While the feature films discussed in class are examples of melodrama, another popular genre was comedy. This weeks screening encapsulates three of the leading silent comedians of the era: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. In the essence of time, the films by Chaplin and Keaton are short films and Lloyd's a feature film. It is important to note that Chaplin and Keaton also produced feature films and all three were very hands-on with their productions whether they are credited as director or not. These comedies, like the melodramas, provide entertainment as well as a window on life during that time.You should notice a connection between these comedians and later comics such as Jerry Lewis and Jim Carrey. Pay attention to the intricate visuals of these films since they are paramount to the successful completion of the gags. Also of importance is the way in which each of these silent comedians honed their skills and cultivated distinctive personas that made them famous. Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd were all very aware of the roles they were playing and very protective of their work, especially Lloyd (who witheld his work for decades).
Suggested Supplemental Screenings: SHOULDER ARMS (Chaplin, 1918), THE KID (Chaplin, 1921), CITY LIGHTS (Chaplin, 1931), MODERN TIMES (Chaplin, 1936), SHERLOCK JR. (Keaton, 1924), GO WEST (Keaton, 1925), THE GENERAL (Keaton, 1926), STEAMBOAT BILL JR. (Keaton, 1928),
GRANDMA'S BOY (Lloyd, 1922), and GIRL SHY (Lloyd, 1924)
Chaplin and Keaton appear together in LIMELIGHT (1952). We will watch Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR (1940) at the end of the semester.
Surprisingly a new Charlie Chaplin film was recently discovered through ebay when a man purchased a film canister labeled "an old film," which turned out to be CHARLIE CHAPLIN IN ZEPPED, a 1916 World War I propoganda film that was considered lost.
While viewing the three different films by Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, I was completely taken away by how funny these films still are. Each comedian had their own style, but overall it relied heavily on slapstick humor. Chaplin was more about simple gags while Keaton and Lloyd both relied on fantastic stunts and feats for their humor. the film I enjoyed the most out of all three was Charlie Chaplin's "The Pilgrim". Watching this great comedian perform reminded me of all of my favorite cartoons as a child. Chaplin's persona is both sneaky and curious while whimsical at the same time. Seeing the way he moved his body and reacted to his carefully crafted gags reminded me of the early Mickey Mouse cartoons. While there were visual elements to all three comedians, what caught me off guard was their subtle jokes. Several puns and innuendos flew over some of the audiences heads while others were very blatant. It was interesting to see how they were able to play around with adult humor without getting caught by the censors. Probably the most impressive aspect of these films was the stunts. Each leap and fall performed by all three masters left me stunned and wondering how these acts were performed even hours after viewing it. It can be said that without these three greats, comedy would not be the same. Each has influenced thousands of performers throughout the globe including Jim Carrey, Robin Williams and Jackie Chan. Decades after their release, these films still remain fresh and awe inspiring.
ReplyDeleteI found each film by Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd to be funnier than I expected them to be. They each utilized a different style of comedy, yet they all shared that sense of slapstick humor. Chaplin’s comedy was more subtle. There were no stunts such as the ones in the films by Keaton and Lloyd. Chaplin relied on human connection and towards the end of the film, there is even some sentiment when Chaplin decides to retrieve and return the stolen money. Compared to Keaton and Lloyd, there is something really charming about Chaplin; this is mostly shown in his facial expressions and the times in which he looks directly into the camera.
ReplyDeleteKeaton’s film, to me, was the funniest of the three. Keaton made excellent use of the set and props. The house itself seemed to be its own character that added to the absurdity of the story; it was oddly built and its walls were door and its door were walls, and at one point the whole thing was spinning on the ground spitting out everyone inside. Keaton’s extensive use of stunts allowed for more comedic opportunity. It’s always funny when someone gets hurt, and Keaton’s antics usually ended in that manner. I was even impressed to see how Keaton was throwing himself around and falling from high places.
Lloyd’s film took a little while to get started and took an even longer time to finish. The middle part was great, and I really enjoyed it when Lloyd’s girlfriend came to visit and he was trying to impress her. The situation presented is one that has been used in comedy numerous times after Lloyd. What appealed to me was that Lloyd seemed like a regular guy. He had a girlfriend, a hectic job, and a best friend. I believe the last act of the film, where Lloyd is climbing the building, dragged on. It was mostly the same joke repeated on each floor all the way until he reached the top.
These were the first films I’ve ever seen by these actors/filmmakers. I am definitely curious to see more of their work.
I enjoyed Charlie Chaplin’s film, The Pilgrim, the most out of the three. Although each film relied heavily on slapstick, I felt that Chaplin used situational comedy, as well as slapstick the most effectively. Chaplin also wrote, and directed which shows that he truly is the master. Safety Last! left me wondering how it was actually filmed, but it was much too long, and relied on the same gags over the course of the movie. A lot of the climbing and dialogue with The Pal (Limpy Bill) is repetitive and probably could serve to make the film more enjoyable to view today, but at the time this probably had viewers on the edge of their seats. Even I was getting rather claustrophobic when Keaton was climbing higher and higher. I noticed that he never looked down. One Week had an incredible set that left me wondering how long it took to build that crooked house set. This film I felt was the least creative out of the three and consisted mostly of terrible things happening to Buster Keaton, which is funny to a point. But one must appreciate that, at the time these were revolutionary films whose elements are still contained and imitated in films to this day. For example the show Wipeout on ABC is proof that slapstick is still alive. It really is amazing how the stories still come across so clearly even though there is no dialogue. The film pioneers of the 1920’s found many creative ways of conveying ideas visually. Each film is “over-acted” which makes their emotions easier to read on-screen. A very interesting part of these films that I was not expecting to enjoy were how they were scored. The best use of scoring was in Safety Last! which, combined with the suspense, probably had audiences captivated.
ReplyDeleteChaplin was easily my favorite of the three films, though each had their own unique humor (I suppose its possible I just felt burnt out by the time the third film rolled around, especially with its lengthy, drawn-out ending). Out of the three comedians though, Chaplin seemed the most animated, had the most character and strongest on-screen presence. I guess its no wonder he’s the only name I recognized going into the theater. The second comedy did surprise with its use of set design and stunt comedy, while the third I’d consider a mixture of Chaplin and Keaton, only with the lead character that is more reserved. It’s nice to see most of the comedy is timeless, I enjoyed some of Chaplin’s moments about as much I would any modern day comedian, if there’s one major difference I’d say it’s the pacing and timing of the jokes. To call all the comedy from that era “slap-stick” would be a disservice to many of the nuanced subtle references sprinkled throughout, that said, the physical comedy here is as good as it’ll ever get. As time goes on though, and we grow up in a culture with shorter attention spans, not many will have the patience for comedy that takes its time with its jokes. No one is going to want to sit through almost 45 minutes of a guy painstakingly climbing each floor of a building if there’s only minimal comical payoff along the way. Seeing films like this does remind me, though, that not too much has changed, something funny to us 100 years ago can still make people laugh today.
ReplyDeleteOf all the silent comedies we watched, I recognized that the comedic formula of these films is still really effective today. I found them hilarious and I loved the sweet narrative style. I think what is so special about these silent films is the culture of the time period. All the extremes were excused in acting, sets, and choreography back then, but today’s modern films have realism as the major priority. Any modern remake of the happy themes of the 20’s and 30’s just comes out as cheesy and asinine. The purity and child-like joy of classic comedies like these are definitely original and, in my opinion, priceless.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with Chaplain’s films, but this was my first time seeing The Pilgrim. I’m in love with his choreography in this film and his deadpan comedy had me laughing like crazy. His acting is more of a dance than anything, and I haven’t seen many extreme characters like this in today’s films. I don’t know if any professional actors who are talented in acrobatic humor and flowing choreography exist in Hollywood today. Even Jim Carrey hasn’t been in films that capture his dancing humor since the 90’s. I really love Jim Carrey ☺.Today, realism has really hushed out this type of extreme, clown-like humor.
My favorite of the three was Buster Keaton’s s film. I was so impressed and afraid for him watching him do stunt after stunt in this film. I don’t want to know how much damage he did to himself in the making of his films. His character was more realistic than Chaplain and Lloyd, even though the film setting and plot was far from realism. The bitter-sweet narrative, the amazing set and choreography of Keaton’s film was very enjoyable and has encouraged me to watch some more of his work.
-Allison Basham
All three comics showcased different forms of comedy. I’m actually a huge fan of Keaton, and may be a little biased. I found Chaplin to be much more broad and slapstick based. Not that there’s anything wrong with that type of comedy, it’s just not something I prefer. The transitions in Pilgrim, although I understand the practical use of them, seemed to stall the picture here and there, and I kind of grew increasingly tired of it as each new title card appeared.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Keaton’s piece. His comedy is much more pathetic and sad, and there’s something very human behind it all. It’s a little sardonic and ironic, which is interesting considering that that’s all audiences now seem to respond to. It was also slightly amusing to see Keaton put his body through hell all for the sake of the joke. There was a little more subtlety to the humor. For instance, in the beginning there’s the moment where the groom picks up one of the shoes that were thrown to the newlywed couple because it actually fits his size. There’s also the sign on their car which says ‘Good Luck, you’re going to need it.’ I found that highly amusing. Another interesting thing in Keaton’s piece was the moment where his wife is in the tub and she drops her soap, and is about to reach for it until she realizes that she would be exposing herself to the camera and thus, the audience. A hand is put up over the camera while she retrieves the soap. Not only does it break the fourth wall, but it also plays around with the idea of censorship.
Llloyd’s was just crazy to look at. I’m pretty sure his talents lie more in stunts than comedy, although the concept in Safety Last was highly amusing.
The three silent comedies we screened were really fantastic. It was kind of amazing to see that their humor still holds up with a modern audience as well as they did but I guess jokes never really change, or rather their subject matter. I think films like Mel Brooks’ “Silent Movie” and Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” prove that silent, physical comedy still works today (of course both of those films are over thirty years old as well).
ReplyDeleteCharlie Chaplin’s “The Pilgrim”, for me, is a perfect example of why he is THE name from this particular film era. He gave a full performance that was believable, compelling, and hilarious with just his face (mostly just his eyes). I could not stop laughing when he thinks the young couple is chasing him to turn him in, while they just want him to marry them.
Buster Keaton’s “One Week” was really impressive. The technical feats, at least, far surpassed Chaplin’s movie (perhaps out of necessity by being in competition with Chaplin). The vaudeville-type ladder stunt was really effective. While it was funny, I still felt a sense of suspense. There were many other big things they did with this movie like running a train through a house and spinning a house around many times must’ve taken a lot of commitment and effort both physically and financially that I really haven’t seen from too many movies of the time. And the tub scene was really ballzy, to say the least. When the soap bar fell out of that tub I swear I mouthed the words “holy shit” cause they really make you think they’re going for it.
Harold Lloyd’s “Safety Last” was rather inventive as well except it was really bogged down with the longest climbing scene I have ever seen in my life. The “fabric sample scene” after the store was already closed was really funny. A little old lady holding up the rest of the world is a classic comedy bit but watching it, all I could think about was this could’ve been THE movie that made it that way. I’m not sure but it’s interesting to think about.
Obviously the close ups of the lead dealing with insane and frequent obstacles while climbing was cheated and on a perfectly safe set, however, I have no idea how they go their wide shots of people scaling skyscrapers. I’d like to believe that if there were wires, I would’ve seen them, or at least an unnatural tug on their clothes but there was nothing. Did they actually have some lunatic on the side of a building? I don’t know. All I know is I enjoyed this week’s screening.
Out of all the films I loved Charlie Chaplin’s the most, it was funny and I was taken back by all the slapstick that was in the film, the film to me, looked a little bit on the cartoon side but I really liked it a lot. The film over all was really funny to me, and I was even laughing in the library everyone was looking at me weird but if they saw what I was looking at they would have been on the floor rolling around at how funny Charlie Chaplin is. After all these years and in my opinion Charlie Chaplin is still the king of slapstick. Everything is funny from the way he acts, the way he writes even the way he directs, and yes he used to star, write and even direct all of his own films. I think this is a big deal because now in days there are not a lot of people doing all at once. I also felt that SAFETY LAST was really long, I don’t know if it was the way the film was made or that the story line did not catch me right away but, I did not enjoy this film as much as I did some other ones, I felt that a lot of the things that were said where repeated a lot, I don’t know if that was just me but that’s what I felt in this one film. I really liked the fact that in all the films the acting was really over acted, this made it a lot easier for me to understand what was going on. I found it really funny that a lot of people still like and enjoy looking at silent comedies, I am guessing that the reason for this is that no matter where in the world a person may be they can still connect with silent comedies, a person really doesn’t have to know what language it is in they just have to see what is going on, or they can hear the music and just fall in love with the silent comedies. I also liked looking at Buster Keaton’s film, the stunts were really good put together, I didn’t know that they did their own stunts; it was really cool how he climbed and never looked down. I would have not even climbed left alone look down. But I just have one more thing to say and that will be that I love Charlie Chaplin!!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed these three comedies. Each one of them reflected their different styles and ways to approach the audience. Even though each one of these great directors demonstrated their differences through the different films they also shared the rich culture of the time they were filmed. Regardless of their different styles it was obvious they shared a time variable.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with Charlie Chaplin’s performance was incredible, his use of mime and slapstick made him stand out as one of the most creative characters of all times. As my first time watching the Pilgrim I can say I really liked it. Made me laugh several times, especially when the young couple is chasing him to turn him in, but what they really want is for him to marry them. It was also truly interesting because as hilarious as it was it also had a touch of suspense.
Harry Lloyds “safety last “ was the one I liked least, but was also quite funny. The funniest scene for me was the fabric sample scene. There were a lot of close-ups, which made it interesting, and the climbing scene seemed very realistic. It made me feel as if he were about to fall at all times and made me focus on the film.
Personally Keaton’s film was my favorite. It seemed the more realistic and sentimental. One scene that I liked very much was when his wife was taking a shower and she accidently drops the soap and as soon as she leans down to grab it suddenly a hand covers the camera. This I believe played with the audience’s minds making them feel as if they truly were in the scene but at the same time is funny. The sign in the car of the couple that just got married saying, “ Good luck, you are going to need it” was hilarious.
Out of the three films, I really enjoyed watching Charlie Chapmin’s “The Pilgrim”. It was interesting to see that he wrote, produced and acted in his own film, as only a hand full of actors are doing that today. I loved the slapstick style of the film, as well as his animation and high energy when acting. The first part of the film that was funny to me was when the young couple wanted to be married and the husband points at Charlie “the convict” whom believed he was being chased to be brought back to prison. That clip was hilarious, placing a grin on my face that didn’t leave for the rest of his film.
ReplyDeleteThen there was Keaton’s film that was funny as well. He used a lot of props and did a lot of stunts in his film, which were funny to watch. He seems to do all of his own stunts and didn’t seem to mind nearly breaking bones for his ridiculous acts. It’s always funny to see people getting hurt and he defiantly took advantage of that comedic aspect.
Lastly Harold Lloyd’ film was humorous to watch as he climbed up the building like a klutz. His friend keeps telling him how he has to keep going higher and higher in order for him to ditch the cop, yet the cop keeps catching him.
The three films were great to watch and was an introduction to me of showing the first REAL comedians of that time and whom actors today are portraying when acting in comedies. They were all a pleasure to watch and Charlie Chapmin remains my favorite, and I love his little mustache ☺.
My dad has been obsessed with Charlie Chaplin for as long as I can remember, so watching his film, The Pilgrim, was a very enjoyable experience for me. The film had me laughing the entire time without using dialogue. Some current movies continue to use this humor-the first one that came to mind was Wall-E. Wall-E hardly utilized dialogue and focused on nonverbal human connection which is exactly what Keaton, Chaplin, and Lloyd did in their films.
ReplyDeleteI think the creativity and planning that went behind Keaton's One Week is unbeatable, particularly in his time. The house reminds me of a modern day Ripley's Believe it or Not! I absolutely loved Keaton's stunts. When one side of the house fell on him, I found myself cringing at the thought that during rehearsals he may have calculated wrong and he wouldn't have gone through the open window. The only flaw I noticed in this film was the development of the characters. I think he could have built up the situational comedy a little more to create a more humorous environment, but overall I loved it!
Safety Last! I enjoyed but found that some sections dragged on a bit too long. I found that the shorter, to the point films were more comical because they had me laughing the entire time. Overall, I think I enjoyed the first two films the most.
The first two films were very interesting and funny, but the last one was a little too long. I have already seen a lot of Charlie Chaplin and Buster keaton so I was very familiar with their films and how well done they are. The first film was funny because he was a prisoner, escaped and dressed up as a priest. And ever time he saw a cop he freaked out and had a lot of slap stick funniness. I think that is why most of these silent funny films are relevant because of the slapstick. Much like The Three Stooges all of his films are done with slapstick comedy.
ReplyDeleteI think the second one was my favorite just because it was quick and not prolonged. It was seven days where an ex boyfriend screwed up the numbering of the boxes. The house was screwed up and there were a lot of trick rooms which was funny how one side of the house flipped with him and her on it. Another one of my favorite and daring scenes was when the building fell and he was perfectly through the middle. I respect him a lot because I know that he did all of his stunts and that is impressive because everyone else nowadays has their own stunt doubles. Overall my favorite one.
Safety last was funny at parts, but near the end I was glad it was over because it was way too long. I know that the clock scene is a very famous scene and I thought it was great, but took a little long to get into the story. It was funny and interesting that at each new level there was something new, but still a little long.
I loved all three films. I had heard a lot about these three actors but never seen any of their movies; I was really impressed. I also like the fact that even though they were made almost ninety years ago, the films are still funny and don’t feel dated.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t help but find an uncanny resemblance between Charles Chaplin and Woody Allen. His influence on the New York director is unquestionable. I’m a fan of Allen, and I had never seen Chaplin before, and seeing him for the first time I could see Allen I him. Especially the way he moves, and his mannerisms, are very similar to Allen in his “earlier funnier” movies. Chaplin’s story was clever in that he accidentally landed a job as a minister in a church, and then spent the rest of the movie covering his real identity as a convict.
I found Keaton to be funny as well. But, putting that aside, I thought his work with the camera to be remarkable. I was surprised to see a scene like the one where the entire house is rotating and he’s running around it trying to jump through the door to get inside and then he finally makes it. Once inside Keaton is amazing going around the room in circles and the flying out again. The whole movie was great.
I also enjoyed Harold Lloyd very much. The thing that left me dumbfounded was that he did his own stunts. Supposedly climbed that building we saw in real life, and there weren’t any tricks. He actually hung from the clock I don’t know how many floors up. This is a guy who took his performances seriously; he risked his life in all of them. And obviously besides that he was also funny. Great movies!
It was interesting to see these silent comedies from Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd back-to-back because it really allows the audience to pick up on the subtle differences between them. Of course, these films also work really well together in demonstrating the roots of slapstick and comedy in general.
ReplyDeleteConcerning some of the differences, I particularly noticed that “The Pilgrim” would often use the medium and long shot to best capture the physicality of Chaplin’s performance – allowing the audience to not only see his extremely expressive facial expression but also the almost neurotic manner in which he moves his body. I also felt that, because the film really finds humor in Chaplin’s reaction to his surroundings, the framing of the shot was particularly important. There seems to be such deliberateness and precision in the contents of the frame. For example, the film’s use of the hat and kitchen roller seems vital to the picture; it’s almost as if Chaplin is acting opposite these inanimate objects. Something else quite specific to Chaplin’s “The Pilgrim” is the manner in which he would constantly make eye contact with the audience, breaking the fourth wall. This would allow the audience to share in the comic grief and develop a private relationship with the character. It’s interesting to wonder, whether in these moments the audience associates with The Pilgrim or Chaplin himself. It would almost seem that in these moments there’s such a blending between actor and character. You begin to wonder just how aware the audience is of Chaplin, the actor, in his films. Arguably, most of his roles share vast similarities but at their core they are fundamentally derivations of the character Chaplin invented for himself. The audience would be incredibly aware of Chaplin as he plays The Pilgrim; however, would the audience realize that there is an actor behind the character of Chaplin which they are so familiar with? Also, I believe this is the first time in the course that we see children, as an audience, have an effect on what’s portrayed on screen. This is appropriate because to a certain extent these films seem geared towards children, although their social commentary and broad comedy allow for a wide audience.
“One Week” and “Safety Last” use a much more expansive space for their comedy. While I felt that “The Pilgrim” had a much tighter frame which Chaplin would react in, “One Week” and “Safety Last” involve these grand surroundings for their characters to explore their physical comedy. In the case of “One Week” Buster Keaton would act opposite the complete structure of a house and “Safety Last” had Lloyd reacting to the elaborate troubles of the city. It’s amusing to compare the different locales of “One Week” and “Safety Last” as they almost mark a natural progression in the size and scope of the comedy. Keaton would climb the rooftop; Lloyd, a skyscraper. Finally, it’s also worth noting the technique of slapstick that these two films share compared to “The Pilgrim.” In much the same way that the size and scope of the films have grown, so too has the physicality of the performers’. It seems that the comedy of Keaton and Lloyd began to incorporate impressive, daring, and often maniacal stunt work. Chaplin, on the other hand, relies more on the character’s nervous tendency. The characters in all three films seem to share this nervous antic personality, with perhaps Keaton’s being a bit less anxious and more unaware. I find Chaplin’s characterizations an influence in both Keaton and Lloyd’s method. However, it’s not as simple to spot the influence that Keaton and Lloyd’s stunts might have had on Chaplin.
My favorite film was the Buster Keaton film. I've seen three Keaton films and three Chaplin films and prefer Keaton. HIs expressionless face brings a unique form of humor to his movies. Also, I like how he is often filmed in very wide shots and off center. The complete opposite to Chaplin whose presence is more center.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed Harold Lloyd's Safety First. It was particularly impressive knowing that many of his stunts were done without much safety precaution: he was really hanging from those buildings.
There were obvious differences from film to film but viewing them together provided the opportunity to notice the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between each filmmaker's style.
At this week’s screening we got to watch classic silent comedies from the greats: Charlie Chaplin’s The Pilgrim, Buster Keaton’s One Week, and Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last. All three are very different than the talkies today but at the same time I still found them as or even more funny than the comedies that are released today. Charlie Chaplin’s The Pilgrim, about a guy who escapes from jail and is confused with a town’s new minister, had everything you would hope to see in a film. I thought it would be a little shaky because I thought how would I relate or even sympathize with a character who is an escaped criminal. Though the movie had me laughing through the chase scene at the train station and the mistaken the hat as a cake scene, I did not truly enjoy it till I saw that he cared about the people and did not want their money to get stolen. Buster Keaton’s One Week, about a newlywed couple building their first house, was a different from Charlie Chaplin’s film but was still very funny. Though this film is heavily gags and stunts it is still hilarious. This film actually reminded me of the Jackass type humor of just hurting yourself and falling down. For me, the best scene was the last one when the house gets hit by the train. It seems so predictable but after the first train misses it you feel like it is not going to happen but it does and it makes even that better. Then after it is wrecked by the train Buster Keaton puts the For Sale sign on the pile which use to be house, which is just the icing on this joke cake. Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last, a small town guy moves to the big city to make a lot of money so he can marry his girlfriend, was my least favorite out of the three. I felt that the movie was too long and after awhile the gags turned from funny to just annoying. I felt that after the fifth gag/incident of Harold trying to climb the building became dumb and repetitive. The film was not all bad though I did enjoy the scene where him and his girlfriend where pressing the buttons in the boss’ office. His lies and reasons for that were very funny and was interesting to see who came through the door. Overall, I quite enjoy all three films that where shown. I think humor is universal and timeless because everyone needs a laugh once in awhile.
ReplyDeleteI’ve heard a lot about these silent film comedians before, from my parents, popular culture, and also in other film courses I’ve taken, however I had never actually watched any of their films in their entirety. Contrary to other comments about these films being really funny, I didn’t quite think so. I went into it thinking (and hoping) that they would be really funny – not that they weren’t at all because I did get a laugh or two from certain onscreen gags, but overall I’d say these films were more silly than funny. Watching these films I felt very much reminded of some popular Disney and Nickelodeon shows of today like “Hannah Montana,” “The Suite Life of Zac and Cody”, etc. which resort to a lot of slapstick sort of humor for laughs.
ReplyDeleteChaplin, for me was the most recognizable of the three (Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd) and personally I found him the most entertaining to watch. He stands out in a way the others just don’t seem to (at least as far as these particular three films are concerned), everything from his ever-familiar hat and tiny mustache, to his strange “penguinesque” walk, to his naïve, yet sneaky personality makes Chaplin a pleasure to watch.
I was very impressed by the sets and props used in the Keaton film “One Week”. The spinning house left me in awe, not to mention a little dizzy after a while. The stunts in this film performed by Keaton, I also felt were really well-done and quite funny; quite possibly what makes the film entertaining at all.
Silent Comedies
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed these films, because although they were silent they were highly entertaining. The thing that I noticed most was the perfect timing in every film. Each director and actor must have worked those scenes over and over to properly block them. If these films were not blocked the way they were they would have not been funny. I thought I would not enjoy these because I do not enjoy modern comedies what so ever, but these were light and cute. They were not trying to be something that they are not. The directors and actors did a great job of doing what they were trying to do, which was simply entertaining people. They were just trying to get people to laugh and they succeeded. I thought they would be silly and boring, but they really did a great job in capturing my attention, because each story had a build up to the end, and I truly wanted to know what was going to happen next.
In the film about the newly weds trying to build themselves a house was hilarious. I thought that each scene was perfectly timed to lead up to the end. I also was very impressed by the set design. The spinning house, the doors on the second floor, and just the comedic fact that they built a house with just the two of them was very impressive. It reminded me of building forts when I was little; the house fit together like a Lego house it just had bigger building blocks. The train scene was my favorite, because it was just so funny that they actually thought that they would just pick up and drag their house around town with a car.
In addition Keaton’s film, as well as Lloyd’s film, did a very good job with their stunts. I was very impressed with their almost athletic ability that they used in order to add to their comedic gags. They were almost choreographed like a dance sequence for each scene.
Honestly, I had only heard of Chaplin before viewing these films, and I thought his film would have been the best but I wasn’t as impressed with this film; however, I did think that this film’s story was much better. The ending in which he was to go to Mexico was very comedic, but also added to the character of police officer. You can see the transformation of thinking, because of the good he had done was paying off.
Sarah Garcia
While anticipating all of the films listed on this semester’s syllabus of screenings, I must admit, the trio of silent comedy films made me the most excited. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd bring impeccable comedic timing, innocent humor and daring stunts to their work. The lighthearted films of this genre are brilliantly executed by their protagonists who revel and flourish in the story’s zany plot lines. Something that can be said for the work of these men is that they truly “go there” and aren’t afraid to suffer for their craft (pratfalls, “pies in the face”, etc.), but each of these actor’s had their own distinct style.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Chaplin’s whimsical charm transcends time. Even if slipping on a banana peel is passé as far as humor is concerned these days, Chaplin brings an innocence and sweetness to the screen that one can’t help but smile about. As proof of his mastery over his craft, Chaplin manages create a compelling connection with the audience, despite playing a bank robber in the film The Pilgrim—an unconventional protagonist if morality is concerned. Chaplin’s wide-eyed, sweet, childlike demeanor carries though most of his films and The Pilgrim was no exception. The Pilgrim relied heavily on slapstick humor, but I found the sight gags much more amusing, such as when Chaplin accidentally frosts a guest’s hat mistakenly thinking it was a cake.
Buster Keaton’s film was a highly physical, driven by supremely visual comedic stunts. I can imagine that no matter what country “One Week” was screened in, the audience would understand the plot, even if there were no title cards inserted. It was quite apparent that a lot of careful planning went into both the actions as well as the sets. The scene where the house spins amidst a terrible storm was shocking to watch, especially considering that a scene of that nature today would most likely rely heavily on effects in postproduction. Keaton emits a grace and skill that shine through his trademark stoicism.
Although I found Lloyd’s “Safety Last!” entertaining, oddly enough I felt that the climactic scene, showing the daring high-rise climb, was drawn out a touch too long. The pace did build suspense and the stakes got higher, but I was more charmed by his scenes in the department store that exposed his quirky way of dealing with every day calamity.
Keaton, Chaplin and Lloyd all had unique qualities and personalities assigned to their characters, but their three female counterparts—the love interests, tended to blend into one singular character. They unfortunately did not share the same dynamism and depth to the extent where the viewer gained a true sense of who they were. This could have been in an effort to highlight the men’s gags and characteristics by comparison, but I would have liked to see their characters developed further.
This genre takes full advantage of the technology of the time. Silent film is the perfect medium to draw focus to physical comedy, funny facial expressions and daring feats that still make us laugh to this day.
--Brianne McKay
Silent films usually have some kind of major theme that attract audiences around the globe, no matter how new or old, a major positive attraction is released in the viewing of the film, that catches attention. Silent films focus on the major viewing aspect in films, and tries attracting and sending messages to audiences through imagery, and minimal text is used.
ReplyDeleteOut of the three films we were shown in class, the one that stood out was "One Week", based on a married couple with their difficulties through the house building process. Struggling to completely build the proper house, a crooked and weird looking house was complete instead. Major household necessities in the wrong place, walls open and close, slide, and flip, and spins constantly when the small twister comes in place. Just like a mary-go-round, visitors jump over each other, slide against the walls, crash into each other, all because of the misplaced numbers on the house. The house gets a pretty good beating, and still has the major building blocks to make it stand, however, gets a train straight into it, which obviously destroys it.
Out of all the actors in the 20s and 30s, Buster Keaton focuses more on the technical aspects of film rather than the practical (acting). Keaton is an amazing actor as we have seen in numerous films, however each film has well thought out cinematic techniques that may astonish audiences at that time. Keaton certainly had the power to do whatever he wants; we've seen some really major themes, such as the train colliding into the house, house being rotated like a disk, and many other things. Yet continues to astonish viewers with his jumps, falls, and other techniques such as the" walk into the cinema screen" trick, and the dream like gesture in "Sherlock Jr".
I enjoyed all three silent comedies we screened, and found each to have its own style of humor. It was impressive how funny Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd still are to present day audiences, especially considering the absence of audio.
ReplyDeletePersonally, Buster Keaton is my favorite of the three. His film “The Pilgrim” is a perfect showcase of his daredevil humor. The thing that separates Keaton from Chaplin and Lloyd is how smart his humor is. The lack of sound is less noticeable when he is on the screen, simply because his comedy speaks volumes. His films also have the most modern feel to them, due in large part to his masterful direction.
Charlie Chaplin’s “The Pilgrim” makes is easy to see why he is the marquee name of this era. His characters are so original and executed perfectly. Every action and sequence is flawlessly in tune with his character. Chaplin never gets old.
You have to respect Harold Lloyd’s “Safety Last”. It is insane to think that super famous people like Lloyd and Keaton did not use stunt doubles back then. The climb scene was captivating and built a good amount of suspense. It lingered a bit too long, but the close-ups and editing were possibly better than anything else we screened.
These movies are fantastic and they really point out something that annoys me in films today. These three actors, but especially Lloyd and Keaton, are essentially action stars. Sure their medium is comedy, but it is comedy told through action. Here are men who do their own stunts, and they are phenomenal to watch, plus as an added bonus, there aren't 8 BILLION CUTS that confuse the action and make the movie incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteToday in action films you need stars to sell them most of the time. Sometimes the studios won't let the stars do most of their own stunts (although some actors are up to it and do on some occasions). Sometimes the actors aren't able to do the stunts (think Travolta in From Paris With Love or whatever that movie was called). Hollywood figured out that if you make a lot of cuts it looks as if your star is doing all the stunts (not that anyone is fooled). To a certain extent I love the style of kinetic camera motion and quick cuts, but today it is being done so much and is sometimes not done correctly, confusing the scene and eliminating a sense of the space your stunts and actors are in.
I am thinking mostly of The Expendables. Once you put Jet Li and Jason Statham on camera, you don't need quick cuts, you can stay on them and let the audience see that they can actually do it. Its sometimes much more exciting for the camera to pull back and to just marvel at the talent, rather than the “style.” Of course the expendables was all quick cuts, which dilutes what you want from true action stars.
And lets not even talk about CGI stunts. I love stunts of any type, but there is something much more thrilling about having people in the stunts, like in Casino Royale when they are jumping from crane to crane, that is actually happening. Sure there are safety wires, but there are people jumping that high in the air. Now lets think of Prince of Persia where its so cut down or CGI that you lose the thrill of free-running, which you think would be impossible, but they did it.
In these old comedies it is much more thrilling to watch Keaton actually fall off a house, or run through one as its spinning, or Lloyd climb a building and jump between cars. It is real, and you can feel that it is. These old comedies create awesome action set pieces, and then these actors come in, act their parts, and also throw themselves around with a precision and timing that is like that of the fantastic martial arts scenes in movies. I hope that someday there can return to having more movies with real stunts to balance it all out.
Just as a final note, I have not seen From Paris With Love or Prince Of Persia, but even through the trailers and clips online you could tell these things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Charlie Chaplin’s The Pilgrim the most out of the three films. Even for the time period that his film was made in, it was still comedic to me. I loved the plot of the film. I enjoyed the medium shots of the two guys repetitively coming out of their rooms to see if the other was asleep. He was not just doing over the top, ridiculous stunts to make himself look stupid, but his actions were actually entertaining. The story line was cute. It made me smile and even reminded me of the innocence of a child even though Chaplin is a grown man in this film; he resulted back to childish ways which kind of made his character adorable. It made me sympathetic with his character. Chaplin’s character reminds me a lot of Jim Carey, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey characters. They all always have plots behind their uproarious gags but at the same time, it’s still entertaining. I didn’t really favor Buster Keaton’s One Week. It was too over the top. It wasn’t realistic. The characters were too over dramatic. There was one good thing about the film. The timing of the train colliding with the couple’s house was perfect. It definitely caught me guard and even made me jump a little. You see a lot of films later on doing that same sequence with the timing. Keaton’s character reminded me a lot of Kevin James’ characters. James’ characters are way more comedic but he’s always doing ridiculous mistakes that just hysterical. Harold Lloyd’ Safety Last was okay. It was not very interesting. It was bland and kind of boring. Lloyd’s character was not funny at all; his friend was more humorous than he was. Lloyd’s character sort of relates to the modern day characters that we see in Superbad. They’re the geeky kids trying to fit in and make a positive impression on others. Safety is precedence for movies like Superbad and Scott Pilgrim against the world. These movies just developed Lloyd’s ideas a lot more. Chaplin made his films with more of a keen eye to the acting whereas it’s evident that Lloyd made his film with more attention to the auteurship.
ReplyDeleteI’ll start with One Week, because that was my favorite film. Keaton in that film blended a good story with his comedy. The comedy segments, while obvious, worked to propel the film’s story. Keaton’s stunts had me genuinely engaged – was impressed at the danger involved with the stunts and the obvious lack of safety that came with them. The story also had great pacing considering that the entire concept revolved around a relatively simple action – building a house. Keaton managed to expand that into a good, easy to follow story with a physical comedy that wasn’t too hokey. Part of what I enjoyed about Keaton was that his physicality and action displayed the comedy of the situation rather than the expression on his face – I laughed and enjoyed it because he showed it to me, rather than tell it to me through his facial expression – which I didn’t love with Chaplin and Lloyd. All of these comedians were an influence on present comedy, but realized that I see Keaton’s comedy manifested most often in cartoons. Cartoons allow for the same level of ridiculousness and must convey comedy in a short amount of time, and during a certain period were still restricted to silence. The Loony Tunes, Tom & Jerry, and Disney all take a delight in mimicking much of Keaton’s comedy where the image depicted offers the humor and not the face of characters – Wiley Coyote falling from the cliff, Jerry tricking Tom. All of these actions are an extension of what Keaton established with his comedy.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Lloyd’s Safety Last but felt the film could be split into two different movies. The first half of the film showed Lloyd pretending to be a big executive to impress his girlfriend. The second half was Lloyd climbing the building. I enjoyed the first half, the story was compelling and the comedy was integrated well with the story, as Keaton was able to do. The first half also was around the same length in time as One Week, so I was not sick of watching Lloyd go on with the same antics. Once the building scene came, my feeling shifted. While I am amazed and in awe of the fact that he actually did climb and perform stunts on that building, it did not do much for me in terms of the film except lengthen it, as he climbed one story, only to fall a bit, and climb back up again to the twelfth floor. The comedy of him climbing the building felt like it was put there solely for that purpose and not to help the story, which just made me ready for him to get the top.
-Daniel B.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the silent comedy was one of my favorite genres of the late 1920’s-1930’s. The way that the actors could, and still do, make audiences laugh without any sound effects or words is truly an impressive art form. Though the screening was a lot longer than expected all 3 shorts were very funny and kept the audience’s attention the entire time. Keaton’s performance in "One Week" was hilarious, he seems to be a character that everyone aspires to be yet at the same time no one would want the misfortune that always follows him, sometimes literally. In the character’s world it seems like the phrase “whatever can go wrong will” is nature’s law. But what others see as a disaster Keaton takes and make it work out in the end for him, there always is a conclusion no matter how he works to get there.
ReplyDeleteIn "One Week" the house construction was the entire movie. Though it was being built incorrectly Keaton’s character would never give up hope and always found a way to solve a problem, even if that meant just putting a rug over it. It wasn’t until the house was completely destroyed that he finally caved in an gave up. That’s the type of drive that people aspire to have in everyday life, to get back up even when we fall from a 2 story house…figuratively of course.
The day I had been waiting for. I was dying to watch a film a these three comedians. I had seen Chaplin in The Great Dictator, which I love, but I hadn’t seen a film on the other comedians. Watching each work gave me the chance to see the differences in all three comedians. They are all great comedians but each one of them entertain the audience with their own unique ways. Chaplin is and will always be my favorite. He makes me all the time with his silliness acts. Harold Lloyd is more of a sweetheart. He does not make me laugh as much as Chaplin but his sweetness is very cute and that is what makes him very different. One thing that grabbed my attention right away, which I learned in another class, is that Lloyd likes to do his own stunts. Buster Keaton on the other hand, doesn’t show too much face expressions like Lloyd and Chaplin. He is more blank and his actions are the ones that make him funny. Building the house wrong was what made him funny. I laughed at all the mistakes he made but not really by the way he acted. I can laugh just by seeing Chaplin walk. Chaplin and Lloyd always look confused, which adds a lot to their actions. You see Keaton hit the cop in the head and walk away quick but he always has a serious face.
ReplyDeleteThe Pilgrim had a funny plot and a great actor. Like most of his movies, Chaplin uses another identity and the way he tries to act like the priest makes him humorous.
One week had a good plot. Keaton being set up the whole time was funny. He would do everything the right way but mess up.
Safety Last was a good film. Lloyd shows how hard it is to make money and how customers are always. You can actually relate to what Harold is going through.
These short films by Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd were one of my favorite screenings thus far. As if slapstick comedy in and of itself was not fun enough, to be able to watch the masters perform their art was particularly enjoyable. One thing I could not get over was the fact that these films were still hilarious, despite how old they were. It’s funny to me (no pun intended) that certain humor, regardless that it is all completely silent, can still translate to an audience, generations different from any of its directors.
ReplyDeleteThe movie that stuck most with me out of the films was Buster Keaton’s. I loved the whimsical nature of this story of a couple’s first time of building a house. What I loved most was the actual house. It was designed so cartoonishly that I kept imagining the Dr. Seussland in Universal Studios Orlando. The uneven lines and anti-structural structure was funny by itself, but adding Stone Face running around frantically was just hilarious. I also recall a particularly risqué sequence in the short film where the camera filmed an actual “bathing” beauty.
The stunts were also incredible. To think that each of these three actors did all their owns stunts is unheard of. I am surprised that any of them made it past their mid thirties. In any sense, I very much enjoyed these short films and plan to check out more of their work.