First of all, if you take a look through his filmography, you might notice that Keaton truly didn't do that much manhandling of women in his independent silent work certainly not in his silent shorts. Though size may have been a concern in selecting an actress (or actor) to appear in a Keaton film, it can hardly follow that this was the only consideration and I take umbrage with the idea that a leading actress (petite or otherwise) needed only to be thrown about on screen to serve her role. Given all of this, I think an intelligent take on the generally petite size of Keaton's leading ladies is that this was a smart choice for non-distracting photographic symmetry in romantic pairings and that it need not be seen as evidence that their talent did not matter. That talent is on display in his scenes with a non-petite Kate Price in My Wife's Relations or with the tall, leggy, Charlotte Greenwood in Parlor Bedroom and Bath. Obviously, Keaton also knew how to use physical characteristics of women as a source of comedy when he wanted to. With similar attention to visual considerations but probably opposite intent, Keaton surely chose leading actresses whose size complemented his own so as not to introduce an element of comedy in a pairing when it was meant to be romantic and plausible where there was no wish to draw attention to stature. Consider, too, that Keaton knew what he was doing when he worked with Snitz Edwards as a sidekick, who was only 5 foot flat and made Keaton look big. Pickett, purportedly 6'11", looking almost like members of different species in The High Sign. And think about the hilarious relative size of 5'5" Keaton with Ingram B. When Keaton struck out on his own, he consistently chose to work with Big Joe Roberts at least in part for this reason. As Keaton must have learned early on while working with Fatty Arbuckle, the juxtaposition of himself with a tall rotund man is itself visual comedy. Keaton was a visual genius who chose many actors in his films at least in part for their physical characteristics. Lets start with the idea that Keaton selected leading ladies for their proportions. Certainly there are some Keaton films where the leading female role is not central or essential, but I would never agree that, generally speaking, Keaton's leading ladies were unimportant or just props. ( See, e.g., LA Times Article quoting film historian David Gill).īut they have it wrong. Others have repeated this so often that it has taken hold as a truism: Keaton's leading ladies were weak (as comedians), chosen mainly for their proportions, placed in scenes to be handled and molded, or otherwise of limited or diminished value. Tibbets), possibly originating with Buster - obviously formidable authorities. I mean to take it on.Īn unfortunate challenge with confronting this "props" theory, is that it seems to have been declared notably by Eleanor Keaton herself ( see, e.g., 1995 interview with John C. This idea rankles and has always sat ill with me. Something I've heard time and again - from commentators who speak of his work - is that the leading actresses in Buster Keaton films were no more than "props" to this great master.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |