The General - Parker Sealy

The cinematography of The General was interesting because it contained a lot of detail for a silent film from 1927. The use of close-ups was interesting because you were able to tell what was going on without having to have a word-by-word explanation like most silent films. Viewers were able to see Buster Keaton’s expressions and therefore were able to know how he was feeling rather than needing a word explanation after every scene. The use of long and extreme shots were good because it gave us a way to see all of Keaton’s stunts as a whole and see the actions from a far while the close-ups were good to be able to see the expressions to tell the mood of the scene or to just know what was going on. This helps to contribute to the comedy because the comedy was the stunts and Keaton’s blunt expressions. What added humor to the movie was seeing Keaton have a stoned face look after messing something up or something of that nature. The story was, for the most part, historically accurate and therefore, the comedy relied solely on the cinematography. If it weren’t for the long and extreme long shots, the slapstick comedy wouldn’t have had as big if an effect and if it weren’t for the close-ups then the viewer wouldn’t get the effect of Keaton’s stone faced expression and wouldn’t have benefitted from that form of sarcastic humor.

These cinematographic choices were more sophisticated than that of the shorts we watched earlier in class because there was more movement of the camera. In the shorts, there was just one shot and you just watched a short clip of the same continuous thing. This movie involved close-ups, long shots and there was more of a story line. Even in The Great Train Robbery, where they used some more shots and had a plot, it still didn’t use cinematography the way that The General did. The General focused on the characters expressions where The Great Train Robbery didn’t.

The General - Beca G.

Compared to the short films that we saw in class, The General definitely exhibits more sophistication in its overall variation of long shots, close-ups and panoramic views. The variation of these is just as important to the film as the plot itself. With this sort of variety, the film was able to more effectively communicate the hilarity of the overall situation. Re-watching the film, I was able to see a little more clearly how the shots themselves helped convey the humor of the situation. Being able to clearly see a scene from a vantage point makes a huge difference in the types of comedy that can be done, and how a scene can make an impact.

As for the myths and values, I felt that the depiction of the north and south was rather interesting. Of course Annabelle Lee’s father and brother are the fine, brave southern gentleman, and Johnnie is seen as a coward for not enlisting. But his fumbling nature is part of what makes him a hero – his feelings for Annabelle are worth more than anything. The depiction of the north is as being a bit more stoic (and stupid – the decision to go across the bridge anyways). I’m guessing that the depictions of each side also had to do with the fact that the film was biased towards Keaton’s character and the south.

Overall I enjoyed the film, and I think it was a really great example to show the evolution of film between the shorts we saw and class and then a longer film.

The General -Jessica Sims

What surprised me most about the style presented in The General was the overall aspect of Buster Keaton’s physical sacrifices to all the stunts in the film. Of course his expressions also have to be taken into account, as with all silent films, but it was really nice to see through the context of the film how much hard work and thought Keaton put in himself to provide the kind of performance he wanted the viewers to see. His flamboyancy with the comedy stunts wasn’t too overdone- each new disaster created a different layout for his reaction, and I really didn’t expect to see anything too surprising, but I was definitely impressed. I think the comedy dispersed throughout was evenly balanced so that it kind of left the viewer waiting for more.


I think with some silent films it may be hard to discern what’s going on, but the use of the exaggerated expressions to convey the character’s feelings wasn’t obscured and it was easy to follow and fun to recognize Keaton’s expressions of surprise or disgruntled guise when something went wrong and he was just almost too late to catch it. I also thought that the constant use of the train in the first few scenes were crucial to mapping out the storyline from the beginning so as to not move too slowly into getting the viewers to understand what was happening scene to scene, and I thought too that this pace allowed for a minimal use of transition/dialogue cards, which seemed important to the history of the locomotive chase in the film because it kind of gave an imaginative lift to the thought of ‘what’s going to happen next?’ with the action scenes.

I also liked the directional use of fixing the camera angles so that there wasn’t just one wide, central shot from scene to scene, but that the cameras were positioned so the viewers could really get a full sense not only of what was happening with the characters themselves, but also with the entire scene. The close-ups were awesome for conveying the sense of emotion, but the wide pans were as equally as important for getting the bigger picture.

The General - James Clarke

The grand scope of "The General" achieved with various long shots is probably what gives it the credibility and historical accuracy it possesses. Throughout the background in several scenes on the film different battles, advances, and retreats of the Civil War can be seen taking place. Pulling back and showing all the detail of what is taking place in the background of our main plot-line (Keaton chasing on the train) draws the audience in even farther to the realism of the film.

On the contrary to the long shots, the use of close ups on the main characters of the film also draws you further into their stories and allows you to invest in them further. A character that the audience identifies with is much more powerful than one that the audience is ambivalent toward. The use of costumes and contrast with the black and white color of the film is also key in picking up on various details. The light color of the 'good guy' uniforms (although the South) and the dark colors of the 'bad guys' (North).

The General response

The cinematography Keaton utilized helped to showcase his unique, frantic and acrobatic style of slapstick comedy as it placed him on speeding trains with a lot of moving around in tight places. He was able to use his height to swiftly maneuver throughout the train while seemingly accidentally falling into doing the right thing, but only rarely did it work the way he planned. Also, the tracks he was able to use in Oregon, as the movie necessitated parallel tracks, were an immense complement to the story and his comedy, specifically the ability to show close-up shots of "the great stone face". When he thinks he got rid of the car in front of him, only to have it reappear and there is a wonderful shot of him just staring blankly out the engine car and then to have it happen again just a couple minutes later when the car derails, create those priceless shots that made Buster Keaton who he was and his comedy what it was.
When compared with the short films we saw and other movies from the birth of cinema, this film has exponentially progressed within the 20 or so years since. When simply looking at the different ways in which color is utilized i.e. when night falls and a downpour occurs, there is a heavy tinge of dark blue tonally different from the rest of the film as it was shot in the more usual visage of black and white and this helps create a sense of suspense as he tries to rescue Annabel Lee. This can also be seen in the colors of the uniforms as the Union wore dark blue and the Confederacy wore lighter grays. And since this movie has the confederates as the heroes they are shown in the lighter sense defeating the darker broods of the North.
It truly was a triumph of cinema and Buster Keaton is simply fantastic.

The General - Jen Peaslee

I truly was not expecting The General to be a very impressive film (and so I was really pleasantly surprised). The sophistication of the shots, paired with the comedy in general, was fantastic. It was much more advanced than I imagined the film would be.

The shot that definitely stood out the most to me was when we got a close-up on Keaton and his glorious "stone face" after he thinks he got the boxcar out of his way and it reappears (and a few seconds later, when pretty much the opposite happens). That combined with the fact that we could see how his plan was failing, and he could not, really built upon the comedy of that particular situation beautifully. The close-up shots were used pretty sparingly, but when they were used, they were gold.

I really admired the long shots as well, particularly for how they were used to set up the time period of the film. It's a bit odd to compare this film to The Great Train Robbery, which was a fine enough film, particularly for the time, but nothing compared to The General. The shots were more sophisticated, as was the editing, and there wasn't as much need for "overacting" in The General.

Interestingly, I read on Wikipedia that the film did terribly at the box office. People didn't even think it was funny!

The General- Amber Merrell

The first aspect of The General’s cinematography that really stood out to me was how the use of the camera allowed for a much greater since of character development than with the other shorts that we watched. I believe that it is safe to say that most of us are used to dialogue being the main tool to get to know the characters in a movie. In this silent film, however, dialogue is minimal. For this reason I was expecting a film more like The Great Train Robbery where there were “main characters,” so to speak, but we never really learned much about them. The General, though, uses close-ups on the characters’ faces, especially Buster Keaton’s. This allowed us to see what he was feeling and thinking by analyzing his expressions and body language. Similarly, the use of close-ups adds to the comedic aspect of the film. Keaton’s face is priceless and quite hilarious, but would be lost in a long shot. In addition, his physical comedy sometimes needs closer shots in order to bring the focus to his actions.

The shots in The General are very much more sophisticated than the shorts. The variety and mixing of long and short shots shows this sophistication as does the use of moving shots. This variety allowed for not only character development but also a greater range of emotions felt by the characters and the audience. At the end of the film, for instance, when Keaton finally got the girl, the mix of camera shots used helped us, the audience, relate to the situation. When Keaton tries to go in for a kiss, a soldier walks by, forcing them both to salute and interrupting the intimate moment. The audience was able to gain an appreciation for the comedy and the frustration of the moment when the camera moved to a shot of the camp where all of the soldiers were getting up. Without this switch of shots the audience would have lost this hilarious and touching moment.

The General- Amanda Carman

The limitations of the medium of silent film as a method of conveying story forced certain stylistic elements to emerge in the earlier films. The most notable of these is the use of text to explain locations, characters, and to share the dialogue with the viewer, but (most notably in The Great Train Robbery) also led to melodramatic, mime-like, and almost hokey acting styles. We saw this first in the Lumiere brothers’ short about the photographer; the actions of the photographer are overemphasized and unrealistic, but convey clearly his frustration with his subject. Here too we see another technique employed by silent films: slapstick comedy. The photographer trips over his equipment and both he and his tripod go tumbling to the ground, an act of physical comedy that requires no words and is easily caught by the lens of the stationary camera. The Great Train Robbery also makes use of overacting, particularly in any death scene; the poor victim experiences full body seizures, clutching his chest and spinning about dramatically in order to convey his pain and tragedy to the distant stationary camera.

Buster Keaton, by employing a variety of shots, was able to take a subtler (and often more successful) route of explaining the story to his audience. The film opens on an extreme long shot of a train, arguably a main character of the film, traveling along the tracks. The camera follows the motion of the train, enhancing the sense of movement and keeping the key figure in audience’s eye to impress upon us the importance of this train. The next shot introduces our hero, the engineer, and his relationship with the train by framing both in the shot, close enough to see the engineer but far enough away that the area of the train in which he currently sits is the predominating figure on screen. The camera then pans over the name of the train, “General,” and thus in a few varied and short shots the film has introduced the main characters in a clean and interesting way.

As the film continues, there is a certain logic to the use of close-ups, long shots, and extreme long shots. The close-ups allow the audience to fully appreciate the subtle facial expressions Buster Keaton uses to convey clearly his character’s thoughts. It is the subtlety of his acting (for example, in the scene where he is trying to get rid of the train car that has been released in front of his train) that is the source of some of the greatest humorous moments in this film, and these moments would have been completely lost without the close-up shot. Conversely, without the use of long and extreme long shots, the impressive scenes that captured the power of both armies, the actions of war, and, of course, the spectacle of a train collapsing through a bridge would have been significantly less memorable or remarkable.

The General-Jeremy Brinson

The use of close-ups in The General provide the audience an opportunity to see the movie with more clarity and understanding. In the shorts that we watched prior to the film, the long shots that were used only gave the audience one depth and angle to view the movie. The Great Train Robbery, for example, only allows the audience to experience the movie from the viewpoint of a fellow robber. All the shots are had the class watching everything from behind the robbers or next to the robbers. In the case of The General, the use of dynamic close-ups let the audience develop different takes and perspectives of the film by letting them see it in more than one way.

The use of close-ups also provide depth to the film. With the shorts, the use of only one type of shot-usually long shot- limited what the actors could do as far as facial expressions and body language. With the incorporation of close-ups, the actors are given more room to show a rider range of facial expressions and body languages. The use of close ups in The General allow a closer look of the face of the actors and of the situations in which they find themselves, which provides them with a better chance to be funny and for the audience in turn to see it as funny. Combine that with the wider range in types of shots and the movie is given multiple depths and angles, resulting in more chances for the audience to understand and like the film.

The sophistication that the close ups and other shots gave to The General outshines those of the shorts that preexisted before it. The variety in shots in the film made it more engaging and aesthetically pleasing than the shorts. The diversity in shot choices also illustrate the complexity and inner workings that went into the film, which makes it more appreciated than some of the shorts. Also, the fact that there is more than one angle in which to see one scene reflects parallels the understood complexity and points of view of situations that we as people find ourselves in.

The General - Jonathan Miley

I think the use of close-ups and long shots go a long way to giving the film both its comedy and sense of historicalness. However, the thing that caught me most about the cinematography was the use of panning shots. These were not true pans, however, because the camera was not turning on its axis, but instead the train was moving. Still, these pans are one of the things that separate The General from the shorts we watched in class because it creates a dynamic in the visuals that the shorts lacked.

Aside from the cinematography, one of the most fascinating things I found about the General was the train wreck at the end. I used an inflation calculator I found online and according to it that single shot would cost half a million dollars today. Granted that is not crazy, it is reported that one of the shots from the movie Gladiator cost over 2 million but that is still quite a sum of money. To top it off, it was a real train. This was before the days of miniatures; that is simply amazing to me that they would destroy a real train for a movie.

Another thing that caught my attention, and it caught my attention throughout the movie, was the seeming danger Buster Keaton was in through the course of the film. It seemed like he was never more than a step or two away from being run over by the train. Obviously, that is part of the comedy but it is more than that. It gives great evidence to Keaton’s athletic skill and the confidence the film crew had in him. Blue screens were not invented until the ‘30’s and there was no way that the crew could have had pulleys and cabling to support him and keep him safe. I think he would call stunt men today “wusses.”

The General - Craig Walters

I believe there is most definitely more sophistication in The General than all the shorts we watched, it seemed more realistic as the shots were much choppier, like in more modern films. By choppier, I mean to say that a scene was shot at multiple angles, which provide a clearer view of the setting and catch the attention of the audience more by a constantly changing the perspective of which we, the audience, see the action. Not only that, but the use of multiple camera angles evokes an emotional response with the audience. The primary source throughout The General to evoke such a response was the use of close-ups.

Close-ups are vital to any film, present or past. Even in today’s films actors must be able to fill character with unspoken emotion and thought, this is even more vital with silent films, as there is no spoken emotion or thought. Buster Keaton’s character was very well done because of the emotions in which he evoked, which were made possible by the use of close-ups. Without many of the close-ups used in this film it would have been majorly deprived of humor and satire, while creating an emotional attachment between the main character with the audience which would’ve left the film void of any memorable action.

Lastly, I have a quick question, could there be any association between the title of the movie, The General, and the nickname for the Charger in the old show, and more current movie, Dukes of Hazzard?

The General - Bradley Strickland

The cinematography of Keaton’s The General was so different from that of earlier short films. Keaton used the cinematography artfully; he did more than “point and shoot.” He used the camera angles and various types of shots to tell part of the story – not just relay it to the audience. His use of the long shot was particularly interesting. Towards the end of the film, the long shot behind the Southern troops gave the audience a feeling that they were involved in the war – and it was clear whose side we were supposed to take. It gives us (the audience) anxiety as the Northern troops charged, filling the screen with tiny running specs in an extreme long shot. Also, it instills with us a sense of victory to see the long shot of the Northern troops being stopped by bullets and cannon balls. These shots have a complexity – a subliminal use - not seen or utilized in the short films. Not only were the long shots used to emotionally relate the audience to Johnnie Gray’s home side, but also they were used to suggest realness to Gray’s humor. The multiple long shots of Gray getting on and off the General after or during a mishap, for instance him moving the beams off of the track, allow us to see that this is actually happening and he is actually physically involved.

Keaton also used close-up shots in the film to aid in both comedic and dramatic story telling. As we discussed in class, the close-up shot of Gray on the train as he sees the train car move back on the track after his diversion was ideal for showing the hilarious distress and ironically intense emotion in his “stone-face.” This is an especially effective technique in a silent film. The bird’s eye shot through the hole of the table cloth as Gray is hiding under the Northern troops’ table gives us a dramatic, and surprising, view of Annabelle highlighting Gray’s dangerous role now as a spy.

The General - Atlee Watson

The use of cinematography in the general was quite masterfully done. The area where the film was shot had stretches of parallel tracks, which allowed scenes of Buster on his train (agilely scrambling over the cars, balancing on the roof to scan the horizon, chopping wood for the engine while armies pass unnoticed behind him) to be filmed from another train running alongside. Despite having both trains in motion, the shots and scenes are quite still which is a true testament to how far the cinema had come in such a short time. The evolution of the plot also contributed greatly to the execution of the film. Every shot contributed to the development of not only the film, but the characters themselves. Not only did the close-ups help for the audience to connect to the emotions of the characters, but their use of body language allowed the shot to continue without having to defer to the classic typed dialogue screen. These continuous shots allowed the audience to understand what the character was saying or what emotions the character was feeling.

I do think that the long shots and the angle at which some scenes were shot that added a grandness that allowed cinema to grow further. One scene in particular comes to mind when the train that was stolen by the North circles around and over Keaton's General. The scene was a very wide shot to be able to capture the entire scene, and was shot quite low to the ground. This made the scene seem so large and was amazing to see. It seemed as if you were in the shot because of the way the scene was shot you were able to look up and see the wood falling from such a great height. In the shorts we were able to watch before the film, while a few had degrees of angle and long shots (With the horses walking down the street), none had the magnitude or scale that just this one scene had. I feel like this scene alone showed how much film had sophisticated and matured from the early cinema, and how quickly cinema would be able to grow.

The General - Jessica Nguyen

The film’s use of close-up shots support the comedic side of the film by allowing the audience to see the actors’ facial expressions, how they feel, and what they are thinking, which is important when trying to convey comedy through a silent film. The characters’ expressions and body language were the only way of connecting to the audience and expressing feelings of angst, worry, etcetera that gave it a comedic feeling, since there was no sound to communicate emotions through. While the close-ups made a connection with the characters, the long-shots seemed more connected to the time and actual event happening, the Civil War. The long/extreme long shots were used more to depict the time period by showing the town, army tent set-ups, the railway, and wilderness around them; these allowed the audience to see the history behind the film.

The sophistication level was raised in this film from colored and painted in objects to real effects such as the gunshots and explosions creating real smoke. They also elaborated on the sets, adding in tables, boxes, horses, and other things that may have actually been in an area, instead of the studio-type, plywood sets they used in earlier films. Editing has also become more sophisticated by this point, so there is not a major leap between scenes any longer, and the film lasts longer than previous films that were cut short by the length of film used.

The General (Buster Keaton, U.S.A. 1926, 75 minutes)

As I mentioned last night, The General is considered by many to be Buster Keaton's masterpiece. He was fond of it, in part, because of the film's historical accuracy, not so much in the details of the story, but its appearance. He was also proud of its tight plotting, the symmetry of its two chases, for example. For this week, I'd like you to reflect a bit on the choices in the film's cinematography. We talked about the limited, but effective use of close-ups, as well as the film's use of long and extreme long shots. Please talk a bit about how these choices contribute to the film's comedy, or to its perspective on history, namely the Civil War and the myths and values associated with it. If The General's cinematographic choices are more sophisticated than those of the shorts we watched earlier in class, what illustrates their sophistication, and what more complex meanings do these choices convey? Okay, looking forward to your comments!

Welcome!

Greetings, and welcome to the blog for Fall 2010 version of Introduction to Film at Berry College! Our films this semester will be:


24 August: The General (Buster Keaton, U.S.A. 1926, 75 minutes)
31 August: Sunrise (F.W. Murnau, U.S.A., 1927, 94 minutes)
7 September: It Happened One Night (Frank Capra, U.S.A., 1934, 105 minutes)
14 September: Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, France, 1937, 114 minutes)
21 September: Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, U.S.A, 1944, 107 minutes)
28 September: Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, U.S.A., 1954, 112 minutes)
5 October: Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, France, 1960, 90 min.)
19 October: Black Girl (Ousmane Sembene, Senegal/France, 1966, 66 minutes)
26 October: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, U.S.A., 1968, 160 minutes)
2 November: Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978, U.S.A., 94 minutes)
9 November: Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989, U.S.A., 120 minutes)
16 November: Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992, U.S.A., 100 minutes)
30 November: In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar Wai, 2000, Hong Kong, 98 minutes)