MovieChat Forums > The Cameraman (1928) Discussion > Do traditional Keaton fans enjoy this fi...

Do traditional Keaton fans enjoy this film?

posted 14 years ago by Hypatia42
11 replies | jump to latest

Keaton's early work was simply brilliant; it felt innovative, passionate, energetic. While The Cameraman is technically proficient and in some ways cute, for me it feels like a twenty-minute Keaton skit that was interspersed with extended low-key romantic moments. It was a sappy soap opera that happened to have a brilliant star. In other words, I sense the work of script doctors.

The frantic energy found in The Navigator or The General stems from the character who, albeit stone-faced, is absorbed in resolving the crashing of boats, trains, and (famously) cannons regardless of any risk to limb. Romance was present, but it didn't exist to subdue the acrobatic energy of the hero. The Cameraman feels hopelessly subdued; extended shots of Marceline Day pining or blinking (slowly) cut the pace of the momentum (the movie's and Keaton's), and those jokes that do survive consist of much less physical activity than in previous films. It also manages to demean the physical stunts. Keaton's predicaments are largely embarrassing and his character strives to be the dapper, suited character that can sit still for his lady love. Indeed, Sally, the love interest, fails to contribute to the humor, unlike the 'love interests' found in the older milestones of the genre.

So why did everything go backwards? And, out of curiosity, does anyone know why Keaton was 'toned-down' by the studio? He had a series of films with life and limb risking comedic affects, only to be put in this piece where his co-stars all play it straight and the plot is littered with dramatic elements (a gang war?!), further subduing his antics. Apparently the three best scenes were ad-libbed. So why did the studio undercut the brand of humor? Who thought that this was a good idea? Were there primitive 1920's focus groups recommending this?

And I must ask, do Keaton fans enjoy this film? If so, do you consider it a comedy, a lite-romance, or something in between?

[–] Chrissie 14 years ago

I love it, primarily because Buster, despite what the studio was trying to do, managed to mix his own brand of magic in with what MGM was giving him. I think that had they realized why this film turned out so well, they'd have trusted him more and let him make the transition to sound in his own way. It's heartbreaking to think not only of Buster's broken career, but of what the art of filmmaking lost.

As for the toned down stunts, that was a matter of pragmatic protection of their investment. Buster busted himself up quite a bit -- a broken ankle, numerous sprains and strains and torn ligaments and I'm betting more than one dislocation, and a broken neck. He ended up putting himself out of commission for days at a time with on-set accidents, and was nearly killed on more than one occasion.

Buster also did a lot of what the studio considered goofing off and wasting money. He had his crew on salary, and hired a lot of professional baseball players so that when they ran out of ideas, they'd go play baseball until somebody had an inspiration. Buster looked on this as part of the creative process when he had his own studio.

[–] timmy_501 14 years ago

This is the best Keaton film I've seen; Sherlock Jr. comes close but I wasn't as big a fan of Our Hospitality, The General, or Steamboat Bill, Jr. Don't get me wrong, I thought those were good too but the first ones I mentioned are masterpieces.

Dear Mom, I put a couple of people in Hell today...

[–] Chrissie 14 years ago

I think that as an overall film, it's his best, though others have more spectacular stunts or funnier moments. The dressing room scene, the adorable little monkey, the depth of Sally's character, the nude scene in the swimming pool (hilarious!), and the heartbreak on the beach, all combine for me. It's truly a masterpiece. I laughed, I cried, I was touched.... :)

[–] barbb1953 14 years ago

I've watched most of his features and shorts, and I really enjoy "The Cameraman," though it's not in the same league as "Our Hospitality" or "Sherlock, Jr.," or "The General," simply because somebody else made it. The feel is different.

In "Cameraman," Buster really acted as much as he performed -- near the end there, on the beach when he sees his girl going off with the other guy, he turns his body into the very epitome of dejection and hurt; you really feel his pain. This, in the same movie that cracks you up with scenes like the one in the Polo Grounds and the swimsuit changing room scene.

It's a classic romantic comedy.

Why did everything go backwards for Keaton? In brief, booze and bitterness...which is what makes his comeback in the 50s and 60s that much more wonderful. Also, a big change in movie-making, where business took over from creativity: a lot of Buster's earlier acts were too risky for the gray-suits. Then sound came along - he had a good voice and could make the transition, but his physical style of comedy was on the way out for a while. Keaton isn't the only silent-era comedian to point out that the advent of talkies meant words became more important than actions in comedy.

You know what is one of my favorite bits of work in a movie with Keaton in it? The scene in "Around the World in 80 Days" where everybody is on the tracks, walking back toward the train and Buster, as the conductor, pretends to trip on the rail and Cantinflas reaches out a hand to hold him up. It's just a little thing, but if you're tuned in to such things, it is a homage of the student (Cantinflas) to the master (Keaton). Wonderful!

[–] MissyH316 12 years ago

Oh, I absolutely enjoy it - I love it! In fact, it's one of my favorites among his work! It's a comedy definitely underlined with pathos, something many think only Chaplin could pull off well. Not so! No, in this, you can definitely feel Buster's pain jump right off the screen and into your heart.

As to why everything went "backwards" for Keaton, I think the booze and bitterness originated from Buster's emotional pain, which kicked in not too long after his ill-fated marriage to Natalie Talmadge. From then on for many years, he was increasingly frustrated and downgraded, both in his professional and personal life.

But here's the kicker, as I see it: the root cause of Buster's decline initially stemmed from his own well-meaning but sometimes naive and misguided generosity - that was the catalyst. As Jesus once said, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6 KJV)

Unfortunately, it seems Buster didn't know how (or didn't care to know how) to best protect himself by taking preventive measures against future misfortunes. His alcoholism probably wasn't helped by the fact that his father was an alcoholic, either.

This is not to excuse Buster's own missteps in behavior, even though I think his road to hell was indeed paved with good intentions:

* He chose to marry into the Talmadge/Schenck family
* He didn't have Chaplin or Pickford's backbone and business savvy to fight back against the big studio systems for his artistic freedom
* He chose to ignore Chaplin and Lloyd's very credible advice about not signing on with MGM
* He chose to drink heavily and have affairs

The Thames documentary "Buster Keaton: A Hard Act to Follow" I think is a must-see for all Keaton fans, from the casual to the passionate. It's a respectful chronicle of the ups and downs in his long career; It makes a good case for his emotional pain in the "Which came first-his pain or his problems?" debate. You can start with part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP8940pPFtg.

The sad story is, of course, Buster was nearly destroyed by the terrible cycle of pain causing problems causing more pain causing more problems, etc.

But the GOOD news is the story's happy ending as Buster rose above the dreck in his later life. His appearances on the then-new medium of television and in a few movie cameos generated a re-birth of fame, respect, and love from a new generation of fans that's still in force today. Best of all, he met and married the bright, strong-willed and loving Eleanor Norris in 1940, his last and best life partner.

How many people nowadays know (or care) who Joseph Schenck, Natalie Talmadge, or even Louis B. Mayer was? Uh-huh.

Buster Keaton had the last laugh on ALL of them!
"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton

[–] kriege10 14 years ago

MGM had their own way of doing things, namely that there are directors and there are actors and the two are completely distinct; Keaton is an actor, period. Also, all ideas must be submitted in advance and be gone through by inspectors who will determine what should and should not be shot. Keaton complained that every idea had to be written up and submitted in quadruplicate before he could get the go-ahead. Fortunately, the assigned director, Edward Sedgwick, was compliant and let Keaton do most of the shooting without the credit, but the situation was still so arduous for Keaton who was used to shooting with a free hand, that some of the film, especially at the beginning ended up a little tedious. On the whole, however, I think it does rank among his half-dozen best, although it is probably in bottom place among the best.

[–] ccheski 13 years ago

I'm watching right now on TCM (Buster is star of the month) and I quite agree with the original poster.

Subdued is a good word for it. And labored and ordinary.

It doesn't feel like a "real" Keaton film to me. Give me almost all the shorts, The General, Sherlock Jr., and Steamboat Bill Jr. (Not so much Our Hospitality or College.)

[–] gayspiritwarrior 13 years ago

I just watched the same showing. Someone above said MGM misunderstood Buster and didn't realize why this was such a big hit. I think that's right. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It had a more thoughtful tone, but Buster shone through as only he could have. I agree with others: this isn't on the same level of inspiration as his earlier films, but it's an excellent creation on its own, the only really great movie he made for MGM. That studio had a lot of hits, but they could have had more and the ones they had could almost all have been better if they hadn't been such control freaks. While not his best, The Cameraman is high-quality Buster.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] novastar_6 13 years ago

I loved the movie, the best parts are his improvised dime bank scene, and the whole swimming pool/dressing room scene, and the Tong war, that was all just hilarious, and when he escapes from the Bellevue (how old is that nuthouse?) truck. It was the last time he had any real control over the film but I loved it, but he had some trouble with it because he was at such a heightened state of celebrity by this time, they couldn't get the shots in New York because everybody just mobbed him. So they had to do those scenes early on Sunday morning because as Buster put it, New York's good people were in church and all the bad were sleeping off what they did on Saturday night.

[–] Hypatia42 13 years ago

You should give Our Hospitality another chance.

[–] novastar_6 13 years ago

Oh I totally agree, I fell in love with that movie the first time I saw it, it was great, and his stunts were amazing, as well as the historical accuracy pertaining to stuff like the train and the bicycle, and I love the ending, that is just hilarious.