Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher
From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Pee Wee Hermans Big Adventure
Message-ID: <6683@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 14:22:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6683
Posted: Tue Aug 27 14:22:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 13:25:05 EDT
References: <11094@rochester.UUCP>
Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 19
Summary: 

Comparing Pee Wee Herman to Chaplin and Keaton is overdoing it more than
a bit.  Chaplin and Keaton were incredibly imaginative physical comedians.
Herman has a much more limited repetoire.  There isn't a single sequence
in his film which matches up with even second rate Chaplin and Keaton.
There is also the fact that, unlike those comedians, Herman's comic persona
is intentionally grating if one does not have the proper taste to appreciate it.
(I, for one, don't.)  I have never heard of anyone being irritated by Keaton's
comic persona, or even Chaplin's.  (The irritation with Chaplin usually comes
over his sentimentality.) 

For those who haven't seen them, I suggest watching the great silent comedians
(Chaplin, Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Langdon, and Laurel and Hardy; to a lesser
extent, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chase, the films of Mack Sennett, and Mabel
Normand) for yourselves.  You will discover why the 1910s and 1920s were the
golden age of screen comedy.
-- 
        			Peter Reiher
				reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher