Watch Chaplin's The Gold Rush and compare and contrast it with Keaton's The General. Think about everything you've learned thus far in terms of reading film. Discuss open/closed framing, kinesis, narrative, etc. Refer to your textbook if you need assistance with the vocabulary. Use at least one quote from the articles I gave you in your response.
Both films are available here:
The Gold Rush
The General
These two films were created in the beginning of filmmaking and its way of storytelling. Both films are predecessors to modern film and, therefore, share techniques. They also differ in many ways from each other as well as what could be thought of as modern film. The similarity which I believe was the most prominent between the two films was the overall genre. Both feature length films were very goofy, yet heartwarming in their endings. It must have been popular among viewers during the time period. Because of the similarities in genre, the narratives have a bit corresponding mise-en-scenes as well. The cinematic techniques, such as the angles of the shots are fairly similar as well. For example, the majority of the shots are open framing and the camera is static instead of moving. One thing I personally believe is very different are the depths of the characters and plot between the two movies. “The General” is much more vague, while in “The Gold Rush,” there are various storylines with much more character depth. The Tramp, Georgia, and Big Jim McKay are verging on round characters, especially Georgia. However, the characters in “The General” are much more unchanging and could be considered more flat than the characters in “The Gold Rush.” Setting aside differences, both pieces are quite well done and are very entertaining for their own purposes.
ReplyDeleteTheir mies-en-scene is quite different, in my opinion. The Gold Rush was shot mostly in a studio. The General, while some was shot in studio, much was shot on location, meaning out in the world. The Gold Rush is based on the gold rush of the late 19th century, but not on a true story. The General is based on a true story that occurred during the Civil War.
DeleteYou have made quite a few statements, but haven't given much in terms of evidence. Be sure to always back up everything you state with evidence. You have a lot of great ideas! Come see me if you have questions about this. :)
Both Buster Keaton's "The General" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" were quintessential silent comedies of the early 20th century. While both men were successful comedic giants in the same business, their movie making techniques differed in certain small aspects that nonetheless kept them separate from one another. Both films are comedies, and as such they both follow similar story beats of the protagonists, being in positions of societal ostracization, are forced to undergo increasingly absurd circumstances before finally succeeding to overcome their difficulties to become greater than they were before and securing the affection of their romantic interest. It should also be noted that these absurd circumstances are set with serious context as their backdrop, with "The General" being set during the Civil War and "The Gold Rush" during the arduous and treacherous Gold Rush in Alaska. The way their characters act within their narratives, however, do differ. Keaton's Johnnie Gray is an unfazed everyman who is thrust upon the circumstances that befall him, whether through small mistakes with dire consequences or through the interference of those around him. It is only through his competence and shrewdness, and the occasional grace of good luck, that he is able to get out of these situations, often to comedic effect. Chaplin's iconic Tramp, however, is an inherently absurd character in an already absurd world. He gets himself into trouble just as much as he is pushed into it, and even then he's just as likely to exacerbate the issue before he can resolve it. Furthermore, while the kinesis of both characters is as fast paced and humorous as expected of silent era comedies, they differ in how Chaplin will present all the ingredients of a joke to the audience allow them to watch it all unfurl, such as when Big Jim McKee and Black Larson fight over the gun and the Tramp keeps getting in the way of the barrel, whereas Keaton repeatedly frames the scene to make an audience anticipate a joke to go one direction, but will hide just enough to surprise them as it goes somewhere else entirely, such as when he prepares to jump across a bridge only to fall through it. Both are essential films in their own right, but one shouldn't expect them to be the same simply because both were silent comedies in the same era. Their directors incorporated slightly different approaches to their work that would lead to surprisingly vast differences between their styles.
ReplyDeleteNicely worded description. Give me some more cinematic elements next time...How does Chaplin frame his antics? How does he show us the action through the frame of the lens? How does Keaton hide the surprise cinematically?
DeleteIn the early 20th century, many of the silent films had similarities with each other even though different directors were behind different films. This was due mainly to the fact that many directors borrowed many ideas from one another. This is true in the case of The General by Buster Keaton along with The Gold Ruse by Charlie Chaplin. They are both comedic silent films whose purpose is to entertain an audience by its ridiculous humor and over exaggeration of events. The General uses more moving frames as compared to The Gold Rush in which it is mostly comprised of static framing. For example, in most of the scenes, the camera stays in one place and most of the movement is coming from the scene itself like when the man sits by himself in his cottage as he rips the paper. The camera is stationary and the movement that is seen is the man himself ripping the paper. In the General, on the other hand, the shots are more moving. For example, as Buster Keaton is on the train, the camera follows the path of the train and almost is catching up to it in order to capture the scene. The kineses is coming both from the camera and the action occuring in the scene itself. The characters also have a few differences amongst them. For example, whereas The Gold Rush has more round, dynamic characters, The General has more flat ones. The characters in The Gold Rush have more round characters because they go through a complex change and undergo some sort of development. This is not the case in The General. They are relatively one dimensional. Having said this, although these films are similiar to each other in the right that they are both comedic silent films of the early 20th century, they have their own cinematic style and convey different type of expressions.
ReplyDeleteNice job, Samiha! Spot on regarding camera movement. And the round and flat characters as well.
DeleteBuster Keaton's "The General" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" were both successful comedies of the silent film era. Although they share many characteristics, there are noticeable differences in their style of storytelling and cinematic techniques. The two films had a similar story arc, involving a man who gets himself into many ridiculous situations before eventually achieving success and reuniting with their love interest in the end. Despite having a similar narrative structure, they definitely differed in their method of storytelling. The General relies on more slapstick comedy and physical stunts, whereas The Gold Rush involved more dramatic irony, to evoke humor. For example, in the scene where the cabin is revealed to be teetering on the edge of a cliff, the characters are blissfully unaware and initially blame it on an uneasy stomach before realizing the truth. This form of comedy is distinctly different from the humor created by Buster Keaton's antics in The General. As a result, the characters are more defined in The Gold Rush, and the narrative tells more of a cohesive story, unlike the continuous action in The General. It seems like in The General, the characters are more flat for comedic purposes, whereas The Gold Rush includes more character development. The films also have different styles of cinematography and framing. The General uses many landscape shots and was filmed on location rather than on a set. This results in more open framing, and many of the shots were taken using a moving camera. In The Gold Rush however, most of the movie was filmed on set using a static camera, creating a much more closed frame in many of the shots. It also seemed that the framing in The General was typically not as balanced as the framing in the Gold Rush, most likely due to the differences in setting. Aside from their differences, both movies successfully conveyed their story and sense of humor to the audience, and had an impact on later comedy films.
ReplyDeleteBuster Keaton's "The General" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" were both released around 1925 and contain both similarities and differences between the two. Plot wise there is a main character who either falls in love with a women or is already in love. The main character will then get into comedic situations in which they have to use their wit to escape. "The General" uses physical or slapstick comedy while "The Gold Rush" uses situational comedy as its storytelling method. In terms of cinematography the two movies start to differ from each other. "The General" uses open framing and landscape shots. Open framing is used in "The General" to show an impending danger to the audience without the character knowing for dramatic irony. "The Gold Rush" uses closed framing to manipulate space in the scene. For example when Chaplin's character Tramp is in the cabin it starts to tilt off the cliff. By cutting to the outside of the cabin tilting and back to a closed shot of Chaplin and the prospector hanging on to the floor so they don't fall. By tilting the camera and showing only the outside of the cabin it gives the audience the illusion that Tramp and the prospector are in danger. "The General" was film on location with a moving camera while "The Gold Rush" was filmed on set with a stationary camera. Both movies influenced the future of comedic movies and are thought to be part of the foundation of early film.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" and Buster Keaton's "The General" were both released during the same time period and are the same genre. Both films featured goofy main characters who at first seemed out of place, but soon found their way after a journey full of laughs, romance, and some suspense. Keaton and Chaplin both do a great job of realistically depicting human relationships and the conflict between man and his surroundings. However, they use different techniques to tell similar stories. "The Gold Rush" often utilizes closed framing to manipulate space and show emotion. "The General" often utilizes open framing along with landscape shots to build suspense and show action. These films were also shot with different cameras. "The Gold Rush" was shot with a static camera while "The General" was shot with a moving camera.
ReplyDeleteThe Gold Rush(Chaplin, 1925) and The General (Keaton, 1926) are two hallmark films of the silent era, even if they weren't when they first released. The films, as is benefit of being early film, show early forms of cinematic technique as is used today. And, having come out around the same time, share some techniques, for example the use of close-ups to convey important emotional response from characters. They are not only similar there, however. They are also similar in why they appeal to everyone: Johnny Grey and The Tramp are both comedic heroes who experience blunders we can relate to, although sometimes exaggerated. They are average people who aren't even really okay in life, purely average. With this, we are able to make an instant, lasting connection to the characters, making it only that much more satisfying to see them succeed in the end.
ReplyDeleteBoth Charlie Chaplin’s The Gold Rush and Buster Keaton’s The General are both similar for the fact they are early films. Both films were created in the mid twenties during the silent film era and star young male comedians.The main difference between the two films lies in the genre of the movie. Where The Gold Rush is pure comedy The General is more of an action film that works in comedic aspects. Also, The General features a simpler narrative, that of an ordinary man trying to save his two favorite things. While the Gold Rush focuses on many different subplots under the main storyline of a man facing the challenges of the Gold Rush. The two movies also differed in the way they were filmed. The General features scenes with open framing to illustrate the oncoming danger or create suspense in the scene. While The Gold Rush often utilized closed framing to convey the main character’s situation. Such as when the men were in the cabin with no food and no other options but to stay where they are, closed framing is utilized to convey how the men had to live in the tight quarters with no choice in the matter. The Gold Rush also seems to rely more heavily on light or lack thereof to highlight situations and things within the film. Similarly, both films capture a man in a difficult situation who eventually overcomes it all and wins the heart of his love interest.
ReplyDeleteBuster Keaton's "The General" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" are both very similar, but have their unique differences to them. They are really similar mainly because they stem from the same era of film, the silent era; with Keaton's film coming out in 1925 and Chaplin's film coming out a year later in 1926. A few other similarities between the two are that they are both comedies, they both star very funny and animated main characters, and both of those characters have a love interest. The differences between the two can be seen when when comparing the kinesis, the narrative, and the open/closed framing. The kinesis of the films differ because in "The General" there are more varying camera angles and a lot of the film is filmed with a moving camera; mainly because the moving trains are where most of the action is happening. Comparing it to its counterpart, "The Gold Rush", Chaplin's film has a lot less camera angles and the vast majority of the film is shot with a static camera. The narratives of the two films different in the way that they present jokes to the audience. Keaton's film uses the common expectation of a situation, films part of the scene out of frame so that the audience makes assumptions, and then the unexpected happens. For example, when he "lights a fuse and runs back to the locomotive, only to see that the cannon has slowly reversed itself and is now pointed straight at him"(Elbert). Chaplin's films uses the characters' sheer silliness, clumsiness, and misunderstandings as a joke, like when The Tramp, Chaplin, "resorts to boiling his shoe"(Sante) when he and Big Jim are starving. In my opinion, both scenes seemed to have mostly open framing, but these specific scenes show closed framing in Keaton's film and open framing in Chaplin's film. In Keaton's film, when Johnny is in the train and the engine starts smoking and malfunctioning, so he has to come up with a solution quick because he is being targeted. Him being in a closed frame, the audience can tell that this is a hostile situation. In Chaplin's film, when Big Jim loses his memory and wanders aimlessly, the viewers can clearly see that he is "lost in the abyss" per se because the scene is very open and it is just him surrounded by an open field of white snow.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush (1925) and Buster Keaton's The General (1926) were both iconic films of the slapstick comedy genre, made in the mid-1920s. Both movies follow the story of the main characters, played by the director, who are ironically oblivious to important events going on around them and defy death more than once through humorous sheer luck. While both are struggling to achieve a goal, the narratives differ in that Johnnie Gray's goal is to get something back, and The Lone Prospector's is to acquire something new. Attempting to win over the woman of their dreams, both narratives end with the character gaining a form of power that ultimately allows them to be with their beloved one. Both films use a combination of open- and closed-framing; however, closed-framing is used more frequently in The Gold Rush, such as when The Lone Prospector is trapped in the cabin with Big Jim or feeling out of his element in the dance hall. As a result of this, a lot more of the camera shots are static, as opposed to in The General, where the wide, open landscape allows for different types of tracking shots and the movement of the train also requires the kinesis of the camera. Because The General's setting was designed with "an accurate historical recreation" (Roger Ebert), the overall mise-en-scène is very much verisimilar to how it might have actually looked. The Gold Rush, due to much of it being filmed of sets, subsequently has less verisimilitude. Furthermore, both movies incorporate a lot of lighter lighting, but The Gold Rush, because it is set in the frigid Yukon and is mostly unknown wilderness, is a lot darker more often in terms of lighting, such as in the closed-framed setting of the cabin, or the night when The Lone Prospector waits for his love to come, growing more unsure by the hour. On the other hand, in The General, the only significant time of darkness is when Johnnie Gray is sneaking into the house to save Annabelle Lee, and then escaping with her through the woods. Otherwise, it is light out as we watch the train chase scenes in the daytime.
ReplyDeleteBuster Keaton's The General and Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush are two of early film's best comedies. Both films are silent films, meaning that both of the films relied on visual comedy rather than dialogue-based comedy. However, they differ greatly in numerous stylistic and technical elements, but they both represent the nature of comedies of that era. For instance, The General contains more open framing, as well as frequent movement within frames or of the frames themselves. Big skies and broad movements characterize a great deal of the shots in The General, particularly in scenes that track the movement of the train. In The Gold Rush, however, closed frame shots are more commonplace. The scenes in the cabin make sure to emphasize the walls of the cabin, creating a closed frame. Even wide shots outside of the cabin are engulfed in snow to imply that it is a closed frame. The framing of the shots in these films affect the manner in which comedy is presented in the films, even though both films relied on physical comedy. In The General, the comedy was more subtle, and based upon elements of the shot that were not particularly eye-catching. For example, there was a shot in which Keaton walks past a tree and his hat gets caught in a tree branch, unbeknownst to him. The branch, in this frame, is one branch among many, which renders it insignificant to the viewer, a result of open framing. The branch’s role in the frame, as a result, becomes a shock to the viewer and provokes laughter. The Gold Rush, conversely, is more flamboyant in nature. The closed framing of the shots, contrasting with Chaplin’s movement and antics, creates a chaotic and humorous environment.
ReplyDelete