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!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Keaton, Sennet,etc. Message-ID: <6860@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 19:46:24 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6860 Posted: Mon Sep 16 19:46:24 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:27:50 EDT References: <11094@rochester.UUCP> <6683@ucla-cs.ARPA> <837@udenva.UUCP> Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 46 In article <837@udenva.UUCP> showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) writes: > I find Buster Keaton to be far from humorous. As for a comic persona, hav- >ing the exact same expression on one's face for an entire film career is over- >doing it just a bit. Houses falling over, massive destruction, and hanging >from the sides of tall buildings just aren't that funny. Mack Sennet, too, >used violence more than humor in his films. You may find pie-fights and banana >skins hilarious but to me it seem juvenile and annoying. I can hardly argue that Mack Sennett isn't juvenile, since he is. Sennett is not to everyone's taste, and a little of his work goes a long way. Buster Keaton, however, is hilarious, in my opinion. To say that he only has one expression is to miss the point. Keaton's genius lay in his persistence, his ability to carry on in the face of any disaster without complaint or even the slightest show of exasperation. If his expression changed even once, it would ruin the joke. Just how much Keaton have you seen? I should also point out that, Sennett aside, most silent comedians were not especially violent or deeply into slapstick humor. Slapstick was one of many tools they used. Keaton probably never slipped on a banana peel or threw a pie in any of his films. Violence is not a major component of Keaton's films. There's a hurricane in "Steamboat Bill Jr.", and a house front does fall over in that movie (right on top of Keaton, who fortunately happens to be standing at a point where a window falls), but Keaton doesn't use the pull-the-nose, kick-the-ass type of comedy perfected by the Three Stooges. The standard Keaton bit is to set him to an impossible task and then watch him persevere in the face of incredible odds. Chaplin used a bit more slapstick, but he was incredibly inventive about it. You won't find your standard custard pie fight in any of Chaplin's own films. Have you actually seen Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last"? I suppose if one's taste is exclusively to Oscar Wilde, Noel Coward, and Woody Allen, biting verbal wit, then one might not enjoy classic silent comedy. Otherwise, I do not understand how anyone could fail to appreciate it, and you are the first person I have ever heard say that he has actually seen it and didn't like it. I won't argue preferences (Chaplin vs. Keaton), nor a dislike of an individual performer, but, taken as a whole, the great silent comedies of the 1920s are, in my opinion, the funniest films ever made. The true test, of course, is listening to an audience. Whenever I see a great silent comedy in a theater, the laughter is almost deafening. Good thing they were silent, because you never would have heard anything they said. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com