Solipsism ultimately emphasizes an individuality contrary to Zen teachings as expressed through the film’s cinematography and attitude of condescension towards Japan’s locals. The ultimate answer to the film’s riddle is only partially a Zen acceptance of reality and, more discernible, a desire to transcend one’s surroundings through embracing individualism.

Though when scrutinizing [The Great Dictator] through cinematic standards, the critics may have been wholly correct, the purpose of this essay is to reveal that reviewers were ill-considered to apply a cinematic shape to Chaplin’s film. Moreover, it will argue that Chaplin never intended for [The Great Dictator] to take the shape of cinema at all in favor of another form entirely: one of propaganda.

In essence, one becomes a monster by becoming part of a cultural group; it is not an individual themselves that is a monster but rather the group they find themselves a part of. The phenomenon is perfectly illustrated in the manner Ruben Östlund’s Best Picture Nominee Triangle of Sadness addresses social currency, arguing that amassing a wealth of social currency will inevitably corrupt an individual.