Walter Kerr's comments on Chaplin and Lloyd

Matt Barry 1/25/06 6:39 AM

> I'm sure that Chaplin was under great pressure in those years, because
> he had Keaton and Lloyd both turning out a series of highly acclaimed
> comedies at a much faster rate. As I mentioned before, I think the fact
> that Chaplin remained at the top of his game for really all of the
> silent era, as well into the mid-1930s (judging from the box office on
> MODERN TIMES) is an incredible accomplishment. Most stars, especially
> today, rarely hold that kind of box office power for more than a few
> years.

I always understood that Buster Keaton wasn't terribly popular with
moviegoers during this period, at least not at the level of Lloyd and
nowhere near Chaplin. I thought the likes of Larry Semon and Ben Turpin
were enjoying as much, or more, box office success as/than Buster. His
genius as a comedian and filmmaker was discovered and appreciated later on,
perhaps as late as the 50s or 60s. Correct me if I am wrong.

I also always understood Chaplin's popularity to be on such of a higher
plane, he had really no reason to feel pressured by the success of others.

JN

James Neibaur wrote:
> Matt Barry 1/25/06 6:39 AM
>
> > I'm sure that Chaplin was under great pressure in those years, because
> > he had Keaton and Lloyd both turning out a series of highly acclaimed
> > comedies at a much faster rate. As I mentioned before, I think the fact
> > that Chaplin remained at the top of his game for really all of the
> > silent era, as well into the mid-1930s (judging from the box office on
> > MODERN TIMES) is an incredible accomplishment. Most stars, especially
> > today, rarely hold that kind of box office power for more than a few
> > years.
>
> I always understood that Buster Keaton wasn't terribly popular with
> moviegoers during this period, at least not at the level of Lloyd and
> nowhere near Chaplin. I thought the likes of Larry Semon and Ben Turpin
> were enjoying as much, or more, box office success as/than Buster. His
> genius as a comedian and filmmaker was discovered and appreciated later on,
> perhaps as late as the 50s or 60s. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I also always understood Chaplin's popularity to be on such of a higher
> plane, he had really no reason to feel pressured by the success of others.
>
> JN

He must have felt some pressure when there were shifts in trends in the
comedy market. In the late 1910s, with the major exception of Arbuckle,
Chaplin was pretty secure as the major low-comedy attraction. But I'm
sure when Lloyd received rave reviews for GRANDMA'S BOY, it pressured
even Chaplin to start working exclusively in features (albeit at a much
slower pace). There was even an article from around 1919 that asked
whether or not Chaplin's popularity was beginning to fade a bit.
Undoubtedly Chaplin was on a much higher plane of popularity (as he
still is today), but I'm sure even he felt some pressure to make sure
it stayed that way in the face of growing competition.

I don't know that Keaton ever had the influence on the industry in the
way Chaplin and Lloyd did, at least during the '20s (he certainly
inspired many later filmmakers). Schenck put Keaton into several films
that were very obviously supposed to be similar in style to Lloyd's
(BATTLING BUTLER was his highest grossing silent, and following the
less-than-spectacular box office returns on THE GENERAL, Keaton was put
into COLLEGE, which was very reminiscent in part of THE FRESHMAN).
Certainly Chaplin defined a standard by which screen comedy is still
measured today, and Lloyd was largely responsible for instituting the
standard for low-comedy features in the early 20s. At the same time, I
don't think Keaton was really considered a minor player in the film
comedy scene of the time, either.

Matt