Comparing Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton is like comparing apples and oranges.  Hilarious apples and oranges, mind you, but wholly disparate fruit nonetheless.  Even so, countless silent film fans before me have voiced their preference for one or the other, and so, since I’m determined to avoid doing real work today, I will add my voice to the chorus.

 Buster Keaton vs. Charlie Chaplin
borrowed from http://damianblake.deviantart.com/

I met Charlie first, and, like so many before me, immediately fell in love with him.  If you’ve never seen Charlie Chaplin in action, the name may evoke visions of airborne pies and slippery banana peels.  While these are staples of some of the lowbrow silent comedies of the day, they are almost completely absent from Chaplin’s films.  He was far too clever an entertainer to rely on such cheap slapstick gags.  He was a master of comic timing, and his movements were so fluid and controlled that he could have been a ballet dancer.

Chaplin's tribute to Vaslav Nijinski

He was a relentless perfectionist, and, at a time when most film scenes were shot in one take and two-reeler comedies were churned out in under a week, Chaplin would film a scene dozens of times until he was satisfied with the result.  While he had high standards of perfection for his costars, he set the bar even higher for himself.  His film studios were initially aghast at what they saw as a waste of expensive film… until they saw the revenues pouring in. 

Chaplin behind the camera

Charlie Chaplin was the first international movie superstar, and deservedly so.  Although other marquee names had graced the silver screen before him, no other entertainer had ever remotely approached his level of fame and popularity.  He created a whole new level of celebrity.  Whenever a paparazzo pops out of the bushes to snap a pic of Brad and Angie, they can thank Charlie Chaplin. 

 
A public appearance with Douglas Fairbanks

Below is a clip from the full-length feature “City Lights,” my favorite Chaplin film.  (Background: Chaplin doesn’t want to be in this fight, but he’s desperately trying to find money so the girl he loves can pay her rent, and prize money would cover it.  The man he was supposed to fight was replaced at the last minute by a larger, tougher man.)

I had heard many great things about Buster Keaton, known as “the great stoneface,” and wanted to see what all the fuss was about.  I had even heard that (gasp! treason!) some people preferred him to Chaplin!  I watched a couple Keaton shorts and couldn’t figure out what the big deal was.

Buster Keaton

Keaton wasn’t as immediately accessible as Chaplin, but as I watched I grew more and more enamored with Keaton.  There was something about him; he had a tragic air that seemed to tap into a deep sea of pathos hidden right below the surface.  I was smitten.  I think it was his eyes.

from the film "College"

Keaton, like Chaplin, had been a vaudeville performer, and he too saw a new potential in film.  But while Chaplin saw film as a way to pan in and capture the subtleties of a perfect comic performance, Keaton saw film as a way to pan out and place himself in the middle of increasingly larger and more extreme situations.   Keaton would start a two-reeler being chased by a cop, and by the end he was being chased by hundreds.  He would get caught in gigantic rockslides.  He would be at the head of a stampede.  Houses would fall on him (see clip below).

from "Cops"

Below is a clip from the full-length feature “Battling Butler.” Keaton plays a dandy fop who is engaged to be married to a girl who thinks he’s a prizefighter.  It’s a very different boxing scene from Chaplin’s, but it’s still very funny.

So who’s better?  Some days I say Chaplin.  Most days I say Keaton.  Deep down in my heart, I know it’s a draw.  What do you think?