Chaplin & Keaton

Contrasting the Visual Style between Chaplin & Keaton

It is necessary to carry out the right analysis of stylistic complexities between two great comedians Chaplin and Keaton if one, as the critic, has a desire enthusiastically to satisfy the curiosity of the readers which gravitates their insistence to understand more about technical and aesthetic mode of production. Chaplin's silent screen comedy is filled with the humanism and compassion of proletarian and sub-proletarian culture. His intellectual insight is almost underrated or even dismissed in critical analysis and evaluation aesthetic in film comedy. The romantic-sentimental character of Chaplin's tramp can be detected as the strong element of egocentricity which reveals his different point of view of comic characterization between his work and that of other comedians such as Keaton's. Indeed, Keaton's character can represent a type of realism on the screen that works with his intuition and unconscious decisions confronting the machinery infrastructures, the absurdities of daily life and the quality of the creativity process. Both Chaplin's and Keaton's acrobatic skills and pantomime routines has the strong dramatic effect on their definition of mise-en scene and set design. On the contrary, Keaton's anti-sentimental approach to the narrative progress and storyline appears to flourish among the authentic locales, costumes and props which has counterbalance with
Chaplin's artificiality of the set and the stage.

Chaplin's tendency to use the static camera, medium shots and very ordinary stylistic fashion of editing in his silent films intensifies the importance of little tramp's characterization and his gags through his visual style. In contrary, Keaton's superiority and skill as the director of his films gives a profound dimension to his artistic creativity. His knowledge about editing principles of the medium, the aesthetic of camera movement with respect to manipulating the epic style of the decors and the mathematical calculation of every extraordinary scenes and gags in balance with architecture of mise-en scene provide extensively and successfully an unique and original style of comedy which invites the spectators to be a part of creative process.

To highlight and intensify Chaplin's spatial theatricality and his sense of timing to perform the gags portray a virtual and dream world atmosphere right in the middle of environmental presentation of reality. His gags help him to liberate a sense of freedom against the claustrophobic framework. The whole process of theatrical performance in front of camera forces the spectator to identify with the tramp even though the situation is pathetic. At the same time, his characteristic sentimentality within his highly aristocratic taste spontaneously creates a meticulous contrast between Chaplin's real character in his life and the representation of his tramp in the images of his films. In fact,

Chaplin's tramp imposes his domination on the structure of the mise-en scene and proves his superiority by manipulating and controlling his gags on the characters, props and environment. Everything in Chaplin's mise-en scene from camera position, camera movement and rhythm of editing to characterization and gag suggests the tramp's great skill to deal with situation and to overcome effectively on tragic material and hostile moments in the context. Aesthetically, his centralization in the perspective of the frame heightens his importance as the fundamental and existential center of focus. Compared with Chaplin, Keaton's unconscious response to the chaotic universe surrounded around his character suggest his strong and intolerable struggle to survive against on and off-screen mise-en scene which impose their domination on him. The superficiality of the fragile world of context and its superiority on Keaton remain a key element regardless of its savagery to his straightforward narrative. The episodic structure of the story helps him to establish the right strategic stance against the irrationality of occurrences by experimenting of the trial and the error technique like an engineer.

Chaplin's fidelity to the principles of storytelling in Victorian literary tradition enforces him to be a follower and the disciple of D.W. Griffith. For that reason, Chaplin's camera is always prepared and aware to catch a glimpse in a close up or transfer and transpose the spectator's center of focus temporally and spatially to another realm of narrative.

Not surprisingly, his use of close up to highlight and intensify the romanticism and sentimentality of the moments, his parallel editing to match the coincidences between two different occurrences and finally his analytical method of editing are considered as the reincarnation of Griffith stylistic method of film editing. In contrast, Keaton's vigorous and dynamic method of acting and moving in the frame substitute his jumping in risky situation for rapid cutting of the images or using the special effects. His physical engagement with the realistic elements of mise-en scene creates the chaotic atmosphere in which Keaton must struggle to chaos and disorder to regenerate a surrealistic balance between old form of socio-political world and new form of ambiguous utopia. The desire to use long shot in his sequences, the obsession to place the camera in multiple locations and the avoidance of creating emotion by close ups form the new rules and conventions for his aesthetic style. In fact, as McCaffrey states in his book: " The vigor of Keaton in his heyday was far removed from sentimentality. His little clown was a struggling, dead-panned dunce who looked to the horizon...But this agile, mechanical doll struggled doggedly, often swinging by his teeth and fingernails, to fight the obstacle that confronted him; and he won by weird, comic ingenuity" (McCaffrey, 84). Keaton's body with its acrobatic flexibility and a bundle of energy saves the audience a sense of continuity which produces immediately an interconnection between the spectator and Keaton's practical jokes and gags. Chaplin always restricts himself in the theatricality and artificiality of the scenes and sometimes unrealistic mise-en scene such as the dream sequence in The Kid (1921) and the hallucinated cabin sequence in Gold Rush (1925). In contrary, Keaton executes his stories in the developed and expanded space of the realistic detail as McCaffrey  continues to observe: "And while it would seem to be a personality trait of being too concerned with realistic detail that might work against the comic spirit, Keaton was able to make his type of realism work in his favor" (McCaffrey , 85).Keaton's outstanding movement inside the frame is a manifestation to define a new aesthetic style through which the paternal structure of the meaning has to entirely change the monotonous and routine way of representing the images to the visualizing the shocked and surprised moments.


Chaplin's acting style helps to the audience to develop his imagination on the stage in terms of creating a fantastic dreamful and invisible world. His self-conscious pantomime is always forcing the spectator to imagine the virtual reality which does not exist in the mise-en scene. His highly inventive choreography of his movements and dynamism in the scenes is the only principal element which provides a good substitution for his lack of interest to use the motion picture medium effectively. In contrary, Keaton creates many of his clever comic scenes with the props which exist in the mise-en scene. His avoidance to falsify the spectator with the non-realism of the set reveals his obsession with democratic and liberal way of the image representation. Keaton's self-unconscious using of camera movement, shooting on locations and special effects never create a cliché, and his vaudevillian skills is highly gifted talent in calculating the laughter. Even in their self reflexive response to the cinema as the medium and art, the two comedians pay the homage to the whole process of film making in two different stylistic and analytical mode of representation: Chaplin by appearing as the ordinary tramp in the car race in front of the camera of reporters in Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) and Keaton by appearing in the dream sequence of Sherlock Junior (1924) through which the process of editing in the film industry is mocked and ridiculed in the surrealistic structure of mise-en scene.


The function of camera in Keaton's films sometimes is the part of the gag, and it participates in the creating of mise-en scene and the progress of the linear narrative. For Chaplin, the camera is only the recorder as McCaffrey mentions in his book "He(Chaplin)was suspicious of  'Camera Tricks', as he called them, and wanted the camera only to serve as a recorder of the action" (McCaffrey,131).Chaplin's position of camera and its distance to the stage is always constant, but Keaton sometimes moves and take positions in different locations to create the climactic moments. Keaton’s tendency to move his camera lies in his inevitable need to shoot the dynamic scenes. The initiative manipulation of the editing in Keaton's films creates the graphic rhythm which concentrates on the expansion of the narrative. In contrary, for Chaplin the editing is considered as the complex process which sometimes interferes with the total mode of production and his expectation of medium as McCaffrey indicates in his book: "Robert Payne believed such an editing (In Chaplin film) was a serious weakness that marred the work because the union of little tramp and the girl was an improbable resolution" (McCaffrey, 41). In terms of composition, the continuity of time and space and the expanding of senses of awareness to each side of the screen and in the space behind the camera is the principal element in Keaton's aesthetic style. For Chaplin, the successful scenes have the restricted dimension inside of the frame. The characteristic representation of the tramp is the only principal element which celebrates his considerable skill to deal with dramatic and theatrical elements of the stage.


Chaplin and Keaton were contemporary comedians who began their careers with the medium from two different schools. Chaplin started his job with Mac Sennett and Keaton collaborated with fatty Arbuckle. Chaplin's creativity in using the possibilities of new medium with Mac Sennette's group of artists is restricted to his pantomime, gestures and grimaces in the theatrical composition. he sometimes addresses the spectator with staring right to the camera and tries to share with him the claustrophobic emotional effects of the situation. As Max Linder expressed in his writings: " Chaplin works with the camera with the minutest care...but the secret is not the mechanical work..." (Manvell, 108). The mechanical work is not privileged as a before the acting and characterization in Chaplin's skill of pantomime. In contrary, in Keaton's addressing of camera as the spectator's look the absurdity of the situation is meant to be emphasized and underlined spectator's look. In fact, Keaton's body is destined to be characteristic in the composition to cooperate with his mind as Moews mentions in his book: " What is automated, they reveal, is a conscious being, whose mind and feelings remain his even while his body enacts a fated routine in which he is doomed to failure (Moews, 10). For Chaplin, the body is the absolute harmony with character's self consciousness and his mind.


Keaton's comedy, his gags and his hardworking pantomime as his biography demonstrated are mostly those of the performing arts of Keaton's vaudeville childhood, and then the years of collaboration with Arbuckle were the moments for him to become familiar with the medium of film and its mode of production. Chaplin's comedy, his gags and his professional theatrical acting on the stage are mostly of the performing arts of his Dickensian childhood with the parents in London and then the years of difficult phase in the pioneer period of getting acquainted with Mac Sennette and the possibilities of film as the new medium. Chaplin's admiration for Victorian literary tradition and his childhood experiences would probably have connection with his visual style and his absolute need for frequent periods of isolation during his life. Keaton's alienation with the mechanical world of 20th century and his surrealistic self-centered world of his films deteriorated the relationship between the logic of daily life and the absurdity of its chaotic situation.




Manvell, Roger. Chaplin Little, Brown & Company, Boston 1974.


Mowes, Daniel Keaton: The Silent Features Close up University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1977.


W, McCaffrey, Donald Great Comedians: Chaplin, LIoyd, Keaton, Langdon A.S. Barnes & Co. New York, 1968.


By: Morad Sadeghi

 

Boyhood

Boyhood (2014, Richard Linklater)

Is Boyhood a good film? The focus of the film's narrative is the transformation of a naïve boy, Mason (Ellar Coltrane), into a college student whose sense of self and maturity are particularly received by the critics as the refusal of the parental mistakes. His observations as an observant aggravate the sense of humor, playfulness, irritation, futility, and entrapment. In the beginning, his mother (Patricia Arquette) is a devoted and responsible character who fails in finding the right mate. Because she fails in choosing the right husband, Mason and his sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), must pass through the difficulties. His father (Ethan Hawk) seems to be lovely and the radical critic of contemporary politics, but his chaotic lifestyle and sense of irresponsibility prohibit him from being a true father figure. Finally, he marries a woman whose father and mother are probably religious. They even give a Bible and Gun to Mason as gifts of his birthday. In contrast to the earlier sequences, it seems that Mason's mother and father are going to grow up and become matured. His father becomes more responsible at the end of the film and his mother accepts her loneliness and learns to live with her solitude (Without husband).

However, the film is not a masterpiece. Linklater's lack of style and visible manifestation reassure us that the film is hardly capable of offering us a stylistic insight. The simplicity of narrative, style, and characterization sometimes produce the opposite effect. It looks as if the whole sense of complicated confrontation between boyhood and adulthood is lost among the philosophical dialogues or educational remarks. The poor acting and lack of strong mise-en-scene not only cast doubt on the characterizations and the visual style but also have negative impact on the film textual surface. Moreover, the dialogues sometimes have flaws and Samantha's character is going to lose its importance in the middle of the narrative. 

 Of course, in contrast with the director's earlier films, Boyhood is still a better film. The coherent structure of the narrative which emphasizes the relativity of truth in everyday life and the director's success in working with children which makes the first part of the film unique are substantial. Also, the majority of critics believe that Linklater succeeds in creating a narrative which is simple but profoundly complicated. They even consider his lack of style and simplicity of narrative the specific techniques used to bring up the complex subjects in the simplest way to the screen. Though the film succeeds in satisfying the audience in many ways, the acting style and the formalistic structure of the film's narrative foreshadow the flaws and failures that prohibit us from calling it a masterpiece.




Review by Morad Sadeghi