That so many people on here have called this the "funniest" or "one of the funniest" films ever.
I find it shocking. Seriously. Seriously shocking. I am in shock.
I appreciate film, and I appreciate The General, but to call this film, in the 2000's, the funniest ever, absolutely blows my mind.
I have respect for anybody that can sit through The General without falling asleep.
[deleted]
You watched it THREE TIMES!?
I personally find it hard to have a lot of respect for films that have the same dramatic effect when played in "fast-forward". :P
[deleted]
Well, I've never really been the type to take to "classic films", (films before 1950?) or especially, "silent films", but that doesn't mean I can't respect or even enjoy them.
With that being said, I had no expectations going into The General. I wasn't expecting it to be funny, or even entertaining, and so I wasn't disappointed. (I didn't find it funny, or entertaining.)
Most of the shots in the film were static, and with the exception of a few scenes, I found myself fighting to keep my eyes open.
Maybe it was the fact that I didn't care about the characters? After all, it was a comedy, and I guess unless you're Wes Anderson, you don't feel the need to develop your characters when directing a comedy, and since I couldn't find any humor in the film, it just didn't work out for me?
The one scene that sticks out in my memory is when he loads the cannon, and it is slowly aiming down at him before he changes it's direction and lands a direct hit on his enemies. I thought that was pretty neat.
And I can have respect for Buster Keaton, and The General, but I still find it hard to understand how people can call this film, to this day, magnificently hilarious, and not be lieing to themselves.
(To give you an idea of what I'm into, some of my favorite films include Magnolia, Memento, I Heart Huckabees, 21 Grams, Good Will Hunting, and The Royal Tenanbaums)
[deleted]
"Well, I've never really been the type to take to "classic films", (films before 1950?) or especially, "silent films", but that doesn't mean I can't respect or even enjoy them."
I do like a lot of classic films, and even a number of silent films.. But I find a lot of them boring. The General is included here. I only liked a few bits of the film. Some silent films I do like - a lot of Charlie Chaplin stuff (though I think the Gold Rush isn't REALLY great, it is amusing), Sunrise (I consider it a silent, some might not I guess - same with Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin's best film I have seen), Fairbank's Robin Hoood (that one I got to see in the Detroit Fox Theatre with full orchestra - awesome stuff there, also the first silent I saw), and Nosferatu (which I also find boring for the most part, but it has good enough imagery I enjoyed it anyway). There are also a good deal of older films I've enjoyed... Many classic swashbucklers, It Happened One Night, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, etc.
But man, the General is just.. Blah. It's amazingly slow and just not funny. Chaplin's shorts from 10 years earlier are better paced and funnier.
"Maybe it was the fact that I didn't care about the characters? After all, it was a comedy, and I guess unless you're Wes Anderson, you don't feel the need to develop your characters when directing a comedy, and since I couldn't find any humor in the film, it just didn't work out for me? "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're reaching with that question mark at the end. It seems you're unsure of even WHY you dislike the film. Maybe your expectations were too high and you were too tired and didn't kow enough info going in to appreciate it.
I think you should give some other silent films a try and get yourself into the right frame of mind to enjoy them. Try to start with the earliest ones and work your way up.
I would also recommend doing some reading about film and about this film in particular. I recommend a book called "1001 Movies to See Before You Die". It was such a good purchase. The reviews help immensely in the understanding and its just a great guide covering from silent films until 2004. Pretty much every respected director is featured, and noone hogs the spotlight, the goal here is MAXIMUM INCLUSION for directors. Tons of unexpected choices and picks for eveyone from gorehounds to people with mainstream taste to art house crowds. ABout the first 100 pages is all silent films. Its also illustrated with tons of stills from alot of the movies covered.
Then watch some more old films, you'll take to them quickly once you can get throught the first 5 to 10.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29663098
Personally, I don't even find it to be Keaton's funniest film. It's not really laugh out loud funny, but you can appreciate the comedy at the same time.
The main problem for me was the running time - for the 106 minute version at least. There were sequences that felt painfully long and repetitive.
It's nice to see some people that at least relatively agree with me.
shareSure. Pauline Kael [one of the few critics whose opinion I really respect] said 'it's a classic and many people swear by it, although it isn't funny in the freely inventive way of Steamboat Bill, Jr. Its humor is too drawn out for laughter'.
shareThis film is hilarious, but I can think of at least 3 Keaton films I'd rather watch.
shareCouple Points:
1) It is not even close to being Keaton's funniest movie. Almost all his silent features (outside of the medicore Saphead, Spite Marriage & College) and shorts have more laughs per minute. Although, I love quoting the "losing the war" line to myself.
2) It does have the strongest narrative for any Keaton movie. It is a terrific story of Buster going behind enemy lines and ingeniouly stealing the train back.
3) I really think of this as an action movie. Although the action may seem limited to modern audiences, it does show a terrific struggle of Buster versus the Union. Also, the action is completely real as that is really Buster in front of the train knocking out the logs and that is a real bridge being blown up with a train falling.
4) Beware of bargain purchases here. The running time is wrong (too long so the film must be slowed down) as well this the picture quality is poor.
5) This movie cinematography perfectly captures the Civil War. I think it was Orson Welles who said it was the most authenic Civil War ever.
It's not fair to judge a film this old by to-day's standards. Nonetheless, I thought it was a very funny, very entertaining film. For it's time, it was the best. For to-day, it was merely exceedingly good. It won't be to everyone's tastes because the style is so different to that which folks nowadays are used to.
But let's put it this way: if you don't like this film, I think you should just give silent films a miss altogether. :)
"Find out what to think next!"
-Chris Morris, "Brasseye"
[deleted]
This is the only Buster Keaton film I have seen so far. I will definitely be trying to get a hold of some more of his stuff. This film was great.
shareIt's not fair to judge a film this old by to-day's standards.Why not? I can't think of any new movie that makes The General look weak by comparison. Click, maybe? I think it would be unfair to judge Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey by Buster Keaton standards.
[deleted]
Hi, feitlbaum.
I asked my brother, who also loves Buster Keaton, how audiences would react if a Buster Keaton short suddenly replaced the commercials and trailers in front of films at movie theaters today. Would they stampede out of the theater? Complain even more bitterly than they do about the commercials? Sit there looking at their watches? Or would they actually enjoy them?
He doesn't think modern audiences in your typical multiplex would like them too much. But I'd like to think that it would start a major Buster Keaton revival, superior to the one he had in life. Who knows?
... Justin
Why not? Because it's a different standard. It's like comparing Bobby Charlton or Clough or someone to David Beckham or Thierry Henri. Times have mooved on ,and the game just ain't playd like it used to be. The fundamentals of cinema are quite different now to what they were. Thus, the audience expects something quite different to what they find in silent films.
I think The General is great, and I think Keaton was very talented. But I prefer Jim Carrey :P
"Find out what to think next!"
-Chris Morris, "Brasseye"
Thanks for replying.
I understand that times have changed since 1927 and that audience's tastes have changed. I even understand that comparing an old movie to a new one may not be comparing an apple to an apple. But you seemed to imply that judging "The General" by the standards of today's films would make it suffer by comparison. That I don't understand.
Audiences probably bought DVDs of "Click" 100 times more often than they bought a DVD of any Buster Keaton title. But that says something about modern audiences, and nothing about relative merits of Adam Sandler vs. Buster Keaton.
... Justin
Your post is nearly two years old. Just watch this film again--unless you're dead certain you'll never like it and never enjoy Buster Keaton.
Note that, despite what many people will tell you, this is a movie to enjoy, not appreciate. It can be appreciated, certainly. But it's main claim to greatness is the fact that it's so funny.
Then again, I've always found "The General" more awesome than funny--though I do laugh very hard at it. For me, the funniest Keaton is "The Navigator." I've gotten the chance to watch nearly all the Buster Keaton films at a revival house in Chicago--several with an organist providing live accompaniment. But I fell in love with the comedian just watching a videotape of this film when I was fifteen.
Try to find a good copy. This movie is in the public domain, which means any fly-by-night distributor can digitize a videotape of a ruined print, slap on an irrelevant music score and sell it as Buster Keaton's "The General" for a dollar at your local drug store. I think Keaton would survive even this, but it's better to watch a better copy.
... Justin
The Genral is one of the few films that makes me laugh out loud. While it is not funny in itself, the mannerisms of keaton are quite funny. I have seen worse modern films...
I will not buy this tobacconists, it is scratched.
I'm convinced if a new guy on the scene (sorry Bill Irwin) started doing exact lifts of Buster's stuff, for about 2 days people would be going look at this guy doing "innovative" comedy, before the intellectuals would be like he's just copying Keaton!
shareI don't think it was really planned to give the highest number of laffs per minute. Keaton was after higher game here. Yes, it is funny, but it is also an adventure movie, a historical film and a tribute to Mathew Brady and the D. W. Griffith of "Birth of a Nation." Now before I get a lot of protests, think about the first half of Griffith's epic: the loving depiction of antebellum life, those brilliant and horrifying war scenes--and forget about the infamous second half. Keaton was trying to do all those things and if the picture doesn't have you rolling in the aisles like a silent counterpart to "Animal House", it is because he was trying to do so much more than just crack people up. To paraphrase Joe Orton's criticism of "I Love Lucy": It may be funny, but the problem with it is that it is ONLY funny.
shareAgreed. It IS funny, but Keaton wasn't going for out-and-out comedy here. The genious of this movie is that he carries the narrative as well as the slapstick
shareI say the following fully aware that you haven't replied to any of the posts in this thread for quite awhile. And I know this awful, long reply was completely unnecessary. Despite all that:
I have a sneaking suspicion that even though you said you had NO expectations going into the viewing, you really did. Not necessarily the normal kind of expectations, but maybe expectations that have been ingrained in you by modern films (I did notice that list of films you like, by the way...I noted it quite carefully). This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation, but I think so many people nowadays are incredibly lazy when it comes to watching movies. Sure, Keaton only ever wanted an audience to enjoy his films, but he also had an extremely different aesthetic about what was enjoyable. It's really clear that he wasn't trying to get laughs constantly in The General. He wanted to accomplish a multitude of things, and I think he's been recognized for accomplishing every single thing he intended (historical accuracy, AMAZING cinematography, a wealth of laughs, a wealth of gasps (from his great stuntwork), a great movement of narrative, and some damned fine acting, to boot). You said you had no expectations, but I'm pretty sure you did. It's all over your reaction to the film. Example:
"I have respect for anybody that can sit through The General without falling asleep" I feel like this is said with Anderson's sweeping long takes, Anderson's dry long shots and vibrant colors....and.....Good Will Hunting, Memento, and I Heart Huckabees? Hmmm....I'm just as inclined as anybody to agree that art is subjective, and people have opinions, and it's important, blah blah blah. But I'm also very aware of the significance placed in an overwhelming amount of agreement on certain aspects in art. It's one thing for a film scholar who has dedicated their life to studying all aspects of film, culturally, technically and psychologically, and they decide, after months spent toiling over it, that The General is truly not a great film. But for you to watch it once and toss it off because it's way too different from your Post-50's preferences....I dunno....me being someone who CONSTANTLY questions things, not the least of which being my own judgments on things I'm not very knowledgable about....I'd say you rethink it.
Be in the world not of the world kind of thinking, you have to have respect for something that many films today still emulate.
"The General" IMHO, is a perfect blend of comedy, action, adventure, spectacle and history. And each element is integral to the plot. Keaton makes me laugh, but much like the effect Ernie Kovacs has on me, I find myself in admiration easily as much as in laughter, and even moreso on occasion.
The BIG problem with silent films is the inconsistency with which they are shown. The first time I saw "The General," it was with someone's borrowed 8mm print, and every 20 minutes, I had to stop and change reels. In spite of this, I was enraptured, while others got bored and left me alone with Buster. Since then, I've seen this numerous times, once in the cinema, many times on laserdisc and several times on my 16mm copy. Each of those viewing experiences is different, due to differences in print quality and the background music used. Some of the music out there for this movie is dreadful and can easily ruined the experience. My favorite score is by Carl Davis; it compliments the film nicely.
In addition to some of the available music scores, the experience can be ruined by showing the film at the wrong speed. 76 minutes is about the right time this film should play at the correct speed. Any copy that is 106 minutes long means the movie is being played T-O-O S-L-O-W. There are those who prefer it slower, but I feel it plays better at the speed recommended back in 1927, by Keaton himself.
To each his and her own, but it would be a shame if an indifferent viewing experience turns you away from a movie with much to offer.