After watching both Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton in action. It took me quite a while to decipher these two jokers of the silent era. It wasn't till I made a comparison between modern day actors, then it hit me.
Lettuce start with the face. Comparisons will be based on both films: The Cure and The General. Beginning with The Cure, Charlie Chaplin enters the world of a spa. The the world in a state of equilibrium, being broken in by an event - Chairman Rey, defines how a drunk Charlie Chaplin is the event being broken into the world. Whereas in The General, Buster Keaton is a trainman who works at the lines, the event breaking the state of equilibrium is when his train gets stolen. There's a significant difference between these two actors' faces. Charlie Chaplin's face is usually in a constant state of change of expression. Buster Keaton usually holds a straight face. I remember Rey asking us about whether we prefer Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton?
Here's another thing that sets them apart. Charlie Chaplin has an obvious shuffle in his steps, it is like resembling a clown, which metaphorically, he is. He relies on facial expressions a lot, as well as body gestures. Take for example the rotating doors of the spa. Charlie Chaplin sets the stage ready to make his audience laugh, which is different from Buster Keaton, who DOES NOT purposely sets the stage, he instead goes with the flow which feels natural. The way Charlie Chaplin walks from left to right indicated he was drunk, clumsy, and disoriented. His first encounter was the doors, then comes the antagonist. Big man with an injured feet, being toyed around by Charlie Chaplin, which most people might consider 'smooth'. Buster Keaton on the other hand, usually maintains a straight face almost throughout the movie. Even when rescuing his girl from the clutches of the enemy and escaping into the forest, he maintains a constant state of expression, which really appeals to me.
Now how do both Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton resemble similar traits? Well for starts, both of them are comedians. Both starts off at a world where everything goes wrong, Charlie for the spa, and Buster for failing to join the army and losing his train. Both meets a girl, loses the girl, and then gets the girl back in the end. Obvious melodrama is portrayed in both films, and good guys always prevail. Both movies end in hilarious moments: Charlie for walking straight into the well, and Buster for saluting many soldiers while kissing his lover.
However, the list for differences go on longer. As I mentioned before, Both Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton have different ways to portray their comedy out to the public. Charlie Chaplin always shows SCENES of his intended comedic act, such as the spinning door, tripping over the antagonist, trolling the antagonist and the massage person in the bathroom. A repetitive motive can be detected while seeing the scenes. Buster Keaton however, shows a film which scarily resembles most modern day movies. The story line of The General basically has a motive, a reason to understand how many dots connect in the movie, such as the girl, the train, spying the enemy's hideout, all happen 'unintentionally'. So the natural feel of it gives me a better aesthetic reaction rather than The Cure. Hence, the plot of The General was better than The Cure, just my two cents. And for the random record, Chairman Rey was talking about 2 other comedians which is Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp. Just two random actors came out with. Then, I made a connection, I can conclude that Charlie Chaplin resembles Jim Carrey whereas Buster Keaton resembles Johnny Depp. If you do take a second look, you will see that both their mirror images do coincide perfectly with one another. Jim Carrey wants his jokes and acts to be noticed by the audience. Johnny Depp seems like he 'does it without even trying'. Which means to say, he does not purposely do it to make the audience laugh, rather its the natural way he does it that makes the act itself funny. So that's how Buster makes most of his actions funny, because the actions itself aren't really funny, but the way he does it naturally and it invokes the laughter in us because of his face, the straight face.
The truth says for itself. I prefer Buster Keaton over Charlie Chaplin. It's because it looks like he does his stuff naturally, thats why its funny. I could point out several scenes. First is when he goes over to his lover's house and the way he leads the kids out of the house. Second is how he cuts the queue repeatedly in order to signup for the war. Third is when he calls his townmates to help chase after The General after it was stolen, and leaves the 'cargo' behind. Fourth is when he gets trapped in the enemy's hideout and rescued the girl, after severing the guard with a blow on his head. Fifth is when he set the bridge on fire, and attempts to jump back onto the train but insteads falls into the river. I could go on and on. Even up till the end he kisses the girl, and waves by all the soldiers who walk by. Giving us an unprepared last laugh. Buster Keaton is a comedian, Charlie Chaplin is a clown.
I love them both all the same. Making people laugh without saying a word in those days were a real skill to master. But all in all, personally I just prefer Buster Keaton over Charlie Chaplin. Preference, that is all.
Lettuce start with the face. Comparisons will be based on both films: The Cure and The General. Beginning with The Cure, Charlie Chaplin enters the world of a spa. The the world in a state of equilibrium, being broken in by an event - Chairman Rey, defines how a drunk Charlie Chaplin is the event being broken into the world. Whereas in The General, Buster Keaton is a trainman who works at the lines, the event breaking the state of equilibrium is when his train gets stolen. There's a significant difference between these two actors' faces. Charlie Chaplin's face is usually in a constant state of change of expression. Buster Keaton usually holds a straight face. I remember Rey asking us about whether we prefer Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton?
Here's another thing that sets them apart. Charlie Chaplin has an obvious shuffle in his steps, it is like resembling a clown, which metaphorically, he is. He relies on facial expressions a lot, as well as body gestures. Take for example the rotating doors of the spa. Charlie Chaplin sets the stage ready to make his audience laugh, which is different from Buster Keaton, who DOES NOT purposely sets the stage, he instead goes with the flow which feels natural. The way Charlie Chaplin walks from left to right indicated he was drunk, clumsy, and disoriented. His first encounter was the doors, then comes the antagonist. Big man with an injured feet, being toyed around by Charlie Chaplin, which most people might consider 'smooth'. Buster Keaton on the other hand, usually maintains a straight face almost throughout the movie. Even when rescuing his girl from the clutches of the enemy and escaping into the forest, he maintains a constant state of expression, which really appeals to me.
Now how do both Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton resemble similar traits? Well for starts, both of them are comedians. Both starts off at a world where everything goes wrong, Charlie for the spa, and Buster for failing to join the army and losing his train. Both meets a girl, loses the girl, and then gets the girl back in the end. Obvious melodrama is portrayed in both films, and good guys always prevail. Both movies end in hilarious moments: Charlie for walking straight into the well, and Buster for saluting many soldiers while kissing his lover.
However, the list for differences go on longer. As I mentioned before, Both Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton have different ways to portray their comedy out to the public. Charlie Chaplin always shows SCENES of his intended comedic act, such as the spinning door, tripping over the antagonist, trolling the antagonist and the massage person in the bathroom. A repetitive motive can be detected while seeing the scenes. Buster Keaton however, shows a film which scarily resembles most modern day movies. The story line of The General basically has a motive, a reason to understand how many dots connect in the movie, such as the girl, the train, spying the enemy's hideout, all happen 'unintentionally'. So the natural feel of it gives me a better aesthetic reaction rather than The Cure. Hence, the plot of The General was better than The Cure, just my two cents. And for the random record, Chairman Rey was talking about 2 other comedians which is Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp. Just two random actors came out with. Then, I made a connection, I can conclude that Charlie Chaplin resembles Jim Carrey whereas Buster Keaton resembles Johnny Depp. If you do take a second look, you will see that both their mirror images do coincide perfectly with one another. Jim Carrey wants his jokes and acts to be noticed by the audience. Johnny Depp seems like he 'does it without even trying'. Which means to say, he does not purposely do it to make the audience laugh, rather its the natural way he does it that makes the act itself funny. So that's how Buster makes most of his actions funny, because the actions itself aren't really funny, but the way he does it naturally and it invokes the laughter in us because of his face, the straight face.
The truth says for itself. I prefer Buster Keaton over Charlie Chaplin. It's because it looks like he does his stuff naturally, thats why its funny. I could point out several scenes. First is when he goes over to his lover's house and the way he leads the kids out of the house. Second is how he cuts the queue repeatedly in order to signup for the war. Third is when he calls his townmates to help chase after The General after it was stolen, and leaves the 'cargo' behind. Fourth is when he gets trapped in the enemy's hideout and rescued the girl, after severing the guard with a blow on his head. Fifth is when he set the bridge on fire, and attempts to jump back onto the train but insteads falls into the river. I could go on and on. Even up till the end he kisses the girl, and waves by all the soldiers who walk by. Giving us an unprepared last laugh. Buster Keaton is a comedian, Charlie Chaplin is a clown.
I love them both all the same. Making people laugh without saying a word in those days were a real skill to master. But all in all, personally I just prefer Buster Keaton over Charlie Chaplin. Preference, that is all.
This is a very uneven piece. It lacks organization. You make points helter-skelter and don't explain a lot of them. I think you should rewrite this. See me if you want to.
ReplyDelete5.5/8