MovieChat Forums > Sherlock Jr. (1924) Discussion > Jumping through the window into the dres...

Jumping through the window into the dress


As I wrote on another thread, dealing with the pool sequence, the explanations concerning the jumping through the window into the dress scene were, as far a I know, incorrect.

He used another actor, who was dressed in the dress, hiding on the other side of the window. The camera angle here is crucial, so when Keaton runs towards the window, he actually continues beyond it, out of sight, just when the other actor jumps. That is why he walks AWAY from the camera, and you don't see his face until after the next cut.

I know Keaton didn't use doubles, but this was the way he did this scene.

reply

I thought I saw in one of the Keaton documentaries (years ago, so I might be wrong) that he did do the whole trick and that it was an old vaudeville trick that had been done before.

"And before we go any further, who the hell orders pizza under the name of Torchwood?"

reply

I watched it in slo-mo forward and backward again and again. I followed the trajectory of Buster's body and he's clearly diving into the costume and out the window.

All he has to do to make it work is get his head into the hat part of the costume, and the rest will follow. He then wraps it around himself like a blanket.

Remember this is film, not stage. Buster could do as many takes as needed to get himself properly into the costume.

reply

There's no way he could have done that, and no reason why he should have. Even though he did his own stunts, Keaton was willing to think creatively in planning cinematic tricks. You have to look at the camera angle, and what we're NOT seeing. And again, why do we not see his face when he lands, and walks away?

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

reply

The only firm answer would be to get an extreme DVD close up of the right hand and check for the missing fingertip. But like I said, I watched it virtually frame by frame and I can't see how he could have done a switch. I think the camera angle was more to hide the fact that the costume wasn't hidden in the case, but was very carefully arranged so that Buster could aim his head for the hat when he dove. Why would he face away from the camera? Because the costume looked a lot more convincing from the back than from the front. If he'd have walked toward the camera, the effect would have been more like Buster covered by a blanket than of Buster in an old lady costume.

reply

Interesting question, since this gag has usually been discussed in far less detail than the more famous one that immediately follows (jumping into ”the lady peddler’s” suitcase and apparently vanishing). But according to Rudi Blesh’s biography, both of these tricks had been remembered by Buster from his vaudeville days.

I have just been watching the scene several times in slo-mo, and have reached the same conclusion as Chrissie: Buster is definitely diving straight at the window and landing on the other side. For him to have done a lightning-quick turn to the right, and another performer to stand ready at the window to complete his action convincingly, would have been all too complicated to work out and get right, in my estimation.

I’m not sure of the details on how the old-time ”quick-change” artists performed their tricks, but possibly they had a curtain or something to assist in their dazzling feats — for the same reason that we see the wall at an angle, to hide the props. I also agree with Chrissie that Buster turns his back on the camera to hide the fact that his ”old lady” get-up is, at this point, less convincing than in the next cut when we see him face forward.

Also, it seems to me that the whole action of landing on the pavement, getting up and walking away is performed with a definitely Keatonesque elegance. Veteran stuntman Harvey Parry made the point in Brownlow’s Keaton documentary that the main reason Keaton was seldom doubled was that you couldn’t copy his physical mannerisms before or after the stunt itself. (Parry in fact categorically states that Keaton was never doubled, but there is at least one known exception — the pole vault at the climax of College which was performed by a professional pole vaulter.)


"An empty cab pulled up and Louis B. Mayer got out."

reply

I don't think, Rollo, that he had to change the angle of his movement. It's an illusion caused by the camera angle. I just don't think that Keaton, yes, even Keaton, could have gotten into the dress in the jump.

And why does he walk AWAY from the camera, and we don't see a face until the next shot?

It's not a matter of Keaton being doubled, but just that he needed someone else in order to pull off the gag.

You know you should surrender
But you can't let it go...

reply

Having re-watched it for the third time, it is definitely Keaton. No stunt-double. I don't find the angle to be misleading at all, and he walks away from the camera for comedic effect. He's essentially wandering off-stage, while the other players on stage are in a state of absolute confusion. Brilliant scene.

Buster Keaton made me quit smoking.

reply

The stunt would have been impossible to do, without some trick.

We could have high times
if you'll abide

reply

Oh chill lubin-freddy, you ask "why didn't we see his face after the stunt"? Uh, did you follow the plot? He was disguising himself as an old lady, if he showed his face the villains running out of the house would see it was really him. DUH. Watch the scene over and over, then watch everything else Keaton has done. He didn't jump into a shirt and a pair of pants, he jumped into a dress and as any good prepared stuntman/actor he naturally carefully planned and practiced on this thing NUMEROUS times before shooting it on camera. In fact the stunt was a variation on an old vaudeville-trick, so there was no cheating involved, he did it on camera. Even then if he did it wrong they could always do another take. Of all the incredible stunts Keaton ever did on camera, you choose this as the one that would be impossible? Heh.

reply

Chill? I sound angry or agitated? Just talking.

First of all, my explaination still seems the most likely, for several reasons.

As I wrote before, it's striking that the camera angle is just so that we don't see exactly what's happening behind the wall. Why wouldn't Buster want us to see him actually jumping? And, as I wrote before, when I was un-chilled, it's striking that, after the jump, he's walking in the other direction. Un-Keatonlike.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

I think he is walking in the other direction to hide that he is, in fact, not wearing a dress, but only a blanket casually wrapped around him, or at least not a dress that would hold up to closer scrutiny. The camera angle is probably because the set-up is slightly more advanced that the movie wants us to believe. There is probable a couple of guy holding the hat and blanket for Buster to grab, or a perhaps a holder of some sort, rather than the clothes being securely hidden in the hoop.

reply

Exactly! He didn't jump into a real dress but into an old-lady-in-a-dress costume designed to be jumped into. It was probably a dress front and a combination shawl/dress back that would only look like a dress if he pulled the "shawl" tight in front of him to hide the fact that the "dress" had no sides or back.

Think of his "kilt" in The Garage, which only looked like a kilt if you looked at him head-on.

reply

I feel like MythBusters should get on this.

"Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart."

reply

In the Kino DVD documentary of the film, it is explained that this was a stage trick that Keaton, a lover of magicians, borrowed for the movie. That IS him in the dress.

reply