Silent Pictures Come to Life: The Panache of Keaton & Chaplin - Research Paper Example

Silent Pictures Come to Life: The Panache of Keaton & Chaplin With its delightful combination of wit and tale being unfolded solely through playful gestures and subtle sound, silent comedy is indeed among the greatest creations in American entertainment. Yet no one have pulled off this elusive medium as great as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton who have made their influence felt in physical comedy (Cott 99). Nevertheless, while both have deviated from mainstream slapstick comedy by blending exaggerated and minimal movements – this time, without words – to elicit a story, a closer look at their styles would reveal that Chaplin and Keaton are totally different in many ways. While Chaplin has been famed for his facial expressions, Keaton, on the other hand, has been prominent for risky stunts carried out in haphazard manner. Yet their differences do not just end here. Their distinctive styles were revealed in Chaplin’s The Gold Rush and Modern Times and in Keaton’s The General and The Navigator – all were unique yet equally amusing. 1. Expression of Emotions Since silent comedy does not employ words, the message can only be conveyed through varying non-verbal cues. Primarily, what draws attention to a certain story is the emotion that it expresses to the audience. Meanwhile, according to Cott (99), Chaplin is an easier figure to understand than Keaton. This is probably due to Chaplin’s emotions which he freely communicates through the use of comical facial expressions – something which Keaton does not exemplify. Keaton often portrays a deadpan character who never smiles (Cott 99). Yet it is argued that Keaton does not necessarily lack emotions. It is just that the fragmentary nature of his roles gives him no means to express his feelings (Cott 99). Looking at his films, Chaplin appears to be more attentive to the things happening around him (Cott 99). In contrast, Keaton seems quite apathetic to his surroundings that it requires the audience to be attentive themselves in order to decipher what Keaton’s character feels (Cott 99). Ideally, distortion in the relation of things is what makes the comedy humorous. However, since the characters of Keaton exhibit disconnection from the environment, any changes that in it would not virtually bring out any emotions in Keaton (Cott 99). According to Oldham (358), Keaton’s character in his 1926 film, The General “truly lives a saga”. In the said film where he plays as a locomotive engineer who ventures into different obstacles to save his leading woman, he remains expressionless almost all throughout despite all the tension that goes with his troubles (Cott 99). More so, he dangerously hops in the railroad tracks, still without expression as if it was just an ordinary undertaking. The ending is almost about to stir up some feelings from him as his leading woman joins him for an embrace but the sudden turn of events, with the arrival of the confederate soldiers, once again ruins the chances for Keaton’s expression of emotions. Moreover, the stoic personality has been a recurring pattern in many of his films with the exception of The Navigator, his 1924 movie, which seems to contradict the “contention that Keaton never asks us for an emotional response” (qtd. in Tibbetts 230). The movie was titled after the name of the steamship where the character of Keaton is stranded together with the girl who disdained his marriage proposal. In one scene, he impulsively kisses the girl in an attempt to suppress her after the girl exasperated him for trying to drown him on several occasions. But then again, he returns to his stoic appearance as he goes back to work. Indeed, the love-hate relationship theme of this film continues to capture the wit of Keaton’s audience. Insofar as Keaton’s apathy is Chaplin’s sentimentality – which, as mentioned, is evoked through his playfully use of facial expressions. In his 1925 film, The Gold Rush Chaplin played the role of a hapless prospector who searched for gold along with other frantic gold seekers (Huff 253). Throughout the race, Chaplin playfully raises his eyebrows to create an amusing change of emotions (Huff 253). Through the use of these facial expressions, Chaplin is able to elicit feelings of “human suffering and frustrated hopes” (Huff 253). Likewise, a wide array of emotions is more strongly expressed by Chaplin in his 1936 film, Modern Times, which draws the landscape of the Great Depression. Since Chaplin portrayed the role of a vagrant who initially works at the factory then eventually encounters several misadventures on the streets, in the jail and even by the ruined waterfront as he struggles to survive the difficult circumstances, he is able to express “affection, gracefulness, agility, humor, innocence” in his character (Cott 99). Chaplin is able to delve into the depths of pathos that even his laughter can be drawn out of tragedy with heightened force and essence (Huff 253). By communicating himself, Chaplin expresses the world (Cott 99). Furthermore, in addition to his stoic character, another reason why Keaton is more difficult to understand is because he portrays symbolic comedy. As such, Keaton employed a style called surrealism which dispense from both feeling and sentiment while Chaplin exemplifies sentiment but not symbolic experience (Cott 99). Chaplin may radiate his perceptions through his solemn glazes radiating a man’s struggles in this world (Cott 99). 2. Gestures Actors of silent comedies evoke the circumstances in their very self – that is, through the use of gestures (Cott 99). Paradoxically speaking, Cott (99) mentioned that it is through gestures that feelings are being transformed without transforming it. This is the distinct quality of silent comedy. Yet while both Keaton and Buster are both into silent comedy, it can be presumed that Keaton takes more advantage of movement than Chaplin who is better in expressing emotions. Since he cannot explain his character through expressions, Keaton uses overstated gestures which can easily be understood by the audience to emulate a particular character. For example, Keaton assumed a gait that resembles a cowboy to introduce his role in his film Go West. In addition to this, what is indeed characteristic of Keaton is his dangerous stunt performed just in perfect timing to elicit laughter from the audience. In The General, Keaton is involved in a long but fast chase from the elevator to the phone booth and finally to the seven-story flight of stairs (Tibbetts 230). Just in time, a train emerged from nowhere, moving closer towards the camera, with Keaton’s face now in full-screen close-up, implying that he was about to be hit (Tibbetts 230). According to Oldham (99), Keaton exhibits fascination with trains and an erratic desire to control the situation. Meanwhile, in the movie The Navigator, Buster Keaton was once again involved in a chase. He engages in a long chase in the dark empty corridors where he was tracing the source of a woman’s voice (Cott 99). Aside from this, there was also another chase after a girl whom he met in the ship (Tibbetts 230). From then on, Keaton has to survive his daily dose of misadventure with the woman who has been trying to drown him inadvertently. All the troubles that Keaton’s character gets involve with are usually driven by his own carelessness, which is a staple technique of silent comedy. Meanwhile, in addition to the dangerous yet careless stunts that he performs, Keaton also has other trademark gestures such as surveying of horizon, perplexed upward glimpses after a disaster, moments of sudden stillness preceding a pratfall, obsession with magic and illusions and eccentric stern epilogues that frustrate the audience’s dramatic expectations (Tibbetts 230). These gestures have always been incorporated in Keaton’s style of physical comedy, which he never abandons regardless of the character roles that he plays. Whereas Keaton responds to disasters – which what makes the story laughable – using quick chancy movements, Chaplin does so in a more subtle way, so to speak (Cott 99). His film The Gold Rush showcased his most refined pantomime ever (Huff 253). Unlike Keaton who had to face the camera in close-up as seen in The Navigator, Chaplin turned his back to the camera in The Gold Rush (Huff 253). Yet he was able to express changes in mood by moving his shoulders unlike other actors who would have used the eyes and mouth (Huff 253). In addition, he playfully raises his eyebrows to show shifts in emotions (Huff 253). Meanwhile, in Modern Times, Chaplin exhibited twitching movements especially in the scene where he stood in the assembly line (Cott 99). It was said that this is actually a representation of his resistance to become like a machine (Cott 99). 3. Character Roles Meanwhile, it is, perhaps, because of their styles in physical comedy that Chaplin & Keaton were given distinctive roles which they were able to effectively portray. As mentioned, Chaplin’s character is full of sentimentality. Yet because of this, his character has less substantive significance in contrast to that of Keaton that has more functional role in the story. Looking closely through their respective films, it can be noted that there are similarities in the character that each portrays. It may either be that their styles are fitted into their roles or it may be the other way around. Keaton has always portrayed the character of a hero (Oldham 353) as he settles down “into a driving narrative situation” (Cott 99). For instance, in The General, Keaton is able to successfully carry the story without the need for deus ex mechania. As a hero, he “responds to the twists and turns of narrative circumstances” (Oldham 353) through his idiosyncratic ingenuity. His roles are usually the kind that performs a lot of actions with “clearly recognizable rewards” (Cott 99) as in The General, where he wins over his woman’s heart after saving her from the villains. Moreover, for the sake of comedy, Keaton exaggerates situations and always pulls off a happy ending (Oldham 353). Keaton’s style presents reality through unbelievable abilities – another thing that differentiates him from Chaplin. Perhaps, too idealistic, but Keaton almost never portrays real life-experiences while Chaplin portrays a more realistic character – usually, an ordinary person who goes through everyday mundane experiences. Likewise, a recurring character of Chaplin in almost all of his films is that of a vagabond who encounters his daily dose of tragedy (Huff 253). His character always represents “the good, kind, and pitiful core of humanity” (Huff 253). In Modern Times, he plays a very poor tramp who undergoes difficulty as he moves from one job to another in the pursuit of what seems to be the American Dream – to live in “happiness, private stability and success” (Cott 99). Moreover, just like any individual, he grapples through life’s success and failures. Chaplin’s films show the struggles of ordinary people. He shows the feelings of these people. The audience, in turn, feels what he is feeling. According to Cott (99), Chaplin does not separate art from human experience. Unlike Keaton who seems to view art as fiction, he believes otherwise. He is not merely an actor who feigns passion; he makes his own experiences felt in his films. 5. Technical Aspects The challenge in silent comedies is to elicit more substance amidst the absence of words. Thus, lighting, costumes and even camera angle can do a lot to enhance a silent film. Even at this aspect, Chaplin & Keaton has employed different styles that indeed reflect the exceptionality of their works. In terms of costume, Keaton is famous for his porkpie hat because that is how he perceives the world (Cott 99). Yet he uses different hats for different purposes (Tibbetts 230). He can narrate perceptions through a transition from one outfit to another. For example, in some of his movies, he initially wears porkpie and slap shoes to appear comical and eventually changes to a tuxedo, this time, to elicit a more respectable character (Oldham 353). On the other hand, Chaplin is most notable for his small derby, representing an average man, which he usually portrays (Huff 253). The small hat also symbolizes his struggle for dignity as he walks with feigned courage, an attitude strengthened by his attire of a tightly buttoned coat and a stick (Huff 253). Likewise, his mustache is vanity (Huff 253). This costume redeems his character of an underdog is supposed to be pitied had he dressed more plainly. Moreover, Keaton also takes advantage of the camera to enhance his scenes (Oldham 353). A part of his comedy is grounded on the panning and tilting of camera that serve as a visual punch line, as Oldham (253) calls it. It works by concealing and revealing certain Indeed, the sequence of movement and the positioning of the characters and props are perfectly planned to evoke a sense of paradox, adding more humor to the story (Oldham 353). On the other hand, while Keaton executed these techniques effectively, Chaplin seems to lack on this aspect. In fact, in The Gold Rush, there are some scenes wherein Chaplin has his back against the camera (Tibbetts 230). But then again, this is necessary to draw attention to Chaplin’s more subtle gestures – at least, as compared to Keaton – such as the raising of shoulders and twitching movements. Moreover, when it comes to the props and set-up, it can be noticed that Keaton is very keen to details. In fact, The General shows a lot of historical details (Oldham 353) that make the plot realistic despite the exaggerated movements and stunts of Keaton. His choice of minutiae props such as slap shoes, beaded vest and even his idea of changing costumes manifest accuracy of details (Oldham 353). Indeed the elaborate technical aspects work at Keaton’s advantage because he doesn’t use much gestures and facial expressions to express his emotions. He is able to play with endless possibilities of his camera and artistry, reflecting his visions in life (Oldham, 253). 4. Portrayal of Realism Behind the humor and absurdity of Keaton’s and Chaplin’s films are the themes symbolic of people’s practical understanding of life. Basically, what distinguishes Keaton’s films from that of Chaplin is its lack of social consciousness (Telotte 91). Chaplin shows the social reality – the difference between the poor and the well-to-do (Cott 99). For instance, Chaplin’s The Gold Rush illustrates how capitalists degrade prowess for the sake of wealth (Telotte 91). Likewise, Modern Times presents the status quo of today’s industries being run by enterprise-driven society in the pursuit of their own interests (Huff 253). Chaplin’s satirical portrayal shows the struggles that go with the status quo such as unemployment, mass production, machine’s cruelty to man and oppression (Huff 253). His character shows the experiences of an ordinary worker who, because of capitalism, is being exploited by the bourgeois who possess a materialistic outlook (Huff 253). But more importantly, it reflects the common themes of confusion and depression at that time. This film could be a propaganda filled with social messages (Huff 253). Chaplin is able to execute this by showing hints of social satire in the beginning of the film yet the factor of comedy was not fully achieved until the middle part of the story when he goes back to being comical (Huff 253). In contrast, Keaton’s The General exhibited a more idealistic idea of a Civil War (Telotte 91) with his character of hero ready to save the world – an idea which could have been presented realistically with the use of dreary war themes. The same notion of a hero is manifested in The Navigator, where Keaton has to survive and solve the predicament at hand. Not only is there a solution but a happy ending to any conflict as well. Nevertheless, while his films appear too simplistic, a serious look at Keaton’s work reveals that the world of human possibilities that he entered are quite appalling (Cott 99). As such, Keaton’s character tends think out of the box, such that while Chaplin “understands pain and makes it playful” (Cott 99), Keaton disregards it through the use of the idea of a hero, whom despite his nonchalance can find perfect solutions to any of life’s miseries. It is as if his character encourages humans to go out of their way, to explore all the possibilities to make things better instead of simply living with suffering, pain and sadness. 6. The Legacy of Keaton & Chaplin in Silent Comedy Amidst their differences in style, Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton have introduced a completely new genre of entertainment which is equipped with idiosyncrasies yet never fails to bring out moral. For a silent comedy to be successfully carried out, it entails more than just technical aspect but stylistic quality as well (Cott 99). Yet Keaton’s comedy is a paragon of a kind of silence that blocks off and represses feelings which threaten the life process itself. On the other hand, Chaplin embodies the kind of “silence which represents an enlargement of feeling” that makes it possible to go beyond life’s configuration (Cott 99) While speech renders the mainstream films with substance, silence relies on physical space – that is, of what is already there – to dramatize the possibilities out of the character’s struggles (Cott 99). For instance, The Modern Times would not have distinctly drawn the endless possibilities of human struggle amidst the Depression had it used speech to convey its message. His gestures and facial expressions are powerful enough to elicit the essence of his notable movies. Likewise, Keaton has done better in expanding these possibilities by treating fragments of the story as a whole. But then again, fragmentation is not something that Chaplin believes in. Perhaps because of the occurrences during his time, Chaplin fears that culture tend to fragment experiences, as shown in his movies. As a result, his character retains the naive culture that unaware individuals dwell on. Therefore, he finds comedy as an individual affair (Cott 99). It is his medium to express social conventions. It transcends more than just entertainment because art and life always go together (Cott 99). As such, there can be no irony in art in the same way as with life. Indeed, speaking would have set the ultimate essence of a film, leaving the audience merely as passive viewers. On the other hand, silent comedy leaves them thinking of the possibilities being actualized by the character. However, the wit that goes with their work takes the place of speech in keeping the attention of the audience while at the same time, amusing them. Works Cited Cott, Jeremy. “The Limits of Silent Comedy”. Literature/Film Quarterly 3.2 (1975): 99. Print. Huff, Theodore. Charlie Chaplin. New York: Henry Schuman. Place of Publication, 1951. Print. Oldham, Gabriella. Keaton's Silent Shorts: Beyond the Laughter. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996. Print. Telotte, J.P. “Keaton Is Missing”. Literature/Film Quarterly 23.2 (1995): 91. Print. Tibbetts, John. “The Whole Show: the Restored Films of Buster Keaton”. Literature/Film Quarterly 23.4 (1995): 230. Print. Read More