fusillo

:-)

@easycure: I don't get how someone who parodies a genre, and therefore creates that genre, can be detached from it. But maybe that's my limitation. Regarding the expressiveness of Zappa's music, I would say let's leave it at that, also because discussing the expressiveness of one piece or another (not structure, influences, etc...) from a distance, without having it on hand, is a bit complicated. Bye.

Anyway, I agree about the beautiful gags in Sherlock Jr. and The Cameraman. But you have to keep in mind that cinema in the twenties was a young art. People were in awe in front of the screen. And to continue to amaze the audience, a lot of experimentation was done. Buster was interested in the "machine" of cinema just as he was interested in any machine. But not to theorize about it, rather to draw visual gags from it or to use it in the plot. Of course, today we can make a thousand philosophical arguments about Buster Keaton’s directing and cinematography. But for him, everything was aimed at creating gags and nothing else. Do you know what Buster understood about "Film" (this was indeed, a concentration of philosophy applied to cinema) by Beckett? He didn’t understand a thing. :-)

Even on social maladjustment: you know how Buster explained the difference between his character and Chaplin's? By putting the two characters in the same situation and noting their differences in behavior. So, Chaplin is in front of a shoe store. He wants a pair but doesn’t have a dime to his name. From that point on, he'll devise a plan to steal them. Now take Buster. He’s in front of the same shoe store, he also wants a pair but doesn’t have a dime to his name. From that moment on, he will work to buy them. Buster constantly tries to adapt to social rules and seeks recognition for his merits. In simple words, Buster is trying to achieve the American dream. Starting from nothing and making a name for himself. And he succeeds too. Where do you see the critique of the norms of daily reality? Perhaps the only critique Buster makes is a demystification of the aforementioned dream. Like in the ending of The Cameraman when he believes the crowd is celebrating him, while they are actually celebrating Lindbergh just returned from his solo transatlantic flight. Beyond this point, I won’t go. :-)

@godbowl: "For Keaton, each film represented a new and different relationship with a new different reality." >> I completely disagree. Take "The Three Ages." Buster tells the same story set in three different historical periods (prehistoric times, the Roman Empire, contemporary times). Buster's relationship with different realities is always the same... "This distance allows him not to be overwhelmed by the daily grind." >> I absolutely disagree. Buster is continuously overwhelmed by the daily grind. Take "Seven Chances." The scene with the hundred women in church in wedding dresses and the subsequent chase. Or the storm scene in Steamboat Bill Jr. How can you say he isn't overwhelmed by what happens around him? And how can you say that Buster is simply an observer?? An observer stays in a corner, not at the center of the scene, exposed to the whirlwind of events. Rondolino may be a good historian, but that doesn't mean he's always right. :-)

DavejonGilmour, but weren't you a connoisseur?:-)

In short, the romanticism increases while the "dazed" aspect of the character diminishes. In this sense, "The Cameraman" is the least Keaton-esque of Keaton's films, and keep in mind that by "Keaton films" I mean those he wrote, directed, and starred in, not those he only acted in, including "Film" by Samuel Beckett. But even in The Cameraman, frankly, I don’t see any philosophy. I definitely see a wonderful metafilmic play (the little monkey filming Buster while he saves Marceline Day), which is not just for its own sake but used to advance the plot. Then there are beautiful gags, like the pool locker room scene and the usual wonderful crowd scenes (the battle of the Dong). I won’t go further. If you could fit what you said earlier into the context of the film, quoting a few scenes for me, perhaps we can continue this pleasant conversation with a better understanding of each other :-)

You're right, God, I owe you a more detailed explanation. Anyway, you were almost there :-) Around 1928, Keaton makes the biggest mistake of his life. He sells his studios and puts himself under the control of MGM. Before, MGM only distributed his films, which remained entirely in his hands during the creative and production phases. Then MGM piles on a ton of screenwriters, turning his life into a nightmare. "The Cameraman" is the first film to reflect this situation, and Buster manages to complete it without falling into a nervous breakdown by just a hair. After that, the situation with "Spite Marriage" becomes increasingly heavy, driving him to alcoholism. Buster reaches a point where he no longer trusts his own ideas... and drinks a bottle of whiskey a day. Already in "The Cameraman," which is definitely a great film, there are noticeable differences in the approach to the story. For example, the female character is much more present and deeper; compared to earlier films, there is more emphasis on courting scenes, and some shots seem almost sentimental to me. For instance, off the top of my head, I remember a close-up of Buster's big eyes gazing at his lady. I don't think he would have done something like that if he could have avoided it. And if he had done it before, he would have lightened the pathos with some gags. (See the ending of "Seven Chances.")

Boredom? The least interesting Sabbath cover? Are you kidding? And it's not "Underworld love" but "Underwater love."

OOOOOH, finally a fan of Shivaree on Debaser. Thank you for showing up, Naerior. :-)