Topic: Buster Keaton: A Filmmaker's Life (James Curtis biography)

[HomokHarcos]

Mine just came in the mail today. There's a new biography on Buster Keaton written by the same person who wrote a W.C. Fields biography. It's a big book and I'm looking forward to reading it.

[metaldams]

Definitely let us know how it is.  I read the Fields one years ago and I believe Curtis did a biography for James Whale as well.

[HomokHarcos]

Definitely let us know how it is.  I read the Fields one years ago and I believe Curtis did a biography for James Whale as well.

Yes, he wrote a book in James Whale and also Spencer Tracy. Once I’m done my current book (Jim Ross’s new autobiography) I’ll start this one. I’m hoping to learn more about Buster Keaton’s vaudeville career and post-silent films.

[HomokHarcos]

Biography's great so far, although it admittedly seems geared to people who are already familiar with Buster Keaton and classic comedy instead of newcomers, but since I've become a classic comedy buff myself that gets no complaints. He also compares how Keaton's movies fared to Harold Lloyd's, and the truth is Harold Lloyd was the much bigger star during the 1920s. Keaton's movies were often held over in theaters for a second week, but Lloyd's were often for 8 to 10 weeks and in total grossed sometimes as much as 5 times the revenue Keaton did.

[metaldams]

Lloyd actual grossed more than anybody else in the twenties, though I believe Chaplin grossed more on average per film - his output was much less than Lloyd’s.

Glad you’re enjoying the book.  I haven’t been reading as much as I should and need to get back to doing so soon.

[Umbrella Sam]

Reading this brought this question to my mind: when did the idea of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd being the Big Three become commonly accepted? I swore I read something a long time ago that suggested that Chaplin, Lloyd and Harry Langdon were actually considered the Big Three in the 1920s and Keaton wasn’t given that status until years later. In fact, while trying to find where I read that, I even found a Keaton obituary from The Guardian that listed Keaton, Chaplin and Langdon as the Big Three, with no mention of Lloyd.

[metaldams]

Reading this brought this question to my mind: when did the idea of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd being the Big Three become commonly accepted? I swore I read something a long time ago that suggested that Chaplin, Lloyd and Harry Langdon were actually considered the Big Three in the 1920s and Keaton wasn’t given that status until years later. In fact, while trying to find where I read that, I even found a Keaton obituary from The Guardian that listed Keaton, Chaplin and Langdon as the Big Three, with no mention of Lloyd.

This James Agee article from 1949 is a big reason.

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/comedys-greatest-era-james-agee/

[Umbrella Sam]

This James Agee article from 1949 is a big reason.

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/comedys-greatest-era-james-agee/

That’s what I originally thought of, and that matches my long-held theory that Langdon’s early death prevented him from getting the same respect as the other three. But that Guardian obituary was really throwing me off. Maybe that was just the author’s personal preference?

[HomokHarcos]

This James Agee article from 1949 is a big reason.

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/comedys-greatest-era-james-agee/

Silentology shows evidence that they were already seen as the top comedians during the 1920s.
https://silentology.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/in-defense-of-the-big-four-of-silent-comedy/

[Paul Pain]

It's really hard to do such a thing, but it's really for the best to look at these films with a sort of blinder.  One must be able to evaluate the films while completely ignoring all facts about the person's life except maybe their vaudeville experience, if that's where they began.  How long they lived, whether or not they were a womanizer, the booze, the parties, the Shriner's campaigns, the accusations of communist sympathies, etc. all must be left out completely.

Harry Langdon was a legendary figure of the 1920s and still highly regarded in the 1930s, but because he died while working at Columbia he's not given much credit.  Keaton, Chaplin, and Lloyd all lived long enough to see a second wind of their comedies for a new generation... Lloyd and Chaplin lasted two generations of film-goers after their heyday.  The Three Stooges not only were around but were still making comedies for the new generation (albeit with the "third stooge" situation).  Laurel & Hardy got to be two sickly old men and do TV interviews.  Meanwhile, Harry Langdon, Charley Chase, and Roscoe Arbuckle were long dead... dead and buried... dead and forgotten.  And that's why they all suffer immensely from having lost films.

Now with Wikipedia, 2000 channels (and still nothing to watch), and YouTube, it's easy to find these figures, but the amount of product makes it difficult to find those long-gone days where there were 4 silent film legends and 5-10 workhorses of comedy shorts when everyone had to argue over which one of that handful was their favorite.  Now there's YouTube comedy crap galore, 99% of which would have been laughed out of the business in 1925.

[metaldams]

Thanks Homok for the link with the.contemporary articles about the hierarchy.  That was interesting.

As far as your  excellent post Paul, I agree for the most part.  I agree all the extra stuff doesn’t matter until it actually shows up on the screen.

Chaplin and Communist accusations?  Directly influenced A KING IN NEW YORK.  Especially the scene with his son where it is being discussed.  While on Chaplin and politics, Chaplin’s commentary on the military industrial complex in MONSIEUR VERDOUX, whatever your thoughts on it may be, is about the most jaw dropping thing to hear in an American film released in 1947.  That was Chaplin expressing himself, come whatever may.  Chaplin and young girls?  Yeah, as disturbing as it is, I can ignore it for the most part, except when a 12 year old he eventually had a shotgun marriage and children with in a few years time is being used as a sex symbol (THE KID).

But yeah, when it comes to Harold and Shriners, just about any other comedian and their multiple wives, I agree it’s best to separate the art from the personal - until they mix.  With Chaplin, that was more often than others.

[Paul Pain]

There are unfortunately many comedians whose tales are thus engraved into history: died too soon.  However, Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton, and Langdon all possess something in their films.  They each have an unique persona.  Langdon and Keaton move slowly and seem clueless about the world around them.  Lloyd and Chaplin are clever characters, but the former is usually just dumb enough to be confused for a long period of time.  Chaplin always has a bizarre solution to an extraordinary problem only to get bitten in the end anyway.  Fact is each of them is uniquely memorable.

But, that Harry Langdon, died at just 60 years old while working at Columbia.  His face, especially with that pale makeup to make him permanently look like the blood's drained from his face but not enough to look like a clown, when struck with fear, is as memorable as Keaton's face.  In fact, Harry's image might be more striking than the other three's.  In my opinion, it should be the "Big Four" of the silent screen.  Yes, Chase is my favorite, but he didn't make features; he is disqualified as a result.

Can you imagine living in the 1920s and being so lucky as to be watching a film circa 1924-1926 and getting to watch a Langdon or Chase short on top of getting a Keaton, Lloyd, or Chaplin film!  Lucky ducks indeed!

[metaldams]

I used to be into ranking the comedians more so than now, but yes, the designated big four all have memorable characters and faces, no doubt about it.  Langdon for sure! …..and yeah, making features does give those four an edge a lot of others don’t have.

[Umbrella Sam]

While I can understand the idea that features do make a difference, I personally think it should be “The Big Five”...with Chase included. Sure, he didn’t do features (although if I recall correctly, I think he did star in a mostly lost feature film), but the other four also started off in shorts, and much like them, Chase did create this very unique, consistent persona that a lot of other comedians in shorts back then couldn’t (Laurel and Hardy being an exception, though in their case I think they thrived more in the sound era while Chase seemed equally adept in both eras). I’ve really gained so much respect for Chase as a comedian in these recent years; anyone who can play a loudmouth character in something like THE HECKLER or ALL TEED UP and make him likable is a winner in my book, as I usually hate those kinds of characters. And, even just watching these one-reelers, he does so well with story construction that they almost feel like mini features in their own right, something that’s very difficult to pull off even in two-reelers.

[Umbrella Sam]

But yeah, when it comes to Harold and Shriners, just about any other comedian and their multiple wives, I agree it’s best to separate the art from the personal - until they mix.  With Chaplin, that was more often than others.

It's really hard to do such a thing, but it's really for the best to look at these films with a sort of blinder.  One must be able to evaluate the films while completely ignoring all facts about the person's life except maybe their vaudeville experience, if that's where they began.  How long they lived, whether or not they were a womanizer, the booze, the parties, the Shriner's campaigns, the accusations of communist sympathies, etc. all must be left out completely.

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly was the issue with Lloyd and the Shriners? I know absolutely nothing about the Shriners.

[metaldams]

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly was the issue with Lloyd and the Shriners? I know absolutely nothing about the Shriners.

No issue with Harold and Shriners - if anything, being in Shriners is a very charitable and admirable thing.  I think the point is their outside lives shouldn’t reflect on their screen characters - unless if it’s an instance where the outside life is on the screen itself.

https://donate.lovetotherescue.org/give/158250/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAmpyRBhC-ARIsABs2EAou-xKFYcyiWwiKJ7uO2BqfxLyGg3pxzesrkt65ZssY6GXY-MenTlsaAk4QEALw_wcB#!/donation/checkout?recurring=1&c_src=google&c_src2=general

Shriners website

[metaldams]

While I can understand the idea that features do make a difference, I personally think it should be “The Big Five”...with Chase included. Sure, he didn’t do features (although if I recall correctly, I think he did star in a mostly lost feature film), but the other four also started off in shorts, and much like them, Chase did create this very unique, consistent persona that a lot of other comedians in shorts back then couldn’t (Laurel and Hardy being an exception, though in their case I think they thrived more in the sound era while Chase seemed equally adept in both eras). I’ve really gained so much respect for Chase as a comedian in these recent years; anyone who can play a loudmouth character in something like THE HECKLER or ALL TEED UP and make him likable is a winner in my book, as I usually hate those kinds of characters. And, even just watching these one-reelers, he does so well with story construction that they almost feel like mini features in their own right, something that’s very difficult to pull off even in two-reelers.

My days of the ranking the comedians are through, but if we’re getting into who is a must see, and that certainly extends beyond four people, I would definitely include Charley Chase.  I, like you and Paul, have also gained a greater appreciation as the years have gone by.

[HomokHarcos]

James Curtis shares my opinion on Free and Easy. He declared it the worst Keaton film.

[metaldams]

James Curtis shares my opinion on Free and Easy. He declared it the worst Keaton film.

It’s my opinion as well.

[Allen Champion]

Not with HIS EX MARKS THE SPOT around . . . .  Unless he's only counting features.   

[metaldams]

Not with HIS EX MARKS THE SPOT around . . . .  Unless he's only counting features.

No matter how bad the worst of the talkie shorts may be, at least they’re over in 20 minutes or less.  FREE AND EASY is brutal to me.

[Dr. Mabuse]

No matter how bad the worst of the talkie shorts may be, at least they’re over in 20 minutes or less.  FREE AND EASY is brutal to me.

"Free and Easy" is Keaton's worst film — hands down. Even Buster would agree.

[Umbrella Sam]

Yeah, throw me in the “FREE AND EASY being the worst” category. HIS EX MARKS THE SPOT has a worse setup, but at least it’s over in less than 20 minutes.