tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71116139849120511022024-03-19T03:41:42.473-07:00What Would Buster Keaton DoA blog all about Buster Keaton - career, films, personal life, image.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-39778811173692564372018-06-19T10:04:00.001-07:002018-06-20T09:34:25.002-07:00June 16th Buster Keaton Day in LA!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxAn8WxEsZoZbgR1pZVJZwMQk3U4WWOmn70ziKdqsxUMJ0Lb4rV7c5JVg316ThR5O4Lz499kyMTw_8qgJpuNxllPnrKfC3Dmk-mtCLw5aAady38yZi-u8rqZoNsW_STn2Q-_PnaAUwYKk/s1600/IMG_5052.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxAn8WxEsZoZbgR1pZVJZwMQk3U4WWOmn70ziKdqsxUMJ0Lb4rV7c5JVg316ThR5O4Lz499kyMTw_8qgJpuNxllPnrKfC3Dmk-mtCLw5aAady38yZi-u8rqZoNsW_STn2Q-_PnaAUwYKk/s320/IMG_5052.jpg" width="240" /></a>I just got back from a whirlwind trip to Los Angeles for the dedication of a memorial plaque that was placed on the site where Buster's film studio in Hollywood had been and I'm still charged up by the experience.<br />
<br />
This was such a lovely event and I am beyond grateful to those who made it happen! Because the great bulk of activities over the weekend were free or reasonably priced and open to all I brought my extended family along and we all enjoyed ourselves thoroughly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgulpmRoBzyr09sLDc_egg2UpOqPxIOZK5Rd0xQF1xuTBXieCwYFV3viZxuf0QGWMJN5bLyy-BrSLovACqYLWqD0tLUEg9XOsZI8c1V3bKOtddm773lZrkQAoNjGuWtuJkGO-XHr62OFd0/s1600/IMG_4978.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgulpmRoBzyr09sLDc_egg2UpOqPxIOZK5Rd0xQF1xuTBXieCwYFV3viZxuf0QGWMJN5bLyy-BrSLovACqYLWqD0tLUEg9XOsZI8c1V3bKOtddm773lZrkQAoNjGuWtuJkGO-XHr62OFd0/s320/IMG_4978.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
One of the highlights of the event was the amazing and tireless John Bengtson who gave free walking tours of the area just south of Hollywood Blvd where Keaton (as well as Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin and others) filmed numerous pictures. I was blown away. But better praise might be that the family members who are not crazed Keaton fans were also amazed and enthralled by the walking tour and Bengtson's deep knowledge of Hollywood history. If anyone reading this doesn't know about Bengtson's work -- sleuthing out the locations where movies were filmed long before there was IMDB telling us ;) or commentary reels from directors -- they should check out his site: <a href="https://silentlocations.wordpress.com/about-john-bengtson/">https://silentlocations.wordpress.com/about-john-bengtson/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgQTb3vLjVG__oEwRKtNf_TjIs6l9VT3HteWuBUAlYVwb96aiqC3kY3fpAnvyE-mrCBmV9K7Sx5btQJoMJQRQ6Q2vQYH2-2yltMGX-anL5NwihHSRcq6dkSIKPP-YZbxYKnWGvuPcIQkI/s1600/IMG_4993.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgQTb3vLjVG__oEwRKtNf_TjIs6l9VT3HteWuBUAlYVwb96aiqC3kY3fpAnvyE-mrCBmV9K7Sx5btQJoMJQRQ6Q2vQYH2-2yltMGX-anL5NwihHSRcq6dkSIKPP-YZbxYKnWGvuPcIQkI/s320/IMG_4993.jpg" width="240" /></a>Another thing we did -- and I've always felt a bit sheepish about my desire to do this, so have never been there before -- was to see Keaton's grave. In the spirit of the weekend it felt like the right time to make the pilgrimage. Keaton is laid to rest in a stunningly beautiful area at the base of some brown hills that are a weird mix of craggy and rolling near Griffith Park tucked away in a part of LA that is truly lovely. The Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills location is extensive! I would never have found Keaton's plot without the pdf location map provided by the <a href="http://www.busterkeaton.org/weekend/">International Buster Keaton Society</a> which planned the weekend's festivities. The grave markers there are mostly small, flat and modest, like Keaton's. This gave the impression almost of a military cemetery, with its striking uniformity and rambling, impressive grounds. It felt sweet and appropriate to be there offering our respects. I took a bit of bark from a Eucalyptus tree that was growing next to it. Haven't decided what to do with that yet, but since it's been riding around in my wallet for the last several days, hopefully there is something left beyond dust to work with!<br />
<br />
After the cemetery and a quick bite to eat, we were up for another tour! Again with Bengtson, who must have clocked 20 miles and 20 hours over Saturday and Sunday, mostly canvasing the same ground repeatedly (and well-deserving of accolades) we learned about the films that were shot in and around Keaton's former studio location in Hollywood on Elinor Ave and Lillian Way.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfIfB9POtf1WkRbxBmMBR2vC68vhpQ9X5qTQ2G_ojuLj9tjhd3jpiSM6ASXYYwOHrptF0cGyBimzfZtJ5pt57FExeVRCLhjWh4lRplzLf8JqKyYSZm1BmsGl8wX4EmuBjaP9d9dlhNqHc/s1600/IMG_5030.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfIfB9POtf1WkRbxBmMBR2vC68vhpQ9X5qTQ2G_ojuLj9tjhd3jpiSM6ASXYYwOHrptF0cGyBimzfZtJ5pt57FExeVRCLhjWh4lRplzLf8JqKyYSZm1BmsGl8wX4EmuBjaP9d9dlhNqHc/s320/IMG_5030.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiflW1O1I9fnvf876NkiCaokHwdhJm56xl8orzW1gv_3WFduiyCOxSA9mdKckBEmcSJjSjvfLEW1obeJaL7YvaRvKUVfeu5K5IpcXVnbXl1WulqEf-m1H0fctxgSHIK-fKF_Vjzrb46nk/s1600/IMG_5028.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiflW1O1I9fnvf876NkiCaokHwdhJm56xl8orzW1gv_3WFduiyCOxSA9mdKckBEmcSJjSjvfLEW1obeJaL7YvaRvKUVfeu5K5IpcXVnbXl1WulqEf-m1H0fctxgSHIK-fKF_Vjzrb46nk/s320/IMG_5028.jpg" width="320" /></a>I'd been to this area before but that was back in 2012, which I am now stunned to realize was 6 years ago! ... the year I started this blog. OK. gotta pause and think about that. ... Man. Alright, I'm back. A lot has changed in the neighborhood from the last time we were there. There is now a fairly significant homeless presence in something of a tent city that wasn't there in 2012. Also, while back in 2012, this area had seemed a bit forgotten, with a light industrial feel but empty streets and easy parking, it was now crowded, bustling and garbage-infused. While it wasn't immediately clear how much of the parking crunch that we encountered was due to the Keaton event itself, we couldn't have been the only reason. It turns out there's simply a lot going on in this area now, including a night club that people were waiting in line outside of and many, apparently thriving, businesses.<br />
<br />
I was sorry that we didn't get to go inside the lot where Keaton's studio had been, but we did walk all around the exterior with Bengtson pointing out the sites. We were directed to look at this house that appears in ... well, I'm sorry to say I don't remember which film(s)! ... but something of note. I will review my video clips and see if I can find it. lol. Pretty cool to see some building, any building, still present that had been a part of the backdrop scenery when Keaton was filming nearly 100 years ago.<br />
<br />
On the site of the former Keaton studio (whose buildings were demolished in the 1930s) now sits a large warehouse utilized by a company called <a href="http://www.quixote.com/production-supplies-hollywood/">Quixote</a> that does production supplies for films. I love knowing that this magical plot of land -- infused with Hollywood film history -- is still being used for industry-related business. Given the way the bustling surrounding worlds was carrying on around us, I was feeling particularly grateful that the current owner/tenant of the Keaton studio space was indulgent -- willing to get invaded by a bunch of Keatonians and endure the ceremony and plaque. Then I learned that the manager in charge of that location is himself a Keaton fan! So cool. Just another random little fact that seemed to fall into place and feel right.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcgGZ4_JU0RPkz_uHfUDN-hCbFRI0yTFF9g-s3j7nG8TRsDMw2ETRMTeZlV_fqKA8-5LvsKronK0Mp68BQsIdhG_kkZe6bf-KS5Ps9HdztVdEFwofAUJQpwxafZWs-Z3in2mW2wHXbjew/s1600/IMG_5050.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcgGZ4_JU0RPkz_uHfUDN-hCbFRI0yTFF9g-s3j7nG8TRsDMw2ETRMTeZlV_fqKA8-5LvsKronK0Mp68BQsIdhG_kkZe6bf-KS5Ps9HdztVdEFwofAUJQpwxafZWs-Z3in2mW2wHXbjew/s320/IMG_5050.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Of course, the chief highlight of the Buster Keaton LA Weekend has to be the actual plaque dedication ceremony.<br />
<br />
To anyone who isn't familiar with the backstory, in fact there was already a Keaton commemorative plaque at this location. It was dedicated in 1988. But unfortunately it was placed on the wrong corner -- a situation that many people felt needed to be rectified. The plaque had other problems too, such as being difficult to read. So a fundraising campaign was begun, spearheaded by folks present at the ceremony (such as Alek Lev and Patricia Eliot Tobias), and a great deal of effort I'm sure, involving permits from the City of LA and other logistics, was undertaken as a labor of love for many. I myself followed the campaign's progress with rapt attention and planned to be present at the unveiling if there were any way possible. Luckily, there was every way possible. We simply drove to LA for the weekend. I feel lucky, and again grateful, to have been in position to do this!<br />
<br />
The ceremony was extremely well done. Everyone who spoke told a compelling piece of the story (except for David Arquette who, in a brilliant performance, remained silent. I'm kicking myself for not getting this on video, because his pantomime and pratfalls were a perfect tribute.)<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<br />
What I did get on video is the moment of the unveiling....<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz-_G15xlXPmqedCz-W8cb65R3fwkwYO--hy9wvXF_SeEYa5tv9bfhahKiMFx3yYdMy4RZy7flryevEcGc0xQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
As if all of that weren't enough... we also were thrilled to have the opportunity to attend a screening of <i>The Cameraman</i> at Grauman's Egyptian Theatre on Hollywood Bvld.<br />
<br />
The weekend continued to fall into place with kismet. We found easy parking nearby then grabbed a quick bite to eat. We decided we didn't have enough time to seek out Keaton's stars -- both of which I'd already visited and photographed years ago. So I wasn't too troubled. But we did decide to cross the street and walk back to the theatre on the other side just to take in some new sights on the Walk of Fame. While doing so, we randomly stumbled upon Keaton's! And it was the movie one. My son had the idea for this great picture :)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi34ff5HnXzDKPjQmfVWOhepHwxywLNYuprUNT-0dyTBCD_BfKembTS0K2ksjrGSYZfCPnzpKe_jDcU8R1U9Is3e9tjphGfkPSZboc2HsKkcB6yM8GeTKIL9fzyD5d4mhunAXaXxDILZkk/s1600/IMG_5059.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi34ff5HnXzDKPjQmfVWOhepHwxywLNYuprUNT-0dyTBCD_BfKembTS0K2ksjrGSYZfCPnzpKe_jDcU8R1U9Is3e9tjphGfkPSZboc2HsKkcB6yM8GeTKIL9fzyD5d4mhunAXaXxDILZkk/s320/IMG_5059.jpg" width="240" /></a><br />
And then <i>The Cameraman.</i> Seeing this on the big screen with other die-hard Keaton fans and an amazing live music accompaniment was a treat. This was only the second time ever that I've been able to see a Keaton film in an actual theater.<br />
<br />
It is an experience which is palpably better in every way.<br />
<br />
The laughs are bigger, Keaton's beautiful face is more present. The charm of the Yankee Stadium bit and the shots of Keaton running through the streets of New York hit their marks in a way that just can't be replicated on the computer screen. <i>The Cameraman</i> was a perfect choice and speaks to the obvious care and attention to detail poured into this event by its organizers.<br />
<br />
We had a blast at Buster Keaton Weekend!<br />
June 16, 2018<br />
Buster Keaton Day in LAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-11592108351533266292018-02-20T16:36:00.004-08:002018-02-20T16:36:38.999-08:00"Roscoe" vs "Fatty" : A Fan's Thoughts on What's in a NameRoscoe Arbuckle must be an interesting figure to any serious Keaton fan.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQOpwTGw1ybWcKqEV9TtXGYmKVVjkvdlD9VmZTtTAQy-QCR5bV7HYYkfniHFPtrVT_MO6OaacCkL6pwDPmPPRWvcjkVt8lVqeIHMP6mngSoOsIyK_Lft68Nmc-mW-cxpKbROOHqObrB0c/s1600/roscoe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQOpwTGw1ybWcKqEV9TtXGYmKVVjkvdlD9VmZTtTAQy-QCR5bV7HYYkfniHFPtrVT_MO6OaacCkL6pwDPmPPRWvcjkVt8lVqeIHMP6mngSoOsIyK_Lft68Nmc-mW-cxpKbROOHqObrB0c/s320/roscoe.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
How can one have an informed love of the later without a bit of respect for the former? Assuming that the modern fan does (respect Arbuckle, that is), the question is what to call the guy.<br />
<br />
Here is the one who gave our hero his start, who mentored him, who offered him a connection, friendship, a sounding board, a job. Here is a fellow without whom we might not have ever been able to indulge in the cinematic talents of Keaton! Arbuckle is a grand figure in the story of Keaton.<br />
<br />
The more I read about Keaton, the more I learn about Arbuckle, and the more I feel the need to talk about him . . . leading inevitably to the crisis that comes when one must refer to him as something other than a last name or a pronoun.<br />
<br />
For me, up till this point, the moniker has always been "Fatty."<br />
<br />
<br />
How I got to that name was straightforward enough. After discovering Keaton, back in 2012, my interest became insatiable. It wasn't enough to watch Keaton's films; I had to learn about his life including his early work. I had to watch the early shorts. Of course that lead directly to Arbuckle.<br />
<br />
When I first encountered the connection, I admit that Arbuckle's name held a certain cache. He was a shadowy figure. I do remember him from my childhood. No, I'm not THAT old! but back in the 70s and 80s, silent films did play on TV and I have vague memories of hearing about him and, of course, the scandal. It wasn't the kind of thing anyone learned in school, but I'm sure it came up through my viewings and readings about early cinema. In fact, I vaguely remember a childhood friend telling me that Arbuckle had killed a girl. In any case, the name "Fatty Arbuckle" existed in my memory banks and probably held more associations for me than the name "Buster Keaton" did when I encountered each a few years ago.<br />
<br />
All of this is to say that I didn't really question thinking of Fatty Arbuckle as "Fatty," any more than I questioned thinking of Buster Keaton as "Buster." (Or, I don't know, Curly of Three Stooges fame as "Curly.") It was just what he was called.<br />
<br />
When one does stop to question this, of course, there is an obvious distinction - "Fatty" is clearly derogatory in a way the other names aren't.<br />
<br />
Now I am not so insensitive to have failed to notice that in 2012, but there was a reason I stuck with the name "Fatty" when I referred to him in my writings. I read somewhere that "Roscoe" is what his friends called him and that "Fatty" was what his fans called him. That was good enough for me. I was going to class myself with the fans (which is what I was). I was not so pretentious to think that Arbuckle was my friend. So I went with "Fatty," but noticed there were others who called him "Roscoe." To me, that felt false - as if these folks were broadcasting an entitlement to a certain level of intimacy with the man. So I stuck with my choice.<br />
<br />
<br />
But then, time passed. And I learned more.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWf9YqNYhMlVvMaIdMuAil8vrRK4a7oemq28DbIzsmtjSoqV-uN-kroHtu1PKnlHeKUW4oYrQXl4Icmh14yCst50h1XDXBbDNQ0MvdiQz6nB7UKBEuhL_hdwTap2EG9JeMH9qpziS_y8/s1600/roscoe+reading.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1112" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWf9YqNYhMlVvMaIdMuAil8vrRK4a7oemq28DbIzsmtjSoqV-uN-kroHtu1PKnlHeKUW4oYrQXl4Icmh14yCst50h1XDXBbDNQ0MvdiQz6nB7UKBEuhL_hdwTap2EG9JeMH9qpziS_y8/s320/roscoe+reading.jpg" width="230" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
During this past year, I started to do more reading about Arbuckle as I turned full attention to the Centennial year of Keaton's entrance into film. Because Arbuckle was such an essential player in the Keaton story at that juncture, I explored more and more Arbuckle-based materials. And I now realize that there's a good reason for modern writers to call him "Roscoe."<br />
<br />
Its goes beyond the idea that "friends called him 'Roscoe' and fans called him 'Fatty'" to the important reason why this was. Arbuckle's friends called him "Roscoe" because he didn't like the nickname "Fatty." According to biographical accounts, Arbuckle didn't choose the nickname; and when people -- fans and the press -- started to call him by it, he at first tried to distance himself from the name. When he was unable to do so, he tolerated it for his career but continued to disdain it.<br />
<br />
This alone might have been enough of a reason for me to switch horses and start using Roscoe, but a further consideration weighed even more heavily (pardon the pun). A new research project I'm working on (stay tuned) has given me reason to read a lot of media accounts of Arbuckle's activities in 1917. I have now read dozens of archival newspaper articles about the man, and in doing so have gotten a taste for the condescending way the media treated him, while ostensibly professing great admiration. This was long before the scandal that ended his career, back at a time everyone was charmed by him. By today's standards, newspapers were unfathomably impudent -- freely speculating about how much he weighed, peppering their accounts with reference to his size, speculating about damages he could cause or special equipment he might need. It's rather surreal. And honestly pretty offensive.<br />
<br />
I have a newfound appreciation for the way not just the moniker, but the cottage industry of treating his size as an exhibit, must have grated on the man. In honor of that, I will refrain from it's unnecessary further use and call Arbuckle ROSCOE.<br />
<br />
There's only so much one blogger can do when a century of history has established this nickname. But I'm ready to do my part.<br />
<br />
So sad how much history this man's memory needs to live down!<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-50119828848690205852017-12-10T15:34:00.001-08:002018-02-16T20:28:11.317-08:00A Country Hero (1917)I'm excited to finish up the Buster Keaton Centennial Extravaganza in the same way that <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/when-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">I started it back in March</a> : with a big ol' research project!<br />
<br />
Today I come to the last entry in my series of posts about Buster's start in cinema, with my thoughts on the release of <i>A Country Hero</i>! Here is a film that drops us on the doorstep of a major career and life transition for Keaton. And in true Keaton style, we are treated to a bit of a tease then get the rug pulled out from under us.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg11A-lHCJ_XIDJxOdg8jU2WZkX7IKORC9SCWbWUpKAPk49ycXhV88Fliu9wCrJp9snEE104QJCdYDAhuotWLuWApGUmaTsEbhYRCs_NOZ_NMpMpSjPFtqSrNowQIs7Eo7ogee8PH21Dwg/s1600/county+hero+train.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1430" data-original-width="907" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg11A-lHCJ_XIDJxOdg8jU2WZkX7IKORC9SCWbWUpKAPk49ycXhV88Fliu9wCrJp9snEE104QJCdYDAhuotWLuWApGUmaTsEbhYRCs_NOZ_NMpMpSjPFtqSrNowQIs7Eo7ogee8PH21Dwg/s400/county+hero+train.png" width="251" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Motion Picture News v. 16, #23, 12/8/1917</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We know the team had just left New York and headed West. But we don't get to see the first film they shot in California. We don't get to see this, the first film that Keaton's father appeared in (or that Keaton's soon to be wife appeared in). And we don't get to see Keaton's first film to feature a train! Instead what we get is Keaton's only lost film -- one with an intriguing and strange history that includes its denial by his early biographers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In fact, why don't we just start there. One thing that makes <i>A Country Hero </i>odd is how much we seem to "know" about it, given that no one has seen it. Much has actually been written about this film, and much of what's been written has been based on inference and conjecture -- and much of that has been wrong!<br />
<br />
I want to focus my thoughts on <i>A Country Hero</i> with the study of what we really know and why. Toward that end, I am going to uncharacteristically cite the heck out of things here. My personal Keaton library is unfortunately quite slim, but I've been able to supplement with books from the University Library near me and amazing internet archives that give me access to industry publications and old newspapers that have been invaluable.<br />
<br />
<br />
So let's begin with Rudi Blesh's seminal if flawed 1966 biography of Keaton. At the time of his writing, many Keaton/Arbuckle films were still considered lost, and it must have been a significant challenge to piece together facts about them while relying on memory and other tidbits available in the early 1960s. The Blesh biography does offer anecdotes on the filming -- including details on Joe Keaton's appearance in it. Blesh gives an involved discussion of how the elder Keaton plied his craft --- the skillful high kick -- which lands the other actors in a water trough and makes Alice Lake cry for real. The book includes a still photo from the film, seen below, showing Keaton, Fatty and Lake dunked in the trough. (Though his citation is unfortunately off by about two years).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj874uAPIUP-RiS10u0Et1KUSa_wqLrX86J38lA95nh-G_pRPSe5koIj78KDoSp2VYl6I_rDLTEyPD1g6xe4LGhiUyzTp_PFd0pYKmu41dosxhyAD8cgF1ePhvoYZeCa5WiP3e41kV3oP8/s1600/country+hero.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="482" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj874uAPIUP-RiS10u0Et1KUSa_wqLrX86J38lA95nh-G_pRPSe5koIj78KDoSp2VYl6I_rDLTEyPD1g6xe4LGhiUyzTp_PFd0pYKmu41dosxhyAD8cgF1ePhvoYZeCa5WiP3e41kV3oP8/s320/country+hero.jpeg" width="320" /></a>Blesh erroneously classes this film as one of the last, if not the last, film Keaton made with Arbuckle before hanging out his own shingle and making releases for Buster Keaton Studios.<br />
<br />
Because he was mistaken on the release date of <i>A Country Hero</i>, thinking it came much later, I guess its not surprising that Blesh didn't suspect the large photo adorning pages 106-107 of his book, which is labeled "Arbuckle's Comique company on location," to actually be an assemblage from the film <i>A Country Hero</i>.<br />
<br />
Though Blesh doesn't cite it as such, I can tell that it is, not only by the background, but by Alice Lake's dress and other details. Tell me if you agree, but I even think that the woman in black who stands between Fatty Arbuckle and Alice Lake (wearing a pretty plaid dress with a sash) looks a good deal like Natalie Talmadge (who did appear in the film as well.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLn4XnZc7P5Fu1XQRe3FAS_Q8CJoOn453wqLEEdsCQO4eCMBhpGV3T90agKCDfIWKyVkSG52NjKC1qPY6Rwu5GMIURYaTaZc8kufJ1APhBGEvMNg3Mmnjin_UGoSr3vDdoLeGvIDn1gBY/s1600/country+hero+4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="566" data-original-width="1157" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLn4XnZc7P5Fu1XQRe3FAS_Q8CJoOn453wqLEEdsCQO4eCMBhpGV3T90agKCDfIWKyVkSG52NjKC1qPY6Rwu5GMIURYaTaZc8kufJ1APhBGEvMNg3Mmnjin_UGoSr3vDdoLeGvIDn1gBY/s400/country+hero+4.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Some of the early confusion with respect to <i>A Country Hero</i> can be traced to an odd occurrence with the date the film was <u>copyrighted</u>. It appears that that might not have happened until 1920. Blesh probably took the copyright date as some evidence of its release.<br />
<br />
David Robinson's 1969 biography "Buster Keaton" repeats the error with respect to release date (suggesting 12/13/1920), and ponders whether <i>A Country Hero</i> was being confused and conflated with a different title (<i>The Hayseed</i>). Robinson speculates in this same manner with regard to other pairs of films (<i>Oh Doctor </i>and <i>Goodnight Nurse</i> as well as <i>Out West</i> and <i>A Desert Hero</i>). This is interesting, and not unlike something I might have been inclined to do myself given a diminished film catalog to work with. However, he is wrong on all counts about these films being confused. In particular, <i>A Country Hero</i> is its own film. And it was definitely the first made when the team got to California. And it was definitely released in December of 1917. More about this in a moment.<br />
<br />
By their 1977 book, "The Film Career of Buster Keaton," George Wead and George Lellis date the film correctly as the first made in California after the troop left New York and correctly state that it was made in Long Beach. The only hint of a reason for the earlier biographers' mistake about release date (of 1920) comes in their filmography where they note that <i>A Country Hero</i> was released on December 10 ['<i>of 1917'</i> is implied by the category heading] and was copyrighted on December 13 [year not given, though 1917 would also be implied by the heading of the entry]. So Wead and Lellis' error is in moving the copyright date forward to 'match' the timing of the release. But at least here we have an idea that the release date and copyright dates may have been different.<br />
<br />
Tom Dardis in 1979's "Buster Keaton, the Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down" is more precise. He cites articles from Moving Picture World dated November 24, 1917, December 1, 1917 and December 8, 1917 and declares <i>A Country Hero</i> to have been released on Dec. 10 1917. Best of all, he clearly states that the film was copyrighted on December 13, 1920. (Though as far as I can tell, he does not establish how he knows that.) Dardis goes on to tell us that the Comique crew began working out of the "Horkheimer brothers' new studios in Long Beach" located at 6th and Alamitos streets. p. 46<br />
<br />
After painstakingly figuring this all out for myself, I got a hold of "Buster Keaton : A Bio - Bibliography" by Joanna E. Rapf and Gary L Green and in reviewing their notes, see that their account is pretty much exactly like mine. haha. (Books. They're our friend. Wish I had more of them.)<br />
<br />
In fact, the one I really wish I had is by James Neibaur, entitled "Arbuckle and Keaton: Their 14 Film Collaborations." According to the Damnfinos, this book is the definitive guide to these films, and according to my research, it contains a chapter on <i>A Country Hero</i>. Thus, I am dying to know whether there is any more helpful material in the Neibaur volume such as additional interviews or contemporary notices. Until I can get my hands on that volume, I can't help but feel that this post is a work in progress.<br />
<br />
But, as today is the day, and I need to post something, I will press on with what I (think I) know.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdhxCaPgd7ObJScVYC8C4x9NArVqChoSCgrX5iPJWpznyTQc_5gBaZ_-D6uccx8JlDJ2wwscjwLLbdXHFgb9AgMkXAIElQjYAe3rYyykguKaGJWK_EdiNaFQo0e7tOIWap9lsXwdcHaxo/s1600/Motion+Picture+News+Sep+1920.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="970" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdhxCaPgd7ObJScVYC8C4x9NArVqChoSCgrX5iPJWpznyTQc_5gBaZ_-D6uccx8JlDJ2wwscjwLLbdXHFgb9AgMkXAIElQjYAe3rYyykguKaGJWK_EdiNaFQo0e7tOIWap9lsXwdcHaxo/s320/Motion+Picture+News+Sep+1920.png" width="235" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Motion Picture News Sep 1920</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
I keep asking myself 'why this film?' why is it lost? why did the others get found and not this? It seems that this film has its own special track. It is interesting that it was copyrighted two years after its release, for instance. But I got a hint as to why from an ad that ran in the trade journals in the fall of 1920. Apparently Fatty's films were being collectively re-issued at that time. Maybe the re-release allowed the company to learn that this one had missed being copyrighted. Because this was the first one produced upon getting to California, it would stand to figure that this detail could have fallen through the cracks. Maybe there was someone who handled that for the troupe back in NY but that the move to California shook things up? But, of course, this is all speculation. The film clearly still existed in 1920. When and how its path diverted is a story for the ages that may never be resolved.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What we can do is chip away at the details of the plot, characters, and gags the film contained using a variety of sources.</div>
<br />
Unfortunately, there is not much about the filming found in direct interview accounts. We have, of course, the story about Joe Keaton's high kick that works its way through Buster into the Rudi Blesh biography. We also know that two Ford Automobiles were destroyed by a train while shooting this film and that the stunt cost $20,000. We get this account directly from Fatty through a piece he authored in "Motion Picture Magazine," entitled <i>Cost of a Laugh </i>from March of 1918. This is presumably where David Yallop sourced the account in his 1976 biography of Arbuckle "The Day the Laughter Stopped."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFosJGZq5A18haW7RkcHO_58o6385T_63WuZ8AKMp5jno2xBlPKvWLdtGucmXcrLNLdd1aGnDZaO2OD16XmYpZU1XySFGxqpO5YOyW-jxQx57TSXvFXH_guDnWWEIhdHFONvl0HXRO0TQ/s1600/country+hero+2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="459" data-original-width="727" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFosJGZq5A18haW7RkcHO_58o6385T_63WuZ8AKMp5jno2xBlPKvWLdtGucmXcrLNLdd1aGnDZaO2OD16XmYpZU1XySFGxqpO5YOyW-jxQx57TSXvFXH_guDnWWEIhdHFONvl0HXRO0TQ/s320/country+hero+2.jpeg" width="320" /></a>Besides these two accounts, I am not aware of other direct descriptions of the filming from those present. Photographs from the film provide an additional valid source of first hand information. These corroborate certain elements (e.g. the train, the trough, the town name) and actors, and can also help us assess which roles the actors played.<br />
<br />
The richest sources of material probably come from the trade and fan magazines of the day, as well as local reviews. I have used these to flesh out my understanding, as others before me have done. I'd like to acknowledge an excellent blog post by <a href="https://silentology.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/all-about-arbuckles-a-country-hero/" target="_blank">Silentology</a> which goes into great depth imagining the plot of this film!<br />
<br />
My source for the trade and fan mags was the excellent <a href="http://mediahistoryproject.org/" target="_blank">Media History Digital Library</a>. I scoured any publication with references to "Country Hero". It turned up a number of things in "Motion Picture News" (which I will call MPN), "Variety", "Motography," "Moving Picture Wold" (which I will call MPW).<br />
<br />
<br />
I cataloged every major reference in any magazine I could find and many of these are cited below. The most extensive with respect to describing the plot and other events are these. All from Moving Picture World :<br />
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">December 1, 1917 . </span>Arbuckle in 'A Country Hero:</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">"Four cameramen and two grafted machines were on the scene when a fiver, used by the weighty hero in pursuing the villain and the heroine, blew up unexpectedly in the main street of Jazzville." (The imaginary rural village). The piece states that Jazzville's blacksmith shop is in that main street and seen in the picture as are the Jazz Hotel, post office and other landmarks.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The plot is described as telling "of the rivalry between Fatty and Cy Klone, the garage owner, over the affections of a pretty school-teacher." (Alice Lake is named)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>When a stranger (a city chap) comes to town and tries to "steal" the teacher, the two rivals unite against him. He takes her "to the city", followed by Fatty and Cy who "rescue her from the unscrupulous villain."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">December 8, 1917 </span>"Roscoe's Breakaway Didn't Break"</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">While filming a scene for The Country Hero "at the Balboa Studio in Long Beach," Fatty had two chairs and an upright piano broken over him during a stage fight with 5 men. The "breakaway" furniture "failed to break properly and Arbuckle was nearly knocked out."<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>This piece describes Arbuckle as the director (and "instigator") of the film and its gags, and since no one suspected any harm, the camera kept grinding. Later, he went to the studio's hospital with a hens-egg sized contusion on his head.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">And in that same issue, a fairly detailed review of film: Fatty is in the role of the blacksmith whose "sweetheart is weaned away from him by a city dude." The film is "extremely funny and remarkable as it may seem ... has actually discovered one or two new [tricks]." The review cites the example of Keaton's snake charmer bit as follows: "a scene at the annual village ball in which amateur talent is doing its best in a series of vaudeville studies, Fatima, wriggling through a series of snake-like movements, mysteriously opens a cigar box and quiveringly pulls forth a bit of feminine hosiery which is expected to impersonate a venomous serpent." The review says that the bulk of the picture is slapstick but not tiresome. Citing "a water trough at the door of the blacksmith shop" which serves as a source for a dip at various critical points in the comedy. In one of the closing scenes in a restaurant (where pie-smashing has been tabooed), Fatty smashes furniture using an upright piano as a giant club. The girl is thrown (by city dude?) across the room into the arms of (his?) accomplice. Our hero is victorious and rides home with the girl and a ??package of money?? "Which has also mysteriously disappeared.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
This is a lot to process, but from these, and other accounts, we can glean or confirm.<br />
• <i>A Country Hero</i> is Arbuckle's first film in California. MPN v 16, no 22 Dec 1, 1917.<br />
• It is a two reeler. MPW, Nov 24, 1917<br />
• The name of the town it is set in is Jazzville. MPW Dec 1, 1917<br />
• Arbuckle scouted for a great location to create the fictional town of "Jazzville", by driving around, but had no luck, so instead constructed the set at his Long Beach studio. MPN v 16, no 20 Nov 17, 1917, also MPW Nov 24, 1917.<br />
• Natalie Talmadge appears in the film (Variety, November 1917). However, the extent the source is trustworthy might be questioned by the fact that this same short blurb declares that Lou Anger is directing the film ? Whereas MPW states that Arbuckle was the director. Dec 8, 1917<br />
• Joe Keaton appears in the film according to several sources, notably Variety, Dec 1917<br />
• There are some gags where people end up in a water trough that is in front of the blacksmith shop. MPW Dec 8. Probably via Joe Keaton's foot. Blesh book.<br />
• The film involves a train. MPN v 16, no 23 and 24 Dec 8 and Dec 24 1917<br />
• Two Ford automobiles were destroyed by a train during the production. The Day the Laughter Stopped, David Yallop, p. 75; this is also described in a feature in Motion Picture Magazine, "Cost of a laugh", Mar 1918<br />
• there is a scene with "a cafe raid, in which Fatty hurls a player piano at a guest" MPN v 16, no 24 Dec 15, 1917 - &/OR - in which Fatty has a player piano broken over him. MPW Dec 1 - &/OR - in which Fatty uses the piano as a club to bash things. MPW Dec 8.<br />
• Fatty plays the blacksmith. MPW Dec 8, 1917; also photos show him in a blacksmith apron<br />
• Alice Lake plays the school teacher. MPW Dec 1 1917<br />
• Joe Keaton plays a "storekeeper". Variety, Dec 1917<br />
• a character called Cy Klone is the garage owner. MPW Dec 1, 1917<br />
• a character named Fatima does a snake charmer bit. MPW 12/8/17. The character is played by Keaton. (Various sources and general Keaton knowledge :) as well as photos that this was his bit.<br />
• a character variously called the chap / city stranger / city dude comes to town and attempts to steal away the teacher<br />
<div>
<br />
With all this information, I was hoping to glean a definitive sense of who played Cy Klone the local rival and who played the city dude (true bad guy). But it really isn't clear.<br />
<br />
<br />
I turned to the <a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/" target="_blank">Library of Congress' Chronicling America </a>newspaper database to see what kinds of local film reviews this might turn up. I actually found several hundred results that mentioned the film and did not wade through them all, but skimmed for occurrences that appeared to be inside the margins of regular newspaper print and not part of an ad for the film. Most of these blurbs were very brief (and tended to suggest that the film was excellent, or his best ever). I found just two that gave additional details or plot summaries and were more than a line or two that appeared to be written by a local person. </div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw_X3ftIpI_qQZhtYNLyr27wrpY7WKq2ApMP9-rKsUlwGWZtg2vO5tjEEE16lBKw02S0ROxNkMYo0tHIzOo15CgHdlj5pRLHzRA9Z77ruSd_AVP3nzTUkth0hFlc8nHi9ARy5HXYUK75E/s1600/Film+fun+Feb+1918.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1246" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw_X3ftIpI_qQZhtYNLyr27wrpY7WKq2ApMP9-rKsUlwGWZtg2vO5tjEEE16lBKw02S0ROxNkMYo0tHIzOo15CgHdlj5pRLHzRA9Z77ruSd_AVP3nzTUkth0hFlc8nHi9ARy5HXYUK75E/s320/Film+fun+Feb+1918.png" width="249" /></a>The "Bemidji Daily Pioneer," Saturday Dec 15, 1917 has a piece entitled "Elko Tonight" with the following: "Fatty Arbuckle in 'A Country Hero'. In the first place there is Fatty's encounter with a refractory automobile which exhibits all the obstinate tendencies of a balky mule as specified by the scenario. It runs up to 'Fatty's Garage", known as "The Spark Plug Garage." Finally, for some unexplained reason of its own, the machine starts with an explosion that could be heard from Long Beach to Los Angeles."<br />
<br />
This piece confounds things in a few ways, suggesting that Fatty is the garage owner and tentatively calling the garage "Fatty's Garage" before allowing it to be "The Spark Plug". Though it confirms the explosion that is described in Moving Picture World, Dec 1.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Rock Island Argus" (Rock Island, IL), dated Dec 21, 1917, from a piece entitled "At Spencer Square" provided probably the best summary I have seen of the film anywhere. It states: "they are in a village of about five hundred inhabitants. There is the Jazzville hotel, the Jazzville dancing club and the Jazzville jazz band. There is the town pest, taken by Buster Keeton, he of the limber frame, while Fatty is the village blacksmith and Al St John is the town garage owner and dude all rolled in one. Miss Lake is the village belle and there is a fierce competition for her hand which is nearly broken up when the handsome city stranger puts in an appearance with his polished manners. He gets the girl away from the dance, throws her into an automobile and they race to the city, where chase is given by Fatty and Al. How the two clean out the guilded cafe and rescue the girl all forms part of one of the funniest films ever made."<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia1mGpcYnEhY5frzVrEpoxFdcd2YAMKTQ63wZHg7qLj2vgWIAj0rgtMQn3xuhJ_yF91JAZe61Qb5W5WwT5bFbbfNwG7_SaUvF0KzQOJzWEXuNkzjAa4hdjU4mL_s9mtkoPgCdoL5b99ek/s1600/Rock+Island+Ill+Argus+12%253A21%253A1917.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1198" data-original-width="560" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia1mGpcYnEhY5frzVrEpoxFdcd2YAMKTQ63wZHg7qLj2vgWIAj0rgtMQn3xuhJ_yF91JAZe61Qb5W5WwT5bFbbfNwG7_SaUvF0KzQOJzWEXuNkzjAa4hdjU4mL_s9mtkoPgCdoL5b99ek/s320/Rock+Island+Ill+Argus+12%253A21%253A1917.png" width="149" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rock Island Argus 12/21/1917</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This review is quite clear in naming Al St John as the garage owner. Of course it is possible to have mixed him up with Joe Keaton, though that doesn't seem very likely.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mysteries<br />
It is not clear who plays the romantic rival (Cy Klone). The conventional wisdom seems to be that Joe Keaton plays the local rival (see IMDB, Wikipedia). However, the movie review from Rock Island Illinois states that Al St John played Cy Klone. Further, Joe Keaton's own account -- as filtered through his son and then Rudi Blesh -- is that Joe played the school teacher's <i>father,</i> not a would be suitor. (This later take would seem more believable given the elder Keaton's other turns as a dad to either Buster or a love interest in later films.<br />
<br />
I am personally inclined to believe Joe Keaton would have played a small and random part in this, his first film. As a minor storekeeper, who could easily also be Alice Lake's father, he would have incentive to kick the others all into the trough. And St John as the romantic local rival does make sense, given that this would be a typical role for him.<br />
<br />
So who played the city dude?? Maybe St John doubled in that role? (There are photos from the film that have Al looking fairly dapper). Maybe Keaton doubled in that role? (Some of the film stills also have Keaton looking rather dapper).<br />
<br />
<br />
One final little mystery I will leave you with involves the title of the flick. Modern sources are pretty consistent in calling this film <i>A Country Hero. </i>However, I turned up many many ads as well as industry material from the time referring to the film as <i><u>The</u> Country Hero</i>. I'd like to believe that someone has checked the copyright and maybe that that would govern? But honestly, I don't know.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing does seem certain: this film sounds fantastic! It got strong reviews. While I was perusing all the hundreds of local paper ads and notices, they were almost all very positive. Of course it was their job to drum up business, but there were strikingly good things that kept coming out. Keaton's snake charmer bit seems to have been very well regarded and the other effects (the train crash, the explosion, the big fight) all seemed powerful and interesting. It seems clear that the California big sky was working its magic and Comique was now doing BIG things. They have come along way since March.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm optimistic enough to believe that someday this film might turn up. Maybe someone will find a cache of film in an attic and return this work to the adoring masses, while completing the Keaton collection!<br />
<br />
<br />
Until then, I will chip away at these mysteries any chance I get and share with the blog whatever I learn.<br />
<br />
It has been a fun -- if crazy -- year for me to have this self-imposed urgency to research, write, watch and think about Keaton. If nothing else, I've exposed big gaps in my understanding and blocked out research projects to keep me busy for years to come! Although, I won't continue to celebrate each release on its centenial, I will continue to update the blog with other material. So for now, I wish Keaton followers a Happy Centennial Year! and Happy Viewing!<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-54876395034351928722017-11-12T07:43:00.000-08:002017-11-12T07:43:39.855-08:00So... WWBKD? Would he be on Social Media?Taking a break from the soothing world of silent comedy and the simpler and infinitely more desirable life principles it supports, I'll write about the crazy world of social media circa 2017. I don't know if this post is really about what Buster would do... but I know its about what <i>I</i> would (or wouldn't). I learned this week why I am definitively a <i>consumer</i> of great content (books, podcasts, dvd commentary, other blogs, etc) and a sometime <i>purveyor</i> of mediocre content (blushes). . . but almost never a <i>networker </i>in the world of The Fandom.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxeqhhmwanQE3jsk-43RHFVmMn9se4-4jr02ptS_qX6DUvwXbaZG_7P8aVzL4UTqZQG-9sXYxxuF1onPmKJEg900Zb27cVXE8oHmLceRIwayuogvFx1bkN0YIzV6-8Con2VFcYriqwNOE/s1600/keaton+reading+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="945" data-original-width="1001" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxeqhhmwanQE3jsk-43RHFVmMn9se4-4jr02ptS_qX6DUvwXbaZG_7P8aVzL4UTqZQG-9sXYxxuF1onPmKJEg900Zb27cVXE8oHmLceRIwayuogvFx1bkN0YIzV6-8Con2VFcYriqwNOE/s320/keaton+reading+3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
First, some backstory.<br />
<br />
I discovered Buster Keaton in the summer of 2012. It didn't take long for him to take over my brain. An almost immediate byproduct of that takeover was this blog.<br />
<br />
I found it easy and fun to slip into this forum for publishing my own musings on this great man. Though with a healthy enough ego to believe that others might be interested, I admit I wrote with the main intent of pleasing myself.<br />
<br />
Lurking somewhere in the back of my thoughts might be a shadowy pipe dream of someday becoming a "real" Keaton scholar ... maybe even writing a book...with a larger purpose of promoting Keaton's legacy. <br />
<br />
That said, basically just know that you've stumbled upon the blog of a dilettante, content to live in her own little world but offer a gracious welcome to anyone who shows up here.<br />
<br />
By that I mean you. If you are reading this you're welcome, because, really, isn't that just how it should work? And if you <i>do</i> cool things related to Buster, you are also very welcome to chat about them to me. Because... really, isn't that how it should work? And ... by the way... if I fail to respond in a timely way, I hope you'll forgive that as I'm often pulled in other directions by day jobs that force Buster-love to the back burner. And, honestly. Isn't that how all of this should work too?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh67LAP0kuEh4tBAnyCwnjQeOzXD2xQMTzQaC8oIcNZkUBxzTb8ooTGxj4ev93Sc6bBgTK3ol3XdBREazGeL1o4Gk15jZZ7HETblvOtDgdHC9Z4g4idELXVzA6Hb8mS-V-a5nmPto3B-lk/s1600/buster+reading.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="500" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh67LAP0kuEh4tBAnyCwnjQeOzXD2xQMTzQaC8oIcNZkUBxzTb8ooTGxj4ev93Sc6bBgTK3ol3XdBREazGeL1o4Gk15jZZ7HETblvOtDgdHC9Z4g4idELXVzA6Hb8mS-V-a5nmPto3B-lk/s320/buster+reading.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
And if all this sounds like its leading to something, it is.<br />
<br />
The other day, while waiting to head out to dinner, I relaxed by paging through my facebook feed, then stopped with a jolt when I saw my own blog post staring back at me from the pages of a Buster Keaton fan site that I followed! I was flattered and pleased. This doesn't happen to me every day. The post was asking "does anyone know whose blog this is?"<br />
<br />
I thought about it for a bit. I like my privacy and anonymity. But the writer seemed genuinely interested and kind... so I made the decision to out myself and claim it to this welcoming community. I believe by doing so I made two new Keaton-fan-friends (whose readerships I appreciate!)<br />
<br />
It was all very nice, warmed my heart and made me feel connected and special.<br />
<br />
How very short lived.<br />
<br />
When I logged back into facebook the next day, I discovered with confusion that the post had been removed.<br />
<br />
I can't imagine why. I know I've seen countless links on that public group to other people's websites, films, and projects. And I don't think there was anything objectionable in the friendly comments that were exchanged about my blog. I also have a hard time believing that my blog itself -- which consists in gushing about the same person the facebook fan group gushes about -- could possibly offend. So I'm left startled in wonderment, feeling like a new kid at school who was tentatively approached by a friendly soul only to have the class bully lumber up and say: "we don't play with her."<br />
<br />
<br />
When I think about Keaton, I can't fathom his being able to put up with such silly stuff either. I mean... he made movies. He was glad when they played them. If a group of colleagues displayed his posters one day only to have the group leader remove them the next without explanation, I bet he'd have found that strange. I bet his attitude would have been: "Love me, hate me, or leave me alone. Just don't be petty and weird around me."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSVuRCZi_BhhBC-Ytxxz0PfNO6Uk0uLDXCAy4wcVZDqAsTgtqfMQMOCoK2vOFBKdBIMaMmlYpS_xS83ouhYeihZ6qs1-UkL1S2p_bXxQSXazvWQqPSq6K3ytgqZaxzijP4ZdHQ0ZhpM1E/s1600/buster+reading+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="929" data-original-width="736" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSVuRCZi_BhhBC-Ytxxz0PfNO6Uk0uLDXCAy4wcVZDqAsTgtqfMQMOCoK2vOFBKdBIMaMmlYpS_xS83ouhYeihZ6qs1-UkL1S2p_bXxQSXazvWQqPSq6K3ytgqZaxzijP4ZdHQ0ZhpM1E/s320/buster+reading+2.jpg" width="253" /></a><br />
But maybe I'm wrong.<br />
<br />
I know I can't speak for Keaton, but I'll speak for myself. I love blogging about Keaton. But I don't like the playground territoriality and social machinery that seem to come with organized fandom. It's what holds me back from joining groups like the Damnfinos. Its what keeps me from commenting on other people's blogs. I find the rules of social media to be strange and unfriendly and I often have no idea when they have been crossed.<br />
<br />
If you read my blog (thank you), find it enjoyable (thank you still more!), and wonder why I don't get out more... its because of things like this recent facebook interaction. I don't know who got offended with that exchange nor why it was removed and I really don't want to have to care. It will take a LOT more readers before I can quit the day jobs and spend my time making social media my concern.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I will be over here writing about Buster every chance I get.<br />
<br />
Please know, gracious reader, know that if anyone wants to share what I'm doing -- the old-fashioned way through word of actual mouth, or in any new-fangled way, through word of pixel, digit or electron -- they are both welcomed and encouraged to do so. Also, I promise that as long as your comments are civil and relevant, I am THRILLED to have them and publish them. I wish you well and think that anything that leads to more public knowledge of Buster Keaton can only be a good thing for his legacy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-89298463071944953562017-10-29T22:02:00.003-07:002017-10-29T22:02:57.610-07:00Coney Island (1917)<i>Coney Island</i> is a movies of firsts and lasts.<br />
<br />
It's a "first" (for me) because it comes in at the top. It's my favorite of the Keaton-Arbuckle collaborations.<br />
<br />
But I realized upon watching it today -- for the dozenth time or so -- that there's quite a few other firsts and lasts in the film. I thought about this as I watched Buster Keaton appear in the opening scene. I admit he did that last film too (<i>Oh Doctor</i>), but <i>Coney Island</i> gives us a special new <i>first</i> in that not only does Keaton show up in the first scene, but he is the first of the Comique troop to appear. In other words, for the first time ever, he is onscreen even before Fatty Arbuckle.<br />
<br />
<i>Coney Island</i> is a "last," because its the last film the company made in New York, before moving to the west coast to shoot pictures.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VBFEtYuCF7DeBEbbVu4gkmjaHw0mlSsK8YIQTpdAfFtR0SpIEsOXydWZt5HHfZzJw7y2dln3W4H9dhp5MIRxG3d-Snxz8eaJyg4fhpC6gCUh5KnHhcF-XbV-dI1JATnPc51hY41VSyw/s1600/kiss+coney+island.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="872" data-original-width="834" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VBFEtYuCF7DeBEbbVu4gkmjaHw0mlSsK8YIQTpdAfFtR0SpIEsOXydWZt5HHfZzJw7y2dln3W4H9dhp5MIRxG3d-Snxz8eaJyg4fhpC6gCUh5KnHhcF-XbV-dI1JATnPc51hY41VSyw/s320/kiss+coney+island.png" width="306" /></a>The film gives us another first in that it's the first Comique film where Buster "gets the girl" at the end. Not Fatty. (I mean, Keaton, not Fatty, is the one who gets the girl, not that Keaton gets the girl, but doesn't get Fatty. Of course we know that Keaton has Fatty already - wrapped up in his heart, just as Fatty has him. There is clearly a great bromance established between the two by this point. Awww.)<br />
<br />
And another sweet first, is that this may be Keaton's first screen kiss. I'd have to look back at the other releases to confirm it, but I feel pretty sure. (I know there was a bit of flirting with the housemaid in T<i>he Cook</i>; but I don't think there was any kissin'). Way to go Buster. He's growing up fast, haha. Remember that the last film release had Buster playing a child!<br />
<br />
I'm not sure I can call this next observation a certain "last," but I do think we're near the end of the line for movies where Keaton does a lot of smiling. And crying. And bigger, broader emoting. Here, in <i>Coney Island</i>, for the bulk of the picture, Keaton has settled in around the stone face style that will be his signature moving forward. But he does have a few scenes where we get to enjoy that gorgeous mug, well, mugging it up.<br />
<br />
And there's more...<br />
<br />
This film also has an interesting end-of-an-era feel with respect to the "Keystone Cops." In <i>Coney Island</i>, they are present throughout -- bumbling and jumping and running. According to my research (i.e. the quick check on Wikipedia that I just did), the Keystone Cops were a thing between 1912 and 1917 - placing this 1917 film at the end of their prominence in cinema.<br />
<br />
And, on a bittersweet note, it is also the last film I'll be watching in my Buster Keaton Centennial Celebration of 1917 film releases. Yes, there is one last film released in 1917 which will need to be discussed (December 10th's <i>A Country Hero</i>), but it is considered a lost film. SO ... I'll review it :) but I won't be able to watch it, haha.<br />
<br />
Beyond the firsts and lasts that are stacking up rapidly, what this film also has going for it is that -- for the first time -- it feels as though the action of a Comique film really fits its artistic vision as a package. What's interesting is that <i>Coney Island</i> does this despite being in most respects much like Arbuckle's prior films: it is uncomplicated, lighthearted, chaotic fun. But while the prior films felt rather senseless, <i>Coney Island</i> feels integrated. Its a better version of the genre. The chaotic fun seems to mean something. It fits. And there's a reason for that: they're at a theme park. And the theme park is a world of chaotic fun. This is well suited thematically and as a result, just, somehow works.<br />
<br />
<br />
In fact, the appearance of the theme park in this film is simply astonishing!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYqmlX8HLZQZmbTo_w1Pu2yVYDttgbUXuS8-Q4h4uGcGKLT9_8UJoEy7hv3lT8EsHdTOQcOBf5t7fWqppgHGokWvNnYeBpR30mMuYBX08dH1h7dYR-ffacBczUiFNXdcS3MWtcRPr5h-s/s1600/witching+waves.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="527" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYqmlX8HLZQZmbTo_w1Pu2yVYDttgbUXuS8-Q4h4uGcGKLT9_8UJoEy7hv3lT8EsHdTOQcOBf5t7fWqppgHGokWvNnYeBpR30mMuYBX08dH1h7dYR-ffacBczUiFNXdcS3MWtcRPr5h-s/s320/witching+waves.jpg" width="320" /></a>Being able to see so many scenes filmed 100 years ago at the real Coney Island park is incredible. I love it as much as I love anything else this movie. Even though I've never been to Coney Island, nor do I have any particular love for the park or the region, it can hardly be denied that Coney Island is itself a star of this film. And it was probably an important part of the appeal for contemporary audiences; but it has to be so much more special today for the slice of history the modern viewer is able to enjoy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVBXoIEyHyuC4nYwRavKKeT1j3xotTbxrdZyJ5t4vzP1AH3o5A_5NB8DrChoGpG7sPG8mpGC_cwag10LH2aKDVMiTub4pIqUBarG3VLeyz1WNpNRYYUvxyT-T3aykVvIsKUw1q2ya4jik/s1600/mallet+coney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="620" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVBXoIEyHyuC4nYwRavKKeT1j3xotTbxrdZyJ5t4vzP1AH3o5A_5NB8DrChoGpG7sPG8mpGC_cwag10LH2aKDVMiTub4pIqUBarG3VLeyz1WNpNRYYUvxyT-T3aykVvIsKUw1q2ya4jik/s200/mallet+coney.jpg" width="200" /></a>Watching it now... looking at the kinds of rides, foods, attractions, and activities our ancestors enjoyed, it strikes me how very similar these people were to us. And yet, how very different the standards of safety were. Imagine the craziness of "The Witching Waves," which seems a horrendous pinching and snagging hazard, not to mention seeing folks fly down a water ride incline in an open boat without being secured (and of course tumbling out!) And what about the incredible investment in power it must have taken a century ago to light up that park the way we see it in the opening shot...? Just wow. The opening shots of Luna Park are so beautiful and so evocative. There is a feeling of telling a visually beautiful story that goes beyond the typical Arbuckle fare.<br />
<br />
And that brings me to another thing that is special and a "first" for me in a Comique film. This is the first time where setting, place, cinematography felt important and lovely.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm not going to recount the plot of this film in depth, because I'm not sure it's necessary. As I said, unlike the last release -- <i>Oh Doctor</i> -- Coney Island has definitely gone back to being a rather simple, silly picture unencumbered by many story elements.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3zy8st7LZTvTWQRqtLHaMY7I65m1x9dMbftvWJStRYJVOJV01il61I_ur49m3Wmuk-318uibepsUEcTp3bXn3eVp-1C3Q3xU9Si55NyUkzuJstaepwHsOaU0nm4tDTdfrOqzG6wva6F4/s1600/fatty+bathing+suit+coney+island.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1246" data-original-width="737" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3zy8st7LZTvTWQRqtLHaMY7I65m1x9dMbftvWJStRYJVOJV01il61I_ur49m3Wmuk-318uibepsUEcTp3bXn3eVp-1C3Q3xU9Si55NyUkzuJstaepwHsOaU0nm4tDTdfrOqzG6wva6F4/s320/fatty+bathing+suit+coney+island.jpg" width="189" /></a>So here it is, in brief: ... Ketaon and his girlfriend are watching a parade, but when they want to go into Coney Island, they can't because Buster has no money. Al St John walks by and escorts the young lady into the park leaving Keaton to sneak in in a barrel. Once inside they encounter Fatty Arbuckle who is there with (and trying to escape from) his wife. Machinations happen and next thing you know Fatty walks off with the lovely lady while St John is arrested. Each of the three main stars go around doing silly things - hitting each other with mallets and doing backflips and Keystone kicks and being tossed from amusement rides and changing in dressing rooms -- Fatty using this as a nice excuse to get in drag again. Ultimately Fatty's wife runs into St John and the players all converge again for a big reveal - Fatty is not a woman! And, as mentioned, buster ends up with the girl.<br />
<br />
As far as the action goes, it seems par for the course, and all blurs a bit together. And even blurs outside its own lines a bit. For instance, though I've seen the film many times, I found myself waiting for the scene where Keaton goes through the Tunnel of Love, before realizing that that scene is in a different film! (<i>The Balloonatic</i>). Similarly, I found myself confounding certain bathhouse scenes from <i>The Cameraman</i> involving a rotund woman's bathing suit with those in this picture; and I had a flash-forward moment recalling how Keaton quite similarly emerges in a swimsuit in short film <i>Hard Luck.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0eyQyCwZedUXZEJ8ny0uwzUQd1tzNywDN4SVFw0WfgQoS6ueukgit5Tl-Q_grA00joqKy6NOMU6pzuetYhZfjYiiIhJbO3Fj5PQx6IXAIZ7S6mNeuAdFnePFmkP4mJ0I-iYiDT9Whw6I/s1600/keaton+bathing+suit+coney+island.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="391" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0eyQyCwZedUXZEJ8ny0uwzUQd1tzNywDN4SVFw0WfgQoS6ueukgit5Tl-Q_grA00joqKy6NOMU6pzuetYhZfjYiiIhJbO3Fj5PQx6IXAIZ7S6mNeuAdFnePFmkP4mJ0I-iYiDT9Whw6I/s320/keaton+bathing+suit+coney+island.jpg" width="130" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeHp0bEYecHRI6oX_dxedme4tOJZFed6t9D6ohvScXUTQD64MBUnNv03VEP7aM-RDiT5imFIeN93QHpOfMY5NMdfefAk2WJ6xvOfHLOlm7q58XEYl4lIB09iAoDxGm-IhddOXqQmE048A/s1600/keaton+bathing+suit+hard+luck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="820" data-original-width="690" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeHp0bEYecHRI6oX_dxedme4tOJZFed6t9D6ohvScXUTQD64MBUnNv03VEP7aM-RDiT5imFIeN93QHpOfMY5NMdfefAk2WJ6xvOfHLOlm7q58XEYl4lIB09iAoDxGm-IhddOXqQmE048A/s320/keaton+bathing+suit+hard+luck.jpg" width="269" /></a></div>
<br />
So though, at the edges, the film may not be perfectly compact, nor does it enjoy a total sense of clarity, its chain of gags, vignettes, and silliness really works for a variety of reasons. First up: because they are particularly good gags and vignettes! There is a nice amount of balance, with lots of characters (including the Cops and the Park) getting to shine a little bit. Plus, we get to see BK in a bathing suit -- and come to think of its that's probably another first. ... a very good one.<br />
<br />
Another reason it all works, as I mentioned above, is that the backdrop of the chaotic theme park gives the right setting and context to make the mindless fun seem like exactly what we want.<br />
<br />
Finally, I was thinking today about why I am forgiving with <i>Coney's Island's</i> lack of plot, whereas in other Comique films, I felt the absence of plot and structure as a bit of an issue. I realize that it doesn't matter here because here there is very little attempt to give the film any plot at all! This film is just really about a day at Coney Island.<br />
<br />
Its kind of like a Seinfeld episode. Its doesn't matter what the point of the episode it; the fun is in simply being there with them. Whereas in the other films, there is ostensibly a plot, some attempt to move a story along - a love triangle, some intrigue, or complication, and some attempt at resolution made. Here, there is a feeling of pointlessness. Like the scene at the end when Fatty and Al come out of jail declaring all their troubles to be due to women and vowing to avoid them... until a couple of cuties walk by and the boys are off. There's no moral, plot, theme, happy ending or anything to take away. Just a day of fun at the beach.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-54948989131938254022017-09-30T20:49:00.004-07:002017-10-06T09:54:01.985-07:00Oh Doctor! (1917)<i>Oh Doctor!</i> is the next entry in the Keaton Centennial Blog Extravaganza. Ha, I just made that up now. I probably should have come up with a catchy title for what I'm doing a while ago. I guess I didn't properly plan it out. ... But unlike me, <i>Oh Doctor! </i>does have the feel of something that has been planned out. I mean, shockingly well-planned ... for a Fatty Arbuckle film that is.<br />
<br />
This film is remarkable in that . . . wait for it: it has an actual plot. A pretty decent one too. Another thing it has is intrigue and even a bit of complexity.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately what it lacks is a good role for Buster Keaton.<br />
<br />
Though in many ways it is clear that Keaton's influence has continued to grow at Comique and he is now a fully-integrated player taking on more and more. For instance, Keaton receives first billing after Arbuckle, and, for the first time ever, even enters the film in its first scene. Keaton's influence can be felt in a couple other ways that I'll get to.<br />
<br />
I have no way of knowing whether we have Keaton or someone else to thank for the more developed story here, but there is no doubt that this film feels different from Comique films that have preceded it.<br />
<br />
Maybe a change in location got the creative juices flowing in a different direction. After all, this was the first film the team made after departing the Colony Studio building on 48th Street in Manhattan, for new digs out in the Bronx.<br />
<br />
The three prior films, which were made in Manhattan, followed a formula that went pretty much like this: Fatty is introduced as a proprietor of some type of business and given an opportunity to showcase some dexterous comedy skills; Fatty's love interest is then spotlighted; a love triangle is set up - with Al St John in the role as rival; a character played by Buster Keaton and ancillary to the action is given an opportunity to be a breath of fresh air; then chaos ensues, and finally Fatty ends up with the girl. It was a good enough formula and seemed to be working for the team.<br />
<br />
But this movie doesn't follow it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCRvah25gs35wZ-7K2urSWa4ZXcygHbFieMg4VtSFvoBIOHAKwjZ4UIdOsfn-KdI0fCN72BAz5PgrKDrhWsDJN3VURSZPnSA0dwiJ2ASsNSlTbhVzWrcpp8yCbxkjDqJC6rVjxAThwtf0/s1600/buster+and+fatty+.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="796" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCRvah25gs35wZ-7K2urSWa4ZXcygHbFieMg4VtSFvoBIOHAKwjZ4UIdOsfn-KdI0fCN72BAz5PgrKDrhWsDJN3VURSZPnSA0dwiJ2ASsNSlTbhVzWrcpp8yCbxkjDqJC6rVjxAThwtf0/s320/buster+and+fatty+.jpg" width="320" /></a>In <i>Oh Doctor!</i> Arbuckle is introduced to the viewer as both a family man and a doctor. He seems to be reasonably wealthy and lives in a well-appointed house. The action begins as he and his family go to the races, where a world of intrigue and ensnarement await them. As if that weren't different enough, the regular roles of the supporting players have morphed too. Instead of a rival in love, Al St John plays more of a rival in economics and the big kicker is that Buster plays Fatty Arbuckle's son.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioru7FW1VQ2VC2-YEmDrnwoT1M3wRHW0PqXDSq56sFb2S7TWBpVDwk7DGsLSDutimLjRilOTztSTCwupAgBkemE0jJ7HKgej6tRiW2mNdVsWpICCYpLXN8oOnYMCKFGuVS6XCrTWMk-qs/s1600/buster+crying.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="289" data-original-width="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioru7FW1VQ2VC2-YEmDrnwoT1M3wRHW0PqXDSq56sFb2S7TWBpVDwk7DGsLSDutimLjRilOTztSTCwupAgBkemE0jJ7HKgej6tRiW2mNdVsWpICCYpLXN8oOnYMCKFGuVS6XCrTWMk-qs/s1600/buster+crying.jpg" /></a>I have to admit that this relationship did not work for me. It took quite a while for me to realize that Keaton was playing a young child (how young he's supposed to be I have no idea). Truth is, I found this role a bit irritating and it wasn't until I watched a second time -- and just kind of relaxed and went with it -- that I was able to get a bit more joy out of the performance. The first time around I found the broad gesticulation, the mouth open crying and other highly expressive actions distracting. Once I understood that Keaton was meant to be a CHILD, these choices were not only easier to forgive, but actually to find impressive. (Like his performance as a monkey in a film many years hence, we do get a feel for Keaton's great skills in mimicry).<br />
<br />
Anyway. . . why don't I first just give this a bit of a recap. I am not ashamed to admit that I really did have to watch twice to understand what was going on. I'll see if I can spare anyone the trouble:<br />
<br />
So, as I say, Fatty is a reasonably rich doctor in town. He, his wife and son go to the horse races one day. Fatty sees a very attractive vamp-type woman (Alice Mann) and intentionally makes his child cry so that his wife will attend to the boy and Fatty can sit near the vamp. The femme fatale and her boyfriend-gambler (Al St John), are in cahoots -- with Fatty as their mark. A bookie friend gives Al a tip on a horse called Lightening. Fatty listens in, thinks he can't lose, and bets all his money -- $1,000 -- on this horse.<br />
<br />
[And here's where I really need to just pause and say: "$1,000!" Holy crud. That's a serious load of cash. Lets not forget this was a century ago. Yeah, I'd say Fatty is playing a different class of fellow here.]<br />
<br />
The horse, of course, not only loses, but is so very inept he runs the wrong way -- a source of great joy for child-Keaton. The family goes home, completely broke, and the scene cuts to St John and the vamp back at their apartment. Actually I'm not sure whether they were playing Fatty before, as they may have lost money on the horse too... I can't quite tell, but in any case, they're going to play him now. She calls him up with a fake ailment. En route to see her, Fatty tries to drum up some business for himself, as he is now desperate, by allowing his car to roll into a crowd gathered to hear a health-tonic huckster. I guess that's one way to do it! He continues on to the home of the vamp and knocks -- on the door, then, when it opens, on the chest of the maid (played by Alice Lake).<br />
<br />
[And I guess <i>this</i> is a good place to digress and talk about the bawdy nature of this pre-code film. In addition to the maid's chest-knocking, there's also a bit at the races where Fatty grabs the legs of both the women next to him in a rhythmic way. It'a an Arbuckle film]<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX8M_K_uea1dH4b3qCtklcLyGLl-warlE6IHsXpaeRN12LUxTAzoK55dOctJkXFYNT0Rb8HXnzUFJwrlfy7ZUY37nLnMP9KRz8jXWJXDn3G3cEP_MIaIiYwgkD4UJ43vnxiFL83q1tI4s/s1600/fatty+mixing+drinks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX8M_K_uea1dH4b3qCtklcLyGLl-warlE6IHsXpaeRN12LUxTAzoK55dOctJkXFYNT0Rb8HXnzUFJwrlfy7ZUY37nLnMP9KRz8jXWJXDn3G3cEP_MIaIiYwgkD4UJ43vnxiFL83q1tI4s/s320/fatty+mixing+drinks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
So no one can be surprised that at the apartment, Fatty makes the moves on the vamp - including entertainingly mixing drinks out of his medical bag - while St John steals away over to the Doctor's home... to steal the fancy necklace Fatty's wife was wearing. As Al flees with the necklace, Boy-Buster comes in, becomes suspicious and follows him.<br />
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Back at the Vamp's, she gets a call to have Fatty? put money down on a horse with 500 to 1 odds, because <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>they've made a deal with the jockey. (I'm still a little confused on this.) But it's clear that there is now a team of con artists in on the sting and the team actually stages, for Fatty's benefit, a fake book-making operation. In fact, I exclaimed in delight when I realized that the scene here is just like one in the great film from the 1970s <i>The Sting!</i> If I remember to do it, it would be fun to look into any influence early films like this may have had on that period masterpiece.</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">But again, I digress. The point is that the fake bookmakers take Fatty's money, when this horse is bound to lose.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Cutting back to Buster, everything now comes to a head. The boy has tracked Al back home where his mother's stolen necklace is being presented to the vamp. Buster calls his mom and all hell breaks loose. (So.. I guess it's a bit like the old formula after all). </span>Everyone is at cross purposes - the wife to get her necklace back, Al to hide from Fatty, Fatty to hide from his wife (since he's romancing the vamp). The women tussle, knocking out Al in the process; Fatty, while hiding in the kitchen, grabs the police jacket of the maid's rotund boyfriend, and chases after Al (not quite sure why), wife makes a grab for her necklace but ends up locked in a closet!<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjis1IJPJv3iVuIWqMLr1-eBL3oeeSYK66hnLEclhCo4HcWPBb2RXWB0MP2hAY-4two_Rj2CnsptD-0PkoG4gmLOE3oZ6DFa3PVp9oIIMsZqjCsFU016FwbkFWU-hvfADZ0Opt5La3hmis/s1600/keaton+feet+up.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjis1IJPJv3iVuIWqMLr1-eBL3oeeSYK66hnLEclhCo4HcWPBb2RXWB0MP2hAY-4two_Rj2CnsptD-0PkoG4gmLOE3oZ6DFa3PVp9oIIMsZqjCsFU016FwbkFWU-hvfADZ0Opt5La3hmis/s320/keaton+feet+up.jpg" width="213" /></a><span class="s1">Then everything resolves. (I said it had a plot. Not that it had a perfectly coherent plot!) For some reason, "Romeo," the 500 to 1 odds horse,</span> wins! Fatty's rich. Except, the whole thing was faked. But Fatty doesn't know this, so he shows up to get his winnings (still in the cop suit) and the guys, thinking its a bust, all scram. Fatty enters, sees no one to pay him out but tons of money lying everywhere, and helps himself.<br />
<br />
Even with so much money -- enough to toss some on the ground because it smells bad -- he still has a mixed bag of an ending, walking off and getting kicked by his still-angry wife.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="s1">There are many charming parts of this film, some of which are quite unexpected. Others that feel more typical. One in the unexpected camp is a cool title card. I don't usually watch silent comedies to enjoy the words, but there's a wonderfully clever one at the beginning of this: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">Unquestionably the horse is superior to man. One hundred thousand men will go see a horse race but I bet not a single horse would go see one hundred thousand men run.</span></blockquote>
<span class="s1">Whoever selected or wrote that one is a genius. </span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">The typical, would be the confusing chaos that we come to expect somewhere in an Arbuckle endeavor. It had to have suited audiences at the time and no doubt Fatty knew his market!</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">I mentioned early on that other parts of this film seem to show Keaton's influence. I'm always ready to attribute good ideas to my man, but I think it's only fair to attribute bad as well. Here, the choice to have Keaton play a child strikes me as probably Keaton's. It seems like his brainchild in that it bears such similarity to the type of knockabout act the Three Keatons were known to have done on Vaudeville. Here Buster calls Fatty "Pop" and Fatty manhandles the boy just like Joe Keaton must have done on stage. The thing is... the style of acting that probably worked great on stage doesn't work here. Its overdone. There I said it.</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Further, while Keaton does evince great talent in terms of mimicking the spirit of a child, I have to say that his role is uneven and confusing. It's hard to know how old he's supposed to be 7? 10? 14? -- there is so much variability, from the crying jags, to the fairly grown up tracking of a bad guy and composed phone call. I expect Keaton to be attentive to details, precisely because he is always so attentive to details, that his performance in this film strikes me as really 'off' and is not going to go down as a favored Keaton performance for me. </span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Although Buster, as child, plays a role that is mercifully fairly limited, I do think I see his presence in a number of falls and stunts for other players in the film. Particularly, is that him in the background taking a fall underneath the runaway car? and I wonder if a moment later, in the scene where Fatty hops into said car, this is actually Keaton in a fat suit. Not that Arbuckle isn't physically talented and capable of the jump, but the camera is avoiding his face and the jump looks like Keaton. Also.. there's a bit near the end where the mom takes a fall that I am sure looks like Buster doing the stunt. My hunch is Keaton is taking a bigger and bigger role in planning the stunts, offering direction for the action and maybe even helping with story direction and plot??</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
I know what's coming next... and I know it a film that seems to build on some of these same elements, and one that bears even more of the distinctive Keaton stamp. In fact, it's my favorite of the Arbuckle collaborations. It's <i>Coney Island. C</i>an't wait to re-view it at the century mark and see how it feels in progression. Coney Island is the last of the New York productions for these guys. The troupe is about to move to California.<br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">In fact, I came across a number of notices in the trade journals from this time that suggest the team was leaving for California right now. I mean, right as this film (Oh Doctor!) was released. Obviously they must be in post-production for Coney Island already.</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">One last thing to note, from having perused the magazines, is that contemporary reviews did not seem too stellar for Oh Doctor! Oddly, it is the departure from formula that got cited as not feeling like an Arbuckle comedy. We'll see how, and to what extent, Coney Island keeps some of these newer elements and perhaps returns in other ways to the old Arbuckle style. Looking forward to it already!</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Until then, happy viewing ~</span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-85526566725275391232017-08-20T13:47:00.000-07:002017-08-20T13:47:57.520-07:00His Wedding Night (1917)The Centennial Trip down memory lane continues with our next installment from the gang!<br />
<br />
It was 100 years ago TODAY (please appreciate the heroic efforts I'm going through to actually stay on the schedule I set for myself, lol) that the film was released in theaters, treating the world to the antics of a great team of silent comics including Al St John, Buster Keaton and Fatty Arbuckle.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/His_Wedding_Night_(1917)_-_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="666" data-original-width="800" height="332" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/His_Wedding_Night_(1917)_-_2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The "his" in the title of the film is of course Fatty, a clerk at a drugstore. The lucky lady who will soon be his bride is Alice Mann. The misnomer is that any part of the film involves a wedding night! It, does at the very end, get to the wedding. And that's where much of the fun is.<br />
<br />
I was going to say that overall the film feels a bit weak or uneven, but the truth is it feels pretty par for the course for the Keaton Arbuckle collaborations. There are some truly glorious moments that feature Buster as well as some embarrassing moments that are harder to watch; there is the chaos and rough and tumble slapstick that we expect and deserve in a film like this and all in all I'd call it very watchable and fun.<br />
<br />
That said . . . enjoying a film (almost any film) from 100 years ago requires a healthy dose of indulgence. We have to allow for the time period and try not to judge too harshly relative to our own lens some more troublesome things we see. For me in fact, the whole point of watching and reviewing these now, this year, is to look back and learn, to experience that bit of the past -- learn more about Keaton and his beginnings, note the working relationship with Arbuckle and other players and see the evolution unfold.<br />
<br />
But I own that it is hard to find certain parts of this film funny. For instance, Al St John's repeatedly strangling Alice when she declines his proposal (or for that matter his seeking "revenge" for her interest in Fatty). Worse, Arbuckle's intentionally? setting out chloroform to ensnare a (different) young woman who falls unconscious . . . then to kiss her, repeatedly (after chloroforming the older man who's witnessing it). This bit is played as cute and sheepish and doesn't come off as horrifying, but it really kind of is. . . . Of course, we're used to such things as thugs kidnapping a 'woman', as they do here, but at least that is not meant to be OK. One of the worst, is a troubling scene where a black woman leans against a freshly painted sign and then walks off with "$4.00 an ounce" imprinted on her behind! Its not great when the slavery-related implications of that start washing over you. Still . . . the low humor, the bawdiness and shock value should be measured by its time and for its purpose and because all is intended as silly fun, some indulgence seems fair. (Not to be an apologist, but this was pre-censorship and things were wicked and wild in the film industry back then. I was just thinking that these antics would even be the kind of thing that might come up today on, say, SNL or a Key and Peele bit. Probably intended to be startling/shocking.)<br />
<br />
Anyway! big digression, but back to the film....<br />
<br />
<br />
We're here for Buster . . . and he once again proves that he can deliver the goods. I mean that literally too, as he enters the film as a delivery boy bringing Alice's wedding dress (at around the 8 minute mark). The production team has clearly found a formula that works and they are sticking with it. All three Comique films have unfolded in much the same way: with Fatty -- as some sort of proprietor of a business -- being introduced first, then some plot-less opportunities to showcase his great deftness and skill as a physical comedian, then the introduction of a love interest/love triangle with Al St John in a romantic rival position. And then, about a third of the way through, we get Buster blazing in as a breath of fresh air to do something really clever or introduce a new element or twist.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7DW6zbk9URZDsqmgnZwuwKTPkooeqjdZJLUu-0cqChOA7GbWwKxM_s0TDtRi25oH8PKzBwhZPI7spaOjlv5wZvAubTJdN7IdRg2zE2zZaPiFVR4zW8WAA_NghnwP_PQjJfw6yDEnECk/s1600/keaton+wink.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1258" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7DW6zbk9URZDsqmgnZwuwKTPkooeqjdZJLUu-0cqChOA7GbWwKxM_s0TDtRi25oH8PKzBwhZPI7spaOjlv5wZvAubTJdN7IdRg2zE2zZaPiFVR4zW8WAA_NghnwP_PQjJfw6yDEnECk/s200/keaton+wink.png" width="200" /></a>In this case, Buster on a bicycle crashes into the entrance of the store and gets something in his eye which he tries to get out by blinking. This is interpreted as a sign - a symbolic wink - by Fatty who compliantly serves him up a bottle of beer (and of course helps himself to some). By the way, this is pre-prohbition, so the secrecy Fatty portrays must be related to the fact that this is a drugstore not a bar. -though Fatty makes some attempts to tavern-ify the place for Buster.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPrbJSWJcItpcaq1rEh94lrHIzrmOFN86Te5kIykPTnoS7gp2Z9mwJUKyyLxmqTBPjUk99rCtRTpvBfjBtanx2j9Nh9peK9HJhy4Kto2KV6AgU4AQum-bJOf7m6Xpa0tY1na7opSREVqU/s1600/buster+undess.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="848" data-original-width="1246" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPrbJSWJcItpcaq1rEh94lrHIzrmOFN86Te5kIykPTnoS7gp2Z9mwJUKyyLxmqTBPjUk99rCtRTpvBfjBtanx2j9Nh9peK9HJhy4Kto2KV6AgU4AQum-bJOf7m6Xpa0tY1na7opSREVqU/s200/buster+undess.png" width="200" /></a>What happens next is something we see still images from all the time because of how visually delightful it is. When Alice sees Buster with the dress box she whisks him away upstairs to see "what the dress looks like" and then, crazily, has Buster model it for her!<br />
<br />
This is hilarious for (1) how willingly the delivery boy starts to disrobe and put on a dress, (maybe that's the point of the beer scene!), (2) for the display of some fierce striped boxer shorts, (3) for how charming Alice Mann is as the excited bride to be having this boy put on her dress, (4) for how similar they are in size to each other, making this an actually sensible scheme, and (5) for how fantastic Buster looks in this lovely stylish, lacy, tiered wedding dress!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2QUjZyEtE6JtSIFwNoYcNTuZ9E9D9Xailf5yYmiahxd0vxt4KzrxJlFDf0DipI4BMLSQgIdpTwUYCL5DG31L6lkCjFDz78aAuz76G26YpNlUzkDQiP8tGcpWaaDrNYz510Kg2flodEag/s1600/buster+modelling.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="868" data-original-width="1262" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2QUjZyEtE6JtSIFwNoYcNTuZ9E9D9Xailf5yYmiahxd0vxt4KzrxJlFDf0DipI4BMLSQgIdpTwUYCL5DG31L6lkCjFDz78aAuz76G26YpNlUzkDQiP8tGcpWaaDrNYz510Kg2flodEag/s640/buster+modelling.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While Alice and Buster are cavorting upstairs (shouldn't Fatty see <i>him</i> as a more significant rival here!?), Fatty is getting frustrated downstairs by how many people are availing themselves of the free perfume samples. He takes action, replacing it with chloroform. Next comes the bit I mentioned above where a young woman who is shopping is led over to the chloroform, sprays it on herself, passes out in a chair where Fatty eyes her up and then goes in for some kisses. I have to say, it doesn't work well for me, even beyond the issue of the personal violation. The logic isn't clear. Fatty seems surprised that the woman has keeled over, though he's the one who swapped out the perfume; its hard to know whether to view this as planned or opportunistic.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivSZwaj5xDHb6YDvgx6bgqgqkGYAs-8ry9qaXeloAHkA1uZcqVfhYe18njbakCd1oYVB7lQsKQan58ZH4fnWLN0qGTas8-A8kBbjdz1HHSLu5FnyMJ7ZltmwroQ0N2IhyLSce3syGGMcU/s1600/buster+with+veil.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="870" data-original-width="1250" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivSZwaj5xDHb6YDvgx6bgqgqkGYAs-8ry9qaXeloAHkA1uZcqVfhYe18njbakCd1oYVB7lQsKQan58ZH4fnWLN0qGTas8-A8kBbjdz1HHSLu5FnyMJ7ZltmwroQ0N2IhyLSce3syGGMcU/s320/buster+with+veil.png" width="320" /></a><br />
In any case, the chemical serves its higher narrative purpose by knocking out everyone in the store so that Al St John and his thugs can rush upstairs and capture Buster -- who is now wearing a veil and doing his nails -- believing him to be Alice. <br />
<br />
"She" is sped off in a stolen car to the justice of the peace who is forced at gunpoint to perform a wedding between Buster and Al. Just in the knick of time, our gang back at the drugstore works out what's happened and puts a stop to the wedding, only to reveal that the almost-bride was Buster (still winking) and not Alice. But no worries, she works it all out and shows up too. Fatty and Alice get married instead, and the chloroform serves one last function -- to incapacitate the preacher who is charging too much for his services!<br />
<br />
<br />
The best parts of the film are the seamless flips and falls on display from Keaton and St John, the fluid sweetness and dexterity from Arbuckle, the charm of Mann and of course the wonderful images of Keaton winking and modeling in a wedding gown. But what I find important about the film is not its great value as great cinema (which is isn't), but rather how it shows the firming up of this team into a well-oiled machine with clear parts.<br />
<br />
Its the last of the first phase of Keaton's film career in another way. According to Rudi Blesh, in the biography "Keaton", the team that worked on the film in July of 1917 was a "compact, congenial crew," but they must have been irritating to neighboring tenants! At this point, complaints about their noise forced them to leave the studio on 42nd Street and relocate uptown to the Bronx.<br />
<br />
This is one of the early films that set us up for Keaton's growth as a filmmaker. And, as before, we can already see his influence in some of the more clever visual elements - like the way the dressing screen drops away to frame Keaton as if a model on a stage. There is another shot right before St. John's kidnapping of Keaton, where we see the thugs outside and can view Keaton in the wedding gown upstairs through a window. Its a lovely composition! It strikes me as Keatonesque, and maybe was a composition suggested by him? Or, it could also be an example of Arbuckle's style that influenced Keaton later. We'll never know. Unless, continual reading of biographies turns up a detail on this production. As of now, I haven't seen much written about the making of this film.<br />
<br />
I'm glad to have this additional entry to share in the sequence! And am looking forward to the next one already. Watch this space :)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-75746033997729066652017-06-25T17:37:00.000-07:002017-06-25T21:33:29.913-07:00Rough House (1917)Wow, what an interesting experience is was to watch <i>The Rough House</i> again this week, knowing that it was 100 years ago exactly that it was released. Watching with awareness that this was Keaton's second motion picture (ever) and the second endeavor from Fatty Arbuckle's Comique film enterprise colors the whole experience.<br />
<br />
As much fun as it is to watch any movie in the right context, it couldn't save <i>The Rough House</i> from being a bit of an odd film. It is odd because in some ways (plot, theme, cohesion) it is somewhat poorer an entry in the Keaton / Arbuckle cannon, while in others (cinematography, clarity and cleverness of gags) it may be somewhat better. Ultimately I think the film is important not so much for its independent value as a piece of artistry. . . but rather for all the things it speaks to without intention.<br />
<br />
For starters, the Buster Keaton we see in TRH appears to be a much bigger screen persona than he was just a couple short months ago. Unlike the blurry, haphazardly-filmed young vaudeville act on display in the Butcher Boy, this Keaton is now photographed head-on, zoomed in, with shots that announce his presence.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuMbDkAAruZb9SAexG7H1VWXlgCk0RmZ5m0zoJJNAJ2jFgpzB2rgF4Rsw-lgJCRXULcyuiridBMbO97Liofnb7PCxIl46d1TOKhk9DEqbWmY1HYHK76uonOEYpIjA3w41zrVRUvNUQ6Og/s1600/IMG_2718.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuMbDkAAruZb9SAexG7H1VWXlgCk0RmZ5m0zoJJNAJ2jFgpzB2rgF4Rsw-lgJCRXULcyuiridBMbO97Liofnb7PCxIl46d1TOKhk9DEqbWmY1HYHK76uonOEYpIjA3w41zrVRUvNUQ6Og/s320/IMG_2718.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Just as in The Butcher Boy, Keaton enters the film for the first time a quarter of the way through with a solo stunt - probably of his own design. But unlike in TBB, here in TRH, the bit <i>feels</i> like a celebration of talent: an entrance. (Or is it just me that sees this?) Shortly after his entrance, we are treated to Keaton facing the camera in a 3/4 shot, rocking side to side and <i>smiling</i> and flirting with a delighted maid, played by Josephine Stevens. It is a sweet moment that both reminds us of how far he's come already, <i>and</i> how early in his career he still is -- having not yet made the concerted choice to use only his famous deadpan on screen.<br />
<br />
So, the story in June 1917 -- I mean the larger Keaton story, not the film plot -- continues with his clear inculcation into cinema. With <i>The Rough House</i>, Keaton has arrived. But, though the picture gives the impression of an important slot for Keaton on Arbuckle's team, Arbuckle is just as clearly still the main man.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT9rTIIMQFHRe07vWztJz6rqNOZkyht8Ebv_nLY12IwBfjZAt9u4yQz7PqG7XKKFDAvhdc4zkr0lJD43d5blVBCsV1RUzCcV2KRhaIK-zAQH2pfEYWDOOekaAM4R_PD5yLdGzNuBiukXE/s1600/motionpicturenew161unse_0009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="971" data-original-width="744" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT9rTIIMQFHRe07vWztJz6rqNOZkyht8Ebv_nLY12IwBfjZAt9u4yQz7PqG7XKKFDAvhdc4zkr0lJD43d5blVBCsV1RUzCcV2KRhaIK-zAQH2pfEYWDOOekaAM4R_PD5yLdGzNuBiukXE/s320/motionpicturenew161unse_0009.jpg" width="245" /></a><br />
* *<br />
Having admitted as much elsewhere on the blog, I have no hesitation in saying that I am not a film scholar, but a dilettante. I have often felt at a loss that I don't have access to an academic library, research sources, or great professional connections to assist me and am often flying by the seat of my pants when I blog; however, sometimes those pants stumble upon the extraordinary. I recently found an incredible resource called the <a href="http://mediahistoryproject.org/" target="_blank">Media History Digital Library</a>, which contains an extensive, digitized, searchable bank of publications from throughout cinematic history. To call it a treasure trove is an understatement. It is the coolest thing I've ever seen.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
I looked through a number of publications on the site, such as <i>Motion Picture News</i>, <i>Moving Picture World</i>, <i>Variety</i>, <i>Billboard</i>, <i>Moving Picture Weekly</i>, <i>Photo Play Journal</i> -- some leaning more toward industry data and others more toward fan mags. What I found was that when searching industry publications from April - June of 1917 for the name "Arbuckle" you get a lot of hits. When searching for "Keaton," the pickings are much slimmer -- maybe one "Keaton" for every dozen or more "Arbuckles." There's little doubt that Fatty was a well-known persona, and if not quite a "movie star," certainly a major figure in the industry. Notes and tidbits on more than just his films appear in these publications - his wife, his pastimes, his whereabouts are discussed. Keaton, when mentioned at all, is noted as a player in the Arbuckle film at issue. (I didn't search on Al St. John; which I probably should have. It might have been interesting to compare Keaton's press with St. John's as the latter had been in pictures a lot longer. Maybe I'll remember to do that next time.) . In any case, although Fatty seems to be a generous performer / director, sharing the screen readily, we can hardly escape the feel that we are still in an Arbuckle Film.<br />
<br />
And TRH seems typical of Arbuckle -- in good ways and bad. The film enjoys Fatty's boyish energy, charisma, great creativity and juvenile spirit. It is also marked by a minimal attention to story. I'm not sure whether it is my fault, as a modern viewer, that I desire a story to make sense? But another thing this film seems to speak to unintentionally is the different entertainment standards separating a 1917 audience from a viewer in 2017. I think I have a fairly reasonable tolerance for chaotic pointless fun (at least when that involves Al, Buster and Fatty) -- but I truly found this film's lack of coherence to be problematic. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_rchT3wk0lWh6b3-2187sCPtzZQ3xsqZWvdlW2iuuOMZg1hIvr3duhE3UlSY2bXgceWmuedgdYaRJ6cJWzTixpFNZW78k5YuHaW9pqUJONEl_vHc6i3RytiGV0lj1EfeVNPNI0WeNTjc/s1600/motionpicturenew153unse_2066.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1235" data-original-width="859" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_rchT3wk0lWh6b3-2187sCPtzZQ3xsqZWvdlW2iuuOMZg1hIvr3duhE3UlSY2bXgceWmuedgdYaRJ6cJWzTixpFNZW78k5YuHaW9pqUJONEl_vHc6i3RytiGV0lj1EfeVNPNI0WeNTjc/s640/motionpicturenew153unse_2066.jpg" width="444" /></a></div>
Contrarily, the buzz about the picture from contemporary (1917) sources seemed quite positive.<br />
<br />
Here's one from the <i>Motion Picture News</i> reviewer, George N. Shorey who not only loved it but apparently had no trouble picking through and finding a plot that satisfied, which is summarized as such: "tells of Fatty's adventures at the seashore. Mother in law butts in. Fatty starts things off by setting fire to his bed with a cigarette; later he takes command of the commissary. More excitement starts when the 'house is pinched' and the cops arrive on the job. The climax is Fatty's decision that two is company and three a crowd. Suiting the deed to the thought, mother-in-law takes an involuntary ocean plunge."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the reviewer refers to Buster as "Bud", repeatedly! I guess we can forgive him if for no other reason than it underscores that Keaton is still very much a newcomer to the industry.<br />
<br />
More than just enjoying it, though, Shorey pays the complement of comparing it ("a well directed production getting real humor that intelligent audiences can appreciate") to your run of the mill slapstick. He thinks of it as an "innovation" and in a "class by itself". This is not just a compliment to the enjoyment value of <i>The Rough House</i>, but to its cinematic contributions as well. Odd.<br />
<br />
I thoroughly agree with Shorey that Fatty's slicing the potatoes on the electric fan has to be among the highlights (I also like when Fatty, dropping sugar cubes into his coffee, rolls a couple onto the table like dice, and his iconic performance of making the bread rolls dance that predates Charlie Chaplin's use of the gag in The Gold Rush by about 8 years). Yes, there is plenty of humor here for the intelligent fan, but I also see something that Shorey could not: the influence of young "Bud" Keaton ;)<br />
<br />
Several bits in the film that feel particularly intelligent bear Keaton's stamp. This includes the camera trick / edit Shorey was impressed with where the boys as cops show up magically when summoned. I also see Keaton's style in the scene where the cops emerge on a subway portal and then scramble down the embankment (anticipating the famous sequence in Seven Chances). The subway bit was visually funny to me; when they emerge at 242nd street, it felt absurd and I laughed. But then I thought about it. Why is this funny? I truly have no idea.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFpx5rUN8kSPBwP0mE7KV5od2p9-e6cz3AaCiEtLSIOFZcWW78mLjF7c4Aex3aLF83MXaPbnsqnSWWeZgroc0KCHRgV_jE7b2P-_N7A_KnabTjh6N5OiSU3JDVdOL6cpZNlBBoNfIJc9Q/s1600/IMG_2723.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFpx5rUN8kSPBwP0mE7KV5od2p9-e6cz3AaCiEtLSIOFZcWW78mLjF7c4Aex3aLF83MXaPbnsqnSWWeZgroc0KCHRgV_jE7b2P-_N7A_KnabTjh6N5OiSU3JDVdOL6cpZNlBBoNfIJc9Q/s320/IMG_2723.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
I had to see if I could find out what the joke was. A bit of searching on the internet for the meaning of this bit turned up no real answers, but I did learn that this was/is a real subway platform. (Of course, at this time, Arbuckle's studio was located in Manhattan). The 242nd Street station, it seems, was the northern terminus for a route connecting lower manhattan with The Bronx. <a href="http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_West_Side_Line" target="_blank">(Here's a nice article about the West Side Line - IRT)</a>. The station where the cops emerge would have been the end of the line and viewers at the time probably were in on more of that humor than a modern one would be. There is something silly about the action suddenly migrating from a remote vacation lakeside spot to having three bumbling cops surface in the Bronx.<br />
<br />
Yes, it's funny. But its a Keaton kind of funny. Others have suggested that Keaton in fact did co-direct this picture (uncredited). Though I can't add any validity to that, I can certainly speak to a perceptible jump in Keaton's apparent involvement on display in <i>The Rough House</i>, compared with what could be perceived from The Butcher Boy, his first.<br />
<br />
Keaton's now been on the scene in New York as a film actor for two months and is beginning to feel like a pro.<br />
<br />
I can't wait till I get to research and review the next picture for the blog, which I'll be doing in about 2 months (<i>His Wedding Night)</i>. In the meantime, happy viewing!<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-48556615563361271252017-06-14T12:11:00.003-07:002017-06-14T12:11:32.775-07:00Possibly Migrating Blog Over to Word Press BlogHello Reader!<br />
<br />
Just a quick note, if you have found yourself here, you might be interested:<br />
<br />
In the next couple of months I may be migrating my blog over to a WordPress blog. I haven't actually decided, but in preparation, I am reposting a duplicate of everything I've written over there to see how I like working with that system. I'll post an address and a link if I do migrate but just wanted to put out the 'heads up' to any reader who sees these same posts in two places!<br />
<br />
Thanks for your interest in my blog, but mostly in Keaton, who, deserves it!<br />
<br />
best -<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-77585225282238011162017-04-23T09:16:00.005-07:002017-04-23T09:16:50.111-07:00The Butcher Boy (1917)Audience matters so much, doesn't it?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Boys_in_front_of_the_movie_theatre_on_Dundas_Street.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="189" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Boys_in_front_of_the_movie_theatre_on_Dundas_Street.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I mean, this is true for filmmakers; this is true for bloggers.<br />
<br />
<br />
As I set fingertips to keyboard and begin to think about my post on Buster Keaton's first screen appearance, the main thing on my mind is "who is going to read this?" The easy answer is, "so few people, that it probably really doesn't matter." haha. I'm not going to fight with the positive truth of that. . . however. . .<br />
<br />
Generally speaking I still write to an imagined reader anyway. I know that the folks who do find their way here will mostly be those with a driving interest in the thing I am writing about. But I am also aware that another potential reader may stumble upon my blog: the person who is just starting an interest in Buster Keaton, maybe who has heard about him from a friend of a friend, or maybe saw an image I'm sharing and clicked on it and found themselves here. I keep that second category of potential reader in my mind, as much as I do the first. If I can help kindle a fledgling interest in this really cool guy from the early days of cinema past, I really want to do it.<br />
<br />
Audience matters because I might be writing to someone who is a bigger aficionado of silent film than I am (in fact, probably so). But I might also be writing to someone who has never "endured" a silent film in their life. (And that would be their word, not mine.) Imagine the 21st Century kid who hears about Keaton and wants to see what the fuss is about then cues up <i>The Butcher Boy</i> on Youtube. What would they think? - this modern person with little background in classic cinema - this person for whom "classic" might evoke thoughts of <i>Back to the Future</i> (1985), 1977's <i>Star Wars</i> or maybe even that great original from 1968: <i>Planet of the Apes</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Multimedia_Laser_Show_in_Beach_Club.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Multimedia_Laser_Show_in_Beach_Club.png" width="320" /></a></div>
It's not our fault that we are the product of our times. People nowadays are used to being entertained through onslaught of sophisticated lights, sounds, and actions; we as a people like being hit over the head - but only figuratively. (We are not well-versed in the literal slapstick comedy of people being 'hit over the head'; but I'm getting ahead of myself.) What I mean to say is that to reach back deep into the past and find joy in the contemporary entertainments of 1917 is not likely to be easy or immediate for most modern people.<br />
<br />
While I admit that I've often expressed the opinion that Buster Keaton's work is <i>timeless</i>, I am not so naive to think that that is actually and directly true for most people. There is a learning curve for watching 100-year-old cinema. Those who do cross the divide and discover the roots of cinema to which Keaton belonged have managed something incredible.<br />
<br />
And I have to say that I think the easier path to that place of fun is probably through another vehicle, maybe <i>Cops</i> or <i>Steamboat Bill, Jr</i> rather than through Fatty Arbuckle's brainchild <i>The Butcher Boy.</i> The style <i>Keaton</i> developed for these and other (later) films over which he had creative control is uniquely light, clever, ironic and athletic. And these are qualities that have held up extremely well and to which modern audiences would be more naturally drawn. Keaton also had a masterful eye for technology and cinematography. As a result, his films often feel beautiful still, and present a visual treat. . . . Which is important when the <i>visual</i> experience is pretty much the whole experience.<br />
<br />
But an Arbuckle comedy is different.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/FattyArbuckle1919.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/FattyArbuckle1919.jpg" width="186" /></a></div>
<br />
Well for starters, watching an Arbuckle movie from 1917 feels like entering a historic world. (Which of course it is.) Women in this world have their hair in buns and wear long dresses with corsets and bustles; men are toothless, have long beards or maybe smoke corn cob pipes; people buy foodstuffs in bulk and may even still ride horses for transportation. But that's not the half of it. <i>Comedy</i> in Arbuckle's world is . . . well distinctly different from what we are used to. It is juvenile, unsophisticated. Fatty's work is silly and a bit chaotic. It involves lots of jumping, throwing and not a whole lot of larger purpose. Think 'grade school kids creating and writing their own play', and you'll get the right sense for pacing, dialog, stage setting and props -- not to mention the plots that make <i>some</i> sense but not<i> total</i> sense. On the surface Arbuckle films<i> are</i> marked by these basic features, but on closer inspection, a modern audience should still be able to discern the great comedic talent at play throughout the <i>performances</i>. So, while it takes some getting used to the silly, slapstick, driftless fun, it is worth it, because the reward is seeing comedic talent that is profoundly good -- in a style we are just not used to.<br />
<br />
Lets cue up The Butcher Boy and let me show you.<br />
<br />
As "TBB" opens, we are treated to a wide (square) shot of a dry goods store. That alone might feel bizarre to a modern viewer unless she is rooted in history. The store is actually a pretty cool place, double level, with a great hanging ladder around the perimeter, an open center, a cashier's counter on the far side, and a variety of barrels and packages adorning the walls. Men are hanging around playing checkers. It's hard to say what the modern equivalent to such a place would be that sells food and life basics but also serves as the people's gathering ground. I'm not sure we really have one. The opening shot might feel momentarily jarring, for while we are still getting used to the rather grainy and fuzzy picture, a woman walks up and starts shoving her husband around, kicking him for no apparent reason. We quickly get the sense that the humor here is going to be broad and bawdy. We start meeting the cast of characters, one by one.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjITVG95KThoq7LmW1gJ77xKkWVnLVBYkw0hRGrpr7e2QqeQarcEsX6jt_XPMgcqvsXp8-e8Jlm2pVcZPivZwJCIOcyBcUwsqAGr98u8PHGCAlB1zNVTA_tjQJwQuTkowdUBRbT2eeYHGY/s1600/trio+plus+luke.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjITVG95KThoq7LmW1gJ77xKkWVnLVBYkw0hRGrpr7e2QqeQarcEsX6jt_XPMgcqvsXp8-e8Jlm2pVcZPivZwJCIOcyBcUwsqAGr98u8PHGCAlB1zNVTA_tjQJwQuTkowdUBRbT2eeYHGY/s320/trio+plus+luke.jpg" width="286" /></a></div>
<br />
In quick succession we get St. John's impressive physicality, Fatty Arbuckle's knife skills and boyish charm, Luke the Dog running on a treadmill to grind pepper and a general feeling of light chaotic fun. Yes, it might seem strange to modern eyes that all the customers seem slightly ticked off and that so many people are beating - poking kicking pulling etc - each other for no particular reason. "Why?" you might ask. "Because its funny!" is the only answer you're going to get. As that is the rule of the day, its best to relax and just go with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaQnang20tyx1J5gbMkfOJW30DIcW1MdrDTzT1fSDku6XEYnfA1jhqkbcyqSgzN_pOcPOm5ZD4k1E-0-9auZXK0Ch1O3qGOqwj3PcehMU2c8x53xw2BeP5EC5dJS1PellJIvTuI1b-pNo/s1600/buster+brrom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaQnang20tyx1J5gbMkfOJW30DIcW1MdrDTzT1fSDku6XEYnfA1jhqkbcyqSgzN_pOcPOm5ZD4k1E-0-9auZXK0Ch1O3qGOqwj3PcehMU2c8x53xw2BeP5EC5dJS1PellJIvTuI1b-pNo/s200/buster+brrom.jpg" width="200" /></a>But hush . . . here comes the reason we are watching. About a quarter of the way in to this 24 minute film, a young man walks into the shop wearing overalls. We see only his back. He is slim and graceful. He stops, picks up a broom from a barrel and inspects it. He pulls out a few bristles and tosses it on the ground then grabs another. After playing with the second broom for a moment, he shows us that he's one to watch when he lightly lets that broom just sail gently back into the barrel. Its hard to describe why this is so cool. But the modern viewer will do well to remember that there is no cgi, no special effects happening. Whether it is Fatty tossing a knife elegantly over his shoulder so that it comes to rest in the counter, St. John spinning on his bottom on a counter or this new young man somehow getting that broom to sail into the barrel effortlessly in real time, these are just comedians with <i>incredible</i> skills honed from years and years of practice. There is no modern equivalent to this type of work. (Yes, I know, Jackie Chan. I won't take anything away from Jackie, who is incredible physically talented and a great comedian; but, his style is very different.) No one is doing <i>this</i> so elegantly in the middle of a light silly passel of pointless shenanigans).<br />
<br />
But back to the film . . . seconds later our young man does something far more impressive. By simply prodding the broom on the ground with his foot, he invites it into his hand where he then casually tosses it into the barrel, as lightly and effortlessly as you can imagine. From his first few seconds on screen, Buster Keaton has broadcast his talent. He is as good as anything we've just seen and he commands our interest and eye as if he weren't even trying. One can see why Arbuckle signed him on immediately.<br />
<br />
For the next several minutes on film, Keaton shines as the focal point of the story. The classic 'molasses skit' unfolds with Keaton and Arbuckle showing a natural chemistry that makes it seem as if they already knew each other well -- Arbuckle manhandling Keaton and Keaton making that look easy -- though they'd just met when this scene filmed. Everything here is childish and fast-paced with physical comedy bits that aren't meant to leave a lasting impression - but simply to appeal to our inner 12 year old. (A task which Arbuckle intentionally courted).<br />
<br />
Its good to pause here and think about how these very old silent film comedies came together. I don't actually know. . . . I am prepared to speculate though. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-film-strip-isolated-in-white-background-border-strip-rill-are-separated-into-layers-so-easy-23659900.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-film-strip-isolated-in-white-background-border-strip-rill-are-separated-into-layers-so-easy-23659900.jpg" height="167" width="200" /></a></div>
Keaton's role in this section of the film is interesting. The history/narratives tell us that Fatty had started filming TBB, when a chance meeting brought him in contact with Keaton. (For more on this, see my posts <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/when-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/where-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">here</a>.) Keaton was invited to <i>watch</i> the filming but was promptly solicited to <i>join</i> in with it. Think about that happening today and your mind will boggle. Especially given that Keaton owns about 4 minutes of screen time (roughly 1/6th of the total run time) with the scenes I described briefly above. I mean, Arbuckle is actively shooting this film, when a brand new acquaintance walks in, and his stylings are instantly included as a major player in the film. Mind blown.<br />
<br />
I think this tells us more about the infancy of comedy films then it does about Arbuckle or Keaton. It seems as if such films were more akin to what the loose structure of a music CD, with its agglomerations of songs that may be connected through theme and flow, rather than story continuity -- than to a modern, plot-driven film. An Arbuckle comedy, as I've already said, is not likely to have a highly developed plot structure, so it feels almost normal that this entirely new act -- probably developed on the spot -- is simply dropped square into the center of the work. I've often wondered whether Fatty knew his film was running short and needed another bit when Keaton popped into his life? Or whether Fatty had a place in the film for such a character to enter and just hadn't decided who would do that section. I tend to think the former? Fatty probably had a rough feel for what they were doing in the butcher shop but needed more customer interaction scenes (just like a group putting together a CD and realizing they could use another song or two, when a talented friend with fresh material shows up). So when Buster, a seasoned performer with a great creative mind, walked on set, I'm sure it was obvious and natural for something to develop organically right there. In any case, knowing the bits we do about how this film came together allows it to serve as a great case study in early filmmaking.<br />
<br />
<br />
But back to our viewing!<br />
<br />
At the 10 minute mark, almost halfway into the film, we move past the opening fun and into the actual story a bit more. Fatty and the owner's daughter, Amanda, it seems, want to be together, but a rival ("Slim") is in the picture. The rivalry blossoms and that's when sacks of flour and pies start flying, with random customers (like Keaton) getting pulled into the middle of the confrontation. Soon, there is a free for all and we're back to a wide shot of the store in full chaos. The result, as the camera closes on the end of this "act" is that Amanda goes off to boarding school and Fatty wistfully watches.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8IQt_udzw_YBztoD7Pl05INrDUE7eBFq4_SpyTa0mQdiYya2Efaq6X18WjK-SW0Ds41V2ACZxVFFuOlXpyqysshlGlFjG9ratyklWabIkPN6ojeJBC4lM5rDnPsHlGbqitQPYHEx4bI4/s1600/girls+in+butcher+boy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8IQt_udzw_YBztoD7Pl05INrDUE7eBFq4_SpyTa0mQdiYya2Efaq6X18WjK-SW0Ds41V2ACZxVFFuOlXpyqysshlGlFjG9ratyklWabIkPN6ojeJBC4lM5rDnPsHlGbqitQPYHEx4bI4/s320/girls+in+butcher+boy.png" width="320" /></a>The rest of the film is centered around the girls' school. This is where it really helps to place oneself in the shoes of the viewer in 1917. The scene, as it opens on the boarding house, might not strike us now as particularly 'sexy', but had to have been so for the contemporary audience. A passel of young women gather on an upstairs landing around their stern headmistress; the girls are dressed in a modern style with shorter skirts showing quite a bit of ankle and some with bobbed hair. They flit about seeming girlish and energetic and plop down on their beds to read their mail; we learn that Amanda is under absurd strictures like no letters from anyone but her parents! and no men on the premises! Yikes! What fresh horrors do we have to endure?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggqdEvt0sANRkUA469FND8ZiHZHxvM8f-WMYe-FodneO2383VS2eV7uGa1hNdsBywrYEgafvL9b8gRdCjokm4_Et-JxvJeW7h-LMxTbrUbdjdxcLUQT33TjvnMmuXPILUJwiayGtPGeEQ/s1600/fatty+in+drag.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggqdEvt0sANRkUA469FND8ZiHZHxvM8f-WMYe-FodneO2383VS2eV7uGa1hNdsBywrYEgafvL9b8gRdCjokm4_Et-JxvJeW7h-LMxTbrUbdjdxcLUQT33TjvnMmuXPILUJwiayGtPGeEQ/s320/fatty+in+drag.png" width="320" /></a>Enter Fatty in drag. He's going to spring her from this jail.<br />
<br />
Arbuckle is wonderful and really very pretty as a girl. You know he relishes this stuff, for as "Candy" he channels the spirit and energy of a schoolgirl perfectly -- skipping, curtseying, flirting, dancing and showing his petticoat. Whenever possible he steals a kiss from his love. Its bawdy and maybe a bit shocking? This is the kind of stuff that makes watching pre-code movies fun - and full of unexpected delights.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJxyu8sHhbZuSzI3nAV0Ghkb30eai58EmbMR4VKhIqne9hWY5fy3sjrv7ndyp1DGL7Yg7b4Jgnz7BCEdW5oqojZjJfGJwsdSM2Jf6CrMEP54WWkebvWqK2xO-8Rj_Ajd3AFBt8kxoagL8/s1600/al+st+john+tbb.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJxyu8sHhbZuSzI3nAV0Ghkb30eai58EmbMR4VKhIqne9hWY5fy3sjrv7ndyp1DGL7Yg7b4Jgnz7BCEdW5oqojZjJfGJwsdSM2Jf6CrMEP54WWkebvWqK2xO-8Rj_Ajd3AFBt8kxoagL8/s200/al+st+john+tbb.png" width="200" /></a><br />
St. John as Slim, next stages his own break-in, in drag, and for a reason that's never been clear to me, Keaton's character is now one of Slim's henchmen/cohort. Slim makes a much uglier and more aggressive looking woman. (And, with glasses on, somehow manages to remind me in these scenes, of Harold Lloyd.)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9QoWSKQVmEhGgMRuc35We9GZXCBKiwPMPdbKtC1j5aAqXOZYvSDRGnPcFaD2TbhQ2guC7WKuJPkzV4L6FCI2As_T815LqvvZvpk9sFddd7tiUKpWdbwoEL8JD2sgFIcPyfSWoW4QqgQQ/s1600/buster+on+head+tbb.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9QoWSKQVmEhGgMRuc35We9GZXCBKiwPMPdbKtC1j5aAqXOZYvSDRGnPcFaD2TbhQ2guC7WKuJPkzV4L6FCI2As_T815LqvvZvpk9sFddd7tiUKpWdbwoEL8JD2sgFIcPyfSWoW4QqgQQ/s200/buster+on+head+tbb.png" width="200" /></a>The rest of the film is centered on playing up for laughs the absurdity of two guys in drag in a girl's dorm. There is pulling, slapping, tongue sticking, and spanking. (Juvenile slapstick). Then our guys call in for reinforcements, so Keaton and Luke the dog get to enter the fray. Just as with the end of the first half of this film, things break into great chaos at the end. By the way, speaking of great performance talent, take a look at the superb fall from Keaton at around the 22 minute mark. And, because there's just not quite enough chaos, we throw in a pillow fight and the headmistress with a gun. As she calls the cops on Al and the gang -- and while Luke stands guard -- Fatty and Amanda slip off to get married.<br />
<br />
This, my friends, is comedy circa 1917.<br />
<br />
<br />
Despite some of its flaws, The Butcher Boy is truly one of the best Keaton/Arbuckle films, and is also one of my favorites. It is neither seamless nor timeless - but it <i>is</i> fun and energetic and full of great moments that showcase the talents of an extraordinary team. <br />
<br />
Those who are already fans of Keaton and have enjoyed his work but may not have dipped back this far into the catalog, should have a nice treat in store. Those who've never seen silent comedies may have a harder hurdle to scale to appreciate and value this one. But I'd still recommend it. I mean, it is just a 24 minute investment. Watch it right the right mindset and you will be impressed.<br />
<br />
<br />
I look forward to the next release of a Keaton film, in approximately two months. Until then, I wish you happy viewing.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-87930098064616492702017-04-13T12:28:00.000-07:002017-09-30T07:53:32.350-07:00Keaton Arbuckle CollaborationsI am gearing up for an awesome Buster Film Centennial Celebration! As I've been highlighting in my last couple of posts, it was 100 years ago *now* that Buster Keaton began his career in film. Oh my gosh, gives me shivers.<br />
<br />
As anyone reading this must know -- both in terms of how I feel about it, and probably how they themselves feel about it -- this was a momentous event for the future of cinema. Specifically, by a lucky twist of fate, Keaton was on the brink of a solo stage career (having grown up working in an act with his parents), when a chance meeting brought him in contact with Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, who was shooting a film for a new motion picture company. Arbuckle invited Keaton to see the set at Comique Film Corp., ...then asked him to appear in the film, ... then to join the team. Keaton ate up the experience, joined forces with Arbuckle immediately and was able to get a toe in cinema with Arbuckle as his great friend and mentor. It was Arbuckle's force, talent and support that put Keaton on solid footing from which he was able to springboard into the world of cinema on his own.<br />
<br />
Many are aware that film they were shooting that day, <i>The Butcher Boy,</i> was to be young Keaton's <i>first</i> screen appearance,; however, it seems to go unsaid -- and I didn't realize this myself -- but <i>The Butcher Boy</i> was Comique Film Corp's <i>first </i>film as well.<br />
<br />
Here is what I wanted to say next, something short and sweet, like: "Comique went on to make x films, x of which co-starred Keaton," but the problem is that the film companies are complicated!<br />
<br />
<br />
In just reading a Wikipedia article, I realized that the same film enterprise (Comique) that produced Fatty's films, went on to be associated with Keaton's short films too, though those films were released through different companies. It gets a bit complicated to work out the details. Suffice it to say that these early Comique films were released for Paramount, and these are the ones I associate with Arbuckle -- and that number of films appears to be 21, er 20... and includes films ranging from 1917's <i>The Butcher Boy</i> through 1920's <i>The Garage</i>. (Though, really, I just never get a break - the data is still messy because of films like "A Reckless Romeo" which was made by Arbuckle for Keystone, but then released as a Comique pictures film just after The Butcher Boy. argh - this stuff can feel very confusing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-HUj75y_LQNmGLOuS_5G80c2Hm_GyruYYnOITPUHmM6VmxIQeFI8bEoFmQdzqYT89yUiw4mVv5W4IOrpiepQunX5scZnWLJOxWse4gatHSC7ejS-sZw9fKU3aywK_Nm3Kg9wVnoABe0/s1600/ArbuckleKeaton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-HUj75y_LQNmGLOuS_5G80c2Hm_GyruYYnOITPUHmM6VmxIQeFI8bEoFmQdzqYT89yUiw4mVv5W4IOrpiepQunX5scZnWLJOxWse4gatHSC7ejS-sZw9fKU3aywK_Nm3Kg9wVnoABe0/s320/ArbuckleKeaton.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The right thing to do is to trust the Damfinos; BusterKeaton.com has a nice section devoted to Arbuckle, and on it I have what I'm going to call "the official" <a href="http://www.busterkeaton.com/Arbucklemania/Filmography.html" target="_blank">filmography for Arbuckl</a>e. From this, I'm going with the count of 20 "Comique Arbuckle" films, and Buster appeared in 14. Al St. John by the way (pictured above on the right) was in almost all of the films too.<br />
<br />
Because this took me a while to organize / compile, I'm going to share my spreadsheet here:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMYezPnkdBQZoaG-HizS0O-6_eBVF4Lv3Shj7VSKG-dZOhWJlSI7N__fOgi2vrD-p3Nvh594VokFuLXmx_AUdPu81SBFa5REvYu9mf_iNjvlF_jBUxfVC82yfPr4hBVmw53cFpcw8lYc/s1600/Arbuckle%253AKeaton%253ASt+John+Comique.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="739" data-original-width="825" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMYezPnkdBQZoaG-HizS0O-6_eBVF4Lv3Shj7VSKG-dZOhWJlSI7N__fOgi2vrD-p3Nvh594VokFuLXmx_AUdPu81SBFa5REvYu9mf_iNjvlF_jBUxfVC82yfPr4hBVmw53cFpcw8lYc/s320/Arbuckle%253AKeaton%253ASt+John+Comique.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
Looking at just a slice of this chart, I want to commemorate the Keaton Film Centennial by writing blog posts on all of Keaton's 1917 films. And just to be clear -- the ones in this chart, the ones he made with Fatty and Comique are the <i>only</i> ones Keaton made at that time! At least something in my world is simple :)<br />
<br />
Lest anyone be worried about the Herculean task at hand for me this year, I have to admit that the catalog of Keaton's 1917 releases includes just 6 titles, all of them short films:<br />
<br />
The Butcher Boy<br />
The Rough House<br />
His Wedding Night<br />
Oh! Doctor<br />
Coney Island<br />
A Country Hero<br />
<br />
Though short, this list packs a wallop, and includes two of the most memorable Comique Comedies as well as the only film in all Keaton's catalog that is considered "lost" (seriously feeling lucky about that!)<br />
<br />
I am looking forward to this project. And will end this post on the hope and belief that on April 23rd, the Centennial of when the film was released in theaters, I will upload my post on <i>The Butcher Boy.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-42098677771230586322017-03-08T18:25:00.000-08:002017-04-13T12:11:16.284-07:00Where Buster Met FattyIn "<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/when-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">When Buster Met Fatty</a>," my post last week, we learned that Buster Keaton arrived in New York in February of 1917 on his own for the first time. He was 21 years old and looking to up his game. A trained vaudevillian, he'd always performed with his parents; but now he was flying solo.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWOSLA0tGyb4MN1AS_ZPrnJLoB-9FlkXlH8I6gKJr3k1I9idyJnrsZ8v6ZQKXi6xsmueyvHWAQm2rzni5vhNvNtMj8QstPahDZHcVcX4hknI09mFwWVWUF_5npGy6upLFUa_HcpuAZPfw/s1600/the-three-keatons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWOSLA0tGyb4MN1AS_ZPrnJLoB-9FlkXlH8I6gKJr3k1I9idyJnrsZ8v6ZQKXi6xsmueyvHWAQm2rzni5vhNvNtMj8QstPahDZHcVcX4hknI09mFwWVWUF_5npGy6upLFUa_HcpuAZPfw/s320/the-three-keatons.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Monday, February 26th is the date (I have surmised) for when Keaton showed up at the office of his agent Max Hart, located near Times Square. Hart set Keaton up with an excellent gig performing with The Passing Show of 1917, which would soon begin its run at the Winter Garden Theater on Broadway. It was a sweet position to snag -- as it paid $250/week and came with the job security of knowing he would be employed for at least the 6 month New York run and probably for the next year if he chose to travel with the show. Keaton was well pleased with this turn of events.<br />
<br />
The next few days must have been a whirlwind. He'd only just relocated in New York, and needed to secure a place to stay and take care of logistics. He needed to write to his mother and let her know the good news and he needed to think about how to adapt his routines for an act of 1 instead of 3. It was a lot for a young man to be getting on with. The cold, windy weather and the constant news of intensifying international events had to be the counterpoint to what was sure to be an otherwise cheerful outlook on what life was handing him. I imagine it felt a bit like a crossroads as Keaton hung around New York waiting for rehearsals to begin and thinking about life, his career and the impending war.<br />
<br />
One day, not long after the meeting with Hart -- on Thursday March 8th* [or, in light of new evidence, Thursday March 15th] (I have deduced in the Holmesian sense) -- Keaton was walking down the street thinking about his routine for The Passing Show when he ran smack dab into an old friend, Lou Anger. He'd known Lou from the old vaudeville days and they stopped to chat. Anger was walking (maybe) with another man Keaton knew by reputation only -- a movie star. This was Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, a large presence in every sense of the word in the burgeoning film industry. Arbuckle and Anger chatted with Keaton awhile that day, telling him about how Anger had left the world of performing in order to manage a movie studio for Joseph Schenck and how they'd wooed Arbuckle away from Mack Sennett Comedies in order to be the star and director of short comedies for this new endeavor. The film studio (Colony Studios, it was called) was an umbrella for several production teams, including the one Fatty headed known by the crazy, unpronounceable French name "Comique."<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIqNKw6H2nljZDjQPLLWy7JX3Oiz1rpXhOMexJxjG4VfNEC2N6QE90lswkb8aI6NJryakYAyHHngw6w8khYMZScUbikdDd3BWdhUOrmMmyd1lMVnl1lOM3T95wxxB-ySKsUoj58iabtF8/s1600/lou+anger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIqNKw6H2nljZDjQPLLWy7JX3Oiz1rpXhOMexJxjG4VfNEC2N6QE90lswkb8aI6NJryakYAyHHngw6w8khYMZScUbikdDd3BWdhUOrmMmyd1lMVnl1lOM3T95wxxB-ySKsUoj58iabtF8/s320/lou+anger.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lou is on the far right - opposite side of photo from Buster</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
They delighted Keaton with their stories and of course the conversation wound back around to Buster. Had he ever been on a movie set? they wondered and, would he like to see theirs?<br />
<br />
The answers were "no" and "why not," and the appointment to go see it was set.<br />
<br />
The following day (or possibly on Monday depending on which account you believe), Keaton made his way over to Colony Studios to see what all the fuss was about. When he got there a lot of things happened. Arbuckle, knowing Keaton was a clutch comedian, asked him to do a small part in the film he was shooting -- The Butcher Boy. It went extremely well and, by the end of the day, Buster was dying to get inside the film camera, understand the cutting process, the projection room and all of the mechanics. He almost instantly was struck with the enormous potential of this medium and fascinated by it. Fatty, too, was excited about working with Buster and picked away at his reserve. Do another scene? Finish this film with us? Why don't you just stay on with us? Keaton didn't need much arm twisting. He was hooked from the moment he first examined the motion picture camera.<br />
<br />
Keaton got that first taste of filmmaking, impressed Arbuckle, gained a friend and mentor (even happened to meet his future wife) and began a path of filmmaking genius the likes of which the world would be lucky to ever see again. Soon, I will start blogging about the films this collaboration produced in celebration of the Centennial anniversary of the release of each! But first, I am taking the time to reconstruct the details of that first meeting. <br />
<br />
I <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/when-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">previously reported</a> on my research, analysis, sleuthing (and just plain guess work) that led to the unpicking of the exact dates of these fateful meetings, but now, I want to apply my skills to the question, not of when, but of <i><u>where</u></i> Buster Met Fatty.<br />
<br />
<br />
First, there is one preliminary matter to clear up.<br />
<br />
I am working with the assumption that Buster and Fatty met while they were walking in the street. Two descriptions of the event appear when Keaton recalls and recounts the details in various biographies and interviews. One is that Buster ran into Lou Anger in the street and that Lou invited
Buster back to the studio where he met Arbuckle. If you are a subscriber to this first path, then the question seems much more straightforward! And the answer is pretty clear - they met at 318 E 48th Street - a big loft / warehouse type building - on the 3rd floor where Fatty Arbuckle ran his film company. If you instead like the second path, the idea that Buster ran into both Lou and Fatty in the streets of New York, the question is much more difficult to solve and is probably never going to be knowable with pinpoint accuracy. <br />
<br />
Actually, I don't have a super strong opinion on which of these paths is the right one. I can visualize them both quite nicely, but I would say that the meeting in the street seems to have the weight of the authority in its favor. It comes from several accounts: the Keaton Autobiography "My Wonderful World of Slapstick" and numerous interviews [Pratt, 1958; Bishop, Thomas, 1958; Feinstein, 1960; Brownlow, 1964] compared to the meeting at the studio account which comes mainly from Rudi Blesh's biography "Keaton", a book which may have taken a few liberties with the narration of these facts in order to make for a compact and simple story.<br />
<br />
If they <i>did</i> bump into each other on the streets of New York City, just where did Buster and Fatty meet?<br />
<br />
<br />
There are lots of great signposts on the trail.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Colony Film Studio: 318 48th Street</h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjubhT2yZm_fnPkTJO6ki9g1_vr3hI0vEJxzJDlsZ-vbSP9SsTjJqDE-r2YpqXb3LfTo6K34INYmTiClABzoTuI4jzTZFPJONFrQTvHkRI2wYPV4SnqxBLDNZFtLW78IcS9jQozVJyxIlM/s1600/comique+new+york.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjubhT2yZm_fnPkTJO6ki9g1_vr3hI0vEJxzJDlsZ-vbSP9SsTjJqDE-r2YpqXb3LfTo6K34INYmTiClABzoTuI4jzTZFPJONFrQTvHkRI2wYPV4SnqxBLDNZFtLW78IcS9jQozVJyxIlM/s320/comique+new+york.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">from Smithsonian article</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Arbuckle's film studio is a natural place to start in our investigation. It was located on the 3rd floor of a warehouse building at 318 48th Street.<br />
<br />
A few details are known about this location, and for that I thank others who have visited and blogged about it. It seems that, <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/historic-film-studios-gone-but-not-forgotten-168622995/" target="_blank">as recently as 2012, a portion of the building still existed</a> and housed a <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/07/manhattans-forgotten-film-studio/" target="_blank">parking garage</a>. Unfortunately, fairly recently, the government of <a href="https://therealdeal.com/2009/10/05/singapore-pays-30m-for-east-side-garage-at-318-east-48th-street/" target="_blank">Singapore bought the building</a> for $30 million - in order to be near the UN which is just down the street. This warehouse had become primo real estate. Apparently they really gutted it and nothing original remains.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In any case, even if Keaton and Arbuckle did not meet here, this place is interesting for any Keaton fan because it is the place they got to know each other and where Keaton got his start in films. And, I think we have to assume that if Keaton and Arbuckle met in the street, such a meeting would've had to have been nearby! First of all, the Blesh account tells us that when they met in the street the studio was "just a few blocks over on 48th." (p. 85). We should also consider that Fatty Arbuckle and Lou Anger both worked at this location. They were out walking together, possibly mid-morning (based on Keaton's account in the Blesh book that he'd sat down to breakfast then was walking around when he bumped into them. The question is how far would men like Anger and Arbuckle have been away from their studio base?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't know. I can just throw a few more facts out there. Lou Anger died of a heart attack at age 68 in 1946. On the date of bumping into Keaton, he was about 39 years old. From the photo above, he looks like a reasonably strappy guy, but he also looks pretty dapper. Would walking around Manhattan have been his thing? Fatty Arbuckle weighed a purported 260 lbs. Now, I am the first to admit that Fatty was fit. Look at him springing about and dancing in his movies. However, that said, I don't really see him as a big walker.<br />
<br />
Truth is, I see this pair as being tethered to the film studio by a distance of about a mile radius from their studio. Obviously that is just a wild guess. But I really do think we should try and come up with a plan to keep them close by.</div>
<br />
<h4>
Keaton's digs: 368 W. 50th Street<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYwS8B1jT1T6cHAtjWhhVcOT04oYtYSnSyuEoQYliw3o9FwFweBScnDTgF6sQJusEirMesqGG6EGnRjti_xxzi3D-_DzzRFy8UWbzeE_Uqe3G5o8kw2RZJSBHPCHFPjbkCm0oul5QSsq8/s1600/Buster+Keaton+address.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYwS8B1jT1T6cHAtjWhhVcOT04oYtYSnSyuEoQYliw3o9FwFweBScnDTgF6sQJusEirMesqGG6EGnRjti_xxzi3D-_DzzRFy8UWbzeE_Uqe3G5o8kw2RZJSBHPCHFPjbkCm0oul5QSsq8/s320/Buster+Keaton+address.png" width="310" /></a></div>
</h4>
This is super exciting news to report: I found Buster Keaton's New York address, as it appeared in the May 1917 New York phone directory! 368 W. 50th. (So excited about this). I don't know for sure that Keaton was already in this apartment by the date of the meeting, but I think its a good bet. Buster was new to NY when he went to see Max Hart looking for work. From all accounts he meant to stay in NY. Then he got a great job. There would have been no reason to delay and I imagine he would have put time in to finding regular living arrangement and getting out of his hotel right away.<br />
<br />
My analysis has him spending over a week in town before he met Arbuckle on March 8th/15th. Thus, I think he would have had time to have moved into an apartment by day he met Fatty. Note that he was living in this same location in the October 1917 phone book, thus, this was obviously a quasi-permanent address for him. Even if he didn't live there yet, the idea that Keaton would have been staying in a hotel somewhere very close by makes a lot of sense too, especially given that the location is perfect!<br />
<br />
I'll show you in a minute on the map, but just know that this address is within an easy walking distance of his agent Max Hart located at <a href="http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/5328/186.html#gsc.tab=0" target="_blank">1564 Broadway</a>, (talk about insanely valuable real estate by the way!), the Winter Garden Theater where he'd be working, and a hub of stores, food, shows and excitement.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Blesh's account of Keaton's day that day</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdZDEBwzyDjwCP6P0oU3EDgZstKN56LrWVFyHO49bUMEWhmmXiZmQ9FIFqF8gkRT9R-pXeS6cMMk_A-M3myNfy-pF8GlhDjQQ1jEA9rc2vrrB6nEZjgToLnCto2YooQpbnQ2LFP6C2zBg/s1600/childs+menu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdZDEBwzyDjwCP6P0oU3EDgZstKN56LrWVFyHO49bUMEWhmmXiZmQ9FIFqF8gkRT9R-pXeS6cMMk_A-M3myNfy-pF8GlhDjQQ1jEA9rc2vrrB6nEZjgToLnCto2YooQpbnQ2LFP6C2zBg/s320/childs+menu.jpg" width="152" /></a>Biographer Rudi Blesh describes the day of the meeting with Keaton waking up, going to breakfast at "Childs" then walking around. Blesh tells us that every day it was Keaton's habit to walk past the Winter Garden Theater. All these details are helpful and some can be pinpointed on a map.<br />
<br />
The Winter Garden Theater is located at 1634 Broadway. That's easy anyway.<br />
<br />
"Childs" is another story. I wasn't expecting to be able to find "Childs" at all (as I'd never heard of it), and instead found way too many Childs'! I was stunned to learn that there are practically dozens of Childs restaurants in New York City in 1917 according to the phone book. I looked for locations of the chain restaurant that were located in the right part of town and one immediately popped out as interesting. It was just a couple blocks from Keaton's apartment and across the street from Max Hart's office and a block down from the Winter Garden. It was located at 1546 Broadway.<br />
<br />
Although there are about 4 other Childs restaurants that might be in contention in this approximate area of town, it feels like a pretty good bet that the one at 1546 Broadway would have been one Keaton frequented.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Where Buster said he was going -</h4>
Buster said he was: "walking down Broadway, down along 8th or someplace" (Bishop interview) when he ran into Fatty and Lou. The Blesh account has Keaton walking the streets and looking at window displays when he turned a corner and heard his name called. (The Pratt interview account also mentions that Keaton was walking along Broadway when he ran into the two men.)<br />
<br />
There are a few things to consider here before we look at a map and put it all together.<br />
<br />
First, Buster can't be taken too strictly/literally with street locations. For instance he has referred to the film studio's location variously as being between 2nd and 3rd and being between 1st and 2nd. (In fact the later is true). When he says here that he was walking down Broadway "along 8th or someplace," it is hard to make sense of that. Not being a New Yorker, I'm not sure I'm thinking about this right, but from what I can see on the map, there is an 8th Street and an 8th Avenue in Manhattan. Broadway runs at a gentle diagonal in this area from Central Park (around 58th St) to about 14th St where it straightens out. Broadway and <i>8th Street</i> is an intersection in the Greenwich Village area, and would almost certainly not be where Keaton meant.<br />
<br />
Broadway near <i>8th Ave.</i> would almost certainly be what Keaton meant, however, it doesn't really give us a pinpoint location, since the two streets run quasi-parallel for several blocks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Here, lets take a look at the map:</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL2ukryCR9i3KvWt5kmKvEk7gX2DcqbnDoGX5wjw3u6rHLiJmtinmy2AarD-tgbi1RXhYXA9qy7FdclXcjqMCi5uNPmd3foJkl7LkizvhxwsJFcHf4g2UbYll9FdKpGXLupoOsnyF0MV0/s1600/buster+map.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="473" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL2ukryCR9i3KvWt5kmKvEk7gX2DcqbnDoGX5wjw3u6rHLiJmtinmy2AarD-tgbi1RXhYXA9qy7FdclXcjqMCi5uNPmd3foJkl7LkizvhxwsJFcHf4g2UbYll9FdKpGXLupoOsnyF0MV0/s640/buster+map.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The base map comes from a 1916 Atlas available online. Each of the grids was expandable and I pulled them up to inspect before pinpointing my markers on it. I don't know the exact scale of the map, but can tell you that the distance between Max Hart's office and Colony Studios is exactly 1 mile.<br />
<br />
You can see that any further north along Broadway (toward Central Park) is going to make the walk back to the studio (for Lou and Fatty) longer than a mile. And you can see that the further south you get, the harder it is to say you are "along 8th."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, we can also see that it's going to be impossible to both be along Broadway and just a few blocks away from the studio.<br />
<br />
I think the best we can do is pinpoint the meeting for somewehre along the section of Broadway that slices through grid 76 and grid 71. This area represents the closest that a spot on Broadway gets to Colony Studio -- at about a mile. And, best, it is smack in the middle of the hub of places we've been talking about all along: Times Square, Buster's apartment, Childs' restaurant, the Winter Garden Theater.<br />
<br />
[<u>New evidence came to light for me after drafting this post, while I was reading the preface to a book called "The Best of Buster" ed. Richard Anobile. Anoble simply states that the meeting was "rumored to have been in the vicinity of 46th St and Broadway." This is awesome, as it totally confirms the location I was centering in on, in grid 71!]</u><br />
<br />
If it were Buster's habit to wake up, get breakfast at Childs down the street, then walk up, down, in and around Broadway to take in the view of the Winter Garden, he'd be well-positioned to run into Fatty and Lou right in this area and they, in turn, would be reasonably close enough to their place of business to be expected on foot in that area. I think we have a winner!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
What fun it has been to apply sleuthing and the cold hard glance of logic to these hazy details from the past! I've always been so interested in when and where Buster met Fatty Arbuckle for the first time and taking the time to do this research has made me feel very close to the events.<br />
<br />
It has also made me feel desperately interested in taking a road trip to New York to see all of these sites.<br />
<br />
But now its time to let all of this slip back into a soft resting place. I'll let my mental picture drift happily to the hazy black and white image of a young, confident and street savvy Buster Keaton walking along planning for the future he was on the verge of, then stumbling into a path that changed everything. As a fan I'm so grateful that the story unfolded as it did.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-66834893112140576972017-03-04T16:10:00.000-08:002017-04-13T12:12:03.803-07:00When Buster met FattyThis post is born of procrastination. It went like this: I said to myself, "Wow! You have to get started writing about when Buster met Fatty; it's already March 1st." (I knew I wanted to aim for a post date for around the centennial of that profoundly important moment: the day they met). But, I didn't feel like writing, so I thought, "hmmm, why don't I see just how long I actually have? What date was it actually when they met?" I figured I might get lucky and be able to wait a week or two. "I'll just look it up." Ha. That's when the fun began.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimorqF9GoIbv1PiAu2yYV5vM1rcHzDgtW_hM-mX59xu_ilFQVvvVrlxNQM8nQgxTF59uBActrx-cacOnHn1e-SU_4UqlNvsBVx5HQNwHF77KOUJue9G5S89_vVVXO2xo716DbLyEa45Dw/s1600/when%253F.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimorqF9GoIbv1PiAu2yYV5vM1rcHzDgtW_hM-mX59xu_ilFQVvvVrlxNQM8nQgxTF59uBActrx-cacOnHn1e-SU_4UqlNvsBVx5HQNwHF77KOUJue9G5S89_vVVXO2xo716DbLyEa45Dw/s320/when%253F.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Despite valiant efforts (by which I mean 10 minutes on Google), I could not find anyone who could name the anniversary date. Worse! by searching, I found that now, even the month was suspect. Although I had <i>March</i> in my head, some were saying <i>February</i>. What gives?!<br />
<br />
It turns out that in my desire to buy myself more time, I ended up creating a research project instead. [<u>NOTE: After drafting this post, I became aware of a new piece of information. I will address this at the end of the post.</u>]<br />
<br />
I'm sorry to say that even after the best sleuthing I could bring to bear on this question, I still don't know for sure what date to celebrate as their anniversary! But I do have a lot of really interesting information.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvW47pdWjLYcHcCgZyCKWusMGvu6wdgDuSufcYnzSeDTtiLkuBurpHA057kK78ExXZ1UK8UQQpF7qFzbnRdaDQdtOhRFNDBq9rQxCAL3Oa-8kzThViKjmDQLOk8yz3PaE3yUbvjfv7KCY/s1600/BUSTER-KEATON.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvW47pdWjLYcHcCgZyCKWusMGvu6wdgDuSufcYnzSeDTtiLkuBurpHA057kK78ExXZ1UK8UQQpF7qFzbnRdaDQdtOhRFNDBq9rQxCAL3Oa-8kzThViKjmDQLOk8yz3PaE3yUbvjfv7KCY/s320/BUSTER-KEATON.jpg" width="320" /></a>Loathe to blame my beloved. . . I have to admit that the uncertainty does seem traceable to the differing accounts the man himself has given of the meeting. I had ready access to several original sources: the 1966 biography by Rudi Blesh, the autobiography "My Wonderful World of Slapstick" ghost written by Charles Samuels in 1960, and a couple of 1958 interviews with Buster (one with Christopher Bishop for "Film Quarterly" and another with George Pratt for "Image"). Each of these gives a slightly different account of the time frame surrounding this fateful meeting. (I'm sure any additional sources you'd find would have its own nuanced account.) Maybe another print biographer has addressed this issue in more detail -- anyone may feel free to share what they know in comments here -- but for me, these sources are going to have to do.<br />
<br />
Pretty much all of the accounts I've seen of Buster's entrance into the movies are similar in the following essentials:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is 1917. Keaton is now 21 years old. Keaton's dad's drinking problem has become untenable. The Three Keaton's act is broken up and dad is left in California while Keaton and his mom travel to Michigan. A short time later, Keaton boards a train alone to New York -- in the early months of the year. Upon arriving, he immediately meets with an agent named Max Hart who gets him a gig (a very lucrative one) on Broadway in a production entitled "The Passing Show of 1917." In the short time between that meeting with Hart and the date at which rehearsals are set to begin on TPS1917, Keaton is walking down the street in New York City when he runs into his friend Lou Anger. Anger introduces Keaton to the movie star Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, who, in turn, introduces him to a movie set, where Arbuckle is shooting "The Butcher Boy." Keaton agrees to perform a bit role in that production, then falls in love with the process, the camera and the pictures. He joins Fatty's team, drops out of TPS1917 and makes magical pictures for many years to come.</blockquote>
<br />
A lesser fan might just leave it at that. Really, it's a pretty nice little story. But, I've always been so fascinated with the particulars. Before we fast forward into the movies this partnership produced, lets rewind a bit and explore the meeting. How and <i>when</i> did it happen?<br />
<br />
<br />
My sleuthing begins with the Blesh biography "Keaton", which many still consider to be the bible. The book was written in nuanced detail with Keaton's direct input and describes that trip to New York with many interesting tidbits of info.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As he describes the scene - it is a Monday morning in March (1917) and a dark, windy, cold, rainy day. A boy is hawking papers by shouting about another sunken ship, when Keaton makes his way to Hart's office near Times Square (Ch. 9, p. 83).</blockquote>
</div>
<br />
One might think that the mention of the shipwreck would alone do the trick for pinpointing a date for Keaton's meeting with Hart, but no; not even close. I was stunned to learn that sunk ships were a continual occurrence at this time. Wikipedia has a running list of sunken ships and it contains many, many entries for February and March 1917. If you (as I did) need a reminder, Europe was already at war and America was hardly safe. (Wilson led America to officially join the action by declaring war on April 2, 1917). The weeks leading up to that were fraught with international incidents. As I perused newspapers for dates around this time, many of them mentioned U.S. boats (military, commercial, passenger) being sunk. In fact, Wilson lobbied congress for, and eventually won, a law requiring the arming of every U.S. vessel in the Atlantic due to this constant pressure. Pretty interesting stuff for a backdrop.<br />
<br />
But I digress. It looks like a ship sinking alone wasn't going to help me pinpoint a date.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next I found a calendar. Although I grant that some details in the Blesh/Keaton account are certain to be fuzzy after such a long time, I think that the mentioning of it being a Monday is very helpful. In my estimation, days of the week (especially Mondays) tend to be properly remembered. Of course this is conjecture, but I imagine that Keaton remembered this day as a Monday because his train arrived in New York City on a Sunday. It makes sense to me that upon arriving he'd get the jump right away at start of business on Monday and go see his agent. So I'd like to take him at his word and trust the Monday. (Plus that gives me somewhere to start). The calendar shows the four Mondays in March 1917 to be the 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th.<br />
<br />
Before we explore those, lets chip away at the other end of the range. Every account agrees that Keaton snagged a part in "The Passing Show" <i>before</i> it started rehearsals for its run. Good news is that this was a pretty big deal. In fact, the production has an entry in the Internet Broadway Database (IBDB). (Did you even know there was such a thing? I did not!) The lovely, amazing IBDB tells us that TPS1917 ran from April 26th - October 13th that year. And all sources agree that Keaton met with Hart some time shortly before (between 4 days and 2 weeks before, depending on the source) rehearsals were set to begin.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnIenu5IAnF8QPqEJi0jUFeCdWMXUlYLfEXAzqvpUcoeBX9Rsq_JmjdZFVoCzs_ze1Z0KGbBwixV9_2nf0xX6B6GWm9YlH5mKXym74mXG7Fopgo6Xg4RqhiyqFL3PHgka7nAQ-6AUJoQ/s1600/passing+show.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnIenu5IAnF8QPqEJi0jUFeCdWMXUlYLfEXAzqvpUcoeBX9Rsq_JmjdZFVoCzs_ze1Z0KGbBwixV9_2nf0xX6B6GWm9YlH5mKXym74mXG7Fopgo6Xg4RqhiyqFL3PHgka7nAQ-6AUJoQ/s320/passing+show.jpg" width="259" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">found on http://mideastcartoonhistory.com/1917to1928.html</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But when would we expect rehearsals to begin on a show of this sort??<br />
<br />
<br />
Seriously, thank god for the internet. I was able to find a couple of anecdotal sources that point to rehearsals beginning "at least" four weeks prior to the show's opening. (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_R._Atteridge" target="_blank">Wikipedia articl</a>e; also see article on <a href="http://www.shubertarchive.org/pdf/passingshows/PS201112Final.pdf" target="_blank">Al Jolson</a> related to a different iteration of The Passing Show suggesting he began rehearsals on March 15th that year.)<br />
<br />
The good news is that placing the beginning of rehearsals in mid to late March probably rules out a first meeting with Max Hart on March 26th, and even makes the 19th much more dubious, pushing us to the early end of the date range.<br />
<br />
So. . . within the Blesh world, I think the prime targets for Buster's meeting with Hart would be Monday March 5th and Monday March 12th. Problem is... no sinking ships on those days! Let me get back to that in a minute. For now, lets explore whether the 4-day timeframe for events, as spelled out in that bio, seems plausible. Hint: it doesn't.<br />
<br />
Consider the extraordinary pressures this version puts on the timeframe by having Buster arrive in New York (on a Sunday maybe?), meet with Hart on Monday, get immediately signed to TPS1917, meet with Lou Anger on the street on Thursday, then back to Fatty's studio that day, make a decision to do the movies instead of Broadway, and do it all before rehearsals begin on TPS1917 on Friday.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but the timeline as it plays out in the Blesh book is a bit suspect. I am suspicious of because it seems too conveniently assembled to tell a story and streamline the logistics. Because the biographer's caution with dates is suspect elsewhere, he does not strike me as the most reliable source for this kind of fact. For instance, just a few pages later (p. 95) Blesh remarks that "The Butcher Boy" (the film Fatty was making and on which Buster first appeared) "was completed in May." But we <i>know</i> this is not the case. The film was released on April 23rd. That's a pretty big error.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVoy51SsuvgsoQoSdURtDnkgnZUtwaHIoeQhWvx6c7rG7Jw1eZrJCYdPGtsaHa5N4e_bAe9plwDpZzj60oKq1Ge6F4TsTIkf2wk1sB8Wk4aDXmm4HYIBmmCdTaXNH7QWJL9negmhPnstI/s1600/blesh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVoy51SsuvgsoQoSdURtDnkgnZUtwaHIoeQhWvx6c7rG7Jw1eZrJCYdPGtsaHa5N4e_bAe9plwDpZzj60oKq1Ge6F4TsTIkf2wk1sB8Wk4aDXmm4HYIBmmCdTaXNH7QWJL9negmhPnstI/s320/blesh.jpg" width="217" /></a>I don't doubt the good intentions of Blesh and Keaton; they were telling a story for the purpose of flow and simplicity. It sounds neat, decisive and quick. Such characteristics suit a book with the great 60s-era charm and compactness that this biography features. Things are smart and swift in this world. But I think the world is a bit off.<br />
<br />
<br />
The timeline in "My Wonderful World of Slapstick" (published in 1960) is similar but has a couple significant changes. First, Keaton says he arrived in New York in <u>February</u> (rather than Blesh's March). Further, the timeline is definitely more vague, and slightly suggestive of a more leisurely pace (after the meeting with Hart) for when Buster met Anger/Fatty: "a few days later I got the script of the revue. But just a day or two before rehearsals were to start, I ran into Lou Anger...". Incidentally, the account is also different from Blesh's in that it has Keaton running into both Anger and Arbuckle on the street. (Blesh has Keaton walking with Anger back to the studio where he met Arbuckle). Also, in MWWS, Arbuckle invites Keaton to come to the studio "tomorrow" -- rather than seeing it that day. I think its possible that the autobiography -- though certainly subjected to massaging and wordsmithing by Samuels -- may give a more direct account from Keaton's memories than we get from the embellished story-like Blesh book??<br />
<br />
In any case, (I mean, its my blog and no one's paying me to do this, so I guess I'm entitled to pick and choose as I see fit.) I tend to believe some of the nuanced details -- like the Monday, the ship sinking, the weather -- from the Blesh account (after all Blesh does state that Keaton "still recalls vividly"), but am more inclined to trust the pacing and the timeframe of the autobiography.<br />
<br />
To help support that decision, I appeal to the other interview accounts. The Film Quarterly piece agrees with MWWS in having Keaton meet both Anger and Arbuckle together in the street. However, unlike MWWS (in which Keaton is invited to the studio "tomorrow"), Film Quarterly suggests the invitation was for Keaton to come down to the studio "on Monday." Importantly, in the FQ account, Keaton replies: "rehearsals [on TPS1917] don't start for another week or so, so I'll be down." This is significantly different than the Blesh book that has Keaton going to the studio immediately with Anger and the TPS1917 rehearsals set to begin the next day. The final account I'll mention (hang in there! we're almost done!) is from the "Image" interview. It, too, fits better in the MWWS and FQ world than it does in the Blesh universe. In it, Keaton states that "I had about ten days to wait for rehearsal to start when I met Roscoe Arbuckle on the street on Broadway." Keaton goes on to say that Arbuckle was to begin filming "tomorrow" and invited Keaton to join him at the studio.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm not sure we'll really be able to unpick all of this, but I will say I am inclined to believe the more leisurely pace. I think we should push the initial meeting between Buster and Max Hart back as far as possible into early March or late February to make room for a number of days to pass before Buster runs into Anger (and Fatty) in the street, and for that meeting to take place at a time when the rehearsals for TPS1917 are still 10 days to maybe even 2 weeks in the future.<br />
<br />
In short, if we can fairly pin the start of those rehearsals to somewhere between about March 22nd and March 29th, then that would give us a <b>date range of maybe March 8th through March 19th</b> for Buster Keaton to have met Fatty Arbuckle for the first time.<br />
<br />
<br />
Not one to give up with that large date range quite so easily, I returned to ship sinkings. (Remember that this may be the key to pinning down a date for that first meeting <u>with Max Hart</u>). And I'm still sticking with Mondays for that one. I mean, it's all I got. This Hart meeting has to precede the Anger/Fatty meeting by at least 3 days in the tightest timeframe we have, so lets now look more closely at the most plausible Mondays: February 26th, March 5th, and March 12th. When we do this, something good happens. (Well, obviously, not really 'good' in any larger humanitarian sense, but you get the drift). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Laconia_(1911)" target="_blank">The Laconia sank</a>. (BTW, not the same boat that sank in WWII).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKvWipN_5F_TMRxp-HYW-_16KRvzhDXUKkMpIEcAbQNMVTJJCCXBw9yURW9tOzGLZZ5YmlrmxJp35UpRCO8gavkVpoojV0_5u8uaRwgGyzzZo6HiiRDKqy8gOl9n_cq8GZ48EoeT1Exxc/s1600/laconia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKvWipN_5F_TMRxp-HYW-_16KRvzhDXUKkMpIEcAbQNMVTJJCCXBw9yURW9tOzGLZZ5YmlrmxJp35UpRCO8gavkVpoojV0_5u8uaRwgGyzzZo6HiiRDKqy8gOl9n_cq8GZ48EoeT1Exxc/s320/laconia.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
If we give any credence to the tidbit about the paperboy shouting about a ship sinking (and I'd like to), then I'd say for Keaton to remember that, it was probably a significant sinking. The Laconia would have been such. And it was sunk on Sunday Feb 25th. The Monday morning News in New York City on Feb 26th 1917 would surely have featured it. (In fact, it did feature it. I looked.) On the 5th of March, conversely, something else of interest was being reported -- Wilson's inauguration. (I had to double check this, figuring that seemed awfully late for inauguration day? But from what I can gather, accurate). In any case, if Keaton remembered a ship sinking, then February 26th seems to be a better date than March 5th, when the Inauguration was the top news or the 12th when there was no ship sinking. There is another interesting U.S. ship sinking headline around this time, but it's on Wednesday March 14th and that date doesn't work well within <i>anyone's</i> timeframes, whereas Monday February 26th does.<br />
<br />
The only thing that remains is to check the weather.<br />
<br />
This was not as easy as I thought it would be. Maybe someone else knows a better way, but since all the historical weather databases I could find dated back only to the mid-1940s, I had to look in the New York newspapers for the weather report. The ones I saw were vague and broad by today's standards. They reported weather for the whole country on a regional scale, rather than local phenomena. However, I would say that, from what I can gather by reading the New York Tribune for Monday 2/26 and Tuesday 2/27, Monday's weather may indeed have been extra cold and rainy in the New York City area --though I'd ultimately love to confirm this with more sources and check the other dates around this time.<br />
<br />
<br />
That said, I am going to go ahead and declare boldly that <b>February 26th 1917</b> was the Monday when Keaton set foot in Max Hart's office in New York City and asked for work. (I myself am perfectly convinced. You can obviously decide if you are). I like the way the date fits the events described in Blesh's book; I like the way the date allows for time prior to rehearsals of The Passing Show for Buster to meet Arbuckle, visit his studio, take home a camera and tear it apart; return to the studio for good and ask Hart to tear up the contract for The Passing Show.<br />
<br />
The only thing I don't like is that it puts me behind the 8 ball, as it is already March 2nd! and I'm still writing this :)<br />
<br />
But, wait. Stop! This does not solve the original question: WHEN DID BUSTER MEET <u>FATTY,</u> not Max Hart?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAZ572rJzKHQ6xRAtZnEJLmJv11Wzf00nNpyjMiG2h3iZ-ux2iFiEt_WOYk2grqwFyrHpuTCAbx-3ZeBuouJVnQf03LKZrdBtF7wLVw5bylT6i7WbJT1leoQAHFEyogTVi1itzIAGm0mY/s1600/keaton+arbuckle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAZ572rJzKHQ6xRAtZnEJLmJv11Wzf00nNpyjMiG2h3iZ-ux2iFiEt_WOYk2grqwFyrHpuTCAbx-3ZeBuouJVnQf03LKZrdBtF7wLVw5bylT6i7WbJT1leoQAHFEyogTVi1itzIAGm0mY/s320/keaton+arbuckle.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There, my friends, is the rub. If we buy Blesh's timeframe and date the Keaton/Arbuckle encounter to the coming Thursday, a few days later, that would be March 1st. The problem is we are told in <i>this</i> (Blesh) account that rehearsals (on TPS1917) would start the next day. But, Friday March 2nd is getting to be nearly two months before the start of the production and that is probably too far out. If we instead buy into any one of the other accounts, then we have a lot more time to work with before Buster runs into Anger (and Fatty) on Broadway, but few anchors to pin down any particular day for the meeting.<br />
<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, . . . (here I go again, borrowing from multiple accounts at will) I'm going to stick with the idea of the meeting taking place on a Thursday. I just like that part. It allows for a "tomorrow" date at the studio to make sense. And it allows for a "Monday" date at the studio to make sense. How about instead of having the Thursday in question fall on that immediate one (the 1st), we consider that the meeting took place the following <b>Thursday, March 8th</b>.* [New info below]<br />
<br />
Here's why this works. It allows Buster to have over a week in New York, getting the script for TPS1917, taking care of logistics, going to shows and settling in, thinking about life (about impending war!), but not yet getting bored, when he runs into Lou Anger on the street. It comports with the calmer pace on display in most of the interview/personal accounts. And it allows Keaton to tell Lou/Fatty that rehearsals on TPS1917 are set to begin in soon and have this feel perfectly appropriate to the time when rehearsals likely started -- maybe March 19th-ish -- for a show that was set to begin on April 26th. Keaton can meet Lou and Fatty in the street, get invited back to the studio, lets say, Friday March 9th or Monday March 11th. It gives the team a month to work on The Butcher Boy before it gets wrapped and released by April 23rd. Everything just falls into place.<br />
<br />
YES! Eureka! I have found it. I'm sure this is it! (Despite what I said in the beginning about being unable to unpick it all. I think I just did. <b>March 8th is the day that Buster met Fatty.*</b> [New info below].<br />
<br />
<br />
And the very best news in all of this is that I get to take a bit more time to polish this post and make it beautiful before releasing it to the ethers ahead of time :)<br />
<br />
<h4>
<br />New Info!</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmeZXUBnWdgaYJd2KZUVO-baaGLwZr_VrD5i6eMwXVilJDY-VzaeB_67mSRf6qW3l8z72MngO-4X4wbN9TzId6gMsRY6GTo_jYXgewSx0F0OzLQaAr-52bFyUiul8Hhdaz0t21o3yL7x0/s1600/busters+date+book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmeZXUBnWdgaYJd2KZUVO-baaGLwZr_VrD5i6eMwXVilJDY-VzaeB_67mSRf6qW3l8z72MngO-4X4wbN9TzId6gMsRY6GTo_jYXgewSx0F0OzLQaAr-52bFyUiul8Hhdaz0t21o3yL7x0/s320/busters+date+book.jpg" width="288" /></a>While perusing facebook this morning (3/20/17) I came upon something that stopped me in my tracks. Someone posted a photo taken of a Datebook that had belonged to Keaton and, I learned, is housed in the <a href="http://www.oscars.org/library" target="_blank">Margaret Herrick Library</a> in Los Angeles, along with other Buster Keaton papers. <br />
<br />
I can't even begin to tell you how excited I am to learn of this resource. I simply had no idea that this type of archive existed. (I certainly smell a road trip coming on and am very hopeful that as a member of the public I will have access to Keaton's papers. I will certainly update the blog with <br />
anything that I find there).<br />
<br />
Bottom line, the image is incredibly interesting and bears directly on the issue of When Buster Met Fatty.<br />
<br />
It appears to show Buster going to the film studio (for the first time?) on Monday March 19th. It gives an address for the studio on Tuesday and also mentions "The Butcher Boy" on what appears to be Thursday.<br />
<br />
As exciting as this is, it is somewhat ambiguous as well. I am dying to lay eyes / hands on the original to examine it for clues. For instance, what if anything is written on the preceding page, or other pages? Did he use this regularly? Did he keep addresses and other info in it? How did he generally notate things? Did other entries seem to bleed into additional days? Does it appear that he wrote these things contemporaneously or that maybe he jotted things down to remember later?<br />
<br />
As I look at this, I think it seems possible that all the writing relates to a single event, rather than three different days. It is interesting that he calls the studio "Paramount" on the first writing, then calls it "Norma Talmadge Studio" below that. I am also interested in the scribbling out that's been done. If I could only see this in person. I'd love a chance to decipher what was underneath this. I'd also love a chance to see if Keaton has other things (and what kinds of things) written on the surrounding pages. But.... until a trip to LA is in my future, I'll just have to make do with the plot thickening.<br />
<br />
But most of all what I like about this diary is that (at least these cryptic notes) fit well into my overall unpicking and understanding of the beginnings of this New York adventure. I am still sticking with 90% of what I said here about Buster arriving in New York, about his meeting with Max Hart and about when rehearsals were likely to begin on The Passing Show. And I am pleased that I tried to slow down the rushed timeframe. The only thing is: maybe I didn't slow things down quite enough. It turns out that instead of putting the meeting with Fatty on Thursday March 8th, we now have reason to push it back yet another week, to Thursday March 15th! <br />
<br />
I'm really quite fine with the adjustment! As it otherwise works even better with the timeframe and just gives Buster a bit more time on his own in Manhattan before his life changed for good. So in light of this new evidence, I am going on record now as saying that Buster Met Fatty in the streets of New York on <b>Thursday March 15th, 1917</b>! And, if you want to know more about "where" exactly.... see my post on that, <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2017/03/where-buster-met-fatty.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-73762385184793320302017-01-02T20:42:00.001-08:002017-01-02T20:42:12.651-08:00New Years Resolutions! Write More about Buster!. . . starting tomorrow<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFhwFgGKtpKJO0H4C85qMGZ6Vq4WMENdo7g-C5aX7sDzFQycHwslvMWi-h6COsF9u44npodTKs2GwOoyqPWLI1C7MZKPYZgMGVsTOW1k-0XV-sQ_ka0M4puMZlT1sduOxu1PJK3SdTFt8/s1600/buster_keaton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFhwFgGKtpKJO0H4C85qMGZ6Vq4WMENdo7g-C5aX7sDzFQycHwslvMWi-h6COsF9u44npodTKs2GwOoyqPWLI1C7MZKPYZgMGVsTOW1k-0XV-sQ_ka0M4puMZlT1sduOxu1PJK3SdTFt8/s320/buster_keaton.jpg" width="249" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-29991769075413067122016-04-03T21:23:00.000-07:002016-05-09T17:05:09.827-07:00Go West: An Underrated Keaton Masterpiece<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNWxFXeQdAXT-2VKe7jJINIWMqM224-RfHCDDTnMoUJjopO_BKUIo4HgSQVaJRZ_ktdbIqUCsoX3oaC0OFtvfiqZmJlgGnexpsqJZaWabXbVQ50fLDuxGCZQ5QFvByQXNgL3RIbAvrY-8/s1600/IMG_0706.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNWxFXeQdAXT-2VKe7jJINIWMqM224-RfHCDDTnMoUJjopO_BKUIo4HgSQVaJRZ_ktdbIqUCsoX3oaC0OFtvfiqZmJlgGnexpsqJZaWabXbVQ50fLDuxGCZQ5QFvByQXNgL3RIbAvrY-8/s320/IMG_0706.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Notice the wonderful lighting and Keaton's shadow on the cow</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It's time to write in praise of one of my favorite Keaton films, <i>Go West</i>. The first time I watched, I found it to be superb and fell in love with this gorgeously filmed ode to the desert.<br />
<br />
<br />
But after reading other people's reviews, I began to wonder if maybe I'd gotten it wrong. One rarely sees this title ranked among Keaton's best; instead, folks give milquetoast or ambivalent reviews, seeing it as an oddity that stands off by itself. Take a look, for instance at what the briefest of Google searches for the title turns up in the page previews:<br />
<ul>
<li>Buster Keaton's <i>Go West</i> doesn't quite compare to his best films but is an admirable stab at the funny bone nonetheless... rottentomatoes.com/m/1089755-go_west/</li>
<li><i>Go West </i>was an unusual film for Buster Keaton. With its portrayal of a down and out wanderer... www.silentfilm.org/archive/go-west</li>
<li>Some Keaton scholars have suggested that <i>Go West </i>is a subtle satire of Charlie Chaplin's approach... www.tcm.com/this-month/article/.../go-west</li>
<li><i>Go West</i> is one of Buster Keaton's more low key films, but also one of his strangest... seoul-le-cinema.blogspot.com/2012/05/go-west </li>
<li><i>Go West</i> is a unique Keaton film even if it is not his most enjoyable... www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/go-west</li>
</ul>
<br />
In short, and as these snippets suggest, not only do people not love this film, but they seem to find it unusual or difficult to classify. Some say it is odd for Keaton to dip into pathos. Others suggest that Keaton is tongue-in-cheek in his poignancy and actually intended his film as a parody. The consensus seems to be that whether intentional or mocking, <i>Go West</i> is unusual: a slower paced film where Keaton tugs at our heartstrings in an attempt to make us sad.<br />
<br />
But I can't agree.<br />
<br />
Not because <i>Go West</i> isn't a slower paced film and not that it isn't unique, but because <u>all</u> of Keaton's films are unique. I would not grant that <i>Go West</i> is any less like the others, than those others are similar! (haha. How's that for a sentence?) In terms of character, setting, plot structure and theme, <i>Go West</i> fits well in line with Keaton's other films, and doesn't seem to me appreciably any sadder than the rest. And in terms of its unique and special attributes. . . well, all of Keaton's films have their own distinct voices (funny word for silent films, but I'm sticking with it.)<br />
<br />
Let me be clear: I don't mean to argue that <i>Go West </i>isn't on the slow end, the sweeping end, the calmer end of this array, just that there is no real reason to set it apart from the others and call it "unusual." To do so implies that there is a Keaton style or formula that his other films follow and that <i>Go West</i> doesn't. Maybe someone could make that argument, but for me, well, I don't see it.<br />
<br />
<u>Character:</u><br />
For starters, "Friendless," Keaton's character in <i>Go West, </i>is right in line with his roles in other films. In character and approach to life, he is definitely Keatonesque: a bit out of touch and in over his head, but able to ultimately rise to the occasion. The young man in <i>Go West</i> is a typical blend of folly, zen-like determination and willingness: energetic, though inept, in his adopted role as a cow poke. Not particularly different from his turn as a willing, energetic and inept detective...(?) or for that matter as a willing, energetic, inept boxer...(?) news photographer...(?) college athlete... (?), scuba diver (?).<br />
<br />
Though they tend to be alike in driving force, Keaton's young men cover a range of social positions, from the very rich (<i>Battling Butler</i> and <i>The Navigator</i>) to the more needs-driven (<i>Three Ages</i> or <i>Go West</i>). Some of his characters are middle class (<i>College</i>, <i>Our Hospitality</i>, or <i>Steamboat Bill Jr.</i>), some distinctly more working class (<i>Sherlock Jr.</i>, <i>The Cameraman</i>). While Friendless' poverty may place him at the far end of the status and wealth spectrum found in Keaton features, he is certainly not standing alone in left field. And although he may have an especially solitary-sounding name, Friendless actually has more family connection (with at least a picture of a beloved mother) than some other Keaton characters do.<br />
<br />
<u>Plot/Theme:</u><br />
With respect to plot, too, <i>Go West</i> explores typical Keaton themes of finding one's place in a complicated world just as <i>Seven Chances</i>, <i>College,</i> <i>Sherlock Jr</i> or <i>Steamboat Bill Jr</i> did. In fact, a couple of these films share very similar development: with a regular young man who has challenges to overcome, setting off on his own to try and find connections that exist only on paper or in possibility (e.g. a father, a family home, a better life). The films begin slowly as the young man encounters small new experiences then moments of growth, and finally, an opportunity to make a big difference in the lives of those around him he has come to care about, climaxing with a big finish that includes impressive stunts and hilarity. This pattern is highly Keatonesque.<br />
<br />
<u>Setting:</u><br />
Finally, when it comes to that very special, big, sweeping, desert setting, I would simply argue that one could hardly declare a 'norm' for setting in the 11 great feature pictures Buster made. He set a couple in the Deep South, others in the big city; some take place in "Anytown, USA," others out camping, at college, on the wide open seas, or in a small river-town. There is no reason to declare the Arizona ranchlands outside this broad scope. Yes, the landscapes are wonderful, large and wide-open, in <i>Go West</i>, but other Keaton features have expansive and impressive natural landscapes too.<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . and, all of a sudden I find myself in the silly position of starting to feel that this post is arguing that there is nothing remarkable about <i>Go West</i>! That is the last thing I wish to do. I simply mean to suggest that <i>Go West'</i>s attributes are not strange or weird -- not out of scope for him.<br />
<br />
<br />
I<i> will</i> grant that <i>Go West</i> is unusual in one respect from his other <i>features</i>: It may be the only one in which Buster wears his signature porkpie for most of the film. The fact that he does this is itself telling of what I see as part of the genius of his intent with this film. (Which I hope to do justice to in a moment).<br />
<br />
So, having spent all this time arguing that <i>Go West</i> is "normal," let me now shift gears and try to argue for why I find it special: an underrated masterpiece.<br />
<br />
<br />
Here's the thing, though...<br />
<br />
--well, let me step out of the narrative for another moment and share something with you that might make me seem a bit of a jerk: writing usually comes very easy to me. I usually just open the computer and words and ideas come pouring out. I rarely struggle to get in tune with the big connections. But this one has been my hardest ever to write. I have really struggled to decide why, exactly, I love <i>Go West</i>. I'd been fighting this post on and off for over a month when it dawned on me (in the pre-dawn hours today) that the struggle makes perfect sense. What I love about this film is hard to pinpoint due to the nature of Buster's great talent. Silent film being the <i>perfect</i> expression for his ideas, slapping words atop it can just feel strained.<br />
<br />
In other words, my struggle to <i>verbalize</i> its merits may be the most appropriate tribute to a fantastic piece of <i>visual </i>artistry.<br />
<br />
But . . .<br />
. . . I'm writing a blog here, so that's pretty much my job. haha. I'll do it, but I'm going to stop worrying about whether I'm making a good case for <i>Go West</i>. Ultimately it stands on its own and the viewer who can get in touch with its gentle and profound loveliness can enjoy knowing they've tapped into something directly. If my thoughts help anyone reframe their expectations and experience as they watch, I'd be very happy about that, but I'm not sure I can sell its merits in a coherent way.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, in short, <i>Go West</i> is brilliant for subtle reasons that aren't as tangible as plot or message, but as vague and amorphous as mood, heart, balance, and contrast.<br />
<u><br /></u>
<u><br /></u>
<u>Brilliant Juxtaposition of Ideas</u><br />
To elaborate a bit, One of the things Keaton does stunningly, ironically and humorously is to juxtapose elements that contrast a past/simple/calm world with a modern/complex/out-of-control one.<br />
<br />
And this is where I think the pork pie comes in. By wearing his classic short-film prop and playing a character that is much more like those found in his earlier work (his short films), Keaton anchors us to the simpler time in his career - and in Hollywood. He begins the movie by placing us in a context that feels much like <i>The Goat</i> or <i>Cops</i>, with a funny and poor comic hero making desperate choices. But he goes even farther. He scales back our hero's life still more, stripping away all vestiges of modern comfort, leaving him with just a knapsack, a silly little gun, and a rapidly diminishing bread and sausage, then placing him in the starkest of surroundings.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn06Dd2sjsUBc-oFJ9bk855fYfzswVzjzopuzXNncuCN4By9DPwJd1EydxAnVwPRBpylGnucqlFlUVckI2PdpwL2MhPZWE_D3ERopKS1QhURnm4FlHAA6w32RxJcXmlWeG-4V8GaEabzY/s1600/IMG_0693.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn06Dd2sjsUBc-oFJ9bk855fYfzswVzjzopuzXNncuCN4By9DPwJd1EydxAnVwPRBpylGnucqlFlUVckI2PdpwL2MhPZWE_D3ERopKS1QhURnm4FlHAA6w32RxJcXmlWeG-4V8GaEabzY/s320/IMG_0693.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Stunning composition</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the Arizona desert, everything around him is harsh. Just look at the gorgeous, sweeping, grand expanses of the landscape. Our hero begins his awakening alone in this enormous dreamy place and soon after, he meets a cow.<br />
<br />
Here is where the visual humor really blossoms. I find this shot, for instance, bursting with so much beauty and absurdity I can hardly stand it. This image is classic Keaton comedy. And <i>Go West</i> is full of such framings.<br />
<br />
I would bet a lot of money that someone affiliated with making this film loved the desert. And maybe that's where the film best hits its mark: with desert-lovers. I know about this breed of person because I am one. As I write this, I am on a car trip crossing through western Arizona. I see landscapes around me that are almost indistinguishable from the grand vistas that provided the film's backdrop over 90 years ago. Maybe you have to love the desert to be fully in touch with its calm balance as well as its silliness. I don't know. But almost anyone should be able to appreciate that even in black and white (maybe especially in black and white) the desert scenery in <i>Go West</i> is very very lovely! <br />
<br />
Yet the desert's role here isn't to be beautiful, but rather to be a powerful metaphor for simplicity, stability, and for lack of trappings; i.e. for the scaled-back life. I have to believe Keaton used this landscape with intention.<br />
<br />
While in the desert, Friendless acts with a lovely zen-like acceptance of his new world. He never looks hot or miserable; he just jumps right in. Keaton's holistic and natural approach to the landscape and its creatures is a common and very charming theme he explores in many films. Supreme examples here are his patience, absurdly waiting for a cow to give milk or for a chicken to lay an egg. These bits are humorous and are also a study in contrasts/double purpose. Yes, they highlight Friendless' ineptitude when it comes to doing what the world expects, but they also showcase the enormous sweetness of this man in his approach to the scaled back life. (By the way, for the reader who may be interested, <a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/07/animal-magnitism.html" target="_blank">I did a post a while back on Keaton's relationships with animals in his films</a>. As great as Buster's symbiotic pairing with Brown Eyes the cow is, she is just one of several amazing animal co-stars for him.) <br />
<br />
Notice that Friendless becomes more and more competent as the film wears on and manages to evolve into an extremely useful worker who (in foreshadowing of <i>The General</i>) bravely hops on a train and defends it (and his love, Brown Eyes the cow) against robbers. But, the contrasts continue, because as Friendless steps up his game, greater levels of chaos take over the film. The biggest contrast of all is in comparing the gentle desert beginning to the great comedic sequence near the end of the film, when Keaton is in the middle of downtown LA with a herd of cattle tearing up the city. What a perfect metaphor for the crazy upheaval of modern life. It (to me) is no coincidence that in <i>this</i> setting we get Buster in a devil costume and Fatty Arbuckle in a cameo. Keaton brings elements into <i>Go West</i> that we may not have seen in a while -- like the porkpie hat, the squad of cops on the chase scene (one of the extras even does a Keystone Cops jump while he flees). Keaton subjects these images of Hollywood past to the crazed antics of a herd of cattle.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSYKPwYxcXvHwQz1G1xgTOI82Vm39UYPYVlaIhYdF9IUUAPXSX_l_QrwrN15qwEcfxtve6dNZYAhrYmrRZZnIrCjCxnR3PZZl6EkZmFpBKL1743RP25poLHsSJ92cJZA3EV7jPgTdwpc/s1600/IMG_0710.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSYKPwYxcXvHwQz1G1xgTOI82Vm39UYPYVlaIhYdF9IUUAPXSX_l_QrwrN15qwEcfxtve6dNZYAhrYmrRZZnIrCjCxnR3PZZl6EkZmFpBKL1743RP25poLHsSJ92cJZA3EV7jPgTdwpc/s320/IMG_0710.PNG" width="320" /></a>Even in the mid-1920s, Buster was part of an industry that was rapidly changing. He may have had no inkling of the revolution that was just around the corner with sound, but he could not have been immune to the way Hollywood was getting too self-important for its own good.<br />
<br />
At the time of this film, Buster's great friend Roscoe Arbuckle had already fallen victim to backlash against Hollywood's excesses. The fact that Buster hired Arbuckle for an extra in this film (present, but hidden) is telling. Arbuckle's cameo is not as a farmhand in the serene desert, but as a casualty of cattle blasting through downtown LA. Coincidence, I think not.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmCuymOR5AVfZ_lbDJDODcBxU7UR92lPujDPWPECR0hbK8Zq9E5tMnEhzxcsClG_sGuAMTyqh26B8QaloN9vUpzrATzKW4rNam8ooJe_Na28bRWHTW4koxsQQm5cgJ4t2jgmk-iWubYWA/s1600/IMG_0698.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmCuymOR5AVfZ_lbDJDODcBxU7UR92lPujDPWPECR0hbK8Zq9E5tMnEhzxcsClG_sGuAMTyqh26B8QaloN9vUpzrATzKW4rNam8ooJe_Na28bRWHTW4koxsQQm5cgJ4t2jgmk-iWubYWA/s200/IMG_0698.PNG" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdWVoMn8MXgFkUfB7BkbXQq8cy4VCMBC5MxyHR3Nb54iNvFcBw72ag97k7Gp8eZCwUx7RmaTKlXW_GouTF911xk1U_uvfFFC9c-sqypRc2V63NlIK49wR-NlGu_BJ_Aog5QHmsvoV4v8/s1600/IMG_0690.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdWVoMn8MXgFkUfB7BkbXQq8cy4VCMBC5MxyHR3Nb54iNvFcBw72ag97k7Gp8eZCwUx7RmaTKlXW_GouTF911xk1U_uvfFFC9c-sqypRc2V63NlIK49wR-NlGu_BJ_Aog5QHmsvoV4v8/s200/IMG_0690.PNG" width="200" /></a>If Go West is a study in the contrast of simplicity with excess, it is also a study in contrasts of scale. Buster explores contrasting scale through gags (the tiny purse-gun in the big holster) but also through stunning composition, highlighting the contrast between himself and the ranch owner for instance, or between himself and his cow and the enormity of the desert backdrop.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And finally, when it comes to his main storytelling theme in <i>Go West</i> (one he explores frequently in his films) -- of finding a sense of place, this film hits the nail square on the head. Just as with contrast and scale, Keaton develops the idea of "place" multidimensionally. He uses plot and character, to develop Friendless' story arc as he finds a home and real love; but, more strikingly, Keaton explores the theme of finding place <i>visually</i>.<br />
<br />
I didn't really notice this outright until a recent viewing, but Buster is often framed by windows, gates and doors in this film. These openings are viewfinders allowing us to place him, to frame his experiences on the ranch with respect to what is around him, to what he sees and to how he is seen by others. Here are just a few of my favorites, but there are others.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI6sH5Py0pYgMOLgflDhfkLkDl-FtvLsQqfdQBLwhctN9DoSLhcM0OrMil3JZbroyNLa0LSOHt78_YmL1BdVGqvAe9sFjVBU8CrrS6GFstZgcXWsbsOZVT0btK8lxKfTdsu7deJSdsRw4/s1600/IMG_0700.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI6sH5Py0pYgMOLgflDhfkLkDl-FtvLsQqfdQBLwhctN9DoSLhcM0OrMil3JZbroyNLa0LSOHt78_YmL1BdVGqvAe9sFjVBU8CrrS6GFstZgcXWsbsOZVT0btK8lxKfTdsu7deJSdsRw4/s200/IMG_0700.PNG" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmWbrGSYsLtoop2l8VgEHesKY0oUJxsdOnTpiL3DU0Y80SiCtTzQCkU5Rq6v8gjy9mjy8_CvZ3dSO5fonmFoZfeTXUo2IvgfKAGeOeBjfnzYnYiWZhizsewQlXROnHzEcyKpdPEv9rSg/s1600/IMG_0707.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmWbrGSYsLtoop2l8VgEHesKY0oUJxsdOnTpiL3DU0Y80SiCtTzQCkU5Rq6v8gjy9mjy8_CvZ3dSO5fonmFoZfeTXUo2IvgfKAGeOeBjfnzYnYiWZhizsewQlXROnHzEcyKpdPEv9rSg/s200/IMG_0707.PNG" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjArwuj55WzxG1wwy1C1X2J3ZCtWwDiYZu1QAGSLdZeY6mLSMuHZeVrmtiZikx__zSt4sB5zzRjDZNcZlLT1KbpgqN_xgQ2AGQO6_-McuDuvq27rNfgdD7bchxB_1FL1Kk4_gsJHIo9_jg/s1600/IMG_0697.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjArwuj55WzxG1wwy1C1X2J3ZCtWwDiYZu1QAGSLdZeY6mLSMuHZeVrmtiZikx__zSt4sB5zzRjDZNcZlLT1KbpgqN_xgQ2AGQO6_-McuDuvq27rNfgdD7bchxB_1FL1Kk4_gsJHIo9_jg/s200/IMG_0697.PNG" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8qna5D7U0SdZ4P31VfSTQOj4Fk65-GfuR01msrL6IsUUFh_WCxS-df00yha4sZ3RuAGSX1S-A29vTP27mSLtP6PLMKe1E_7Oq2wzRtLwG-0PpFzYvQ3OYS1drjDR88M7sM_jeDFM1FUc/s1600/IMG_0709.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8qna5D7U0SdZ4P31VfSTQOj4Fk65-GfuR01msrL6IsUUFh_WCxS-df00yha4sZ3RuAGSX1S-A29vTP27mSLtP6PLMKe1E_7Oq2wzRtLwG-0PpFzYvQ3OYS1drjDR88M7sM_jeDFM1FUc/s200/IMG_0709.PNG" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjebtUTFD1YOwi8Lk6waSXgVgUld6X3fwpgS7usLT5Wvry9a7HbpdiiFLzLMI7MmFxxOuMzRJ1q5zNFZA4bgYegNcP5wkAoq1kBhK5QZIGG8yKLxd3u4_i4f-Dp6944D3b-HxMzyuFlOzg/s1600/IMG_0708.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjebtUTFD1YOwi8Lk6waSXgVgUld6X3fwpgS7usLT5Wvry9a7HbpdiiFLzLMI7MmFxxOuMzRJ1q5zNFZA4bgYegNcP5wkAoq1kBhK5QZIGG8yKLxd3u4_i4f-Dp6944D3b-HxMzyuFlOzg/s200/IMG_0708.PNG" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
These shots are brilliant, and they are subtle. Here is a perfect example of how Keaton could bring an idea to life with such poetry using the medium of film with total attention and artistry, allowing us to experience something without being hit over the head with it. <br />
<br />
I would<i> not</i> make the claim that he necessarily or directly intended all the symbolic meaning that can be found in his imagery, but he nonetheless created it. Keaton certainly approached <i>Go West, </i>as he did his other films, with a supreme attention to detail that simply has to be appreciated, regardless of what level of meaning you find there. I believe that Keaton had very little in the way of artifice or pretension when he worked, so I'm not sure he created his masterpieces with a plan for symbolic thought, but rather through a pipeline to pure natural artistry.<br />
<br />
I <i>would</i> argue, though, that Keaton intended at least <i>some</i> of the self-aware commentary that is found in <i>Go West</i>. My proof comes from the celebrated moment I'll call the "failure to smile" scene.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ1I784SC0KXCOJIVD0GqIE5c9nfYEAkv0SzzoK3s9aEhp1DE6g4Enco2gAgbqjnUZcJiC0oMBTGmHWsjwrGW5UTIZhyWY4UI9I4D9Li9YiyzC6zEGuS-dkswlyYxcy9MPhClnf82cEPs/s1600/IMG_0702.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ1I784SC0KXCOJIVD0GqIE5c9nfYEAkv0SzzoK3s9aEhp1DE6g4Enco2gAgbqjnUZcJiC0oMBTGmHWsjwrGW5UTIZhyWY4UI9I4D9Li9YiyzC6zEGuS-dkswlyYxcy9MPhClnf82cEPs/s320/IMG_0702.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
This is a hilariously on-the-nose moment in which Keaton's character accuses another cowhand of cheating at cards and the cowhand says to him with a vicious look on his face, "when you say that, smile." The camera closes in on Keaton's beautiful face which betrays perfect consciousness that this is impossible. The scene is clearly playing to his audience's knowledge of Buster's screen persona. And Keaton celebrates the moment deliciously by slowly staring at the camera, then taking his fingers and pushing up the corners of his mouth and slowly shaking his head. It's one of the most brilliant comic ideas Keaton had: witty, ironic, flawlessly filmed and acted. Its a top-notch moment in silent comedy. And it is completely and ironically self-aware.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, yes, I love <i>Go West</i>. I love it for its beauty. For its cheeky self-awareness. For the simple harsh hot stillness of the desert landscapes and all they stand for. I love it for Buster's once again showing us that he is in control of the picture and that he has a heart for simple creatures. I love that he used Fatty Arbuckle while tearing up downtown LA. I love his shadow on the cow and his fingers on the corners of his mouth. If you need more than that to love a film, I'd say "look elsewhere;" but if this sounds like enough, I'd suggest another open-hearted viewing for this "typical" Keaton gem :)<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-61459577476502074542016-03-05T21:26:00.000-08:002017-11-17T07:18:48.739-08:00The Man With the MostestI really love a holistic approach to Keaton's work. An approach that respects his intelligent crafting of integrated and complete stories. An approach that recognizes that his body of work can't just be sliced and diced into easy snippets, for the youtube generation, but should be understood in terms of complete artistic endeavors, whole films at a time.<br />
<br />
I really do.<br />
<br />
but . . .<br />
<br />
Sometimes it's fun to think just about stellar moments, the briefest glimpses of stand-alone greatness. There are so very very many. Because when I think of favorite Buster moments, my mind gets a bit too flooded with images, I think its best to break this down into categories, like the Academy Awards for stellar clips.<br />
<br />
So, I present my awards, in no particular order, for 25 of Keaton's ________ -iest moments.<br />
<br />
<br />
... Funniest<br />
To kick off the list with funniest moment, I have to give the nod to <i>One Week</i>'s house on the tracks. Of the untold thousands of major laughs Keaton has given us, none has surpassed this amazing scene from his first independent release. It is so funny because it is so surprising. And even though I know exactly how it is going to turn out, it still takes my breath away in laughter and surprise each time I watch.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxOLthtTsFlrSOGoL6KPyCwoSNrxUySFdNA87wG9W0pnxAGHeFK5S3_laLd4nP_Ge-HKQNUKrLPBB9ljg2cUQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Bravest<br />
Buster performed countless death defying feats -- so many I wouldn't even presume to rank their relative danger. So rather than make an award for most dangerous, I want to pick a winner for unabashed bravery, and award it to the waterfall rescue from <i>Our Hospitality</i>. This moment rises to the top as the bravest thing I've ever seen him do, because, seriously!, this man is jumping off the edge of a cliff, tied in the middle with a just a rope, into a plunging body of falling water, in order to thrust out far enough into the falls to grab hold of the doll that is standing in for a reasonable human that would never be caught dead even near this falls. I simply cannot fathom the level of utter fearlessness that allowed this moment to be filmed:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxna5wvBGER71xbyMBqufT2QQNoM-YzgZphrWquA3dY9dIffeULLmufllvizGudMPRDfNW3KC7hRRJWTgbdMw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Most Charming<br />
Trying on hats in Steamboat Bill Jr. Ah, perhaps my favorite side of Keaton. The idea that the same fearless renegade who could complete the stunt above, knew how to scale it back and go try on hats with his dad charms me at a very deep level.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzLEgDNRidI9AGtN6-wTo8-mu6VauTj4RHh0rjmI89GzAdQNok_31ssJcbeP0y7Jsh4cscPpt3sogd12PiVpw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Best Running<br />
Through the streets of New York City in 1928 to see his girl in <i>The Cameraman</i>. This moment gets to me every time because who else ever could make the simple act of running (of course in this glorious backdrop) so entertaining? The answer is no one.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dykOwXleLAyXNr3F3hFKa17gYyL1_FxyIjZ9hju8tbn6UQAUonYx0Vxn-lJgq3kIMkGnRPtdQGof1wMbiaTkA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
... Most Ahead of its Time<br />
<i>Sherlock Jr's</i> split-self sleep walk. Wow, look at this unbelievably clever idea executed with extraordinary precision and skill. The whole film is a masterpiece of vision, engineering, camera-work and editing. This moment is breathtaking for very many reasons, not least of which is that this was made in 1924 and it is still completely convincing.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzlawy0ZmrNmzdUyDTpzNKcNZDAQph3RchkFLd1ail074_hHGj9c59yoQRO68q26YUM6LxMniWW4s49rlEzxA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Best Kissing<br />
<i>Le Roi des Champs Elysees</i> has a kiss with a lot going for it. The part everyone talks about comes at the end when Buster gives us a smile, but it's not the reason I selected this moment. Rather, I like the way the kiss builds in stages and by the end a great look of carnal intent comes into his eyes before he grabs her and can be seen mouthing 'oh baby' (though this is not Buster's voice). A unique and treasurable scene. (Though I apologize for the terrible video quality).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxI_eWEK9ZnVFSzHAil290937WHiMZQ4mOUpEjoS9Get1vJI6bk-rczOMCQyX-GA_XMEgfWFs5igHxvXeiLZA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
... Best Almost Kissing<br />
Bank scene in <i>The Haunted House</i> with a very pretty and coquettish young woman.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxF_o488E78WmRe5eH7-aATXkAiiWOGcOjAOFL3NLBTxPYCWUm0XWcYmC9WQd4vhk4r9zyMqijdWOmB3P5B' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Fiercest<br />
<i>Battling Butler</i>'s I can't take it no more moment (which had been prefaced by several additional minutes of Buster first trying to avoid the fight and get away before), ripping loose and raging. I'm not sure there's anything like this in any other Keaton film and that's probably fine, because this one is so brilliant. A gorgeous and powerful moment.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxEIs01L7QHFu4MRPa6LEdHlvrqNOE1N9EWurxaKy4IK1FjDXc7bB_IquENrBVtzCE5IDa4pY48hf_FGNMevQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Saddest<br />
Rescuing the girl in <i>The Cameraman</i>. Another somewhat unique moment because Keaton didn't do a lot of tugging at our heartstrings. But here he shows how incredibly well the man can sell heartbreak. This is a devastating moment in his canon.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dybfzM-spJ3_b8T_5gWsaPdre919kn3fZK4XH4OeLG1o_B2AWuNc6Qy-w4mpc7Nw38B_p9yqVWeJxDoNMFEQA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Best Engineering<br />
The house in <i>The Scarecrow</i>. Tell me, how would you like to live here?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx8I9LG5E9CTpyJIEm8nBmBSDU-4teBouRmj_8CvXOddlDP2dIs2qd2oBIi3IaA7AuUoLs4XzDwpTyZXRjnEA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Bestest Fall Ever<br />
<i>Steamboat Bill'</i>s coil of rope. There are no words :)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx1Gvm9o9za5e2nOiZr8SNVPj3aduIAfJaU434tFMFd4Ygk8Lla1nz7KH3NL3h99Rc7DuUmvV51M-NLKAXB9A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Sexiest<br />
<i>The Cameraman's</i> dressing room scene was almost the winner for the "funniest" moment, but I'm logging it here instead. It's not really actually "sexy" I suppose, in terms of their intent toward each other, but anyone with eyes must appreciate how, in addition to being one of the funniest things ever committed to film, this scene showcases Buster stripping, which has to qualify as sexy. I mean, yeah.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwDzktzuA2jvYOYPpes4rwLKv7xcJ2K2-YR9gtY1a6VTkERMAwGp0WQUe4RC9SL85FLE1UjVtf2E3kZSyqIxg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Most Jaw Dropping.<br />
The house in <i>Steamboat Bill Jr.</i> I saw this film in a movie theater a while back, after having already been a Keaton fan for years. I had seen the scene dozens, maybe hundreds, of times as a clip and in the full movie. But I still gasped when it happened on the big screen in front of me. My jaw dropped as the house dropped. Beyond stunning.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzWpXgLPGgVBSw8h9xijLW7Hi8sYaZe5wb_7H1mgxj-UgD3Y6g4cfNOFRiaqeTqiJLqDLyfEXSWBIZxXRRxkA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Most Romantic<br />
The eyes have it in <i>The Cameraman</i>. Oh my. Incredible and beautiful. Both of them; and the camera work. Devastatingly romantic moment.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dy_28e_r1b7O29Xx3_W9ah0OpmJ6W2HwGAExwnaAyCFEyRUg3H4GE3MZP2GSW4tWHTQHbUcMywo9tfZJjm1xg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Cleverest<br />
<i>Sherlock Jr's</i> cut scenes. The intelligence and skill that went into these cut scenes just cannot be praised highly enough. Buster and his crack team demonstrate profound cleverness to have envisioned this sequence and to have given it such a full and perfect realization.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz80vwCX0EzC_2iP4dR6HWpGrOCTY5P4_BzmyAW8P4A8X89ZRldMdPB9PyZgxHQjL4LM7eAzY1vQuQQ3Q1_gA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
... Most Impossible to Ever Duplicate<br />
Railroad ties in <i>The General</i>. I can hardly believe this didn't take off his head. Dangerous, yes. Brave, absolutely. Jaw-dropping, most clearly. But this scene with the railway ties? it chiefly strikes me as something that will never ever, could never ever, ever! be done again.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyNv4IEV-JYWRDab5qMuh96pMaw3MreUkPXZE7r3Y0NrftUjQgisT9xL-af5He2G8Tl8ZA9QBskujs5z6XiaA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
... Yummiest<br />
Yeah, we're going with the <i>Hard Luck</i> pool scene.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyeA4DpO8qr1rVtL2GKaHuyBa6-Zwu9EaqOUjeIn-G1y_mkhvDGnt9kLomGgqBGn8BxIXQM0EaZ1tnLp9e7yw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
... Most Unbelievable<br />
<i>Cops'</i> car ride. Yes, I realize I already have categories for "Impossible to Duplicate" and "Jaw Dropping" and maybe you're thinking this is getting redundant. But no, this is different. This special moment in time is light, hilarious and quick. In the blink of an eye, Buster vanishes on the back of a car, legs flying out behind him and all you can think is "Did I just see what I thought I saw?" "Did he really just do that?!"<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzRBYgUM2f2H6ld8VJWGTaEUUSLw-lvLKcH06lkfmypBeaE4pS0NXF6L2HSEK9Vl05l01lYcbv6mlGf1MDsSg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Most Athletic<br />
Are you kidding me? Up and down how many levels on this boat? In how many seconds? <i>Steamboat Bill Jr</i>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxgyGMeJuXSlRe1yBMUE7hw4Smwn9PuQl1vdGSj6sVQMLZ4Q8o8tL1OhSN1pRrBnITlXcxSz5tKxzoONT41' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Most gorgeous<br />
MGM gives us a beauty shot and I thank them. <3 <i>Spite Marriage.</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwUeP8j7eIP4yxcUMR5Erg8TGGCAZliKAloZqpmxwoRRUWDv8DCTOE_FK2dAqw7KRpZolkWwkWeXWCiqIjAtw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
... Most mesmerizing<br />
Another great Keaton moment brought to you by The Cameraman, here is an incredible 3 minutes of Keaton pantomiming a baseball game at Yankee Stadium.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwyJCnysLZh9ynjAMC6dW9f_IlMhl8pqhaLk9zm8mAJTMqDcHMJXMStIz0t66E_acJOnMW8Oq3Ec7Jka1W7uw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Melancholiest<br />
Rail riding in <i>The General</i>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyvQrijdWiTcPygU9XllYdyeGYSSWO7SUT_9LOTQEEh2-NTJ7cBo22mlInRMo33QFeYkl7IGgQPeZ-TlipHCg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
... Most self aware, a/k/a Best Failure to Smile<br />
<i>Go West</i>. This has to be one of the cheekiest and ironic moments in his films. I love this scene 6 million loves.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx-t7D_s7-giwA5Wn6YmXU3L1CTpSnHePKr2RGAA2dYPpHEDntfKDxL_PkeQ2vQlGeB8s0i92LWO8h11E3sbw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
... Best actual smile<br />
A young Keaton enjoys making time with his flirty friend in drag, Fatty Arbuckle, in <i>Goodnight Nurse</i>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzKyvMr1owkB7PwrCSdpf8lbsppYTEb0ibGpy7Qel5EK75JNEf6f1gPVEk4m9lMQBhQHvU3tz3dqJtPJ-L1nw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
.... Cutest<br />
Kiss and run. I'll end this list where I began it with a scene from One Week and the cutest 1920s couple in the world Buster Keaton and Sybil Seely.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxc7R2EbQXIUlJCIkEJepKwENXfXeIjUH8QEgkQ-iak578yOfllMk0hgphbcKPah17g25KkAUMwlrZWQZzspw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Disagree with my picks? Or have I failed to include some of your favorite moments? Please describe them here! I'd love anyone to share.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-63961889965347814152016-02-14T20:36:00.002-08:002018-06-21T12:00:55.561-07:00Women Were Not PropsSomething I've heard time and again -- from commentators who speak of his work -- is that the leading actresses in Buster Keaton films were no more than "props" to this great master. <br />
<br />
This idea rankles and has always sat ill with me. I mean to take it on.<br />
<br />
An unfortunate challenge with confronting this "props" theory, is that it seems to have been declared notably by Eleanor Keaton herself (<i>see, e.g</i>., 1995 interview with John C. Tibbets), possibly originating with Buster -- obviously formidable authorities. Others have repeated this so often that it has taken hold as a truism: Keaton's leading ladies were weak (as comedians), chosen mainly for their proportions, placed in scenes to be handled and molded, or otherwise of limited or diminished value. (<i>See, e.g., </i><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-15/entertainment/ca-20962_1_mabel-normand/2" target="_blank">LA Times Article quoting film historian David Gill</a>).<br />
<br />
But they have it wrong. Certainly there are some Keaton films where the leading female role is not central or essential, but I would never agree that, generally speaking, Keaton's leading ladies were unimportant or just props. <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1d/05/2d/1d052de328e570b88e627f7f2fb596a6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1d/05/2d/1d052de328e570b88e627f7f2fb596a6.jpg" width="143" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">with Joe Roberts</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Lets start with the idea that Keaton selected leading ladies for their proportions. Well, duh. <br />
<br />
Keaton was a visual genius who chose many actors in his films at least in part for their physical characteristics. As Keaton must have learned early on while working with Fatty Arbuckle, the juxtaposition of himself with a tall rotund man is itself visual comedy. When Keaton struck out on his own, he consistently chose to work with Big Joe Roberts at least in part for this reason. And think about the hilarious relative size of 5'5" Keaton with Ingram B. Pickett, purportedly 6'11", looking almost like members of different species in <i>The High Sign</i>. Consider, too, that Keaton knew what he was doing when he worked with Snitz Edwards as a sidekick, who was only 5 foot flat and made Keaton look big.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/75/e3/2c/75e32c9ddf20077fb4585106afc5764f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/75/e3/2c/75e32c9ddf20077fb4585106afc5764f.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">with Ingram Pickett</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
With similar attention to visual considerations but probably opposite intent, Keaton surely chose leading actresses whose size complemented his own so as <i>not</i> to introduce an element of comedy in a pairing when it was meant to be romantic and plausible where there was no wish to draw attention to stature. Obviously, Keaton also knew how to use physical characteristics of women as a source of comedy when he wanted to. That talent is on display in his scenes with a non-petite Kate Price in <i>My Wife's Relations</i> or with the tall, leggy, Charlotte Greenwood in <i>Parlor Bedroom and Bath</i>. Given all of this, I think an intelligent take on the generally petite size of Keaton's leading ladies is that this was a smart choice for non-distracting photographic symmetry in romantic pairings and that it need not be seen as evidence that their talent did not matter.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/01/a4/c3/01a4c3a3118cbb0d4c06c8f13dde8a8f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/01/a4/c3/01a4c3a3118cbb0d4c06c8f13dde8a8f.jpg" width="165" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">with Charlotte Greenwood</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Though size may have been a concern in selecting an actress (or actor) to appear in a Keaton film, it can hardly follow that this was the only consideration and I take umbrage with the idea that a leading actress (petite or otherwise) needed only to be thrown about on screen to serve her role. First of all, if you take a look through his filmography, you might notice that Keaton truly didn't do that much manhandling of women in his independent silent work; certainly not in his silent shorts. Yes, this style of comedy came up in his later features, notably <i>The General</i> and <i>The Navigator</i>, but the scenes Keaton commentators (including himself and his wife) might have been thinking most about when they said he treated women as props could be those from his later MGM talkies, such as <i>Spite Marriage</i>, <i>Parlor Bedroom and Bath</i>, <i>Speak Easily</i> or <i>What No Beer. </i>These later films are undoubtedly ones over which Keaton had significantly less artistic control than he had in his independent silents, thus I am not sure to what extent he had much say in selecting actresses or determining plot details of those works. If other producers were responsible for selecting and creating roles for actresses in such talkies, I suggest they be held accountable for their choices with respect to women, not Keaton. :)<br />
<br />
So now we reach the central question. Accepting: (1) that the fact that Keaton's leading ladies were small in stature is not alone dispositive on the issue and (2) ignoring films over which Keaton had minimal creative control, we can get to the heart of the underlying issue: were the leading ladies that appeared in Keaton's films talented in their own right? Did they add something to the productions, besides being manhandleable? I would claim that many if not most of these women are profoundly appealing on their own -- having charisma, charm, comedic chops and worthy screen presence -- and/or played roles that were essential to Keaton's finest work.<br />
<br />
Starting with the numbers, I'm going to hold Keaton accountable for <i>his</i> treatment of women in 30 films (20 shorts and 11 features, including <i>The Cameraman)</i>. Of those 30, I find the leading lady to be memorable and/or important for her ability to convey attributes that matter to plot or theme in all but a handful. Maybe 5 or so. And I am prepared to defend this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrryfa95Us4VBkXaHGtXvZVvbKJI1zAkyxEzWrffGstiXik_FohrErG6FtLc8iZkhzWkSEzh4Aupsc0B0shlm5Tny9aeoWUcjHGycTd8QZLuJBGrNDQ08NynVFV6ByB2mQpgNZZANZDuw/s1600/keaton-oneweek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrryfa95Us4VBkXaHGtXvZVvbKJI1zAkyxEzWrffGstiXik_FohrErG6FtLc8iZkhzWkSEzh4Aupsc0B0shlm5Tny9aeoWUcjHGycTd8QZLuJBGrNDQ08NynVFV6ByB2mQpgNZZANZDuw/s200/keaton-oneweek.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
I'll start with Sybil Seely, his costar in 5 independent shorts (including <i>One Week</i>, <i>The Scarecrow</i> and <i>The Boat</i>). Seely's presence is not uniformly well-utilized in all five of these movies, but is undeniably an essential part of the charm of the best of them: <i>One Week</i>. Were Seely just a prop, this movie would have been weaker by far. But she brings a heaping dose of sweetness, as a woman who loves her new husband and works tirelessly to inhabit the home they are making. She herself is a zen kind of presence, plotting her own course in her own home, cooking outside, drawing hearts on the wall, and demonstrating her irritation with this charming but frustrating man. She is the young wife that wants to impress at a dinner party and stubbornly tries to pull <i>her</i> house off the tracks at the end. She is the reason we so want this house to succeed. It is <i>her</i> expectations, forbearance and frustration as well as her constant sweet love, that form the solid foundation upon which all the comedy lays. She is certainly no cardboard cutout, she is an essential part of the film. One would not care nearly so much about Keaton's endeavors to build this house were it not for this excruciatingly real woman who is the everywoman lens we frame the plot through. Seely showed great skill as an important teammate to Buster in the other movies she appeared in as well. In <i>The Boat</i> she adds a similar necessary element of partnership to the plot's function and interest. And <i>The Scarecrow</i> showcases her innocence, charm and companionship. The best of the films she appeared in are best <i>precisely because</i> her roles were allowed to be more fleshed out.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm1rwu1tPN1qbxoi2o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm1rwu1tPN1qbxoi2o1_500.jpg" height="158" width="200" /></a>On to Virgina Fox who costarred in fully 10 of Keaton's independent short films including some of his very best: <i>Cops</i>, <i>The Goat</i>, and <i>The Playhouse</i>, to name three. Although Fox does not have the same personal charisma and charm of Seely, what she does have is a very strong, cold, aloof, counterpoint to Keaton's matter of fact directness. While I would argue that <i>One Week</i> is the best of his short films in large measure because Seely and Keaton together are an amazing team that sell the story so completely, I would also argue that Keaton <i>himself</i> displays his best comedic skill when he is solo, flying free. In films where a solo-Keaton is the point, the leading lady does not become inconsequential. Rather, she becomes important for an entirely different reason. Fox -- because she is good at what she does in these exceptional films -- represents the conservative world concerned with propriety and appearance. She, like the world around him, is unfeeling and unimpressed. Unattainable. She is the opposite of a prop. In fact, Keaton hardly touches her in these (and other films) in which she appears. He can't -- though he might wish to -- because she is a part of something he can't quite have. Fox is essential because her personal style and performance choices allow this central theme of Keaton as societal outcast to be so fully realized. Keaton has to have known she was the perfect 'foil' in this way, because he used her again and again to fulfill that need. We should all be thankful to Fox for selling this untouchability so well because it forms the backdrop of much of what made Keaton, at his apex, great.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUIZ0zr0IZVM8H9PiD5JzdeV6FsqtMcCzuCEvcoUAqaeHySpTnyOsI4Mak7-qc0OvxRY85r_wemi-Yfoa3K37jApZ809iT5EPJq70EZbROG4i81ljAer0TiRZms9AubWLXTRnThJIEEwM/s1600/kate+price.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="208" data-original-width="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUIZ0zr0IZVM8H9PiD5JzdeV6FsqtMcCzuCEvcoUAqaeHySpTnyOsI4Mak7-qc0OvxRY85r_wemi-Yfoa3K37jApZ809iT5EPJq70EZbROG4i81ljAer0TiRZms9AubWLXTRnThJIEEwM/s1600/kate+price.jpg" /></a>Others who've taken up the mantel I'm carrying here (that Keaton was not a sexist), have have often cited actresses like Kate Price (pictured right) and Phyllis Haver as women who broke the typical Keaton mold and exemplify feminine archetypes that are powerful. This is true. Kate Price was nearly 20 years Keaton's senior and while she may not have been meant to be taken seriously as a love interest for Keaton, how brave and endearing are the choices that let this fine actress share screen time as his wife in <i>My Family's Relations</i>. Price's engaging presence allows her to own her share of the film without question. Similarly, Phyllis Haver is often held up as an example of an extremely capable female character who inhabits Keaton's world in<i> The Balloonatic</i>. Haver plays a strong, outdoors-woman who is not a shrinking violet by any standard, but is hardy and real. These are examples showing that Keaton was not afraid to employ a strong-female lead for the right kind of story. And, although maybe not a strong, central female lead, I think we can also point to Bartine Burkett's interesting role in <i>The High Sign</i> as one that involved a quirky personality and acting choices that had little to do with what Keaton was up to (I'm thinking of her memorable turn as a ukulele-playing daughter.)<br />
<br />
What all of the foregoing really points to is the broad diversity of female character types that were in fact employed by Keaton in the short films over which he exerted great influence and control. His choices were not uniform, but were wise and sharp and attuned to the skills of these women. Whether he even realized he was doing it, Keaton integrated the talents and features of leading ladies that added to any given plot or theme he developed in his films.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/kathryn-mcguire-stars-with-buster-keaton-in-a-scene-from-the-by-picture-id3298790" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/kathryn-mcguire-stars-with-buster-keaton-in-a-scene-from-the-by-picture-id3298790" height="156" width="200" /></a></div>
Now lets turn our attention to Keaton's feature length movies and explore some of the leading ladies who shared the screen with him in these 10 independent films. I'll start with my favorite: Katherine McGuire, who starred in both <i>Sherlock Jr</i> and <i>The Navigator</i>. Having recently re-watched both of these great films, I simply cannot state strongly enough how much McGuire's presence enriched both for me, particularly in <i>The Navigator</i>, where she carries half the film as a collaborator on nearly equal footing with Keaton. Just as in <i>One Week</i>, where the presence of a team we care about sets off the gags and gives importance and meaning to what would otherwise just be "funny," the whole film <i>The Navigator</i> is enriched by a worthy partner. Much is written about Keaton's great 'saphead' character (used here as well as in other films), but it should not be forgotten that McGuire's own aristocratic ineptitude is necessary for <i>The Navigator</i> to work. She exhibits it in her attempts to make coffee, her setting off roman candles, her running around the decks of the ship in great abandon, and her sealing Keaton up into the scuba suit, to name a few moments. Her role isn't ancillary, but essential to the idea that they are a rather inept team that is up the creek without a paddle. But we nonetheless care about them! Their chemistry is palpable in part because <i>McGuire </i>is a charismatic, funny, and intelligent misfit and her fleshing out this character with real acting chops is necessary to our caring about what happens to the pair of them on this great big boat.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVlO9EcfytIPSvYgKRab4iR6Ksr8NOyBaJGR9sbXq7iX51ZFf87nDoK12-vYXsVOs9ji1O_xLrTXxU5HujyW1tyXL5OB5uuqWS8D_KBAWfl_tn4hqQYemNc74J5m-_uTMxrO64aFg0LI/s1600/mcguire+solves+crime.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="838" data-original-width="1060" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVlO9EcfytIPSvYgKRab4iR6Ksr8NOyBaJGR9sbXq7iX51ZFf87nDoK12-vYXsVOs9ji1O_xLrTXxU5HujyW1tyXL5OB5uuqWS8D_KBAWfl_tn4hqQYemNc74J5m-_uTMxrO64aFg0LI/s200/mcguire+solves+crime.png" width="200" /></a>When people argue that Keaton was sexist in his choice of women's parts and leading ladies, I fume, because Keaton in fact often set women off as the more competent counter-point to his own character's ineptitude and struggles. It should not be forgotten that in Keaton's best movie ever, <i>Sherlock Jr</i>., McGuire plays the woman who actually solves the crime, with simple, elegant competence, unlike her bumbling boyfriend. Also think of Anne Cornwall in <i>College</i> or Marceline Day in <i>The Cameraman</i> as examples of competent, modern-women (a college co-ed and a career woman) who are popular, charming and in control of their lives, while also expressing a warmth and caring that captures Keaton's heart. Strong capable intelligent women are all over the place in Keaton films.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'll mention two other stand out performances from Keaton's independent features and then rest my case.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/74/21/b17421a941bacd6a24cc0d90a95f021c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/74/21/b17421a941bacd6a24cc0d90a95f021c.jpg" width="147" /></a>Marion Mack in <i>The General</i>. We are told at the beginning of the film that Buster has two loves: his girl, Annabelle Lee, and his engine, the General. Keaton's use of the locomotive is one of unparalleled gall, as he exhibits every bit of acrobatic skill and grace crawling up over and below this prop throughout the film. There is no question that the steam train makes a capable prop, but it is not a co-star. And I am aware that this film has been oft-cited as an example of the love-interest-as-prop criticism I am taking head-on here. Yes, we see Keaton work tirelessly in, around, and with Annabelle Lee, as his second treasure, while she sits often bewildered in the center. But this "woman as prop" take betrays a limited sense of what it means for an <i>actress</i> to make that happen. What I mean is, Mack was a flesh and blood human actress, not a steam train. It is absurd to think that being called upon to serve as love object in <i>The General</i> was an easy feat. If one is to say that an actress is "just" a prop in a movie like this, I would argue that one has never attempted to make just any actress act as a prop. Its like saying Jim Carey's face is just a face; just an object he uses to perform with. Saying so obscures the skill it takes to make this type of action look good. Marian Mack is a goddess. She was called upon to inhabit and sell a character while performing physical stunts and having physical stunts performed in and around her. No one who wasn't a skilled physical comedienne could have pulled it off -could have taken on this role with such believability. To the extent that <i>The General</i> shows us an example of a movie where Keaton goes crazy with his props, I think this serves to showcase the tremendous skill and talent of the actress who was at the heart of it all, selflessly allowing the action to proceed flawlessly all around her and just dealing with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://1001films.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/tg1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://1001films.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/tg1.jpg" width="200" /></a>So, yes, being a good prop should actually be viewed as hark work. But that said, I would stop and take on the underlying assumption that Mack was no more than a prop, a backdrop. In addition to being a game physical comedienne, she also played a woman who was a driving force, a locus of calm and determination, the lens of normalcy. Mack gives us the same sort of willing participant that Kathryn McGuire had been in <i>The Navigator</i> -- a role that makes the viewer feel grounded. It is her steady, up for anything, presence, picking out logs for the boiler, or sitting up all night with Keaton that makes us feel safe and connected to the action. Essential? Yes! There could have been no <i>The General</i> without such a female at the center with Buster.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ae0zGsleKVBGehdyT1a5Ymx4xEGj9GkyH0urhEqePrbgPPRVGc1n5TXzhG6NFmkH-JDt4X7qiF0-ST81vKnpia1dfwj5J1ti7nZdKvHhj-_xqU1x6FSCsaOOKF9jiOduaoSvHAJw7lA/s1600/tumblr_m8lp279hbt1qh6mhbo1_500.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ae0zGsleKVBGehdyT1a5Ymx4xEGj9GkyH0urhEqePrbgPPRVGc1n5TXzhG6NFmkH-JDt4X7qiF0-ST81vKnpia1dfwj5J1ti7nZdKvHhj-_xqU1x6FSCsaOOKF9jiOduaoSvHAJw7lA/s1600/tumblr_m8lp279hbt1qh6mhbo1_500.png" width="158" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/98/c9/e9/98c9e9ee6cdacb148c9db24b613e1f2a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/98/c9/e9/98c9e9ee6cdacb148c9db24b613e1f2a.jpg" width="191" /></a>Finally, we get to my other favorite Keaton film of all time, <i>Steamboat Bill Jr.</i> And what I consider to be one of Keaton's most appealing screen co-stars, Marion Byron. What a charmer! She is spunky, and cute as a button. She suits Keaton physically so well in this film, I just want to gaze at them together. She's the Meg Ryan of her time and I want to pick her up and put her in my pocket. Were someone to suggest that <i>Sleepless in Seattle</i> would have been just as good with any other actress, I'd say they were insane. Byron, like Ryan, adds a charm, and fanciful flourish to a part that is needed to offset Keaton's earnest, but more stoic endeavors. Byron enchants the audience with her charisma and makes us understand why it is so important for Keaton to be with her. As with some of the other Keaton leading ladies, she does actually get manhandled a bit here, and negotiates it extremely well. This is an incredibly appealing film, due in no small part, to the great screen appeal of Byron.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, if you need one last push over the edge, I offer myself -- I mean my experience watching Keaton -- as testament. When I first started watching his silents, I enjoyed several Keaton films without the 'benefit' of any extensive reading or commentary about them. I was highly surprised when I learned later that people were saying things like Buster didn't value his leading actresses or that he used them as props, because my own immediate response upon seeing his films for the first time had been: "wow, how cool that he was so enlightened and non-sexist in his portrayal of women." My first reaction as a modern intelligent woman, was that his films treated women in a modern, empowered and intelligent way.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'll leave you with this: What Keaton did so exceptionally well in his independent work was to understand <i><b>Story</b></i> at a deep level. And he was fluid and pragmatic about what was needed to tell a story. When a story called for teamwork, companionship and collaboration of an onscreen pairing, he utilized actresses that could provide a satisfying partner in the antics (think, McGuire in <i>The Navigator</i>, Seely in <i>One Week</i>, or Haver in <i>The Balloonatic</i>.) When the story called for Buster to be a misfit loner trying to piece together an existence, free from cops and other entanglements, the leading lady was apt to be standoffish and capable of expressing a cool counterpoint that left Buster alone (think Fox in <i>Cops </i>or <i>The Goat</i>, or Ruth Dwyer in <i>Seven Chances</i>). Where the story was more romantic, and a leading lady was needed to sell an attainable womanly appeal and kindheartedness, the perfect choices were actresses like Byron in <i>Steamboat Bill Jr</i> or Day in <i>The Camerama</i>n. And when, on occasion, a strong comedienne helped sell a story, Buster knew how to work with actresses like Kate Price or Charlotte Greenwood. <br />
<br />
In most cases, these 1920s era silent film actresses shine with star quality, pluck and appeal that stands the test of time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-57264119024475709882014-09-08T12:11:00.000-07:002014-09-08T12:23:55.622-07:00Speak Easily (1932)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM7FeBKIPMWUUn_cm-QYQVo6-9PCbcCWnCwnh47qdXDyPcP4QOVT0YaoFxFDK4tOXaGqWsRdfUU91AG86WbYyJ6vQ77x4qvscLOXMxu6tPUOg-2C-2Zni7yl-IksjHhefiduLeoYWIgBA/s1600/buster+as+prof+in+speak+easily.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM7FeBKIPMWUUn_cm-QYQVo6-9PCbcCWnCwnh47qdXDyPcP4QOVT0YaoFxFDK4tOXaGqWsRdfUU91AG86WbYyJ6vQ77x4qvscLOXMxu6tPUOg-2C-2Zni7yl-IksjHhefiduLeoYWIgBA/s1600/buster+as+prof+in+speak+easily.jpg" height="320" width="222" /></a></div>
In <i>Speak Easily</i>, we meet Buster Keaton as a precise, bland, and lonely professor, who, tragically, wears a ridiculously ugly pair of spectacles ... and seems to need to walk with his head tipped up to keep them on. Despite these limitations, when he learns he's inherited a large sum of money, our Prof has enough sense to run off and indulge in all that life has to offer. And, happily, that involves a train. Although the first 10 minutes of this film do drag, and it is hard to figure out where we're going or whether you should stick with it, if you do (stick with it) long enough, you are rewarded with Keaton on a train, Keaton with a baby, Keaton in an apt with a hot chick and, eventually, Keaton in a stage show.<br />
<br />
And yes, it is probably worth it.<br />
<br />
Although there are times where Buster's subtle style gets overwhelmed by the loud antics of co-star Jimmy Durante, the movie is probably one of their better collaborations. I found myself enjoying Durante's singing and jokes, and the light easy tone of the stage production that forms the central plot.<br />
<br />
So, on to that "plot" thing, though I'm not sure it matters so much how we get there, we ultimately end up with a show of dancers in a New York stage production with the Professor as their backer. There is a sweet and lovely dancer called Pansy that Buster meets and follows, as well as a sexpot named Eleanor -- a gold digger who throws herself at the Prof when everyone learns he's loaded (with cash, that is; though, honestly, given that this is 1932, I imagine Keaton is probably loaded with alcohol as well.) And speaking of that kind of loaded, that is what the Professor and Eleanor do next at her apartment. Right here, see, the film starts to get more interesting.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJeApE0Q4ehsvF5N2k7ac0tJWr6cppWeuZnrcWiu3H-0fik5oN2qIMXfeGJKzD4XkIJL7Hl8k4RozIaXc-PsaaxVk5cOhyphenhyphenuwUG0ZEG4vholCzBAzx7Cfq9Bnqvd8sogQR6qt1Kc7Yr_lU/s1600/speak+easily.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJeApE0Q4ehsvF5N2k7ac0tJWr6cppWeuZnrcWiu3H-0fik5oN2qIMXfeGJKzD4XkIJL7Hl8k4RozIaXc-PsaaxVk5cOhyphenhyphenuwUG0ZEG4vholCzBAzx7Cfq9Bnqvd8sogQR6qt1Kc7Yr_lU/s1600/speak+easily.jpg" height="248" width="320" /></a>There is some excellent stuff in the apartment, including great falls and a hilarious manhandling of the floppy drunk woman, all of which Keaton does so convincingly, you wonder if he had some life experience to draw upon. . . hmmm, but I digress.<br />
<br />
Back to the plot. Unfortunately, it turns out the Prof doesn't really have an inheritance, and all seems lost, with him unable to back the show. But when an officer shows up on opening night ready to collect cash that is owed, the crew finagles a way and the show goes on. The real fun comes when the Prof inadvertently turns the show into a comedy -- by crashing around the stage and cracking everyone up with his earnest attempts to smooth out production issues. With Durante's help, they turn the performance into an uproarious hit and all ends well with the show getting sold for $100,000 and Pansy and the Prof coming to a right understanding.<br />
<br />
All in all this film is very typical of the MGM era work in most respects. It is reasonably good, very amusing at times, though not tight, exciting, or especially creative. And <i>Speak Easily</i> is that much the better for the industry's having finally figured out this 'sound' thing fairly well. In fact, I never noticed anything about the quality or condition of the sound itself during this film. And that is a blessing. The flow of the film was pretty nice and the chemistry all around was good. So, why didn't I rate it higher? To me it is just a solid "6.0" I don't know. The whole thing just felt rather dull. I never became invested in what happened to anyone. I watched it, even enjoyed it, but never felt engaged with it, as had been the case with <i>Parlor Bedroom and Bath</i> when I re-watched it a week ago and gave it a 6.5, despite its flaws, for that reason. <br />
<br />
In any case, I am mainly thrilled to report that this entry represents my final review of Keaton's MGM-era work and I'm DONE with having to think about this somewhat melancholy time for a while. ... And, I think that also means its time to turn back the clock and look at some of his "real" work. I can't wait, because I'm seriously ready to look at some 10s!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-86545560880679178942014-08-24T20:58:00.000-07:002014-09-08T12:23:39.963-07:00Parlor Bedroom and Bath (1931)<div class="MsoNormal">
In the spirit of knitting up loose ends, I watched Parlor Bedroom and Bath again. I became aware, upon posting my wrap-up of the MGM work,
that I’d forgotten to review this one. I’m really glad that I looked at it again, because, though I’d forgotten it, it turns out it is fairly memorable. Wink. Well... it at least has a number of very memorable elements.</div>
<br />
Once of those elements has to be the filming location at Buster’s Beverly Hills mansion, The Italian Villa. The film is made in 1931 and is his third MGM talkie. Clearly Keaton’s career is not heading in the right direction and the savvy fan knows that it will not be long before he really hits the skids both personally and professionally, but at the moment of this film, it is impossible to feel too sorry him -- for anyone who lives in the house on display in this film. It is amazing. Not just because it’s a 10,000 square foot mansion, but because it has such a … oh, where are some good architectural words when you need them?… balanced, charming, open character. It is a lovely place. <a href="http://www.period-homes.com/article/keat1.htm">Here</a> is an article from Period Homes about the history of the Italian Villa and <a href="http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/behold_buster_keatons_oncelost_film_vault_and_lovely_estate.php">here</a> some pictures from a recent Hollywood benefit event taking place at the newly restored Villa. This film is worth watching for any Keaton fan just for the opportunity to view this slice of his once opulent lifestyle.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnc1wP3-xpo2QfnTrjxS5mcQ_6ayPkidRL0AcVQS6tN5Q3IGgYZPow8nfPykyT2DxXdFnsFQKTJoKSnD5lsTOCPqaK_JgjFPJvmEbqWW28nVjbsk-pqNcgRSwb9tvBX0DQRfbBQfB9XDM/s1600/the+italian+villa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnc1wP3-xpo2QfnTrjxS5mcQ_6ayPkidRL0AcVQS6tN5Q3IGgYZPow8nfPykyT2DxXdFnsFQKTJoKSnD5lsTOCPqaK_JgjFPJvmEbqWW28nVjbsk-pqNcgRSwb9tvBX0DQRfbBQfB9XDM/s1600/the+italian+villa.jpg" height="252" width="320" /></a></div>
Watching the film, the viewer gets not only to be a bit of a voyeur into Buster's once lofty Hollywood status, but also to marvel at another great Keaton talent: his ability to craft amazing things. I understand that he designed and planned out every detail of this home. Had fate not smiled on him with the performance genes, Keaton could easily have been an engineer or an architect.<br />
<br />
But the film's worth goes beyond the cool mansion. It is actually quite an entertaining romp in some ways. It is, however, also distractingly flawed, and I've decided that its biggest problem is a split personality. But more on that in a moment. First, the basics.<br />
<br />
There is an amusing though
rather odd plot, where a younger sister’s fiancé is desperate to get the older sister (Angelica) married, so that the younger will be willing to marry him. He (Jeffrey, played nicely by Reginald Denny) accidentally hits a man who is working by the road (Reggie) and brings him up to the house to have him nursed back to health. Of course Reggie, the regular guy, is played by Keaton. When Angelica wishes to nurse Reggie, Jeffrey comes up with a great idea of upselling him as a great lover -- to further spark her interest. The ploy works to an extent. Angelica <i>is</i> interested when she believes him to be a cad and a high-society home-wrecker, but loses interest when she begins to realize he's just an innocent nobody. So Jeffrey goes to greater lengths to deceive her and works up a fake seduction plan with a friend (Polly, played brilliantly by Charlotte Greenwood) to serve as as bait with the intent that Angelica will discover the pair and fall head over heels for Reggie. Of course, complications ensure, and Buster ends up pretend-seducing not just Polly, but 3 other women in the hotel room. Fun indeed.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp79voBz4QM8uBjY09EAMWnQbp-jHBZx8G1Mom3COsJcQsnB6lCYQ9SIqxCOd2jdpoD3GL_yDpvDhbKwrE9ruDwoUixiraZZ12Qsk89_BivY71M7_qSolnZVx3OYbv-y2WhyphenhyphenrRqaxDSQA/s1600/Keaton+and+Greenwood.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp79voBz4QM8uBjY09EAMWnQbp-jHBZx8G1Mom3COsJcQsnB6lCYQ9SIqxCOd2jdpoD3GL_yDpvDhbKwrE9ruDwoUixiraZZ12Qsk89_BivY71M7_qSolnZVx3OYbv-y2WhyphenhyphenrRqaxDSQA/s1600/Keaton+and+Greenwood.png" height="298" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
This is all rather amusing. Though, given the time period, the film suffers from the feel of actors still not quite cut out for the requirements of sound film. In particular, I found the over-enunciation and gesticulating coming from Angelica, her sister, and their friend Nita, to be irritating. Keaton himself and Reginald Denny are much more fluid with the sound medium. But perhaps the best character and the best acting of all, comes from Charlotte Greenwood who is incredible fun here. She presents such a relaxed easy presence and great charisma that make it hard to look away from her. The hotel room scene between Buster and Charlotte is certainly another highlight of the film, but, as good as it is, it is’t enough to really save the movie from itself.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem is that Greenwood and Keaton, and maybe the bellhop too, are trying to be in one movie and everyone else is acting in another. The Keaton vision includes a fair amount of slapstick gags, some sweet falls and of course the very physical seduction scene in the hotel, but they just don’t quite get the chance to work here. The overall feel of the film is polished farce, and it doesn't sit side by side with Keaton's downplayed, ironic slapstick style very well. The film ends up feeling schizophrenic. As with almost all of these MGM films, the main complaint I end up having is that they lack a solid overarching purpose.<br />
<br />
An example of why this matters can be seen in the train scene that reprises the one in Buster's early film, "One Week." If you haven't seen this bit, you've got to check out that film and watch . . . I mean, the whole thing; and you'll see one of the best gag's ever shot and an exceptional cinematic moment. But first STOP READING NOW, because I don't want to ruin it for you. Go on . . . <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qFXR35oBKw" target="_blank">here's a link to it on youtube</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
OK . . . now in Keaton's One Week, we first fall in love with Buster and Sybil Seely (his new bride) as we watch them struggle to build and inhabit a crazy, build-from-a-kit starter home. They win our hearts and sympathy with their charming relationship and earnestly hilarious antics. The film culminates with them learning they've built their ridiculous house in the wrong place and they set out to move it. But as they are doing so, the house gets stuck on the railroad tracks ... and a train is coming! The couple tries valiantly to push it off, but they finally give up and get themselves clear just as the train comes rushing through. There is a huge relief as we realize that the train went by on the parallel tracks next to the house and missed hitting it altogether. We have just a heartbeat or two to rejoice with our couple when WHAM a train coming from the other direction plows into the frame out of nowhere and destroys the house. The bit isn't just clever as hell, it is incredibly funny, and gives us a shocking, hilarious and emotional response because we have bought into this story heart and soul. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAsE5oK7sOMBLAQHUVxGOSkuNCh63iF59c9NQN1j7OqG8ChQP23jfMPdY2efBBiEs0IaQwY_6Xt0-N_DnFb45ZZSSsguTDYXwR7crLYGM_vUr9wnSCxDMSK5LIQ4j2gx_r7yDq29sSAI/s1600/Buster+Parlor,+Bedroom+and+Bath.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAsE5oK7sOMBLAQHUVxGOSkuNCh63iF59c9NQN1j7OqG8ChQP23jfMPdY2efBBiEs0IaQwY_6Xt0-N_DnFb45ZZSSsguTDYXwR7crLYGM_vUr9wnSCxDMSK5LIQ4j2gx_r7yDq29sSAI/s1600/Buster+Parlor,+Bedroom+and+Bath.jpg" height="257" width="320" /></a><br />
This gag would have been clever no matter where or how it was executed because it's just a darn good idea. But to be fantastic, it needs a story and a purpose. In Parlor Bedroom and Bath, when Buster and Nita - a woman with whom he is fleeing out of mistaken purpose, yet whom the audience has no interest in, get a car caught on the train tracks and the same thing happens, its fun to watch. But its not profound. The bit is good; but it doesn't feel like remarkable cinema. Just a tag on for kicks. <br />
<br />
This scene really illustrates why doing things with purpose leads to fantastic cinema while doing things without, can lead to mediocre. Keaton, when making his own films, knew naturally how to get an audience hooked, how to build a level of tension and interest with the underlying story and how to layer his gags onto an idea that felt like it mattered. Parlor Bedroom and Bath does not.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-1550824758833745382014-08-19T12:23:00.000-07:002014-09-08T12:23:04.247-07:00End-Notes on The MGM Era WorkThis will come as a big surprise to hear (from a serious fan) -- and is certainly not a concession I thought I'd be making -- but after watching all of them now, I've come to realize that the MGM-era Keaton work is just, truly, not that bad.<br />
<br />
Now, before anyone gets worked up and ticked off and tells me I'm an idiot, let me make a few things clear, up front:<br />
• I am perfectly aware that this work is not in the same league as his "own" films. You simply cannot compare "What no Beer?" with "Cops" or "Spite Marriage" with "The General."<br />
• Unlike the beautiful, zen-like, poetic character Buster created for himself at his own studio, his hang-dog, doofus-y Elmer character is NOT the embodiment of what we love about Buster.<br />
• And it is really a no-brainer that Buster Keaton should not have been teamed with Jimmy Durante. It was an insipid choice that didn't work to Buster's credit at all, nor, probably, Durante's.<br />
• What makes most of these films problematic is the lack of creative oversight that they might have had with Keaton at the directorial helm. They mostly lack creative purpose, and are neither tight nor clever. They just feel squandered.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But. . .</div>
<div>
With all that said, I have a few summary points to make to try and put their achievement in context.</div>
• First, I think this work seems worse than it is because it came <i>after</i> the highlights of Keaton's career. If you honestly compare this MGM work to Keaton's earliest films, you would have to admit that some is actually better than what he was doing with Fatty Arbuckle (and even some of his weaker efforts for his own studio).<br />
• These films were all made at a very strained and difficult time for American cinema, generally speaking. They are by no means the worst films getting made during the era of transition from silent to sound. In fact, while some truly excellent films were made in Hollywood during the period from 1929 - 1933, the overall feel of the era is one of awkwardness, as Hollywood attempts to grapple with the changing infrastructure and style that sound has brought. Far too many movies got caught in the gap, not quite finding themselves. These Keaton MGM entries feel more like 'par for the course', than outright bad.<br />
• Most of these films at least have the benefit of MGM's money and therefore high-level production values. They are "well made" in that reasonable amounts of time, money and energy were poured in: e.g. good camera work, nice costumes and sets, and high quality on screen talent.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC5hLPWuO_LINhFzjJApoUrTeFEG_j-XuPhK9n_jj7a8Qr1Y4AbqHw4DX2p-fX8Bm6D8lhxycUXPrK6YSOmXbW4_z76rlNdnvPq7IbYGKzL48ia1VHNrVY9hhi9nn6C91rvQjcG7qgJps/s1600/Buster-Keaton-silent-movies-13812942-1385-1800.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC5hLPWuO_LINhFzjJApoUrTeFEG_j-XuPhK9n_jj7a8Qr1Y4AbqHw4DX2p-fX8Bm6D8lhxycUXPrK6YSOmXbW4_z76rlNdnvPq7IbYGKzL48ia1VHNrVY9hhi9nn6C91rvQjcG7qgJps/s1600/Buster-Keaton-silent-movies-13812942-1385-1800.jpg" height="320" width="245" /></a>• I also want to make it clear that when I speak of the MGM think tank work, I am not including "The Cameraman" in that mix. That film is still an unmistakably Keaton effort and is by far the best of his MGM work (and indeed one of his very best films).<br />
• OK, here is another benefit of Keaton's association with MGM that I didn't consider until this moment, as I went to place a nice photo for this post: MGM's publicity machinery did some incredibly sweet, sexy, gorgeous, and yes, campy still photos of Keaton that we all get to enjoy. (Like this amazing one). Many of the best photos of Keaton come from the time he was doing this work.<br />
<br />
The films I am including under the "MGM think tank" label are the following eight:<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/11/spite-marriage-1929.html">Spite Marriage</a> (1929)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/09/free-and-easy-1930.html">Free and Easy</a> (1930)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/11/doughboys-1930.html">Doughboys</a> (1930)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2014/08/parlor-bedroom-and-bath-1931.html" target="_blank">Parlor Bedroom and Bath</a> (1931)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/12/sidewalks-of-new-york-1931.html">Sidewalks of New York</a> (1931)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/11/passionate-plumber-1932.html">The Passionate Plumber</a> (1932)<br />
Speak Easily (1932)<br />
<a href="http://www.whatwouldbusterkeatondo.com/2012/11/what-no-beer-1933.html">What, No Beer</a> (1933)<br />
<br />
I realize upon writing this post, that I managed to miss reviewing "Parlor, Bedroom and Bath" and "Speak Easily." (Oops. I'll add that to the to do list.) I saw both long enough ago that I now remember little about them. I think that speaks to the main problem with all these films. They are basically forgettable. When I say, "they are not that bad," I don't mean I love them; I mean there are some viewable and interesting parts to them and that they have something to offer the viewer. Overall, they would be rated in the "6" range for me (on a scale from 1 - 10). For the most part, I was not dying to switch them off. I found them basically "watchable" or better.<br />
<br />
Of these, I am going to go out on a limb and claim that "Spite Marriage" is actually quite good (I gave it a rating of 7); while, "Doughboys," "The Passionate Plumber," and "Parlor Bedroom and Bath" are all fairly good (earning a rating of 6.5 from me). Truly funny in parts, generally well made, and, if nothing else, at least attractive and polished, although not strong films, these four are not in anyway embarrassing either.<br />
<br />
"Speak Easily," "Sidewalks of New York" and "What, No Beer" are in the fair range. I gave them each a "6" -- though they are probably all just barely worthy of that. They include some really nice things and also some horrifying things. Keaton's alcoholism was painful to watch in "What, No Beer," but even that didn't render the whole film unwatchable. "Speak Easily" has a bizarre plot that makes little sense and a Keaton who has to play second fiddle to Jimmy Durante, but despite these setbacks, the film has some first rate Keaton stage performance hijinks I loved. And "Sidewalks of New York" was strained of plot and unpleasant of tone, yet has some excellent chemistry among the performers in certain scenes. You can check out my full reviews of those to see what else I thought was good enough to establish their value.<br />
<br />
The remaining film, "Free and Easy," is one I did find exceptionally hard to watch. It was unpleasant to see Buster reduced to such a role, but even here, he had a few excellent moments of performance and the film itself benefitted from material of interest to early film fans. I also wonder if some of my horror with this film stems from it having been my 'first' of the MGM films I saw. Maybe, the sudden change in Keaton's screen persona took me too much by surprise to easily get past. Once I was more used to it, I might have had an easier time adjusting and maybe gave more lenient ratings. Regardless, this one cannot get better than a 5.5 from me.<br />
<br />
When I looked at all these ratings, I was astonished to see (as I mentioned above) that I'd rated most of them in the same basic range that I'd given Buster's films with Fatty Arbuckle.<br />
<br />
The Fatty-era films and the MGM-era are simply flawed in different ways. The big difference is, with the Fatty films, Buster's career was on its way up. What made those films good was the clear fun everyone was having, the incredible acrobatics with Keaton and Al St. John flying across the screen and the engaging silliness. But we should be honest, they weren't excellent. What made them imperfect was their wandering plots, their lack of cohesion or any overarching vision or purpose. When Buster took over his own studio, he retained all of those great elements, but filled in those missing ones.<br />
<br />
MGM-think-tank films have a similar problem to the Fatty films in that they are usually flawed in plot and possessing a poor overarching vision or purpose. But they have another, different, problem too. That, while delivering a more polished visual experience and direction, they are overproduced and squander Buster's now considerable talent. That is particularly painful to the fan because we've seen the best Buster can do, so the MGM films seem so much worse coming after his best.<br />
<br />
The thing is, they can't deny that talent altogether. In fact, even at this nadir, Buster is still such a great performer that no matter which of these turkeys he appeared in, he managed to craft some brilliant moments.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-27703120620491847482014-08-10T08:29:00.001-07:002017-06-17T07:13:41.546-07:00Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928)Its true, I've watched a lot of Buster Keaton films before today; but they have all been on my computer or my phone.<br />
<br />
For years I've heard folks say that there is nothing like seeing one on the big screen. But, alas, that privilege has never presented itself to me before now.<br />
<br />
But a couple of weeks ago, I was beyond excited to learn that the local artsy movie house would be playing <i>Steamboat Bill Jr</i>. in a free presentation geared toward a family audience. After counting down the days, shifting my calendar around, biting my nails and waiting, the big day was finally here. ...And now I'm here to tell you that ... folks are right!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-gpr9jQL4gIih4TabsDvc4kopwvBEZ2G85SjRlkbVfkL74bYK9vIM8mPNg-gzgt8SycK7FBHHpS9f3CdZygFlMC0Bsxyqvuvmk8bnl3IYL-lWpuAuzrO3pAeWnXozB1M-VXVtGhgp_e8/s1600/Annex+-+Keaton,+Buster+(Steamboat+Bill,+Jr.)_02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-gpr9jQL4gIih4TabsDvc4kopwvBEZ2G85SjRlkbVfkL74bYK9vIM8mPNg-gzgt8SycK7FBHHpS9f3CdZygFlMC0Bsxyqvuvmk8bnl3IYL-lWpuAuzrO3pAeWnXozB1M-VXVtGhgp_e8/s1600/Annex+-+Keaton,+Buster+(Steamboat+Bill,+Jr.)_02.jpg" width="288" /></a></div>
Keaton on the large screen is 100x better than Keaton on the small. And that is saying something! Half the reason is obviously because visual material is that much more exciting on a large frame. (And of course Keaton that much more beautiful under magnification). But truly that is not the best benefit. It is just so much more palpably 'real' an experience to get a ticket, sit in a theater -- with others around you -- and sink into the dark. I felt transported back 86 years and could feel the energy of what moviegoers in 1928 would have felt. The people around you are laughing out loud, sometimes clapping or gasping or reading out title cards. Its not me staring at my 17" laptop, alone, at home, but a crowd of genial, happy families together sharing a moment and appreciating the skill of this great star.<br />
<br />
And what a movie to do that with! <i>Steamboat Bill Jr.</i> is the height, the absolute apex of charm and probably my all time favorite Keaton film (and one of my favorite films ever. Period.) What makes it so good is the completeness of many elements that come together in the tightest, most enjoyable package imaginable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSp_bZZAAnKdMi9CSzsyaiiRutWxia_tVJgV_Mn-YYbgimDN_S4i94d0URmvuJ9ii4xfiLgZQ9nsB_0jrMqAfPQcZrz4oiwAju9rGjJCs4-cgdULMePoj1kldCJ1hdLE45ZXGkPOKh1GE/s1600/buster+and+ernest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSp_bZZAAnKdMi9CSzsyaiiRutWxia_tVJgV_Mn-YYbgimDN_S4i94d0URmvuJ9ii4xfiLgZQ9nsB_0jrMqAfPQcZrz4oiwAju9rGjJCs4-cgdULMePoj1kldCJ1hdLE45ZXGkPOKh1GE/s1600/buster+and+ernest.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Keaton is not just an amazing performer but an incredible director. He was so attentive to details of the camera, the pacing and the mood. Here we have an intentionally lazy river-boating tone that rocks you along in the beginning while he unfolds the basic story set up. And the story is a classic: pitting a rough, river-rat dad against his dandy of a son whom he has not seen for years. Gruff dad, played beautifully by Ernest Torrence, does not do the best job masking his disappointment in how his small and somewhat effeminate son has turned out, but he tries to make the relationship work. That is, if by 'make it work' you mean 'force Bill Jr. into being a <br />
more suitable son.'<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyNe2lB9Bn7_RyiAyYVSrRZAlnMNqfJ6SNLEeXCLbH-wwk739UfLwU7SoMwSA7GehpafhoWgRjw54e1gnKNYK-W0XtBpWaUckokMTgAAN4b-k82FkezG64vu6flPhmj4Be-R0uRmFouJo/s1600/marion+and+buster.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyNe2lB9Bn7_RyiAyYVSrRZAlnMNqfJ6SNLEeXCLbH-wwk739UfLwU7SoMwSA7GehpafhoWgRjw54e1gnKNYK-W0XtBpWaUckokMTgAAN4b-k82FkezG64vu6flPhmj4Be-R0uRmFouJo/s1600/marion+and+buster.png" width="253" /></a>Buster was put on this earth to play the role of Bill Canfield Jr.. He is perfection as the foppishly cute, childishly stubborn, but basically moldable son. He follows dutifully as dad pulls him along by the hand. He gamely lets dad call the shots on mustache- and ukulele- removal, as well as clothing and hair readjustment, but when Bill Jr. runs into his college girlfriend (who unfortunately happens to be his dad's arch-rival's daughter), Buster draws the line. He's not giving up King's daughter (played deliciously by Marion Byron) for anything. And who can blame him; She is the cutest, spunkiest, gamest costar for Buster that I've ever seen. Her talents suit his well and their scenes together are a joy.<br />
<br />
The father/son pairing is extremely well done and forms the heart of the movie as well as a good deal of lighthearted charming laughs in the middle of the film as they work out how to be together. But (with just an hour to work with) the film swiftly moves away from this upbeat pace and into moments of tension and real conflict stemming from the underlying feud, a misunderstanding between Buster and his girl, and some serious rain.<br />
<br />
Keaton the director knows just how to pepper this story with insanely physical stunts, keeping the audience hooked and compelled, while Keaton the stuntman knows how to amaze us. Then there is Keaton the actor knowing just how to win us over heart and soul. Seeing it "live" and "big", you can actually hear and feel the audience falling in love.<br />
<br />
As if all of that weren't enough, the last 10 minutes of the film morph into a sequence of the most jaw-dropping barrage of nonstop stunts I've ever seen. No expense could have been spared during scenes of the town's destruction in a fierce tornado-like storm. And the amazing part is that it is all REAL and made in 1928. The insanity culminates in the famous scene where Keaton allows a house front to fall on top of him, just gliding over him by the slimmest of margins before crashing hard into the ground. From all accounts, this was entirely real -- with a several ton house front and a upper story window designed to give just inches of clearance around our main man. Buster could easily have been killed had anything gone awry. (Seeing that on the big screen by the way, literally gave me chills, though I have seen it a million times before on the small). <br />
<br />
The funny thing is, no matter what crazy head-spinning, back-bending, house falling shenanigans he gets up to, you feel<b> safe</b> watching Buster Keaton because his clear skill and precision allow you to know that he knew exactly what he was doing. His stunts don't feel scary or reckless, because of his comedic touch and because of the trust the viewer develops for Buster. His physical skill just simply can't be praised enough. The man was a genius.<br />
<br />
I have so many favorite parts from this film, its hard not to just gush about them all, but just look at this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyAUSNp7zl8Tfo1Lwh1KV6RKmTVL-_9TQ1xT7TamW0cmHZuuMiQYMkpn77H-riHxzBn2eD2zYBrAJ8mOiEgCg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Or this...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzojrfbCW4-yG0_Cd9TbpQz4qT-tl5xe3hym2hI-hdqvsCl6tEpjKe8Ao50IQglUx872lhGYjv-EOxCfHzZ9Q' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
At the end of the film Buster gamely steps up and ends up saving everyone in sight from the throes of the storm and we are treated to one last gag and a feel good experience that is sure to last.<br />
<br />
What I love about the film, in particular, is not just the great acting and action and charm Keaton always displays, but the overall impression you get here of a man at the height of his career. Though the <i>heroics</i> may not kick in until the end, Keaton's mastery and control are the constant backdrop. Here he plays a rather silly guy, sure, but one who exudes the most amazing calm centered acceptance of life. Though absurd sometimes, Keaton is never stupid. He can feel both like an everyman whom we sympathize with because we identify with AND a superman who can perform feats that most of us can't fathom while just beautifully, zenfully and calmly living in his moment. That Keaton walks this line so deftly is always a miracle to me and makes his films profoundly good for the spirit.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-34702321253350492392014-05-26T08:59:00.004-07:002014-09-08T12:22:33.612-07:00Sherlock Jr. (1924)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Enough of these MGM talkies! It's time to dip deeper into the past and into the heart of Keaton's greatest work.<br />
<br />
To kick that off, I'll share with you my very first impressions of the first movie Buster Keaton film I ever saw. Two years ago I knew nothing about Keaton other than that he was a comedian of the silent era. We watched Sherlock Jr. because in my family we were sampling classic films of all eras in order to embark on a journey through cinematic history. I had researched and included all of the best films, actors and directors that we could get our hands on and luckily I knew just enough to think we should include a Keaton work in our project. This title came up again and again while researching and it looked like it would hold the interest of my pre-teens and amuse us all. Boy was I right!<br />
<br />
For me, this film began a love affair with Keaton that will endure. I remember that even after writing this, the film continued to simmer in my mind for a long time; I had to learn more . . . about him, about the special effects, about the locations. And then I had to watch it again. Though I notice that with all really amazing cinema, the full effect is not really felt right after watching; rather, the work stays with you -- you think of them the next day and the next, they sink in and work their magic for days or weeks. . . . In my case, Keaton started taking over my brain cells and I couldn't wait to watch more, which I did, ravenously, until I'd exhausted his catalog of independent work. Soon watching wasn't enough, I had to write too. I may know a great deal more now, then I did when I wrote this post, but I cherish this "first time" :) and that awesome promise of amazing and still uncharted viewing that awaited.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
From 2012<br />
Last night's entry: Buster Keaton in "Sherlock Jr." from 1924. I do get tired trying to come up with new ways to say "this was shockingly great entertainment," because it's the sentiment I keep needing to express. "Sherlock Jr." is seriously, just really, really good. I can't wait to watch it again. The plot is sweet and clever and the artistic vision expressed is tight. A phenomenally well-made film for any era.<br />
Although we didn't find it side-splittingly hilarious, like Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last!", this one was probably the better film for having an extremely well-developed idea which travelled with the film from start to finish, as well as enduring themes that are both charming and true. And it was funny. A delightfully complete film.<br />
<br />
The story begins with our hapless hero, who works as a projectionist at the theater, <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBlPF618_ltoiM10XbnGkiUQgXQiszgM3bxOJNS4L4pngK1ySAaFgw6-0Tf2EpdzrKWOiP5vmhCRSaXjP-5r9Rnzi6wDhVtaXhbORrlgndNcpy09bzBEhU4mZL6tp01JyMTqsQzQbNV9k/s1600/sherlock+jr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBlPF618_ltoiM10XbnGkiUQgXQiszgM3bxOJNS4L4pngK1ySAaFgw6-0Tf2EpdzrKWOiP5vmhCRSaXjP-5r9Rnzi6wDhVtaXhbORrlgndNcpy09bzBEhU4mZL6tp01JyMTqsQzQbNV9k/s1600/sherlock+jr.jpg" height="274" width="320" /></a></div>
but daydreams of being a great detective. He shows his mettle early on, when he finds a dollar in the pile of trash he's sweeping up. He gives the dollar to the lovely woman who comes looking for it (after asking her to "describe it"); then, gives his own dollar to another woman who has lost one; and finally, digs energetically through the pile after a third man who comes looking finds a whole wallet in the trash.<br />
<br />
At his girlfriend's house later, to which he has gone with chocolates and a proposal, he is framed for the theft of her dad's watch and kicked out of the house. In utter dejection, he returns to his job, dozes off at the projection booth, and then dreams himself into the movie!<br />
<br />
There he assumes the character of Sherlock Jr., the amazing detective brought in to solve a very similar crime -- of the stolen pearls. The scenes where his ghostlike sleepwalking self gets up and walks into the movie are phenomenal. Even by modern standards, they are evocative and clever; the camera tricks that allowed this, and the subsequent scenes where the background keeps changing on him, are fun to speculate about. These scenes are integral to showing us he doesn't really belong in that movie; he's an outsider living a fantasy. This movie within a movie allows us to explore themes of fantasy and the role of cinema magic that was taking such an important hold of people at this time and which clearly persist to this day.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY90kq5MfTDITuuDJ2fni4wufkBCYP8EZJiFwWiLGAf22e8MEDxsrxRFfEoYI_JNbAHCq5EUJTkMvGgrb1VWelDUwVIS1pjQMU3ZBiT2ryv4QNCrY4Qe27ef1Hsr6v3-42VzA6Ia3LJIw/s1600/sherlockjr2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY90kq5MfTDITuuDJ2fni4wufkBCYP8EZJiFwWiLGAf22e8MEDxsrxRFfEoYI_JNbAHCq5EUJTkMvGgrb1VWelDUwVIS1pjQMU3ZBiT2ryv4QNCrY4Qe27ef1Hsr6v3-42VzA6Ia3LJIw/s1600/sherlockjr2.jpeg" height="241" width="320" /></a></div>
With Keaton playing the regular downtrodden guy in one vignette and the fabulously crafty detective in the other, he really gets an opportunity to show his charm and strengths as a performer. While Sherlock Jr. plows through the hills and streets in and around LA (on the handlebars of a driverless motorbike for a while), and while he plays pool, skillfully avoiding the ball that has been rigged with explosives, the film moves a bit like James Bond. He has all the tricks and skills and saves the lady and finds the thieves. Though a lot funnier and more bumbling than Bond, Keaton here is truly as attractive and appealing a hero. And the scenery is amazing. I wish I knew where this was filmed. (I smell an internet research project coming on).<br />
<br />
The movie's spark comes from the very intelligent themes underlying it. We all loved the ending scenes where "the Boy" is taking his romantic cues on what to do next by watching our leading man on screen; he has a priceless look of confusion when the screen characters sit holding twins." I couldn't possibly recommend this film more highly. Even to those, like me!, who do not consider themselves silent film fans, it is very watchable and entertaining. And moves as such a crisp perfect pace (at only 3/4 of an hour long) that it is hard to think of a reason not to.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-34461948971450987802013-01-28T22:35:00.002-08:002018-11-11T13:07:24.881-08:00The Cameraman (1928)I've been thinking a lot about <i>The Cameraman</i>. Yes, well, why would I not?
The first time I saw it, several months ago, I was not sure I loved it. The second time I saw it, I began to believe it was his very best work ever. And, now, after watching a third time, I realize exactly what makes it such a hard movie to assess.<br />
<br />
<i>The Camerama</i>n combines Keaton at the height of his physical and creative skill, with the polish of MGM studios, into a film that feels almost perfect. MGM reputedly used this film as required training in how to make a comedy and I can see why that would be. It really does seem to have everything. But what it also has are problems.
Just underneath the polish you can detect some strain in the process. The feel of too many hands trying to introduce too many types of funny into this fairly short picture.<br />
<br />
For instance, there are the the title cards. The attempt at <i>verbal</i> laughs is strained and unnecessary and at times pulls away from the basic simplicity of a wonderful <i>visual</i> story that is definitely strong enough to carry its own weight. Some of the "dialog" simply feels wrong for Buster. Unworthy of him.<br />
<br />
I didn't notice this the first couple of times, but I see now (after having watched all the rest of his MGM work) that Buster's screen image is already beginning to erode and to take on the form of what will soon be "Elmer." In <i>The Cameraman</i>, Buster is ever so slightly, just beginning to play the fool, with a touch of the hang-dog stance and pleading demeanor that will soon become the hallmark of his MGM persona, instead of the simple guy with the zen-like control that characterized his independent films.<br />
<br />
And <i>The Cameraman </i>may be just a bit heavy on plot, detracting from the natural simplicity that Buster so excelled at. It's a bit too polished, produced, over the top in some small ways and worst of all, sentimentality is beginning to creep in. The film seems to invite us to feel sorry for Buster. It succeeds at that with a heartbreaking scene at the beach when Buster believes he's lost all chance at winning the heart of his beloved. The scene showcases Buster's incredible emotive skill, but denies his minimalist unaffected direction.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBjPL-V9GuJf_4Fs1wKcZjdUaHYw49ZgpJuBnGgV71z1Ltk0fqlUAjNHj6GYMeMUD2x4QwevgYe0jtyovXRDUbTbRg67NYXJGeANsYZp6a3s2CEV5Y8bx8WN0jkFRCxZ_hknsr9TfhFSU/s1600/dressing+room+cameraman.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBjPL-V9GuJf_4Fs1wKcZjdUaHYw49ZgpJuBnGgV71z1Ltk0fqlUAjNHj6GYMeMUD2x4QwevgYe0jtyovXRDUbTbRg67NYXJGeANsYZp6a3s2CEV5Y8bx8WN0jkFRCxZ_hknsr9TfhFSU/s1600/dressing+room+cameraman.png" width="320" /></a>Still, the film has aspects that are almost too incredible to put into words - such as Buster at Yankee Stadium doing a profoundly watchable couple of minutes solo-pantomime of a baseball game. And, the scene when Buster and another man are crammed into a tiny changing room getting their swim clothes on must be one of the funniest things he ever did in any movie; or maybe one of the funniest things filmed. Period.<br />
<br />
Also Buster's incredible athleticism as he runs up and down flights of steps every time the apartment's phone rings while waiting for a phone call -- followed by scenes of the man simply running through the streets of New York -- raising the thought that no one else has <i>ever</i> made the simple act of <i>running</i> so mesmerizing as Buster Keaton.<br />
<br />
And finally, one of my most treasured elements of this film: the relationship between Buster and the amazing little simian actor who sits on his shoulder, hugs his face, clings to his back and shadows his every move. There are other highlights, but these few alone must surely place it among the very best films of the silent era, flaws and all.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA6zrcM3bUvhUBylYv_NsphFuU9fG5HSdRXOdhBeOS-itTa2xKtclMIG6SdG4NbLq1QiNwOlOiteb9Eqi9Q5_fk4zjoMDykv5D5m-JdKDVEO6XBqxGghMvPj0pLs2Rcfb70msmUlbTxvs/s1600/the+cameraman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; display: inline !important; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA6zrcM3bUvhUBylYv_NsphFuU9fG5HSdRXOdhBeOS-itTa2xKtclMIG6SdG4NbLq1QiNwOlOiteb9Eqi9Q5_fk4zjoMDykv5D5m-JdKDVEO6XBqxGghMvPj0pLs2Rcfb70msmUlbTxvs/s1600/the+cameraman.jpg" width="400" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-35079894720665294582012-12-31T11:50:00.001-08:002014-09-08T12:29:10.163-07:00Le Roi des Champs-Elysees (1934)<i>Le Roi des Champs-Elysees</i> is so palpably better in every way than anything else Buster Keaton was making at the time, it is a shame it is not better known. This is certainly his best film since <i>Spite Marriage</i>, and maybe better, because while <i>Spite Marriage</i> may have more of the Keaton physical skill and stunts, this one has more of the Keaton heart and soul. It is a sweeter and smarter movie that feels worthy of him for the first time in a while.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately it is all but unknown to those outside the die-hard fandom, because its a French film that saw limited contemporary release (it was not released in the USA) and, to my knowledge, has not been subtitled in English or yet released on dvd. That really is too bad, because its quite a good film. The production is solid, the acting consistently fine, and the story funny and well-suited to Keaton's skill.<br />
<br />
I watched on Youtube and am very grateful that it was available at all, so I'm not complaining, but the version I saw was in French (with Buster's part dubbed by a not-very-convincing French actor). There were thankfully, subtitles. But these were in Spanish! haha. Which I sadly don't speak -- though I don't speak it less poorly than I don't speak French, so I paid attention to the Spanish subtitles and kept Google translate open at the bottom of the screen to translate Spanish to English as much as I needed/could stand to do. This turned out to be a tedious, but ultimately very cool, adventure!<br />
<br />
Now that I basically know what's going on, I'll have to watch it again without the constant pausing. I bet it will even better. Watching in this way, there are certain plot points that I never really got -- but with or without full understanding of the plot intricacies, one can enjoy it on other levels. It presents one of Buster's most remarkable performances as an <i>actor</i> that I can think of. He is fabulous in a dual performance, playing a down-on-his luck actor <i>and</i> an escaped convict. In the first role, Buster mistakenly distributes large amounts of cash to the public in a publicity ploy gone wrong. One of the accidental recipients is a lovely young woman with whom he becomes friendly. In the second role, Buster plays a mean, tough-guy criminal boss. He plays them both so well, I forget that they are both Buster. It is so refreshing to see him with that harder tough edge after all these Elmers! It is clear exactly which character he is playing at any time (even though both are dressed alike and look, duh, identical), he emotes so differently when he's the classically bad dude. Its wonderful to see him like that.<br />
<br />
The part of the film that everyone talks about comes at the end when Buster (in the good guy role) and his flirty new friend share a kiss that brings out Buster's beautiful smile. I've seen a still photo of that moment and have been anxious to see the scene from which it came. The whole embrace is a wonderful moment, far beyond just the smile, with a warm emotive feel that is unusual in a Keaton film. The still shots don't do the scene justice. It is charmant!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnESAfxCPn7UWIYllis2SFafc8onx3lpSXLrQvE0-IV6qjlJ2G7SS0kN32is0ZcG_szpq_2bbIsfoCmVeiKLUNS6XWQh3JLuTN0OE2TcfE9vjeL8aICEmQvImVYH7ZDMOZ6KW1HUZCnbQ/s1600/le+roi+des+champs+eleyses.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnESAfxCPn7UWIYllis2SFafc8onx3lpSXLrQvE0-IV6qjlJ2G7SS0kN32is0ZcG_szpq_2bbIsfoCmVeiKLUNS6XWQh3JLuTN0OE2TcfE9vjeL8aICEmQvImVYH7ZDMOZ6KW1HUZCnbQ/s1600/le+roi+des+champs+eleyses.png" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7111613984912051102.post-48707469116193059202012-12-01T07:43:00.001-08:002014-09-08T12:24:59.091-07:00Sidewalks of New York (1931)I'm getting tired of saying this, but after watching "Sidewalks of New York" last night I have to conclude: "it's really not that bad." Also getting tired of sharing that there is a kernel of a good story idea in the film that clearly got overproduced away. There is an unmistakable feel of too many hands on deck and no one's vision coming through.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisjS6L4Hn_d2ehlqbzorjLJ76iGU9rDpHd9NgRyvjBvbSDgGrV56TEooHviLu9rzmKzev_mV8BeFONyyNiZJqUYrAQOaR-hsOamjScabrSUr8ZPBtA27QjNxkZs6thAL-Xi5ScCjIU9ao/s1600/buster+and+anita+page.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisjS6L4Hn_d2ehlqbzorjLJ76iGU9rDpHd9NgRyvjBvbSDgGrV56TEooHviLu9rzmKzev_mV8BeFONyyNiZJqUYrAQOaR-hsOamjScabrSUr8ZPBtA27QjNxkZs6thAL-Xi5ScCjIU9ao/s1600/buster+and+anita+page.jpg" height="320" width="245" /></a></div>
<br />
The story involves Buster as a slumlord (did I just type that? seriously) who goes to visit his tenement and gets involved with a beautiful girl, Margie, played by Anita Page, and her ruffian brother. By far the best thing about this flick is that Buster is NOT playing Elmer. Yes, his character is seen as the butt of some jokes, but Buster does not use the "Elmer affect" in his performance (you know: that hangdog look, the dimwitted earnestness, the strange stilted speech that makes it look like just getting words out is hard). Although his character in SNY is described in various internet film sources as "dim witted," he really isn't. He comes across as quite normal. In fact, this is as close as I've ever been to <i>hearing</i> Buster in what is probably his normal voice, and I really loved that!<br />
<br />
In fact, his voice is beautiful when he's not doing the Elmer. If there is anyone out there that wants to watch a talkie of Buster's just to hear what he sounded like, this is definitely the one I'd recommend.<br />
<br />
The major shortcoming is the ridiculous plot, which is somewhat heavier than normal Keaton films - with thugs, criminal activity, juvenile delinquency, and great poverty. It walks a line somewhere between crime melodrama and comedy - and does neither well. The way the gangs of kids were portrayed was so irritating and so grating that I longed for merciful silence. Their shouts and jibes were so jarring. Characters do not behave in reasonable ways in this film -- either irrationally hating Buster's character, Harmon, or changing too quickly from hate to approval, or, as Buster always seems to do, falling in love for no apparent reason.<br />
<br />
But, in the plus column are: an incredibly whimsical and romantic kiss in the gym between Harmon and Margie and several moments of vintage Keaton skill including some hilarious boxing, an amazing scene with a feast of duck, and a very charming scene when Harmon and his sidekick, played by Cliff Edwards, improvise a marriage proposal for Harmon using popular sheet music titles. The movie is not entirely rescued from itself by these features but, it does make the film "not that bad" to watch. In fact, I actually enjoyed it a good deal.<br />
<br />
I read on TCM's film notes that before he made this film, Buster was sent away by MGM to dry out from his alcoholism and he came back fit, excited and ready to work. That clearly shows in this film. He looks fantastic here; there is a sharpness about him I hadn't realized I'd missed so much. Physically he is in fine form doing plenty of falls and flips that look great. Apparently Keaton was devastated to be given this "dog" to work on when he came back. However, it seems to me he nevertheless tried to give it his all. That attitude and coherence in <i>him</i> really comes through in the film, even though the <i>project</i> is not a great one. Leading me to once again pine for the lost creativity that hampered Buster at this time.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3