The General Buster Keaton Essay

Buster Keaton was not the Great Stone Face so much as a man who kept his composure in the center of chaos. Other silent actors might mug to get a point across, but Keaton remained observant and collected. That's one reason his best movies have aged better than those of his rival, Charlie Chaplin. He seems like a modern visitor to the world of the silent clowns.

Consider an opening sequence in "The General” (1927), his masterpiece about a Southern railway engineer who has "only two loves in his life” -- his locomotive and the beautiful Annabelle Lee. Early in the film, Keaton, dressed in his Sunday best, walks to his girl's house. He is unaware that two small boys are following him, marching in lockstep--and that following them is Annabelle Lee herself (Marion Mack).

Advertisement

He arrives at her door. She watches unobserved. He polishes his shoes on the backs of his pants legs, and then knocks, pauses, looks about, and sees her standing right behind him. This moment would have inspired an overacted double-take from many other silent comedians. Keaton plays it with his face registering merely heightened interest.

They go inside. He sits next to her on the sofa. He becomes aware that the boys have followed them in. His face reflects slight unhappiness. He rises, puts on his hat as if to leave and opens the door, displaying such courtesy you would think the boys were his guests. The boys walk out and he closes the door on them.

He is not a man playing for laughs, but a man absorbed in a call on the most important person in his life. That's why it's funny. That's also why the movie's most famous shot works--the one where, rejected by his girl, he sits disconsolately on the drive-rod of the big engine. As it begins to move, it lifts him up and down, but he does not notice, because he thinks only of Annabelle Lee.

This series of shots establishes his character as a man who takes himself seriously, and that is the note he will sound all through the film. We don't laugh at Keaton, but identify with him.

"The General” is an epic of silent comedy, one of the most expensive films of its time, including an accurate historical recreation of a Civil War episode, hundreds of extras, dangerous stunt sequences, and an actual locomotive falling from a burning bridge into a gorge far below. It was inspired by a real event; the screenplay was based on the book "The Great Locomotive Chase,” written by William Pittenger, the engineer who was involved.

As the film opens, war has been declared and Johnny Gray (Keaton) has been turned down by a rebel enlisting officer (he is more valuable as an engineer, although nobody explains that to him). “I don't want you to speak to me again until you are in uniform,” Annabelle declares. Time passes. Johnny is the engineer of the General, a Southern locomotive. The train is stolen by Union spies, and Johnny chases it on foot, by sidecar, by bicycle and finally with another locomotive, the Texas. Then the two sides switch trains, and the chase continues in reverse. Annabelle was a passenger on the stolen train, becomes a prisoner of the Union troops, is rescued by Johnny and rides with him during the climactic chase scenes that end with the famous shot of the Texas falling into the gorge (where, it is said, its rusted hulk remains to this day).

Advertisement

It would seem logically difficult to have much of a chase involving trains, since they must remain on tracks, and so one must forever be behind the other one--right? Keaton defies logic with one ingenious silent comic sequence after another, and it is important to note that he never used a double and did all of his own stunts, even very dangerous ones, with a calm acrobatic grace.

The train's obvious limitations provide him with ideas. An entire Southern retreat and Northern advance take place unnoticed behind him, while he chops wood. Two sight gags involve his puzzlement when rail cars he thought were behind him somehow reappear in front of him. He sets up the locations along the way, so that he can exploit them differently on the way back. One famous sequence involves a cannon on a flat car, which Keaton wants to fire at the other train. He lights the fuse and runs back to the locomotive, only to see that the cannon has slowly reversed itself and is now pointed straight at him.

One inspiration builds into another: To shield himself from the cannonball, he runs forward and sits on the cowcatcher of the speeding Texas, with no one at the controls and a big railroad tie in his arms. The Union men throw another tie onto the tracks, and Keaton, with perfect aim and timing, knocks the second off by throwing the first. It's flawless and perfect, but consider how risky it is to sit on the front of a locomotive hoping one tie will knock another out of the way without either one smashing your brains out.

Between chase scenes, he blunders into a house where the Northern generals are planning their strategy, and rescues Annabelle Lee--but not before Keaton creates a perfect little cinematic joke.

He is hiding under the dining table as the Northerners confer. One of them burns a hole in the tablecloth with his cigar. Annabelle Lee is brought into the room, and we see Keaton's eye peering through the hole--and then there's a reverse shot of the girl, with Keaton using the hole in the cloth to create a “found” iris shot--one of those shots so beloved of Griffith, in which a circle is drawn around a key element on the screen.

Advertisement

“The General” was voted one of the 10 greatest films of all time in the authoritative Sight & Sound poll. Who knows if it is even Keaton's greatest? Others might choose “Steamboat Bill, Jr.” (1928). His other classics include “Our Hospitality” (1923), “The Navigator” (1924), “Go West” (1925) and “The Cameraman” (1928), in which he played a would-be newsreel photographer who lucks into his career.

Born in 1897, the same year as the cinema, he grew up in a vaudeville family. As part of the act, he was literally thrown around the stage; like W.C. Fields, he learned his physical skills in a painful childhood apprenticeship. He started in films with Fatty Arbuckle in 1917 and directed his first shorts in 1920. In less than a decade, from 1920 to 1928, he created a body of work that stands beside Chaplin's (some would say above it), and he did it with fewer resources because he was never as popular or well-funded as the Little Tramp.

Then the talkies came in, he made an ill-advised deal with MGM that ended his artistic independence, and the rest of his life was a long second act--so long that in the 1940s he was reduced to doing a live half-hour TV show in Los Angeles. But it was also long enough that his genius was rediscovered, and he made a crucial late work, Samuel Beckett's “Film” (1965), and was hailed with a retrospective at Venice shortly before his death in 1966.

Today I look at Keaton's works more often than any other silent films. They have such a graceful perfection, such a meshing of story, character and episode, that they unfold like music. Although they're filled with gags, you can rarely catch Keaton writing a scene around a gag; instead, the laughs emerge from the situation; he was “the still, small, suffering center of the hysteria of slapstick,” wrote the critic Karen Jaehne. And in an age when special effects were in their infancy, and a “stunt” often meant actually doing on the screen what you appeared to be doing, Keaton was ambitious and fearless. He had a house collapse around him. He swung over a waterfall to rescue a woman he loved. He fell from trains. And always he did it in character, playing a solemn and thoughtful man who trusts in his own ingenuity.

“Charlie's tramp was a bum with a bum's philosophy,” he once said. “Lovable as he was, he would steal if he got the chance. My little fellow was a workingman, and honest.” That describes his characters, and it reflects their creator.

Reveal Commentscomments powered by

Chaplin or Keaton? This question, common among film enthusiasts, refers less often to cinematic values than personal preference: Not, Who is better, but who do you like better. I’ll state right now that I lean toward Keaton, simply because the mope in me responds more to his dourness, though this in no way detracts from my complete astonishment at the cinematic feats of Charles Chaplin.

Their differences have been compared fruitfully to those between dancers Fred Astaire (Chaplin) and Gene Kelly (Keaton). Astaire is all about the sophisticated line of the performance, his movements epitomizing the phrase “floating on air”. Astaire always retains a sense of dignity, even when dancing on the walls.

Similarly, Chaplin, most especially as the Little Tramp, maintains a dignified manner, whether shuffling along in his dirty rags or kicking a cop in the rear. The eternally poised bum, wandering around in a wistful gloom, Chaplin often interacts with both men and women through over-elegant, slightly prissy antics full of subtle facility. Though he can be funny when still, movement is Chaplin’s primary weapon. Even taking off a hat becomes a deft production.

Compared to Astaire, Gene Kelly is more compact and athletic. He is just as graceful, but there is more muscle in his movements, a bearing down. He’s an intent dancer, exacting, like an athlete gauging the mechanics of his next physical feat.

Director: Buster Keaton, Eddie Cline

Cast: Buster Keaton, Joe Roberts

Release Date: 2011-07-12

Distributor: Kino

Image: http://images.popmatters.com/news_art/c/crucianelli-busterkeaton-cvr.jpgThere's a similar acrobatic figuring in Keaton’s choreography of gags. Behind those wide, unyielding Cleopatra-like eyes, absurd arithmetic tabulates in a split second: chased by scores of cops, he sees the opportunity of an oncoming car and simply holds out his hand to seize it. How does he refrain from expressing at that point, knowing what he is about to attempt?

Chaplin, too, makes snap decisions, adapting to predicaments in ridiculous ways, but because his face is more animate we sometimes see it coming, however surprising and satisfying the action. But Buster never lets on. Usually, an expression in the eyes, no matter how slight, gives at least a hint of what’s coming. But with Buster, we never know.

Although a more apparent comparison might be made between their silent shorts, these two very fine releases, The Great Dictator and Buster Keaton: The Short Films Collection 1920-1923 , provide interesting reflections on their respective careers.

Chaplin’s career may have been troubled, what with wives and countries turning against him, but from a strictly show business perspective it wasn’t quite as sad as Keaton’s. Chaplin’s silent films had a strong implication of sound, as in the touching dialogues between the blind girl and the Tramp in City Lights (1931), and thus he was able to transition into sound more easily, though Modern Times (1936), and all his subsequent sound films, contain many if not silent scenes than wordless ones.

Perhaps Keaton had more difficulty making the leap into sound because his humor relied so heavily on his lack of expression, and thus expressing. Despite the artistic and commercial success of his silent features -- e.g., Sherlock Jr. (1924), The General (1926) -- Keaton was dependent on, indeed had an abiding reverence for, the visual gag, a comic creation that works best in the short form and for which sound is superfluous. Think how terrible it would be to hear the sufferings of the people trapped in the whirling house in “One Week”. When Keaton did talk, he was reduced to painful indignities, like his second-banana roles with that enemy of subtlety, Jimmy Durante.

Buster Keaton: The Short Films Collection 1920-1923 contains all 19 of Keaton’s solo shorts, from “The High Sign” to “The Love Nest”. Keaton learned well from his mentor, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, down to stealing some of his gags, yet even if Arbuckle hadn't lost his career to trumped-up rape charges, it's clear that Keaton would’ve outshone him, anyway.

Appropriately, Keaton enters his first solo film, “The High Sign”, back-end-first. This entrance follows an equally appropriate title card that could serve as his career summation: “Our Hero came from Nowhere, he wasn’t going Anywhere and got kicked off Somewhere.” Existentialism, meet Vaudeville.

Some of Keaton’s funniest acting is in his post-gag reactions, small, animated non-expressions that almost pass unnoticed. In “The High Sign”, after a shooting gallery attendant pops up from behind a counter, tumbling him, Buster does a funny arch over the counter to see where the man came from; or, in “Cops”, finding himself in a policemen’s parade, he thinks the people are applauding him, doffs his hat in confusion, then instantly assumes an air of deserving civic importance through the simple gesture of putting his fist on his hip. The explanations sound pedestrian, but the visual moments are perfection.

Such moments are also extensions of gags, or master classes in How To Milk A Gag, but Just Enough. Keaton is a professor of such things, pursuing a visual joke through permutations that, however contrived and multi-structured, end up feeling completely organic: a newspaper unfolds until it’s the size of a blanket; the stubborn houses of “One Week” or “The Electric House” work against their owners.

Keaton is an on-the-spot inventor of primitive machines -- contraptions, more accurately -- and also replacement objects verging on a kind of rudimentary psychology, but more utilitarian: a banana gun, a cigar nail, a floating anchor…

In other words, Keaton’s transformation of objects is always in the realm of utility, but a startling, alternate utility of illogical extremes which, only in Buster’s universe, makes perfect logistical sense. In the exceedingly inventive “The Scarecrow”, a kitchen table is hoisted onto the wall and flipped over to become a sentimental wall plaque, or a white picket fence splits apart for a completely unexpected but decidedly sensible exit.

Often Buster becomes a contraption himself, a near-inanimate prop, as in the manhandling of the brothers in “My Wife’s Relations” or when he assumes a scarecrow position (in the “The Scarecrow”) without a wooden frame to hang on. Sometimes this man-as-thing takes on darker tones. In “The Boat”, Buster and his family endure a brutal beating from the elements that, if it wasn’t for the tack piano accompaniment and Buster’s superhuman malleability, would just be plain sadistic. As for “The Frozen North”, it's simply a ruthless, murderous melodrama disguised as a comic dream.

Keaton relies often on this dream device, which would seem an easy way out if it were not so linked with the comedian’s foundation in realism. Though he tricks big Joe Roberts (his Arbuckle-like foil) and whole police forces, he rarely fools the viewers, at least not without quickly letting them in on it. In the beginning of “The Balloonatic”, it's unclear if Buster is in a haunted house or a fantasy of Hell, before he is ejected swiftly onto the street, and we see that he was merely in an amusement park ride called “House of Trouble”.

Perhaps this is why “The Blacksmith” seems strangely anomalous. Not only is Buster not his usual responsible self -- hired to fix a rich man’s car, he heedlessly destroys it instead -- the film is filled with cinematic trick shots (slow, fast, stop-motion, etc.) rather than pure gags, something Keaton himself draws attention to in the film’s toy train crash finale.

The DVD extras are numerous but spotty. A few of the films have duplicate “enhanced prints”, but the originals are more satisfying, as something about the crackling gaps suits the material. The inclusion of some “redundant footage” feels just that.

There are numerous visual essays, which, though not all critically in-depth, provide nice biographical and incidental information. Finally, there is a sampling of films by other comedians, such as Stan Laurel, with gags inspired by (read: stolen from) Buster. But then, Keaton himself stole from Arbuckle, not least what became his most iconic gag, the house front falling on him, previewed here in “One Week” before modified and perfected in Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928). Comedy, like all art, builds on what comes before.

0 Thoughts to “The General Buster Keaton Essay

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *