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.
Good job, Parker.
ReplyDelete