Watch Chaplin's
The Gold Rush and compare and contrast it with Keaton's
The General. Think about everything you've learned thus far in terms of reading film. Discuss mise en scene, open/closed framing, kinesis, narrative, etc.
Both films are available at the Internet Archive:
I look forward to reading your responses, which should be at least 2 well-developed paragraphs.
Due: by Friday, 10/1, 8:00 am
Despite the fact that both Keaton’s “The General” and Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” were produced only three years apart (“The Gold Rush” in 1924 and “The General” in 1927) the two films have some major differences; they do have relatively similar concepts though. Both films do have the main character as a bumbling, yet good natured man, Johnny Grey and the Little Tramp for their respective films, which is probably their largest similarity. Both also have their main character vying for the attention of a female character. However, Chaplin is able to string much more subplots together with not only the Tramp trying to find gold, but to win over Georgia, and Big Jim appearing in the beginning and later reappearing to find the gold with him. “The General” has a much more basic plot with Johnny wanting to join the war to impress Annabelle and later going to take back his train and save Annabelle from the Union spies. Although one weakness in Chaplin’s film is that he leaves the subplot of Larsen virtually unfinished.
ReplyDeleteBoth use a wide array of shots to their advantage, but their use of lighting is pretty basic. The two directors’ most accomplished shots are their wide shots. In “The General” the scene where the camera follows Johnny as he jumps back to the back train to disconnect it, and also the battle scene at the bridge stand out. The scene in “The Gold Rush” where the cabin is on the cliff is excellent as well, as when we scene an entire cliff crumble with a man standing on it, taking the man down with it. At some points Chaplin’s shots are even more advanced: during the scene with the cabin on the cliff the camera is tilted sideways to give the illusion that the Tramp and Big Jim are sliding towards the edge of the cliff inside the cabin. But both films are able to convey a lot with their camera lenses: setting with the wide shots, and emotions with the close up shots.
One thing that I think Chaplin also does better is build suspense. Since both are comedies it is not absolutely necessary, but watching “The General” you never get any real sense that something could happen to Johnny or Annabelle. However, in “The Gold Rush” Larsen shoots two others at the beginning of the film, so even if we know nothing bad will really happen to the Little Tramp, we’re never really sure what will happen to the supporting characters.
Both "The General" and "The Gold Rush," which were produced in the same era, share similar concepts, techniques, and actions. They each have a very different plot, but in the end, you can definitely tie up similarities. Neither story was greatly complex, and each had a very simple structure to them. “The Gold Rush” by Charlie Chaplin, has a slightly greater complexity to it then “The General,” plot wise that it. They both show a some what damsel in distress and an unlikely, but immensely goodhearted male come to their rescue. Although in “The Gold Rush” there is not a wild chase scene or very dangerous situations, there is a hero who rises to the forefront of the film and allows even the audience, to fall in love with this character. Both main characters are humorous and if you watch closely, move in a very similar and distinctive way.
ReplyDeleteEach film has a very similar use of technology, both being pretty limited since they were two films that were in the earlier years of the movie industry. At times, both films employ a static and moving camera. On single shots such as in the army registration in “The General” and the beginning cabin scene in “The Gold Rush,” the static camera is used. All that is moving is simply inside of the lens, not the lens itself. As for the train chase scene, the camera often follows Johnny as well as applies ariel views and lower views which make him seem larger then what he actually is in reality. The camera also follows Chaplin on his adventure, as well as the many cuts and changes of angles in each scene. Another similarity is the very natural lighting presented in almost the entirety of each movie. There are many shadows, bright lights when its daytime, and darker light when its night time. It is very realistic, simply because none of the light was actually manipulated.
As for diegetic elements go, in each, there are clearly characters, all sorts of props, costumes, what have you. For nondiegetic, there is the map in the beginning of “The Gold Rush,” the credits, and the subtitles. Since each film is silent, the music plays an extremely important role in determining the mood of each specific shot. The music is perfectly synchronized with the films and greatly helps the viewer to understand its emotional aspects.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere aren’t as many similarities as one might expect to see in The Gold Rush, directed by Charlie Chaplin and The General, directed by Buster Keaton. As a viewer, I was extremely mistaken in believing that comedy in silent movies is all the same. Yes, both are silent movies and utilize cinematic space in a similar fashion through landscapes. And it’s true that the main characters (Johnnie Gray and the Lone Prospector) in both movies are well intentioned and zealous but overall, oblivious and blundering as they try to capture the attention of the beautiful women they adore. The narratives for both movies were ultimately rather similar in presentation but varied in actual content. And of course, Keaton and Chaplin are obviously hoping to complete a shared goal: to make the audience laugh. But it was literally eye-opening observing the differences between the two men’s comedic timing, character development and setting.
ReplyDeleteThere are many differences between The Gold Rush and The General. I have to state that I preferred the comedy in The Gold Rush. For some reason the humor seemed more intelligent and well thought out compared to The General. While I still found Keaton’s antics to be entertaining, Chaplin’s face is extremely amusing and exaggerated in a way that clearly broadcasts his sentiments. However despite The Gold Rush’s advantage in comedy, the realistic setting and the fast paced atmosphere of The General clearly prevail over the unbelievable scenery (which in turn of the North and at times a slower plot pace of The Gold Rush. This in turn translates to my belief that the mise en scene in The General exceeds that of The Gold Rush. This could be indicative of the three year gap between the movies or that The General is loosely based on a true story which already makes it more believable. Chaplin is clearly superior to Keaton in creating realistic suspense. The scene that sticks out most in my mind is when Big Jim and Black Larsen were fighting over the gun in Larsen’s cabin and “coincidentally” the gun repeatedly remains pointed at Chaplin. While Keaton fails in properly creating suspense (which he could have in scenes like when Gray went to go rescue Annabelle) he is excellent at creating action and excitement in his scenes. Between Gray hiding under the table at the Union headquarters and the multiple train chase scenes, there was never a dull moment in The General.
Nondiegetic elements in both movies include the constant background music, the character’s lines, and the credits. Diegetic elements in The General are (to name a few) the General, the rain storm and the burlap sack. Diegetic elements in The Gold Rush include snow, the leather shoe and the note that the Lone Prospector mistakenly believes is intended for him.
For different reasons, I truly enjoyed both movies. Watching silent movies has really heightened my appreciation some of the more technical aspects of film such as lighting, camera angles and space.
Both Buster Keaton’s ‘The General’ and ‘The Gold Rush’ directed by Charlie Chaplin are considered masterpieces of the silent era in early film making. They also share similarities in narrative, plot line, shooting techniques and angles, etc. However, overall these films prove a few differences making each unique and memorable in their own way.
ReplyDeleteOn a more basic level the two films are predominantly similar. While both are characterized as comedies, they also are nearly the same when looking at the broad plot: each surrounding a man trying to impress a beautiful woman and in the end proving himself heroic. Keaton and Chaplin’s goofy hero’s are nearly identical in this aspect. Natural lighting along with wide shots in order to display action are other similarities between the two. Also, with both being of course, silent films, the nondiegetic element of background music is essential to determining the mood of both movies.
Differences, although more subtle than the similarities, can be noticed when exploring each plot on a deeper level. While ‘The General’ is rather flat and straightforward, ‘The Gold Rush’ may have been just the beginning of subplotting within film making. Another difference is seen between Keaton’s chase scenes and Chaplin’s developed suspense, which depending on taste, each can draw out their own forms of excitement.
As comedic rivals in the silent film world, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin had different comedic styles which were apparent in their respective films. Despite this competition both men produced silent films that would become masterpieces in their own right. The similarities between "The General" (Keaton) and "The Gold Rush" (Chaplin) are expected, as they were produced around the same time. Both films utilized a relatively still camera (a few moving shots ie. the train in The General and the panning of the the crowd of people at the New Years party in the Gold Rush) , with a lot of movement, or kinesis, within the frame, from running soldiers and dancing partgoers to action sequences. Their use of physical comedy also adds to this kinesis and makes up for the still frame. However, these still frames don't hinder the films, as the frames remain open and represent a realistic, albeit exaggerated, world. As silent films, both "The Gold Rush" and "The General" also share many similarities in terms of non diegetic elements, from the "informative texts," both consisting of white writing on black background, to their use of background music to heighten suspense. Both films also use parallel editing to create the illusion of simultaneously occurring events in an effort to create suspense (the train chases in the General and the house falling off of the cliff in the Gold Rush). Other similarities stem from the general set up of the narrative, in which a good intentioned man (played by the respective directors) finds himself in unlikely situations in an attempt to win the affections of a damsel in distress while simultaneously becoming a hero.
ReplyDeleteDespite these similarities, the films have clear differences. Chaplin's humor is more slapstick than Keaton's, and his expressions are more animated, namely his smile. This is very different from Keaton's "stone face." Chaplin's humor is also a bit more fantastic and at times unrealistic (the turning of Chaplin's character into an oversized chicken etc). Keaton's comedy is more straightforward and is generally produced by his own physical stunts. The mise-en-scene for the two films differs as well, which is to be expected as they portray different time periods in different places. The mise-en-scene for "The General" is slightly more elaborate, with changing scenery and more detailed costumes than found in the Alaskan setting of "The Gold Rush." Even when the setting changes in "The Gold Rush," an example being the dance hall, the costumes and sets are duller and less detailed than those of "The General." Another difference between the films is the use of female characters. Although both movies have one main damsel, the Gold Rush has many other female characters as well. The leading lady in the Gold Rush also seems more realistic than Annabelle (The General), as she is strong willed and able to handle herself for the most part.
Despite these differences both films are an important part of film history, and told the first full length narratives.
Chaplin's Gold Rush and Keaton's The General are somewhat simialar films with very different aspects about them. They happen to share some of the same characteristics, but they portray them in very different ways. For example they're both comedic, but in The General the it is more of a one man act. Where in Gold Rush it is not so much as a person is funny , but what is happening is funny. The cameras did seem to employ many landscape shots, since most of the film was shot outside.
ReplyDeleteThe Gold Rush did use some cinematic devices that The Geberak did not, for example moving camera and narrative. The General was a true story and was made to inform. Where the Gold Rush was more for entertainment and it was all mad up. I can identify with the lens in both, but i can identify a little more in the General. It has a fluidity about it that seems to missing in Gold Rush. Gold Rush often jumps around from scene to scene, as if the editing was not up to par.
Just because two films are produced during the same time, does not mean they are copies of each other, or even relatively similar. Yes, both films are about a good-natured klutz and yes, both films are about the klutz trying to win the affection of a loved one, but for the most part that's about it for similarties.
ReplyDeleteChaplin's "The Gold Rush" is no "The Godfather" but it manages to tie in, significantly more story substance than "The General": several things are happening in the film simultaneously, not to mention that there is a wider berth of characters in Chaplin's film than the relatively skeleton cast of "The General".
Keaton's and Chaplin's acting styles differ also. While Keaton was known for playing a goof who, despite silly things happening to him always managed to stay serious, Chaplin was more outrageous. One can simply count the number of smiles by the protagonist in both films for an example. Fitting for the time though, the style of shots and mise-en-scene were similar though. Both films utilized static, and occasionally wide, rarely moving shots such as scenes depicting Keaton on the train chasing bandits. Both films depicted motion occurring through the exiting and entering of characters in shots.
While these two films did differ, one cannot help but notice slight similarities in them too. For the most part though, Keaton and Chaplin, though rivals, had their own ways of acting.
Chaplin's Gold Rush and Keaton's The General are both films that are important in the history of film. These two silent films were created around the same time in history so they had similarities and differences, but were portrayed differently between the two directors. Both of these films had a comical affect but the two directors portrayed the humor in a way that made it obvious to the audience since they are silent films. The humor in The General was portrayed in a silly clumsy way.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these films use both close ups and longs shots. The close ups that were used were used to portray the emotions and expressions of the characters and the long shots were used to show the full setting of the story so that the audience can get the feel of the full story. As a result of the time that these films were produced the lighting and editing were not very advanced because technology was very limited. Most of the lighting in the films were natuarrally produced, but in The Gold Rush they did use less light for night scenes and more light for earlier in the day.Another thing I noticed was the static camera lens that both directors used. Using a static lens limits you to what you can see but both films had movement within the lens that portrayed enough of what was occuring for the audience to understand. I personally enjoyed The General a lot:) i didnt think i would enjoy a silent movie or even laugh at a movie with no dialogue, but i did like this film:)