Watch Chaplin's The Gold Rush and compare and contrast it with Keaton's The General. Think about everything you've learned thus far in terms of reading film. Discuss mise-en-scene, open/closed framing, kinesis, narrative, etc. Refer to your textbook if you need assistance with the vocabulary. Use at least one quote from the articles I gave you in your response.
Both films are available here:
The Gold Rush
The General
The General, a fabulous Keaton Film, brightens up the mood of a room with its light and comical plot and characters. In the same way, Chaplain's The Gold Rush brings joy to viewers, drawing out laughs and gasps with the progression of the film. The two silent films have many similarities as well as differences within their mise-en-scene. Their settings couldn't be any different. The General takes place in Southern US during the time of the civil war, while The Gold Rush takes place in Alaska during the time when everyone was looking to strike it rich. These setting help shape the plot by developing social, economical, political, and cultural significances. The war drives the desire of the train engineer to find a way to gain the affection of his true love while standing up for where he comes from. The cold harsh weather is what drives Chaplain to the refuge of the cabin, which is where he finds his future multi-millionaire partner. Another difference between the two movies is the framing. As The General takes place outdoors on a train moving across the country, the majority of the framing is open. This signifies the freedom he has with his trains in the outdoors as well as the lack of sense the engineer seems to have, making everything seem a little more comical. For the Gold Rush, though having occasional open shots of the outdoors, the majority are indoors, whether in the cabin, or the dance hall. This signifies the struggles the main character faces, his constrictions within his environment, and the multiple conflicts/challenges he gets himself into. A commonality between the two films is the movement of objects on the screen (kinesis). Both films are fast paced with fluid movements and transitions as well as containing implications of movement around the whats occurring on the screen. The fact that both films are comedies contributes to the fact that the kinesis is more fast paced. The other similarity between The Gold Rush and The General is that both are told by an outside source where the unheard words, thoughts, and situations are described to its viewers via title cards. The two films captivate viewers with their charming characters and their desires and goals. Through the actions taken by the director during the filming of the movies, we are able to further our relationship to the characters and develop more of a connection to them as well as their cause.
ReplyDeleteAlfonzo Mancuso
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Buster Keaton’s The General and Charlie Chaplin’s Gold Rush, I noticed some similarities and differences between the two films. One big similarity that they have is that they’re both comedy movies that show the main character as being very clumsy and getting himself stuck in some pretty strange and dangerous situations. Another thing that these films share is that in short scenes they fast-forward the film to speed up either Keaton’s or Chaplin’s motions to draw the viewer’s attention. This gives the characters the look as if they messed up or did something by accident and are trying to make it un-noticeable. Just like in Keaton’s film, in one of the very last scenes, Keaton accidently shoots off a pistol at the ground in front of another general and startles him, and then Keaton rapidly starts moving his arms as if he’s trying to hide or put the gun away. In Chaplin’s movie, in one of the first scene’s, Black Larson and the other man are fighting over a gun and every time they move, the gun ends up pointing at Chaplin so he quickly runs around the room trying to stay away from the end of the gun, showing that he’s always in the wrong spot at the wrong time. One small difference between Keaton’s and Chaplin’s movies is I noticed that in Chaplin’s film, he had scenes that created suspense throughout the film, while I didn’t notice very many suspense scenes in Keaton’s film. An example of a suspense scene in Chaplin’s film is in the beginning when Chaplin just made it into Black Larson’s home, the wind was blowing strong, and before the house started to slide off the mountain, the camera kept switching to an outside view of the house that showed how strong the wind was blowing and how weak the house was because it kept shaking when the wind would pick up. Then eventually leading to a point where the house was falling off the edge of the mountain. Another big difference was the color of the film. Each film had a different color that fit the environment surrounding the movie. In Keaton’s film, the background was like a very light bronze color, and it fit the film perfectly because the whole film was based on a train and army related topics and bronze seems to fit the look of the film. Chaplin’s film was more of a white color and this fit perfectly because the environment surrounding the film was a snowy mountain and the two go together perfectly.
The General and The Gold Rush both were classic comedy films that had similarities and differences. The first thing that I noticed in their similarities was that they both work towards the same premise. An awkwardly rounded character has a task/motive to achieve, while having quirky and laugh worthy stunts throughout. Both the main characters motives are similar as well. In The General, the motive is to rescue his dream girl, and it Gold Rush, aside from striking gold, the women he is in love with is still a goal of his. A major element both films shared was kinesis. There was always something moving on screen. For example, in The General, the camera moves along with the train as if we are along for the ride. For most of the film, the train is moving and plays an important role in kinesis. In Gold Rush, there is the scene where the men in the Cabin are spinning and being blown away through the wind in the storm. As well as this, there is the scene where the Cabin tilts, as well as in the dance hall where everyone is moving around. The last similarity I noticed was the suspense factor. Both films did a great job of portraying suspense. For instance, in The General, there is the part where our protagonist gets in a bad situation, stuck under the table of his enemies. Will he be found? What will happen? In The Gold Rush, there is the scene where the Cabin is ready to tilt off the cliff. Will it fall? What will happen to our characters? There were also some differences in the films as well. The first thing I noticed was the setting. The settings are completely different. In The General, it takes place in the South, in the heat of the Civil War, while The Gold Rush takes place in frigid Alaska during the Gold Rush. Another difference I noticed was in the framing. The General had more open framing, while Gold Rush had more closed framing. The General wanted us to be in a vast land where the train takes off to unknown places, hence why it is open framed. We don’t feel as at risk with this framing, and it keeps a steady flow of comedy in relation to the frame. In The Gold Rush, there is mainly closed framing. This was so we could feel for our protagonist’s struggles throughout the film, being stuck in a Cabin in the middle of a storm. It makes us feel trapped and thus sheds light on more serious topics in relation to the comedy going on. This leads to the final difference. The General focused more on the comedy aspect, with something funny happening every few seconds or minutes, while Gold Rush focused more on the issues with the setting. Both the films had issues that the protagonists focused on, but the ones in Gold Rush were more evident. In the end though, both films were classics, and were both enjoyable in their respectable aspects of cinematic language!
ReplyDeleteMost interesting to me yet, are the distinct parallels between the opening scenes of the two. They both start with textual explanations of background, and what is occurring. From there, “The Gold Rush,” cuts to a vast and long line of moving people. The people are so small, they almost seem like ants, in this way, space is manipulated and the viewer is provided an accurate image of the largeness of setting. Furthermore, this is a landscape shot. In similarity, The General, after its textual overview, cuts to a landscape shot of a moving train that would soon become perhaps the most important feature to the film. The continuity of the train moving across such a large span, creates the sense that the train is almost infinite, and in this way, gives to the predictability of its future dominance. Alike still, are the whimsical storylines attributed to both, supplying the audience with laughs in an otherwise tense situation. The existence of love, or misconceived love in both of the films, as well as an accurate portrayal of human emotion, most commonly frustration, allows the film to acheive verisimilitude through distinct realism ridden throughout the film of the exciting silent movies. Also, both films, in some areas, managed to accurately create suspense. In The General, suspense was created when the enemy train was seen approaching, in The Gold Rush, suspense was created in the scene where the cabin is tipping. Although suspense is in attendance of both films, it is more prevalent in Chaplin’s. In continuation, surprise is utilized in The Gold Rush, manifested as the silly misfortune of the main character, who’s clumsiness ultimately saves himself, as wella as fights of the offense.
ReplyDeleteBut imminently, there are many difference. We can look to the framing of both. The General, is almost completely shot in open frames, with the exception of a few shots of disarray from within the boxcars which seem rather closed in. The Gold Rush is open when Chaplin is outdoors, seeking warmth from the cabin he will soon stumble upon, but rather closed at some points when indoors. While contrasting the two, it is also obvious that the two settings are very different. The General takes place during the Civil War, in the South, and The Gold Rush takes place in Alaska, during the Gold Rush. Both movies’ settings are possibly the largest motivation for the actions in the film, for without the setting, there would be no conflict existent. For what the movies originally were, silent with textual narration, The Gold Rush was later voiced over by Charlie Chaplin himself.
Both Charlie Chaplin’s The gold rush, and Buster Keaton’s The General have similarities and differences between each other. The similarities they have is about their narratives. Thier premise is about the main protagonist who goes to do dangerous tasks to win the love of their life. Both movies also have similar character personalities as when the main protagonist are both have a comedic and clumsy personality. They also both strive to do dangerous tasks to complete their main goal. Both movies also show their Kinesis when both of the films shows tier movement in a very comedic way in most scenes such as when in The General near the end of the movie it showed that the main protagonist accidently shot a gun after a proud moment for when he had been promoted to General. This is also shown in The Gold Rush when in the beginning of the movie it show the main protagonist who was walking at the edge of the mountain they showed a bear who was shown to stalk the main character which was unexpected by the main character.Their Mise-en-scene has a little bit of similarity between the two movies also. This is when they have almost the same feel of the movie such as when both movies have the same comedic genre as each other and that the main character has the same motive.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are differences between the two movies such as when both movies uses different open and closed framing. although both movies uses open and closed framing, Charlie Chaplin’s The Gold Rush uses more open frame than close framing as opposed to Buster Keaton’s The General which uses more closed framing than open framing. The color of the movies are also different in both movies, when The General uses a sepia color and in some scenes they use a dark bluish color to stimulate darkness and from daytime to night, while The Gold Rush uses all black and white throughout the entire movie. The camera movement is a little bit different in both movies also. This happens when in The Gold rush they show a scene when two of the main characters are inside a house that is falling over a cliff and while the house is falling over the camera tilts to the side to show that the house is actually falling over a cliff. While in The General it only showed the camera panning from a train traveling from place to place. The movie’s setting are also different in both movies as in The General the setting took place during the civil war in the southern United States, while in the Gold Rush it took place during the Gold rush in Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush. But either way these two films were only the few movies that have inspired the history of cinema and how we look at movies today.
Chaplin’s The Gold Rush and Keaton’s The General fill the same category in terms of types of movies; they are both, one could argue, dramatic comedies. Though Chaplin seems to focus on the drama, and Keaton on the comedy. Both use a multitude of techniques to achieve their purpose. First, mise-en-scéne. Chaplin fills The Gold Rush with snow, ice, wind, and other indications of the cold to establish the frigid tone of his movie. It makes sense, when one takes into consideration the lone prospector’s general rejection, whether by Black Larsen, Jim McKay, the occupants of the dance hall, or Georgia. Johnnie Gray’s rejection is displayed ironically through the free, unrestricted lands his train travels so effortlessly through. As implied, The General is composed primarily of open shots, often showing a large expanse of land. Chaplin’s film, on the other hand, is mainly closed shots, whether achieved using the walls of a cabin, a crowd of people, or dense snowfall. The lone prospector has no escape from the troubles that plague him. In one scene, he falls to the ground and is blown out of a cabin by a strong wind, while Larsen and McKay look on. This single scene implies the prospector’s lowly status, relative weakness, and forceful exclusion from Alaskan society. Both movies are filled with humorously well-timed or improbable incidents that serve to lighten the otherwise serious subject matter. Both also use title cards to set the scene and voice key pieces of dialogue. Chaplin’s use of captions such as “One Way to Get Breakfast” makes the following events seem like a comedy sketch, as opposed to part of a full-length film.
ReplyDeleteThe General and the Gold Rush have many similarities and differences between them. The similarities between these two films are narrative, explicit meaning, characterization and kinesis and their differences being their mise-en-scene and framing.
ReplyDeleteThe Gold Rush and General both contribute very clumsy and comical characters to the scene that constantly get themselves into sticky situations. Even though this is a silent film, the narratives in both are very distinguishable using non diegetic title cards throughout the film to show and tell the viewers what can’t be heard. Explicitly, both are similar because of their goals as in The General it shows a southern engineer trying to rescue his dream girl and this showed us his “Only two loves in his life” his locomotive and the Annabelle Lee while in the Gold Rush also shows the man’s two loves, determination in striking it rich and getting the women he is in love with. The last similarity between the two is the Kinesis with its fast paced short shots that move the story along pretty quickly and even the character’s movements itself are pretty fast paced. The fast paced moving props in the General like his locomotive where most of the story takes place and the fast moving objects and people themselves in the gold rush such as he gun that moving fast during the struggle between the outlaw and the guy in the bear suit and Charlie Chaplin himself moving extremely fast to escape the gun that he couldn’t elude.
The setting in where they take place are blatantly contrasting as The General takes place in the warm to hot Southern United States during the civil war era and The Gold Rush takes place during the Gold Rush in wintery, cold Alaska. The General contains a way more open framing of the outdoors that could represent his freedom as an engineer and how open minded his common sense is that it is just lost to the world. The Gold Rush is of way more closed frames when trapped in the cabin and in the dancing halls which could represent his conformity in having to mine for gold and try to make it big or struggle to like everyone else in society during that time. Even Chaplin’s scenes outside felt like a closed frame, but I don’t know how to explain this like I’m thinking it so yeah.
When comparing The General and The Gold Rush perhaps the first thing that comes to mind - to me at least - is the color of the movies. Both movies are essentially extremely similar – both were made within two years of each other, and both revolve around a goofy, quiet, eccentric smaller man (Chaplin’s Tramp and Keaton’s Johnnie Gray) that rely on elaborate physical comedy and stunts to get its laughs. However, the two movies are presented in very different ways. After watching the silly, largely light-hearted General, The Gold Rush was a stark contrast – a bleak, dreary black and white, that while still very funny, seemed much more serious than The General, a movie that was also black and white, and yet looks and feels much more alive than The Gold Rush. Perhaps the differences in setting – cold, brutal Alaska as compared to the sunny, warm South – can account for this tone, or the differences in framing – The Genera is largely an open-framed movie, allowing us to take in the lush land of the American south and creating a sense of adventure, whereas The Gold Rush is much more closed-framed – the constant snowy landscape we see creates a cramped, claustrophobic feel, perhaps helping to convey the trapped-ness and desperation of many of the people who went to look for gold in Alaska .Overall, The Gold Rush felt, in general, much drearier than The General, and as a result, the movie was not nearly as funny – to me – and much more dramatic than its counterpart.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the two movies have some obvious similarities as well. Both employ many physical stunts and gags to get laughs, forcing the audience to suspend disbelief at some points - compare the scenes of the cabin perched on the edge of the cliff in The Gold Rush to the train chases in The General. Also, both movies have a large amount of movement involved – Both Chaplin and Keaton are constantly moving, and the movies – like I said before – rely largely on physical gags and frenetic, rapid fire movement and actions to create comedy. This is probably a large product of the period the two movies were made – without any dialogue and banter to create laughs, comedy movies of the time had to rely on sight to make an audience laugh, and so physical gags were used.
Overall, The Gold Rush and The General are extremely similar, and also very different. Both movies rely on similar features – physical gags, plucky underdog protagonist – and yet are presented very differently. Whilst The Gold Rush takes on more dramatic aspects, The General is largely a silly, gag-fueled comedy, that, while touching on dramatic aspects, is much less concerned with them than The Gold Rush. Both movies, though, are classics (though I must say I do prefer Buster Keaton) and certainly have a place together in film history.
Both "The General" and "The Gold Rush" share many similarities along with various differences. Both films were produced within the mid 1920's era, and by well known producers and directors at the time. Both movies are hilarious comedies which have the ability to make everyone watching laugh out loud at least once in the entire movie. On a more serious note, mise-en-scene was something which factored into how well the movie was portrayed to keen viewers. For instance, both movies had descriptive and eye catching settings, various actors who would sometimes move in quick succession (kinesis) to enhance the passing of time, and use of intense lighting such as three point lighting, high key lighting, or even low key lighting. One of the most obvious aspects of both films which are similar are the absence of voice and the endless use of non-diagetic background music. Some of the differences in each film concerning mise-en-scene are that "The Gold Rush" focused a bit more on lighting elements than "The General", but to balance out this inequality, "The General" uses a deeper sense of character motion AND costume use. It's little things like these which can make you view either of these films as a dramatic comedy, or a comedic drama. Also, many scenes in "The General" contain open framing techniques. In "The Gold Rush", closed framing was a much more abundant part of scenes such as when Chaplin's character was trapped inside the cabin, or alone in the dancing hall, and especially when Chaplin's character was spending his time in the cabin of the man who "saved" his life. In terms of narrative as well, both films are very well suited in the way they present their narrative because the narratives give the viewer funny, yet dramatic aura which resonates with the viewers throughout the entire film. However, both narratives are extremely different. In Buster Keaton's film, most of the narrative was straight forward, to the point, and extremely dramatic, leaving the comedy aspect of the movie to the actor's. In "Gold Rush" some of the narrative such as "One Way To Get Breakfast" shows a sort-of comedic relief in the film to ease up on the dramatic context which has just been displayed. All in all, both films were set in an era when film was still extremely new. Even in this infant age of cinematography, film makers showed that they were not afraid to become pioneers of this new form of media by introducing new and exciting techniques to captivate the mind.
ReplyDeleteJulia Ziaja 9/30/14
ReplyDeleteThe General, a spectacular Keaton Film filled with charm and humor, and The Gold Rush, a classic Charlie Chaplin film, have many noticeable and subtle similarities and differences. One element both films share are the comedic and ironic scenes meant to engage the audience and keep them entertained. They both make the characters awkward and compelling to laugh at. Both films also contain no dialogue or diagetic sound that the characters can hear. There is music that can be heard during both selections however it is not technically part of the movie as it was later added during screening time. Things that need to be especially known and clear are made visual with title screens in which settings, specific quotes, or descriptions are provided. Throughout each film the framing is usually open, allowing the viewer to see someone else's actions and or something amusing that he or she is doing without realizing it. Both movies also follow a narrative or follow a cause and effect format as most stories do.
Although on first inspection the films look largely similar in many areas and factors, there are actually quite a lot of differences as well. One aspect that can be concluded after a fair amount of time is that the acting in The General is a lot less exaggerative in nature than in The Gold Rush. "Other silent actors might mug to get a point across, but Keaton remained observant and collected. That's one reason his best movies have aged better than those of his rival, Charlie Chaplin. He seems like a modern visitor to the world of the silent clowns." Many movie critics agree that Keaton acted way ahead of his time. Because his acting was more relaxed and less over the top, the actions and emotions portrayed are more relatable and perceivable. This was very important in keeping the verisimilitude. In The General there is a recognizable theme of " rescue the lady in distress and save the day while doing it." In the Gold a Rush no such plot pattern is followed. While watching The Gold Rush I definitely noticed way more title screens that almost served as a narrator. Title screens were only used when absolutely necessary in The General, not really for providing unnecessary extra insight into the scene like in The Gold Rush. The Gold Rush also utilized an element that I thought was unique and interesting. The camera tilt that is seen inside the cabin was new and refreshing. It was interesting how the filmmaker managed to pull that off.
Overall The General and The Gold Rush have many similarities as it does differences. We can learn that even though things seem extremely similar at first glance, there are actually many differences that one will start to pick up on if the piece is scrutinized and analyzed correctly.
Both Buster Keaton's The General and Charlie Chaplin's Gold Rush share similarities and differences in presentation, narrative, and meaning. Starting with similarities, both films share a same general(not a pun) genre in that both are dramatic comedies. Both feature a strong kinetic quality, character are often bouncing around from place to place in every scene. Comedic elements are often employed through use of physical gags in where the characters' sporadic movements and actions lead to improbable mishaps, such as Keaton's Johnnie Gray losing his hat on a tree branch and suddenly finding it back on his head. Both feature non-diegetic title cards to convey important information and dialogue that can not be communicated explicitly by characters due to the restraints of silent film. Explicitly the characters come off as awkward, and meek, yet implicitly they represent isolation and nonconformity. As well both characters share the trait of having multiple passions, one being material(the train, search for gold) and one more intimate(Marion Mack and Georgia).
ReplyDeleteDespite those similarities there is a lot more going on differently in the films. Keaton's performance was far more toned down than Chaplin's in an age of exaggerated characters in silent film. His reactions and facial movements were far more subtle, his facial expression barely changes when problems arise. As Roger Ebert put it, "Keaton plays it with his face registering merely heightened interest." Chaplin's Tramp is the antithesis in this aspect. Every movement is quick and in long strides. He contorts and twists his face to convey emotions to the audience. The General also contains far more open frames, accentuating the vast Georgian expanse. The mise-en-scene is created through the the lush, open landscapes, it plays hand in hand with the kinesis demonstrated most clearly by the trains that are constantly moving throughout the film along with the actions of the characters. This all reflects the open and free nature of the South as well as its desire of freedom from the Union. The mise-en-scene for the Gold Rush is almost the opposite effect. The bright whites, heavy snow, wind, and general emptiness of outdoor scenes gives a different open feeling. This is a feeling of emptiness, the setting is depicted as an isolated wasteland. The film features mostly closed framing which is more obvious in the small, cramped indoor scenes. The characters of this world choose to isolate themselves in order to gain material wealth. One can argue that the mise-en-scene depicts through the design of the outside scenes, the pointlessness or emptiness of their efforts. In the design of the cramped indoor scenes little space is wasted, depicting close interaction among characters in which they find solace from the wasteland.
"The Gold Rush" and "The General" have a good amount of similarities and differences, both subtle and noticeable. One major similarity is that both films are dramatic comedies in which the audience is entertained throughout both films. The characters in both films seem to fill the frame with energy, sometimes just with their facial expressions as they react to a certain thing, and other times they physically move throughout the frame. Both films had mostly open framing, seeing as both movies spent a great amount of time outside. The non-diegetic score of music helped convey meaning in both films, whether it was shock, anger, confusion, happiness, etc. The music helped the audience really connect with the film and characters, they became part of the film, not just an audience. The mise-en-scène of both films created a wonderful story that was not hard to believe and/or relate to, which made both films very enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteEven though both films had their similarities, they also had their differences which makes both unique in their own way. One major difference between the two films was the acting, Keaton's acting was subtle in ways that made him seem even more of an amazing character while Chaplin seemed to have more of a theater way of acting, nothing like we see nowadays, or even in Keaton's acting. Even though both films seemed to have a lot of open frames, "The Gold Rush" had more bare space in its open frames, creating a seemingly barren waste-land. Whenever a character goes outside in "The Gold Rush", it always seems to be white and completely bare of people and buildings. Another big difference is where the stories inside of the films are located, "The General" takes place in the South during the Civil War while "The Gold Rush" takes place in Alaska during the Alaskan Gold Rush.
As such, both films have their similarities which makes them unique and enjoyable in their own ways. Keaton and Chaplin made an amazing film each, paving way for a new era of film-making. I fell in love with both films, which was quite a task, seeing as I am very picky when watching movies/films.
The General and The Gold Rush are similar films in the way they are stylized. This is mainly due to the time period they were created, when most films had similar technique because film was beginning to become an art form. Both main actors (Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin) were stars in the 1920s and both often played comedic roles in their films. Both films have subjects that related to the times even though both of the events in the films occurred in the past. The General was brighter with lighting than The Gold Rush. The lighting in each movie is affected by the setting. In The Gold Rush the lighting was darker because the film took place in the mountains in a snow storm and the General took place in the south where it is usually warm. The General was a much more optimistic movie than the other because of the constant chase with Buster Keaton and the enemy. Also how close Keaton was to the enemy throughout the movie made it feel like he would catch them. The Gold Rush was darker with the dirty and dank cabin and the cold environment. Both actual historical events were bad for the people involved. In both movies an open frame is used to express the environment surrounding the actors. Another difference between films is that The General mainly focuses on one character played by Keaton and The Gold Rush focuses on more than just Chaplin. Most Chaplin films focus on several characters like The Kid and The Great Dictator. Buster Keaton filled in his familiar role in The General as the article from Films, 4th Edition says “In the typical Buster Keaton comedy the hero is at first anything but heroic”. The General moves at a very quick pace because of the ongoing train chase. The Gold Rush can be fast paced because of the brilliant comedy created by Charlie Chaplin. Both movies were ground breakers in the comedy genre and paved the way for more movies like them to be released. The Gold Rush also dealt with the hopeless dream of gold. It dealt with how people in poverty lived in a comical way that was still respectful. The scene when the two people in the cabin eat the boot because they are starving expresses the real poverty that people could have faced when they blindly left to the actual gold rush. The General was interesting because it was told from the confederacy’s point of view unlike most films about the civil war. It gives a good perspective of the other side event though the movie is a comedy.
ReplyDelete