Buster Keaton, Part 2

Buster didn't try to tackle the industry on his own.  He took on a team of writers, actors and producers that were multi-talented like himself.  He also took over Chaplin's old studio while Chaplin went off to make features.  It was on Keaton Studios' lot that Chaplin first saw Jackie Coogan and whisked him away to play in his feature The Kid.

Keaton surrounded himself with multi-talented people like himself.  On the one hand, they wanted to sell films and make money.  On the other, they wanted to develop as professionals.  They quickly recognized that nearly every comedy was merely a high speed chase.  Chaplin, Sennet and Roach saw "Comedy as tragedy speeded up."  Keaton was astute enough to see that this would play itself out.  He decided to develop his character.

He already had a great start--the stoneface.  It had an empathetic effect on the audience in a couple of ways.  One could project whatever emotion he wanted onto the hole in the donut left by Keaton's face.  Or it made him appear the stoic, calmly taking all of the cruelties life dished out.  He was a walking posterchild for the existentialists (who all admitted a certain affinity for Keaton, along with the surrealists--and later, the absurdists).

Keaton then added to this stonefaced character something that he held in his backpocket in spades, incredible athletic skill or prowess.  Like Astaire or Kelly, he made it look like it was nothing, but few could master the moves that he did.  Nobody fell like Keaton.  There was a story in every slip or trip.  Even the pie-throwing skill:  he is arguably the best at both throwing and taking a pie because of both his athletic skill and his depth of character.

As Keaton made the jump from shorts to features, he made sure his developing character grew in dimension.  Now, if his character began with a problem or lack or need, he would undergo enough change and growth throughout the arc of the picture to develop skill to overcome by the end.  This was extremely influential on other film makers of the time and later.  For example, Buster borrows many things from the stage act and films of Houdini, but he adds his own character and character development to make his films immensely more watchable.  This is to take nothing away from Houdini.  He's a giant, with his own unique brand of films, who's shoulders Buster stands on.

Buster was aware that what he was doing was giving his films "The Keaton Touch," and when MGM took this dimension away from him and just asked him to play clowns, he had a great line for him:  "You warped my character."  The Keaton touch was gone.

Buster Keaton, part I

In my opinion, the greatest filmmaker ever was Buster Keaton.  Look, it’s just my opinion.  But let me relate a few reasons why I think this is.

The silent film of the teens and twenties is fraught with actors stepping off the boards of vaudeville and melodrama.  Because the silent film cut off a very important part of the actors’ instruments, their voices, they took their melodramatic poses and exaggerated them even more for the cameras.

It quickly became apparent that the film lens worked as a magnifying glass and these poses often overwhelmed the screen.  Directors even began to look to non-actors for major roles.  A great case and point is Gary Cooper who started in the silent days.  The camera liked this kid who had been rejected by his college drama club and failed at every other job he tried.  His inability to act on stage came across as brilliance on the magnifying screen.

Before Cooper, along came Buster from the boards of Vaudeville.  Luckily, he was born and raised a comedian.  He was famous for sending up the well-known melodramas of the day.  He knew there was much more money and audience satisfaction in a spoof of The Drunkard than trying to play it straight.

When Fatty Arbuckle offers him a partnership just before World War 1, Buster brought with him 20 years of comedic experience, an engineer’s wit for knowing how things work, and a finish carpenter’s skill for fashioning things.  The first thing he did at Arbuckle’s studio was to disassemble and reassemble cameras and projectors.  Then he studied the films of D. W. Griffith and Georges Melies.  He then worked diligently under the tutelage of the great Arbuckle.

Buster, at first, did everything Fatty asked him.  A great example is the film Coney Island; it is one of the few times that you can see Buster’s character smile on the screen.  Fatty gave directions like, “Laugh your head off then I’ll hit you on the head and you will wail like a baby.”  Buster did as he was told, but when he saw himself on screen, he developed a character.  His character could never smile.

This went back to his days of vaudeville with his dad.  They had a roustabout act where the elder Keaton would toss Buster around the stage like he was a rag doll.  If he smiled and let on to the audience about what fun he was having, the laughs would stop.  This drew the admonition (under his breath so the audience couldn’t hear) from his father, “Face.”  That meant, ‘don’t smile.  Take it straight.’  Buster concluded that he just was the kind of comedian that couldn’t laugh at his own jokes.

Therein was something much deeper going on.  Buster’s skills as a comedian, an entertainer and a filmmaker were innate.  This is why it was so hard for him to receive accolades.  Giving him an award for his work was like giving a chicken an award for laying eggs.  It’s what he was born and groomed to do.

At the same time, Buster was incredibly intelligent.  Fatty argued that they had to do the hammy overacting because the average intelligence of the filmgoer was about that of a 9 year old.  Before being drafted to the Great War (WW1), Buster warned Fatty that his opinion was dangerous and may shorten his career.

Something else, a false scandal, ended Fatty’s career.  And returning from the war, Buster had to rely on his native wit to restart his.

Wooly and the Flatscreens

The First Films

How far back would one have to go? To Leonardo's camera obscura that projected images? To the shadow plays of Scrates, Plato and Aristotle's time? According to Jacob Bronowski, you would have to go back to the cave people.

Investigating the cave people, the first thing Bronowski discovered was that "Cave man" is a misnomer. The cave people actually had camps Bronowski excavated outside of the caves. Then why paint pictures of Ice Age creatures on the walls of the caves?

In looking around at the walls during his investigation, Bronowski discovered something curious in the ceiling. There was a thick layer of tallow. Why? He had the men helping him construct a makeshift torch and turn off all of their lights. Then they saw it: the first films. The torch turned the cave pictures into looming, flickering images.

On the spot, Bronowski developed a theory: the cave people were painting the pictures and then coming back into the caves with torches (and maybe even their spears and a few chants) to face their fears. A few choruses of "Kill the Mammoth" may have made them brave enough to go out and get meat for a month.

Could part of the attraction of film today be that it helps us to face our fears? Watching James Bond drive that car may give us the ability to go out and face our crazy roadways. Aristotle would agree. He claimed that seeing kings fall from great heights made the problems of us commoners not seem so great. In any case, we can see where film is probably as old as humanity's handle on fire.

The High Moral Consciousness and Conscience of Film

Film has amazing capacity for good and evil. On the surface, film merely offers an alternate reality for those who are willing to focus their senses on the images flickering by. This is both the brilliance and the danger of film. It is brilliant when it allows overly stimulated people to escape, forget, rest the snapping synapses in their brains. People can release tension into the quick escape proffered. This allows us simple folk to return to everyday tasks and face our fears. The same expunging catharsis and epiphanies have been engaging us since the days of the ancient and classic Greek dramatists.

The dangerous side of film is its evangelical quality. It has this naturally and intrinsically. Most filmmakers will mouth the oft quoted "If you want a message, use Western Union." But film cannot escape its magnificent ability to communicate. The unreal shadows sppear like a more favorable reality to the watcher, cut down into clear, bite-size morsels. Film changes what people think, wear, do, and even lifestyles according to what the audience sees. Where would the Third Reich had been without Riefenstahl? Where would the new deal and WW2 be without Capra and Ford?

The sorriest dread of humans is our ability to decline. Theater went from the height of Greek drama and comedy to Roman gladiatorial games that basically entertained with a lot of hacking. Our film history is following much the same pattern. The Silent Era could be seen as our Greek time and reality tv could be seen as gladitorial hacking.

Film has the possibility of changing society or dragging it down. Because it is driven by money, it will likely succomb to the lowest common denominator. "Garbage in, garbage out," claim the filmmakers--film merely reflects the society it is composed in. Without challenge, teaching, guidance---humans fall to their most base form. The hope of Classic Film File is to remember the noble shoulders film stands upon for a sense of film that can heighten the human condition.

The Weight of Film

Philosophy of Film

Thousands of tiny snapshots pasted together with light shinning through them to give the illusion of movement and life.  Life is but a walking shadow.  Plato's shadows at the back of a cave have become our reality.  No other entertainment or art form has brought so much intrigue, delight, pervasive influence or worldwide acceptance.

It awakens the senses.  Through the sense of sound and sight, we experience a sense of space (enveloped in an artificial one); we experience a sense of humor, a sense of drama, a sense of suspense, a sense of romance.  We live so vicariously through these tiny strips that we oftn prefer this artificial world to our own reality.

The film experience is nothing short of religious.  The theater is the temple, self-promoting and full of pleasure.  It offers connection to favorite icons and the communicants choice of elements:  popcorn, coke, junior mints.  One enters in either purposeful fellowship or jungian super-conciousness.  The lights are lowered, the sermon begins and the focus on this spiritual life ensues.

Yet, think of how ephemeral this medium is.  A film can be written and re-written a thousand times before it reaches the screen---and I'm not talking about the script.  Acting rewrites a film.  Editing rewrites a film.  Even set design, make-up and costume can completely change the look and feel of a film.  I once saw a famous Director of Photography show how color choice can completely "write" a film.

This blog site will be dedicated to film in all its glorious, hallowed reaches and dregs---mainly in the 20th century and forgoing pornography.  Even this inconography can reveal the depth, height and length of the human spirit.