Tonight began the Buster Keaton Retrospective at CSUN. Being a lifelong fan of movies and of Hollywood in general, I knew of Keaton - the legendary comedian of silent film - but I hadn't seen much of his work, just a few clips shown here and there, so I didn't know quite what to expect other than his well-known gift for physical comedy. As it turned out, I was in for a pleasant surprise. We saw two short films and a 77 minute feature. The first short was called "The Bell Boy" (1918), which was directed by Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, who also co-starred. Arbuckle, a legend (and tragic figure) in his own right, was the guy who gave Buster Keaton his big break. He was an incredible physical comedian, and if you ever wonder where Chris Farley got a lot of his crazier stunts from, check out Fatty. "The Bell Boy" was the first thing I'd ever seen him in. It was made 99 years ago, and certainly looks from that time, but the stunts and comedic action could rival anything done since then. Really, really crazy stuff. The second short we saw was called "One Week" (1920), and it was all Keaton, who stars as a newlywed who has been bequeathed a new house and piece of property as a wedding present. There is a catch : the house is a do-it-yourself assembly model. The parts for the house are in a series of boxes with instructions for how to put it together. Professor Tim told us that "One Week" is considered to be one of the great comedy films of the silent era, and he was not kidding. You wouldn't even believe they could pull some of this stuff off almost 100 years ago, and there are few cinematic tricks to hide behind, except for editing. Even if you don't like silent films and think of that era as a relic of cinema, all I can say is : if you wanna see a really wild and crazy 25 minute film, with inventive sets and even some top notch camera work, considering the era, check out "One Week". It's a classic on all fronts. :)
The feature film was called "The Saphead", and it was good too, though nowhere near as zany or knockout physical as the two shorts. However, what it lacked in shock value it made up for in story and even more so in the emerging star power of Buster Keaton. He knew how to project himself in a silent movie, which was the first "take off" on live theater. Therefore, you have pancake makeup and eye liner, and you have facial expression as your first connection with the audience, since - unlike live theater - you did not have voices in silent film. So it was all Face, at first, and body language. And Buster Keaton just plain had a great face for comedy. He was short in stature, maybe 5' 6", but he was handsome with large eyes, and he was famous for playing everything deadpan, with a poker face. Professor Tim explained it even further, to suggest that Keaton's characters knew a secret about the ways of the world, despite it's chaos, and sort of rolled with the punches. His explanation was better than mine, but really, Keaton's facial expressions (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. His body can do anything, but his face remains still and calm. He was not known as "The Great Stone Face" for nothing.
"The Saphead" has a fun little plot about the naive and slightly dimwitted son of a wealthy stock speculator. He loves his girl and cares for little else, but his lack of ambition annoys his powerful father. Intrigue follows, as the father's envious associates connive to rob him of an extremely profitable mine that he owns.
And of course it ultimately is up to The Saphead, his dumb but suddenly adept son to save the day. Love prevails over greed and money, as it usually does in Hollywood Stories. And money wins too, but only on the side of the Good Guys.
At the end of the evening, I wound up thinking that I am really gonna enjoy this retrospective. For one thing, the films move. There is not a down moment, and I think that is true of all silent film, in which action must replace spoken narrative, but in the case of Buster Keaton, who was so inventive, the viewer is not only continually involved but also expectant - waiting to see what's gonna happen next.
It's funny, because when you look at photographs from 100 years ago, and you see how people dressed, and you see the haircuts which are not only different from today but are perhaps not as "neat and clean", and you see that the buildings look older and "rough hewn" compared to today's superstructures, and the streets are unfinished and the land nowhere near fully developed, and you think : "Man, it looks like a postcard from an entirely different time". The automobiles look like they are made of wire......
It's 100 years ago, and it might as well be a Different Planet, a different universe, a different time.
But then, as you watch the movie, you notice the eyes of the actors, and their facial expressions, and some of the body language behind the old clothes......and you see a spark.
And it is the same spark you would see today in any lively person's eyes. Same expressions too, same body language. And you start to understand that, wait a minute - this is not some Ancient World of 100 Years Ago......
These folks are just like us.
We like to think of our society as Super Hip - for better or worse - and what you see back in 1920s America, almost 100 years ago, was a bunch of folks who were easily as hip as we are, if not moreso.
They may not have had the hairstylists we have now, nor the clothes - two factors that make our generation seem Ultra Modern - but they have a sophistication in their live action storytelling that is beyond ours, now that we have regressed into low-brow vulgarianism, and quite simply they have a sense of timing that may never be matched.
They didn't have hair conditioner, or synthetic fabric clothing in Buster Keaton's time, and so the Movie Stars of that era seem Ancient in comparison to The Stars Of Today.
But when you see the early Stars onscreen, as we saw tonight, you can see where The Hipness came from in the first place. Not to mention The Sophistication, which is missing nowdays. ////
T'was 114 Degrees today, here in The Ridge. No hike, but I did get my hair cut (at Pearl's hair salon) and I finished "The Grim Sleeper" book. A harrowing reading experience, which reminded me why I gave up reading about these monsters several years ago. But, as a previous expert on the subject, I felt that this case warranted a read.
I should finish the Van Halen book in a day or two. Noel Monk has some stories in there that will take you past the happy-slappy Van Halen image into slimier territory, but not too much slimier than you can imagine. Slimy, but of the Rock Star 1980s Era.
I am glad I am not made like those guys. We read about Warren Beatty, or Van Halen, and we love 'em both. Van Halen, for me, were My Heroes in the 80s, especially Edward.
I didn't need to know the stuff Noel Monk writes about. But I succumb to gossip and a good story like most others. I certainly do not agree with the lifestyle, however, though I make no judgement on it.
I love Van Halen, but I am glad I was not made like them ( except for Michael Anthony)........
That is all for tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment