I liked it more than the Charlie Chaplin movies that came afterward. I thought the cinematography was better than movies made ten years later.
Yes, the cinematography is better than some Chaplin films. The particularity of "The General" is that Keaton does all the dangerous stunts by himself. Also, the film was not shot in a studio, and the diverse backgrounds, places to shoot during the train sequences, were chosen carefully by Keaton. So, "The General", to me is a ride compared to, for example "City Lights". Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that "City Lights" is not that good (actually I like both on about the same level), but different, and good for different reasons.
I think "The General" is possibly the best film to start with, if you want to watch, or know some more things about silent films.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
jsiewert-1
15 years ago
I think people have said this before on the thread, but I'd just like to spell it out in concrete terms. Almost everyday I go to internet humor sites (failblog, imagechan, etc.) and occasionally there will be something on there that just CRACKS ME UP, and I'll laugh about it for an entire day (most recently this happened with the "GARBAGE DAY" line in Silent Night, Deadly Night 2). And early silent comedy doesn't do that. Or at least not for me, but the difference is that amusement based wit really last longer than amusement based on pure absurdity. Our film professor remarked that we didn't seem to laugh too much at Sherlock Jr. (i thought it was hilarious), but though it may not have elicited laughs at the time the movie is fun to play back in your head, and gives you that same giddy feeling JUST BY IMAGINING IT. It seems to me that in terms of comedy you can either show all your cards at once, and make someone double over the first time, or you can be more subtle and allow the comedy to remain just as funny on repeat viewing. In this respect Keaton films might just be more "plain fun" than they are "funny".
reply
share