The Great Dictator

Hitler and the Holocaust is a very informational novel written by Robert S. Wistrich that not only explains this horrible time in history, but also gives us a look into the mind of Hitler and Nazi ideology. This book is not just centered on Hitler and Germany as it my sound, antisemitism spread like a plague all across Europe even before the Holocaust took place. In this work, Wistrich is not making an argument, but is trying to find an explanation on why so many inhumane actions were allowed.

Hitler is one of the most recognizable, and despised people to ever live. He is known world round for his oratory skills, and all the horrendous deaths that he was responsible for. He is one of the worst tyrants in history.

Napoleon Bonaparte was an undeniably strong leader of France, however he was not truthful to his inferiors who gave him his power. Napoleon believed he was the master of France and that he had complete power of the country. He looked down upon his peers and the other citizens of France. Bonaparte gained his popularity by standing with the common people during the revolutionary period of France but did not continue with the views he expressed during this period when he became Emperor. Napoleon Bonaparte had many views and beliefs that made him an absolute dictator of France including, making every decision himself, being above everyone in the class systems, and manipulating the citizens of France.

Throughout the Holocaust hate and intolerance seemed like the only themes seen in the world. This period of time is often thought of by adults and youth alike as the time when the Germans persecuted the Jews. Assumptions are made that the Germans were cruel and evil, but, sometimes people need to peer through set stereotypes and find the truth. In fact, in the evidence below obtained from fictional film, non-fictional film, children’s literature and literature, there is a clear theme shown that hate and intolerance wedged their way into every person’s own situation during the Holocaust.

The polarizing views on dictatorships have spawned some of the greatest film, art, and literature masterpieces of that past centuries. Whether it is questioning their morality, legality, or functionality, works of art place dictatorships in the hot seat and attempt to pry them open in order to get to the very core of their existence. Two films that spectacularly do this are Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator and Jean-Luc Godard’s Alphaville. Whether it is the always hilarious clumsy nature of Charlie Chaplin or the eerie, inquisitive behavior of secret agent Lemmy Caution, both films criticize dictatorships through a variety of cinematic devices.

Dealing with a Dictator. Directed by Mark Kelley. 2016. In the documentary, “Dealing with a Dictator”, Mark Kelley, the director, tries to uncover a Canadian mining company name Nevsun.

Chaplin has used a parody on the way Hitler speaks, orders his followers, and how he acts towards the Jewish populations, in which Hitler is seen to be like a child with a lot of power; in which in reality, his generals are seen to be doing most of the work, while Hitler is seen to just be ordering people around constantly, even for smaller tasks. The producers of this film use the scenes of parody and irony to provide propaganda against the Nazi Party; thus showing American society that what the Nazi’s are doing is both bad and ridiculous, which also justifies the need to stop fighting, through the use of war. However, during Chaplin’s final speech, he discusses the necessary movement of stopping war and working together to solve problems, if we claim to have the amazing power to win a war.

A meeting is held in order to determine the method by which the Nazi government is to implement Adolf Hitler's policy that the German sphere of influence should be free of Jews, including those in the occupied territories of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia and France. As the film opens, various officials from different German agencies arrive and mingle at a lakeside villa in Wannsee.

The Nazis downgrades the Jews social status to it’s extremes. Jews were objectified and treated as though they were of no value. In the movie, Pavel was originally a doctor but because he was a Jew, he became a servant in Bruno’s home. This example shows that even Jews with jobs of high status became of no value in Germany because of the Nazis, to ensure that all Jews were beneath them. Another example was when Shmuel was in Bruno’s house and he was beaten for eating and talking to a German.

However, Hynkel and Garbitsch quickly work backwards and decide they must cease their persecution in order to borrow money from a Jewish banker Epstein, invade Osterlich, and use that display of power to secure their submission. He sees Jews as clearly inferior, but is clever enough to attempt manipulating them into helping their own destruction. Luckily, Epstein isn’t naive enough to fall for this, and Hynkel’s true colors reappear as he receives the rejection and orders intense persecution in the Jewish

I read, the Final Speech from the Great Dictator. The speech is about humanity, which we have lost by the way. People now care only about themselves and all they care about is the power. Hate rules and people even find joy in the misery of others. People do not get satisfied anymore they keep wanting more.

Whenever composing "The Great Dictator" in 1939, Chaplin was as well known worldwide as Hitler, and his Homeless person character wore the same mustache. He chose to ditch his big name and silliness against the dictator’s own superstar and fiendishness. He profited “ if that is the right word for it, given the times â€" from his character as a Jew, which he was not”.

Laura Heins focuses on what makes melodramas so popular as forms of entertainment and organizes her chapters thematically explaining the pros and cons of melodramas pertaining to the themes. Heins explains that the German government used melodramas to push their unfavorable view towards the Jews and their favored views of the Aryan way of life. Laura Heins wrote about a film, Jud Süss, “The most notorious example of a Nazi propaganda film, Jud Süss (Jew Süss, 1940), cast a Jewish figure as the aristocratic villain, superimposing virulent racism onto the unresolved complexes of class and gender difference derived from both eighteenth-century bourgeois tragedy and nineteenth-century sensational melodrama.” According to Heins, the film was the most evident statement of propaganda from Germany. In the film the Jewish antagonist is someone who is extremely well off and the protagonist Dorothea, a middle class German girl, is forced into the rich Jewish man’s (Süss) bed. Films like Jud Süss got people extremely upset, this helped feed the negative view that people began to have of Jewish people. More and more they saw them as opportunistic and sexual individuals; they were seen as greedy in every way. In this example, the message that the Nazi government was trying to portray was clear, but the message can be blurred. Melodramas were written with the intent to stand

It showed the viewers Charles Chaplin’s view and opinion on the Holocaust which was on-going at the time the film was made. However; Charles Chaplin stated if he was aware of the true horrors of the Nazis occupation he would not have made the film. The characters that were featured in the film resembled the people they were portraying well. Hynkel was a replica of Hitler. The way they both presented their speeches and visual appearances was very similar.

In the 1940’s film The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin, Chaplin plays the role of a Jewish Barber set in a time similar to that of World War II. The jewish barber shares a striking resemblance to that of the great dictator Hynkel. In the third act of the film Hynkel is captured by mistake from his own soldiers and they mistaken the jewish barber as their great dictator. With this new great power bestowed upon the jewish barber he uses this chance to cry out to the people of the newly invaded country that Hynkel had sieged. In this short speech Charlie Chaplin delivers it with a style similar to that of Hitler. Chaplin at this point uses pure emotions to fuel his speech while he brings strategies such as hyperboles and metaphors to convince the audience to stand up for what 's right and to bring humanity back to what we as humans once were.