The Great Dictator who view the barber as different include Stephen Weissman, whose book "Chaplin: A Life" speaks of Chaplin "abandoning traditional pantomime technique and his little tramp character". DVD reviewer Mark Bourne asserts Chaplin's stated position: "Granted, the barber bears more than a passing resemblance to the Tramp, even affecting the familiar bowler hat and cane. But Chaplin was clear that the barber is not the Tramp and "The Great Dictator" is not a Tramp movie." "The Scarecrow Movie Guide" also views the barber as different. Annette Insdorf, in her book "Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust" (2003), writes that "There was
The Great Dictator write, "Of course! As Hitler I could harangue the crowds all I wished. And as the tramp, I could remain more or less silent." The New York Times, in its original review (16 October 1940), specifically sees him as the tramp. However, in the majority of his so-called tramp films, he was not literally playing a tramp. In his review of the film years after its release, Roger Ebert says, "Chaplin was technically not playing the Tramp." He also writes, "He [Chaplin] put the Little Tramp and $1.5 million of his own money on the line to ridicule Hitler." Critics