Comments on Screen Savour: Buster Keaton: An Appreciation

Thank you for your fine post. I've read that K...

2009-08-05T14:16:51.731-04:00

Thank you for your fine post.
I've read that Keaton's mastery of tough physical comedy began in childhood--when he was thrown around like a bag of feed in his father's vaudeville act. His facial control during some very demanding routines--or perhaps more accurately, over what he chooses to show of his pain during the routines--is remarkable. My personal favorite of his films is "Our Hospitality." Pure gold.

@John — Count me among the envious. I've never...

2009-08-05T09:29:52.511-04:00

@John — Count me among the envious. I've never seen Keaton's films in a genuine theater (unless you count projected upon to the wall in a classroom), so I would have loved to have come into Keaton that way.

I definitely agree with your assessment on sadness/happiness through Keaton/Chaplin. That again speaks to my head/heart connection of the two; I suppose my disposition is more along on the cynical and cryptic than the elated and jolly, so my brain is lured in by Keaton. But I love Chaplin equally, and think he is among the most brilliant filmmakers out there. It's tough indeed.

@Film Dr. — I'll do my best to answer those questions. Kerr's book is a rather indispensable resource for Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd, et al., and covers them all with precision. I've never read a Keaton biography, but my research should dig up some new stuff, hopefully.

@Sam — Thanks. I could have guessed your preferential affinity for Chaplin! You know my feelings on Chaplin; I think he's one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century in film or any other art form. I think it's a testament to the power of these two artists that they can sway an audience's allegiance, at least in my mind. Whenever I watch a Chaplin film, I think: He just might be the greatest silent comedian ever. Of course, whenever I watch a Keaton film, I think: He just might be the greatest silent comedian ever. Maybe I'm trying to have it both ways; if so, oh well! To me they are silent comedy, two sides of a coin, two halves of a whole, two outlooks on life that complement each other.

@Daniel — I'm filled with envy! Ha ha. Sherlock Jr. is, I think, among my ten favorite films of all time. I've never done a top-ten list for favorite films, but after re-watching it recently, I'm more convinced than ever that it would go on such a list, if and when I make it.

I hope the reviews do prompt you to catch some more Keaton. The General and Sherlock Jr. are probably his best known, but if you like those you'll like his other stuff, too.

@R.D. — Thanks for the kind words. The interesting thing about the Chaplin/Keaton debate is not that it divides film critics into external groups (as most film debates seem to do), but that it seems to divide film critics into internal halves. It's such a remarkable discussion to have because both are justly revered in two different ways for the same medium. I'm not sure why we as film critics feel compelled to have the argument with ourselves, but for some reason we do. The heart/mind comparison is the best (and simplest) I've come up with so far to express my feelings of equal love.

I absolutely adore that sequence you're talking about in Sherlock Jr. It says so much about Keaton's set-up and delivery. It does seem, as you say, unbelievably true in its seamlessness. I know one of the reasons Keaton embraced editing the way he did was that he didn't want the audience to think it wasn't him performing the stunts. He wanted a film to deliver the same buzz that vaudeville could when something was performed right in front of you; it's almost like film is a record that yes, this man could do all these things.

I've always had a strange connection with Lloyd, and I'm hoping to revisit his films soon. (In fact, as I write, TCM is playing a marathon today that unfortunately I can't partake in.) I greatly admire many of his works, but I've always been left out in the cold by him. I would definitely count him among the great silent comedians, even if he leaves me cold he's still without a doubt #3 on my list as well.

T.S., I absolutely agree with the other commenters...

2009-08-04T14:41:52.634-04:00

T.S., I absolutely agree with the other commenters on how beautifully and articulately written this post is. I'm also impressed with the way you get right to the most important issues with Keaton and especially your comparison of him with the other master of silent comedy, Chaplin. (Although let's not forget Harold Lloyd. I consider them a triumvirate of American silent comedy.) Like you I'm torn between the two. I used to prefer Chaplin, but even though like you I saw my first Keaton film ("The General") in a film class many years ago, I've come to appreciate him more and more over the years. Both of their films benefit from rewatching, but with Chaplin the joy seems to come from enjoying again what we already know, while with Keaton it comes from seeing new things and experiencing a deeper appreciation of the man's genius. (You mentioned many of the scenes from "Sherlock, Jr." but how about the one where he jumps through the window as a man and emerges dressed as a woman? I recently ran this several times in slow motion and could detect no cuts, dissolves or camera tricks. Could it have been done somehow with double exposure? It seemed to be--unbelievably--absolutely genuine.) If asked today, I don't think I could really choose one or the other, or like you, the preference might change from day to day. I think you put your finger on it when you wrote that you enjoy Chaplin with your heart and Keaton with your mind. I'm looking forward to posts on the individual films, both the ones I know and the ones I don't.

Prior to a few weeks ago I had only seen "The...

2009-08-04T14:40:55.919-04:00

Prior to a few weeks ago I had only seen "The General", but a new cinema opened its doors with a Buster Keaton series and I was right on the opening weekend.

Wouldn't you know it, it happened to be "Sherlock, Jr." (and "The Electric House"). What made it even more enjoyable, aside from all the reasons you mention, is that it was accompanied by an accordion, singing saw, and piano in the the theater.

I hope your series spurns me on to watch more of Keaton's older films, because everything I've seen has been great.

What a magnificent, exhaustive and informed essay,...

2009-08-03T18:44:09.540-04:00

What a magnificent, exhaustive and informed essay, with a generous dose of passion and reflection, all written in exquisite prose. I loved this here:

"After the screening was over, I bundled myself back into my layers and made my way back to the dormitory. This was at a Midwestern university in the depths of winter, the trees heavy with ice and the patches of grass covered in wind-blown snow; the maintenance teams were out in the full force, dropping rock salt on the roads and sidewalks, but the results were hardly perfect. Shortly before reaching a key crosswalk, my left foot touched a spot of black ice and slipped out fast behind me. I stumbled but kept my balance, preventing myself from falling onto the sidewalk. And then I asked myself the sort of question I've come to ask myself time and time against when my klutziness got the best of me: How would Keaton have handled that?"

The question of who is greater, Chaplin or Keaton is one that has perplexed film lovers for decades, and both Kerr and sarris come in here with reasonable criteria. I must tell you that I come down firmly on Chaplin's side, but there's no question that Keaton is firmly Number 2 (with Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, W. C. Fields and the Marx brothers next up) and his sense of humanity is absolutely on a level with Chaplin. That deadpan expression, the incomparable face, that singulat sense of timing are etched in the annals of film history, and his best films, SHERLOCK JR., THE GENERAL, THE NAVIGATOR, et al, do rank on a level with Chaplin's best: CITY LIGHTS, MODERN TIMES, THE GOLD RUSH. I guess we can safely assert that Chaplin's shorts catalogue is stronger, even if (again) Keaton is well within hailing distance.

Your introduction here by way of the 'personal experience' really sets the stage for the sure-to-be scholarly excellence you will no doubt be extending to one one of filmdon's worthiest subjects.

T.S., An excellent start. I would like to learn m...

2009-08-03T13:23:18.103-04:00

T.S.,

An excellent start. I would like to learn more about Keaton's working techniques. How much did he improvise stunts during the shoot? How much was it all written out in advance? I'm curious especially about the baroque narrative structure of The General, and the way Keaton anticipated metacinematic experimentation in works like Sherlock, Jr.

T.S. A magnificent introduction to a series I am...

2009-08-03T09:12:45.872-04:00

T.S.

A magnificent introduction to a series I am looking forward to with great expectations. My own introduction to Keaton came in the early 1970’s, if my memory does not fail me, when the Elgin Theater on 8th Ave and 23rd in NYC ran a retrospective or Keaton’s work.

I also agree with you on trying to define who is better. You address that admirably by stating that Chaplin is for the “heart” and Keaton is for the “mind.” Keaton’s humor certainly makes you think, while Chaplin’s makes you feel. It is senseless to compare the two they were not playing on the same field. This is not to disparage Chaplin or Keaton, they were both genius’ of cinema. Who one decides, feels, or likes better is really a question of where each individual viewing is coming from in their own perception, their own approach, their own emotions or experiences in life.

Keaton’ personal and professional life was more tragic than Chaplin’s and that in retrospect seems appropriate. There was always a touch of sadness in Keaton’s character’s whereas Chaplin’s always found if not joy a “oh well” attitude that would shrug it all off and move on.