The General - Buster Keaton - 1926
Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin were definitely great actors/directors, but there are some differences. Charlie Chaplin made comedy about, really, everyday life situations. It was definitely a method that worked for Chaplin. Keaton was more of the bumbling bafoon and his movies had a certain seriousness to them. They obviously contained comedy but there was an overlying seriousness action to them. For example, in The General, he is trying to save a girl that has been kidnapped and on top of that, there is a war going on. So you can see that there is a big aspect of action as well as comedy. Some other similarities between the two are: they were both the "geniuses" of the silent film era and they boosted the popularity of movies by quite a bit. Some differences, though, was that Keaton was more of the over the top slapstick comedian where there were so many outcomes. Keaton had more "physical comedy" whether it was him being hit with a frying pan in the face or slipping and falling. Charlie Chaplin was more of an expressive actor. Lots of his emotion and expressiveness made his movies quite funny. For example, you would laugh to Charlie's facial expression or the way he reacted to certain situations, and that's what made his movies funny.
In the way of careers, Charlie Chaplin definitely had the better and easier career of the two. Charlie was a rich man, so he did have it easy, but, he was married four times and had to take care of eleven children during his life. He also lived a long life. He died at the age of eighty eight in 1977. Chaplin's movies were very popular and had no trouble gaining popularity. Keaton's career was a little tougher. Keaton was married three times and even though he had no children, all of his marriages ended not so well. His first marriage was probably the worst, ending in bitterness. Keaton had a lot of financial troubles and he had to sell his movies too. His career took a little interruption because of the first World War. In the late twenties that's when his career started to decline. He started to lose the creative control of his movies and he made his last film with Buster Keaton Productions in 1928 (Steamboat Bill Jr). Another factor of his decline is that he developed a nasty drinking problem. Also when the sound era of movies came about, the style of films certainly did not work in his favor. This was mainly because of his voice.
For effects, both Keaton and Chaplin used some effects but there cinematic genius lies in the mastery of there silent acting skills. Chaplin was kind of twisted in the way because he always tried to make the audience feel bad bad for him. This didn't always work in his favor. When movies with sound started to come out, Chaplin still continued to make silent films. He only made one movie with actual full sound in it. Keaton's acting style was quite good in manipulating the audience into feeling happiness and also sorrow. Also Keaton is more effective at using the right amount of pathos in a comedic film (pathos is a feeling of pity and sympathy). Both actors did their stunts live. For example, in the movie The General, all the stunts he does on the train are all live. No stunts, no nothing, all by himself. In Keaton's film, Sherlock Jr, he tinted the film an orange color and he also painted the sky. Movie critics were quite stunned. They did not even know how properly critique it because of it's "amazing effects".
It's no doubt that these two are two of the best actors/directors of the silent era.
In the way of careers, Charlie Chaplin definitely had the better and easier career of the two. Charlie was a rich man, so he did have it easy, but, he was married four times and had to take care of eleven children during his life. He also lived a long life. He died at the age of eighty eight in 1977. Chaplin's movies were very popular and had no trouble gaining popularity. Keaton's career was a little tougher. Keaton was married three times and even though he had no children, all of his marriages ended not so well. His first marriage was probably the worst, ending in bitterness. Keaton had a lot of financial troubles and he had to sell his movies too. His career took a little interruption because of the first World War. In the late twenties that's when his career started to decline. He started to lose the creative control of his movies and he made his last film with Buster Keaton Productions in 1928 (Steamboat Bill Jr). Another factor of his decline is that he developed a nasty drinking problem. Also when the sound era of movies came about, the style of films certainly did not work in his favor. This was mainly because of his voice.
For effects, both Keaton and Chaplin used some effects but there cinematic genius lies in the mastery of there silent acting skills. Chaplin was kind of twisted in the way because he always tried to make the audience feel bad bad for him. This didn't always work in his favor. When movies with sound started to come out, Chaplin still continued to make silent films. He only made one movie with actual full sound in it. Keaton's acting style was quite good in manipulating the audience into feeling happiness and also sorrow. Also Keaton is more effective at using the right amount of pathos in a comedic film (pathos is a feeling of pity and sympathy). Both actors did their stunts live. For example, in the movie The General, all the stunts he does on the train are all live. No stunts, no nothing, all by himself. In Keaton's film, Sherlock Jr, he tinted the film an orange color and he also painted the sky. Movie critics were quite stunned. They did not even know how properly critique it because of it's "amazing effects".
It's no doubt that these two are two of the best actors/directors of the silent era.