Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snowflake
For cool, give me Buster anyday!
|
And so it shall be ...
Woe is Chaplin. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with adding pathos and humanity to a movie anyway? I have never accepted that argument. Would you prefer to see Dumbo
without the scene where he visits his mother in prison?
Yet, Chaplin takes these same lumps each time he is written about. Read a review on Amazon (or some such site) and see if somebody doesn’t start using the review page to talk up their man Keaton. I can't honestly say I understand why. Nobody ever does the same to Keaton. Could it be that Chaplin fans are simply more secure in their man, or do they know something that Keaton supporters do not? Most likey, they are as confused by it as I am. Could be they don't care. They know that Chaplin was more then just a brilliant comic. He was, in fact, to borrow a line from a great intellectual & poet from the 1920s, the only true genius film has ever produced.
Charlie was the first to show the movie-going world poverty as it really was. He was the first rebel. He was dangerous (Good Lord, the man was litterally kicked out of the United States!) His films were about the lower class struggle (Work, Pay Day, The Immigrant) and the unwanted (A Dog’s Life, The Kid.) In particular, recall the scene in The Kid when Edna is shown being thrown out of a Christian Charity home for having a child out of wedlock.“A woman whose only sin was motherhood.” Chaplin's films were about the people who would exploit (The Idle Class) and the people who were exploited (Modern Times, Easy Street).
But getting back to Keaton, I think a lot of what I asked in the first paragraph has to do with BK the man, himself. Buster was humble, brilliant, unassuming gentleman. And did I mention that he was humble? This was a quality that Chaplin most assuredly did not share. He was the toppermost of the top and he knew it. Even Groucho Marx conceded that Chaplin was undoubtably the funniest man he had ever seen. Charlie would have no doubt agreed. But let me lay all my cards on the table – it was not for nothing! That man could compose a sad song like no other. Ever heard "Smile"? Chaplin composed beautiful film scores, and even wrote a pop hit for Petula Clark in the 1960s. He choreographed ballets, conducted music, wrote several books on his life and philosphy, devised his own economic plan to end poverty and discussed peace with Ghandi and Einstein. Chaplin lived life like to the fullest. He saw the world for what it was and set out to make it better.
But, once again, I digress …
In Chaplin’s defense he did warn Keaton
not to sign with MGM (as did just about everybody else) But BK did and after one pretty good flick (The Camerman) it was all over – for good. Forever. Never was Keaton allowed to make a film on his own terms -- and the year was only 1928!! Still, Buster lived long enough to see his work rightfully celebrated all over the world.
The last 50 years have not been kind to Chaplin. I love Keaton, don't get me wrong -- The General is all the masterpiece they claim it to be. Sherlock Jr. is pretty damn fine too. As is The Goat. But not once during any of those films do I feel any real connection with the characters on the screen. Keaton was the great mechanic -- he knew how to take apart and reassemble a gag to make it work like a clock. Consequently, when Keatons films are anything less then successful (like in Seven Chances or The Navigator) they can be rather difficult to watch all the way through. Maybe even a bit like staring at that same reassembled clock. And, truly, this is not easy for me to admit. I love Keaton. I own several of his DVD collections, but I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that time has not been kind to a few of them. Chaplin escapes this fate because he never was just about the gag in the first place. Keaton is never funnier then when his best moments are collected together in bits and pieces. Taken that same way, Chaplin is the one who suffers. His films are best taken as a whole. This is because Chaplin was not a gag man.
For me watching a Chaplin film is the same as going to see the Nutcracker Suite every Christmas or re-listening to your favorite symphonic piece. Chaplin is Art with a capital “A.” Chaplin is more then just great “slapstick” – indeed, I would never even use that word to describe his films, a Chaplin film is a spy glass on human emotions. Want proof? Watch the scene in Shoulder Arms, when Chaplin’s character discretely reads – by way of over the shoulder – the letter of a soldier who received a letter from home. We don’t have to read the letter to know what each line says. It is all revealed in Chaplin’s face. It is one of cinema’s great moments.
I want to go on, but I feel I am rambling and besides, it is getting really late. I need to go to bed. Maybe I will try and finish this later. Probably not.
But again sorry for rambling.