Keaton. Keaton is the silent set-piece master of comedy (at least until Tati made Playtime). He’s ahead of Chaplin despite Chaplin having the better filmography as it grades out). The use of the locomotive (The General) and the movie screen (Sherlock Jr.) as a set-piece is an inventiveness that deserves recognition. Keaton dominated the top 100 of the combined 1910’s and 20’s list with a whopping 7 total films. One thing that makes it difficult to grade out Keaton as an auteur is its’s hard to attribute the direction of the films to Keaton. TSPDT does and that’s great. But I mean he’s actually uncredited for The Cameraman, College, and Steamboat Bill, Jr. Scholars believe he still was the actual director but again that’s at least a little like saying Spielberg deserves credit for Poltergeist or Hawks deserves sole credit for The Thing That Came From Another World. TSPDT doesn’t list Cukor (or Selznick for that matter) for credit for Gone With the Wind. It’s difficult.
Best film: The General. Innovative and hysterical. It’s one of the best directed comedies of all-time.
total archiveable films: 9
top 100 films: 0
top 500 films: 2 (The General, Sherlock Jr.)
top 100 films of the decade: 7 (The General, Sherlock Jr., Steamboat Bill Jr., Our Hospitality, The Cameraman, The Navigator, Seven Chances)
most overrated: Essentially nothing since I have it as a masterpiece, but if forced I would go with The General.. It is #40 of all-time on TSPDT is just a little too high (I’m at #118). Nothing bad though so I hesitate to say anything- I adore The General and slot #118 is high praise indeed.
most underrated: He really doesn’t have one of these either. His 7 films in the top 1000 on TSPDT are all slotted pretty close to accurate and I don’t have anything else outside of those that should be in the top 1000. Good job critics!
gem I want to spotlight: Sherlock Jr.– the changing background/landscape sequence in Sherlock Jr is, justifiably, one of the most discussed sequences in the history of cinema and you should see it if you haven’t already. I mean it’s a great film but also if you’re going to be a cinephile you just to have this reference as part of your film language. It’s essential.
stylistic innovations/traits: Keaton’s reputation today is actually better than it was in the 1920’s. His use of set=piece structures and architecture is just as famous in cinema circles as his deadpan. Unlike almost all the other comedians and comic directors, he displayed a gifted, apparently instinctual grasp of the possibilities of cinema, both in front of the camera and behind it.
top 10
- The General
- Sherlock Jr.
- Steamboat Bill Jr.
- Our Hospitality
- The Cameraman
- The Navigator
- Seven Chances
- College
- Go West
By year and grades
| 1923- Our Hospitality | HR |
| 1924- Sherlock Jr. | MP |
| 1924- The Navigator | |
| 1925- Go West | R |
| 1925- Seven Chances | HR |
| 1926- The General | MP |
| 1927- College | R |
| 1928- Steamboat Bill, Jr. | HR/MS |
| 1928- The Cameraman |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
I love keaton,but put chaplin above him for being a more human director, making more sentimental comedies, simple in direction but the acting is better than most.
@M — I have Chaplin ahead of Keaton on the acting list— http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/07/19/the-top-100-male-actors-of-all-time/ but it would be a mistake to do it on the list here of the best directors. I think being overly sentimental is a negative, not a positive, and visually Keaton is superior. We’re rewarding brilliance in direction here so the simplicity thing works against Chaplin.
do you think that david o selznick deserves to be on the directors list perhaps. if like keaton or gene kelly he was a sort of co-director for some of his pictures and making one as great as gwtw
@m– that’s an interesting idea. Selznick is fascinating— but that sounds quite complicated and this list is already complicated enough- at least for me. And unlike Kelly or Keaton he doesn’t have any actual directing credits. Producer with artistic influence– probably a better to do another category for them (I won’t-but I’m sure someone has a list out there). Val Lewton is another one.
Drake is correct here without a doubt, Keaton the director is vastly superior to Chaplin the director to the extent that Keaton was a great director and Chaplin was not. Chaplin’s films (as much as I love them) are visually pedestrian; their strengths are derived almost entirely from Chaplin the writer, actor, and composer.
Meanwhile, Keaton’s films contain such visual tour de forces as the locomotive rushing onward as the Confederate army retreats in the opposite direction in The General. If I disagree with Drake here, it would in the respect that Keaton should be higher and Chaplin should not be on the list at all.
My ranking of Keaton`s films that I`ve seen:
1. The General MP
2. Sherlock Jr. MP
3. Steamboat Bill, Jr. HR/MS
4. Seven Chances HR/MS
5. Our Hospitality HR
6. The Cameraman HR
7. The Navigator HR
8. Three Ages R/HR
9. Go West R/HR
10. Battling Butler R
11. College R
Not only do I think that Chaplin made the better movies, but I think Keaton’s directing is overrated. I get that he directed bigger set pieces. But I tend to think that’s an argument that he did more directing, rather than better directing. eg, other than the first train sequence, I find the directing in The General to be lacking. When there isn’t a big spectacle to shoot, the film really lags. And many of the shots, like the train falling on the burning bridge, don’t really maximize the drama of the moment. They’re a function of big effects, not of good directing.
Chaplin, on the other hand, has simpler scenes to direct, but he is much better at choosing the right shot to maximize the comedy or drama or suspense. Sometimes that’s just pulling back and letting the actors do their thing. Sometimes that’s a close up or cut away or giving us a hint as to what’s waiting for our unsuspecting tramp. Or sometimes it’s a more complex shot, like in City Lights when he tracks through the dancing crowd.
If I’m comparing their best two films, The General vs City Lights, I think The General has 20 or so great minutes of directing and a lot of sub par directing otherwise. Whereas City Lights is good to great throughout. Maybe the level of difficulty in that 20 minutes in The General gives him bonus points, but I prefer a director that can sustain the quality of the movie by choosing the right shots. Also, if I were going to decorate a room with frames from one or the other’s films, it would be Chaplin’s, who had more beautifully composed photography.
@extramsg Not a big surprise given our sort of differences of philosophy- but I found the exact opposite to be true on your last two sentences there.
I think there’s a fair bit more to Keaton’s direction that is being missed here. His focus may not be on creating visual beauty (and neither is Chaplin’s some would argue) but this is different from saying he is not engaged with the visual potential of the medium at all. It’s not just about his stunts and spectacular set pieces. If you’re going to study the importance of camera placement and composing a frame to tell a story and convey humour, he is one of the most quintessential directors to look at. There is a thorough attention to detail on what is included in shot, what is being hidden for a later reveal, and what is being left out altogether. This video does a far greater job at explaining his brilliance than me though: https://youtu.be/UWEjxkkB8Xs
@DeclanG- Spot on here- good work. This is the correct answer
One of the interesting things about the YouTube video is that the narrator says the effectiveness of the gag is directly a function of the directing, how the camera is placed. Most people in the comments here seem to agree that Chaplin’s films are more effective and yet discount that his directing is a primary reason why.
My biggest problem with Keaton is just that I like his work better when the best scenes are watched separately from the films whereas the context of the film makes Chaplin’s scenes better.
@extramsg- Chaplin was capturing the performers – and hey- he was one of the great all-time performers. Keaton was just going for much more.