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 article I gave you in class and one quote from Roger Ebert's Great Movies Essay on The General in your response.
Both films are available here:
The Gold Rush
The General
And for those of you who really liked The General, check out his fantastic film The Cameraman.
Keaton’s 1926 film The General and Chaplin’s 1925 film The Gold Rush share many fundamental similarities. Firstly, both films take place in an earlier time than the year they were produced. The General takes place during the Civil War, and The Gold Rush takes place during the Klondike Gold Rush at the end of the 19th century. In terms of narrative, both films feature a clumsy man who encounters many bad or inconvenient situations. They also both include a girl whom the protagonist is in love with and eventually ends up with. When it comes to setting, both films often return to a key location. In The General, the characters often return to the train, and in The Gold Rush, the characters often return to the cabin.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the two films are also very different. Chaplin’s film features a lot of over-acting and extreme physical comedy. On the other hand, the protagonist of Keaton’s film has more natural, even deadpan reactions to situations, making us “identify with him” as opposed to “laughing at [him]” (Ebert). Both films achieve kinesis, but in different ways. In The General, kinesis is shown with the train moving, both with shots of the train itself and shots on the train showing the surroundings pass by. In The Gold Rush, kinesis is shown as the characters move around in the frame, which is especially noticeable with the over-acting, as “the camera … was used mainly to record the body or facial movements of its pantomime hero” (Milicia). The Gold Rush often uses closed framing, with shots of the cabin including the walls to the side to further add to the sense of being trapped. This is also due to most of the film being shot in a studio. The General, on the other hand, was shot on-location, and uses a lot of open framing. The framing and the outdoor location add a sense of freedom and expands the cinematic space.
Charlie Chaplin's 1925 film The Gold Rush and Buster Keaton's 1926 film The General are both silent films. So, jokes are not delivered through a character’s lines, they are delivered through movements and “the laughs emerge from the situation” (Roger Ebert). Both Chaplin and Keaton are highly dynamic, running around and falling over for comedic effect. A lot of the humor in both films rely on these fast-paced movements– the kinesis, to amuse the audience. But the film’s aren’t only jokes, there is also elements of seriousness in them both. They depict relationships in the core of the narrative, in The Gold Rush it is between the protagonist and Georgia, while in The General it is between the protagonist and Annabelle. Both protagonists attempt to impress and win over the women in their respective films.
ReplyDeleteThe General has almost exclusively open framing, as a lot of it is filmed outside on a moving train. A very expansive and unrestricted situation is presented to the audience. This can be contrasted with The Gold Rush, as it had some more noticeable closed framing. For example, some scenes in the cabin are framed in a very closed-in way, as a strictly defined space as opposed to the open, outside world of The General. The Gold Rush was largely filmed in a studio, with sets offering areas that could be more restrictive than the outdoors. Further distinctions can be drawn with the fact that Chaplin overacted for his gags to a sometimes ridiculous point, while with Keaton there were “...fine touches of sentiment” (Joseph Milica) as well as a more toned-down approach to acting. With silent films, there was often overacting in order to express ideas and jokes without words, and Keaton strayed from the norm in this aspect.
Much of Keaton’s The General was shot in an open frame, although it was more closed than the framing of Chaplin’s The Gold Rush. The setting of each film was most likely the cause of the framing of each film. The General takes place in the south during the Civil War, a time where much of the south was constantly preparing for a battle, making the use of a multitude of props both relevant and worthwhile. However The Gold Rush takes place on a mountain that not many survive, making the use of an open frame applicable to the story. In Chaplin’s The Gold Rush, the audience is presented with a stark contrast of the exterior setting and the characters, the exterior setting being very light due to the snow and the characters dressed for warmth nn much darker shades. This contrast makes the characters and their antics the focus of the shot and in turn the focus of the film. This contrast fades as the characters enter the shack and are surrounded by similar shades and begin to blend into the background more. This does not push the characters into the background though, as many of the props used are stagnant and the characters rarely stay still. This also enforces the idea that the characters belong inside of the cabin rather than ot on the mountain because they appear to belong in the cabin and stand out from the rest of the scenery on the mountain. In contrast the characters in The General appear to blend into their surroundings for most of the film, not having a definite contrast of shade. This once again creates a sense of belonging for the characters, especially for the main character, Jonnie Gray “an expert...railroad engineer” who is “prevent[ed] from being accepted into the Confederate army”. (Joseph Milcia) Although both films are comedies, their narratives are vastly different. The General is based on the Civil War, and shot in the perspective of a southern train engineer, whereas The Gold Rush is based on the sudden influx of people
ReplyDeleteto dangerous areas to mine for gold, and shot in the perspective of a miner. The main character in both films are both portrayed as clumsy and awkward, but Johnnie from The General is much more solemn than Chapin is in The Gold Rush. Johnnie keeps “his composure in the center of chaos” unlike Chaplin who is very expressive most likely as the camera “was used mainly to record the body or facial movements of its pantomime hero”. (Joseph Milicia) (Roger Ebert) Despite the differences, both works remain influential and spoken of in the modern age of film.
Ebert, Roger. “The General Movie Review & Film Summary (1927) | Roger Ebert.” RogerEbert.com, 31 May 1997, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-general-1927. Accessed 30 Sept. 2017.
Chaplin's "The Gold Rush"(1925), and Keaton's "The General"(1926) are two films that have a great deal in common. They are both silent comedies from two of the most hailed and revolutionary directors of the time. Both films use a great deal of open framing as both of their narratives occur over a great deal of space. Narratively the two films draw on many of the same elements. They both follow a character who bumbles his way through most challenges but in the end rises up to achieve something and in the process wins over the girl of his dreams. Both films also have a great deal of kinesis, however it is achieved in different ways. In "The General", most of the kinesis occurs on the moving train, which is the setting for the majority of the film. In "The Gold Rush", the kinesis is achieved more through the movement of the characters onscreen, such as in the scene in which the two characters are sliding around on the floor of a house that is on the edge of a cliff.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the two film have their differences. "The General" was shot all on location, unlike "The Gold Rush", which was shot on set. And the difference shows. As Milicia says, "The film is distinctive for its civil war setting and location shooting...Compare for contrast, the studio look of Chaplin's "The Gold Rush"." The two films also differ greatly in their style of acting. Chaplin goes the traditional way of exaggerating his movements to make sure the emotions are u understood in the silent film. However, Keaton's movements are much more nuanced and realistic, with his face conveying more of his emotions than anything else. As Robert Edgar states, "Other silent actors might mug to get a point across, but Keaton remained observant and collected."
Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925) and Keaton's "The General" (1926) are two silent comedies still regarded today as cinematic classics. Although both films have a similar narrative structure (an everyday man stumbling through adventure and through love), the actual narratives are extremely different, most notably in the involvement of the lead female character. Where "The General" features a love interest who's character shifts from "the 'unattainable goal' to a partner in action" (Joseph Milicia), "The Gold Rush" placed the love interest as more of a goal than an involved character, and the difference is evident in how the respect pairs interact with each other. Additionally, the treatment of the main character and the gags that come with him are different. "The General" features a leading man who is subtle and quiet, while "The Gold Rush"'s protagonist is more bombastic and overstated. The same is applied to the jokes - Keaton is "rarely [caught]...writing a scene around a gag; instead, the laughs emerge from the situation" (Roger Ebert), such as when Johnnie is trying to get into the army, or any of the multiple visual gags that occur while on the train. These gags are worked into the existing events, instead of being the premise. In contrast, many scenes in "The Gold Rush" revolve around gags, such as when Jim imagines the Prospector as a chicken, or the various visual gags involving the wind in the cabin.
ReplyDeleteBoth films use both open and closed framing, though "The General" has more open framing while "The Gold Rush" leans more towards closed framing. A large part of this is in their sets - while Keaton opted to film on location, Chaplin ended up shooting mostly on set (there were some scenes shot on location, but besides the opening scene, they were cut). Additionally, "The General" has more outdoor scenes than "The Gold Rush". As a result, while "The General" seems to flow from one area to another, creating an open environment, many locations in "The Gold Rush" were seen repeatedly, with more closed framing, as the characters seemed almost restricted by the small locations.
Both films vary in their use of kinesis. Keaton's film relies on both movement of the actors and movement of the train. Although most of the movement is caused by trains, the actors are not overshadowed by this, as their movements are emphasized as well. Chaplin's kinesis is created mainly by the acting, which is exaggerated and emphasized for the audience.
Both Buster Keaton’s “The General” (1927) and Charlie Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” (1925) were great silent comedies. They were both very great in their own respects, but each had a distinctive story and style of creation. Although both of the films are physical comedy, the narratives of each film are very different. Not only is the actual story content different, but the way this content is portrayed is different. Both stories have a love interest. In “The General” (1927), Buster Keaton is trying to win over Annabelle Lee. In “The Gold Rush” (1925), Charlie Chaplin is trying to win over Georgia. Although both include elements of action and romance in their narratives, eac film is focused differently on each. In “The Gold Rush” (1925), it is clear that the film is more based around the romance, but still has some action sequences, whereas “The General” (1927) is clearly more action based, but with some romantic sequences.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, there are differences between the two with the style of framing. In “The General” (1927), the framing is both open and closed. Some shots only focusing on whatever action is taking place and most of the time, leaving other extraneous things out of frame. These shots always are focused on what is currently happening and the action of that particular moment. However, there are times in the film in which it is clear that there is a world around the current narrative and that other things are happening within the frame. In “The Gold Rush” (1925), Charlie Chaplin uses both open and closed framing as well. The best example of how he employs open framing is when the main character, the Lone Prospector (Charlie Chaplin) is in the bar. Although the camera is focused usually on him, there is still action within the frame, action going inside and outside the frame.
It is also of note that both of the film’s main characters have a very specialized role in the film. They both know what they are good at, and both know what they are bad at. Joseph Malicia brings up in his article that “‘The General’ is distinctive in that Johnny Gray is an expert in at least feild, railroad engineering”. Similarly, in “The Gold Rush” (1925), it seems as though the Lone Prospector’s only purpose in the film, before he meets Georgia, is to find gold. This writing gives both films a sort of: “wow this guy is bumbling around, but at least he’s good at one thing!” idea around it.
Although both films contained action sequences, I believe that there is a clear distinction between them. In “The Gold Rush” (1925), the action sequences are more of comedic action (like when the Lone Prospector first arrives at the cabin and is getting kicked out). In comparison, the action sequences in “The General” (1927) are more suspense based action, with huge, dangerous stunts and real destruction. Roger Ebert states that “‘The General’ is an epic of silent comedy, one of the most expensive films of its time, including ... dangerous stunt sequences, and an actual locomotive falling from a burning bridge into a gorge far below.” Although they are different films, they are both master works of silent comedy in there own respects.
Buster Keaton's "The General" (1927) and Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925) are both great and classic silent comedies, sharing similarities and differences respectively. The clear similarities are first seen between the performance's of Keaton and Chaplin, utilizing a similar physical humor and cluelessness to compensate for the lack of dialogue. That being said, they achieve this in different ways. When the audience watches Keaton's performance it is clear "...he is callow, bumbling, and even...effete."(Milicia), the kinesis of the movie coming more from the moving train than his appearance. As Roger Ebert states, "Although they're filled with gags, you can rarely catch Keaton writing a scene around a gag; instead, the laughs emerge from the situation." Chaplin's acting carries much more deliberate expression and drama, the kinesis of the film deriving from his movements and the other characters around him.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative of the film's follow the same pattern, although they are obviously different. Both show a troubled male lead undergo challenges in order to accomplish a goal and win the girl, in a time specific location. In "The General" (1927) Keaton is trying to win over Annabelle Lee during the Civil War, whereas in "The Gold Rush" (1925) Chaplin is trying to win over Georgia in the Klondike Gold Rush. The location is very important to both of these films, each base, the cabin and the train, acting as the protagonist's side-kick. Although both of these movies have a plethora of action, they each carry different intent. "The General" (1927) is filled with life-risking danger and action , with the romance and goal being less of the focus. "The Gold Rush" (1925) uses action more of a comedic device while paying more attention to the romance itself.
Both "The General" (1927) and " The Gold Rush" (1925) use open and closed framing, but in different ways. "The General" (1927) uses more open framing because of the openness of being outside on-location. "The Gold Rush" (1927) uses more closed framing because of the set-location of the cabin, which traps the characters in it's walls. Overall, both films contributed their fair share to cinematic history, and are remembered to this day because of it.
Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925) and Buster Keaton's "The General" (1927) are both cinematic masterpieces which show a variety of similarities due to them being silent films. Both films are comedies, and due to them being silent convey comedy through physical actions and extremely unrealistic events. One of the most prominent similarities which arises between the two films are the main characters' performances, which both utilize largely theatrical and exaggerated movements to convey a sense of hilarity. In fact, both characters fall under the specific archetype of the bumbling oaf, who attempts to overcome adversity despite their general ineptitude or clumsiness. The narrative similarities between the two films don't end there however, as each is driven by a romantic interest who gives the characters reason to do the things they do. Each movies narrative also relies on a specific setting in which a large majority of the action takes place. In "The General", this setting is the train which constantly travels throughout the runtime of the film, while in "The Gold Rush", the major setting is that of the mountain and its cabins, which remain generally stationary. Inherently, this difference in setting creates large differences in the way the kinesis is delivered, with "The General" conveying movement with the moving train, while "The Gold Rush" conveys movement with the actions of the characters within the movie. These two forms of kinesis heavily contrast each other, with "The General" utilizing shifts within the frame and setting as the primary sources of such kinesis, and "The Gold Rush" utilizing natural movements driven by narrative storytelling or events. These specific locations also provide differences in framing between the two movies, with the more open setting of "The General" providing more open frames, and the much more common indoor shots within "The Gold Rush" providing closed frames. In "The General", the use of open frames indicate the freedoms the main character has while being featured within his action shots, as he is able to truly improvise with everything around him. By contrast, the main character of "The Gold Rush" is forced into many more claustrophobic frames, with many more direct interactions with other characters and objects within the shots.
ReplyDeleteDespite the similarity in narrative style and genre, the films’ differences become very apparent when analyzing the emphasis each director places on various cinematic elements. Keaton’s movie is built upon the shoulders of extreme action, whether it be a train chase or a gun battle, or even just pertinent use of special effects. These action scenes drive the narrative of the scene, all the while providing comedic gags which relate to such narrative vision. Unlike Chaplin’s film however, these comedic gags do not detract from the narrative flow, as “you can rarely catch Keaton writing a scene around a gag; instead, the laughs emerge from the situation” (Roger Ebert). Keaton’s film is also admirable in its attempts create comedy which “...grows out of a serious melodramatic pursuit…” (Joseph Milicia), which provides a sense of true meaning to the comedic actions presented to the audience.
Charlie Chaplin’s The Gold Rush, and Buster Keaton’s The General are both silent classics that come from two of great silent comedians of 1920s. While both are comedies, both inhabit very different styles of silent comedy in order to get laughs from the audience. Both films work around the fact that they are silent films, and the majority of the comedy comes from slapstick. Despite both films utilizing slapstick for comedy, they both have very different approaches to slapstick. Chaplin usually has his comedy be very specific to the situations he is in and embodies sort of an everyman style to his slapstick. Keaton on the other hand has a very deadpan approach to slapstick, and performs stunts that puts him directly in harm’s way to display a gag. A big difference between the two films is its use of title cards. The Gold Rush uses multiple title cards throughout its runtime, using them for exposition. The General on the other hand uses very few title cards and for the most part has its story told through visuals. Women in both films are portrayed very similar as sort of an “unattainable goal” that acts as motivation for the protagonists actions. The use of cinematic space in both films is very open, allowing for the action to play out on the screen. Unlike earlier pictures, they both follow clear narratives with character arcs and runtimes that exceed one hour.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe General and Gold Rush are both very well put together films. They have many similarities. They both take place many years before they were filmed. They both use humor all based on movement because of the lack of sound because they both were silent films. Keaton used humor that was like him putting himself in danger to get a laugh and Chaplin’s humor came from awkward or quirky situations to get the Audience to laugh. A minor but important similarity is a love interest. Both had action and romance scenes but Gold Rush was more romance and The General was more action. Both movies use kinesis but they use different kinds the General focuses on the train and that moving but Gold Rush focuses on the characters actually moving. But personally I would say that the movies were mostly similar except the plot. This may be because they both were filmed in similar periods or maybe just a coincidence. But I personally think that most of the differences are different stories and different uses of framing.
ReplyDeleteThe Gold Rush and The General are both very influential films that were ahead of there time. Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin both performed stunts by themselves no matter how dangerous or physically demanding. The silence in both films allowed for more visual comedy and both of these actors knew how to make people laugh through funny facial expressions and arm movements. The Gold Rush had a more closed frame throughout the film was more inside than out. The General was a fast paced outside film with more open framing and action. Buster Keaton is overall very entertaining in the way he acts and makes scenes more intriguing through his expression and fluid acting. Charlie Chaplin has a more comedic tone in everything he does but also uses very smooth and perfected stunts to make the viewers laugh and feel a part of the action. "He is not a man playing for laughs, but a man absorbed in a call on the most important person in his life.", This quote from Roger Ebert's Great Movies Essay on The General displays that Keaton has a strong undertone of emotion in his comedy and makes the viewers both laughing but also feeling bad for the character. Chaplin on the other hand has the ability to make viewers laugh and feel embarrassed for him when he's in different scenario's due to his nature of over the top and exciting acting.
ReplyDelete