A 1927 Blog-a-thon Contributory Post
Julie and I watched The General this weekend. This is the first silent film I’ve ever seen in its entirety. I decided, as I am not versed in film technique not the history of the era, to approach it with a modern eye. Not a jaundiced, cynical one, however, as I had heard good things and expected to be entertained. I am writing with an eye to others with this unfamiliarity; so expect some recapping in here with my thoughts.
For those who haven’t seen the film, Johnny Gray (Buster Keaton) is a train engineer in an unspecified Southern location—though it must be near Chattanooga—when Ft. Sumter is fired upon. As the woman he is a-courtin’ has a father and brother who enlist, she insists he does as well—though when he tries, they refuse him--he is too valuable as a train engineer to the logistical effort. Naturally, his woman snubs him and doesn’t want to speak to him “until he is wearing a uniform.” Some time later, his train—which unbeknownst to him, carries his beloved as a passenger—is hijacked by a Union special ops squad, which intends to destroy the supplies therein and the supply line to the front. Gray grabs a separate engine to pursue, and hijinks ensue.
My first though was to wonder why our heroes were Confederates. Was it not as hard to sympathize with the Southern cause in those days? Nothing really awful is ever portrayed—it could have been any two warring sides, and the attempts by both the Union and later Gray to damage the rail lines to hold up supplies are certainly within standards of war. The only black persons I saw were unloading passengers just before the hijacking. But as I think back to the pro-South portrayal in Birth of a Nation--which I’ve also on read about—I’m curious about the turn-of-the-century view of the Civil War. Or, as I should say residing in Virginia, the War between the States.
My next impression, as a modern viewer, was that the best analog to what Keaton was doing might be a Jackie Chan film. This isn’t a comedy so much as an action adventure film that doesn’t take itself seriously—the comedy comes from the haplessness of our hero, and the times he and the Union soldiers are victims of physical gags. Specifically, what made me think of Chan films was the elaborate use of objects from the background environment. At one point, Gray leaves the line from a water tank, soaking his pursuers; in another, he gets a fun sight gag out of attempting to steal fence rails twice as long as he is tall for locomotive fuels. It strikes me as amazingly kinetic film for the times—although, as I said, I haven’t seen a lot of the silent comedies. The dual train chases give extended energy to the audience, like a beat that causes you to drive a little faster. While the set pieces are funny, they are also amazing in a way that makes you grin rather than chortle. I felt more like it was a fun ride that make me smile, than a side-spliter in which the plot steered me to the next laugh.
I was also struck by the brilliance of Keaton’s portrayal of Gray’s innocent bewilderment at events around him. Several times, he attempts to deal with a problem or obstruction, only to solve it (or for it to resolve itself) while his back is turned. For example, his engine starts to move without him, or a car blocking his way switches to a side track without him seeing. His confused look really sells his predicament to the audience.
The last thing that I wanted to mention was the clever way pieces of the film meshed into each other—very little was extraneous or unrelated to anything else. Not to give away (any more) of the best bits, but the uniform line I quoted above is not left without a callback, and several important discoveries or successes for Gray are set up by previous serendipitous failures or difficulties. There’s an economy to this film that encourages you to take it all in along the way.
OK, if you haven’t seen this, I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The disc Julie received from Netflix also had two other shorter pieces from Keaton on it (The Playhouse and Cops), both of which were brilliant as well. Seemed to be a 1995 copyright, if you’re casting about at your favorite rental or purchase place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm so glad you liked it, and Keaton in general. I like your take on it, too. I'm not sure about the confederate thing either. Seems like there was a lot of nostalgia for the "good old days" in the Old South, which ran through film at least into the 1940s.
Run out right away and rent Keaton's Sherlock Jr., which is one of my all-time favorite films.
I agree with Goatdog; watch enough pre-1940 (hell, even pre-1960) movies and you realize that the Confederates got sweetheart press for most of the 20th century. Keaton, however, was hardly a political filmmaker and I suspect he chose to make his hero a Confederate simply because that was the more "romantic" side.
It has been years since I saw a Buster Keaton movie in its entirety (I mean, years--I think Reagan was president) so this inspires me to revisit them. And don't tell Goatdog, but I don't think I have seen Sherlock Jr ...
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment