Week #3: Released in 1926, directed by Buster Keaton, 79 minutes. New to me.
LetterBoxd Score: 4 stars
I am sad to be leaving behind Buster Keaton on this list; I love his deadpan schtick. Ebert (again, I am basic! But I am also at sea in terms of knowing what to read about really old movies! Help!) thinks we identify with Keaton more than other silent actors because his deadpan style is more modern, relative to his overacting peers. Whatever the truth of that, I would like to see more of him, and to watch it with my kid.
But on the other hand, I actually did watch this one with my kids. And it was… fine. More on that in a minute.
I have a pitifully small frame of reference for this movie – basically just Sherlock, Jr. Compared to that, it feels much more like modern movie; it’s over an hour, and it’s a unified story about a protagonist seeking to achieve a purpose. It’s also more ambitious, in terms of its stunt work and storytelling. And it’s another example of people using the movies to do what only the movies can do; whereas Sherlock, Jr. used various tricks of film-making, this one relied on the unique ability of film to propel it’s audience through space alongside a protagonist (in this case, on a forever moving train).
It’s also well constructed; the first half lays out small versions of obstacles that Buster must overcome in his pursuit of Anne, and then the second half symmetrically reverses the script, with Keaton throwing larger versions of the same obstacles at his pursuers as he escapes with her. We’ve loose train cars, throwing crap on the tracks, and, most famously, burning bridges. I love that they crashed the whole train but just used on regular speed take; what else can you do?
And yet… I was very excited to watch this with my kids. I picked them up from school a bit early and we made popcorn and watched. But it just wasn’t as rapid fire funny as Sherlock. It’s nearly twice as long, but probably has slightly fewer jokes. The kids liked it well enough, but I don’t think anybody loved it.
Also, weird that in 1926, about 60 years after the end of the Civil War, Buster thought it was important enough for the protagonist to be a confederate that he actually flipped the sides of the real life protagonists, upon which the story is based? I guess either everyone was just a racist romanticizing the losers? Either way, it’s not important to the story (I told my kids they were on “opposite sides” of the war, rather than calling Buster’s side “the good guys”), but it’s not great.
Why would someone think it’s one of the ten greatest films ever made?
Probably because it’s an early example of peak movie magic. Adventure! Comedy! And above all else, spectacle! It was the most expensive movie for it’s time as well. But look at Mad Max: Fury Road (Black and Chrome edition), and you’ll be amazed what 90 years of progress can bring about.
Next week: Metropolis