I was really expecting to like this film, as I'd heard so much about how it was a "brilliant dark comedy" that audiences of the day were just too old-fashioned and prudish to appreciate. I did think it had some good scenes and performances, but mostly I was disappointed and angered. Chaplin's weird "moral," as outlined in his monologues at the end seem like the height of "what-aboutism," one of the weakest methods of arguing. Yes, it's true that states can commit mass murders and not be penalized. You could talk about that in a different movie and make an important statement. But how on earth does Monsieur Verdoux's actions relate to it? Nothing that Verdoux does was in any way forced; one of the other characters even points out that he was talented and smart enough to have earned his living in another way. He chooses not to.
In fact, Verdoux is a much more realistic portrayal of a serial killer and "toxic masculinity" than I think Chaplin intended. As essayist Alice Bolin has written, "violence against women is so often connected to men's professional and financial frustration." If Verdoux is so angry at capitalism, and industrial managers, and the government, as his monologues claim, why does he displace that anger onto targets who have so little to do with them? None of the women Verdoux goes after are big businesswomen who mistreat employees--the one who gets the most screen time is only rich because she bought a lottery ticket. Verdoux chooses his victims the way most serial killers do: because he's looking for easy targets that will fulfill his selfish desires. And it goes beyond money: he wants total control over other people. There are some specific actions I can't comment on without spoilers, but if you look to compare them to real-life killers, they match up with uncanny precision. Afterward, Verdoux blames everyone and everything but himself for what he's done, again, just like many actual murderers.
Artistically, the film has plenty of flaws. I was disappointed in Chaplin's performance--the story is tailor-made to have Verdoux assume different personas as he courts various women, but instead, he always uses the same high-falutin' English accent (hello, rolling r's) and the same mannerisms, even though he's supposed to be employed in totally different professions. Some of his reactions are pure Tramp, and that's grating in context. Also, his seduction techniques would never work.
One way in which Verdoux does actually differ from many real-world killers is that he is kind to animals--the film makes a point of contrasting this with his unsympathethic treatment of people. But this point never goes anywhere. In fact, an animal character who is important in one scene is dropped from the story with no explanation.
The timeline of the action is very muddled--the costumes don't reflect anything but the year the film was made, so it's hard to know which war is being referenced, or which recession the characters are living through. Ironically, unlike Verdoux, Chaplin is said to have gotten rich off the stock market. Make of that what you will.
The camerawork is fine but a bit old-fashioned--associate director Robert Florey complained that he was rarely allowed to use anything but stage-like long and medium shots. Florey also said he persuaded Chaplin to divide up the ending monologues a bit, or there would have been one excrutiatingly long one. Those still go on too long, as do many of the scenes. Jokes are repeated. Transitions between scenes are frequently made by cutting to the same shot of train wheels, with the same irritating music snippet, over and over (the DVD version I watched used the same music for the background of its menu screen--please, no!). Some of the plotting is clever, of course, but it's not enough. At the end, the audience is apparently supposed to consider Verdoux a kind of hero, but why? He really never does anything to earn the audience's liking, other than be played by a beloved actor.
In fact, Verdoux is a much more realistic portrayal of a serial killer and "toxic masculinity" than I think Chaplin intended. As essayist Alice Bolin has written, "violence against women is so often connected to men's professional and financial frustration." If Verdoux is so angry at capitalism, and industrial managers, and the government, as his monologues claim, why does he displace that anger onto targets who have so little to do with them? None of the women Verdoux goes after are big businesswomen who mistreat employees--the one who gets the most screen time is only rich because she bought a lottery ticket. Verdoux chooses his victims the way most serial killers do: because he's looking for easy targets that will fulfill his selfish desires. And it goes beyond money: he wants total control over other people. There are some specific actions I can't comment on without spoilers, but if you look to compare them to real-life killers, they match up with uncanny precision. Afterward, Verdoux blames everyone and everything but himself for what he's done, again, just like many actual murderers.
Artistically, the film has plenty of flaws. I was disappointed in Chaplin's performance--the story is tailor-made to have Verdoux assume different personas as he courts various women, but instead, he always uses the same high-falutin' English accent (hello, rolling r's) and the same mannerisms, even though he's supposed to be employed in totally different professions. Some of his reactions are pure Tramp, and that's grating in context. Also, his seduction techniques would never work.
One way in which Verdoux does actually differ from many real-world killers is that he is kind to animals--the film makes a point of contrasting this with his unsympathethic treatment of people. But this point never goes anywhere. In fact, an animal character who is important in one scene is dropped from the story with no explanation.
The timeline of the action is very muddled--the costumes don't reflect anything but the year the film was made, so it's hard to know which war is being referenced, or which recession the characters are living through. Ironically, unlike Verdoux, Chaplin is said to have gotten rich off the stock market. Make of that what you will.
The camerawork is fine but a bit old-fashioned--associate director Robert Florey complained that he was rarely allowed to use anything but stage-like long and medium shots. Florey also said he persuaded Chaplin to divide up the ending monologues a bit, or there would have been one excrutiatingly long one. Those still go on too long, as do many of the scenes. Jokes are repeated. Transitions between scenes are frequently made by cutting to the same shot of train wheels, with the same irritating music snippet, over and over (the DVD version I watched used the same music for the background of its menu screen--please, no!). Some of the plotting is clever, of course, but it's not enough. At the end, the audience is apparently supposed to consider Verdoux a kind of hero, but why? He really never does anything to earn the audience's liking, other than be played by a beloved actor.