reacts and gives orders people to be killed, but that is not joyful laugh. It is bitter one which causes pain and stands in our throats like fishbone. ”But that Brecht was able to laugh at this time reflects his unquenchable hope and confidence in the future. “ 11 [Ewen, p.375]

Chaplin's “great dictator,” Adenoid Hynkel, has very much in common with Arturo Ui, but at the same time he is different. Chaplin explains that he regarded Hitler merely as a small, mean, nervous and neurotic man. But to him he was also more of a caricature and clown vision of a modern devil and of a sick madness of an insane dictator who destroys everything.

However very often, Hynkel appears in Chaplin’s masterpiece as someone with a “grace of a hyena and hyena's blind will to kill”. Chaplin’s Hynkel is just dangerous and evil brut who is at turns ferocious, stupid, rude, greedy for power, jealous, harsh, bewildered, insane.

We see and discover this with the very first appearance of Hynkel. In the introductory scene Hynkel is standing up on a high platform, the same as Arturo Ui did at the end of the play, and addresses maniacally his fellows and followers of the Double Cross party. It is a passionate, crazy, and inflaming speech that makes us laugh endlessly, brings tears in our eyes, but frighten us as well with its resemblance of the reality and actual Nazi gathering in Nurmberg. John McCabe describes that scene in his book on Chaplin in this way:

“Hynkel, in addressing a party meeting, speaks in a vulgar German-English patois which an ur- bane radio announcer/translator sanitizes. When Hynkel rasps, “Democratia shtunk! Libertad shtunk! Frei sprachen shtunk!” the announcer purrs, “Democracy smells. Liberty is odious. Free speech is objectionable.” Beamingly, proudly, Hynkel says of the two aides at his side, the obese Herring (Billy Gilbert) and the saturnine Garbitsch (Henry Daniell): “Herring shouldn’t schmelten fine from Garbitsch, and Garbitsch shouldn’t schmelten fine from Herring.”

As Hynkel gets progressively heated in his oration he goes into a coughing fit, followed by a plea for more babies to raise as sol- diers, and concludes in a risingly violent harangue that escalates into gibberish shattering the radio wires. The translator explains that Hynkel has just referred to the Jewish people. After the speech, Garbitsch tells him his attack on the Jews was too soft, that assaults on the Jews would keep the Tomanian people from thinking of their empty bellies. Hynkel agrees; the ghetto has been too quiet lately. As Hynkel’s party drives away from the speaker’s stand, the statues raise their arms in salute.” 12 [McCabe p.192]

So, in Hynkel's grotesque madness we discover horrible elements of the real great dictator, Adolph Hitler, just in the time when he began to conquer the world.

“For what is Hynkel but Hitler reduced to his essence and deprived of his existence.” Argues Andre Basin in his essay Pastiche or Postiche, and coinitnues: “Hynkel does not exist. He is a puppet, a marionette, in which we recognize Hitler by his mustache, by his size, by the color of his hair, by his speeches, by his sentimentality, by his cruelty, by his rages, by his madness, but also as an empty and senseless amalgamation, deprived of all existential justification. Hynkel is the ideal catharsis for Hitler. Chariot does not kill his opponent by ridicule - to a certain extent when he tries to, the film truly fails. He annihilates him by recreating in front of him a perfect, absolute, necessary “Dictator” from whom we are absolutely free of any historical and psychological engagement. We have actually freed ourselves from Hitler through our contempt as much as by having won the war. This liberation, however, implies in its principle another form of subjection: we suffer from it at this very moment because the uncertainty of Hitler’s death is still haunting us. We will free ourselves from him only when we no longer feel engaged because of him, when hatred has lost its meaning. However, Hinkel does not inspire hatred, nor pity, nor rage, nor fear. Hinkel is Hitler’s nothingness. Having disposed of his existence, Chariot took it back in order to destroy it utterly”.13 [Bazin, p.15]

Rudolph Arnheim, who was as well a refugee from Hitler’s Germany in that period, wrote with awareness of a socially engaged witness to “Hynkel’s” rise to power: “Charles Chaplin is the only artist who holds the secret weapon of mortal laughter. Not the laugh of superficial gibing that self-complacently under- rates the enemy and ignores the danger, but rather the profound laughter of the sage who despises physical violence, even the threat of death, because behind it he has discovered the spiritual weakness, stupidity, and falseness of his antagonist. Chaplin could have opened the eyes of a world enchained by the spell of force and material success. But instead of unmasking the common enemy, fascism, Chaplin unmasked a single man, the great dictator. “14 [Robinson, p. 500]

Both Brecht and Chaplin in their remarkable works The Great Dictator and The Resistible rise of Arturo Ui, used the model of tragic farce in order to ridicule, parody, unmask, and make caricature of Hitler, the clown who murders, and his regime that marked the dark times in Germany.

However, no mater what has been written about these two works, their authors, Chaplin and Brecht, had defined and formulated each other's work in the most articulated way. Speaking about their own aesthetical and artistic models they also spoke about the other's work. Brecht's statement "to live in a country without a sense of humor is unbearable; but it is even more unbearable in a country where you need a sense of humor" and Chaplin's opinion that "comedy is a life sought from a distance," are equally relevant for both works and artistic models. They defined and expressed the same comic, grotesque, and tragic vision of the world in which they lived and in which we would not like to live.

Naum Panovski

NOTES:
P. McCay, Drama at Calgary, III, No 2 1969, [p17]

2 Dickson, Keith: TOWARDS UTOPIA Clarendon Press, Oxford 1978 [p164]
3 Bertolt Brecht: Stucke volume IX- Berlin Suhrkamp, 1957. [ p.369]

4 John Willet & Ralph Manheim Ed.: Brecht Journals 1934-1955. Routledge. NY 1993. [p.137]

5 Kenneth S. Lynn, Charlie Chaplin and His Times Simon and Schuster, NY 1997 [p.391]

6 Maland, Charles. Chaplin and American Culture, Princeton University Press, NJ 1989 [p.159]

7 Mc Cabe, John: Charlie Chaplin Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City. New York. 1978 [p.197]

8 Chaplin,Charlie. The Great Dictator, 1940.

9 Bertolt Brecht: Arturo Ui. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Arcade Publishing, New York 1994. [p.161]

10 Bertolt Brecht: Arturo Ui. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Arcade Publishing, New York 1994. [p.212]

11 Frederic Ewen: Bertolt Brecht: His life, his art, his times. Citadel Press, NY422 1967 [p. 375]

12 Mc Cabe, John: Charlie Chaplin Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City. New York. 1978 [ p.192]

13 Bazin, Andre: Essays on Chaplin, University of New Haven Press. New Haven.1985 [p.15]

14 David Robinson: Chaplin. McGrow-Hill Book Comp. New York 1985 [p.507]

Bibliography:

Arendt, Hannah. Men in Drak Times, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, NY 1968.
Benjamin, Walter. Undestanding Brecht, Verso, London-NY. 1998.
Benjamin, Walter. Versuche uber Brecht Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1966
Brecht, Bertolt. Stucke volume IX- Berlin Suhrkamp, 1957.
Brecht, Bertolt, The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui, Arcade Publishing, New York. 1994
Dickson, Keith A. Towards Utopia, A Study of Brecht. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1978
Esslin, Martin. A Choice of Evils. Methuen, London and New York. 1980
Brecht, Bertolt. Journals 1934-1955 ed john willet & Ralph Manheim. Routledge. NY 1993.
Hill, Claude. Bertolt Brecht. Twayne Publishers, Boston. 1975.
Huff, Theodore. Charlie Chaplin. Arno Press & The New York Times, New York. 1951
McCabe, John. Charlie Chaplin. Doubleday. Garden City. New York. 1978.
Lynn, Kenneth S. Charlie Chaplin and His Times Simon and Schuster, NY 1997
Maland, Charles. Chaplin and American Culture, Princeton University Press, NJ 1989