Author Archives: Dan Hofman

Buster Keaton and Silent Comedy

It is interesting to compare Charlie Chaplin with his silent contemporaries. One of the most significant is Buster Keaton. Check out this video on Buster Keaton by Tony Zhou, who makes great video essays on film:

I have only seen about three Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton films each, which comprises my foray into silent comedy, so I can’t say I know much about it, but Sherlock Jr. is my favorite Buster Keaton film I saw. It’s on YouTube for free and only 45 minutes long, so check it out if you have the time:

From what I have seen, it seems as if Buster Keaton focuses more on impressive stunts and gags while Charlie Chaplin’s jokes are smaller in scale and more detail-oriented. I do have to say the Tramp’s simple mannerisms are more entertaining than Keaton’s. I love to just watch Charlie Chaplin just walk around or do any simple action. It is also worth mentioning that of course Sherlock Jr. does not bear anywhere near the same sort of social commentary as something like Modern Times or The Great Dictator. I found Sherlock Jr. much more humanistic, though, as the film’s focus was on humans’ dreaming of the ideal.

The Acting of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Although the story behind Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is heartwarming, I did not find the writing too compelling. It paints a pretty straightforward picture of a complex issue. This might be my own taste, but I like movies most when their morals are complex and ambiguous rather than clearly defined. In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, we all know who the good guys and the bad guys are, and this sort of demarcation is not realistic. To me, it seems only Joseph Paine and possibly Saunders were complexly characterized. On the other hand, Jefferson Smith was pure and wholly “good” while Jim Taylor was a completely “bad” character. This type of characterization is common in most films such as the Star Wars trilogy but even that trilogy tried to humanize the villain.

You could argue that having the story be morally ambiguous would make it difficult to fulfill its purpose of populism. I would probably have to agree because when making a film with a moral goal makes it very difficult to keep it unbiased.

I wanted to make this post though to express some appreciation for the acting of this film because I think the acting is what truly carried the film and made it work. I can’t think of a single stale performance in this film. James Stewart is of course excellent in his portrayal of Jefferson Smith from his most timid moments to his power during the filibuster and then his final weakness near the end of the filibuster. James Stewart really captures the audience’s attention and you fall in love with his character by the end of the film. Even very minor characters had nice portrayals. Guy Kibbee captured Governor Hopper’s sycophantic fear pretty well, and it was fun to see the President of the Senate, acted by Harry Carey, hide his amusement. None of the performances were especially subtle but they conveyed the tone of the film well.