So put Monsieur Verdoux on the bottom of your Charlie Chaplin list. It's easy to review a good movie, or a bad movie, but difficult to pinpoint exactly what went wrong with a movie like this one. Ironically, I'd have to say this movie's main fault was its inconsistency; ironic because Chaplain was the writer, director, producer, actor, composer, key grip, gaffer, and chief bottle washer. Maybe he was Jack-of-all-trades and master of none?

It's brilliant in concept and at times the execution is brilliant, at other times clumsy and uneven. I hardly know what to think of the film or the character. If the Great Dictator is the perfect example of horror and humor mixing and morphing into enlightening social commentary, this seems to be what happens to a film that strives for that balance and misses the mark. Chaplin himself said the plot was "difficult to motivate." I'm not sure he entirely succeeded. For the most part, assuming he didn't kill his wife and son, the inconsistencies in the title character's motives seem realistic, that is, no more inconsistent than a lot of people who have actually existed. However, trying to form a perspective on the events being presented, to form an emotional position is difficult. By the climactic scene in the restaurant, I want to want him to escape, but seeing the genuine emotion of the victim’s family ( which is utterly inconsistent with the comic way these characters have been presented up to that point in the film) leaves me feeling nauseous and not knowing who's side I'm on. I would feel a lot better about the whole thing if it was a little clearer one way or the other if Verdoux murdered his wife and son. There is nothing exactly to suggest that he did, except that they seem to have conveniently died when they weren't needed for the plot anymore (this might have been what Chaplin meant by difficulty of motivation I suppose) and the only way to avoid the conclusion that it’s just plain bad writing would be to suppose that he killed them when he couldn't support them after the crash. The problem with that it that it casts doubt on his motivation for everything he did before, including understanding the young widow’s story of love and forming an emotional bond with her. The relation of what Verdoux considered his "real" family life to the life of the young widow forms the emotional center of the film. If we are left to suppose that Verdoux killed his wife and son, the whole idea of who he is unravels. And yet, what else are we to think? I could accept the one line explanation that he "lost" his invalid wife, but I need more than one line of dialogue to explain the death of that flourishing youngster we are presented with in the earlier part of the film. Did he catch the flue? House fire? Give me something to work with here. Ultimately, I don't want Verdoux to have killed his "real" family. If he did, the whole film goes from being complex and heartbreaking (with occasional missteps) to a meaningless mishmash of plot and theme.

I always wondered what Chaplin's voice sounded like. He really did a great job in this flick. The man really was a genius. Very much enjoyed this film!