Keaton has never been forgotten, but he has been comparatively neglected. That comparison is, obviously, with Chaplin. Now some points seem clear. As performer, Keaton is certainly Chaplin's equal. As director, he is Chaplin's superior, more flexible in his camera movement, more sensitive to pictorial quality as such. As producer of whole, organic works, he is not quite as good as Chaplin. As manager of his career, he is not remotely in Chaplin's league. Chaplin had great business and promotive sense; Keaton had practically none. (p. 20)
Artistically, there are close similarities and wide differences between them. Both understood the body as the source of comic life, both had incredible control of their bodies—an identification of physicality with comic performance that may never be seen on stage or film again…. Both understood that mere physical miracle was eventually sterile, that it had to be used in support of a character, a basically fixed character, as in the ancient tradition of clowning. In Chaplin's earliest shorts, one can see him moving toward the Tramp. In Coney Island, where Keaton supports Fatty Arbuckle, one can see him moving toward his character. (And, incidentally, disproving the myth that he never smiled.) Both pantomime artists dreaded the coming of sound, and neither was at his best in speaking roles. (p. 21)
This is a free excerpt of 216 words. There are 461 words (approx.
2 pages at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our Keaton, Buster 1895–1966: Critical Essay by Stanley Kauffmann Access Pass.
