Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton

I haven't actually posted at this group for a couple years now but there is a topic I wanted to get some input on. Recently, I was able to see all of the feature films of Harold Lloyd, restored and uncut. I have already seen all the feature films of Chaplin and Keaton. My question is how does Chaplin compare to the others. Not 'who is the greatest' or 'who is the funniest', but simply, what similarities or differences are most notable and significant. I could state the obvious, such as Chaplin's embracing of pathos and emotion, whereas Keaton shunned those aspects in his comedy. In a more technical way, it is interesting to compare the consistent quality of Lloyd's feature films to that of Keaton and Chaplin. Lloyd turned out 11 silent features, almost all of which were of excellent quality. Keaton's feature films of the 1920s, numbering 12 in the silent era, seem to be more hit-or-miss in terms of quality. And Chaplin made only 3 comic features during the decade, only one of which is considered an undisputed masterpiece.

Well, I love all three of those giants. But they sure are different.

Lloyd is funny enough when you're at home watching him on a TV set. Watch him in a packed theater, and he's sensational. But the strange thing is that there's very little that lingers with you. I was at a screening of one of his best films (can't recall if it was 'Safety Last' or 'The Kid Brother', and I was laughing as long and as loud as everyone else. But after the movie, as we all filed out of the theater, I realized that I was already beginning to forget all the stuff I'd been laughing at, and everything else about the film as well. When a Lloyd movie is over, it's *really* over.

Keaton stays with you longer. He's an enigmatic guy, and his comedy is so original and fresh. Even with the lesser Keaton films, there's always something about them that holds your attention, and keeps you thinking about him long after the final fade-out. But while Keaton speaks to the mind *and* to the funny bone, he doesn't speak to the heart. In a Keaton film, 'The Girl' is almost always a two-dimensional plot device. You seldom get the impression that Buster is feeling anything in particular for her, and you're almost impatient for her to go away so you can get back to the comedy.

But Chaplin aims higher. He doesn't always hit the bulls-eye, but he combines a magnetic personality with inventive comedy and a storyline that's sympathetic and involving, with an emotional element. In his mature films, Chaplin is never detached from you. He's trying to pull you in. Some people, especially nowadays, resist that and complain that the pathos and the sentiment spoil the comedy. But for those of us who respond to it, the films become more meaningful and memorable than they'd be otherwise.

Back in the days of 'Easy Street' and 'The Pawn Shop,' Chaplin was making straight comedies. But in the era of 'The Kid,' 'The Gold Rush,' 'The Circus' and beyond, he was making a different kind of film.

The people who judge Chaplin on the basis of laughs-per-reel are being a little unfair, and missing the point.

I think if Chaplin had stopped there, I would not rank him above Lloyd or Keaton.

It is because of his post-silent films that he proves to be the superior artist, in my opinion. And he is certainly a greater actor than either Keaton or

Lloyd made 11 good movies. Keaton made 12 very good ones. Chaplin made three outstanding ones.

Chaplin wins.

At last, a topic I *really* like to think about!

I don't believe that Keaton shuns emotion. He obviously has plenty of emotion invested in his character's success, as does Lloyd, and that's partly what pulls us into their films. Meows has a point about the recurrent plot device of Buster first failing, and finally experiencing unexpected but spectacular success. While Buster often mocks romantic love, so does Chaplin, and both also take it seriously, though in somewhat different ways. For Buster, getting the girl he wants, in spite of his initial ineptitude, is an important achievement, though the girl remains pretty much an object. For Chaplin the romantic involvement, and the female characters, are much more complicated, and this adds psychological depth to his films of a sort which one doesn't find in Keaton or

I saw THE KID BROTHER at the Colonial Theatre In Phoenixville, PA (the one that the Blob attacked) with organ accompaniment and a packed house. (Believe I mentioned this long ago)

I have ~never~ experienced such positive audience response to a comedy, not with Keaton, not with Chaplin, not with any comic's work. The glow has never faded for me.

As if sunniness, energy, and good spirits weren't somehow on the level of pain and pathos? Brownlow called Lloyd 'the third genius' for good and sufficient reason. The spirited comic energy of THE KID BROTHER surpasses anything in Chaplin.

Only because of the longevity and variety of his career does Chaplin outrank Lloyd and Keaton as a film-maker. And, as a performing artist, of course, neither comes close.

Lloyd faded with sound because his 'glasses' character didn't transfer well and his timing was thrown off. Keaton imploded.

Later, Lloyd withheld his films and Keaton became known as a TV clown. Chaplin carefully cultivated his reputation through controlled releases of his pictures and the hoopla surrounding his autobiography.

Actually, I think _Kid Brother_ is Lloyd's best, and richest, film. The human fly sequence in _Safety Last_ is deservedly famous, but the rest of the film doesn't equal it. _The Freshman_ has aged badly.

They have their value, and produce a very agreeable comic high, but the decidedly more edgy comedy we get in Chaplin and Keaton has more substance. I tend to think that the greatest art is neither purely tragic nor purely comic, but skitters ambiguously across the line that theoretically separates the two.

_Kid Brother_ has moments of intense passion and grief. It is more visceral and has more psychological depth than most of Lloyd's films.

Anything?!?!

Wonderful as it is, KB is not even in the same class as _City Lights_ or _Modern Times_, IMO.

I think there's more to it that that. Chaplin confines himself to relatively simple, basic visual techniques, but he uses them with enormous imaginative power. He's less interested in technical manipulation than Keaton, and less interested in glossy production values than Lloyd, but that doesn't make him less of a film-maker. He simply has different stylistic priorities.

Lloyd never figured out how to use sound. His knack for visual comedy didn't transfer to aural comedy. You may well be right about the character. His eager beaver qualities don't have as much appeal today as do cool Buster or mercurial Charlie.

Keaton wasn't given much of a chance to do his own figuring, and of course he had other problems.

Some would argue that Chaplin didn't fare as well in sound, but I think he attempted some fascinating experiments with it, starting particularly in _Modern Times_.

Not very widely. I never saw his show, and in fact never heard of him until the '70s.

Chaplin created something that was easy to perpetuate.

The Tramp is an indelible icon. A photographer for the Texas Tech student newspaper picked up on this immediately when he was photographing some of my Chaplin stuff for a feature article on _Modern Times_. What he noticed was that just two or three features made the character immediately recognizable, regardless of which artist did the rendering.

Connie K.

Or The Kid, The Gold Rush, The Circus....

Why do we believe that pain and pathos have more 'substance' than 'sunniness and good spirits?' I think this is a cultural bias of the 'age of anxiey.'

Like your IMO at the end.

I was referring to a specific kind of comic 'energy.' Keaton and Chaplin

Cheap? THE GOLD RUSH cost almost a million 1925 dollars.

Richard Carnahan

Please reread Connie's comment