The Silver Screen Oasis

The reason SHOULDER ARMS is a short is just what you stated - that it clocks in at 40 min. Shorts had to be defined with an arbitrary number and that seems to be it. And it could of been a feature since, as I'm sure you know, Chaplin had filmed a prologue of the tramps home life before being drafted and a long medical examination scene but ended up cutting it all out. I guess he didn't want to leave the shorts market at that time.

I don't know what to tell you about SHERLOCK JR. You seem to have the same reaction to it as I do - you admire it, you never tire of watching it, you find it brilliant but you don't find it filled with enough gut-busting laughs?? Well, laughing aloud is over rated anyways. And in some parts of the country can get you pinched.

As for me I'm content with sitting in the dark admiring something dazzling.

Of course with projection speeds varying, silent films are generally measured by reels instead of minutes, and since most sources say that Shoulder Arms is three reels and Sherlock Jr. is four reels, perhaps the arbitrary number to define a feature is four reels.

But that doesn't work, either. The Dorothy Gish/Jack Pickford film Liberty Bells is a three-reel feature while Chaplin's four-reel The Pilgrim is a short.

My guess is that it's mostly in the original conception of the artist. Keaton certainly conceived Sherlock Jr. as a feature, and Chaplin was under contract with First National to produce two-reelers. (And The Pilgrim was counted as 2 two-reelers.)

I'm most curious as how these films were exhibited. Would audiences feel "cheated" at a 45-minute feature? Did this contribute to the poor reception of Sherlock Jr? And if I were an exhibiter with a 50-minute new Chaplin, that would certainly be the "feature" presentation.

I recently saw a biography of Buster Keaton at my local library. I think I may check it out this Saturday. I can't remember the title & I searched amazon.com, but nothing jogged my memory.
I've only seen a few of his films, but he was such an intriguing man. A jack of all trades.

Buster is TCM's Star of the Month in October!

THAT'S AWESOME! Woo-hoo, TCM! Great choice!

Lzcutter wrote:Buster is TCM's Star of the Month in October!

JackFavell wrote:THAT'S AWESOME! Woo-hoo, TCM! Great choice!

Lzcutter, thanks for sharing that information ... JackFavell ... I feel the same way you do!

I just finished reading 'Buster Keaton: Tempest in a Flat Hat'.

I must admit I haven't seen a lot of his work. I have seen: The General, Our Hospitality, & small clips from Speak Easily.

Very much enjoyed the book! It offered quite a bit of info on his life & particularly his movies.
I'm surprised that he survived the stunts that he had been performing since childhood. He was a true comedian.

I've read Buster Keaton The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down by Tom Dardis, I knew little about his private life when I read it, I found it very sad in places, he seems so much to be a victim of circumstance and other people, I've always wondered whether his circumstances nudged him towards alcoholism or would it have caught up with him in the end. Thank heavens for Eleanor and the happy years she gave him.

There is a lovely book called Buster Keaton Remembered by Eleanor Keaton, it's stuffed full of pictures and warm memories, it's worth borrowing if your library has it.

Both books cited above are generally looked down by the members of the International Keaton Society. The sections devoted to his career hold up alright but it is always when the writers try to explain his private life that many get up in arms. In a nut shell, these writers tend to project a lot, making Keaton into a sad, pathetic clown. In real life he never felt sorry for himself. He enjoyed the riches and fame during the Twenties and he excepted having to start over again in the Thirties. He definitely had a Midwestern work ethic. I always found his demeanor very ennobling but those who have chosen to write about Keaton these past decades don't find it sensational enough - and that's what drives his admirers nuts.

I can certainly understand reading these books in order to gain more knowledge about a subject - I don't begrudge you on that - just keep in mind that these books are not considered to be even close to a definitive tell-all on Keaton. Noted Keaton experts Patricia Tobias and David Pearson work tirelessly keeping his flame alive (they host the annual Keaton festival in Kansas) and there are always rumors that they or their like-minded collegues are working on just such a Keaton biography.

Thanks for plugging the Keaton Society, Gary.

I take it you're a member?

While I generally don't like autobiographies, I would recommend Keaton's My Wonderful World of Slapstick (co-written with Charles Samuels). It's often very funny and you get a good sense of what Keaton was actually like, which seems to be not that far away from his screen persona.

I'm Patty's sister. I mean Patricia's.

Something new and fun to learn. (She'll always be Patty to us.)

JackFavell wrote:I'm Patty's sister. I mean Patricia's.

Then why I am speaking for your family?
Your sister is more knowledgeable than I am on all things Keaton.
I'm merely a fan and admirer of Buster. Your sis is a scholar of him.

(And I guess I can stop calling you 'Jack' young lady)