How does the book justify making us watch the same thing three times? About Sherlock, Jr., the book argues that this film
is a remarkable achievement, possessing a tightly integrated plot, stunning athleticism (Keaton did all his own stunts, unknowingly breaking his neck during one of them), artistic virtuosity, and an avant-garde exploration of the perennial dichotomy of reality versus illusionOf course, the book also claims the film moves at a "fever pitch." My response is "eh." I just don't care. If this were the only Keaton film on the list, then fine. And, of the three, I *think* I'd choose this one to keep.
For Our Hospitality, the book stretches to claim that "[m]uch of the humor . . . derives from a darkly ironic situation . . . [and] the result is not only very funny, but also dramatically substantial and suspenseful" and concluding that "[n]ever was Keaton's sense of timing so miraculous, his ability to elicit laughter and excitement and simultaneously so gloriously evident." Mmmmkay. I failed to see the irony, the humor, the substance, and the suspense.
Tracy? Do we need all of these Keaton films?
Unfortunately, we have two more Keaton-directed films on the list (who knows how many more Keaton might star in): Seven Chances (1925) and The General (1927).
The book is out of its mind. I'm sorry, but modern viewers are just not going to find suspense or breakneck (literally I guess, heh) action in a silent film. I found everything about it shallow--the plot, the characters, everything. I do agree one Keaton would suffice, just to get the idea, but then we need to MoveOn.org.
ReplyDelete