The Great Buster

People's collective sense of humor change with time. But, this reminds me of people frantically trying to keep up with technology that is supposed to make their lives easier. Just as we become more and more addicted to and dependent on technology and all its modern gadgets - we gradually lose our own resourcefulness and creativity.

This is what happened in movie industry with comedies (and not just comedies). First we had silent B&W movies where you needed to be a genius to make audience laugh with no use of sound and color, with things you could barely call special effects today and smart use of dialogues only when necessary. A while later, it was easier for actors and directors as they could use all those things to make a good movie. Need for ingenuity lowered.

Then suddenly, the only thing that worked was actors swearing in almost every line they spoke. Nowadays, almost exclusively, directors rely on swearing, sarcasm and cheap irony (in other genres blood, nudity, violence, etc.).

Need for ingenuity practically disappeared. Or do we need it more than ever?

One of such original genius of the silent era was Buster Keaton. And he pretty much did all his best work himself - he wrote the scenes, directed them, acted in them and pulled many highly dangerous stunts to achieve perfection each time. This documentary by Peter Bogdanovich (Petar Bogdanovic in Serbian - he's my countryman :)) puts the Great Buster under the spotlight right in time as the cinema is crying for it. And it will serve as a quality intro for announced restoration of the comic's top movies. Bogdanovich's choice of talking heads is questionable, but some of them are obviously selected to draw the younger audience.

It is truly a celebration of Keaton's legacy but also a reminder what the real, healthy humor is all about - not vulgarity and humiliation, but simplicity, originality and inventiveness. This brilliant comic was known as the Great Stone Face, but - as pointed out by Cybill Shepherd (and as told by John Ford once) - you act with your eyes, not with your face.

I just hope that at least a part of today's spoiled audience that only ask for new, loud, fast (and senseless) movies will recognize the great value of Buster's works - all presented timely and nicely by Bogdanovich - and discover it for themselves. I sure will, although I decided this already after watching The General.The Genius Buster - the one we need today...

I became aware of Buster Keaton in the early 1970s, when THE GENERAL played on PBS, and I bought and read his ghost-written MY WONDERFUL WORLD OF SLAPSTICK. Those were the days when all we had were memoirs with a few stills. Now, almost half a century later, almost all of Buster's work is available if you want to see it and are willing to pay a bit extra for stuff that's out of print. Yet Peter Bogdanovich's documentary tells the same story now. albeit with some clips from the 1960s, and kind words from Quentin Tarrantino and Bill Hader: can't get the young kids in unless there's someone they've heard of.

I understand that. We want people to give Buster a try, and centenarian Norman Lloyd talking about being on the set when Chaplin and Keaton were working together won't do it. Also, the story as offered is a wonderful, simple one that offers a beautiful narrative: great artist makes fatal mistake, then struggles back thanks to the love of a good woman. Yet, once you delve deeper into Keaton's films and his life, it quickly becomes far more complicated than that. So what you are left with are the clips of Buster's stunts.

And what stunts they are! People may argue endlessly about who the greatest slapstick pratfaller was, but no one will ever dispute that Keaton was among the best, and because of that, he created grand gag sequences that no one but Jackie Chan has ever come close to equaling. So if you don't know Keaton, beware. The story, like all finite stories, is hopelessly simplistic and at times false -- Keaton had a lot more control over his Educational shorts than this movie would have you believe, for one -- but take a look at it anyway, for the many clips and short sequences. Because the things this movie gets right is that Buster was one of the greatest film makers of the 1920s, and a daring and enormously effective comedian and actor.

The Great Buster (2018) -

I recently watched 'Go West' (1925) and found an appreciation for the comedy genius that was Buster Keaton within the first few minutes and by the end of it, he was my new favourite. As a result of that I was very keen to watch this documentary in order to find out as much as I could about him and the other films that he had been a part of.

It was a shame that the narrator's (Peter Bogdanovich) voice was so monotonous and dull, because the clips of Buster were hilarious and quite often laugh out loud moments at times.

The journey mostly followed a chronological direction and gave warning when it would have to go back to something for further investigation, as such it was easy to understand and it clearly showed the highs and lows of Buster's life.

I think that for me to find such joy in performances that are over 100 years old says something about the brilliance and skill of the man in question. His works have certainly stood the test of time better than a lot of others, including some of the more recent efforts from just the last 40 years, which are already dated and cringey.

There's nothing really to say about production values, etc, so this review will be finished here, but if you've ever been tempted by silent movies, watch this to see where to start.

760.11/1000.

If you are not familiar with Buster Keaton, I guess this is not a bad place to start. However, unlike it's subject matter, this documentary is quite mediocre. In this age of great documentaries, this one still starts and ends in a traditional way - by starting with Buster's birth, career, etc. Even structurally, the docu is not well thought-out, suddenly showing a greatest-hits type compilation at the end, after having finished Buster's life story with his death. It has nothing new to add or show, except a few talking heads on what Buster meant to them. Most of these had either no connection to Buster, or they are not appropriate people to speak to (I mean, do you really care what Johnny Knoxville thinks of Buster Keaton?) It's a pretty lazy piece of film-making that is also not very well-researched.If you can, try to catch the three-part 1987 British docu called "Buster Keaton: A Hard Act to Follow".

A good doc on Keaton, but not great.

Once again another film confronts its viewers with talking heads telling us why ***they*** think the title character was great. Please, don't tell us, show us! Give the viewer credit for having some substance between his/her ears. Show us why Keaton was a great comedian. Don't inundate us with personal opinions. It's easily demonstrated, i believe, because the man was truly great.

I tire of entertainment personalities acting as qualified historians. If they have good, unbiased insight into the man, I'll listen; however, none of this movie's talking heads are unbiased. They all have a dog in the fight. They all passionately adore BK. That's fine, but please don't think because you knew the man that you have some secret insight into him. Many of the talking heads are simply repeating apocryphal stories.

A good written biography and a small selection of his best film's on DVD is a fine introduction to the man.

This film is more hagiography than insightful biography.

Having said all this, I'd still recommend the film. Just make sure you pick up those DVDs.