Watch Chaplin's The Gold Rush and compare and contrast it with Keaton's The General. Think about everything you've learned thus far in terms of reading film. Discuss open/closed framing, kinesis, narrative, etc. Refer to your textbook if you need assistance with the vocabulary. Use at least one quote from the articles I gave you in your response.
Both films are available here:
The Gold Rush
The General
Keller
ReplyDeleteCharlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush and Buster Keaton's The General, were very similar. They were both silent movies that were comical and they both starred in their own movies but they differed in some cinematic elements. Buster Keaton was more famously known for having characters who weren't overacted even though they were in a silent film. In Roger Ebert's review of the general (1997) he states, "Other silent actors might mug to get a point across, but Keaton remained observant and collected." I noticed what occurred in both of these films was the idea of two events happening at once, conveyed by cross-cutting or parallel editing. Parallel editing is seen in Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush when chaplain attempts to trick the audience into thinking the cottage he's in with Big Jim McKay is tilting off the side of a cliff . He does this by changing the camera angle when it's focused on Big Jim McKay and The Lone Prospector and cutting to a different shop with a Cottage hanging off of a mountain that we can assume is artificial. Jesse P. Finnegan voices that the most impressive thing in The General is, “So seamless is its serpentine procession, so frictionless its kinesis, that The General’s needle-threading timing, fluid compositional elegance, and Byzantine orchestration never announce themselves as incredible, only inevitable, inexorable.” I completely agree with Finnegan’s review, the verisimilitude was so strong in Keaton’s film because his shots were threaded together so smoothly which allowed the screen to completely captivate the viewer. Each of these films had a very similar narration, which was a third person omniscient narrator who spoke through intertitles. The Gold Rush seemed to give richer descriptions which resulted in a very rich backstory for a number of characters, while The General seemed to focus deeper on the backstory of Johnnie Gray. These films were very similar with small elements of each film that contrasted with each other.
“The General” with Buster Keaton and “The Gold Rush” with Charlie Chaplin were very similar. They were both silent comedies made around the same time (1926 and 1925) featuring famous actors of the time. The plots both involve some sort of love between the main character and a lady. Both of them use mostly open framing. The movement in the shots usually does something humorous with the main character’s movement in both, for example, the scene where Buster Keaton is sitting on the train when it starts to move and he doesn’t realize it, and in “The Gold Rush” when Charlie Chaplin becomes a chicken to Big Jim when they’re hungry. Also, in both, the main characters were successful in being with the woman they liked.
ReplyDeleteA big difference I noticed was how they handled special effects. In “The General” they were real, but in “The Gold Rush” they were not as real. This impacted the verisimilitude of each of them. I feel that “The General” reached verisimilitude much more successfully than “The Gold Rush” did. Roger Ebert writes, “Keaton was ambitious and fearless. He had a house collapse around him. He swung over a waterfall to rescue a woman he loved. He fell from trains.” Also, the settings in the films are totally different. “The General” takes place in the South in America, and it is warm, bright and sunny. It is totally different in “The Gold Rush,” where they are in Alaska with lots of cold snow. The setting has more of an impact to the plot in “The Gold Rush” than it does in “The General” because the harsh conditions force many of the events that happen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe General directed by Buster Keaton and The Gold Rush by Charlie Chaplin, are both very similar stories, portrayed very differently. Both convey sort of an adventurer's quest to win the girl. Both have similar comedy to them but they are very different in the way they are directed. Keaton takes a more open approach and really focuses on the verisimilitude in the film, whereas Chaplin is more focused on making everything seem funny.
DeleteIn the film The General there is way more open framing that there is in The Gold Rush. I think that the directors personal style influenced this decision. With the open framing used by Keaton you get the effect that it is like real world, you see the open shot of the world around you and you literally feel as if this is all happening and you are in that space. In The Gold Rush there is more of a closed bustled framing because of the message he is trying to convey. This closed framing shows the craziness of the actual gold rush. It portrayed the main characters struggles to make a living, find a girl, and even struggles to just live.
Though both had effective uses of kinesis, I find these are affected by the director’s styles. Keaton uses kinesis to portray a believable event whereas chaplin uses it as comedic value. Both, are very funny moments, but the obvious joke in Chaplin’s wasn’t as appealing to me. An example is Keaton used the motion of the train to portray the silly moment when the water from the spout sprayed on annabelle. The kinesis was used to make a believable extremely funny moment, when Chaplin uses kinesis to portray the shack moving as it falls off the cliff, I found he was trying too hard to make it seem real. I think maybe Chaplin didn’t care if it looked real, he only cared about its comedic value.
Finally, both directors had an interplay of narrative, because they were silent films. I found the the subtle remarks of The General, were more pleasing than the multiple cuts for narrative found in Chaplin’s film. When I am watching the film I want it to be easily understood without all that writing interrupting the verisimilitude. Keaton’s film effectively places small shots of narrative when absolutely needed. Both directors made very similar films, but went about it in very different ways. More than ever I really believe in what the final sentence in Roger Ebert’s film summary,””Charlie’s tramp was a bum with a bum’s philosophy,” he once said.”Lovable as he was, he would steal if he got the chance. My little fellow was a workingman, and honest” That describes his characters, and it reflects their creator.” This is an example of the directors different concepts and personalities when it comes to making film.
Personally, I loved The General I thought that Keaton’s style was way more appealing because he tried to make it real, and really drew us into the story. I had a hard time watching The Gold Rush because of the constant narrative interruptions and the verisimilitude was poor.
Although contrasting in setting and atmosphere, "The Gold Rush" and "The General" were very similar comedies. The typical frame is open, vast outdoor environments convey an open experience with the audience. The audience wouldn't feel much tension because the frame work with expansive, and therefore permitting free-spirited comedy to take a role. Tension does play a role in both films, however, as both deal with very violent situations in the midst of comic, but uses this comedy to relief the tensions ensued. The actors reactions are quite different though, as Charlie Chaplin in "The Gold Rush" is very extrinsic in his movements, creating a bodily language in replacement of dialogue. However, Buster Keaton in "The General" tends to "[keep] his composure in the center of chaos (Rogar Ebert Review)", using more subtle movements and reaction to convey a more natural comedic role.
ReplyDeleteThe mise en scène of "The Gold Rush is much more open than "The General". At one point in "The Gold Rush", Our two main protagonists are in a tent together, and they eventually step outside, greeted by a bandit. Although the tent is small, the only area in the frame cut out by the tent is the space from foreground to background. The sides of the shot are open, allowing up to believe they can leave the scene from either side.They are dressed heavily, as it is the tundra of a gold rush, illuminated by a lantern which casts shadows on the back wall of the tent. A wind moves the tent in a swaying motion. We cut to a man outside from the left side of the screen in baron snow, with a sled on his/her back. The figure walks from the left and maintains that space until he moves closer to the foreground and to the right. From this movement we can assume the the events to follow will happen on the right side of the tent, which does. We cut back to the tent, where Chaplin's partner walks out to their sled. The scene is very open, with just the tent and sled, but is condensed with falling snow, enabling tension from the environment. A figure slowly emerged from the top right, the bandit. And the scene finishes with a shootout. What we can conclude from this scene is that a) the open environment portrays desolation but inviting to an extent, but b) artificial closing of the frame (layering dense cover like snow rather than closing in from sides of the shot) can indeed enable a sense of tension in a plot.
Another shot of tension through layered cover in mise en scène is a scene from "The General" where the locomotive of Buster Keaton drives through an enclosed bridge with a burning smokestack on the track. The bridge is in the middle-ground, where a creek and fence are in the foreground, and wooded area cover the background. The locomotive moves from an open frame to a closed frame as it enters the bridge, also notice how the camera changes to the cab view of the locomotive. The closed frame is very dark, a sense of uncertainty rises, as Keaton is being shrouded by a smog. It is less violent than "The Gold Rush"'s attempt at tension, but holds the same fundamental concept to closing in space with layers of gas or particles in substitute with more tangible objects.
Buster Keaton's The General and Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush were both silent comedies featuring big-name actors. Their plots both centered on their respective main character's chaotic quest for the affections of a lady, even though their journeys were very different. The movies' basic plots also gave them a sense of tension; we can tell what's going to happen in the end but how it happens surprises us. Both movies took place outdoors or in sets modeled after big rooms, so they used open shots. They also used similar camera techniques; the camera had limited motion often cutting to a new shot rather than swiveling too far.
ReplyDeleteDespite being similar concepts, I would agree with Roger Ebert's article that The General ended up being more advanced and appealing in my opinion. The composition of the shots in The General seemed closer to a modern movie, while many shots from The Gold Rush looked very similar to theater stages. Additionally, The General's minimal use of intertitles streamlined it and gave it a more effective sense of verisimilitude. Throughout The Gold Rush, the constant interruptions of text became incessant. Another thing that made The General flow more smoothly than The Gold Rush was the relationship between the story and the jokes. To quote Ebert's article, "you can rarely catch Keaton writing a scene around a gag; instead, the laughs emerge from the situation". While Keaton's film was full of humor, the story unfolded at a satisfying rate, whereas in The Gold Rush, there are lots of jokes, but often very little is actually happening. Chaplin's tendency to write around jokes gives his film the feeling of a comedy routine. This makes them seem a tad overplayed, and despite the number of jokes, not many of the whole of them were very entertaining. Chaplin's chaos seemed very deliberate, while Keaton's gave us a sense of a poor guy being unable to catch a break. This isn't to say Chaplin isn't funny; there were some good jokes in The Gold Rush; his pacing just isn't as consistent and satisfying. And although this difference is negligible, Keaton's live stunts made the action more believable than Chaplin's special effects.
In short, both films were similar in style, but Keaton's shot composition, as well as his narrative and comedic decisions, caused his film to age far better.
The films of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton are classics of their time, and are remembered as great inspirations for today's comedic filmmakers. The General and The Gold Rush are both examples of their prowess in front of and behind the camera. Both movie's narratives take place during major US historical events in the 19th century, and feature their main characters fighting adversity in order to "get the girl". Keaton and Chaplin both use advanced camera and shooting techniques in order to provide humor and a meaningful plot at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAs alike as these two films are, they have many differences in the way they were both written and shot. Keaton's The General is a film that stretches deep beyond the surface and connects with viewers. The late great critic Roger Ebert once described him as being "observant and collective". This perfectly describes his humor, for it never seems forced, but instead woven in with the plot, whereas Chaplin's physical humor seemed forced at times and disconnected from the story, making it difficult to identify with the camera lens. Keaton's storytelling and acting prowess transports the viewer into Civil War era America with strong verisimilitude. The stunts in The General are also advanced, included the legendary train and bridge scene which was a marvel of effects at the time. The Gold Rush, on the other hand used camera trickery for it's effects, especially when the house is "tilted" off of the cliff.
Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin are both very well known silent film directors, compared for their very different styles and classic storylines. The General, dir Keaton, and The Gold Rush, dir Chaplin, have very similar bases, the guy trying to get the girl, but are portrayed very differently through the director's’ different styles of filmmaking. Classic silent comedies, they showed the famous director’s way of conveying a plot without dialogue. Similarities between the two films include they both used cutting to action, and parallel editing. Chaplin used this when he is trying to trick the audience into thinking the cottage is falling off a cliff, when he is just using the camera angle to make it seem like that is happening. Both films also use mostly open framing, conveying a more free sense of comedy, and while there isn’t any audible dialogue, both directors use intertitles. Keaton’s use of special effects seemed much better, and more blended in with the rest of the plot, while Chaplin’s use of special effects seemed much less real, which affected the verisimilitude. The stunts in The General were also much more advanced, with the biggest costing stunt in the time period- the bridge exploding, which was all one shot. Chaplin’s humor was also much more on the surface, most of his actors over acted, which was a thing during the no sound film era. Keaton’s use of humor was a little more deepened, which gave it a more sophistic sense, even if the comedy is a child’s level humor.
ReplyDelete